Parental Advisory

I work in a position where I have the opportunity to interview many people for job openings that may exist in my department.  I have even hired some of those applicants that I have interviewed.  Every interview has been unique, but one in particular was extremely startling.

He approached me with his application and said he had an interview that morning.  My interview calendar was empty that morning so I asked him what he was interviewing for.  Without hesitation, he called his mom to find out who the interview was with and for what position.  Further questioning revealed that his mother filled out the application.  He was 33.

If you are familiar with "helicopter parenting", you have probably already made that connection.  For those unfamiliar with that term, it is a parenting style in which parents act as helicopters over their children.  They hover over them, rescuing them at every turn.  They interfere with every aspect of the child's life that the child fails to experience overcoming failure for themselves.

Helicopter parents have always existed, but there seems to be an epidemic with the current generation.  I observed it in high school, college, and now in the work place.  

My immediate thought after this experience was turned toward the long term effects that it has on the lives of those children.  In this case, a 33 year old had become so crippled from the damaging affects of dependency on his parents that he couldn't even fill out a job application.  Independence would have been much too overwhelming for him.

I wonder how many of these children, after being pushed out of the nest, turn to the easiest source of dependence outside of the home.  How many of them turn to the welfare system as their primary source of help?  Is it any wonder that they feel entitled to these programs?  

Once in a while, there comes a child that finds a way to overcome this.  I recently read about Aubrey Ireland, a college senior, who was granted a restraining order against her parents.  This article made me think about a story with much more historical significance.  

In 1776, the United States signed its own restraining order against England.  Think about all the "children", or dependent countries that Great Britain had control of at the time.  One of the children got fed up with it and did something about it.  

It is too bad that such a high percentage of victims of "helicopter parenting" fail to declare their own independence.  Perhaps if they had someone to depend on for their freedom, they would actually get it, someone like their parents.

Obama only Partially Socialist

With tax season coming to close, my thoughts began to turn to how unsocialistic Obama may be. Perhaps a far fetched idea, but hear me out.

If you were filing your taxes in 1800, the process would be extremely simple, you wouldn’t because there were no income taxes until 1913, and even then, you would only pay taxes if you were in the top 1% of wealthy people. Over the years, the government has taken advantage of income tax and taxed everyone to the point that “tax freedom day” was sometime in May, in other words, you spent half the year working for Uncle Sam, and the other half of the year paying off your credit cards from Christmas past.

Over the last few years, there have been more and more tax credits available to the point that many people get their money back. In fact, and average family of four, filing jointly, and making $50,000 would essentially not be paying any income taxes. How you may ask?

Consider this: With the standard deduction and four personal exemptions, only $24,000 would be taxable, which means they would pay $2,769 in federal income taxes. Child tax credits would give you $1,000 per child and the Making Work Pay credit would give you another $800. After these credits, you just made $31 for filing your taxes.

It is estimated that more than half of the households filing for taxes won’t be paying any federal income tax.

Now you’re probably asking yourself how this makes Obama less socialistic.

Under pure capitalism, if you made $50,000, you would take home $50,000. Under the current tax laws, if you make $50,000, you would take home $50,000. A good portion of it changes hands about a dozen times, but in the end, you get your money back.

So instead of saying that Obama is socialist, I would say he is only socialist to the 25% of the people who sit at the top of the money-making totem pole. So he is only about 25% socialist.

Census Conspiracy?

Disclaimer: The following blog contains material that may or may not be found by some to be liberal, off-colored, or otherwise offensive. If you think you may be offended by some of the messages that are contained herein, click here.

Since the beginning of the year, the census has been a hot topic with several people that I have come in contact with. In each case, they were concerned with the unconstitutional nature that they feel the census has been drawn. They all said that the government has no business knowing how many cars were parked outside their homes, how much money they were making, what race they were, and that the government has no right to GPS track them. All the government needed to know was how many heads lived under the roof at their respective houses.

In conversing with each of these acquaintances, I kept quiet, listening to their statements in order to understand where they were coming from in order to formulate my own opinion. After much time ruminating on the matter, the Sarconomist’s opinion is now concocted.

The irony in each of these conversations is that their expressed concerns were relayed to me almost verbatim, which tells me that they probably all read the same web site. Having that in mind, that sounds like an advertisement goldmine.

In each of these cases, none of them read the actual census. In each of these cases, their spouses filled out the census. And in each of these cases, they were miffed at their spouses for filling out the census.

First of all, GPS tracking them? Are you kidding me? Do they really think they are that special that the government has to track them? If they are, I would like to know what exactly they did to receive that special treatment.

If they really don’t think they are that special, they must just simply be paranoid, in which case I’ll just say that if you really want another copy of “Catcher in the Rye”, I’ll find one for you.

After filling out the census, unless it was written in fine print in Mexican, I never came across a question inquiring about my cars or income, and there certainly was no way of GPS tracking me through the mail.

The words of a certain wise man come to mind. Kennedy William Gordy once said that he always felt like somebody was watching him.

Buffalo Springfield also said that paranoia strikes deep, Into your life it will creep. It starts when you’re always afraid….

Those who completely disagree with the census obviously have no statistical background. I say this with absolutely no reservation. The census provides statistics based on a population size rather than a mere sample, which means more accurate statistics. Now, instead of estimating that roughly 5-75% of the American population is of wetback origin, we can safely say that 27.35% of the population is of Hispanic roots.

Since most of the census conspiracy theorists are probably hard-core right-wing conservatives, they probably failed to hypothesize the purpose of all these nosey questions, unless they really are special or paranoid. Perhaps border patrol is too late, and this provides a better solution to reverse the problem than to just stop it. As quirky as that sounds, it makes more sense than anything you will ever come up with.

In closing, may I just mention that had James Madison lived in an era in which he was able observe the ethnically diverse melting pot that the United States has become, I’m sure in the spirit of the constitution, he would have included a “race clause” in the section about the census.

I’m open to listening to conspiracy theories, as long as it has substantial evidence, and as long as I’m interested in listening, but this is one that crosses the line in my book.

Authentic Pride, or Fabricated Pride?

1932 was the last time the United States won the medal count at a Winter Olympics. Coincidentally, it was the only time the United States had ever led the final medal count. This seemingly appalling statistic has led the U.S.A. to the drawing board to find a solution.

There were two possibilities over the last 78 years that would provide the U.S.A. a chance to get back to the top. First, we could just get better at the current Olympic events. This would require a little bit of training, practicing, skill, and talent. Seems like too much work for me.

So then the U.S.A. took a look at option number two. If we introduce a bunch of new events into the Winter Olympics before the other countries can get good at them, we have a chance at winning more metals. The results have been nothing less than spectacular.

Sort of.

Basketball became an Olympic event years ago, and who won gold every year? That is until, well I won’t go there. Softball was dominated by us, that is until, we won’t go there.

So for the winter Olympics, we make snowboard half-pipe an event, and we dominate—only until Shaun White calls it quits. Then we have to come up with some new event that the rest of the world has never heard of.

The way I see it, a century from now, there will be almost as many events as the population of Indonesia, hardly making the achievement of being there admirable.

My solution is to filter out the unnecessary events through a logical approach.

First of all, eliminate all events that are based on the opinions of the judges. Goodbye figure skating, ice dancing, gymnastics, moguls, diving, synchronized diving, synchronized swimming, and the list goes on. Why? It just opens the door for controversy. Ask Evgeni Plushenko.

Second of all, eliminate sports. Sounds absurd until you understand the difference between sport and game. The simplest way to define the difference is that you physically play defense in a sport. Football is one third defense. Basketball, though debatable, plays defense. Soccer, hockey, field hockey, and just about all those other team sports that are awarded a metal for preventing the other competitors from maximizing their talent should be eliminated.

These are the Olympic Games. These individuals are here to showcase their talents, skills, and hard work, not prevent others from doing so.

Inspired to fail

If any of my readers are at all like me, you may be tired of all the inspirational sports movies that Hollywood has barraged us with in recent years. To be completely honest, I haven’t watched “Blindside”, “Rudy”, or “Hoosiers”, but I have seen “Remember the Titans” and “Coach Carter”. It just seems to me that there are only so many inspirational story lines to go around before you’ve seen it all.

In the aftermath of Super Bowl XLIV, I can’t but help to imagine the movie that is going to come out in five years about New Orleans and the ensuing “Seabiscuit” story line that will dupe us into thinking that New Orleans is a great American city. That’s right, it’s only a matter of time before “Invictus II: XLIV” comes to a big screen near you.

And how much inspiration have these movies actually garnered in the lives of the people who view them? After watching “Miracle”, I played racquetball against a much better opponent and still got slaughtered.

After watching “Cool Runnings”, I lost by almost two minutes in the 400 meter hurdles.

Before a golf tournament, I watched Tiger Woods’ top 10 shots of his career in an effort to at least help myself think that I had a chance at not coming in last place. The result, 2nd to last place by 2 strokes.

I was set up to fail by the empty inspiration that Hollywood fed to my already sunken morale. It’s just a matter of time before this instant classic does the same for you.

Tiger Woods: smart genius, or smartest genius?

With the news that has been hovering around Tiger Woods and his several extra-marital affairs, much talk in the news surrounding Tiger Woods has revolved around his endorsements. While most have only mentioned his foolishness in squandering his multimillion dollar marketing campaigns, they have also failed to realize that Tiger Woods is a brilliant marketing genius.

In a recession, everyone figures out new ways to cut costs. Gatorade already had plans of dumping the expensive Tiger brand. General Motors dumped Tiger Woods months ago. If the recession turns into the feared double-dip recession, it will only mean one thing, Tiger Woods and endorsements will be extinct.

I did mention brilliant marketing genius didn’t I?

During a recession, statistics show that people are generally more happy with life. How is that possible when there is more financial stress and work related stress? The answer is that people generally have more sex during times of economic recession and depression.

This phenomenon has me wondering if Tiger Woods may simply be saying “goodbye” to Accenture, Nike, and Gillette in order to say hello to the likes of Trojan, NuvaRing, and Yaz.

Since the consumer is also looking for ways to cut costs, postponing families are a logical route. So is his downfall really a result of his stupidity, or is it a play on the economic future of the country?