It Takes a Village

Today's offering:
___________________________________________________________

Hillary Clinton once said it takes a village to raise a child.

But if today's generation of youth is any indication of the level of parenting skills possessed by the proverbial village, it may be time to think about moving.

A recent Vanier Institute for the Family study concluded that there are more problem children today than there were 50 years ago, and society at large is to blame.

According to study author Anne-Marie Ambert, a former professor of sociology at York University, it is the laissez-faire "enabling environment" running rampant in today's society that encourages problem children to misbehave.

In other words, busy (or lazy) parents are offloading their parental responsibilities to teachers, neighbours, television sets and computers, leaving their children without a consistent parental role model.

And the human parental fill-ins who have an opportunity to introduce order and discipline into the lives of misbehaving children have instead adopted a non-interventionist "not my problem" approach, sometimes with disastrous results.

Newspaper headlines and television newscasts abound with stories of troubled youths taking part in disruptive behaviour such as fighting and bullying, or committing criminal acts such as theft and vandalism.

And Internet networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace have provided a new forum for young people to misbehave, knowing that the nature of the Internet makes immediate consequences for their actions next to impossible.

Online survey results released this week by Kids Help Phone found that 70% of teenage respondents have been the victim of on-line bullying, while 44% said that they had been Internet bullies.

"Socially, they really aren't sure how to behave and interact in the cyber-world," said Kids Help Phone spokesperson Donna Hansplant. "There are no generations before them that they could learn from, and kids learn from modeling."

But where does the responsibility lie for ensuring that today's youth are mentored in the areas of appropriate behaviour, knowing right from wrong, and making good choices? With the community, or with that child's parents?

"Because parents are spending less and less time with their kids because both parents are working for economic reasons, and because the hold parents have on kids is less and less, it's a struggle to be the people who determine the identity of your child," said forensic psychologist Marta Weber, who has studied the effects of parental influence on children.

"What happens in school and in the mall and on the street becomes more and more important. So the variables are more and the relative impact of parents is smaller."

It certainly isn't easy to be a parent these days. But with the decision to procreate comes a lifelong commitment to the children one is bringing into this world. That commitment should not be taken lightly.

While society has a supporting role to play in ensuring its youth grow up to be productive citizens, the ultimate responsibility for raising a child falls squarely on the shoulders of the parents.

And it's a cop-out to suggest otherwise.

Discuss Amongst Yourselves

"...it's a great pity the right to free speech and freedom of the press isn't based on the obligation to say something goddamn meaningful." - from The Secret Life of E. Robert Pendleton, by Michael Collins

Nintendo, anyone?

Okay, I'm so out of touch with new technology it's ridiculous (I only bought an iPod a couple of weeks ago, and am still trying to figure out how to use it!). But when I was a kid, I loved playing video games...first, it was Atari...then Nintendo...then X-Box...if I was to go out and buy some electronic equipment for playing games on today, what would I buy? Any recommendations, anyone??

Dr. Phil (part II)

Interesting. What was a short throw-away post generated more comments than I've gotten in awhile! So I wanted to clarify my position / open things up for discussion. The Hack raised an interesting point re: traditional gender roles, when he stated in the comments section:

There seems to be an implication that unless a woman branches out from her husband's orbit, she cannot truly be a successful 21st century woman. At the very least, that she is not achieving her full potential so long as she comes out to watch every day.

I was approaching the issue more from the knowledge (reinforced even more so this year when my boyfriend and I moved in together) that separate identities, separate interests, adequate time alone, etc., are all necessary components of a healthy relationship. While I don't believe there is anything wrong with overlapping orbits (for instance, my boyfriend and I are both writers) and supporting each other's individual achievements within those orbits, I do find it odd that Dr. Phil's wife goes to work with him every day....just me....

Anyhow, I'm curious to get others' take on the Hack's statement. Your thoughts?

Dr. Phil

Does anyone else find it odd that Dr. Phil's wife Robin attends every taping of the Dr. Phil show? Does Robin not have an identity and a life of her own?

Three Thoughts for the Day

(1) Do any of my Winnipeg readers know whether the Grand Palace Chinese Restaurant on Grant Avenue is permanently closed, or whether it's just relocated elsewhere? I love their food (especially their Cantonese chow mein) and would hate to think they're gone for good!

(2) Everyone makes mistakes. And while usually you can work through them, fix them, be forgiven for them, there are some mistakes that you will be punished for your entire life. That's the sad reality.

(3) I am glad to have a four day weekend. And pledge to stand by the "no meat on Good Friday" mantra. For dinner? Tilapia, rice and green beans. Mmmmm....yummy....Happy Easter, everyone!

You're Getting a Scoop

For some reason, this hasn't made it onto the Sun's website yet today...
__________________________________________________________

I’d hate to be a pet owner in the United States these days.

In addition to the extensive pet food recall taking place across North America , legal experts are now saying that American pet owners whose pets have died as a result of eating the contaminated food will have a difficult time obtaining substantial compensation for their loss.

Shocking, really, in a country where litigation is as commonplace as breathing, and financial recovery can be as lucrative as winning the lottery.

For instance, in a controversial decision that made international headlines in the mid-90’s, a New Mexico jury awarded Stella Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages after she spilled hot McDonald’s coffee in her lap and suffered third degree burns.

While the punitive damages were later reduced to $480,000 by the trial judge, Leibeck’s case clearly illustrates that under the right circumstances, American courts aren’t averse to awarding high compensation.

But multi-million dollar awards for pet owners appear highly unlikely. Not only are cats and dogs not human beings, courts may not even take their status as living creatures into account.

While the concept of women as chattels was eradicated in North America decades ago, many US state laws still classify pets as personal property – no different than a car, a television set, or a pair of shoes.

As a result, “with animals, all [a pet owner gets] is the value of the property,” said Carl Tobias, law professor at the University of Richmond . “There are no emotional damages [awarded].”

Value of the property, huh? How do you place a price tag on a family member or a best friend?

In 1996, I paid $50 for the privilege of bringing my cat, Sam, home to live with me. And while I don’t know how much I’ve spent over the past decade or so in vet bills, pet food and toys, I could likely ballpark it.

But Sam’s true value could never be determined solely by the amount of money I initially paid to become his owner, or the monies expended over the years to ensure his wellbeing.

The intangibles he brings to my life every day are not only worth more than $50 plus incidentals, they’re nearly impossibly to quantify in monetary terms.

What dollar figure do you attribute to a morning wake-up call in the form of an energetic facewash from a little pink tongue?

What dollar figure do you attribute to the joy of seeing your pet’s excited little face beaming at you when you walk in the door after a long day at work?

What dollar figure do you attribute to a loving cuddle from a pal who can always sense when you’re sad, under the weather or just plain in need of a hug?

A pet may not be a human being, but it is a living creature – unique, full of personality, irreplaceable. In my lifetime, I may have another cat, but I’ll never have another Sam.

The pet owners whose animals died after eating contaminated food are mourning the loss of their furry friends, and despairing over the knowledge that their loss didn’t have to occur so soon.

All they are looking for is acknowledgment that their pets’ lives mattered. Comparing their furry friends to a pair of Nikes or a Honda Civic is rubbing salt in their open wound.