Bad parenting

I found this interesting letter on a blog taking a radio host to task because he disagreed with the host's views on parenting. Basically, the father argued that he was helping his gifted, unemployed college graduate 29 year old son by letting him play video games in his basement because he is too good to take any job out there and should wait for the economy to get better so he can get the job he deserves. And he also bashed the host because he favored children doing chores, likening it to slave labor.

Slave labor? Oh dear. We require our 12 year old take out the recyclables/trash to the curb, get the mail, take care of the dogs and mow the lawn (and help me shovel in winter). Worse our 8 year old daughter is following in his foot-prints by helping him bring the trash cans back up to the house, helping with the dishes and feeding her cat. I didn’t know that we’ve been doing it wrong, according to Nick, all this time, even though our son got almost straight A’s (one B) on his last report card.

By the way, I started working at 12 (paper route) and have pretty much worked continuously ever since. I graduated college just as the Bush I recession was starting and was laid off around the same time that we invaded Kuwait. I spent two years working temp jobs, some that made use of my college education and some that didn’t. However, it was those additional skills/temp jobs in my field that I could add to my resume that finally got me full employment. Sitting at home would have done nothing.

Growing up I had a very good friend who really was gifted. He went to Cooper Union, graduated, worked as an engineer for the City of NY for a few years before going back to Columbia University to get his masters. He was on his way and then ... nothing. For the last 15 years or so he has been working in his mother's basement on a computer game that has been continuously become out of date (though, at least, it does force him to stay somewhat current in his field). 

It is not for me to say if he has illness or is on the autism spectrum (back in the day children weren't tested for Asperger Syndrome) that has caused him to retreat from life but I do suspect that the worse thing his mother did was allow him to move back home permanently after Columbia. Granted there were circumstances that led to this -- his father was in poor health and passed around that time and his mother needed help but that is still no excuse for his long term unemployment. 

In comparison my great-uncle, an orphan at 16 and forced to live with grandparents, went to Cooper Union, married, had two children and literally became a rocket scientist  by 30. I'm sure it helped that, aside from a brother providing a couch to sleep on, he had nothing to fall back on. Compare that to my friend who was babied by his mother for all these years. He was the one of our group that we all thought would do wonderful things with his life. Now, at age 45, those of us who remain his friend see that will never be. Sad that the letter writer can't see that this will be the fate of his son if he keeps this up.

And for the final shot, after the letter writer suggests that the radio host grow up and get some life experience, the host noted that at age 27, two years younger than the letter writer's son, he  was married with two children and on his way in his career at broadcasting and not wasting time in  his parents' basement. At age 29 I was in law school, while working full time, married and had been out of my mother’s house for years. I don’t think I could have accomplished law school and working full time without the work experience of my youth that forced me to do more than just come home after school. The letter writer is not helping his son.

Wannabe cops and profiling

When I was a child of around 12 or 13, my younger brother and I had a paper route that covered several NYC apartment buildings. As this was the early 80s several of the buildings had evening neighborhood watches that hung out in the lobby observing. Also, as this was the early 80s, no one thought it strange that two young children would be able to go after dark to collect money for their little business without adult supervision -- except one person.

One evening we were buzzed into one of the buildings on our route by one of our customers to make our weekly collections. This building had some residents in the lobby keeping an eye on things and, as we approached the elevator, we were questioned by the watch as to what we were doing there. We showed them our collection book, what floors we'd be going to etc (no ID at that time, it was a simpler day) and were cleared to proceed. As usual we took the elevator to the top and walked down floor by floor. Collecting the money could be time consuming, depending on the floor, as we had to go door to door. Somewhere in the middle the local gestapo decided we were taking too long and kicked us out of the building.

When we arrived home early my dad asked why we were back so early. When we told him, he got up (a big deal, once he was on the couch for the night that was it), had us go back to the building and started telling the lead watcher off as he told us to finish collecting. When we were finished our dad was still telling the guy off and had us wait while he finished, basically accusing the dude of being a bully and making up for a small penis. Then, when he was finished, he told the guy - by the way, your fly is open. On the walk home he commented that certain people, who are otherwise weak, abuse power once they get it and that was one of those people.

From the little bits I've heard from news clips of his trial, neighborhood watch person George Zimmerman allegedly seems more and more like that wannabe cop with delusions of grandeur that my brother and I encountered all those years ago. Ignoring whatever prior bad acts that Trevor Martin may have done before his encounter with Zimmerman, the basis of  the confrontation seems to be that Zimmerman allegedly just assumed a teenager with a hoodie (in the rain) was up to no good just as our neighbor did with us. Maybe Zimmerman felt he was doing the right thing, maybe he was just profiling, probably this whole mess has become political, but maybe he thought he was more important than he actually was -- a man who wanted to be something that he couldn't be and forgot that in the heat of the moment. Real officers are trained to not allow an encounter such as what occurred between Martin and Zimmerman to escalate (and that is true even if they are undercover). Neighborhood watchers are there to watch and report.

I guess I should be relieved that the apartment building's watch wasn't armed. I guess I should also be relieved we were allowed to quietly leave the building and go home (which probably would not have happened if we were a minority race in our neighborhood). Sad that Martin didn't get the chance to go home and get his dad to defend him like my brother and I were able to do because he was determined not worthy of standing his ground.

The delusions of the new conservatives

A recent article in American Thinker, a very conservative blog, almost made me laugh out loud. To prove their point that America is one step away from destroying themselves as usual they point to a quote by Rush Limbaugh who is complaining that "America as founded is slipping away daily." He's kidding right? That America is long gone and for the better. Keep in mind the vote was generally limited to white male landowners when the country was founded. Laws of the time permitted child labor in modern factories (which didn't exist yet), blacks to be slaved, women forced to obey their man. I could go on, but you get my drift. And though I lean more conservative these days, at least on economical and freedom issues, I don't vote Republican because I find that party to be too far away from my inner core.

The conservatives of today are not those I could never wrap my arms around. I find they have been hijacked by a backwards looking people who refuse to evolve into what should be a robust 21st century movement. Why aren't they leading the charge on over government involvement in everyday lives? Why are they not working to educate anti-gun citizens on what gun ownership means and how gun safety and care by manufacturers and owners can go a long way to resolving illegal guns (not all the way of course, but you need to start somewhere)? Why aren't they pointing out the slippery slope that all these feel good laws take away our freedoms while admitting that some are good for us (clean water and clean air are kind of nice, higher gas mileage cars is also a nice way for us to tell OPEC where to go once we are free of them)? Instead they focus on abortion, Jesus and other issues that were settled over a half century ago. You can be conservative and still move forward with the times.

Perhaps it is because I am not Christian and do not care if gays want to marry or am appalled that my children, already tempted by all the commercial excitement of Christmas, would be forced to pray to Jesus. Maybe it is because I don't look at a book written 2,000 years ago and was probably the best knowledge of the day, written as stories for a simpler people to understand, to take precedence over what science has discovered over the centuries.

Out of touch

I have to laugh at how out of touch the GOP still seems. The only reason I don't is because I realize how bad this is for the country. We are headed towards a one party system and that is good for non one.

The GOP thinks all their problems with the younger generation will go away with just better marketing. Are they for real? I have to wonder what they are thinking if the following quote is the root to solving their identity crisis: "Fortunately, our ideas are already grounded in concepts that appeal across generations: the notion of a free market, where effort is connected with reward and equality is discussed in terms of opportunity, not outcome." I don't necessarily disagree with that last statement, but they don't put their money where there mouth is. How about applying those ideas so our children can get an affordable education that will allow them to use their skills to achieve the available opportunities and rewards GOP? [sound of crickets]

How many times has the GOP been behind cutting spending of education over the decades? They see the rich getting richer and everybody else left behind as the 1% has pulled up the ladder. Sure some can jump and still catch that ladder but fewer and fewer are able to.

In any event, the GOP is doomed to dwindle to nothingness as long as they allow the religious right to control their policies. The young see the GOP's hypocrisy over small government  -- no government involvement unless it concerns what consenting adults are doing in their beds. Most young people don't want to be dictated by a religious morality that they increasingly see as behind the times, especially when you allow political leaders to ignore science etc because a book written a few thousand years ago, that was probably based on the best knowledge of the day, says something else. They don't care what God says about gays and who can marry who.They are tired of leaders who deny and mock modern science and ideals because it doesn't match the leaders' out of date ideological religious teachings

They are concerned about what climate change will mean to them and their children (long after most of us dead). They worry about the increasing costs of health care and how it still seems that the main beneficiaries of Obamacare are private insurance companies and not the People because the GOP refused to allow the government and its economic might strike a better deal for the People.

The young have seen the enemy GOP and it is you. Your small government ideals are fine, but they are not absolute. Yes, there is a danger of government getting too big, but no government is not the solution when the scars of a deregulated financial community is still fresh in our psyche. When you wake up to all this you will have mine and the youth vote.

American citizen to be tried as an American citizen

Today the Justice Department announced that Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be tried in civilian court for his alleged acts of terror at last week's marathon that left three dead (four if you count the police officer he and his brother murdered a few days later) and almost 200 injured. This has angered some on the right who wanted him to be charged as an enemy combatant terrorist. This should not be an issue. Sadly, in 2013, some elected officials who have taken oaths to protect and serve have a problem with an American citizen being treated like an American citizen.

He's a US citizen, protected by the Constitution. End of story. He wasn't a combatant in the theater of war, he is accused of committing a single violent act of terrorism on the streets of Boston (again, excluding the shootout with police as the brothers tried to make their escape). There are many rights in the US Constitution, including the right to a jury trial in front of your peers. While we may decide what actions or crimes are worthy of a jury trial or just trial by a judge, we don not have the right to strip American citizens of their rights because we don't like what they have done. We are America. We don't stick up for the principles the terrorists supposedly hate by abandoning them the millisecond our own personal safety is threatened.

We start down the slippery slope of deciding citizens are not protected by the rule of law because the are accused of doing something especially heinous we open Pandora's box. When we start calling citizens "enemy combatants" we start to give up everything that the Bill of Rights were written for. It may seem harmless now, only using a reduced justice system, outside our legal system, where the right to defend yourself is minimized, on enemy combatants or terrorists as we know them now, but it is not hard to see some future administration come in with different or varied criteria as to what is a terrorist act and possibly strip anyone who does not agree with the government of their due process rights.

Terrorists need to be treated as the common criminals that they are.  Don't elevate them to some special kind of special super special enemy warrior status. "Terror networks" aren't that much different that the criminal enterprises that are and prosecuted under RICO (except perhaps for more civilian deaths). If the civil justice system is good enough for the mafia, it is good enough for Tsarnaev.

As to the questioning without Miranda for intelligence, all it means, at worse, is that prosecutors may be prevented from using whatever he may tell them against him when his trial starts (fruit of the poisonous tree). There already is plenty of other evidence to lock him up for three lifetimes. A fourth lifetime won't make much of a difference.

Education is not one size fits all

Attached is the retirement letter of a 40 year teacher who laments how the education system is failing our children with reforms that demean teachers. Coming from a family of teachers, I can see his point. While the current reforms may be great for burnt out teachers who mail it in, and can excel in the reform system of teaching to the test now in place, it must be maddening for those who went into teaching for the love of sharing what they have learned with younger generations.

I had some wonderful teachers when I went to school in the 1970s and 80s (and more than a few duds). For the ones that simply phoned it and taught to the test there were others who conveyed their love of the materials they were teaching us to get us interested in the discussion. Almost 30 years after high school, many of the details are long gone, but I still remember the hobbit English teacher, explaining the Hobbit trilogy and Mice and Men (that may have been for a different class) or the social studies teachers who used drawings on the blackboard to bring life to the industrial revolution. I recall classes that let us wander with reports, classes that would be so much better now with much easier access to information that can be obtained almost instantly.

I used to believe "No Child Left Behind" was enacted with good intentions and what we see now, such as teaching to the test, are unforeseen consequences. Now I wonder if what we are seeing today WAS foreseen and is exactly what the proponents of this law wanted. Already we are seeing our college graduating students chained to jobs because they need to pay back soul crushing college debt unable to speak out for fear of losing that necessary job. However, they realize they have been wronged. The next generation won't.  

My children are in school now and while I believe their teachers are dedicated and creative, I have seen them teaching to the test. And while they are still at an age where they don't really question what they learn, I fear they never will. Worse, I feel they will not let them learn the basics that will allow them to do followup reading when they are older. I may never have read, for example, a series of books about Theodore Roosevelt as an adult if I wasn't entranced by stories of him as a child battling asthma and boxing in the White House when I was in school. We can only hope that true reformers step in to teach our children how ideas are developed and tested and aren't dissuaded  by those who profit from the status quo before it is too late. 

And before you get the wrong idea, standardized testing isn't the problem - teachers should be held to some level of accountability and a simple basement standard may only be found through standardized tests. It is taking the concept of standardized testing too far that has created an inflexible system that doesn't really accomplish anything, aside from giving corporations,  such as the standardized testing companies, looking to make money over making sure our children are educated, a nice pay day. And we can't lay all the blame on the test companies without first looking at ourselves. After all we wanted this, didn't we? Oh we may have had good intentions, making sure all our children were equally educated, but this has devolved into something more, as things usually do when money is involved.

We spend our time cramming students with testing strategies and other efforts to improve a child’s ability to do well on a standardized test. We all want to see our town with a high score; that means we have  a ”good school system.” Not only will our housing values go up, but so will our property taxes, which coincidentally finance the schools, thereby providing them with more money - a vicious circle that benefits homeowners, municipalities, bankers and realtors, but not necessarily our children.   if you’re in a “good system.” It means that others will want to move to your area because of your “good school system.”

More troubling though, is the the though that this inflexibility is what the powers that be want -- a citizenship without the ability to question what they are told, without the ability to think of alternatives, to not even know how to question which is what this inflexibility is leading to. We are willingly and silently indoctrinating and conditioning our children to think there is nothing better than America.  Shame on us all for simply selling off what was the greatest experiment in human history to the highest bidder.

Gun safety

I guess it is a step in the right direction that in the wake of Aurora and Newton, the Senate has finally come to an agreement requiring background checks of gun buyers. However this is a feel good, not really do anything solution. Sure it will help keep felons from getting guns, but what good are those laws when the lawful owners then leave their weapons unsecured? In addition to background checks, maybe gun buyers should also pass a safety check.

Driving a car, a potential deadly weapon, requires a written test AND a driving test to demonstrate you know enough to earn a license to drive. A rifle, also a potential deadly weapon and whose sole purpose is to fire a bullet at something, does not. Am I the only one who thinks that is nuts?

Gay marriage debate

Now the social conservatives who want to take away our freedoms are looking at other religions to justify their opinion that homosexual marriage should be illegal. First, let us take every religious reference to marriage out of the discussion (you can argue that churches perform weddings and the state performs the marriage or whatever gets you through the night or at least this blog). Then tell me how this is any different then laws preventing blacks and whites from getting married a half century ago? It is not. It is bigotry no matter how you want to slice it and it is disgusting (the article also wanders into a discussion that says women belong back in the kitchen but I will skip that for now).

 

I don't care what the Koran says. I don't care what the Bible says. They aren't the laws of this land. I don't care how people want to live in their own private lives (and if that includes multiple wives then God bless that poor soul, one is enough for me). And I am tired of the red herring about procreation; widowed elderly couples marrying, for example, aren't going to have a baby at 65.Why are people so worried about what other people are doing with their bodies in their personal lives. Be a true conservative and get the government out of peoples' bedrooms. Life is too short to deny somebody else happiness.

The definition of marriage has constantly been evolving. The idea of marrying for love is relatively new, marriage used to be more political, with matchmakers (or whatever) pairing couples up based on dowries or other needs of the communities. My mother's parents met each other through friends in the very late 1920s, instead of through the Jewish community they lived in via their parents approval as was expected in those days (those darn trolleys that could take kids out of the 'hood). They eloped for love instead of entering relationships with people other people, such as their families, chose for them in 1933. That was almost as radical as gay marriage is today according to the stories I heard as a child.

You want to live like a social conservative? Go ahead. I'm not stopping you. However if your views infringe on the liberties of others that is YOUR problem, not theirs. You don't like abortion? Don't get an abortion. You don't like same sex marriages? Don't get married to a person of your own sex. How hard is that?

To much time is being taken over worrying about what other people in their private lives.This country has REAL problems, such as a run away deficit, infrastructure problems, an education system that is preventing talent from reaching their full potential due to cost or lack of funding and many others. Stop with this nonsense already.

Hyprocrisy

My brother-in-law is a New York City employee looking forward to his 50th birthday next year. Why do you ask is he looking forward to hitting the half century mark? Because, as a union employee who will have worked for the city over 30 years by then (he started in the good old days of the early 1980s when you could still make a good living without a college degree), he will be able to retire on a full pension and sit at home for the next 17-20 years while the rest of us continue to toil. Good for him. However, I am amazed at his attitude regarding taxes and biting the government hands that feed him.

He recently posted the greatest layoff letter ever on his Facebook page. To summarize, it was a layoff notice by an "employer" stating he had to fire staff due to the increased cost of ObamaCare and he reduced staff by laying off the owners of every car in the parking lot with a pro-Obama bumper sticker. My brother-in-law approved that letter, saying how we need lower taxes. I remarked how ironic it was that a government employee, living high on the government teet, would feel that way, noting that less taxes in general would mean less money for government employees, even those with tenure and not too far from retirement .

He responded that less spending requires less money, and less money means less taxes. He feels that if we cut spending, and cut the civil service workforce, which he noted would directly affect him in a negative manner but it IS the right thing to do. Fair enough, but then the conversation shifted over to government waste, noting that three qualified well paid employees could EASILY do the job of ten current employees in his department. Again, I'll take him at his word from this. I've dealt with enough antiquated union rules to not doubt this is true. In many instances I feel the rules are there to just add payroll (and union dues) regardless whether those jobs are needed or those rules are still necessary. However, I'm not talking about -- I am talking about hyprocisy.

Now, acknowledging that if I still lived in New York I, as a tax payer, I would be awfully annoyed I would be giving somebody money every year to someone starting at age 50 (basically our prime earning years) to NOT work, one who I might add could easily work another 15 to 20 years,  while cutting money to pay a teacher to teach over paying someone who  to stay home (ignoring I live in a state where a retired state employee can get a new state job and still get a pension), I questioned what does the waste of Civil Service protection keeping seven extra employees employed have to do with shifting the burden of uninsured patients from the taxpayers who fund ERs (law says hospitals have to treat regardless of ability to pay) to employers who don't offer health insurance?  

Pointing out our conversation had drifted to lowed taxes, he responded that creating a workforce that would be 30% the size but more efficient... saving taxes. He used the example that Walmart pays a certain wage and benefit package and people take the job.. nobody is being dragged into the stores and made to fill out the applications but after weeks they all complain (jobs are scarce, etc. supply/demand). Of course what he failed to acknowledge was: 1) Walmart has been cutting their workforce too, leaving many stores under serviced with customers unable to take their business elsewhere as Walmart has become a defacto monopoly in many areas and 2) that in states where Walmart is the largest employer, Walmart employees are the states' largest number of recipients of federal subsidized Medicaid and Food Stamps due to wages and arbitrary scheduling that make it impossible for those employees to currently afford health insurance. That is tax dollars paid by all of us to subsidize Walmart's business practices I don't think that the Walmart daughters coughing up a few dollars (for them) to cover their share will bankrupt them, do you?

At this point I remembered I was arguing with someone who had drank the Fox Kool-Aide (I already knew I was the "liberal" in my family) as he shifted the argument to how much he pays in taxes, that they are too high, noting that at one time his goal was to earn what he now pays in taxes. Faulty logic. His first mistake was noting what he pays in dollars, not what he pays as a percentage of of his income. If you think the federal tax rate is high now, I told him, look at what the rates were when our fathers were our ages. If you run the actual dollar numbers (referring to your goal from decades ago was to earn what you now pay in taxes) through an inflation calendar you would discover what we pay (ignoring we live in Nassau and NJ, the land of high property taxes) is not as bad as you think, I reminded him. 

He then opinionated that if only the Walmart workers had a higher moral compass they wouldn't need assistance, pointing out that the starting salary for a NYPD officer, falls well below the limits for WIC, earned income credit and SNAP, implying that officers/cadets who take take full advantage of these benefits have a poor compass because they don't pay those benefits back when they finally make enough money to not need the extra assistance. I reminded him that those cadets aren't taking "advantage" by taking WIC etc, they take it because they don't earn enough otherwise to, I don't know, eat? and that I pay taxes for welfare, food stamps, unemployment etc as insurance so that the benefits will be there if I need that. Being poor has nothing to do with a moral compass. 

On the other hand paying wages too low to live on does. In that case, the city is just as bad as Walmart using my federal tax dollars to subsidize the cadets. There's something wrong when someone working a full time job can barely support themselves. And, though I didn't point this out as I really didn't want to start WW3 in my family, one could argue that all the benefits he received from the city via his union could be equated with the welfare benefits the low paid cadets receive and that the low paid cadets repaid the benefits they received when paying taxes on their eventual higher salaries, something the Walmart workers probably will never be able to do. Not that heirs of Sam Walton seem to care. What do they know about meritocracy and receiving rewards for good work? Their financial success was guaranteed as soon as they received their inheritances (God forbid we put an inheritance tax in place to prevent an aristocracy from forming but that is another blog post).

I remember when my goal was to make $10 an hour, of course that was in 1985 when I was making $3.75 an hour (a bit above the then minimum wage) and was just finishing high school. Times change, and so do our expectations. I found the census for 1940 and saw what my grandfather, a bank executive, made that year. After running it through an inflation calculator I saw how low his salary was -- which explains in part why they lived in a 4th floor walkup in Brooklyn without a car. We pay more dollars because we make more dollars and I like having a house, phone, multiple cars and other items my grandparents would have considered a luxury. 

He then complained that he knows a lot of people, himself included, who opted for lower wages (much lower than comparable private sector positions) to gain benefits. His argument was that if benefits are given out to everyone, then pay will be the only deciding factor and companies can then use public sector wages as a standard instead of the other way around (NYC civil service law has provisions that an in-house title CANNOT pay more than 80% of private sector.. and they include benefit packages which are usually considered as 30 - 40% of total wages). As an example, he pointed to city electricians using a section of the law to gain equity with private sector wages because of the huge disparity... jump forward 8 years, they received a 77% wage increase but lost 23 annual days and pay their own medical ... overall they gained about 15% in salary but if they should get sick for an extended period that gain would be gone in a flash.... making choices. Well, gee. Welcome to the private sector.  

Basically, he was  arguing that Unions got too greedy. I agree to an extent. Certain work rules regarding job titles and duties that may have made sense in 1953 don't make sense in 2013. On the other hand, Walmart's low wages make the argument for unions; imagine if the union fervor of the early 20th century existed today. Even though Walmart is low skill, they would be pretty screwed if everyone struck at once. For them its all about money not the customers or employees and if they saw their bottom line was being affected they might react with higher wages or more employees. Unfortunately, in many places in this country the customers don't have the option of striking Walmart so the money will keep rolling in.

Going back to the waste, there is a lot of blame to go around for that but basically, like the debt, we are living through the consequences of labor/ social peace of 50-60 years ago where all parties kicked the problem down the road. Nobody cared about needed reforms. The result is that in the last decade or so government pay and benefits has exceeded the private sector. My wife, who works in the NJ court system, can point to many lawyers applying for what used to be high school diploma jobs in the court because the money is better than the private sector and I know that can not last, especially now that we are in a global economic market. But that is another argument

My other grandfather was a NYC school principal in the 1950s and 60s, retiring just after the teachers' unions "won." He was telling me in the mid 80s that while he understood the necessity of the teachers unions to curb the principals' powers that the pendulum had already swung too far left. Add on another 30 years, along with previous tax cuts, and here we are, the public sector being a superior place to work over the private sector for many at the same time you have people like my brother-in-law, a man who has done well on the government payroll, arguing to cut the ladder behind him now that he has gotten his. Complete hypocrisy.

I am not saying I like ObamaCare (I feel it is a big windfall for private insurance companies), and I can see his point about making choices, but I don't see why a union employee is upset over someone in the private sector having to offer a 10th of what his union has given him. I think it is marvelous that he gets great health benefits. I think it is hypocritical of him to say that no one else should have them because NOW he wants taxes and spending to be cut. If he put his actions where his mouth was, he would be working until 70 like the rest of us (which he will of course, he will be able to make much more money in the private sector with the engineering skills he learned from the city, even without a college degree).

Wealth inequality is as high as the years before the Great Depression. That only ended when we taxed ourselves like nuts for WW2 and then to build the post-war infrastructure that made us the most powerful nation in the world and whose legacy we are barely holding onto as we starve our schools, roads, power lines etc. of needed capital. Yes, the tax rates of the mid 20th century were insanely high, but they have been cut many times they hit their peak. Tax rates today are low, enough with the idea that a few cents or dollars more for Obamacare will destroy the country. 

Finally, happy minus 50 years to first contact with the Vulcans on a ship paid for by tax dollars but re-purposed by a private scientist.

Mom or rocket scientist?

It is 2013. The women's lib movement was decades ago and many adults, especially those in their mid 40s and younger, don't have any real work-life experience with the major discrimination women suffered years ago. Oh sure, some of us heard stories from our mothers about how the choices when they were young were to become wife and mother, or a teacher, a typist or some other low level job if outside the house. And there are still plenty of instances where there are glass ceilings for women in both blue collar and white collar offices, especially if they are working mothers, both actual and social, no matter how high in the company they may reach. In my working life spanning almost 30 years at this point, I have worked for many male and female bosses including, at one point, for a then Fortune 500 company where our CEO/President was a woman and, for the most part, have never seen women discriminated against, especially in recent years. Therefore, I am amused about the snit among some over an obituary for a female 88 year old rocket scientist who passed last week, started off with a comment on her cooking skills and being a great mother, despite the family noting that was how they wanted the obituary to start for personal reasons.

Maybe it is a generation thing, but I don't know many people my age, male or female, who worry about being defined by their careers. For many of my peers the bigger concern is a work/life balance, though that view may be due to the people I work with and befriend. Mrs. Brill sounded a lot like a woman of her times, who associated her life with her family over her work, even though her work is what she is remembered for on the national and world stage. Married in the early 1950s, she followed her husband around the country for his work, while she took time away from hers to not only go where he went but to raise their children. And it strikes a cord with me as her story sounds a lot like my mother's, a woman who started as a traditional wife and then moved on to better things. 

Back in the 1950s, a woman's role was, for the most part, standing by her man, running the home and raising the family, even if they had dreams of doing more. My mother was one of those women and she made a point of telling my brothers, sister and I that her dreams of being a geologist were put aside due to the times and how wonderful it was that that was changing (this was the 1970s). She often spoke how envious she was of her sister-in-law, about a decade younger, who came of age at the right time and was able to have a meaningful career. My mother told us several times the story of how when she went to Brooklyn College in the mid 1950s, one professor accused her of taking a seat from a man because he speculated she just wanted to meet boys, despite already being engaged to my father. This was not the case for my aunt a decade later. As a result, like many women of her day, my mother became a teacher, quitting for a time to raise children, before returning to the work force. However, due to her lack of education in the sciences, and other circumstances, she was unable to follow her passion.

However, my mother eventually was able to be more than a mother and teacher, finding meaningful volunteer work in several organizations, becoming quite prominent in one of them, and may have been remembered for that if she had died when still young. But that was decades ago and declining health forced her to step away from most of those activities over a decade ago. Now, as my mother nears the end of her life, with many of her friends and former colleagues already gone, she will be remembered as a mother and grandmother by the only people who will really care.

Finally, my grandfather (my mother's father) had his obit in the NY Times almost 30 years ago. And while I don't recall if he wrote it himself (it was one of the ones you had to pay for)  he definitely had final say. Therefore, I imagine Mrs. Brill did too. And if that was the case, then it was she who thought being a wife and mother was more important than being a rocket scientist and that was how she wanted to be remembered.

Oh, more thing ladies still upset that the obit started with Mrs. Brill's homemaking skills. As I noted above it is 2013. Please stop acting surprised when I answer the phone mid-day and tell you my wife is at work. Some of us men are house husbands while others work from home (like I do) some or all week days. Stop asking for her when the call could easily apply to either of us (I also take messages so saying thank you and hanging up before I can even ask what the call is about is kinda rude).

her story sounds a lot like my mother's, a woman who started as a traditional wife and then moved on to better things. My mother made a point of telling my brothers, sister and I that her dreams of being a geologist were put aside due to the times and how wonderful it was that that was changing (this was the 1970s). When she went to Brooklyn College in the mid 1950s, one professor accused her of taking a seat from a man because he speculated she just wanted to meet boys, despite already being engaged to my father. She eventually was able to be more than a mother and teacher and may have been remembered for that if she had died when still young. But now, as my mother nears the end of her life, with many of her friends and former colleagues already gone, she will be remembered as a mother and grandmother by the only people who will really care.

her story sounds a lot like my mother's, a woman who started as a traditional wife and then moved on to better things. My mother made a point of telling my brothers, sister and I that her dreams of being a geologist were put aside due to the times and how wonderful it was that that was changing (this was the 1970s). When she went to Brooklyn College in the mid 1950s, one professor accused her of taking a seat from a man because he speculated she just wanted to meet boys, despite already being engaged to my father. She eventually was able to be more than a mother and teacher and may have been remembered for that if she had died when still young. But now, as my mother nears the end of her life, with many of her friends and former colleagues already gone, she will be remembered as a mother and grandmother by the only people who will really care.

Goofy Old out of touch Party

Open message to the GOP:

It is very easy to see why the GOP is in decline, at least those who just drink the conservative Kool-Aid and nothing else. The GOP is dead until they become the party of small government that doesn't get into people's bedrooms. The GOP says they are into individual rights over group rights on one hand while on the other interfere with a person's most intimate life decisions. Don't like homosexual marriage? Don't marry a homosexual. Don't like abortions. Don't get an abortion. Want your children to go to a school where they pray to Jesus every morning, where they teach the bible or creationism as fact? Send them to a religious school. You don't do anything to inspire the people who probably agree with 90-95% of the GOP platform. You force many of us who want to vote for the Republican party to vote for the party of big-government social justice because of your attitudes that reflect a culture war that essentially ended decades ago.

The GOP has offered neither a strong intellectual argument or a convincing emotional one to convince people to vote for them. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity do not even begin to compare the conservative intellectuals like William F. Buckley or Irving Kristol of the last century. If your tent is not big enough for Republicans like Chris Christie (basically those from states with large urban populations) because he dared jump off the bandwagon for five minutes because he realized that the destruction NJ suffered after Sandy was more than one state could bare alone, then you have no future.

There are so many legitimate issues to fight Democrats on such as drones, spying, unfair taxes etc. More and more people just don't care about gay marriage or abortion. The bible is book on how to get to heaven while on earth, not rule the heavens and earth. There is no pent up demand for the type of conservatism many have deluded themselves into believing is wanted and the sooner you realize the better off this country will be. There will be no true opposition party otherwise, unless the RINOs either kick the "conservatives" out or form a third part that will make the current GOP as relevant as the Whigs.

Going Over Poorly

The GOP is trying to figure out what they did wrong last fall to lose to the Democrats. They've concluded that it is because they don't hang out with the people enough. That is only partially correct.

The GOP is perceived as a party more interested in telling women what to do with their bodies while telling gays what they can't do with theirs all because they rely on a book that may have been the most scientifically advanced work available 2,000 years ago -- the bible is a guide how to get into heaven, not rule the heavens. At the same time they work hard to make sure a few thousand people don't have to pay a "death tax" while screaming that the country will go broke due to "entitlements," such as unemployment insurance that working people have been paying into, if we don't have cuts in spending and taxes, ignoring that taxes have been getting cut for decades. 

What happened to the party that railed against Democrats interfering in a person's private life because they felt government shouldn't be involved in an individual's life? Why have they become the party of telling you how to live? You don't like abortions? Don't get an abortion. You don't like homosexual marriage? Don't get married to a homosexual. How hard is that?

This is a party that loves the ignorant and calls those who want to know more than they are told elitists. They have become so unbending in their philosophy that they dismiss any of their own who might agree with the opposition to help those they represent as not conservative enough.  Under their watch income disparity between the richest and poorer has intensified, making it more and more difficult for the poor to rise to the middle class. Finally their speakers have no problem making subtle racial jokes at the same time the country is getting more diverse.

I am in my mid 40s, white and my family income puts me in the top 10%. I should be in the GOP's cross-hairs as a firm supporter, yet their policies have repelled me so much I feel I have no choice but to vote against them. If they can't get me, how do they expect to get the future voters?

Nicest thing a parent ever did for you

Recently, I saw a survey asking what was the nicest thing one of your parents ever did for you. My first thought was:Hard to say. 

My dad taught me what to do and not do as a parent. The good things: worked hard, home for dinner most nights, taught me how walk like a New Yorker, made sure our school work was up to par (he once negotiated a failing grade for me when he thought I didn't deserve to pass, which was true). The bad things: Gambling and his temper. I don't like to gamble, at least heavily, so that has never been an issue. His temper is another matter. I inherited it. To make sure I didn't do what he did (hitting) I started doing what his dad did to him (yelling) until I realized what I was doing and broke the cycle (anti-depressant drugs can be wonderful for giving you clarity). He died when I was just shy of 20 and the last few years were horrible for him as my brother died in a car accident 2 1/2 years earlier so I have no experience with him as an adult.

My mother, somewhat the same. She was a good conversationalist in her time, took us places (she was a teacher so had the summers off), took my surviving brother, sister and I on cruises after our dad passed (she is disabled and needed someone to help her, but paid our bar bills and gave us plenty of free time so we were happy to cruise with her), bought my wife and I some essentials when we got our 1st apartment etc. But she was also very selfish -- she was out many nights doing various volunteer work, due to her disability, we sometimes had to pass up educational opportunities to help her (which is why we got out of there as soon as we could for own peace of mind), wasted money, so we had to support her sooner then we should have, to the detriments of our own young families.

Obviously I still have some mommy and daddy issues to talk over with my therapist, so I re-looked at the question again: "what was the nicest thing you parent ever did for you?" Then how to answer the question in a positive matter hit me. Where am I today, where I wouldn't be but for a specific action? Not just the basic schooling, a comfortable roof over my head, food and clothing -- which can be a lot for some parents, sadly. Some specific step. Then the answer was easy:  Paid my college tuition and gave me somewhat free room and board while in school, even after my dad died when I was just shy of 20 and money got a little tight (fortunately City University of NY tuition was fairly low at the time).

Unlike many students today, I graduated with no debt which was very fortunate as I graduated college just in time for the Bush I recession of the early 90s. Without my college education, i likely would not have been in a position to get a job that paid for my law school tuition. Without a college education I would never have met my wife (we met in a LSAT review class, LSATs were a test prospective law students took), gone to law school and entered a mostly satisfying career. I would never have been the father to our children. I would have lived a totally different life, most likely not for the better. My parents gave me an education, the key to it all. They prepared me for my life. That is the nicest thing a parent can do.

Don't go to law school

A recent article has noted that applications for law school have sharply declined over the last few years. Good, and I am not saying that simply because fewer new attorneys means less competition for me. I say good, because more and more young adults are noting the tectonic shifts going on in the legal field and are finding alternate careers that may actually justify the huge expense in time and money of going to law school.

A big issue is that law schools have spent the last few decades (so it seems) of raising tuition much faster than inflation would explain. I went to law school from 1995-99 (part time at night). My first year's tuition was about $15,000, and most of that was paid by my then employer. According to my school's website, tuition and fees are now over $37,000 per year. What justifies a near tripling of tuition fees?

Considering much of the low level lawyer/paralegal grunt work is now automated or sent overseas meaning less lawyers are needed, job prospects for salaries high enough to justify laying out over $150,000 are becoming fewer and fewer. One of my first jobs was a humongous document review in a warehouse,with several paralegals going through boxes and boxes of documents. The entire initial review took almost 10 weeks. Today, those documents would be scanned in and a computer would search for the terms or phrases we were looking for to help find the relevant documents, replacing an associate and the paralegals. So much of the work that used to be done by many is now automated, there is just no need for so much man/woman power in many firms.

Certainly, young attorneys can strike out on their own and open a small practice. There will always be a need for criminal defense attorneys and family law attorneys for example. And while those attorneys may eke out a decent lifestyle, that is no longer guaranteed. For while legal research is cheaper and more accessible, it is also accessible for the common person who may decide to handle certain matters, such as drafting a will, on their own. I know of many attorneys who are under employed or taking positions where JDs are not required (in my local courthouse, there are now many attorneys doing jobs that were once held by college or even high school graduates not too long ago). Others are in alternate careers where a JD comes in handy, but is also not required.

I am now at an age and position where friends' high school children, who have an interest in law, are asking me for advice. My response is simple, unless you truly have a love of law, don't go to law school. Financially, it does not make sense. Though I enjoy what I do, and there is plenty of work if you don't care about being rich, if I was contemplating law school today, I would find another career path.

So how is your day going?

I hate winter. Not so much for the cold and snow (if we ever get it again here in central NJ -- my kids haven't been sledding in two years), but the darkness. Long ago I realized I am one of those people who get affected by the change in seasons and I can usually deal with it with bright lights and exercise.  But the last few days have been rough.

15 years ago my company was bought by a larger company. Yesterday the powers that be announced that after 125 years they are closing our former main officer and laying everybody there off starting in April (or 90 days). Today I am sitting through a meeting where I am basically learning how some offshore employees are taking their first steps in replacing those of us who remain in a few years. Finally, on a personal note, my wife has become very uncomfortable from the combined effects of radiation for her breast cancer and starting on tamoxifen.

The layoffs and offshoring are not really a surprise. That is where the industry has been headed lately as our world basically has changed completely thanks to technology the last 20 years. But the closing of the former main office really struck a blow for former and current long time employees. Though not at the original site, our company was a major player in the small city our company was headquartered for over a century. And while the office itself has only been half full, if that, for many years and we were absorbed by our new parent many years ago, it is essentially the end of an era.

Actually, my wife was feeling a little better today, at least well enough not to take her pain out on me -- this "for worse" stuff can be really hard some days. But her mood swings from the side effects the last few days are starting to get to me. I feel myself starting to slink back to the bottomless pit I felt I was in back when she started chemotherapy in July. I can't decide if she is in so much discomfort that she either is unaware how much her words are hurting me or is purposefully saying these things so I can feel her pain. Or if this is just the drugs talking again. At least I'll have something to talk to my therapist about next week.

Knee jerk over reaction

Today is the first day back to school after winter break and, in response to the Newton tragedy, the mayor of Marlboro, NJ, an upper middle class neighborhood in central NJ, a little less rural than Newton, but otherwise fairly similar, has decided to spend the money to hire 9 extra police officers to sit in each of the town's schools and do nothing. I live in Manalapan, a town adjacent to Marlboro and there are people here demanding that we match Marlboro's arms race because they have bought into the exploitation by Marlboro's mayor over the fears of the general public for his political gain. They are furious at our mayor and school superintendent for catching their breath, taking the time to decide what is best and then "only" assigning two cadets from the police academy on an extra patrol for all of the town's schools traveling around the town and, coincidentally, are also actually patrolling the neighborhood.

For years we (people in this area) have been demanding an end to higher property taxes to pay for our schools so that teachers are actually being replaced by computer programs. Funny how we don't have the money to pay for a Spanish teacher in our elementary schools, but all of the sudden we can find the money for an armed policeman in all schools that will do nothing (Columbine had a police officer on site, Va Tech had their own police force and Ft Hood was an army installation) except make a few scaredy cats feel better and take money away from more important needs, such as educating our students. And guess what? This will still do nothing if some nut decides to take a shot. All it is is just a big waste of tax money in the very slim chance that one day an armed police officer will be needed. Money we don't have.

I'm not a blind, idealist. I know there are way more assault riffles held by frightened people, convinced the world is about to end thanks to irresponsible news entities, then there used to be. And that thanks to the irresponsibility of some, these lethal weapons are in the wrong hands. But an armed officer in every single building, especially out here is nuts. More importantly it  is a response to yesterday's attack. Who is to say the next attack will be with a gun? An officer at the front door won't do much if the next mental person, for example, decides to drive through a wide door or window unprotected by barricades. Want to add bulletproof glass and other barriers to the building itself? Fine. Like many parents after Newton, I took a look around both my children's schools after picking them up and noticed some easy fixes that would make sense to keep any intruder out.

You can't have police everywhere and I don't think we want to live in a society that does. If a cop is at the door then what about the school yard for recess?  When the same cop is used to sitting at the school all day doing nothing it will be just a matter of time until they become complacent and start reading a newspaper or playing around on their cell phone. And what will happen when, inevitably, a parent walking into the school for legitimate business gets harassed by the officer or, worse, an officer over reacts to a misbehaving pupil and turns a simple disciplinary problem into a legal problem? 

Newton was an aberration. One single nut that, if proper procedures had been followed, should never of even had access to a gun. No one is hunting our children.  I am all for the safety of the children but putting brownshirts in all our public schools is not the answer. Knee jerk reactions like this simply compromise liberty.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)