Gender, Jobs, Recession... and bad math

Usually the Toronto Star has pretty decent writing, but this was one of the poorest pieces I've seen in a while. There are some good points made, but the headline ("In shrinking workforce, women may surpass men") is misleading, and the writing jumps around without leading to any reasonable conclusion.

Perhaps this is nitpicky, but there is some sloppy math here. The article claims "there's a possibility women will soon outnumber men in the job force." The numbers quoted in the same article don't really bear that out, unless you define "soon" as "probably never".

According to StatsCan, there were 7,295,900 men with full-time jobs in January 2005 and 6,297,400 women working full-time.

By January 2008, that number had dropped to 7,186,800 for men and to 5,339,200 for women. And as of last month, it fell further, to 7,095,000 full-time jobs for men and slightly for women, to 5,339,000 full-time positions.

So the trend shows in the longer term women losing significantly more full-time jobs than men (from 2005-2009, men lost 200,000 while women lost 958,400 jobs, or put another way men lost 2.7% of their full-time jobs while women lost 15.2%). From 2008-2009, men lost 91,800 jobs and women lost only 200. Now there are 1,756,000 more men than women employed full-time. If this trend were to continue, exactly as is, it would take over 19 years for the number of men and women employed full time to equalize. I don't know about you, but I don't consider 19 years as "soon". In addition, most stimulus money is targeted to male-dominated industries, so if the stimulus package has any effect, traditionally masculine industries will see a boost, slowing or reversing this trend.

If they had included part-time work as well, maybe the conclusion would be justified (women's part-time job participation is about three times that of men). Here's the most recent Statcan numbers.

If it were true that women were surpassing men in the full-time paid workforce, why is this a problem? Aren't we supposed to be living in the land of equality?

One reason this is indeed a problem is that women still make less money than men, partly because pink-collar jobs typically offer lower pay and fewer benefits. Women-headed households are on average much poorer, even when there are two parents.

Economists also point out that men have lost high-paying jobs with health care and pensions but women are supporting families with jobs that are not necessarily as good.

The article also points out:

This trend can also mean a shift in family dynamics. "If more men find themselves home, that has important implications for the way families operate," said Julie McCarthy, assistant professor at Rotman School of Management. "It's not a bad thing – most men are amazing parents but traditionally, it's not their primary role. Perhaps this trend will facilitate that."

Why shouldn't men stay home and watch the kids half the time? Many men I know would love to have more time with their kids. And most kids would love to have their fathers around more.

Wouldn't it be nice if mommy's salary was enough to support the family while daddy took care of the cooking, cleaning and kids. Or perhaps, his EI benefits could help the family pay the bills (except that like Diane Finley said, "We do not want to make it lucrative for them to stay home and get paid for it, not when we have significant skills shortages in many parts of the country." This government wanted to make it easier for women to stay at home, but I guess the same doesn't apply to men.) Or perhaps a decent subsidized daycare system could help out when both mommy and daddy need their crappy minimum wage jobs, or when mommy is single.

Then I don't think we would worry so much about equal job participation rate among men and women.

White Woman's Burden

Baby Skylar
Originally uploaded by NZJY

is to breed.

After all, we must save guys like this from their fear of a yellow/brown/black planet. Poor guys, hunkered in their bunkers, circling the wagons. Everyone's out to get them, you know. Especially white middle class women who are underutilizing their god-given fertility.

Not that we haven't heard this all before, of course. Don't you know we have a fertility crisis! Beware the coming demographic shift! White women, start your hormones. It's babymaking time.

To read: So You Want Me to Breed? in the Tyee, and Family Values: Made in America on RH Reality Check

Warning: the following may be considered frightening to white wealthy hetero christian male bigots, and their supporters, who fear losing their privilege above all else.

Sleeping, the sequel, originally uploaded by soleil.jones.

Originally uploaded by Soulfull

Diego
Originally uploaded by Renichil

Population Control: Two Paths

You could take China's path: Forced abortions, sterilization, and other punishments for women who have more than one child. This policy has resulted in:

Average Population Growth Rate: 0.70% (2005-2000)
Total fertility rate: 1.75 children born/woman (2007 est.)

Or you could take Sweden's path: increased gender equality and economic justice.

Average Population Growth Rate: 0.10% (2000-2005)
Total fertility rate: 1.66 children born/woman (2007 est.)

This upsets me so much I can't even think of a title for this post

From Sick joke or sick reality?:

"Parental Alienation Syndrome has been used nationwide by batterers as a courtroom tactic to silence abused children by attempting to discredit their disclosures of abuse. This theory is not recognized as valid by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, or the American Medical Association. Parental Alienation Syndrome is not accepted as a psychiatric diagnosis, and has been rejected by the mainstream psychological community. Parental Alienation Syndrome is junk science; there is no valid research or empirical data to support this unproven theory."

PAS is all about punishing mothers, while abused children are denied their safety and the validation of their own experiences.

In Florida, Indiana, Connecticut, Kentucky, Nebraska, Iowa, Maine, and Nevada, there is now reportedly a whole day officially dedicated to raising "awareness" about [Richard] Gardner's theory called Parental Alienation Syndrome, in which the very reports of abuse by a child against a father are themselves evidence that the child is being brainwashed by the mother (and if the child is angry at the father, or doesn't want to visit, that's even more evidence) and the only "cure" for this syndrome is to force the child to live with the abuser and deny ANY contact with the protective mother, who has no history of abuse.

C'mon, you're thinking, what judge would buy this crock? Doesn't it matter if the abuse really happened? Apparently not.

So why is PAS being allowed into the courts?

This month, the NOW Foundation joined other leading organizations working on family law and family violence in a complaint filed against the United States with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The complaint charges that U.S. courts are failing to protect the life, liberties, security, and other human rights of abused mothers and children by frequently awarding child custody to abusers and child molesters. PAS is one predominant strategy being used by lawyers to place children in such danger. A recent Newsweek article noted the finding of a Harvard study that in custody cases involving documented spousal abuse, 54% granted custody to the batterer, and parental alienation was used as an argument in nearly every single one.

Don't Miss: Courageous Kids (powerful) - kids who had to live with an abusive parent are speaking out about their experiences.
Also: A Letter to Richard Gardener (funny)

Smoking & Beef Soon to be Illegal for Men of Breeding Age

"Male reproductive health is in trouble," say two new studies, so urgent guidelines are needed for men of breeding age, just like for pre-pregnant wimmins. In case you'd forgotten:

New federal guidelines ask all females capable of conceiving a baby to treat themselves -- and to be treated by the health care system -- as pre-pregnant, regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant anytime soon.

Among other things, this means all women between first menstrual period and menopause should take folic acid supplements, refrain from smoking, maintain a healthy weight and keep chronic conditions such as asthma and diabetes under control.

Potential causes for the problems with male reproductive health include carcinogens (like from cigarettes), chemicals (like dioxins), hormones (like from American beef, or milk), and endocrine disruptors (such as found in many plastics). So all men capable of inseminating have a pretty long list of substances to avoid: smoking, beef, dairy products, most personal care products, bottled water, etc.

Details from Grist: Separate studies show chemicals, cigarettes may affect male birth rate :

The percentage of boys born in the U.S. and Japan each year has gradually declined over the last three decades, a new study says -- and pollutants are a possible cause. "Male reproductive health is in trouble," says lead researcher Devra Lee Davis of the University of Pittsburgh, noting that both adult fertility and fetal chances seem to be affected. The study, published in the online journal Environmental Health Perspectives, calls the trend "a serious matter" that could be caused by exposure to chemicals like dioxin and mercury; it also points to factors including stress, obesity, and fertility treatments. The true cause, says Davis, is "something we need to find out and act upon." Because a woman without a man -- well, she'd probably be fine, but still. Meanwhile, a British study says smokers are twice as likely to conceive girls, suggesting that nicotine may affect sperm. Yes, smoke gets in your Y's -- but picking up puffing in an effort to determine your child's gender is not recommended.

More info here and here

The Economics of Motherhood and Shopping at Wal-Mart (in Comic Form)

What do we want? Full employment, living wages, sustainable local economies, recognition that parenting is a job, affordable child care... or maybe just a laugh


By Carol Sim



Happy Easter, Passover, Springtime, Long Weekend

URGENT UPDATE RE: KEVIN (Canadian child in Texas prison)

Just received from Verbena-19:

People of Canada, my fellow bloggers:

In light of new information that I’ve just received, I beseech you to contact our Canadian Immigration Minister Diane Finley by phone/fax/letter/email ASAP! A little boy’s health is quickly deteriorating and his life may be at stake!

As of Friday night, Kevin is still awaiting news from the Canadian Government as he waits in his cell in Texas.

Please read the information below and ACT NOW!!

READ MORE

Keep Up the Pressure - Bring Kevin Home

Broadcast on Democracy Now, tirelessly followed up by AnneMarie and others, the story of Kevin, the 9 year old Canadian boy in an American immigration jail has now been taken up in some mainstream media outlets such as the Globe and Mail.

Apparently it is not yet enough. Peter Mackay, who is now aware of the issue, recently said:

"We've taken the opportunity to review how we can be of assistance to him but there have been no decisions taken as of yet," [Mackay] said.
Ultimately, it will be up to Citizenship and Immigration whether they're admitted to Canada, said MacKay, adding that he's been told the family won't be deported to Iran until "we have an opportunity to assess all the various options."
"This is in many ways a personal decision that the family have yet to make," said MacKay.

The family made the decision a long time ago. They want to live in Canada. Kevin was born here, this is his home. His parents, denied status, were tortured in Iran. They are only in the US by accident. Truly they have done nothing wrong. They have harmed no one. They just want a home in Canada where they can be safe and build a life for their son. Regardless of your agreement with that, their 9 year old son has most definitely committed no crime. He just wants to go home.

The Canadian government should be ashamed of themselves. Keep up the pressure. Write Peter MacKay. Write your MP. Keep blogging, keep writing the newspapers. Check in for updates.

Urgent call to support the Ontario Child Benefit

Write a letter to the Toronto Star supporting the Ontario Child Benefit.

Yesterday’s lead Toronto Star editorial (see below) strongly endorses a new Ontario Child Benefit as a necessary poverty reduction tool in Ontario. The Daily Bread Food Bank is recommending as many people as possible write a letter to the Star today to demonstrate support for the OCB. Resources and letter-writing tips here.

BOLD STEPS NEEDED ON CHILD POVERTY
Toronto Star Editorial - February 19, 2007

All children in low-income families deserve a fair and decent start in life, whether their parents struggle in low-wage jobs or are forced by circumstances to rely on welfare to make ends meet.

But in Ontario, unlike many other provinces, children in welfare families are unfairly punished by a provincial policy that denies their families a small amount of money – just $122 a month for each child – that would go a long way to help buy food, clothing and pay the rent.

Now, Finance Minister Greg Sorbara has a golden opportunity to right this wrong in his coming provincial budget, expected in April or early May, by taking the bold step of introducing an Ontario Child Benefit as part of a comprehensive and realistic poverty reduction strategy.

Sorbara said earlier this month he is looking at a "basket of tools" to address widespread poverty in this province.

In the Star's view, that basket should include raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour from $8 and bringing in a new Ontario Child Benefit to help both those on welfare and the working poor, a move that could then lead to the elimination of Ontario's current clawback of the National Child Benefit Supplement, which the Liberals pledged to do in the 2003 provincial election campaign.

Ontario's clawback of the national supplement was one of the most odious moves by the former Conservative government of premier Mike Harris. The supplement was designed to help parents who earn less than $36,000.

However, in Ontario, the provincial government claws back, or reduces, monthly benefits to people on welfare by an amount equal to 75 per cent of the federal benefit. That amounts to $122 a month per child.

Growing numbers of progressive policy planners are convinced that a more equitable way of helping both working poor families and those on welfare is to dramatically restructure the social assistance programs and de-link income support directed at children from the system entirely.

That is what is starting to happen in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland where all low-income families receive a separate, income-tested child benefit, regardless of whether their parents are working or are relying on welfare.

If adopted in Ontario, a provincial child benefit could be fully indexed, income-tested and provide needed funds to all low-income families with children up to the age of 18.

By extending the benefit to low-income working families, it would ensure that parents who try to move from welfare to the workforce are not penalized. Right now, the so-called "welfare wall" means many parents on social assistance cannot afford to take a job because it means giving up needed medical and dental coverage for their children that is currently paid by the government as long as the parents are on welfare.

When combined with Ottawa's child benefit supplement, the Ontario Child Benefit would insulate all children from their parents' financial ups and downs and ultimately lessen the reliance of many poor families on food banks to feed their children.

But the new Ontario benefit must not simply combine old programs into a new program with a different name. It must result in more money in the pockets of poor families. And it ultimately must provide enough money to raise the living standards of all low-income families.

If fully implemented in one step, such a program could cost up to $1 billion a year. If a provincial program was combined with the national plan, a single parent with one child, for example, would get $1,254 a month in assistance. Under the existing structure, the assistance is $1,132 monthly.

To ease the financial impact on the coming budget, the Ontario Child Benefit could be phased in, possibly over a three- to four-year period, with much of the benefit coming the first year. For instance, $60 a month might be instituted immediately, followed by an extra $31 a month in the each of the next two years, bringing the total to $122 month per child. Such a phased-in approach could mean Queen's Park would have to budget $300 million to $500 million in the first year, rather than $1 billion.

While some taxpayers may balk at the government spending such sums of money, all Ontarians have a vested interest in addressing poverty because a healthy, well-educated and more prosperous workforce will help drive the provincial economy into the future.

In the end, helping children grow up in the best possible environment is not only a sensible goal, but also the right thing for Sorbara to do.

p.s. Don't forget to participate in the Federal Government's online pre-budget consultation before Feb 28, 2007. The site asks you to rank your priorities, and then lets you comment on each one. It's pretty limited but you can select “Spending” and “Other” as your top priorities, and then on the next page write comments detailing your thoughts. It only takes a minute. (more info)

Executions Create Generations of Victims

UNITED NATIONS, Feb 12 (IPS) - "They're going to kill him because he killed somebody, so when they kill him, who do we get to kill?" asked the 10-year-old daughter of Christina Lawson at the time of her father's execution by the U.S. state of Texas in 2005.

Yet another reason the Death Penalty is wrong.

The families of the executed suffered from "shame, increased isolation and feelings of personal failure". They might also feel responsible for the crimes of their relatives or blame themselves for their inability to save them from execution.

Janis Gay, whose grandfather Alex Kels was hanged at California's Folsom Prison in 1924, confirmed just this in an interview with IPS.

"People assume violence ends with the execution," she said. "It doesn't. Just like with any murder, the family is shattered, with the added impact of being crushed by shame."

From IPS News

The Fraser Institute and Drowning Public Education in a Bathtub

So the other morning, on my TTC ride to work, I noticed something about the ads for Children First: School Choice Trust.

Maybe you've seen them, the ads with this cute little cartoon dude with his hand up. The ads encourage people to apply for partial scholarships for their kids to private schools (K-8) based on family financial need.

Children First: School Choice Trust is Canada's first privately funded program to help families improve their educational choices. Children First offers tuition assistance grants, so that parents who could not otherwise afford it can choose an independent elementary school for their children.

Despite seeing these every day, I had never before noticed this project is funded by the infamous Fraser Institute (cue Darth Vader music). Of course, they have an Agenda. The Fraser Institute wants to discredit the institute of public education. They seek to blame problems with our underfunded public system on the "public" part, rather than the "underfunded" part.

In an article on their website, The Fraser Institute asks the multiple choice question:

Does the educational failure of the world’s poor reflect the impossibility of achieving lofty educational goals, or does it reflect misguided reliance on public financing and provision? Increasingly, the evidence suggests not that poor families are impossible to educate, but that free, state-run schools may not be the best way to deliver education to them.

What's that you say? Poor families are not impossible to educate? How very charitable of them to say such a thing. Well, since it isn't impossible to educate the poor, our only other explanation is that public education results in educational failure.

This is not an unusual right-wing tactic. It is one of their main techniques for privatizing public services. If you starve a public service long enough, it will no longer be able to perform. Then, once it is small and weak enough, you can "drown it in a bathtub".

Because the Canadian people are very committed to public education, the F.I. has to be careful. They frame the Children First grants as a "hand up" for poor families trying to improve their kids' education - this sits well with Canadians. But it does nothing to improve the real problems with our educational system. Private charity is no substitute for widespread social policy. It's like putting a band-aid on a hemorrhage. Only a very small number of lower middle class families can be helped through this type of program, and it diverts public attention away from the real issues. It's the same problem with two-tiered health care. When those with money and influence do not inhabit the same world as those without, they forget about that world. When the upper and middle class parents no longer have an interest in the public education system, they stop advocating for its improvement.

I'll confess, the concept of private schools is somewhat foreign to me. Growing up in the West, I don't remember any private schools at all, yet somehow I managed to receive a fabulous education in all of the schools I went to. The quality of education at some for-profit schools may be better than that of some public schools. Quality of education notwithstanding, it is still no surprise that those who graduate from elite schools like Upper Canada College are so successful. It's all about class - as in which one you are in. It's like being in an elite club, with lots of opportunities for networking and nepotism.

Introducing a few proles into that elite club is not social justice. A few women or black CEOs does not solve sexual and racial discrimination. All it does is allow those in the club to sublimate their guilt, and delegitimize the important struggles for justice.

Child Abuse: As American as Apple Pie

The United Nations recently came out with a comprehensive global report on child abuse, the first of its kind from what I understand. It details widespread violence against children, and what I found surprising was just how much of it is socially accepted and even legal. The main findings include:

• It estimates that some 150 million girls, 14% of the planet's child population, are sexually abused each year, as well as seven percent of boys, or 73 million children
  
• There were 218 million child labourers in 2004, of whom 126 million did hazardous work, and 5 million children live in slavery
  
• There are as many as 250,000 child soldiers around the world
  
• 53,000 children were murdered in 2002
  
• More than one million children are imprisoned worldwide (100,000 of these children are in the U.S.)
  

Download the complete report in 6 languages.

The U.S. and Canada are certainly not immune from these problems. For example, child abuse kills more than 3 children in the U.S. every day - source).

From ZNet, Lucinda Marshall writes in Child Abuse: As American as Apple Pie: "If we truly valued families and the lives of children, these are the issues we would address."

Unfortunately somehow "family values" has some kind of twisted Orwellian meaning. "Family values" apparently means a very narrowly defined family (nuclear), but not necessarily a safe one. Proponents of "Traditional Family Values" oppose abortion but have little to say about protecting the most vulnerable among us from, say, poverty or parental neglect (except maybe to pour scorn on teenage single mothers). Poverty is the most frequently and persistently noted risk factor for child abuse (here and here), and it is something that is within our power to change.

Social welfare, decent wages for the working poor, subsidized housing, nationally run child care, improved labour laws, well-funded public schools, easily accessible & high quality health care, community programs for children... these do so much more for children than banning same-sex marriage or criminalizing abortion, or a $1200 taxable child care allowance (which ends up as only $301 net for lower income families).

Topic: Family & Children

Why nostalgia should not replace history

The Myth of Marriage shows how the nostalgia for traditional family values is misplaced, as it valorizes a past that didn't really ever exist. The nuclear family was only the norm for a very short period of history, for a very small sector of the population. That is why railing against gay marriage and feminism is just that much more ridiculous.

In fact,

We live in a very unfriendly environment for families. Married couples, if they're going to keep their marriages going, need things like parental leave, subsidized parental leave so it's not a class privilege to take some time with your kids. They need family-friendly work policies. They need high quality, affordable child-care. So that they don't have to call in sick or quit a job or spend hours agonizing about their kids. The lack of these social supports for families really stresses families. So it's very ironic that many of the people who claim to be most in favor of marriage do not spend any time building these support systems.

Precarity and the scary world of Christina Hoff Sommers (long post)

Word of the day: Precarity

"Precarity is a term used to refer to either intermittent work or, more generally, a confluence of intermittent work and precarious existence. In this latter sense, precarity is a condition of existence without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare." It refers largely to the growing group of temp, casual, part-time, freelance workers and unemployed. (according to Wikipedia)

Precarity as an identity - I guess it's kind of like reclaiming the word "queer". My opinion: collective protection is fine, but unfortunately opting out of our capitalist economy is virtually impossible on large scale over long term. On the other hand, action and experimentation is so important. It means the potential for allowing people to think in different terms, to see real alternatives, to consider that other forms of economic organization are possible.

These days there are two basic options for young people - work with the system without questioning it or opt for something else. If you opt for something else, you are left with crime, precarity or perhaps travelling if you have the resources. To go the first route, you have to agree with the division of humans into winners and losers and you have to decide you want to be a winner. You approach life competitively. You spend your education, free time and working time all towards the goal of getting into a good school, getting good grades, grabbing all the opportunities. But ... what about those who choose to win, but who actually lose? Try their best, get the ulcers to prove it, but fail due to the "wrong" skill set, luck, or the current economic situation... not everyone can win...

I got an email today (apparently it's been circulating for several years) of a "Bill Gates Speech". It is mis-attributed (actually by Charles J. Sykes - Read It) but nonetheless, I feel compelled to comment, in light of another equally scary book that has recently come out.

The Text of the email

Love him or hate him, he sure hits the nail on the head with this! To anyone with kids of any age, here's some advice. Bill Gates recently gave a speech at a High School about 11 things they did not and will not learn in school. He talks about how feel-good, politically correct teachings created a generation of kids with no concept of reality and how this concept set them up for failure in the real world.

Rule 1: Life is not fair - get used to it!

Rule 2: The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something BEFORE you feel good about yourself.

Rule 3: You will NOT make $60,000 a year right out of high school. You won't be a vice-president with a car phone until you earn both.

Rule 4: If you think your teacher is tough, wait till you get a boss.

Rule 5: Flipping burgers is not beneath your dignity. Your Grandparents had a different word for burger flipping - they called it opportunity.

Rule 6: If you mess up, it's not your parents' fault, so don't whine about your mistakes, learn from them.

Rule 7: Before you were born, your parents weren't as boring as they are now. They got that way from paying your bills, cleaning your clothes and listening to you talk about how cool you thought you were. So before you save the rain forest from the parasites of your parent's generation, try delousing the closet in your own room.

Rule 8: Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT. In some schools they have abolished failing grades and they'll give you as MANY TIMES as you want to get the right answer. This doesn't bear the slightest resemblance to ANYTHING in real life.

Rule 9: Life is not divided into semesters. You don't get summers off and very few employers are interested! in helping you FIND YOURSELF. Do that on your own time.

Rule 10: Television is NOT real life. In real life people actually have to leave the coffee shop and go to jobs.

Rule 11: Be nice to nerds. Chances are you'll end up working for one.

If you agree, pass it on.
If you can read this - Thank a teacher!
If you are reading it in English-Thank a soldier!!

This post is already getting out of hand, so I will only comment on a couple of gems: rules 8 and 9. I also want to quickly underline the message at the end: "If you are reading it in English- Thank a soldier!!" What is wrong with other languages? And what soldier has ever defended the English language anyway? That's just weird.

The greatest fallacy in this list is that it presupposes that the primary goal of life is to accomplish, win, and work. It is simply typical capitalist propaganda, which reduces human citizens to an economic definition: producers and consumers.

"Your school may have done away with winners and losers, but life HAS NOT." What, might I ask, defines a loser? Would Van Gogh be a loser? How about the philosopher Spinoza? How about a child born as a dalit in India who manage to eke out an existence? How about Mother Theresa for that matter? Is a winner whoever dies with the most toys? Or T-Bills? Someone who works hard all his/her life only to die of cancer at 55? How about the Queen? It only makes sense if we reduce people to their economic "worth" - a class or power division - either oppress (win) or be oppressed (lose).

I propose an alternative: Maybe we are actually all just people who "win" some of our life challenges and who "lose" others and hopefully learn from the failures as we go along. The author of this says life doesn't allow "many times to get the right answer". That's just wrong. Life is a series of wrong and right answers.

"FIND YOURSELF... on your own time." um... doesn't my time belong to me? Who else's would it be? It is true that an employer doesn't care about me "finding myself." That's why I have to do it myself. But an employer not caring about it doesn't make it unimportant... an employer also might rather I don't have a baby, but a baby is pretty important. Maybe it's worth considering, if I might be so trite, that the meaning of life might not be all about getting ahead in the rat race. Maybe "finding ourselves" is more important. Maybe our careers and wallets do not define us. Perhaps we might embrace the fact of life which is precarity and reclaim our time!

Speaking of things which scare me, Christina Hoff Sommers has a new book out: One Nation Under Therapy : How the Helping Culture is Eroding Self-Reliance. I saw her on the Daily Show the other day and she seemed disgusted by kids playing a game called "Friendship Circle"... Sound poisonous and evil? Apparently she thinks so.

She is nothing but another conservative who believes schools need to get back to the basics and stop making kids feel good about themselves. She would apparently prefer to prescribe more ritalin and zoloft rather than have kids learn coping skills to deal with issues. I see the result: the CEOs of tommorrow (fortunate to have no serious mental health issues) and a lower class of bunch of drugged up zombies who can't think or feel but can be darn happy to work in a factory and spend the meager earnings on crap they don't need but are programmed to think they want... oh wait, that story has already been written... and that world doesn't sound too brave to me.

I suppose she's right, if we want our kids to grow up to be good little producers and consumers instead of happy, healthy functioning human beings

I feel like i've gone full circle here. it's probably enough for tonight.