Got a coupon?

My wife heard a story on the news the other day about a few entrepenurs who have created a service of clipping coupons for people for a small fee. My first thought was "my goodness people are getting lazy" (well actually my thoughts had a few more colorful terms). But then I remembered my mother's cousin who was a coupon collector extraordinariness (I'm not sure how else to describe her).

I don't remember how she started, but, as a NYC school teacher, sometimes laid off, in the 1970s, she, like my mother, also a laid off teacher, was always involved in various money saving schemes (all legit). One of them revolved around store coupons, much more popular then than now. However, while some people were just content to create their shopping lists around the week's coupons, and shop at various stores based on the sales flier, her cousin took it to the next level. She used to trade coupons with other people. Not just a few, a lot. When I had a paper route and had extra coupons (the comics and coupon sections were delivered to our house on Tuesday and we'd sit on it until the weekend, as our weekly counts varied, we were usually a few over), my mother would collect them and then drive us over to her cousin's (they lived less than a mile from us) to drop them off. If they weren't home, we'd leave them in their mailbox (which usually led to jokes from my cousins, her children who were my age, at school the next morning).

The cousin was a pro with the coupons. One day, when I was older and working as a cashier at the neighborhood's supermarket, she came in with so many coupons that the store actually ended up owing her money at the end of the order. The scary thing was that, unlike the coupon ladies who used to try to scam the store by presenting coupons for items that they hadn't purchased, her purchases were real. I can't imagine the time she spent on this but it was apparently time well spent as she and her husband were able to retire comfortably in their mid 50s. Of course, she could have skipped all this by being a NJ school superintendent, but I'm wandering off topic.

I write this as I am about to head off to the supermarket with my shopping list. However, I just went through my newspapers (this one and the NY Times) and few, if any, store coupons. I have to admit that there are few coupons I clip regularly anyway as I find that the discounts offered by the coupons pale compare to the price I pay for the store brand version of the same item. Still, as I see our weekly grocery bill rising on a regular basis, I wouldn't mind seeing more coupons. Meantime, I'm getting ready to dust off our old shopping cart so we can walk to the market in lieu of driving, but that's a story for another day. As to my mom's cousin; she's gone now and I had forgotten about the coupons until it was mentioned at her funeral, but she was definitely a woman ahead of her time.

I should have been a NJ school superintendent

Decades ago, one of my cousins took one of those what career should I go into testsbefore going to college. The aptitude test suggested she become a teacher. Her mother, a by then two decade veteran of the NYC school school system said, in so many words "no" (as I recall she was quite emotional about it) for various reasons such as available career opportunities, but she was most adamant about the pay and suggested my cousin find an alternate, more lucrative career. Today my cousin is a stay at home mom with her own accounting business and is doing quite nicely. However, it appears that if my cousin had only become a NJ school superintendent. Whatever the outcome of the Keansburg debacle turns out to be, we should thank the Keansburg Board of Education for giving us a lesson in NJ corruption 101.

This is the type of corruption that is killing this state. No laws were probably broken and the contract allowing the 36 veteran to retire form a teaching/ supervising career with a severance package of over $500,000 ($740,000 when you add in her unused sick and vacation time) is probably legal. Even if various governments are successful into shaming her into giving up some of what she is contractually obligated to receive, she will still walk away with a nice chunk of change, the same change that could've paid for a teacher for many years in one of her Abbott Schools. Of course, what do you expect when there are over 600 little school fiefdoms?

We the people are the ones who drank the kool-aid and think homerule is best. What a bunch of you know what. Some argue that it is good because you interact with your local government and maybe even know your local representative, allowing you to speak to a friend in lieu of a stranger. Again, a bunch of you know what. This is just a waste of taxpayer money that allows some to live off the public dollar, though not be on welfare, because we refuse to consolidate.

I grew up in Queens. My dad was friends with the local councilman. That didn't make a difference. Later, while in college, I worked at a local deli where the councilman was a regular customer. The deli was near an intersection where two major roads merged into one without a traffic light. It was the scene of many backups as a 3 lane road merged into one. I used to hear the owner and many of the customers beg for a traffic light to alleviate the situation. Nothing happened until the councilman was ling out of office. I was friends with the son of his replacement and friends with the son of his secretary. So later, when my elderly mother, who was disabled at the time, was having troubles getting around due to lack of curb cuts or handicapped accessible buses, she went to to our councilman. She received no special treatment and, frankly, that is the way it should be -- everyone treated fairly (outside of corruption).

Representative government is nice but there is something to be said for less government. It made no difference whether you were a friend or a stranger to our local representative; you were treated the same (though, in fairness there were corruption rumors surrounding the later councilman that some were more equal than others, but at least his alleged corruption didn't require the high taxes we see here in NJ). One mayor for 8M people, one school chief for 1M students and less than 50 council members, plus various aides and commissioners to run the entire city. So much better than the hodgepodge we have here in NJ, where each town has their own government(s) and entities that keep repeating each other's work. And when there was corruption, it was moreefficient thanks to the reduction of overhead -- just one bribe to a borough president accomplished what many payoffs to various low level politicians in NJ do. In the meantime, our local councilman did help take care of local problems, such as adding the occasionla traffic light or getting more police protection from time to time.

Anyone whose job it is to put the public's needs before an individual's should have been screaming over Keansberg school contract. Listening to the school board members defending their actions is pathetic -- well at least it would be if I heard them say something aside from asking the superintendent to sit down with them as if this caught them totally by surprise (most likely, the suprise was that the public found out). Now they have their moment of clarity? Where was it when they were drawing up the superintendent's contract (I can guess but then I might be sued for libel)? What is it with this state that seems to transform those who want to serve the public to those who want to create individual feifdoms to fatten their wallets? Those who argue that it's only fair that school administrators get big pensions by pointing out that corporations give their chiefs big packages fail to distinguish the difference between serving the public and running a business for profit. It's not the employee taking $100,000 out of a town's safe that is making it expensive to live in NJ, it is all the friends of friends who are legally taking the money out of taxpayer pockets through all too friendly contracts. And lawmakers only seem to care when it makes news.

My company is currently undergoing a restructuring. As a result of this restructuring some employees will be laid off. Their severance will be 2 weeks pay capped at 15 years of service (meaning 30 weeks of pay for the more veteran employees), plus whatever vacation time they've so far earned this year. While most of the laid off employees will take packages of $20-40k, I think there is one senior director who is taking advantage of this to retire so he might walk away with $75-100k. Why is he getting so much less then the Keansberg superintendent? Oh of course! He was foolish enough not to go into government service in NJ. Silly man.

Man, was the water cold

Over the weekend, I was emailing one of my cousins as we discussed our summer plans. Her family lives in the Washington, DC suburbs and is planning a trip to Cape May in about a month, we're thinking of a trip down there later in August). During one of the back and forths I noted that I would be logging off shortly to take my children to the community pool for the first time this summer season. She responded she took her children the day before to their pool and froze, but her children went in without a problem and had a great time. She signed off wondering when we got so old that we care about such a thing as an unheated pool (especially in May).

I laughed as I thought of my "older" cousin (by a few years, but our children are the same age) as my wife and I packed up our children and drove (we used to walk, but it's a little hard with an independent 3 year old so we splurged on what we figured was 15-20 cents worth of gas for our Civic and drove) to the pool. As we arrived, with an air temperature somewhere around 80, the lifeguard made an announcement that the water was 56F and that children in the main pool for over 30 minutes are in danger of getting hypothermia. Gulp. My wife, knowing I usually like it cold, laughed and wondered if I had finally found a temperature too cold for me. Heh heh.

A look around the pool showed only children swimming with adults just dangling their legs. As my wife took our 3 year old to the moderate kiddy pool, I suggested to our 7 year old that we do the same. He laughed and told me to hurry up so we could go swimming in the big pool. Gulp. My only hope is that we'll see one of his friends and he'll forget about me.

We get to the pool and I see my first bit of bad luck: none of his friends from the neighborhood are around. Uh oh. I sit on the edge of the pool and let my legs dangle. My son, with all the bravado of a 7 year old, just plunges right in. What happened to the shy kid who would never have done that? Soon, I'm getting splashed by some of the other children in the pool and decide to slide in. Since it was only 3 feet, the water was only up to my swimming trunks.

As I adjusted to the cold, my son asked me when I would swim with him. As soon as I can feel my feet again I respond. I started walking to the deeper parts of the pool, letting the water slowly cover my body. After a time, I decided it was time to take the plunge, leaned forward and started swimming . It took my breath away, literally. By that I mean the water was so cold that I almost gasped as the icy water struck my face. Fortunately I remembered that I was under water and that would be a bad thing.

After a few trial laps (well, more like trial strokes) I felt ready to swim with my son. And we did swim, for all of 20 seconds, because at that point, his friends showed up and I was just a forgotten, frozen man on the side of the pool. I'm sure someday I'll appreciate this, but I was never so happy as I was when I got out of that pool and wrapped myself in a towel and slowly warmed up. By the way, the children stayed in for over 30 minutes and never once complained of being cold. The parents on the other hand .....

Happy Memorial Day

There aren't too many veterans in my family, and thankfully, at least as far as I know, nobody who died in war. My grandfathers were too young for WWI & too old for WWII. My dad and uncles were too young for WWII and Korea (well my dad might've gone at the tail end but he ended up being 4F), though some of their older cousins served in WWII. They were long past service age by time Vietnam really got intense. On my wife's side, she has a great uncle who served in WWII (he spent the war dropping bombs on Germany -- he has some good stories) and her father was in the Navy during Vietnam, but that was long before the fighting got intense so his worst wound was from a rough shore leave in Tokyo (and my mother-in-law still has the pearls he picked up). I had a few friends who would've gone to Iraq during the first Gulf War, but that ended before they were due to ship out.

This war, I know a few people who have actually served, but nobody close, so Memorial Day remains a holiday that is less than personal, except for the fact that it is to honor who gave their lives so I can type "[pick your own inflammatory political statement about your least favorite politician here]." Say what you will about where our nation is today, this is a liberty that should not be taken lightly. It is not difficult to imagine a world where the voices of democracy would've been snuffed out by now but for the work of fathers and grandfathers over 60 years ago. So for those who made the ultimate sacrifice in reminding us that freedom isn't free, thank you.
War sucks, plain and simple.

But what sucks even more is how we're treating our wounded veterans, returning from Iraq with injuries, both external and internal, that will affect them the rest of their lives. Our soldiers suffer mental anguish, and we do nothing. Our soldiers come home with wounds that will require them to be hospitalized for the rest of their lives and we make their families fight tooth and nail for just basic therapy in the hopes that the quality of their lives will be slightly improved. Actions speak louder than words, and our politicians have spoken.

Meanwhile, the top story this weekend seems to have been how high gas prices may keep some of us from lying on the beach this summer. Our "leaders," instead of arguing for improved health care for our veterans, aside from scoring political points one way or the other, seem to spend more time fighting for a gas tax holiday for the summer. Am I the only one who thinks our priorities are F'd up?

Whether you were for the Iraqi invasion or against it, one thing seems very clear; we're failing our vets and no one in power seems to really care. I don't mean giving speeches arguing for more care, I mean "we're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" speeches. We voted, through our representatives, to send our troops into combat. It seems to me that the least we can do is truly honor them and vote to take care of them when they come home. Yes, this might mean we have to sacrifice some of our money in increased taxes to cover this cost, but that's cheaper, to me, then what they have given up. They've sure done more for their country then most of the rest of us have done.

The Fifth Column

One of the great things about the United States is that I can express myself and criticize our government by expressing myself on a page like this without fear of retribution from government officials.

Born in the late 60s, my first real political memory is Watergate. I do not have many memories of the Ford administration (aside from the Daily News's "Drop Dead" front page). I recall the Carter years as one of gas lines and the hostage crisis. Later, I recall, during my 7th grade lunch period, the students counting down the minutes to the end of Carter's presidency, followed, 40 minutes, later by cheering students when the principal announced the Iranian embassy hostages were free. At the time, I thought the Republican party was king and the Democrats were wimps. While my left leaning, but far from liberal, parents, were upset by Reagan's budget cuts (and as New Yorkers that made sense since we were paying more in federal taxes then we were receiving in federal aid), I saw some of his moves as necessary to right a bloated government (at least as per my limited understanding of the time). Though too young to vote for President in 1984, my dad was appalled that I voted for Reagan over Mondale in my high school's class mock elections.

Today, I look at the Republicans of the 1980s and wonder what happened to them. The GOP points at Reagan's outspending the Soviet Union, and bringing democracy (or at least ending Communism) to Russia as a point of pride. However, the GOP is still living on the fumes of events, climaxing with the fall of the USSR, that occurred almost two decades ago.

When I look at the Republican party of today all I see is a party of incredible fiscal irresponsibility that will leave massive debts for me and my children. I see a party that is short sighted, refusing to invest in their own nation to ensure that we remain a strong super power in lieu of quick profits today. They lie about WMDs to grab some cheap oil from a guy, evil in his own right, but of no real harm to America, just because he was an annoying thorn in their side (sticks and stones ... ) who they were tired of. Worse, I see a party refuse to take care of the veterans whose lives were destroyed by their "oil war." I see a party unafraid to call un-patriotic anyone with the nerve to question them (and, to be fair, that was a bipartisan thing back in 2003), something that should be a basic part of a functioning democracy in our republic. When I think of the worse terrorist attack on the US, I see the Republicans in charge. I see a party happy to use the Constitution as toilet paper, harping and flaming the fears of average Americans to maintain their hold on power. I see a party happy to use torture on prisoners, despite the harm this may do to our own, captured soldiers, not to mention what that does to our image of ourselves as the "good guys."

Contrary to that, the Democrats seem to be the source of fiscal responsibility (I'm talking national level). They may raise taxes, but at least they don't leave as big a bill as the next guy. They even balanced the budget for a few years. More importantly, they at least show a little respect for civil rights.

I'm not a "liberal pinhead" by any means. I'm a socially liberal, fiscally conservative American citizen. And, as an American citizen, I can't vote for the fifth column Republicans any longer.The GOP needs to lose, and lose badly this fall. Cleaning house might be the only way they get the deadwood out. I don't agree with everything the Democrats stand for and, I realize, they are only slightly to the left of the GOP, beholden to many of the same corporations/supporters of the GOP. However, I will hold my nose and gladly vote Democratic down the line this fall in the national elections.

One of the great things about the United States is that I can express myself and criticize our government by expressing myself on a page like this without fear of retribution from government officials. I want it to remain that way for my children and grandchildren.

SUV: Stuck Until this Vehicle dies

Used car dealers are discovering what many drivers are already discovering: SUVs (which make sense to own if you live on a farm in a rural area, but little sense if you live in an urban area and are just driving to the mall) are gas guzzlers that few seem to want anymore. It seems that SUV owners who want to downgrade to a smaller vehicle are finding that they can't trade in their SUVs for any money -- dealers can't sell them so they don't want to buy them. That chuckling noise you hear in the background is our gas sipping Honda Civic, which we bought way back in the day when gas was hovering around a $1 a gallon and the dealer had a glut of those cars because people were buying SUVs.

In all seriousness, I feel a little sympathy for the SUV owners. With a growing family, we're finding our passenger cars (we also own a Mitsubishi Gallant) getting a little snug. It doesn't help our youngest is still in a car seat, meaning we can only fit two in the backseat of the Civic (a small child can fit in the Gallant's backseat fine). Take away the front passenger seat due to airbag dangers and we find we can offer very little in car pooling tradeoffs (on the plus side, we're never volunteered to be the carpooler), which is what I suspect led to, in part, parents buying SUVs. Back in the 1970s my parents had boats on wheels that could sit 4-6 kids easily. Of course, we didn't have to worry about airbags in that old Ford or Oldsmobile so the front seat was an option. It also helped that we weren't burdened with seatbelts, which didn't help my sister when our mother's 2 door Ford Falcon was rear ended and I went flying into the seatback and pushed it down onto my sister. My cousins had a huge station wagon that could easily cram 4 adults and 6 children into it for our trips to the city so my dad and my mother's cousin could take us in and out of various haunts in Chinatown (what is it with Jews and Chinese food anyway?), ignoring any place that had menus in English or, worse, took credit cards. Anyway, those boats got horrible gas mileage; my dad was happy if that old Ford got 10 MPG (he did a lot of city driving) and was thrilled when/if it got 17 MPG when we drove down to Florida each summer.

Rising gas prices and newer fuel economy standards put an end to those cars and, by the mid 80s, you'd be hard pressed to find a family sedan that fit more than 5 people comfortably (fortunately, by then, full family trips were rare so when my dad was finally forced to get a smaller car it didn't bother us too much) so parents started buying minivans and then the much cooler SUVs, which, thanks to their being trucks, didn't count towards a car manufacturer's gas mileage totals. However, lost in this mix, was the good old family station wagon. Those cars were great if you owned a house and had a family. Not only could you haul your kids around, but you had plenty of room for sports equipment and could even haul cargo back from the stores. Try finding a big one now.

Oh they've come back now and then, and I know where I can find then, but there are still nowhere near as many as they were, especially the larger, family sized ones. Unless we buy a crossover vehicle in a few years, when our cars both pass the decade mark and the ability to haul 2 growing children and their gear around, we will be looking for a wagon to last us until around 2020, at which point our oldest will be in college and our youngest will not want to have anything to do with us anyway. Hopefully, with rising prices a few of the manufacturers will realize that some of us want a wagon (I wouldn't mind my Gallant as a wagon), a vehicle that drives like a car but has the room families need. I suppose that, and the end of our wasteful polluting habits is one of the benefits of increased fuel prices, though I'd have rather seen all that extra money go to building better roads and mass transit instead of into the oil companies pockets.

For those who bought their SUVs just a few years ago and can't afford to get another new car, it's going to be a rough few years. But it looks as if high gas prices are here to stay for awhile for various reasons (falling dollar, commodities market, supply and demand with other countries, greed) and there is not much to do aside from using less gas; proposals to lower or eliminate fuel taxes would haunt us pretty quick, as anyone who drove on NYC's deferred maintenance roads (or rode the subways) during the 1970s could attest to, so remeber to get that small loan from the bank before you fill up. In the meantime, I can just hope that station wagons/family sized sedans are getting gas mileage similar to our Civic in a few years or I suspect I'm going to be hearing a lot of complaining about lack of room from the backseat in a few years.

Talking baseball

Here's another guy who thinks baseball needs to be sped up to fix it, citing deteriorating World Series television ratings and our attention deficit lifestyle as factors. Baseball is fine, it's greed that's killing it. Long commercials and expensive tickets are making it difficult for the casual fan to get into the game. Even then, it's difficult to get a really good seat, assuming they are not available sold out to corporations who don't attend, unless you're willing to shell out $70 or more or so per ticket. Small market teams that will never be able to compete, at least long term with the big market teams (anyone remember the late 70s when it seemed the KC Royals & the NY Yankees were always battling for the American League pennant?). Unless you have a new stadium in a big market, fergetaboutit. As for timeliness, watch a regular season game and they go much more quickly and are generally more informative (if your local announcers are any good). I love baseball and watch it throughout the year, at least until October. Come the end of the regular season, the games that started just after dinner, now don't start for another hour or so. While I might luck in with an early playoff game during the first week or two of October, that ends as baseball reaches it's final rounds. I don't watch the World Series, at least until the end of the game, because the games don't start until 8:30 ET, which is around my son's bedtime. During the regular season, night games begin around 7PM and end around 9:30/10:00, which is around my bedtime. With all the commercial breaks World Series games don't end until midnight. Sorry, I have to be at work the next morning so unless it's my Mets team in the Series, I'm not staying up to watch the game. Even then I'd probably couldn't do that 2 nights in a row; when the Mets last made the Series I fell asleep watching the games more than once, not from boredom but from rising before 6AM that morning. I find it hard to invest my time in something I'm barely going to watch. During the regular season, night games start and end at a reasonable hour for those of us who have school and work in the morning. Not so in the post-season, unless an occasional day game is scheduled. More and more of us have longer commutes and are getting up earlier and earlier these days. Let the World Series end at a reasonable hour here in the East, where most of us live, and I'd bet the rating would rise. Another issue is that it seems we have the same teams in the post-season year in/year out. Oh, I know you occasionally get fresh blood like the Cubs or Phillies, but, even as a New Yorker, I'm tired of seeing the Yankees every fall. As a Mets fan, I'm happy my team has enough money to be in it every year, but I'd enjoy watching other teams such as the Twins, Pirates or Royals make it to the big show once in awhile. How is baseball going to entice fans from Pittsburgh to watch when their team is eliminated by May 15th? As to viewers departing during long commercial breaks, the answer is simple: shorter commercials. Of course that would ultimately mean less money as TV and radio stations would have fewer commercial slots to sell so all involved would have to to stop being the guy who killed the golden goose which I don't see happening. Further, a lot of people say the lack of sudden excitement is killing baseball. I disagree. Excitement is there, it's just not always apparent. Baseball is subtle. You have to think. Will walking this batter help or hurt my team? Time for a pitching change? What if the runner steals second? What if he strikes out? Then what will be the next step? Maybe something will happen, maybe nothing will. These questions can arise in the first inning or they can arise in the ninth. Think, don't just react. Even then, a manager's move is not always as apparent as a football coach's who gets to see the results of his play very soon after he calls it. Anticipation can be great. Baseball is also something to relax to after a long day. Yes, it doesn't have the slam-bam style our culture has devolved to but the trick isn't to speed up the innings but to retrain ourselves to enjoy the nice slow pace of a game as we try to relax on a summer evening, listening to the announcers explain a play in great detail (or some other piece of interesting information). While the boom play of football is fun, the slap stick sudden goal you can't see until replayed in slow motion in hockey can be exciting, baseball is something you have to wait on many times to see the big play. Learn to enjoy the tenseness of a World Series game as it builds until it is destroyed with just a swing of the bat. Appreciate baseball like a chess game, a slow methodical process where the outcome depends on a few seemingly minor moves made somewhere between the start and the finish.

Social Insecurity

Here's a little article about a speech Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke gave stating that young people better sharpen their financial knowledge. However, it seems to me it's the older generation who should've received this lecture 20 years ago.

Depending who you ask, Social Security is going broke tomorrow, in 25 years, never etc. With the baby boomer generation closing in on retirement age, it is apparent that social security (and Medicare/Medicaid) will be in serious trouble soon. I'm under 40 (though barely) and understand how Social Security insurance is supposed to work. Looking at the numbers, it is apparent it won't be able to give me the same benefits that my parents received. In theory, I should've been all gung-ho for the privatization plan that was popular a few years ago. However, I was, and remain, against privatization of individual accounts mostly because I believe that the only ones who would really benefit from it would be those on Wall Street. Invest the fund itself, even conservatively, in the stock market? Fine. But with each individual account there would be fees (like on our 401(k)s). Another problem is that most of us are not sophisticated investors. It takes a lot of time to learn how to invest (outside of the 1990s when almost anyone could make a buck) and most of us won't have the ability to do this. Of course, even if we do manage to invest well, my generation (Generation X) and younger figure we're not going to be able to retire anyway, unless we invest very well because of the mess the previous generation will be leaving us.

A final problem, which many of us forget, is that there is no guarantee, even if we were to take the money we pay in social security taxes and invested wisely, we would work long enough to make enough money to finance our "golden years." My mother became disabled in her mid 50s, though she had partial pensions from my late father (died young, small pension) and her job (retired on disability) she needed social security to make ends meet (that and money from my brother, sister & me).

That said, social security can be saved quite easily, without drastic cuts to those at or very near retirement by doing a simple thing: raise the retirement age. Social Security was created as an insurance system to make sure those too old to work got a few dollars to help them make ends meet. Today it is being used to finance golden years of healthy adults for traveling and playing. Back in the 1930s, 65 was near the end of a life spent doing a lot of physical work. Most people, if they made it that far, died within a few years. Today, a 65 year old can easily expect 10-20 more years of life, most of that in very good shape. Same for a 67 year old. I'd say 72-75 is a better retirement age today.

Return social security to helping those who are unable to work which includes those who are under 65 and are now disabled and children who have lost a parent similar to what the system currently provides (those provisions can be added to include those 65-75 no longer able to work). If you're currently 50 or older you can be grandfathered in (though at stages, someone who is now 61 has much less time to save extra money as someone who is 51 & that should be reflected). A nice little side benefit is that as the "retirees" keep working, they'll continue paying payroll taxes, thus adding more money to the Social Security fund while not withdrawing (or at least not withdrawing as much).

I think only one or two of my 8 great-grandparents made it to retirement age. Of those who did, I don't think they were in working shape. 3 of my 4 grandparents were all healthy when they reached 65. My mom's dad had a heart attack when he was in his 40s that left him a little weak, but still able to work until retirement age. Today, his heart condition probably would've been treated with few side effects.

Today, 65 is young. We're living longer. We're in better shape physically due to better medical care and eating habits. We can keep working, which is what we younger folks will be doing because we're going to need to even with our 401(k)s. Social Security should be for those permanently disabled by health or age, who need the money. A healthy person, can get a job or otherwise contribute to society. And, to be honest, after watching medical bills bankrupt my mother, I'm more worried about Medicaid/Medicare being solvent anyway.

The Big Four Oh

Recently I turned 40. 40 is just a number, yet it isn't. The first hint was when I received a card from one of my mother's cousins saying she's not old enough for me to be 40 (my cousin, her niece, who is 8 months older than me, told me she received the same card back in September). The second was all the "you're an old man now" greetings I received on the big day, usually from people right around my age, both older and younger. The final hint was at my "surprise" party (I had figured out there was a party) when I received my gag gifts. All the wives seemed to appreciate the night light for the toilet seat lid.

I remember when my parents and their generation turned 40. My godmother had a nervous breakdown. My dad was completely oblivious to the surprise party he was attending (the premise was that it was a get together at a cousin's house who lived near us & when my father told my mom how surprised he was that the cousins knew so many of their friends did my mother ask him who he thought everyone yelled "SURPRISE" to). I suppose 40 is a sobering number as, statistically, I have more yesterdays than tomorrows and, on many surveys, I'm not linked to those "old farts" nearing the half century mark over those cool kids just at the cusp of 30 (ignoring that I probably have more in common with the old farts). More important, about a month ago, I hit the point where I lived more of my life without a father than with a father (my dad died a few weeks before my 20th birthday). Same as how my cousins (of my generation) look around and realize how many of the cousins of our parents' generation are already gone (our mothers were the younger cousins of their generation) and it won't be that many more years where, save for a few, we're going to be the senior generation (my ailing 71 year old mother takes solace that her 86 year old uncle, her father's brother, is still alive and kicking and that there are still a few of that generation hanging on).

However, I don't feel old. I still feel like the child I was, despite that I like to go to bed early, actually had beer expire, have less hair than I used to, can't will myself to lose the weight I used to be able to when I gained some weight, don't like to drink for fun (and have to be really careful what I drink unless I want to feel lousy), have taken various positions of responsibility, such as becoming a board member of our synagogue, and hear my parents voice when I yell at my own children (who seem to have the energy levels I used to have). Unlike my parents, I wear jeans, sneakers, listen to rock music, play video games and other cool things. However, like my parents, I worry about the economic future. However, there is one thing I fear (by fear I mean old, my parents were pretty good people) will turn me into my parents: money.

As a member of Generation X, I was apparently raised in boom times. Boom times? Certainly not in my house or my middle class NYC neighborhood. I can surely remember when money was tight. Not so tight that I didn't get my $2.50 a week allowance (aside from when I was being punished), which kept me well stocked with comic books and baseball cards (wish I had kept those). But tight enough that my parents would study the supermarket fliers when making out the shopping list and buy different items at different supermarkets depending on the price (with a large family, the store savings outweighed the increased gasoline costs our 12 MPG Ford got). Also, as a member of Generation X, I graduated college in 1990: just in time for the first Bush recession, so I have had experience with financial insecurity. So much fun going back to the job you had in high school after college because you need anything to pay the bills; note to Gen Y: if you're forced to do this, be creative on the resume -- taking a job that pays enough to cover your bills, but isn't on your career tract is frowned down upon by some.

My parents hit their 40s in the 1970s, which felt like one long recession in our house. My mother had been a NYC school teacher and had just gone back to work before being laid off. This put an end to our parents plan of buying a house, but we were able to do ok on just my dad's salary for a few years. We weren't rich, but we were far from poor. Our house seemed average, 2 cars, one or two color TVs and other norms of the time. We took annual vacations to Florida to see family, at least until 1979 or so when gas prices rose too high to make that affordable. And after we were older and the hiring freeze had ended, I still remember my dad telling us my mother had to go back to work to help make ends meet. We weren't poor by any means, just not as affluent as we were later in the 1980s. My wife grew up pretty much the same way, though out in the NorthWest.

Anyway, as I reach 40, I feel like the way my parents did; worried about money and the future. Though I'm probably a little more financially stable as I already own my house (well, at least 70% or so, depending on how much my house is worth today -- the rest belongs to the bank), I have the same fears. What will the future bring to me and my children? Though I don't worry about a nuclear bomb ending the world like they probably did, I do worry about what is coming. Will they grow up in a country with reduced expectations, crushed by an inability to break the chains put upon them by previous generations? Will they live in a land where all the good jobs have been exported to other nations and all the previous works left by earlier generations has been exhausted, leaving them destitute? Will they live in a country of reduced freedoms due to political and economic reasons? Or will they live in a country like the one I grew up in because we, as a nation, do what we do best and reinvent our economy and reestablish the freedoms for which many of died for?

Thoughts of a bigger house or an expansion to our current one are on hold for the moment. Fortunately, like my parents, we don't have credit card debt, always paying off our bills in full each month, outside the occasional emergency once or twice for which we drastically cut spending in the ensuing months to get ourselves off the paying interest roller coaster. Additionally, unlike my parents, I will be aging in a country with an economy that will not be as kind to me as to my parents. Both my parents could count on pensions (though he died before retiring, my mother received my father's pension), could health care, social security that led, for my mother before she got too ill, a comfortable retirement. I can look forward to reduced social security and health benefits, a smaller pension, increasing commodity prices, a failing infrastructure and a ton of debt left by those who didn't believe in pay as you go. I could go on, and bash baby boomers, but why bother when others are willing to do so.

But, as I turn 40, I have one real wish: that I'm around in 32 years to see what my eldest child writes on his 40th birthday.

George Martin's 9/11 journey

Hey, anyone remember former NY Giants' star George Martin's walk across America for the rescue workers who became ill after they worked at Ground Zero in lower Manhattan after the Twin Towers fell on 9/11? Well he's still walking and is currently in the American south west, hoping to hit the Golden Gate Bridge in another month or so. This blog describes his march much better than I could.

It still feels like yesterday. Our office had recently moved from midtown to Newark, roughly 8 miles due west of lower Manhattan. I was in my office listening to the radio, doing my emails, when the morning guy broke in that there was a fire at the trade center. I went to the employee lounge which had the view of lower Manhattan and watched the smoke pour out of the building. At that time no one knew what happened but the rumors of a plane strike were already circulating. During the first trade center attack in 1993, I was working as a delivery person and was actually making a delivery at a bus company when news of that attack was breaking and hung around a few minutes while they planned how to get busses into and out of lower Manhattan for a rush hour that was starting several hours early. I figured this would be another one of those days.

I went back to my office and called my wife, then working in Toms River, NJ. She told me she hadn't heard anything. Soon my radio said the second tower was on fire. At first I thought that the 1st plane had exploded and sent derbies into the other tower. When I went back to lounge someone was saying he just saw a plume of fire shoot out of the second tower like something had hit it. I couldn't believe it, but when I saw where the fire was I knew that there was (down too many stories) no way it could've been the first plane. At that point I think I realized that it was an attack. I don't know why, but I do remember replying "what do you think?" when someone wondered how both buildings could burn. I tried to call my wife back, but both my cell and land phones weren't getting any connections.

Next was total confusion in the office. Rumors were flying. The White House is on fire. The Mall is on fire. The Pentagon is on fire. There are still missing planes. I remember sitting in front of my radio, still on the music station which had gone all news, wondering "what the heck was going on?" A lot of employees came through the WTC PATH station and were unaccounted for (company ended up losing just 2 execs and they were on one of the planes). A lot of our family members worked downtown and were unaccounted for (only one person lost a family member, friends are another story). Most of us ended up in the lounge and watched the buildings burn and fall. After the first tower fell, the smoke briefly cleared and I got a view of the remaining tower. I remember thinking "How strange, only one twin tower. Guess we're going to have to call the twin towers something else."

After the buildings fell, the lounge was packed but silent, except for the radio and some people crying. I remember one manager with is head in his hands and a completely devastated look on his face. We could hear the fire engines roaring past our building headed to the city (I guess). Soon we were evacuated as we're the tallest building in Newark and there was a real fear we were a target. As I still couldn't a phone line, I left an out of office message on my work email letting people know I was ok and our office was evacuating and left.

Newark was quiet, but confused. There was a steady stream of people headed to Gateway and Penn Station, with some coming back to tell us no trains were running (there were rumors of smoke at Penn Station-Newark). Bus service was sparodic. Fortunately we had an employee parking lot and people were given rides. New Yorkers stayed at co-workers homes in NJ.

It was very strange going down the Garden State Parkway and seeing nothing but army and emergency vehicles headed north. Same for seeing all the trucks just parked on the side of the road by the Outerbridge approach to Staten Island. It took 3 different cars, but I got home eventually no worse for the wear, where I got my first real look at what had happened since we didn't have TV in the office and the internet news sites were impossible to get into (rather ironic that people thousands of miles away had a better view then me, just a few miles away).

Our office pretty much closed for the rest of the week. On Friday my wife came home from work and asked what was burning. We realized that the wind had shifted and we were smelling the towers (we live about 35 miles south of the WTC). Going to work on Monday, still seeing the smoke over Manhattan was unreal.

On a personal note all our friends and family members in and around the towers got out. My brother's in-laws are some of those people you see running for their lives when 2 WTC fell. My wife and I used to live in Brooklyn Heights and we were devestated to learn that our firehouse lost men. It was very sad walking past all the memorials that popped up around the city that winter.

I've only been back to Ground Zero a few times since 9/11 (my wife and I used to hang around the WTC all the time when we lived in Brooklyn, it was our mall), mostly when I take the PATH into WTC to connect to subway trains to our East Side office. It was very strange the first time I came out of the Path to the barren mezzanine level and stood by the escalators and realized that they were in the same position as before (I could see the subway entrance to the A/E train and got my bearings). It was unreal to see nothing where the Sabbaros or Borders were (and tourists taking pictures, which really angered me -- how they like it of I took pictures of their ruined home?).

It is pathetic that we're ignoring the needs of our first responders. But then, we're good at that as wounded soldiers from Iraq can attest to.

Gators in my sewers?

A story that broke this weekend about a Brooklyn jogger finding a few caimans (alligator cousins) hanging out in a park reminded me of an old family story.

Back in the 1930s and 1940s my grandfather was a public school science teacher in Brooklyn. As part of his curriculum he kept live animals in his room. Ducks, rabbits, fish and, strangely, one alligator. I don't remember where the gator came from, probably some student ordered a baby from Florida and it ended up in my grandfather's care when the baby became a little bigger, probably thinking "cats, it's what's for dinner."

At the end of the school year, my grandfather would ask his students to board the animals for the summer. Strangely nobody ever offered to take in the gator. So the alligator would spend summers in a bathtub in an attic apartment on Ave P near Coney Island Ave. Apparently this was never an issue with my grandmother, despite raising a then toddler daughter and my grandfather's youngest brother after my great-grandparents died.

Whenever somebody need to use the tub, the gator would be placed in a crate to get some summer sun on the fire escape. All was well until one day my grandmother went to bring the alligator back in and saw the door from it's crate was open and the alligator had decided to stretch its legs. Worse, the fire escape ladder was down, meaning the alligator had escaped to wander the not so mean streets of Brooklyn.

In a panic, my grandmother ran out to the street looking for the alligator. As she approached Coney Island Ave she heard some construction workers screaming from a sewer ditch. She also heard some hissing. She looked down and saw the construction workers ready to clobber the alligator. Before they could, my grandmother yelled down, "Stop! That's my alligator!" Before the workers could react further, my grandmother climbed down in her high heeled shoes and dress (typical 1940s women clothing) and picked up the gator who I guess didn't have a problem with my grandmother handling it as she had all her limbs and external body parts until she died. She then carried the gator home and placed it back in its tub.

I've always wondered if my grandparents were part of the basis for those alligators in NYC sewer stories. In any event, the alligator remained in my grandfather's class for a few more years. I never asked what he fed it (hopefully chicken from the butcher and not lazy ducks from the classroom), but after a time it became apparent that it was getting too big for the class (not to mention my uncle had been born by then). When last heard from, their alligator was in retirement at the Staten Island Zoo. My grandparents are long gone now but whenever I hear I a story about alligators found in NYC I think of them.

Bread and Ciruses in NJ

Here's something I don't understand. An editorial in the Asbury Park Press blames increases in teachers' salaries above the rate of inflation as the cause of all of NJ's problems (well most of them). Yet, an article by Bob Ingle in the same paper notes that home rule hacks use their "complex, counterproductive, wasteful" tools to waste tons of our tax money. Ingle pointed out one town that spent $1M on lawyer fees for something (the town won't say what it spent the money on) and how another town wasted $345 (each) to buy cell phones for their bus drivers, plus pay them 6 hours of OT to charge them (must be some charge, I doubt I spend more than 5-10 min a month plugging & unplugging my phone over a month).

So which is the true evil? I don't mind getting my money's worth for something I purchase. Services by my town are something I pirchase via my tax dollars. Before thrashing a teacher or other government worker who provides a direct service to me or my town I'd expect all of us to have the wisdom to go after the true evildoers: those whose greed enables them to waste our tax dollars to hire friends to be political hacks, those who can't show fiscal watchdogs what they spent their money on and those who cozy up to unions to give benefiits, like the 6 hours OT for cell phone chargibg, that should defy the logic of the most liberal labor organizer, before attacking those who teach the citizens who will one day be supporting us.

Home rule hacks waste tons of money. Yet, all of NJ's problems will be solved if we can just keep increases in teachers' salaries to the rate of inflation and make those "slackers" pay more for health insurance. More bread and circuses! Why are we so stupid to allow these politicians to manipulate us so? Bad enough they waste our money spending millions of dollars to give their connected friends cushy jobs (too many to mention and better described elsewhere) and they blame those who actually work with the average citizen doing something productive, like teaching our children, cleaning our parks, staffing our libraries, paving our roads etc in lieu of those who sit in an office for a few hours and collect a few pension and a nice salary to boot (allegedly). However, we don't even have the guts to call them on this.Why? Why are we such suckers? What causes us to want to turn on our teachers, for example, for daring to want to get ahead before we demand that our politicians shut the F'up, get back to work and kick their corrupt friends to the street (ok, aside from the obvious that the entire system is corrupt)?

Perhaps teachers (and other government workers) should get lower raises, they definitely should contribute a bit more to health insurance (NJ is very generous in giving state workers great health insurance) and move to government versions of 401(k)s. However, I'm distressed that we are ignoring the true evil: those whose greed enables them to waste our tax dollars to hire friends to be political hacks, etc. Clean up that cesspool and we'll probably find we have more than enough money to pay our teachers and other government workers who actually interact with us average citizens what they deserve.

I'm not saying government workers deserve all they ask. I'm not saying that there aren't lazy, incompetent etc government workers (including teachers) that don't deserve to receive any raise and, in fact, should be kicked to curb too. However, I'm annoyed that our leaders blame that group as a whole for the financial mess this sate is in without looking in the mirror (and their piggy bank) and acknowledging that their corruption has played a major role in this mess. There's plenty of corrupt fat to get rid of. But instead of doing that, we're allowing our leaders to shift the blame to those who actually do the work. Pox on them for that BS. However, a bigger pox on us for allowing them to get away with it.

Retire? That's rich

A recent survey reports that that while Baby boomers are only worried about achieving a comfortable retirement, Generation X expects to work until someone wheels are our corpses away from our PCs (or whatever replaces them by then). Small wonder we don't have much pity for boomers worried that they won't be able to retire comfortably.

My wife and I have been stocking away money like mad, and have 401(k)s in the six figures, not bad for people in their late 30s. According to projections we receive from our 401k folks, we're well onour way to having enough to live on when our working days are done -- except for one little detail; it expects social security to still be around when we "retire" sometime in the mid to late 2030s. As if. I'll be happy if Medicare/Medicaid is still around and there are still doctors qualified who decide to for a career in geriatrics over plastic surgery or some other more lucrative field.

We were told by "experts" that we should invest all we can, which we've done since we started working 10-15 years ago. Our first round went bye-bye in the dot com bust, but fortunately we weren't making that much yet, so we didn't lose much. Unfortunately the chance for us to come back with the next bull market ran right into our reproductive/house buying years. So, instead of investing "discretionary" income in stocks, we bought babies, and their accessories and houses. I don't need to expand on how well the later investments are doing these days.

So, in a nutshell, those of us who were stupid enough to listen to the experts didn't do too well. Oh, we may have some money stashed away and we may have some equity in our homes but we're nowhere near where our parents were. And, now that we're approaching our 40s, we see the big social security expense coming and we feel powerless to stop it. Heaven forbid we even suggest investing the social security fund in the stock market (not as individual accounts, but just a small percentage as a whole) or raising the retirement age to account for our longer lifespans.

Sure, some of us have wasted money on things our parents didn't such as HDTVs, DVDs, cell phones, SUVs etc, that we don't need, but I'm sure my grandparents said the same thing about the color TVs my parents and their siblings purchased in the late 60s. However there are other facts aside from those discretionary purchases. We are paying much more for our homes (at the moment) then our parents did, even adjusted for inflation. While food and fuel costs, again adjusted for inflation aren't too bad at the moment, some of us are still paying our college loans (we had to go to college since the college degree somehow became our generation's high school diploma) on raises that average 3%, while contributing to our retirement, paying more for health insurance, and trying to save for our own children's college educations. That of course is assuming that our jobs aren't outsourced to India and we find ourselves working at $10 an hour McJobs.

But all that said, I can't see myself retiring for one other reason. The thought of spending the last 20 years of my life not growing, but just sitting somewhere seems incredibly dull. Oh, I don't plan to be doing what I do now, nor work as many hours, but I don't plan on doing nothing. Fortunately, unless I get some illness that affects my ability to read, write and analyze, I should be able to do some sort of work well into my golden years.

So I'm not really complaining, however, the next time I hear a retiree complain how the cost of tee time on the golf course should be reduced so they can afford to golf at the expense of something else, like parks, schools or libraries, don't be surprised if I tell the retiree where to stick the golf clubs. Same for the retirees who complain about high taxes, ignoring the little fact that if they had paid while they went, instead of voting for politicians who left huge defecits, and dealt with the corruption that has been rampant in this state for decades, their tax bills would be a bit lower.

Voices of intolerance

Rising gas prices, jobs going overseas, rising food prices, terrorism fears, an unending war in Iraq. Yet, according to some, the most important thing for this nation to do is to Constitutionally take away the liberties of two consenting adults of the same sex from getting married because a court "foolishly" recognized that a state Constitution didn't explicitly ban homosexuals from getting married. The only positive thing I can say about those people are that they are at least more educated than the misguided souls who feel that just because the people want an unconstitional law that the courts should ignore "the law" (of which a Constitution is superior to statutes and the like) and allow an unconstitutional law to be legal. Just because voters pass a law that permits discrimination doesn't mean a court is obliged to ignore Constitution law, which is superior to a statute.

I can understand if your religion says homosexual marriage is wrong, and I don't have any issue with a church or religious figure refusing to perform in such a ceremony. That is part of their religious liberty and I would be against any law that would somehow force them to perform such a ceremony that went against their religious beliefs. That is their right. But to try to enforce "your" religious values on others and work to deny people to even marry in a civil ceremony is not a denial of "your" religious rights.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." Some people seem to be confusing this with a perceived right to force others to live by their religion's values. Not so. Despite what some politicians want people to believe, working to prevent a non-religious, secular government, which is what the United States' government is supposed to be, from providing certain rights to people based on who they are due to your religious beliefs is un-Constitutional.

But lets take away God from the mix. Now we simply have people upset that two people of the same sex want to get married. What is the big deal? Why is it anyone's concern, aside from friends and family of the couple, if they want to get married? Is it the term marriage they find objectionable or is it something else? Why do the opponents hate the idea of gays in love getting married like straight people?

I just don't understand how people can be so full of hate that they feel it is vitally important to prevent two people who love each other from being married, even civilly (as opposed to by religion -- at least that I can understand, to an extent). Maybe it's because I was raised at a time when many of our nation's racial and sexual fights were history that gay marriage feels like a non-issue to me. I was born in the late 1960s. By time I was in school, Martin Luther King, Jr. day was already being celebrated in NYC. Like the Vietnam War and Martin Luther King, Jr, the sexual revolution was already in the past for me. Just as it seems incomprehensible for a business to refuse to serve a customer due to their skin color, it feels equally incomprehensible to deny people certain rights based on their sexuality. It is not the role of "looney liberals" to do the right thing and tell the people that their will is illegal; it is the role of those who seek justice for all.

Gay secular marriage is not about what some people think some God may have said. It is about liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We don't have a national religion in this country. People should be free to live as they wish with whatever beliefs or non-beliefs is in their heart. If there is a God angry at them for disobeying His laws (and lets face it, almost every religion says that non-believers are dammed so, to an extent, we've all been dammed by somebody), then that is their problem, not mine or yours. Free will works both ways.

How is banning gay marriage different from older laws preventing blacks and whites or Jews and Christians from marrying? How about those who did not plan, or were unable to, have children from marrying? How about single parents who are raising children in a non-traditional family due to death or divorce? Should they be discriminated against too? How much hate must such a person have in their hearts to endorse the notion that it should be constitutional to discriminate?

And that's what all this anti-gay marriage talk is about: hate. Though the haters will be the first ones to deny it, there must be, in my opinion, some hatred of gays that they are letting poison their souls. That's not to say I never heard, or laughed at, racial and gay jokes growing up or was never exposed to those attitudes: far from it (as a side note, some of the best Jew jokes are told by my rabbi at temple). I grew up in a neighborhood well known for its racial intolerance (and knew many of the intolerant). I've seen hate up close and that is what this is. Hatred is the only reason I can think of as to why is it so hard for them to accept two consenting adults do what their hearts tell them and why they feel it is their role to prevent gays from marrying.

Some people will defend their hatred by noting that marriage is for people to raise a family. Then, by that logic, a couple who choose or unable to have children are in an illegal marriage. Too bad for my aunt and her current husband, who were in in their 50s and 60s when they married a few years after their spouses, the father and mother of their grown up children, had passed away.

Why is it the problem of homosexuals that some straight people feel their being married threatens heterosexual marriages? I for one do not feel my marriage is threatened because my gay friends want to get married. More power to them. And, if I did feel threatened, that would be my problem, not their's.

Just because you or I may believe that marriage is between a man and a woman does not mean we have the right to force others to follow our views. No one is forcing anybody to associate with gay married couples. No one is forcing religious leaders to go against their beliefs. The intolerant would do well to remember that before they advocate forcing others to follow their beliefs. You worship your God your way, I'll worship my God my way. I won't force my values on you or your children and you don't force that on me or my children, which includes any prayer to any God at a public event.

In any event, this country has much bigger problems than whether gays can marry or a person can pray in school or at other public events. Better to focus our energies on what is really important instead of this false issue that politicians like to promote to take away our attention from our real problems: high taxes, high energy costs, Iraq, corruption etc.

Mr. Mom

In this week's Sunday NY Times magazine, a writer, while noting what she can teach her daughter about breaking glass ceilings as to Hillary Clinton's run for President makes a note how far women still have to go by noting, as an example, that despite women making up 48% of the average law school class, women only make up 18% of all major law firm partners. While she makes a valid point, she fails to note that this is partially due to women taking time off to raise a family (some of it due for biological reasons, they're the ones with the womb and the breast milk). Further, she fails to note that this mommy track can also affect men.

Both my wife and I have the education and qualifications that allow us to make much more than we make now. However, we both chose to go off our career paths 8 years ago when our first child was born, taking alternate jobs in our professions (we're both licensed attorneys) that pay less but also require us to work less hours. The end result is that, compared to those who didn't take the parent tracks, we are both making much less money than those who graduated with us and focused on their careers. Even if, when our children are older, one or both of us decide to refocus on our careers, we will still be behind those we graduated with. I had a co-worker who, though he had been an attorney for a decade hadn't practice in almost that long as he took a job that allowed him to care fore his and his wife's daughter. So, when he and his wife got divorced, her attorneys asked for more then he was currently making as alimony noting that a licensed attorney with his "experience" could make enough to afford such a payment, ignoring that there was no way he could actually earn that since he had slipped off the career path (sort of like former NJ Governor McGreevy).

When either my wife or I decide to go with the mainstream, we will be behind our contemporaries. However, my wife will be able to point at a glass ceiling while I will be able to point to .... my children? Further, it is more likely my wife will go back to our career path before me. I currently have a job that allows me to work from home several days a week; my wife does not. Therefore, I am the one who, 3 times a week. waits for the school bus in the morning and afternoon. It's not perfect, but it works. Currently, our son is old enough to know not to bother me while I work so it is not a problem for him to be around a few hours while I finish my work day; our youngest, who is not in school yet, goes to full-day pre-school. I have made it clear that my working from home does not mean I am available to be "come and play with me" dad. But I do have quite a bit of flexibility in my schedule, allowing me to attend school events with ease or, at least, be in the next room while our son does his homework, play outside, watch TV (and, as they get older, make sure both children "behave") and be the stay at home parent when a child is sick.

This is a choice we've made, where I'm most likely to be the one who puts my dreams and career hopes on hold for a longer period than my wife while taking care of the children. I'm not complaining. Nevertheless, while society will look at my wife at age 50 and point at a glass ceiling for why she hasn't made law firm partner or whatever, it will look at me and laugh "loser." Although more men participate in raising their children now than a quarter of a century ago when "Mr. Mom" came out, men who choose to be stay at home dads are still fairly rare.

So, my point in all this is this: the glass ceiling is not just for women anymore. It is for anyone who chooses to take time away from work to focus on their families. As this becomes more of a mom or dad type of thing, especially as both parents are either forced to work or choose to work, society will adjust and come to take advantage of this. Perhaps this will mean that only those without children or with spouses who can stay home will advance. Some corporations may decide to accommodate those employees and wait for them to end the fairly short period of their working lives spent with children to end and then take full advantage of the resources they've nourished. Others may allow employees who don't want the burdens that being a manager or partner require onto a contributor career path that could be equally rewarding. Others will of course do nothing different. Assuming we haven't completely outsourced ourselves by then, it will be interesting to see what corporate life will be when our children are parents.

Outsource this

I read a disturbing op-ed piece in the NY Times last month that argued, in essence, that we should outsource science careers to cheaper countries to take advantage of their low wages to better America. My question is to who in America would actually benefit? Yes collaboration with scientists in other lands, who are paid much less than scientists here, can work well, especially if we use them to do basic research while our scientists do more advanced research, but long term I fail to see how this can not be disastrous for us. Where will our future more senior scientists get the necessary training if they don't start out doing some of the basic research that the writer of the piece argues for? Do we really want to get into a downward spiral of scientists' wages with other countries at a time when knowledge is power? We can't build on a society where our short term economic gains outweigh our long term needs. Outsourcing may work quite nicely for corporations, especially in our global economy, but it leaves the average American in a lurch. A few of us will do quite nicely, while the rest of us will be wondering what the heck happened as we ask "What good does outsourcing do for me if my $80,000 a year job is exported to India where they can find someone to do the same work for under $7,000 a year and any other job I am qualified for is also exported?"

I understand that jobs going to other countries is something that is here to stay because it keeps down costs for corporations. Must be "nice" to live in a society where you are able to live on under $10,000 a year, assuming you like living in crowded neighborhoods, crammed into subway trains, have a lot of pollution etc that are all cost savings for corporations. If all these "good" jobs keep going overseas because it is cheaper, America will have to either decrease our standard of living to bring our competitiveness down to their level or impose some sort of tariff on those overseas manufacturers who have much lower costs because they don't have to worry about pollution or workers' rights (this could be used to help corporations with American workers, which have to pay added "taxes" to comply with our health and safety laws compete more efficiently). Otherwise, we have to wonder what will the average American do to earn a living in the future, aside from provide services to foreigners who will be able to dictate terms because they will have all the money by then.

For decades we have been outsourcing jobs to other countries. First it was the blue collar manufacturing jobs. We told the middle class blue collar workers to go back to college or take a lower paying job for the better good of the US. More recently, we've been telling our educated workforce that their jobs are now outsourceable and they should go to graduate school to get even more education so they could specialize for the better good of the US. Now we're telling our scientists that their jobs can be done elsewhere for the better good of the US? No wonder our trade deficit is so high; if everything is done in other countries, what will we be actually exporting in trade?

Instead of importing scientists, or outsourcing scientific work to low wage countries, we should be expanding on increasing our scientific abilities here. Instead of looking at short term financial gains, we need to take the long term approach. I'm not naive and know that money makes the research happen, but it's 11:58 PM and we need to start thinking about tomorrow. One of these days the rest of the world is going to realize that we're only a bunch of leeches, living on our past glories, running up huge bills while we continue to party and waste resources and not contributing a darn thing to the world.

Years ago, Trenton makes, the world takes, could've been a motto not just for NJ, but for the entire US. Granted, we were helped in the later 20th century by the little fact that most of our competitors were bombed out by WW2, but that slogan said a lot about our nation, even as we moved into a post-industrial economy; we may have been selling services in lieu of goods, but at least we were still selling "something." Now, with outsourcing, it seems as if it's the world that makes and the US that takes. This can't last forever. We need to invest in our future; sending all our productivity overseas and letting somebody else do the work while we just sit on the beach and blog isn't going to work forever.