On the radio yesterday, there was a news preview clip asking, "Are you ready for the long weekend? Oh wait - unlike most Canadians, you don't get one!" Then various people talked about how disappointed they are that Albertans get Family Day (a stat in Feb) but we get no stats until Easter. Blah blah blah such a long haul between January 1 and Easter. Blah blah we need stats to keep us going. Someone actually said, "Working families need a break." Sucks to you if you are a working single, I guess!
Of course, what they don't mention or realize is that most people in Alberta don't get Family Day AND Heritage Day (the first Monday of August.) They just get Family Day. Even when I worked for the feds in AB, we had to choose between Family Day or Heritage Day.
Frankly, the "We need a stat in winter" whining bothers me. I much prefer having a statutory holiday in August when the weather is likely to be awesome, rather than in February when it's either raining or snowing or cloudy and about to rain or snow. In August, you can enjoy the beauty of Vancouver and its surrounding areas. In February, you could... go skiing maybe... but then you have to watch out for highway closures due to accidents and snow. Depressing.
I can't wait until the summer statutory holidays, actually. Canada Day is always a good one because it's right around our anniversary. I need some sunshine! We might be off to Mexico again this summer. It can't come too soon in my opinion!!
Showing posts with label radio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radio. Show all posts
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Monday, March 12, 2007
Sometimes, isn't a little punishment good for the soul?
Ah, morning radio. It's like the pesky friend you sometimes like, but more often find just slightly too annoying to pay full attention to. This morning, the topic (extended from Friday) was from a book written by a mother of five, regarding how to discipline your children without punishments. Please bear in mind that I haven't read this book, nor do I plan to, since the non-existent children I have are pretty well-behaved... usually. It won't stop me from commenting, though.
I didn't get to hear the whole segment, traffic being light today so that I arrived at work earlier than expected, but I gather the point she was making was that you don't need to punish your kids in order to resolve a problem. For example, if her teenager broke curfew by coming home at 3 AM, she would not do something like take away the cell phone for a week, or ground the kid. (What she WOULD do - I'm not sure - since she just said some vague nonsense about how there should be a positive solution.) (Here's where reading the book would make this post a bit more on point eh.) Someone asked, aren't there negative consequences in the real world when you do something wrong, and aren't you just teaching your kids that there are no negative consequences... her response was that yes, the real world has negative consequences, but as a parent you have a vested interest in how your kids turn out, and you should be the one to work positively with them.
I suppose her argument has some merit... after all, some forms of punishment are probably a bit harsh. I'm sure every parent out there has flown into a rage at some point in time. But try as I might, I could not envision what positive reaction I might be able to have to my kid doing something wrong. Let's say, for example, that I had a toddler who, despite my warnings not to throw that ball in the house, threw a ball into the TV. Clearly the answer isn't necessarily a spanking, but would it be wrong of me to remove the ball? Or to have the child apologize and sit in a time-out? I just can't think what "positive" thing I could do. Apparently one suggestion this author has is to have a "time-in" - you basically spend that few minutes teaching your child how to calm down, rub his or her back, give a hug, let him/her bang out frustrations on a toy drum, etc.
Frankly, I find this absurd. I can subscribe to the Nanny 911 or Supernanny form of time-out (the kid gets a few minutes to sit alone, and then the parent sits down to explain what said child did wrong), but it seems weird to immediately dole out the backrubs and hugs and positivity.... never mind the mixed message involved in banging on a toy drum to let out anger (if a drum is okay, why wouldn't younger sibling's head also suffice?) I understand how one must work on the root of the problem and teach problem-solving as opposed to fits of anger, but when a fit of anger occurs, is that really the time to dig into what the root of the problem is? Or is that the time to say "Go to your room NOW and don't you dare give me that look if you want to get out of your room before you're 30."
I'm clearly going to be a harsh parent one day. Have some pity for my future kids.
I didn't get to hear the whole segment, traffic being light today so that I arrived at work earlier than expected, but I gather the point she was making was that you don't need to punish your kids in order to resolve a problem. For example, if her teenager broke curfew by coming home at 3 AM, she would not do something like take away the cell phone for a week, or ground the kid. (What she WOULD do - I'm not sure - since she just said some vague nonsense about how there should be a positive solution.) (Here's where reading the book would make this post a bit more on point eh.) Someone asked, aren't there negative consequences in the real world when you do something wrong, and aren't you just teaching your kids that there are no negative consequences... her response was that yes, the real world has negative consequences, but as a parent you have a vested interest in how your kids turn out, and you should be the one to work positively with them.
I suppose her argument has some merit... after all, some forms of punishment are probably a bit harsh. I'm sure every parent out there has flown into a rage at some point in time. But try as I might, I could not envision what positive reaction I might be able to have to my kid doing something wrong. Let's say, for example, that I had a toddler who, despite my warnings not to throw that ball in the house, threw a ball into the TV. Clearly the answer isn't necessarily a spanking, but would it be wrong of me to remove the ball? Or to have the child apologize and sit in a time-out? I just can't think what "positive" thing I could do. Apparently one suggestion this author has is to have a "time-in" - you basically spend that few minutes teaching your child how to calm down, rub his or her back, give a hug, let him/her bang out frustrations on a toy drum, etc.
Frankly, I find this absurd. I can subscribe to the Nanny 911 or Supernanny form of time-out (the kid gets a few minutes to sit alone, and then the parent sits down to explain what said child did wrong), but it seems weird to immediately dole out the backrubs and hugs and positivity.... never mind the mixed message involved in banging on a toy drum to let out anger (if a drum is okay, why wouldn't younger sibling's head also suffice?) I understand how one must work on the root of the problem and teach problem-solving as opposed to fits of anger, but when a fit of anger occurs, is that really the time to dig into what the root of the problem is? Or is that the time to say "Go to your room NOW and don't you dare give me that look if you want to get out of your room before you're 30."
I'm clearly going to be a harsh parent one day. Have some pity for my future kids.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Rolling my eyes
Am I the only one who thinks Valentine's is kind of a trumped up occasion... the hubby bought me some beautiful flowers (not roses) (and not delivered to my workplace) (and not on Valentine's Day itself) but other than that we didn't make much of the day. I hate sappiness and I really hate contrived sappiness. Perhaps I am just becoming a bitter, cynical person in my old age... it just seems like so many people out there, friends of mine included, equate romance with a big celebration of Valentine's Day.... I don't really understand why it is such a big deal.... well anyway. Enough ranting. To each his own, right.
Yesterday on the morning radio show, the hosts were talking about wedding invitations, a subject near and dear to my heart ever since hubby and I painstakingly and, I'll admit, somewhat stupidly created by hand our simple, yet extremely complicated, wedding invites two years ago. The topic of the hour was that someone had received an invitation that, at the bottom, said "No boxed gifts please." Although it'd be nice if this meant "Put all gifts in bags, please", clearly the real meaning is "We want money. Just money. Step away from that toaster, that coffee maker, that knicknack that will have no place to sit, that picture frame, and give us money." [I did say cynical, didn't I.]
I once attended a wedding where the couple put "Monetary gifts preferred" and despite my utter disgust, I gave them a cash gift (not a big one) (I was poor!) Frankly, in our culture, almost everyone gives money anyway so it's perceived strangely when someone dares to write such things on a wedding invite. But maybe the traditional rules of etiquette have fallen by the wayside, and hey, maybe it is time for things to change. I tend to think that while I'll bring a gift to the wedding, I'm not obligated to do so, so unless I ask by inquiring about a registry or what gift is preferred, please don't tell me what to bring. Maybe others out there have different opinions. Emily Post is, I'm sure, turning in her grave at this new wave of wediquette (that is, if she is indeed no longer alive.) I admit, I am amused by the wording of "No boxed gifts"... it certainly makes one stop and think for a moment. ("Does that mean I should take the toaster out of the box?")
More ranting... many of you know that we won a case recently.... Well, surprise! It's moving on up the levels of court. You know, since I have nothing better to do than to keep working on it. Sob!
Please pray for my big brother as he looks for a place to live for next month. Changes are always hard to deal with. And for us too as we adjust!
Yesterday on the morning radio show, the hosts were talking about wedding invitations, a subject near and dear to my heart ever since hubby and I painstakingly and, I'll admit, somewhat stupidly created by hand our simple, yet extremely complicated, wedding invites two years ago. The topic of the hour was that someone had received an invitation that, at the bottom, said "No boxed gifts please." Although it'd be nice if this meant "Put all gifts in bags, please", clearly the real meaning is "We want money. Just money. Step away from that toaster, that coffee maker, that knicknack that will have no place to sit, that picture frame, and give us money." [I did say cynical, didn't I.]
I once attended a wedding where the couple put "Monetary gifts preferred" and despite my utter disgust, I gave them a cash gift (not a big one) (I was poor!) Frankly, in our culture, almost everyone gives money anyway so it's perceived strangely when someone dares to write such things on a wedding invite. But maybe the traditional rules of etiquette have fallen by the wayside, and hey, maybe it is time for things to change. I tend to think that while I'll bring a gift to the wedding, I'm not obligated to do so, so unless I ask by inquiring about a registry or what gift is preferred, please don't tell me what to bring. Maybe others out there have different opinions. Emily Post is, I'm sure, turning in her grave at this new wave of wediquette (that is, if she is indeed no longer alive.) I admit, I am amused by the wording of "No boxed gifts"... it certainly makes one stop and think for a moment. ("Does that mean I should take the toaster out of the box?")
More ranting... many of you know that we won a case recently.... Well, surprise! It's moving on up the levels of court. You know, since I have nothing better to do than to keep working on it. Sob!
Please pray for my big brother as he looks for a place to live for next month. Changes are always hard to deal with. And for us too as we adjust!
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
It's Valentine's Day
...so I won't post about Chile ... at least not in this post...
Today I was listening to the morning radio station that I always have on during my trek to work, and they decided to replay what they called the on-air proposal that went wrong. I didn't get to hear the entire thing, just the replay, but essentially, a guy phoned up and wanted to propose to his girlfriend on the air. They got her on the phone, told her they were live, and off he went. He started to say some nice stuff but then he said, "Remember when I gave you a yellow rose, a white rose, and a red rose? Well the yellow rose symbolized our friendship and the white rose symbolizes your purity... " and that's where I pinpointed the problem. [There's a chance I misheard what he said about the roses... if so.. it doesn't affect my opinion.. so shush.] Long story short, they had been dating two months, and the girl was shocked and felt she had to say no, it was too early, she was having fun but didn't know if it was a long term relationship,. etc. I kinda felt bad for the guy, but more because the humiliation, oh the humiliation of having that aired... [and subsequently blogged about]
The radio hosts then embarked on a discussion of whether people should date for a certain time before getting engaged. One said, there is no time, I've seen arranged marriages where the people have never met, and the marriage lasts 30, 40, 50 years. The other said, you've gotta date for at least a year or more.. or at least move in together.. and the third said, sometimes you JUST KNOW. Then the first one said, yes, it's fate, it's destiny sometimes.
Obviously, I don't subscribe to the belief that if you don't live together first, you won't have a successful marriage - although I was a tiny bit shocked to find out that MANY people out there hold this belief - and I clearly don't believe in "fate" or "destiny" either (sorry, Lionel Richie, Xtina, whoever else sang a song about destiny...) Other than that, I saw valid points in what everyone was saying, not that I would tell someone they hadn't been dating long enough to get engaged, of course.
I used to be so frustrated when people would tell me, "You will just know when you meet the right person.. you always just know." I mean, what an unsatisfactory explanation. I've been asked if I "just knew" that the hubby and I were meant to be... and I never really know what to say. We dated a long time before getting engaged/married, so clearly I didn't just jump into things.
I guess one's perception of these romantic things has to do with whether one is a romantic person or not. I always just think that by God's grace and in his time, the hubby and I met, and by his continued mercy, we made it through what was not always an easy dating relationship... and through daily efforts on our part and reliance on God... we work on building our marriage. I certainly couldn't have agreed to marry him after only two months of dating, but then again, I was only 18 or so at the time.
This post doesn't have as much of a point as it did when I started to compose it in my head, but alas, pointless posts are still bound to appear on my blog once in a while (or all the time.) Anyway, to those of you out there still looking for "the one", have you seen that Jet Li movie? Just kidding. I offer what encouragement I can. Just remember, don't ask someone to marry you until you know he or she will say yes. It's just all sorts of awkward otherwise.
Final note: yesterday the hubby and I went grocery shopping at one of the Asian supermarkets... I wanted to get some cute red envelopes for the "real" New Year... there was some loud Chinese opera music playing and I distinctly heard the woman sing, in a high screech, "Faaaa... kewww.." It took me at least five minutes to recover from the laughter.
Today I was listening to the morning radio station that I always have on during my trek to work, and they decided to replay what they called the on-air proposal that went wrong. I didn't get to hear the entire thing, just the replay, but essentially, a guy phoned up and wanted to propose to his girlfriend on the air. They got her on the phone, told her they were live, and off he went. He started to say some nice stuff but then he said, "Remember when I gave you a yellow rose, a white rose, and a red rose? Well the yellow rose symbolized our friendship and the white rose symbolizes your purity... " and that's where I pinpointed the problem. [There's a chance I misheard what he said about the roses... if so.. it doesn't affect my opinion.. so shush.] Long story short, they had been dating two months, and the girl was shocked and felt she had to say no, it was too early, she was having fun but didn't know if it was a long term relationship,. etc. I kinda felt bad for the guy, but more because the humiliation, oh the humiliation of having that aired... [and subsequently blogged about]
The radio hosts then embarked on a discussion of whether people should date for a certain time before getting engaged. One said, there is no time, I've seen arranged marriages where the people have never met, and the marriage lasts 30, 40, 50 years. The other said, you've gotta date for at least a year or more.. or at least move in together.. and the third said, sometimes you JUST KNOW. Then the first one said, yes, it's fate, it's destiny sometimes.
Obviously, I don't subscribe to the belief that if you don't live together first, you won't have a successful marriage - although I was a tiny bit shocked to find out that MANY people out there hold this belief - and I clearly don't believe in "fate" or "destiny" either (sorry, Lionel Richie, Xtina, whoever else sang a song about destiny...) Other than that, I saw valid points in what everyone was saying, not that I would tell someone they hadn't been dating long enough to get engaged, of course.
I used to be so frustrated when people would tell me, "You will just know when you meet the right person.. you always just know." I mean, what an unsatisfactory explanation. I've been asked if I "just knew" that the hubby and I were meant to be... and I never really know what to say. We dated a long time before getting engaged/married, so clearly I didn't just jump into things.
I guess one's perception of these romantic things has to do with whether one is a romantic person or not. I always just think that by God's grace and in his time, the hubby and I met, and by his continued mercy, we made it through what was not always an easy dating relationship... and through daily efforts on our part and reliance on God... we work on building our marriage. I certainly couldn't have agreed to marry him after only two months of dating, but then again, I was only 18 or so at the time.
This post doesn't have as much of a point as it did when I started to compose it in my head, but alas, pointless posts are still bound to appear on my blog once in a while (or all the time.) Anyway, to those of you out there still looking for "the one", have you seen that Jet Li movie? Just kidding. I offer what encouragement I can. Just remember, don't ask someone to marry you until you know he or she will say yes. It's just all sorts of awkward otherwise.
Final note: yesterday the hubby and I went grocery shopping at one of the Asian supermarkets... I wanted to get some cute red envelopes for the "real" New Year... there was some loud Chinese opera music playing and I distinctly heard the woman sing, in a high screech, "Faaaa... kewww.." It took me at least five minutes to recover from the laughter.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Talk radio
I spend a lot of time in the car and often force myself to listen to the radio - it helps keep me alert. The other day, I turned on Praise 106.5 and it was one of the morning talk radio shows - maybe Focus on the Family (kinda sounded like James Dobson.) The topic (although I can't be certain) seemed to be around decisions made by judges in Canada and in the U.S. There was much criticism about a recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, which* apparently says that a child can have three parents, and acknowledges that parents can be of the same gender.
*I haven't actually read the decision - so I am paraphrasing a paraphrased version.
The hosts of the show and a caller went on and on about how judges get it all wrong, and judges should listen to the electorate, and that judges shouldn't be making the law. Lying beneath their discussion was clearly the position that same-sex marriage is wrong, and that Canada has made a huge mistake by allowing it. They made much about appointments to the US Supreme Court, and how various presidents should have appointed X, a staunch conservative man, rather than Y, a"radical-left" liberal woman. They talked about how certain judges have done nothing but support decisions such as Roe v. Wade since their appointment, and how the judiciary was really out of control in both countries.
I really try not to enter into debates with people over issues like same-sex marriage and I definitely wouldn't criticize a member of the judiciary publicly. I must say that shows like these often make me a little bit sad. I don't consider myself a very right-wing, conservative person, in that I believe all persons were created equally. Where my beliefs do waver is in "grey" areas such as same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage was intended by God to be a covenant type relationship between a man and a woman... but I don't really know what my stance is on same-sex marriage. On one hand I can see how those in a same-sex relationship want the same benefits and rights as those who are not in a same-sex relationship. On the other hand, it doesn't really jive with what I believe.
Therefore, I sometimes take the (middle?) road ... I don't think this is a perfect world and certainly our government is not perfect. I believe in the separation of church and state and so to that degree, I don't really feel right in speaking out against same-sex marriage. I feel like Christians cannot expect this world to revere the word of God - we all await the day when there will be a new heaven and earth, but for now, I think our efforts should be toward being light in the form of loving our neighbours, instead of spreading darkness in the form of intolerance bordering on hate.
At the same time, I see the world around me as growing more and more accepting of the secular views, and less and less accepting of "traditional", Christian values. Political correctness has taken over the world ...
I anxiously await heaven.
*I haven't actually read the decision - so I am paraphrasing a paraphrased version.
The hosts of the show and a caller went on and on about how judges get it all wrong, and judges should listen to the electorate, and that judges shouldn't be making the law. Lying beneath their discussion was clearly the position that same-sex marriage is wrong, and that Canada has made a huge mistake by allowing it. They made much about appointments to the US Supreme Court, and how various presidents should have appointed X, a staunch conservative man, rather than Y, a"radical-left" liberal woman. They talked about how certain judges have done nothing but support decisions such as Roe v. Wade since their appointment, and how the judiciary was really out of control in both countries.
I really try not to enter into debates with people over issues like same-sex marriage and I definitely wouldn't criticize a member of the judiciary publicly. I must say that shows like these often make me a little bit sad. I don't consider myself a very right-wing, conservative person, in that I believe all persons were created equally. Where my beliefs do waver is in "grey" areas such as same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage was intended by God to be a covenant type relationship between a man and a woman... but I don't really know what my stance is on same-sex marriage. On one hand I can see how those in a same-sex relationship want the same benefits and rights as those who are not in a same-sex relationship. On the other hand, it doesn't really jive with what I believe.
Therefore, I sometimes take the (middle?) road ... I don't think this is a perfect world and certainly our government is not perfect. I believe in the separation of church and state and so to that degree, I don't really feel right in speaking out against same-sex marriage. I feel like Christians cannot expect this world to revere the word of God - we all await the day when there will be a new heaven and earth, but for now, I think our efforts should be toward being light in the form of loving our neighbours, instead of spreading darkness in the form of intolerance bordering on hate.
At the same time, I see the world around me as growing more and more accepting of the secular views, and less and less accepting of "traditional", Christian values. Political correctness has taken over the world ...
I anxiously await heaven.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)