patrick.net

I've just got to stop sniffing glue long enough to type correctly, "assuredly"

You know, it's interesting, but I've noticed a trend in my generation. A lot of mom's I know, myself included, have chosen to stay home and raise our own kids. Why? Because our parent's didn't and the latch-key growing up didn't do a damn thing for me and my brother's except leave us at loose ends during the day with way too many opportunities to get into trouble.

I've noticed among my peers a strong desire to not follow our parent's example in spending money, not saving, and not raising our own kids. I'm not saying that ALL boomers did this. But lets face it, the feminist movement took a lot of women out of the home and no one stayed behind to take care of the kids. Are we really better off because of two incomes? I just haven't seen the positive effect on society that it was supposed to be. I guess I'm old fashioned, but given the trends my parents generation taught us-- I'd rather follow the example of my grandparents.

I guess I’m old fashioned, but given the trends my parents generation taught us– I’d rather follow the example of my grandparents.

I love you, any chance of ditching your husband and going with a bitter, over educated surfer? I kid I kid. I totally 100% agree with you. :) As a former latchkey myself, I must say when my wife and I have kids, she/me are staying home. I'll take the bullet and make sure they have a full-time parent. I want them to be raised like my grandparents would have raised them. The two-income trap, we've got less disposable income now then when women weren't in the workforce, it's all bullshit anyways. I feel women have been forced to believe they can have it all, work and family. We'll, you can't. And the kids suffer. Mine won't though! I've noticed the same attitude with my peers.

"Don't hate the playa, hate the game"

Ice-T

I feel women have been forced to believe they can have it all, work and family. We’ll, you can’t. And the kids suffer. Mine won’t though! I’ve noticed the same attitude with my peers.

Having it all...what a crock! Let's see. I can get up at 4:00 in the morning so I can get ready for work and get the kids up and ready for school/daycare. Then I get to drop the kids off and make it to work with seconds to spare. I get to work a full day then race to pick up the kids from their after-school/daycare programs. Then I get to go home and try to get some kind of dinner on the table as I am trying to get some "quality time" with my kids. My husband will then come home and try to wrangle the kids and get as many chores done as he can before dinner. We then scarf down our meal since we'll barely have time for homework before bed/bath time. We spend the rest of the evening catching up on the chores we didn't get to before we collapse into bed and do it again the next day.
Yep-- those two incomes have really increased our quality of life!

I also have a couple of friends whose husband's elected to be the stay-at-home parent. I have to say, every dad I have ever met who stayed at home did a fabulous job.

Oh, and don't forget you'll feel so guilty for making the liberated choice and working full time, that in the 1 hour per day that you spend with your kids, you won't want to discipline them/you'll be too tired to discipline them, so your kids will grow up to be spoiled, self-entitled brats.

I'm totally in agreement on the statement that two incomes does not bring an increase in quality of life and hasn't done crap for society or the family. I grew up a latch-key kid too, and while my mom had little choice as a single parent, I was absolutely determined when I decided to have kids that I'd be home with them.

Related to my first paragraph, I notice quite a few Boomer moms who waited until late in life to have kids, then are so enamored with their offspring that they believe they can do no wrong. God help us all when those kids reach adulthood...

Related to my first paragraph, I notice quite a few Boomer moms who waited until late in life to have kids, then are so enamored with their offspring that they believe they can do no wrong. God help us all when those kids reach adulthood…

I've noticed this trend too. I have a couple of friends who are basically good people, but having a kid at 40-something turned them into complete idiots who are unable to discipline their kids. This is not a spank/don't spank argument, it's simply a matter that they can't (or basically don't choose to) control their kids. And as scary as those kids will be at adulthood, just imagine the teen years. Yikes!

"but having a kid at 40-something turned them into complete idiots who are unable to discipline their kids."

We are close to a family that fits this description. Their son has grown from an out-of-control brat of a toddler/preschooler into a sullen, unfriendly, selfish, impolite elementary-age kid. I can't even imagine what he'll be like as a teenager.

JeffMN

It's interesting to hear a Gen Y perspective of your own generation. You seem very well spoken and intelligent. Hopefully people like you will be able to salvage some morality out of your generation. I totally agree with your assessment of the Hollywood culture. I've experienced it firsthand and it's as bad as it seems.

Interesting, JeffMN. I probably agree with you, though I haven't given the generation younger than me that much thought yet because I'm only now figuring out that there *are* some people younger than me, LOL. I'm Gen X, and your comments on the Hollywood elite are particularly interesting to me because I realized, I can't even remember much of a Hollywood elite that was my age when I was in my teens/early twenties. I was not at all tuned into that culture--too busy going to college, working, and then I lived in Europe for years and lost touch with American culture altogether.

But now it's almost impossible not to turn on CNN or any other channel and hear the things that the 20-something Hollywood elite are up to. Makes me want to barf. I have to force myself to avert my eyes from the magazines at the grocery store to avoid getting all caught up in the lurid details of the latest Hollywood scandal.

Anyway, I think we rant about the Boomers a lot because they are in control right now, and because we are at the age where we're starting to look around at the mess the generation before us made and wonder how we're going to clean it up.

I think Gen-X is the paranoid generation. I myself probably worry too much, about everything.

" think Gen-X is the paranoid generation. I myself probably worry too much, about everything. "

Peter P, are you worrying about worrying too much? ;-)

"Regarding the generation “in control,” if you look at the White House, is Georgie in control or are Papa Bush and Cheney running the show? "

Given some of the dumb things George W says, if he's just a puppet, he's doing a really bad job of it. :-P Sorry, he's an easy target. But I do believe he's a man with strong convictions and that he makes leadership decisions based on those convictions...

As far as control, I dunno. My only thought: I think the media has a ton of control in this country. Because they choose what *is* news in the first place, and that is a powerful thing. Then they also, often without intending to , give the news a slant that reflects their political views. Popularity polling has played a part in the destruction of leadership in this country. So now we have leaders who are the best at pandering to as many demographics as possible, rather than leaders who are truly great. I would even go so far as to suggest that this polling phenomenon has played a big part into the red state/blue state division.

Peter P, are you worrying about worrying too much?

You are reading my mind.

"I grew up with MTV and now I can’t even watch it because it’s all geared to a generation I really don’t understand. "

Scary, isn't it? MTV strikes me as so shallow and stupid now, but hey, I was a HUGE Beavis and Butt-head fan, so who am I to criticize? :-)

"And let’s not forget media news coverage. I said it before, and I still think it holds true; it’s all about ratings and circulation. The news media deliberately hypes up the news to gain viewership, and not coincidentally creating a large amount of fear in society by highlighting the negative and ignoring the good. "

This from a journalism major?! ;-) I agree with you completely.

The news media deliberately hypes up the news to gain viewership, and not coincidentally creating a large amount of fear in society by highlighting the negative and ignoring the good.

I think they will leverage the fear of the "avian flu" very soon.

"I think they will leverage the fear of the “avian flu” very soon."

Seems like it's already happening. I can't turn on CNN without hearing about avian flu news. There was even a story yesterday, I think, on the news about *why* avian flu is in the news.

"We watch the BBC News now on PBS every night which gives a different slant to the “world news,” "

I miss getting CNN International. It was far from perfect, but it was truly bizarre coming back to the US and having to go from that network to the domestic version of CNN. The news here is more sensational, padded with more fluff pieces, and seemingly more interested in flash (attractive newspeople) than content.

Flu can be a real threat as a pandemic can truly disrupt the world. I was actually very interested in the subject 10 years ago. Robin Cook was my favorite writer at that time.

I think they will leverage the fear of the “avian flu” very soon.

I think this is already happening too. I saw a very alarmist piece on this on one of the "news magazine" programs. But the interesting thing was that they said the flu was still not directly transmitted to humans from birds. Rather infected humans ate infected bird and that's how they got the flu. The said that the flu virus would have to make a genetic leap from birds to humans before it would have the possibility of becoming a pandemic. But do you think this part of the story was stressed? No way. They made it seem as if this was something that could literally happen any day. And they made the point of stressing that if it happened this year ( or more accurately in the next 6 months) the US would not have enough vaccine. So, in order for the avian flu to become the pandemic we are being told it will be, it has to occur very soon. Otherwise it's very likely we'll have an adequate supply of the vaccine. But that hasn't stopped the media from sensationalizing this story.

This from a journalism major?! I agree with you completely.

It was my experience working in the journalism field that gave me such a jaded view. I really think you have to sell your soul to work in the media and sleep at night.

I miss getting CNN International. It was far from perfect, but it was truly bizarre coming back to the US and having to go from that network to the domestic version of CNN.

I follow Google news. :)

BBC is great. Too bad I do not have cable anymore.

800!

The said that the flu virus would have to make a genetic leap from birds to humans before it would have the possibility of becoming a pandemic. But do you think this part of the story was stressed? No way. They made it seem as if this was something that could literally happen any day.

It appears that they like to manipulate fear. Just try to imagine what they will be saying when the housing bubble is bursting? Will it be something like, "tomorrow may be the day your home loses half of its value!"

The one thing I learned working in television is that the truth is flexible and will be manipulated at will for ratings. I risked getting fired many times by trying to protect people I was working with. I actually withheld information from producers because I knew it would be used irresponsibly or even distorted for the benefit of the show.

The one thing I learned working in television is that the truth is flexible and will be manipulated at will for ratings.

Truth is not rigid by any measure. Even if truth is absolute, the presentation of truth can be creative. :)

Truth is not rigid by any measure. Even if truth is absolute, the presentation of truth can be creative.

Absolutely. But I have seen facts deliberately distorted for personal gain.

Absolutely. But I have seen facts deliberately distorted for personal gain.

I would not be surprised. I guess the media is for entertainment only? This is a really sad fact for journalism.

I am a bit optimistic about the internet being part of the media though. SactoQt, I think you should have your own blog about things that you care about. I am sure you will be successful. I am serious.

And I will have a food blog, perhaps... ;)

I am a bit optimistic about the internet being part of the media though. SactoQt, I think you should have your own blog about things that you care about. I am sure you will be successful. I am serious.

And I will have a food blog, perhaps…

I'm flattered. Who knows, maybe I will. I think promoting honesty in the media is something the public should do. I've often thought it would be fun to print conflicting news stories on a blog from various sources and point out the biases; and then try to find the truth that surely lies in-between the varying agendas. Kind of tough to devote the time necessary with two small kids though. Maybe someday.

I'd love to read your food blog... :)

One thing I should say though.........
There are those in the media, very rare though they be, who do feel a responsibility to present the truth as accurately as possible. There are those who put themselves in harms way, such as embedded reporters in Iraq, who do try to present the story as truthfully as possible. (Though with a father-in-law who is a General, I also know there is a lot of news not being presented)

But it is hard for me not to be jaded because the majority of what I saw first-hand was not altruistic in nature. It made me sad to see something that could be a noble profession turned into something kind of sordid most of the time. I just couldn't justify continuing in a career that made me feel as if I'd have to sell out to survive.

There are those in the media, very rare though they be, who do feel a responsibility to present the truth as accurately as possible. There are those who put themselves in harms way, such as embedded reporters in Iraq, who do try to present the story as truthfully as possible.

Kudo to those people.

Hopefully information technology can improve the situation.

One fundamental question: would you rather see the sad truth or a rosy illusion if the subject has little effect on you anyway?

One fundamental question: would you rather see the sad truth or a rosy illusion if the subject has little effect on you anyway?

I can't help but feel that any fallacy ends up being harmful in some way. Think of the rosy illusion of a robust economy or housing market. If people buy because of the illusion, they end up being harmed in the long run. Yes, they should independently research the subject, but people are notoriously short-sighted and having an irresponsible media doesn't do anyone any good. A sad truth may end up saving someone some grief down the road, a much better outcome IMO.

Anyway, the sad truth is I must go to bed; the children will wake up early and I am already sleep deprived. Nite Peter.

Good night.

Are we continuing for numbers …. say 1000 posts?

But there is no thread bubble...

One concern I have is this blog should strive to engage a diverse set of people to contribute.

How do we do this exactly? We already know there are a lot of lurkers who may or may not choose to post for their own reasons. No one can really control who chooses to post here other than the times we choose to delete particularly offensive comments. But I don't know how to make the board more diverse. People will do what they choose to do.

This thread appears to be in some seasonal dip.

This thread appears to be in some seasonal dip.

Come spring, the thread will gain momentum and eclipse all previous activity.

"Come spring, the thread will gain momentum and eclipse all previous activity."

There is no thread bubble!

"One concern I have is this blog should strive to engage a diverse set of people to contribute"

We could bus in a more diverse set of bloggers...

Politically, I think we are pretty diverse. We have everyone from left to right wing, and all sorts of degrees in between.

Opinion-wise, well, I think people gravitate here usually because they believe there is a housing bubble. Maybe the housing bulls are all too busy buying up real estate to chat with us.

We also have gender diversity. (I'm female, BTW, although my mother chose to give me one of those names that leaves one wondering, and always has people in SoCal assuming I'm a middle-aged Hispanic man when they see my name on paper.)

And as far as ethnic diversity, who knows, but I would guess we pretty much represent the typical demographics of the internet.

We should rename this The Never-Ending Thread.