Political Confessions & Blasphemies

Amoebic wrote:

I used to be one of those people that would say things like "I'm pro-choice for other people...but I'd never actually get one myself." It wasn't until very recently that I'd realized how judgemental and condescending an opinion like that can be. It seems innocent and positive, at first, but it's a subtle and ugly way to differentiate us from them, to assert moral superiority without being up front about it over someone else's difficult choices regarding a situation I don't know anything about. I still feel really guilty when I think about this one.

I guess I'm confused as to why this requires confession. Aren't you simply exercising the choice part of pro-choice there, which, as you point out, you're very much in support of? Pro-choice doesn't imply that you have to approve of the choices folk make, just that you approve of them having a choice available to them.

Anyway....

Politics is one of the few arenas in which the US still feels alien to me
This has been my home for the last 5-and-a-half years, with another year or two spent here prior to that. I've acclimatized, and culture-shock doesn't really happen anymore. Except with politics. Some topics are simply so foreign to me that I still get that "holy crap, I live in a foreign country" feeling. Gun control is probably the poster-boy issue for that. Race relations can sometimes do it too - having not been raised here, there's so much cultural connotation that I simply never absorbed. Even when I try and educate myself on one of those issues, there's still the anecdotal and societal exposure that I'm never going to attain. I didn't go hunting buck with Uncle Cletus when I was growing up, for instance.

Jonman wrote:
Amoebic wrote:

I used to be one of those people that would say things like "I'm pro-choice for other people...but I'd never actually get one myself." It wasn't until very recently that I'd realized how judgemental and condescending an opinion like that can be. It seems innocent and positive, at first, but it's a subtle and ugly way to differentiate us from them, to assert moral superiority without being up front about it over someone else's difficult choices regarding a situation I don't know anything about. I still feel really guilty when I think about this one.

I guess I'm confused as to why this requires confession. Aren't you simply exercising the choice part of pro-choice there, which, as you point out, you're very much in support of? Pro-choice doesn't imply that you have to approve of the choices folk make, just that you approve of them having a choice available to them.

I think it's that once you go beyond just saying "I'm pro-choice" and you start adding explanations, you go beyond answering just the question of whether you approve of them having a choice available to them. Once you go beyond just answering the legal questions and start giving answers that sound like you think abortion is immoral for anyone even if you don't think it should be illegal, you start to encourage people to get the wrong idea about what you're saying if you just leave it at "...but I'd never actually get one myself."

Phoenix Rev wrote:

I would remove all tax-exempt status for houses of worship. However, those houses could garner substantial tax savings/deductions/credits if they can prove monies spent were for actual charity and not for, say, a new HVAC unit for the building or redecoration of the chief cleric's office.

I'd like to go even further than that and take a hard look at nonprofits. NPR did a story a few weeks ago on how much profit some nonprofits bring in. One called something like The American Shipping Bureau (sounds like a government agency but isn't) was paying their CEO millions and shipping $20m per year to a hedge fund in the Cayman Islands despite being classified as a nonprofit and having all the tax advantages that come with that designation. Oh, and the NFL is a nonprofit. Seriously. $9b per year in revenue. Nonprofit.

As for me...

I've never voted. I lived in Seattle for 10 years after turning 18 and now live in Hawaii. I'm pretty liberal, so the positions I'd generally take are what passes anyways. In Seattle not being registered meant that I was kept off of the jury duty rolls as well. That doesn't apply here, though. Some day something I care about will come up locally and I'll register at that point.

I'd like to see capital gains treated like any other income. I'm annoyed by people who complain that it's double-taxing it. No, the money you invest has already been taxed, but you're not taxed on that money again when you take it out. You're taxed on any profit you make. Note: I'll remove this if I'm wrong about how it's taxed. I'm not rich enough to actually have capital gains, so I'm basing my opinion on how it would be handled in a rational system.

I started to write some more, but reading them, I realize that they're not very blasphemous. Maybe I'll think of something better later on.

Edit: Got one...

I wish there was some way to restrict voting to people who have a basic grasp of how things work. Like, if you don't know how marginal tax rates work, or how social security works, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. That said, unless the quality of education for the poor was also addressed, it'd basically be a poll tax, which is not what I'm interested in.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Amoebic wrote:

I used to be one of those people that would say things like "I'm pro-choice for other people...but I'd never actually get one myself." It wasn't until very recently that I'd realized how judgemental and condescending an opinion like that can be. It seems innocent and positive, at first, but it's a subtle and ugly way to differentiate us from them, to assert moral superiority without being up front about it over someone else's difficult choices regarding a situation I don't know anything about. I still feel really guilty when I think about this one.

I guess I'm confused as to why this requires confession. Aren't you simply exercising the choice part of pro-choice there, which, as you point out, you're very much in support of? Pro-choice doesn't imply that you have to approve of the choices folk make, just that you approve of them having a choice available to them.

I think it's that once you go beyond just saying "I'm pro-choice" and you start adding explanations, you go beyond answering just the question of whether you approve of them having a choice available to them. Once you go beyond just answering the legal questions and start giving answers that sound like you think abortion is immoral for anyone even if you don't think it should be illegal, you start to encourage people to get the wrong idea about what you're saying if you just leave it at "...but I'd never actually get one myself."

I was gonna say, they've helped sum this up because this was my stance and I really don't see anything wrong with it. Well, my stance is more, I believe in having the choice and I'd like to be a participant in the choice if the baby is mine, but I recognize that the ultimate choice is my lady's and while I may not LIKE abortions, I do see it as a good thing to have that choice available to all women and with my concerns about adoptions and such, I wouldn't say abortion is a better option, but it is something that would weigh on me less over time with wondering.

I think the problem is, if you think they're immoral why do you support pro-choice kind of sounds like a conservative soundbite to make you doubt your own position or feel bad about taking it. It's your choice, your vote, your opinion and they just want that to go in their direction instead of the alternative..

billt721 wrote:

I'd like to see capital gains treated like any other income. I'm annoyed by people who complain that it's double-taxing it. No, the money you invest has already been taxed, but you're not taxed on that money again when you take it out. You're taxed on any profit you make. Note: I'll remove this if I'm wrong about how it's taxed. I'm not rich enough to actually have capital gains, so I'm basing my opinion on how it would be handled in a rational system.

"Double taxation" in this context is generally referring to a dollar first being taxed when earned by the corporation (corporate income tax) and then taxed when received by a shareholder either directly (e.g., a dividend) or indirectly (e.g., capital gains).

DevilStick wrote:
billt721 wrote:

I'd like to see capital gains treated like any other income. I'm annoyed by people who complain that it's double-taxing it. No, the money you invest has already been taxed, but you're not taxed on that money again when you take it out. You're taxed on any profit you make. Note: I'll remove this if I'm wrong about how it's taxed. I'm not rich enough to actually have capital gains, so I'm basing my opinion on how it would be handled in a rational system.

"Double taxation" in this context is generally referring to a dollar first being taxed when earned by the corporation (corporate income tax) and then taxed when received by a shareholder either directly (e.g., a dividend) or indirectly (e.g., capital gains).

So just like any other sort of income right? The company I work for gets taxed on income from selling products, and then I get taxed on the income when they pay me.

DevilStick wrote:
billt721 wrote:

I'd like to see capital gains treated like any other income. I'm annoyed by people who complain that it's double-taxing it. No, the money you invest has already been taxed, but you're not taxed on that money again when you take it out. You're taxed on any profit you make. Note: I'll remove this if I'm wrong about how it's taxed. I'm not rich enough to actually have capital gains, so I'm basing my opinion on how it would be handled in a rational system.

"Double taxation" in this context is generally referring to a dollar first being taxed when earned by the corporation (corporate income tax) and then taxed when received by a shareholder either directly (e.g., a dividend) or indirectly (e.g., capital gains).

I've never understood why that argument would only apply to capital gains. Am I being double-taxed when I pay income tax, since my salary was previously taxed when my employer earned it as income? Is it actually triple-taxation since my employer is offering products to customers in exchange for their taxable income? What if there's also a sales tax involved in that exchange? Money gets taxed just about every time it changes hands. I don't understand what makes capital gains so special.

billt721 wrote:
DevilStick wrote:
billt721 wrote:

I'd like to see capital gains treated like any other income. I'm annoyed by people who complain that it's double-taxing it. No, the money you invest has already been taxed, but you're not taxed on that money again when you take it out. You're taxed on any profit you make. Note: I'll remove this if I'm wrong about how it's taxed. I'm not rich enough to actually have capital gains, so I'm basing my opinion on how it would be handled in a rational system.

"Double taxation" in this context is generally referring to a dollar first being taxed when earned by the corporation (corporate income tax) and then taxed when received by a shareholder either directly (e.g., a dividend) or indirectly (e.g., capital gains).

So just like any other sort of income right? The company I work for gets taxed on income from selling products, and then I get taxed on the income when they pay me.

If you make widgets those widgets are made of raw materials. The sale of those raw materials was taxed. The sale of the product the raw materials were converted to to become useful was taxed. Someone taxed the company that aggregated these materials and sold them as a wholesaler.

I always laugh at the double taxation argument considering how many levels of business include taxation.

It's taxes all the way down.

billt721 wrote:
DevilStick wrote:
billt721 wrote:

I'd like to see capital gains treated like any other income. I'm annoyed by people who complain that it's double-taxing it. No, the money you invest has already been taxed, but you're not taxed on that money again when you take it out. You're taxed on any profit you make. Note: I'll remove this if I'm wrong about how it's taxed. I'm not rich enough to actually have capital gains, so I'm basing my opinion on how it would be handled in a rational system.

"Double taxation" in this context is generally referring to a dollar first being taxed when earned by the corporation (corporate income tax) and then taxed when received by a shareholder either directly (e.g., a dividend) or indirectly (e.g., capital gains).

So just like any other sort of income right? The company I work for gets taxed on income from selling products, and then I get taxed on the income when they pay me.

"Double taxation" arguments are generally generally directed towards dividends/gains received by shareholders rather salaries paid to its employees. Salaries are deductible as expenses, and so that amount is not taxed on the corporation's tax return.

Profit, which is what is paid to shareholders (dividend/gain), is taxed however.

muttonchop wrote:

I've never understood why that argument would only apply to capital gains. Am I being double-taxed when I pay income tax, since my salary was previously taxed when my employer earned it as income? Is it actually triple-taxation since my employer is offering products to customers in exchange for their taxable income? What if there's also a sales tax involved in that exchange? Money gets taxed just about every time it changes hands. I don't understand what makes capital gains so special.

Employee salaries are an expense - the corporation would not pay corporate income tax on that amount. They do pay other types of taxes tied to employee salaries.

I vote straight-ticket Democract. I'd like to vote for another party, but the GOP has gone insane. I'm not a huge fan of the Democrats by any measure, but . . .

"The lesser of two evils" is a perfectly valid and intelligent way to vote. See above. Obama could have broken into the National Archives and actually physically taken a dump on the Constitution, and I'd probably still have voted for him. I'm not wasting my vote on a third-party candidate who has no chance just to make a "point"; I'm keeping the jerk I hate out of office.

Voting for a third-party candidate to make a point is pointless. You're a drop in the bucket, and nobody in power will care. Ross Perot got a considerable chunk of the vote in '92, and it changed absolutely nothing. Voting Green or Libertarian or The Rent Is Too Damn High does nothing other than make you feel good about yourself.

Prostitution should be legal, and anybody who disagrees is damning oppressed and disadvantaged women to a life of abuse, addiction, and quite possibly a young death. It's OK to not like the idea of prostitution. It's not something I'd want my daughter to do, but I don't particularly want her to clean out septic tanks either, and I don't think that should be illegal. Prostitution has always existed and always will, and pushing it to the margins of society makes women in crisis nothing more than prey for the scum that lines the bottom of the societal garbage can. Making it illegal absolutely ensures women will be beaten, enslaved, and abused in all sorts of ways, and "it should be illegal" comes down to nothing more than "OMG IF I HOPE REALLY REALLY HARD I BET PROSTITUTION WILL TOTALLY VANISH THIS TIME."

I think birth control should be free and available to everyone. OMG IF I HOPE REALLY REALLY HARD I BET TEENAGERS WILL TOTALLY STOP HAVING SEX. This is a no-brainer in every way. Pregnancies are expensive. Condoms are not.

Sex education should be required in school. It's so nice that so many parents want to have the sex talk with their kids that so many of them never get around to.

If it wasn't for the utter insanity of Watergate, Lyndon Johnson would have been a worse president than Richard Nixon. The only real difference between Watergate and the pile of lies that dragged us into Vietnam is Nixon had to do a cover-up and Johnson got away with a massive series of baldface lies to the public. Nixon wins because he helped enlist a number of potentially insane criminals to run his Keystone Kops organization.

I've never so much as touched pot, but it being illegal is the dumbest thing ever. Seriously, with all the negative consequences of alcohol, people give a crap about marijuana?

inspired by the derail in the picture thread: I think awards for participation are awesome for a few reasons.

Number one, I think most awards are a joke. You're the best speller in your grade in elementary school? What kind of an accomplishment is that? You're better than a handful of people at a practically useless skill. If we're going to give out awards to encourage kids, I'd rather you came in third in typing--or even shorthand--than in an increasingly useless skill like spelling. Want to encourage kids to be better spellers? Give out awards for Latin.

Number two, I think it's ridiculously dumb to say "if they give out participation awards, kids won't be motivated to try harder next time." Really? If your kid is that dumb that he or she can't tell the difference between a participation award and first place, your kid is never going to win first place in anything anyway no matter how hard they try so don't worry about it. Your kid is smarter than you give them credit for: news flash--you kid didn't give you that "World's Greatest Dad" coffee mug because they believe you to objectively be the ultimate father on planet earth. Kids get it.

Number three, we generally give out participation awards when kids are young and impressionable. At the ages we're generally talking about, your kid hasn't had enough hours of practice to call them actually good at anything they do. To go back to number one, they're not good, they're slightly better than an incredibly small number of people they're probably very similar to. During the ages we're talking about, the best thing we can do is make kids motivated to practice. The drive to win will come later. If anything, I think it's dangerous to tell some little kid they're not as good as another kid at that age, even if it is true. Who knows who you're discouraging by ranking kids that early in the process, and for what? To proclaim them one of 90,000 champions across the country? The way I see it, there's a balance. Winning is fun, but participation should be fun too. The balance between those should shift as kids get older and more mature. Both more mature and thus able to handle the emotions that come with competition, and more mature and thus more probable that what we're seeing is an actual difference in talent and not just random variation or beginners luck.

Number four, we tend to give out these awards for things that will never result in that kid getting a paycheck or anything else in the 'real world'. This expresses how I feel on your kid developing a talent that will get strangers to give them validation for their skills when they can't count on people that already love them to make them feel special.

tl;dr: when leveling up your kids early on, focus more on things that will make them intellectually flexible/capable of rapid skill acquisition later in life, not on having them win some trophy that if they were to ever put it on their mantle as an adult we'd laugh at them. I think the number one thing to encourage in kids is courage itself. Don't discount what a participation trophy can do for that, and don't pretend like most awards aren't really just glorified participation trophies to begin with.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Voting for a third-party candidate to make a point is pointless. You're a drop in the bucket, and nobody in power will care. Ross Perot got a considerable chunk of the vote in '92, and it changed absolutely nothing. Voting Green or Libertarian or The Rent Is Too Damn High does nothing other than make you feel good about yourself.

While I find it depressing, I agree, at least as far as presidential candidates go. Senators,congress critters, and state-level (and lower) positions can be and are won by third party candidates. I do it anyway because "my" presidential candidate is most likely going to win my state with or without my vote, and a third party's performance in the presidential election is tied directly to their ability to run for the local positions.

Number one, I think most awards are a joke. You're the best speller in your grade in elementary school? What kind of an accomplishment is that? You're better than a handful of people at a practically useless skill. If we're going to give out awards to encourage kids, I'd rather you came in third in typing--or even shorthand--than in an increasingly useless skill like spelling. Want to encourage kids to be better spellers? Give out awards for Latin.

I think we need to stop giving awards for participation!

Not to be disagreeable, but seeing this reminded me of a section in Dennis Leary's book that I agree with, which is in contradiction to you.

I sucked at t-ball, almost always got tagged out when trying to run the bases, couldn't catch for anything, and as most of my team was similarly hopeless. Did I want to be a baseball player when I grew up? Heck yeah... when we started, then the season progressed and a few things became obvious, namely that I should not play baseball anymore, much less professionally, unless I was going to be the designated hitter because that was the only thing I was good at.

I really think we need to make sure kids experience failure. They need to know failure sucks and that's why you work hard at something and give it your all. Giving a ribbon just for showing up, to me, sends the wrong message. If your kids fail, help them get back up, find something else they can try that they might be better at.

Demosthenes wrote:
Number one, I think most awards are a joke. You're the best speller in your grade in elementary school? What kind of an accomplishment is that? You're better than a handful of people at a practically useless skill. If we're going to give out awards to encourage kids, I'd rather you came in third in typing--or even shorthand--than in an increasingly useless skill like spelling. Want to encourage kids to be better spellers? Give out awards for Latin.

I think we need to stop giving awards for participation!

Not to be disagreeable, but seeing this reminded me of a section in Dennis Leary's book that I agree with, which is in contradiction to you.

Ha, nah--bring it on: it is supposed to be the Confessions & Blasphemies thread!

I sucked at t-ball, almost always got tagged out when trying to run the bases, couldn't catch for anything, and as most of my team was similarly hopeless. Did I want to be a baseball player when I grew up? Heck yeah... when we started, then the season progressed and a few things became obvious, namely that I should not play baseball anymore, much less professionally, unless I was going to be the designated hitter because that was the only thing I was good at.

I disagree. Why shouldn't you have gotten to play baseball, even if you sucked? What terrible consequence comes from letting kids who are terrible at a sport have fun playing that sport? It almost feels like people believe there is some angry god of anti-mediocrity somewhere and we are hastening his apocalyptic return by not enforcing proper judgements in meaningless situations like encouraging bad t-ball players.

I really think we need to make sure kids experience failure. They need to know failure sucks and that's why you work hard at something and give it your all.

See, and I hate that view of things. That's the last thing I want children to learn. I don't want them to work hard at things because failure sucks. I want them to work hard at things because success is great. Like I said, if your kid can't tell the difference between a participation award and the winner's trophy, your kid is hopeless anyway. Seriously, if your kid is that clueless, you as a parent just need to prepare yourself for a lifetime of disappointment because that kid isn't going anywhere no matter what you do.

As you can see, I'm a fan of Dennis Leary's style myself ; D

Seriously though, I think it would be a much better world if there was less motivation from fear of failure and more motivation from desire for success. The one is not necessarily just a reverse way of stating the other.

Giving a ribbon just for showing up, to me, sends the wrong message. If your kids fail, help them get back up,

That is *exactly* my point. Giving a ribbon just for showing up sends exactly the message you're talking about: one that helps them get back up.

find something else they can try that they might be better at.

Why? If they're happy with what they're doing, just let them do it. If you almost always get tagged out, guess what: there aren't many things you're going to be all that better at! At that age, let's face it: most success has to do with general athletic ability. If you can't beat a throw in t-ball, you're not going to magically become faster on a basketball court. You're going to be slow no matter what sport you play.

That's the thing: I feel like I'm the realist in this debate. If someone is counting on their kid becoming a professional athlete based on performance in t-ball, they are a bad parent. They've probably got unrealistic expectations and are probably projecting their own hopes of athletic glory onto their kid and asking them to fulfill their crushed dreams and I look forward to watching them get ejected from Little League games on YouTube.

And you know, they're kids: they're curious to begin with, and if you want them to try something else, just suggest something else. I can't imagine there are many kids who will be like "no dad, I won a participation ribbon when I was 4 AND NOW I MUST DEDICATE MY LIFE TO IT!" Your kid will probably be like "um, okay, that looks cool too."

And again, if your kid is that influenced by a participation ribbon, your kid has bigger problems, man. On the other hand, if your kid loves something that much, well, that could easily translate into dedication to practice. And dedication to practice is what *really* makes people great: I think dedication at that age is a far better predictor of success than talent. Like I said, at that age, it's more likely the kid who won just had a growth spurt at the right time than any kind of superior talent.

CheezePavilion just changed my view of participation awards.

Demosthenes wrote:

If your kids fail, help them get back up, find something else they can try that they might be better at.

Last I checked, no one is good at something, particularly something requiring physical dexterity, the first time they do it, or even the first 1,000 hours or so. Saying "find something else they can try that they might be better at" leads to some fantasy idea that a particular individual is magically talented at something and they just have to find it. "I just stepped onto a basketball court and made 12 3-point shots in a row, this must be for me!" This attitude will only lead a kid to dropping new things faster and faster, and it will lead into their adult life, too.

That's not to say your kids shouldn't try different things, but you shouldn't encourage them to give up on things just because the suck. Especially if they like doing it. Hell, it took me 8 years to learn to play adult hockey at a decent level with hours of skating practice every week. Wayne Gretzky didn't learn to skate in a day, either. His dad flooded his backyard so he could skate for 8 hours a day for years, starting pretty much from the time he could walk.

Seth wrote:

CheezePavilion just changed my view of participation awards.

I just gave Seth a participation award

DSGamer wrote:

1) I believe that Abraham Lincoln was wrong and have a hard time with him being a US hero. I obviously don't think he's wrong on slavery. I believe he was wrong not to let the US split. It was a major turning point in the power of the federal government versus states and I've been uncomfortable about it for a long time.

I'm not going to comment on your opinion. I just wanted to add that, in my opinion, if the North had not won the Civil War, I believe that we'd be in a state of perpetual warfare between the North and the South.

I have donated to the ACLU and believe it is a fantastic organization.

I want to end Social Security - seriously...yes I know the current crop of elderly has paid into it, but they are taking out far more value than they ever paid in. Stop taking my money and simply call it what it is - old person welfare.

I'm not suggesting giving up after you strike out the first time. More along the lines of my own experience where t-ball led to stiches twice (once for a baseball to the head, the other trying to slide and hitting one leg with the cleats of the other leg's foot) and I just was generally bad for an entire year and while I enjoyed batting, it was clear that I hated everything else. :X

I just dunno, I think kids (at least when we're getting into like pre-adolescents) should know what failure at something feels like and have at least some understanding that just because you want it or it would be cool doesn't mean you're going to get it/do it. Is that as much fun as encouraging your kid to be President when you're not rich? Not really, but I would just prefer to have kids who are realistic about life. I work like I want to be CEO, I just don't ever expect that to happen either... but I enjoy when my work gets me accolades and a raise and such.

Grubber788 wrote:

I believe in mandatory civil service and a draft If we are to go to war, the nation needs to have a common stake in the effort. In peacetime, we should all have a stake in the advancement of the society.

This. Mandatory Peace Corps, Americorps, etc. I think we would be a much better nation if everyone was required to either live overseas for a year, or at least across the country. The amount of perspective, cultural awareness and sensitivity, and just general life experience one gains is amazing.

Pirate Bob wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

I believe in mandatory civil service and a draft If we are to go to war, the nation needs to have a common stake in the effort. In peacetime, we should all have a stake in the advancement of the society.

This. Mandatory Peace Corps, Americorps, etc. I think we would be a much better nation if everyone was required to either live overseas for a year, or at least across the country. The amount of perspective, cultural awareness and sensitivity, and just general life experience one gains is amazing.

That and it would be a great way to shut folks up who think that the extent of their civic responsibility is to purchase yellow ribbon magnets and spout off hokum like "freedom isn't free".

Paleocon wrote:
Pirate Bob wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

I believe in mandatory civil service and a draft If we are to go to war, the nation needs to have a common stake in the effort. In peacetime, we should all have a stake in the advancement of the society.

This. Mandatory Peace Corps, Americorps, etc. I think we would be a much better nation if everyone was required to either live overseas for a year, or at least across the country. The amount of perspective, cultural awareness and sensitivity, and just general life experience one gains is amazing.

That and it would be a great way to shut folks up who think that the extent of their civic responsibility is to purchase yellow ribbon magnets and spout off hokum like "freedom isn't free".

And those that aggresively assert America's superiority, barely ever having met anyone from a foreign country, let alone traveled or lived in one. I don't believe in a 'best' country, mostly just different countries (there are some truly terrible places to live, but there's no one best place).

I do realize though that there is a signficant number of people, from any country really, that would make very, very poor ambasadors abroad. But, were such a program be established, I'd hope that that number would drop significantly and a broader culture of unity would grow.

Seth wrote:

CheezePavilion just changed my view of participation awards.

Me too! That part of the conversation alone totally made reading this thread a worthwhile investment of my time.

Im not a big fan of participation ribbons (probably because I got maybe 3 medals/ribbons total while I was growing up in the 80s, and each one was for a big win). That being said, Americans very much have an "all or nothing" attitude that's not good. Kids who aren't naturally gifted at sports are quickly discouraged and then end up not getting any exercise at all. This is also true of academics, especially math and science. Having lived in Asia, the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans have a very different take - you may not be the best in your class, but by God you're going to do your best.

BTW, I'd be ok with participation ribbons that rewarded a kid's overall effort, such as practicing good sportsmanship, being a team player, always being on time for practice, etc. Then at least the kid could feel a lot of pride in it.

Well in the West we have a grand tradition in more modern times to infantalize young people. I am not sure if like in WWI we need to march 14 year olds off to the trenches mind you.

But I always figured up to college, your life was a dedication to finding what you are good at and what you stink at, also what makes you happy. I am an absolutely horrid racquetball and tennis player, but I love playing it. I will win maybe 2 out of every 5 matches, and almost never a full set.

I am a decent writer, a better editor, math bores me to tears, science fascinates me but my capacity ends at Bill Nye.

I am a bit of an anathema in the US. I more or less set a career trajectory at 14. So far as I have noticed, most people do not have a career in mind. They louse about and find a job after highschool or college disconnected from their area of study, probably in data entry of some sort.

Farscry wrote:
Seth wrote:

CheezePavilion just changed my view of participation awards.

Me too! That part of the conversation alone totally made reading this thread a worthwhile investment of my time. :D

Thanks guys! : D

I used to be a hard core Republican from a young age.

Wasnt until i started going to church of all things and out on my own in my late 20s that my perspective started to change more to the center. Then they pushed themselves so far to the right it looks like i'm hanging out on the left for most things.

I voted TWICE in these presidential elections!!

[size=7]Once for the President of the United States, and once for the President of Russian Federation.[/size]

Fiscal Cliff... HAHAHHAHAHAHA