Pages

Thursday, August 21, 2014

Why Some Catholics Won’t Take the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge

Why Some Catholics Won’t Take the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge


Why Some Catholics Won’t Take the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge

Posted: 21 Aug 2014 11:12 AM PDT

Not everyone is jumping to take part in the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, which has gone viral and raised millions for research into Lou Gehrig’s disease. Following the Archdiocese of Cincinnati’s decision to ban its schools from donating to the ALS Association and a widely read blog post by a Catholic priest, some Catholics are questioning the ethics of contributing to ALS charities that fund research with embryonic stem cells.

“We deeply appreciate the compassion, but there's a well established moral principle that goods ends are not enough. The means must also be morally licit,” said Cincinnati Archdiocese spokesperson Dan Andriacco.

Father Michael Duffy, whose blog post on the issue has been shared on Facebook more than 100,000 times, said he started hearing chatter online two weeks ago suggesting that donations to the ALS Association might be used for embryonic stem cell research, which conflicts with Catholic doctrine. When he was nominated for the challenge himself, he looked into it and discovered that the ALS Association did in fact fund embryonic stem cell research.

Catholic church doctrine holds that life begins at conception. Because embryonic stem cells come from very early-stage embryos, the church holds that destroying the embryo is akin to taking a life.

ALS Association spokesperson Carrie Munk acknowledged that the organization currently funds one study using embryonic stem cells, but added that donors can ask that their money not be used for this purpose.

Duffy said that option isn’t sufficient.

“I would still have trouble with that because you're supporting an organization that is taking someone's life,” he said.

Instead, he suggested an alternative charity, the John Paul II Medical Research Institute, which advocates for stem cell research using adult stem cells. In Cincinnati, the Archdiocese has taken Duffy’s recommendation and asked its schools to direct their funds there if they want to participate in the Ice Bucket Challenge.

Apparently, Duffy’s recommendation is working. The John Paul II organization said it has received dozens of donations per hour in recent days and that its website crashed because of the influx in traffic. Typically, the organization only receives a couple donations each day.

But despite the questions from some Catholics, the ALS Association continues to rake in cash. It’s raised $41 million since July 29, compared with just over $2 million in the same period last year.

1,400 Are Dead From Ebola and We Need Help, Says Doctors Without Borders President

Posted: 21 Aug 2014 11:11 AM PDT

Entire families are being wiped out. Health workers are dying by the dozens. The Ebola outbreak raging in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone has already killed more people than any other in history, and it continues to spread unabated.

And the death toll is being exacerbated by an emergency unfolding within an emergency.

People are also dying from easily preventable and treatable diseases like malaria and diarrhea because fear of contamination has closed medical facilities, leading to the effective collapse of health systems. While I was in Liberia last week, six pregnant women lost their babies over the course of a single day for lack of a hospital to admit them and manage their complications.

Over the past two weeks, there have been some welcome signs but not enough action: the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak a "Public Health Emergency of International Concern" and announced additional funds to fight the disease; the World Bank announced a $200 million emergency fund; and the UN Secretary General appointed a special envoy for Ebola.

But 1,350 lives have already been lost. To prevent more deaths, these funding and political initiatives must be translated into immediate, effective action on the ground.

We need medical and emergency relief workers to trace those who may be infected, to educate people about protection measures and to work in treatment centers. Many more people are needed in the field, right now.

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) medical teams have treated more than 900 patients in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. We have 1,086 staff operating in these countries and we have just opened a 120-bed treatment center in Liberia's capital, Monrovia, making it by far the largest Ebola center in history. But it is already overwhelmed with patients and we simply do not have additional response capacity. Others must enter the breach.

In Kailahun, Sierra Leone, 2,000 people who came into contact with Ebola patients must be urgently followed up. But we have only been able to trace about 200 of them.

Health promotion campaigns and body collections are stalled for lack of vehicles or fuel. Epidemiologists are unable to work because of a lack of logistical support. And pervasive fears among communities that had never encountered Ebola have provoked riots against health workers.

The epidemic will not be contained without a massive deployment on the ground. WHO in particular must step up to the challenge. And governments with the necessary medical and logistical resources must go beyond funding pledges and immediately dispatch infectious disease experts and disaster relief assets to the region.

Additional resources are needed to properly map the epidemic, implement efficient general hygiene measures in all medical and public places, run safe treatment centers, trace suspected cases, train health workers, set up functioning alert and referral systems and, crucially, spread accurate information about how people can protect themselves from infection.

Equally important is fighting fear. Quarantines and curfews will only breed more of it. People need to have access to information, otherwise distrust of health workers will only increase and provoke further violence. Communities and governments need to work together to control the epidemic and care for the sick.

Some measure of humanity must also be restored in the fight against Ebola.

As doctors, we have been forced to provide little more than palliative care because of the sheer number of infected people and lack of an available cure. The extreme measures needed to protect health workers, including wearing stifling protective suits, also means we cannot remain bedside with patients to ease their suffering, or allow family members to do so. In their final hours, many people are dying alone.

While we try to find creative solutions to enable families to communicate with their sick relatives, they should at minimum be supported to participate safely in the burials of loved ones. This would also help rebuild trust between communities and those trying to contain the epidemic.

At the same time, additional support is needed to prevent health systems in Liberia and Sierra Leone from further collapse. After years of civil war, these countries already struggle to meet the basic health needs of their people, let alone cope with a public health emergency of this magnitude. Sierra Leone and Liberia, for instance, have just 0.2 and 0.1 doctors per 10,000 people, respectively (a rate 240 times less than in the United States).

Last week, all of Monrovia's hospitals were at one point closed. There is no surgical care available in the entire country right now. Pregnant women cannot receive emergency C-sections. Health facilities must be re-opened or established to treat common illnesses. We will otherwise face a second wave of this health catastrophe.

Slowing and then halting this outbreak requires much more than money and statements. The only way to contain the epidemic is to increase the response capacity in affected areas, not by closing borders and suspending air travel.

Meaningful and coordinated action is needed on the ground today if we don't want to be reduced to counting the dead for many weeks to come, whether from Ebola or other far less sinister diseases.

Dr. Joanne Liu is the international president of Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF).

 

Saskatoon: The Berry That Became an International Incident

Posted: 21 Aug 2014 11:10 AM PDT

"One berry, two berry, pick me a…Saskatoon berry?!" The name of this little-known purple fruit doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. No marketer’s dream here. And now some Canadians who have long cultivated the tiny super-food are crying foul over a quiet U.S.-led push to re-brand it: from saskatoon to juneberry. And there’s no truce in sight.

Thanks to its powerful anti-oxidant properties and to the entrepreneurial efforts of a handful of commercial growers, this under-the-radar berry has garnered a new wave of interest in parts of the U.S. Some think this delicious fruit–it tastes like a mixture of cherries, almonds and grapes– could be on its way to hit the super-fruit jackpot, a market which altogether will be worth $10 billion by 2017, predicts research firm Euromonitor International.

If only Americans could pronounce its name. Or spell it. (Canadians, of course, have no diction problems since the name is derived from the city in the Saskatchewan province, Saskatoon.)

Jim Fang, saskatoon berry expert and professor—he fittingly hails from the University of Saskatchewan—is in the midst of establishing the fruit’s precise health effects, which compare to those of the blueberry, the superfruit darling of the past. His prediction: “The saskatoon berry will be offered as an alternative to the blueberry.” The two fruits even look alike.

But Canadian cultivators are a few steps ahead of their southern counterparts: Growers there scooped up 575 tons of the berry last year — dwarfing the United States’ production which is estimated at four tons — and have just begun a promising harvest that will span August.

And the fruit is so popular in Canada it has even shaped the country’s geography. Stroll the streets of Saskatoon, population 200,000, and you’ll run into a 4-meter tall bronze sculpture capturing the city’s berry-driven founding myth. It depicts a Native American chief pointing to the town’s future location while an explorer to his side dubs it the saskatoon, named after the berry long-known by the indigenous population. Canadians kept the moniker.

Yet, many Americans haven’t taken to the name. Maybe because we’re still grappling with the acai berry pronunciation.

“There are certain things that Canadians and Americans do differently and names on things happen to be one of those,” says Jim Ochterski, agriculture issues leader at Cornell University’s Cooperative Extension. The institution has championed the berry stateside by introducing it to cultivators. “We decided to predominantly call them juneberries.”

When a berry is in a pickle

Some Canadians are offended by the name change — to the extent Canadians can get offended.

Sandra Purdy, president of the Saskatoon Berry Council of Canada, the trade group representing the industry, is the de facto saskatoon berry queen of Canada. At a time when funding was flowing to Silicon Valley tech start-ups, she pitched the project of building a saskatoon business empire on the television show “Dragon’s Den,” the Canadian equivalent of “The Apprentice.” An equity firm eventually took the bait and Purdy’s company, Prairie Berries, has grown into one of the largest saskatoon berry producers in Canada.

Purdy says she felt “slighted” when, earlier this summer, she received an email from Cornell’s Cooperative Extension suggesting that Canadian growers use juneberry instead of saskatoon berry “to help overall marketing of the berry.”

“That won’t happen,” she said, “Especially given that they got those plants from Saskatchewan and our Canadian-grown berries.”

The berry is such a source of pride in Canada that it drives a few thousand enthusiasts each year to gather in the town of Mortlach, Saskatchewan, for the Saskatoon Berry Festival — a get together that centers around gobbling the berry in large quantities. (A recent slogan of the gathering: “2,500 people with purple teeth can’t be wrong…”)

One berry, two countries

Still, Americans are indebted to Canadians when it comes to this tongue-tying fruit.

When Cornell Cooperative Extension began growing juneberry in 2010, it brought in its plants from Canada, where a domesticated cultivar grows more berries per bush than any of its cousins across North America.

But Ochterski and his group from Cornell Cooperative Extension followed the money trail. When their market research revealed that Canada’s saskatoon berries seduced the palate of U.S. consumers, but the name didn’t resonate nearly as well as ‘juneberry’ did, which is what the variety found in the Northeast is called, they switched.

“It’s not the Canadian name but it’s the name that seems to sell,” says Ochterski.

It’s not a unanimous stance, however. “I just think ‘saskatoon’ has a sexier name to it than a ‘juneberry,’" says Steve Fouch, one of the founders of a group of growers in Michigan assembled under the Saskatoon Berry Institute of North America.

True to their reputation, Canadians have striven for a compromise. The packages of frozen berries Purdy exports to the U.S. were originally only labeled as ‘saskatoon berries.’ Prairie Berries now offers to its U.S. customers adding, ‘aka june berry’ – but “only… if the customer we are selling to specifically requests us to label it as such,” said Purdy.

Upon hearing about the disagreement, Faye Campbell, the village administrator in Mortlach, Canada where the Saskatoon Berry Festival took place earlier this month, attempts to reach a middle ground. “I guess we might have to change the name of the festival?” she said. “Or not?"

Polio’s Two Vaccines Are More Effective When They’re Combined

Posted: 21 Aug 2014 11:00 AM PDT

When it comes to fighting a virus, having as many weapons as possible, especially in the form of vaccines that can prevent infection, is certainly welcome. And that's always been the case with polio, which has not one but two effective immunizations that can stop the virus from causing debilitating paralysis. Which is more effective in preventing illness and which is better at stopping transmission of the virus? Scientists report in the journal Science that neither is ideal, but that together, the vaccines are powerful enough to achieve both results. The results "revolutionize our thinking about how to use polio vaccines optimally," says Hamid Jafari, director of polio operations and research at the WHO, who led the research.

Recent efforts to erradicate polio has pitched the two vaccines against each other. Developed in the 1950s and 1960s, one was made by Jonas Salk using killed polio virus, and the other, developed by Albert Sabin, uses a weakened but still live virus that could replicate in the human gut to deliver immunity. Jafari and his colleagues, report that children vaccinated with the oral polio vaccine who then received a boost of the Salk vaccine showed the lowest amount of virus in their feces—one of the primary ways that the virus spreads from person to person—and excreted these viruses for a shorter period of time than children who had been immunized with the oral vaccine and received a boost with an additional dose of the same oral vaccine.

MORE: WHO Declares Health Emergency on Polio

The WHO's global effort to eradicate polio has relied heavily on the oral vaccine, because it's a liquid that can be eaily given to children orally, and it's cheaper. Plus, the oral vaccine, because it contains a weakened virus that can reproduce in the human gut, helped to reduce the volume of virus excreted in the feces, and thus lower the chances that others coming in contact with the feces could get infected.

But in places where polio infections were rampant, such as northern India, the oral vaccines didn't seem to be doing much good at reducing the burden of disease. Even when children were getting the recommended three doses, rates of infections remained high. "The transmission pressure was extremely high in these areas that were densely populated, had a high birth rate, poor sanitation and high rates of diarrhea," says Jafari. In those regions, it took an additional 10 to 12 vaccination campaigns—about one a month to provide children with additional doses on top of the recommended three doses—to finally control the disease and limit spread of the virus. It turns out that the immunity provided by the oral vaccine wanes over time.

In order to eradicate the disease, public health officials knew they had to do better. So they tested whether adding in the inactivated vaccine would help. And among 954 infants and children aged five years to 10 years who had already received several doses of oral vaccine, adding a shot of the inactivated vaccine did help them to shed less virus compared to those who received another dose of the oral vaccine.

PHOTOS: Endgame for an Enduring Disease? Pakistan's Fight Against Polio

With polio currently endemic in Pakistan, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, and the Syrian Arab Republic, the WHO declared the spread of polio a public health emergency of international concern, and issued temporary recommendations for all residents and long-term visitors to those countries to receive a dose of either the oral or inactivated vaccine before traveling out of the country. In other countries where polio has been found, such as in some sewage samples and fecal samples from residents in Israel, health officials have also advised residents living in those regions to receive a dose of inactivated polio vaccine in order to limit spread of the virus.

"The inactivated polio virus vaccine is becoming an important tool in preventing international spread of polio," says Jafari. Whenever outbreaks of the disease occur, health officials are now recommending that even vaccinated individuals who could be infected but not get sick, receive an additional shot of the inactivated vaccine in order to limit the amount of virus they shed and spread to others.

Here Are the 11 Best Celebrity Cameos on The Simpsons

Posted: 21 Aug 2014 10:59 AM PDT

The Simpsons still holds the Guinness World Record for having the most guest stars featured in a TV series, with more than 500 over 25 seasons. Take a look back at 11 of the best celebrity cameos on the show.

Hollywood Stars Say Thanks But No Thanks to Russia

Posted: 21 Aug 2014 10:56 AM PDT

On Aug. 14, the actor Steven Seagal arrived at Russia's premier weapons expo and, in the company of several arms dealers, strolled to a display of automatic rifles. A crowd of reporters and onlookers gathered around to watch as he handled one of the weapons, some even climbing on top of a military vehicle in order to get a better look. Standing next to Seagal, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin then offered his thanks to the American guest and, given the state of affairs between their countries, acknowledged the costs of Seagal’s apparently undiminished affection for Russia. "A lot of people criticize him at home," Rogozin told the crowd. "It is not an easy time for him right now."

The words of sympathy were not misplaced. It is a challenging time for Western celebrities who have made a habit of visiting Russia, either for pleasure or profit. Since President Vladimir Putin annexed the Ukrainian region of Crimea in March, the United States and the European Union have imposed sanctions on members of the Russian elite, including Rogozin, who oversees Russia’s military-industrial complex—and anyone who does business with the targeted officials risks being sanctioned as well. But for Western celebrities the more immediate danger of a visit to Russia is the damage it could do to a star’s career, says Samuel Aroutiounian, the leading go-between for Russians seeking to hire Hollywood stars to attend events in Russia.

In the decade he has spent in this business, working as a celebrity talent broker for a New York City-based agency called Platinum Rye, Aroutiounian says it’s never been more difficult to line up appearances in Russia, not even basic endorsement deals with Russian companies. The offer of bigger paychecks—which usually range from five to seven figures, depending on the caliber of the star and the outrageousness of the event—has not done much to change their minds. "These people are already super rich," he says of the celebrities. "So they're much more concerned about not killing their careers." And in the current political climate, he says, "They don't know what will happen to them when they come back home, you know? They will take a lot of heat."

Even a year ago this was not an issue. The growth in the Russian market for Hollywood movies, as well as what had been gradual improvements in the country's image in the West, had helped persuade some of the biggest names in Hollywood, like Robert De Niro and Jeremy Irons, to make appearances in Russia in the last few years. The local advertising market proved enticing enough in 2010 for Bruce Willis to do a series of ads for a Russian lender called Trust Bank. (In his TV commercials, Willis is shown getting ready to jump out of a speeding van during a car chase when his cell phone rings. “Hello,” he says, “this is Trust Bank, how can I help you?”)

Later that year, a Russian charity asked Aroutiounian to bring as many stars as possible to its gala in St. Petersburg, failing to mention that Putin would use it as a chance to make his musical debut. “I just brought whoever was available," the broker recalls. "It was winter in St. Petersburg, so for some people it was too cold. Other people had family time, because it was around Christmas.” When Putin got on the stage to sing, wearing a black suit with an open collar, a whole stable of Hollywood celebrities stood up to applaud his rendition of “Blueberry Hill”, including Kevin Costner, Goldie Hawn, Kurt Russell, Vincent Cassel and Monica Belucci. "It was one of those moments," Aroutiounian says, "when even I was, like, 'Wow, is this really happening?'” (In the clip of Putin's performance, which has been viewed nearly four million times on YouTube, Aroutiounian stands next to a cheerfully applauding Sharon Stone.)

Like Putin's many other Hollywood-flavored appearances—including the times he went to watch martial arts with Jean-Claude Van Damme—the “Blueberry Hill” stunt did not merely serve to indulge his vanity. It also helped demonstrate to his electorate and to his foreign detractors that Russia was not a pariah state. It showed that its leader, for all his public posturing with weapons and heavy machinery, wanted to be liked, and without the applause and the acceptance of the international beau monde, his charisma would come up a little short.

Until the events of this year, many American stars saw little problem with their role in this equation, says Howard Bragman, a long-time Hollywood publicist. "Most of the young stars today have no idea what the Cold War is or was, unless they did a movie about it," he says. "Russia just doesn’t leave the same taste in their mouths that it does for people who are older." The only downside, he says, is when stars get mixed up in politics that their handlers failed to warn them about, as in the infamous case of Hillary Swank.

In 2011, the two-time Oscar-winning actress went to the Russian region of Chechnya, where she had been hired to celebrate the birthday of its Kremlin-appointed ruler, Ramzan Kadyrov. The resulting outcry from human rights organizations, which have criticized Kadyrov’s record, prompted Swank to apologize for having graced the occasion with her presence. "Shame on me," she said on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, promising to give her six-figure paycheck for the engagement to charity. “The bottom line is that I should know where I’m going, and do better research."

Aroutiounian, speaking by phone from Los Angeles, says the pitfalls of the Swank affair now apply not only to Chechnya but to the rest of Russia as well. "Everybody knows what happened when Hillary Swank went to Russia," he says. "Since Russia is basically in a war right now, everybody is laying low."

Well, not everybody. There are some American actors who still visit Russia. Mickey Rourke, who came to Red Square on Aug. 11 to buy a T-shirt imprinted with Putin’s face, called the Russian President a “real gentleman,” but added that his primary interest in the motherland was his Russian girlfriend. Seagal took things a bit further. Before touring the arms market on Aug. 14, he became the first American celebrity to visit Crimea since its annexation, giving a performance with his blues band in the city of Sevastopol. Hugging it out afterward with the leader of the Russian biker gang who organized the concert, Seagal declared, "I am Russian," referring to his Russian ancestry. The crowd went wild, though the statement was nothing new for Seagal. He has long expressed his admiration for Russia and praised what he calls its "wonderful" leadership, and the crisis in Ukraine has apparently done nothing to change his mind.

It has, however, obliged him to take more criticism than usual for his visits to Russia, and it seems to be getting him down. In a statement published on his website on Aug. 13, he said he was “once again deeply saddened” by the Western coverage of his concert in Crimea. “Sadly,” he wrote, “we live in a world where any form of innocence can be twisted for sensational headlines and maybe dark political motives." Seeing that need to defend his innocence after another appearance in Russia, other stars could be forgiven for simply choosing to stay away.

T.I. and Skylar Grey Lament America’s Culture of Violence on Powerful ‘New National Anthem’

Posted: 21 Aug 2014 10:45 AM PDT

In the wake of the ongoing chaos sparked by the fatal shooting of unarmed teen Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO., rapper T.I. has released a politically charged new track. The song, titled “New National Anthem,” serves as a sprawling rumination addressing police brutality, systemic racism, gun culture and a laundry list of other social problems currently plaguing the U.S.

T.I. tapped songstress Skylar Grey for the solemn hook: “Home of the brave and free / Free just to murder me / Land of the beautiful / Cursed by the hate we throw / Is this the new national anthem?” The rapper posted a snippet of the track on his Instagram, saying “I know dis may ruffle some feathers…. But my people need to hear this…. BAD!!!” Earlier this week, he posted an open letter asserting that “America has created a monster.”

Read the full lyrics of “New National Anthem” here, and listen below:

 

Here’s How Long It Will Take You to Watch Every Simpsons Episode

Posted: 21 Aug 2014 10:31 AM PDT

The cable channel FXX started airing every single episode of The Simpsons back-to-back-to-back on Thursday, 522 episodes through 25 seasons that won’t end until Sept. 1. When news broke that FXX was releasing all 25 seasons of The Simpsons via its site and app, TIME critic James Poniewozik proclaimed: “Hello, Simpsons World. Goodbye, the rest of your life.”

But what if you were to attempt this feat of binge-watching without commercials? Well, if you were to watch all 552 of the 22-minute episodes (sans ads) back-to-back, you would only need to say goodbye to a mere 12,144 minutes of your life. That translates to a more digestible 202 hours and 24 minutes, which breaks down to just under eight-and-a-half days.

Without sleep, that is, and not counting the movie.

Should We Forgive Marvel for That Awful Spider-Woman Cover ?

Posted: 21 Aug 2014 10:16 AM PDT

Oh, Marvel, we had such high hopes.

In recent months Marvel has announced that a woman will wield Thor’s hammer for the foreseeable future and revealed at the “Women of Marvel” panel at San Diego Comic-Con that there would be a new Spider-Woman comic series come November. Female fans rejoiced that major characters in the Marvel universe would finally look like them. It was a smart business move for the comic book company: 47% of comic fans are female, and women make up 62% of the Facebook fans of female comic characters (including Black Widow, Elektra and She-Hulk), according to Comics Beat.

But after building up so much good will with the ladies, they had to go and screw it up.

This week, Marvel released to Comic Book Resources the alternate cover (presumably for promotional purposes) for Spider-Woman No. 1. In the picture, the superheroine is in a…ahem…compromising position. As The Mary Sue notes, the (physically impossible?) pose—bottom up—is familiar to anyone who has read erotic comic books. More importantly, there’s no way that is an efficient method of climbing that rooftop. And what kind of material clings to a posterior like that? When asked to comment, Marvel declined.

I get it: superheroes wear Spandex and a lot of excitable teenage boys read these comic books. But this cover takes the sex-factor to a new extreme, totally alienating those 47% of comic book fans I mentioned earlier. A male hero would never be placed in the same physical position. The man who drew the cover is known for his erotic style, which begs the question: why hire him to draw a major character to whom female fans are supposed to be able to relate?

And courting those female fans means big bucks. Studios are increasingly relying on comic books as source material for summer blockbusters, and studies have shown that movies with empowered female characters do better at the box office. That, and the success of films like The Hunger Games, Divergent and Lucy, suggest that a female superhero film will do well. As Marvel develops more female characters, it’s not just about comic books: movie ticket sales are also on the line.

Sony just inked a deal with Marvel Comics to put out a female-led superhero movie based on a character from the Spider-Man universe (like, I don’t know, Spider-Woman?). This may have been an alternate cover, but it’s launched 1,000 think pieces, the conclusion of which has been: “This is what happens when men draw female characters.” If this is how Spider-Woman is envisioned for the comics, female fans shouldn’t get their hopes up for the movie version.

Kevin Feige, the head of Marvel Studios, recently said that he thought there ought to be a female superhero film. And yet he hasn’t green-lit one, despite the fact that fans are practically begging for a Black Widow movie starring Scarlett Johansson—a spinoff from the Avengers franchise. Perhaps he’s waiting to see how Sony and Marvel’s yet-to-be-named super-heroine will do first, which is why drawings like this one matter.

So do better, Marvel.

Millennials Are Selfish and Entitled and Helicopter Parents Are to Blame

Posted: 21 Aug 2014 09:49 AM PDT

It's natural to resent younger Americans—they're younger!—but we're on the verge of a new generation gap that may make the nasty old fights between baby boomers and their "Greatest Generation" parents look like something out of a Norman Rockwell painting.

Seventy-one percent of American adults think of 18 to 29 year-olds—millennials, basically—as "selfish," and 65% of us think of them as "entitled." That's according to the latest Reason-Rupe Poll, a quarterly survey of 1,000 representative adult Americans.

If millennials are self-absorbed little monsters who expect the world to come to them and for their parents to clean up their rooms well into their twenties, we've got no one to blame but ourselves—especially the moms and dads among us.

Indeed, the same poll documents the ridiculous level of kid-coddling that has now become the new normal. More than two-thirds of us think there ought to be a law that kids as old as 9 should supervised while playing at a public park, which helps explain (though not justify) the arrest of a South Carolina mother who let her phone-enabled daughter play in a busy park while she worked at a nearby McDonald's. We think on average that kids should be 10 years old before they "are allowed to play in the front yard unsupervised." Unless you live on a traffic island or a war zone, that's just nuts.

It gets worse: We think that our precious bundles of joy should be 12 before they can wait alone in a car for five minutes on a cool day or walk to school without an adult, and that they should be 13 before they can be trusted to stay home alone. You'd think that kids raised on Baby Einstein DVDs should be a little more advanced than that.

Curiously, this sort of ridiculous hyper-protectiveness is playing out against a backdrop in which children are safer than ever. Students reporting bullying is one-third of what it was 20 years ago and, according to a study in JAMA Pediatrics, the past decade has seen massive declines in exposure to violence for kids. Out of 50 trends studied, summarize the authors, "there were 27 significant declines and no significant increases between 2003 and 2011. Declines were particularly large for assault victimization, bullying, and sexual victimization. There were also significant declines in the perpetration of violence and property crime."

There are surely many causes for the mainstreaming of helicopter parenting. Kids cost a hell of a lot to raise. The U.S. Department of Agriculture figures a child born in 2013 will set back middle-income parents about $245,000 until age 17 (and that's before college bills kick in). We're having fewer children, so we're putting fewer eggs in a smaller basket, so to speak. According to the Reason-Rupe poll, only 27% of adults thought the media were overestimating threats to the day-to-day safety of children, suggesting that 73% of us are suckers for sensationalistic news coverage that distorts reality (62% of us erroneously think that today's youth face greater dangers than previous generations). More kids are in institutional settings—whether preschool or school itself—at earlier ages, so maybe parents just assume someone will always be on call.

But whatever the reasons for our insistence that we childproof the world around us, this way madness lies. From King Lear to Mildred Pierce, classic literature (and basic common sense) suggests that coddling kids is no way to raise thriving, much less grateful, offspring. Indeed, quite the opposite. And with 58% of millennials calling themselves "entitled" and more than 70% saying they are "selfish," older Americans may soon be learning that lesson the hard way.

0 comments:

Post a Comment