Morris County's One & Only Ecocentric Blog

Morris County's One & Only Ecocentric Blog



Thursday, September 2, 2010

Five Reasons to Stop Saying "Good Job!"

By Alfie Kohn
Hang out at a playground, visit a school, or show up at a child’s birthday party, and there’s one phrase you can count on hearing repeatedly: "Good job!" Even tiny infants are praised for smacking their hands together ("Good clapping!"). Many of us blurt out these judgments of our children to the point that it has become almost a verbal tic.
Plenty of books and articles advise us against relying on punishment, from spanking to forcible isolation ("time out"). Occasionally someone will even ask us to rethink the practice of bribing children with stickers or food. But you’ll have to look awfully hard to find a discouraging word about what is euphemistically called positive reinforcement.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, the point here is not to call into question the importance of supporting and encouraging children, the need to love them and hug them and help them feel good about themselves. Praise, however, is a different story entirely. Here's why.
1. Manipulating children. Suppose you offer a verbal reward to reinforce the behavior of a two-year-old who eats without spilling, or a five-year-old who cleans up her art supplies. Who benefits from this? Is it possible that telling kids they’ve done a good job may have less to do with their emotional needs than with our convenience?
Rheta DeVries, a professor of education at the University of Northern Iowa, refers to this as "sugar-coated control." Very much like tangible rewards – or, for that matter, punishments – it’s a way of doing something to children to get them to comply with our wishes. It may be effective at producing this result (at least for a while), but it’s very different from working with kids – for example, by engaging them in conversation about what makes a classroom (or family) function smoothly, or how other people are affected by what we have done -- or failed to do. The latter approach is not only more respectful but more likely to help kids become thoughtful people.
The reason praise can work in the short run is that young children are hungry for our approval. But we have a responsibility not to exploit that dependence for our own convenience. A "Good job!" to reinforce something that makes our lives a little easier can be an example of taking advantage of children’s dependence. Kids may also come to feel manipulated by this, even if they can’t quite explain why.
2. Creating praise junkies. To be sure, not every use of praise is a calculated tactic to control children’s behavior. Sometimes we compliment kids just because we’re genuinely pleased by what they’ve done. Even then, however, it’s worth looking more closely. Rather than bolstering a child’s self-esteem, praise may increase kids’ dependence on us. The more we say, "I like the way you…." or "Good ______ing," the more kids come to rely on our evaluations, our decisions about what’s good and bad, rather than learning to form their own judgments. It leads them to measure their worth in terms of what will lead us to smile and dole out some more approval.
Mary Budd Rowe, a researcher at the University of Florida, discovered that students who were praised lavishly by their teachers were more tentative in their responses, more apt to answer in a questioning tone of voice ("Um, seven?"). They tended to back off from an idea they had proposed as soon as an adult disagreed with them. And they were less likely to persist with difficult tasks or share their ideas with other students.
In short, "Good job!" doesn’t reassure children; ultimately, it makes them feel less secure. It may even create a vicious circle such that the more we slather on the praise, the more kids seem to need it, so we praise them some more. Sadly, some of these kids will grow into adults who continue to need someone else to pat them on the head and tell them whether what they did was OK. Surely this is not what we want for our daughters and sons.
3. Stealing a child’s pleasure. Apart from the issue of dependence, a child deserves to take delight in her accomplishments, to feel pride in what she’s learned how to do. She also deserves to decide when to feel that way. Every time we say, "Good job!", though, we’re telling a child how to feel.
To be sure, there are times when our evaluations are appropriate and our guidance is necessary -- especially with toddlers and preschoolers. But a constant stream of value judgments is neither necessary nor useful for children’s development. Unfortunately, we may not have realized that "Good job!" is just as much an evaluation as "Bad job!" The most notable feature of a positive judgment isn’t that it’s positive, but that it’s a judgment. And people, including kids, don’t like being judged.
I cherish the occasions when my daughter manages to do something for the first time, or does something better than she’s ever done it before. But I try to resist the knee-jerk tendency to say, "Good job!" because I don’t want to dilute her joy. I want her to share her pleasure with me, not look to me for a verdict. I want her to exclaim, "I did it!" (which she often does) instead of asking me uncertainly, "Was that good?"
4. Losing interest. "Good painting!" may get children to keep painting for as long as we keep watching and praising. But, warns Lilian Katz, one of the country’s leading authorities on early childhood education, "once attention is withdrawn, many kids won’t touch the activity again." Indeed, an impressive body of scientific research has shown that the more we reward people for doing something, the more they tend to lose interest in whatever they had to do to get the reward. Now the point isn’t to draw, to read, to think, to create – the point is to get the goody, whether it’s an ice cream, a sticker, or a "Good job!"
In a troubling study conducted by Joan Grusec at the University of Toronto, young children who were frequently praised for displays of generosity tended to be slightly less generous on an everyday basis than other children were. Every time they had heard "Good sharing!" or "I’m so proud of you for helping," they became a little less interested in sharing or helping. Those actions came to be seen not as something valuable in their own right but as something they had to do to get that reaction again from an adult. Generosity became a means to an end.
Does praise motivate kids? Sure. It motivates kids to get praise. Alas, that’s often at the expense of commitment to whatever they were doing that prompted the praise.
5. Reducing achievement. As if it weren’t bad enough that "Good job!" can undermine independence, pleasure, and interest, it can also interfere with how good a job children actually do. Researchers keep finding that kids who are praised for doing well at a creative task tend to stumble at the next task – and they don’t do as well as children who weren’t praised to begin with.
Why does this happen? Partly because the praise creates pressure to "keep up the good work" that gets in the way of doing so. Partly because their interest in what they’re doing may have declined. Partly because they become less likely to take risks – a prerequisite for creativity – once they start thinking about how to keep those positive comments coming.
More generally, "Good job!" is a remnant of an approach to psychology that reduces all of human life to behaviors that can be seen and measured. Unfortunately, this ignores the thoughts, feelings, and values that lie behind behaviors. For example, a child may share a snack with a friend as a way of attracting praise, or as a way of making sure the other child has enough to eat. Praise for sharing ignores these different motives. Worse, it actually promotes the less desirable motive by making children more likely to fish for praise in the future.

*

Once you start to see praise for what it is – and what it does – these constant little evaluative eruptions from adults start to produce the same effect as fingernails being dragged down a blackboard. You begin to root for a child to give his teachers or parents a taste of their own treacle by turning around to them and saying (in the same saccharine tone of voice), "Good praising!"
Still, it’s not an easy habit to break. It can seem strange, at least at first, to stop praising; it can feel as though you’re being chilly or withholding something. But that, it soon becomes clear, suggests that we praise more because we need to say it than because children need to hear it. Whenever that’s true, it’s time to rethink what we’re doing.
What kids do need is unconditional support, love with no strings attached. That’s not just different from praise – it’s the opposite of praise. "Good job!" is conditional. It means we’re offering attention and acknowledgement and approval for jumping through our hoops, for doing things that please us.
This point, you’ll notice, is very different from a criticism that some people offer to the effect that we give kids too much approval, or give it too easily. They recommend that we become more miserly with our praise and demand that kids "earn" it. But the real problem isn’t that children expect to be praised for everything they do these days. It’s that we’re tempted to take shortcuts, to manipulate kids with rewards instead of explaining and helping them to develop needed skills and good values.
So what’s the alternative? That depends on the situation, but whatever we decide to say instead has to be offered in the context of genuine affection and love for who kids are rather than for what they’ve done. When unconditional support is present, "Good job!" isn’t necessary; when it’s absent, "Good job!" won’t help.
If we’re praising positive actions as a way of discouraging misbehavior, this is unlikely to be effective for long. Even when it works, we can’t really say the child is now "behaving himself"; it would be more accurate to say the praise is behaving him. The alternative is to work with the child, to figure out the reasons he’s acting that way. We may have to reconsider our own requests rather than just looking for a way to get kids to obey. (Instead of using "Good job!" to get a four-year-old to sit quietly through a long class meeting or family dinner, perhaps we should ask whether it’s reasonable to expect a child to do so.)
We also need to bring kids in on the process of making decisions. If a child is doing something that disturbs others, then sitting down with her later and asking, "What do you think we can do to solve this problem?" will likely be more effective than bribes or threats. It also helps a child learn how to solve problems and teaches that her ideas and feelings are important. Of course, this process takes time and talent, care and courage. Tossing off a "Good job!" when the child acts in the way we deem appropriate takes none of those things, which helps to explain why "doing to" strategies are a lot more popular than "working with" strategies.
And what can we say when kids just do something impressive? Consider three possible responses:
* Say nothing. Some people insist a helpful act must be "reinforced" because, secretly or unconsciously, they believe it was a fluke. If children are basically evil, then they have to be given an artificial reason for being nice (namely, to get a verbal reward). But if that cynicism is unfounded – and a lot of research suggests that it is – then praise may not be necessary.
* Say what you saw. A simple, evaluation-free statement ("You put your shoes on by yourself" or even just "You did it") tells your child that you noticed. It also lets her take pride in what she did. In other cases, a more elaborate description may make sense. If your child draws a picture, you might provide feedback – not judgment – about what you noticed: "This mountain is huge!" "Boy, you sure used a lot of purple today!"
If a child does something caring or generous, you might gently draw his attention to the effect of his action on the other person: "Look at Abigail’s face! She seems pretty happy now that you gave her some of your snack." This is completely different from praise, where the emphasis is on how you feel about her sharing
* Talk less, ask more. Even better than descriptions are questions. Why tell him what part of his drawing impressed you when you can ask him what he likes best about it? Asking "What was the hardest part to draw?" or "How did you figure out how to make the feet the right size?" is likely to nourish his interest in drawing. Saying "Good job!", as we’ve seen, may have exactly the opposite effect.
This doesn’t mean that all compliments, all thank-you’s, all expressions of delight are harmful. We need to consider our motives for what we say (a genuine expression of enthusiasm is better than a desire to manipulate the child’s future behavior) as well as the actual effects of doing so. Are our reactions helping the child to feel a sense of control over her life -- or to constantly look to us for approval? Are they helping her to become more excited about what she’s doing in its own right – or turning it into something she just wants to get through in order to receive a pat on the head
It’s not a matter of memorizing a new script, but of keeping in mind our long-term goals for our children and watching for the effects of what we say. The bad news is that the use of positive reinforcement really isn’t so positive. The good news is that you don’t have to evaluate in order to encourage.

Copyright © 2001 by Alfie Kohn. This article may be downloaded, reproduced, and distributed without permission as long as each copy includes this notice along with citation information (i.e., name of the periodical in which it originally appeared, date of publication, and author's name). Permission must be obtained in order to reprint this article in a published work or in order to offer it for sale in any form. Please write to the address indicated on the Contact page at www.alfiekohn.org.

Suck On This - NJ Senator Says No

RICHMOND, Va. — Galen Kipe hasn't smoked a cigarette in more than three months.
He couldn't kick his habit of 17 years with nicotine patches or gum. He finally put away his Marlboro menthols for good by swapping them for electronic cigarettes, which look like the real thing and give him his nicotine fix but do not contain tobacco.
"It's the closest thing to what I was doing before," the 34-year-old steelworker from Asheboro, N.C., said. "I'm still getting the nicotine, but I don't feel like I'm getting any kind of bad side effects. It can't be any worse than actual cigarettes."
As they become more popular, the battery-powered cigarettes have become the center of a fight over how risky they are compared with traditional smokes, whether they're legal and, if they are, how they should be regulated.
E-cigarettes are made of plastic and metal and heat a liquid nicotine solution in a disposable cartridge, creating vapor that the "smoker" inhales. A tiny light on the tip even glows like a real cigarette.
Nearly 46 million Americans smoke traditional cigarettes. About 40 percent try to quit cold turkey or with other nicotine replacements each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But unlike patches or gums, e-smokes operate in a legal gray area.
The Food and Drug Administration and public health groups have sounded the alarm, saying they contain dangerous chemicals and are being marketed to children, and the federal agency has halted shipments of e-cigarettes at ports nationwide.
Some sellers of e-cigarettes sued the FDA last year after the agency instructed customs officials to refuse entry of shipments into the U.S. A federal judge ruled that the FDA can't stop those shipments, saying the agency had overstepped its authority. The FDA appealed, and won a stay of that ruling, pending oral arguments that are set to begin next month.
The FDA claims it has the authority to regulate e-cigarettes as drug-delivery devices, which would require proving — probably through expensive clinical trials — that they are safe and effective as a stop-smoking aid.
E-cigarette sellers would like to see them regulated as a tobacco product, which would follow the same restrictions as traditional cigarettes and tobacco products.
Several states have tried to ban the sale of the products. A leading distributor has agreed to halt sales in Oregon following a lawsuit filed by the state. And Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J., also wrote to the FDA in March asking that e-cigarettes be taken off the market until they can be proven safe by the agency.
Users and distributors say e-cigarettes address both the nicotine addiction and the behavioral aspects of smoking — the holding of the cigarette, the puffing, seeing the smoke come out and the hand motion — without the more than 4,000 chemicals found in a traditional cigarette.
"When you're talking about a product that's essentially Russian roulette, and the alternative is much, much better, you can imagine they're pretty happy," said Jason Healy, the president of Charlotte, N.C., electronic cigarette maker Blu Cigs. "Up until e-cigs, there was quit or die."
First marketed worldwide in 2002 as an alternative to regular cigarettes, e-cigarettes didn't become easily available in the U.S. until late 2006. Now, the industry has grown from the thousands in 2006 to several million worldwide, with estimated 20,000 to 30,000 new e-smokers every week, according to Healy, whose company is expected to have $30 million in sales this year.
A starter kit, including flavor cartridges, costs about $60. Additional cartridges, equivalent to about 150 cigarettes, are about $25. The cartridges include flavor and different levels of nicotine, or no nicotine at all.
Many e-smokers like Kipe say they have noticed they can smell and taste better and sleep more soundly, plus their clothes, car and breath don't smell like cigarette smoke.
Still, the FDA has said its tests found the liquid in electronic cigarettes contains substances known to be toxic to humans — besides nicotine, which is itself toxic in large doses — as well as carcinogens that occur naturally in the tobacco in cigarettes. Most e-cigarettes are imported from overseas.
However, the level of those carcinogens was comparable to those found in nicotine replacement therapy like gum and patches, because the nicotine in all of the products is extracted from tobacco, said Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health.
"It's kind of deceptive to say, 'Oh, my God, there's carcinogens in there,'" Siegel said. "The importance is what level of carcinogens. It turns out that the levels are so low that they are 1,400 times lower than in (regular) cigarettes."
Christian Berkey, CEO of Johnson Creek Smoke Juice, a Wisconsin company that makes the "juice" for e-cigarettes, said its products have only seven ingredients, none of which has ever been deemed unfit for human consumption.
"There's no combustion, and that's what it really comes down to," said Berkey, who has asked the FDA to test its products and is awaiting results.
And Siegel said that while e-cigarettes haven't been studied in clinical trials, the current evidence is "sufficient to conclude that these products are much safer than smoking."
Berkey and Healy said they are fine working with the FDA to regulate the products.
"(The FDA) should be regulating it in a way that really allows the potential of the product to be realized rather than a way that just takes it off the market completely and puts an end to the possibility of what really could be a lifesaving product for many smokers," Siegel said.

Another Oil Rig Explosion Off the La. Coast


An offshore oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico on Thursday, west of the site of the April blast that caused the massive oil spill.
A commercial helicopter company reported the blast around 9:30 a.m. CDT Thursday, Coast Guard Petty Officer Casey Ranel said. Seven helicopters, two airplanes and four boats were en route to the site, about 80 miles south of Vermilion Bay along the central Louisiana coast.
The Coast Guard said initial reports indicated all 13 crew members from the rig were in the water. One was injured, but there were no deaths.
The platform owned by Mariner Energy is in about 2,500 feet of water, the Coast Guard said, and was not currently producing.
About 206 million gallons of oil from an undersea well spilled into the Gulf after BP's Deepwater Horizon rig exploded April 20, killing 11 workers.

Turn it Off! Drought Watch Issued for Morris County

TRENTON - Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Bob Martin today issued a drought watch for the Northeast region of the State, asking residents of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris and Passaic counties to voluntarily conserve water due to continued hot and dry conditions and increasing concerns about reservoir levels.
The DEP has observed serious drops in some reservoir levels, especially the North Jersey District Water Supply Commission’s Wanaque and Monksville reservoirs, and United Water Company’s Oradell reservoir. Scattered thunderstorms may provide some welcome relief today and tomorrow but are not expected to appreciably improve the water supply situation.
A drought watch is a response to deteriorating water supply conditions, with a goal of raising public awareness and formally alerting all water suppliers in the region of the situation, to help preserve existing supplies and balance reservoir storage in the region.
The DEP is not issuing a formal drought warning at this time, which could initiate mandatory steps such as water transfers between regional water supply systems. Instead, the DEP is asking residents to be aware of the situation and use water more carefully, especially when it comes to lawn watering and other unessential uses. The goal at this time is to moderate water demand through voluntary conservation.
“We are asking residents in these five affected counties to keep watch on their water use, to voluntarily reduce unessential water use due to a rapid decline in some reservoir levels,’’ said Commissioner Martin. “Using water responsibly by voluntarily taking steps such as limiting lawn and landscaping water, and cutting back on at-home car washing, could save millions of gallons of water daily.’’
“We have been monitoring this situation very closely and have determined that this course of action, to initiate a drought watch, is now appropriate,’’ said John Plonski, Assistant DEP Commissioner for Water Resource Management.
While water demands are generally below peak levels experienced during the extremely hot July 4th weekend, which prompted Commissioner Martin to issue a statewide water use alert, demand remains higher than normal due to persistently warm, dry weather.
Rainfall has been sporadic, with accumulations varying greatly across the state. For example, some areas received more than an inch of rain last Sunday while others got virtually none.
Here are some suggested water conservation tips:
  • Do not over-water lawns and landscaping. Two times per week for 30 minutes in morning or late evening typically is sufficient. Use a hose with a hand-held nozzle to water flowers and shrubs.
  • To save water at home, fix leaky faucets and pipes.
  • Turn off the faucet while brushing teeth and shaving.
  • Run washing machines and dishwashers only when full.
  • Use a broom to sweep the sidewalk, rather than a hose.
More information on water conservation and water supply status can be found at www.njdrought.org/ideas.html and www.njdrought.org/status.html

Don’t Sell New Jersey’s Water Supply Short

July 27, 2010
Contact: Jeff Tittel, NJ Sierra Club Director, 609-558-9100

New Jersey should be deeply concerned with proposals for shale drilling and hydro fracking in the Delaware River Basin. The Delaware River is the source of drinking water for three million New Jersey residents. Currently, the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) has a moratorium in place on new wells, however, we are concerned with the position New Jersey is taking on this issue.
In a letter sent July 13 to the DRBC, DEP Commissioner Bob Martin makes a number of troubling assertions regarding fracking in the Marcellus Shale. In the letter, Commissioner Martin says he believes Pennsylvania should have primacy over the rules and regulations on fracking in the Marcellus shale. However, fracking will have serious impacts on the Delaware River, which provides drinking water for both New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
“What happens in Pennsylvania affects the entire river basin, especially New Jersey. Pennsylvania should not have primacy over decisions impacting the river basin,” New Jersey Sierra Club Director Jeff Tittel said. “The DRBC was created to regulate water for the region and these decisions should not be made by one state. New Jersey plays a very important role in the DRBC and New Jersey should be standing up for its own interests, not Pennsylvania’s.”
Pennsylvania has some of the worst water problems in the nation that they repeatedly fail to deal with. It has fought against strengthening standards and eliminating pollution from waterways. Pennsylvania is constantly opposing land use regulations that protect water and pushing for more dumping. Furthermore, Pennsylvania is leasing public lands for well drilling and therefore has a conflict of interest because they are looking to make money through fracking.
“Pennsylvania has consistently done a poor job protecting its water. They do not need to be in the business of protecting New Jersey’s drinking water,” Tittel said.
Hydro fracking is the process of extracting natural gas from wells thousands of feet deep. This process involves the use of many chemicals, which are mixed with water and injected into the ground. The average frack uses between one million and six million gallons of water each frack and many get fracked three or four times before going into production. Additionally, each frack needs maintenance fracking afterwards.
Fracking fluid is water mixed with numerous chemicals, many which are hazardous and toxic, including benzene, components of salt, and other volatile organic chemicals. This process can contaminate streams and rivers through the discharge of fracking fluids or accidental spills. Much of the fracking fluid injected into the ground does not get removed and could contaminate our aquifers, posing a serious threat to our ground water.
Each Marcellus shale well will destroy 15 acres of forest and require a half mile of roadway. There are currently over 10,000 wells seeking permits. The entire Delaware River Basin could see as many as 50,000 wells. This could result in the removal of a million acres of woodlands and farmland and the construction of 30,000 miles of road and pipelines. The runoff and pollution will cause irreparable damage to the Delaware River Watershed. Thanks to Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force and the Bush Administration’s changes to the Safe Drinking Water Act, fracking fluids are now exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act. The largest company looking to drill in the Marcellus Shale happens to be Halliburton.
In his letter, Commissioner Martin also says he wants the DRBC to complete its rules on fracking by the end of September. Because fracking is a very complex issue with a tremendous amount of environmental impacts, the Sierra Club believes we should not be rushing to put rules in place without a complete understanding of the impacts this process will have on the Delaware River in New Jersey. The Commissioner’s letter and recent actions, including the approval of the Tenaco gas pipeline through the Highlands to transport gas from the Marcellus Shale, are cause for serious concern regarding fracking and the quality of our drinking water.
Thanks to Congressman Rush Holt, the EPA has just received public money to study the impacts of fracking on our water. We believe it would be prudent to wait for the results of that review before moving forward with drilling. Rules should not be put in place until the EPA releases its study that assesses the impacts Marcellus Shale drilling will have on water quality and quantity.
The DRBC currently has a temporary and incomplete moratorium on fracking that will expire before the EPA’s impact study is released and full regulations are in place. The moratorium does not include previously permitted drilling projects or related projects like Stone Energy’s application to withdraw 700,000 million gallons per day from a major tributary. The state of Delaware opposed this project but New Jersey supported Pennsylvania in approving it.
The Delaware River is a critical natural resource that not only provides drinking water for millions but is also an important recreational resource. Many people come to the region to kayak, boat, tube and enjoy various water activities. Because of this, the river is the center of a very strong economy for river towns like Lambertville and Frenchtown. If the Delaware River is polluted, it will destroy not just the water, but the economies of these towns as well.
“We do not want to see the Gulf of Mexico in Pennsylvania,” Tittel said. “There have been a series of spills, explosions and even deaths with Marcellus Shale drilling already in Pennsylvania and other places. We’re concerned that unless this is strictly and properly regulated, what has happened to the Gulf of Mexico could happen to the Delaware River.”

Modern-Day Slavery at Hair Braiding Salons Driven By Greed

By Lynnette Khalfani-Cox on Jul 14th 2010

A New Jersey man from the West African nation of Togo is behind bars after forcing at least 20 women to work without pay in hair braiding salons. According to the Associated Press, 47-year-old Lassissi Afolabi, a citizen of the Togolese Republic, was sentenced to more than 24 years in prison after he admitted to smuggling Togolese women and girls into the U.S. from 2002 through 2007 and making the young women, in effect, modern day slaves at hair salons throughout Newark and East Orange, NJ.

The Star Ledger reported that the women suffered beatings, psychological torture and sexual abuse. A federal judge in Newark described Afolabi's crimes as "horrific" and ordered him to also repay his victims $3.9 million in restitution.

But Afolabi didn't act alone; he had help. His ex wife, Akouavi Kpade Afolabi, and her son were also convicted in the scheme. The former wife will be sentenced in September for her wrongdoing; her son has been given 55 months prison time. The trio snuck the women into the U.S. using fake visas, authorities said.

I imagine that wasn't the only fraud used in this scam. Afolabi and his partners in crime probably wooed those unsuspecting women with promises of money and a shot at the good life in America. One can only imagine how that American Dream turned into a nightmare for the women who were forced to toil long hours day after day -- only to get abused physically, emotionally and financially.

Ironically, from the 16th to the 18th century, when Europeans came to Africa's shores searching for slaves, Togo and the neighboring region were such hotbeds of slave trading that the area earned the nickname "The Slave Coast." Sadly, this case shows that slavery apparently remains an issue for both Togo and the United States. Although slavery has long since been outlawed in America, human rights groups say that the heinous practice of slavery nevertheless still exists in the shadows. Perhaps that's because, no matter where you go worldwide, some people are so greedy and unfeeling that they'll do anything for a buck.