I saw an interesting article on today's motherlode blog in the NY Times writing on a study that says mothers of children with autism earn earn less then those whose children do not suffer from this affliction. Well, duh! But I do have one correction. It is not just mothers who earn less but fathers too.
My wife and I are both attorneys, licensed for nearly 15 years in NY and NJ. Parents of an 11 year old with Asperger syndrome, neither one of us is currently practicing. Instead we are in alternate careers that allow us to have more flexible hours so we can tend to our son's needs. I have taken a position where I can work from home more often than not, with flexible hours, that allows me to take our son to his various therapies/group sessions etc. My wife took a position in a courthouse near our home so she could take him to his appointments on the rare days I can not. And, my wife actually earns more then me these days (yay for unions I guess).
We do this so our son can be the best he can be. That is a parent's role and we don't ask for favors or sympathy. We have met many who are worse off then us with children with more serious health issues. We have both turned down promotions because that would have caused us to travel and/or work longer hours. And while we make a decent living, especially compared to many Americans, we do earn less than our graduating class peers. While luxury vacations, new cars and big houses are out, we do quite nicely in our middle class existence.
So we are not living the life we had hoped, big deal. Don't get me wrong, we have serious vacation envy when we hear stories from friends and family who take luxurious vacations or hop on a plane for a quick weekend in the Bahamas with their children with barely a thought (assuming we had the extra money, which always seems to go to therapies our son needs not covered by insurance, our son does not like sudden changes and we need to plan things out in advance). We both miss meeting friends on weekends because our son's issues keep us busy (a 10 minute book report can be quite an ordeal that can kill a Sunday -- don't get me started on his first attempts at acute angels, gave me nightmares about my 9th grade algebra teacher). First world problems and we remind ourselves that compared to many in a similar situation we are blessed. Our son is otherwise healthy and we have the skills and education that allow us to pick careers where we have time for our son -- many parents do not have our options.
We are enjoying our alternate route in life as best as we can. We are undoubtedly less stressed then our more highly paid peers. One benefit of our extra free time, is that we are able to go the gym (my NJ Transit reading time is now my sweating at the YMCA time) and have the time to cook healthy meals. And both our children benefit from having us around more. Perhaps we are actually "richer," though our lower income means I type this letter on a Saturday night while the family is watching a movie from Netflix on our non-HD TV, in lieu of my wife and I hiring a sitter and going out for dinner and a movie. In any event, though we planned a luxurious cruise to London, we are taking our steerage cruise to Holland one day at a time and seeing where it takes us.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Do ditto heads know what the First Amendment really says?
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech
Rachel Nelson, Premiere spokeswoman: "It's not about ethics and it's not about the nature of our public discourse. It's a direct attack on America's guaranteed First Amendment right to free speech. It's essentially a call for censorship masquerading as high-minded indignation."
Rush Limbaugh's supporters are claiming that an organized boycott of the radio star due to his slut comment is a denial of his constitutional rights. I'm sorry. Is Media Matters now run by the government?
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the reactions of that speech when people get angry. Having people point our your statements go beyond the line of common decency is one of the prices of not having the government censor you in the first place.
Limbaugh is free to say what he wants (within FCC guidelines -- pandering for recordings of Ms. Fluke having sex may be an issue, just ask Howard Stern). And the rest of us are free to ridicule him, criticize him and to inform his sponsors that we won't buy from them if they continue to support Limbaugh. If enough people do this, his sponsors, who just want to make money, will head for the hills. People personally boycott companies all the time due to a perceived slight or poor service. This is the free market at work.
Anyone saying this is some attack on Rush Limbaugh's First Amendment rights demonstrates a lack of understanding that this boycott is an application of the First Amendment rights of those who want Limbaugh off the air. This is about people telling Limbaugh's sponsors that they do not want to fund his hate speech by buying their products.
Limbaugh offended a lot of people who are women and the people who love them -- husbands, brothers, boy friends, fathers. Many saw a man who bullied, harassed and slandered a previously unknown woman whose only "crime" was to testify before Congress to offer a different opinion regarding the pill and were disgusted by it (any libelous action for accusing Ms. Fluke of a criminal activity (prostitution) with no proof is a matter for civil court).
If enough people still want to hear Limbaugh, sponsors will return and his show will survive. If not, well that's the free market for you. In the meantime, I suspect Limbaugh is laughing his way to the bank chuckling over the way he's trolled all of us during this bread and circus show.
Rachel Nelson, Premiere spokeswoman: "It's not about ethics and it's not about the nature of our public discourse. It's a direct attack on America's guaranteed First Amendment right to free speech. It's essentially a call for censorship masquerading as high-minded indignation."
Rush Limbaugh's supporters are claiming that an organized boycott of the radio star due to his slut comment is a denial of his constitutional rights. I'm sorry. Is Media Matters now run by the government?
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from the reactions of that speech when people get angry. Having people point our your statements go beyond the line of common decency is one of the prices of not having the government censor you in the first place.
Limbaugh is free to say what he wants (within FCC guidelines -- pandering for recordings of Ms. Fluke having sex may be an issue, just ask Howard Stern). And the rest of us are free to ridicule him, criticize him and to inform his sponsors that we won't buy from them if they continue to support Limbaugh. If enough people do this, his sponsors, who just want to make money, will head for the hills. People personally boycott companies all the time due to a perceived slight or poor service. This is the free market at work.
Anyone saying this is some attack on Rush Limbaugh's First Amendment rights demonstrates a lack of understanding that this boycott is an application of the First Amendment rights of those who want Limbaugh off the air. This is about people telling Limbaugh's sponsors that they do not want to fund his hate speech by buying their products.
Limbaugh offended a lot of people who are women and the people who love them -- husbands, brothers, boy friends, fathers. Many saw a man who bullied, harassed and slandered a previously unknown woman whose only "crime" was to testify before Congress to offer a different opinion regarding the pill and were disgusted by it (any libelous action for accusing Ms. Fluke of a criminal activity (prostitution) with no proof is a matter for civil court).
If enough people still want to hear Limbaugh, sponsors will return and his show will survive. If not, well that's the free market for you. In the meantime, I suspect Limbaugh is laughing his way to the bank chuckling over the way he's trolled all of us during this bread and circus show.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Single parent? You evil child abuser!
Seriously Republicans? You want a bill that labels single parents as child abusers? Are you fraking nuts? Ignoring that some families are better off if the abusing parent is kicked out of the house or some parents choose to abandon their families, your blanket labeling will also include parents who are single due to unfortunate circumstances that no one chose.
My father died while my youngest brother was still a minor. By this logic, as my mother didn't remarry before he turned 18 (and in fact she never did remarry), she would have been labeled as a potential child abuser even though during that time my brother stayed out of trouble, did volunteer work, graduated high school & went to college (he turned 18 while a freshman). Meanwhile, married parents of some of the neighborhood punks, who probably were abusing their kids in some way, would not have been labeled as abusers. Where is the logic in that?
What is next? A law mandating shotgun weddings or forcing widows to marry their husband's brother? The Republican party is dead. We need a real opposition party (or 2 or 3).
My father died while my youngest brother was still a minor. By this logic, as my mother didn't remarry before he turned 18 (and in fact she never did remarry), she would have been labeled as a potential child abuser even though during that time my brother stayed out of trouble, did volunteer work, graduated high school & went to college (he turned 18 while a freshman). Meanwhile, married parents of some of the neighborhood punks, who probably were abusing their kids in some way, would not have been labeled as abusers. Where is the logic in that?
What is next? A law mandating shotgun weddings or forcing widows to marry their husband's brother? The Republican party is dead. We need a real opposition party (or 2 or 3).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)