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)

Get your mammograms ladies

An article about a new study claims mammograms over diagnose breast cancer and that mammograms should be used less frequently. Sorry, I disagree. Women should be checked regularly once they reach a certain age. Better safe than sorry. Also, I imagine it is cheaper to catch and treat early.

My wife has been getting mammograms since she was 35 as her mother had breast cancer. At age 41 a tumor was found. Though very aggressive, the tumor was caught early and she only had a lumpectomy (plus chemo and radiation). If my wife was being checked less frequently, who knows when the cancer would have been found as the tumor was near her rib cage, meaning the lump wouldn't have easily been found until it was much larger. Granted my mother-in-law's prior history statistically put my wife at greater risk (as it will our daughter when she gets older), so she might have been checked anyway, making my argument moot.

However, contrast that with a larger woman in my wife's office who went for her first mammogram at age 40 and discovered cancer all over her breast. She had a mastectomy and is currently undergoing chemo. There was no prior family history and she wasn't showing symptoms. Also, due to her size, it is unlikely she would have found a lump through self examination. Though her cancer is advanced, and doctors say she may have only bought a few more years. those are years she may not have even had without the mammogram finding her cancer. While she may not make it to see her grandchildren, she should at least make it to see her children through childhood. It may only be a short time, but that time will be precious for her younger daughter.

I don't know what my wife's co-worker's medical bills are, but I imagine they are substantially higher than my wife's, which are not that low to start with. As coastal communities in NY and NJ that didn't build sand dunes or sea walls, or buried utility lines  due to costs are discovering, it is sometimes better to spend a few extra dollars up front then spend many more dollars after cleaning up the mess. I'm sure my wife would love to look back on spending that week between the initial finding and the follow up exam that confirmed she had an aggressive tumor as a week spent worrying about nothing.

Santa the hostile workplace employer

Tonight CBS is airing the annual holiday special celebrating discrimination based on a physical disability with regards to a reindeer, bullying, workplace prejudice, ADA violations, Title VII claims and possible OT violations. Yep, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer is on. The annual special that teaches children about bigotry, cruelty, and the triumph of discrimination.

Let's start with bigotry. Santa  promotes a hostile workplace, where management is allowed to discriminate against a potential employee because he is "different." And I'm not just talking about Rudolph. Look at what happened to poor Hermey the elf who wanted to be a dentist. Forced out because he wouldn't conform. Granted he was hired as a laborer, not a dentist, but to ostracize him from his own community just because he was different? Shame on Santa for allowing this to happen. I shudder to think what would happen if a couple of same sex elves wanted to hook up. 

And what is this nonsense about allowing his employees to not allow Rudolph to play in any reindeer games while they laughed and called him names? How cruel. Though it seems to me that those games were part of the workplace environment, meaning Santa should have made an accommodation for Rudolph's disability, Santa is at the North Pole and not subject to the ADA. Outsourcing is good when you want to avoid regulation. Still, if Santa were a stand up guy, he would have put a stop to this cruelty as soon as became aware of it, especially the name calling. That he did not speaks volumes of Santa's inner corporate heart. Of course what do you expect from a man who straps spare reindeer to the roof of his sleigh? And though I am not sure if there are possible OT violations in Santa's workshop (no idea what the law is in the North Pole), by working those poor elves non-stop I suspect he is violating his workshop's mission statement of bringing happiness and joy to all.

Face it, the only reason Santa put an end to the discrimination is because Rudolph had something Santa needed. Fine, all employers do that to an extent but Santa craftily put Rudolph in the no win situation of either accepting the years of harsh treatment and helping Santa or disappointing millions of children world wide. Let's face it, if Rudolph was shunned by his peers for just being born with a birth defect, how would he have been treated once the news broke that Rudolph refused to to use his special skill because he was just too emotionally depressed to get over his years of terrible treatment (good thing there was no social media back then)?  Well played Santa, well played. Personally I would’ve told Santa which part of my red-nosed anatomy he and the others could kiss but I guess I'm not as good a man as Rudolph. And, if it wasn't a foggy Christmas Eve, would the discrimination against Rudolph have continued? I bet a lump of coal that it would have.

Maybe he was just having a bad day. Santa is kind of a self centered jerk through the whole thing, which goes against his reputation for being a jolly old elf. Could be he was mad at his agent for getting caught in such a lame story? Or maybe he is a man whose past his prime and should be given a gold watch and thanks for his many years of service. A corporate leader with his skill set wouldn't last five minutes in today's environment. He has this weird mix of bullying those he perceives as weak while promoting the idea that if someone is not "useful" (Rudolph, Hermey, the Island of Misfit Toys) they are worthless. And he is so blinded by old ideas that he can't even see when something different can be an asset. Perhaps it is time for new management at Santa's Workshop?

So, in conclusion, light the fire and make some hot chocolate as you tell this true corporate tale. Time to indoctrinate a  new generation of serfs to know their place in life. Marginalized people are not supposed to rise above their station in life. If a bigoted employer wants to make you his bitch that is his right.