A survey of women finds that the average ideal man isn't a vegetarian, prefers beer to wine/cocktails, doesn't smoke, makes makes more than she does, calls his mom twice a week and only takes 9 minutes to get to the gym, which he does frequently. I decided to see how I stacked up:
6'0": Uh oh
Short brown hair: what's left of it.
Brown eyes: Oh dear
Muscular: Yes, under the fat.
Clean shaven: Some times.
Smooth chest: No, the fat left some bumps.
Good fashion: My now wife quietly got rid of most of my clothes after we started dating and hasn't let me really buy anything since.
Can get ready in fewer than 17 minutes: Ready for what? Some things take less time than others.
Wears jeans: Check
Wears v-neck sweater: Nope.
Non-Smoker: Check
Prefers beer over wine/cocktails: Scotch
Admits when he looks at other women: I look but don't really look. Usually if my wife asks "did you see the way she was dressed?" I hadn't. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Eats meat: Not as much as I used to. Also don't weigh as much as I used to.
College degree: And then some
Earns more than you: She works for the state and is union. No way I can match that.
Drives an Audi: Subaru. When you live in the NE and have kids you get practical. It's nice to have a car go "bring it on" when you have to rush a kid to the doctor/hospital during a snowstorm
Loves shopping: Home Depot, the Apple Store, Costco, Barnes & Noble -- check. 21 Forever, hell no.
Watches football: Check. It's good to be a Giants fan.
Can swim/bike: Check
Can change a tire: If I can get the f***ing lug nuts off
Has driver's license: Check. But if we still lived in Brooklyn not having a license wouldn't be the end of the world,
Likes dramas and reality shows: Some I do.
Can get to the gym in under 9 minutes: I can get to the treadmill in the garage in 2 minutes.
Calls mom 2x/week: Since she had her stroke a few years back, she has a lot of trouble communicating. So instead we visit every three weeks or so.
Says I love you only when he means it: We're married almost 15 years.
Is sensitive when you're upset. See last answer.
Has a good sense of humor: Well that depends on the person, now doesn't it?
Wants a family: Got one already. What we really want is someone to watch the kids for the weekend so we can get away now and then for grownup time.
In other words, 43 year old married nerd.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
Memories
I just saw an article about a child's earliest memories and it got me thinking. I can't actually date my earliest memory for sure. I have various memories such as climbing the stairs to my dad's parents walkup in Brooklyn or my mother's parents summer home, both of which were out of the picture long before I was 4, but I really don't know how old I was. Same for a funeral or an unveiling (Jews have a little ceremony about a year after death dedicating the gravestone) that all could have happened before the memories I am certain of.
So, my earliest memory that I can date is from November or December 1970. I'm in my mother's car, at night, age 2 1/2. I was in the front seat, we were entering the Belt Parkway east at Flatbush Ave (NYC) and had just picked up my new puppy and were on the on the way home. The car was a 1965 Ford Falcon, white exterior with a red strip and red interior. Beautiful car.
Next earliest is about 5 months later, around my 3rd birthday and is much more clearer. Same car, cloudy day, late winter or early spring, we stopped for traffic on the LIE, the UPS truck behind us did not. I went flying into the front seat (pre-seat belts, 2 door car so when we were hit I went forward and pushed the seat onto my younger sister). My 8 month or so old baby brother was in his carriage (top came off, bottom with wheels in trunk) on the back seat next to me and slept through the initial accident. I remember the rear view mirror was hanging weird as my mother, after making sure we were all ok, threw the car into park. She was mad. She got out of the car, put the hood up and smoke poured out of the engine (just fluids, no fire). That seemed to set her off and as the UPS driver rounded the driver's side to speak to my mother she lit into him and started yelling him.
And I mean YELLING. I had never seen her so angry before (she later said the driver had turned white realizing he hit a car with a pregnant woman and three children under 3). She ripped him a new one. I'm sure I heard words from her I never heard before but my brother's crying (my sister and I had woken him up) drowned it out. The next hour or two are a blur but I remember being towed home and thinking that was neat.
The car, which actually held up pretty well after the crash, was wrecked after that (not much body damage but the frame was cracked -- my dad said that was how cars were made then, or at least that model). That was the last cool looking car my parents ever had. After that it was all huge, tank like family sedans. Today, I don't know if my car would hold up so well against a UPS truck, my wife's Civic certainly wouldn't. And an unbelted 3 year old in the back, an unbelted 2 year old in the front and an infant not in car seat would earn my mother all sorts of traffic tickets and probably a call from child protection.
The funniest memory I have from my early childhood though occurred a few years later, in the spring or summer of 1974. I was convinced President Nixon was going to climb up the fire escape to break into our apartment to steal our scotch tape. It took my parents awhile to convince me otherwise.
So, my earliest memory that I can date is from November or December 1970. I'm in my mother's car, at night, age 2 1/2. I was in the front seat, we were entering the Belt Parkway east at Flatbush Ave (NYC) and had just picked up my new puppy and were on the on the way home. The car was a 1965 Ford Falcon, white exterior with a red strip and red interior. Beautiful car.
Next earliest is about 5 months later, around my 3rd birthday and is much more clearer. Same car, cloudy day, late winter or early spring, we stopped for traffic on the LIE, the UPS truck behind us did not. I went flying into the front seat (pre-seat belts, 2 door car so when we were hit I went forward and pushed the seat onto my younger sister). My 8 month or so old baby brother was in his carriage (top came off, bottom with wheels in trunk) on the back seat next to me and slept through the initial accident. I remember the rear view mirror was hanging weird as my mother, after making sure we were all ok, threw the car into park. She was mad. She got out of the car, put the hood up and smoke poured out of the engine (just fluids, no fire). That seemed to set her off and as the UPS driver rounded the driver's side to speak to my mother she lit into him and started yelling him.
And I mean YELLING. I had never seen her so angry before (she later said the driver had turned white realizing he hit a car with a pregnant woman and three children under 3). She ripped him a new one. I'm sure I heard words from her I never heard before but my brother's crying (my sister and I had woken him up) drowned it out. The next hour or two are a blur but I remember being towed home and thinking that was neat.
The car, which actually held up pretty well after the crash, was wrecked after that (not much body damage but the frame was cracked -- my dad said that was how cars were made then, or at least that model). That was the last cool looking car my parents ever had. After that it was all huge, tank like family sedans. Today, I don't know if my car would hold up so well against a UPS truck, my wife's Civic certainly wouldn't. And an unbelted 3 year old in the back, an unbelted 2 year old in the front and an infant not in car seat would earn my mother all sorts of traffic tickets and probably a call from child protection.
The funniest memory I have from my early childhood though occurred a few years later, in the spring or summer of 1974. I was convinced President Nixon was going to climb up the fire escape to break into our apartment to steal our scotch tape. It took my parents awhile to convince me otherwise.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Religious release time
Now that Mitt Romney has pretty much secured the Republican presidential nomination, I'm starting to see the inevitable articles about his Mormon religion. I don't get it. Why do people care? Isn't this a nation of religious freedom.
I know I am being naive, but I really don't care about a candidate's religion and think none of us should too. The only thing I care about is someone shoving their religious views down my throat, insisting that state and church should not be separate, and force me to follow their ideals, such as suggesting that an embryo gets full citizenship rights upon conception which leaves a lot of questions unanswered, such as will a mother be prosecuted for murder if she miscarries in the first month, while unaware she was pregnant, because she had a few drinks? You want to live your life according to the Christian bible? Fine with me, but don't make me do the same.
I'm Jewish. That means, basically, I don't like ham, don't want cheese on my hamburger and can live without bacon. I think that last one makes me the anti-Christ in some circles.
I think of myself as an American first and a Jew second. Aside from the food and the importance of education (it was never a question of if you were going to college but where), my religion has definitely influenced my opinion on politics and other matters important to Jews, such as Israel (I can see both sides of the Palestine argument and both have some really good points). But, significantly, it has affected my views on religious freedom, which I interpret as not only being free to worship God or not worship God as I please, but to also not have someone else's religious values shoved down my throat because of their interpretation of a 2000 year old plus book. Then there is the fear of what would happen if some of these religious fools really got into power. Jews, even those who have mainstreamed and are not particularly observant, tend not to do well under those regimes.
I belong to a temple but these days it is more for cultural reasons than spiritual. While I generally enjoy the experience, finding the rabbi's sermons meaningful most weeks, consider the prayer time as mediation time where I get up and stand every few minutes (just unplugging from the world for a few hours can be very relaxing), listening to the choir, while I wait for my kiddish snack, services stopped being truly meaningful in my heart a long time ago, about when I realized the stories of the Bible are exaggerated and probably based on some myth from long ago. For example, a flooded out valley in a time when people rarely traveled far from their own valley could very well feel like the end of the world by flooding. I'd like to think there is something after life, and I'll find out one way or the other eventually (and will never know if there is nothing).
I don't know what Mormons believe in and, frankly, I don't care. I'm more interested in whether Obamacare will be repealed under Romney. whether my taxes will go up, whether Medicare will still exist in a few years and other issues that are important to middle class people. Whether or not I vote for Romney in the fall will have nothing to do with his or my religious values and everything to do with what I feel is the right track for this nation. And that is what we should all really be concentrating on.
I think of myself as an American first and a Jew second. Aside from the food and the importance of education (it was never a question of if you were going to college but where), my religion has definitely influenced my opinion on politics and other matters important to Jews, such as Israel (I can see both sides of the Palestine argument and both have some really good points). But, significantly, it has affected my views on religious freedom, which I interpret as not only being free to worship God or not worship God as I please, but to also not have someone else's religious values shoved down my throat because of their interpretation of a 2000 year old plus book. Then there is the fear of what would happen if some of these religious fools really got into power. Jews, even those who have mainstreamed and are not particularly observant, tend not to do well under those regimes.
I belong to a temple but these days it is more for cultural reasons than spiritual. While I generally enjoy the experience, finding the rabbi's sermons meaningful most weeks, consider the prayer time as mediation time where I get up and stand every few minutes (just unplugging from the world for a few hours can be very relaxing), listening to the choir, while I wait for my kiddish snack, services stopped being truly meaningful in my heart a long time ago, about when I realized the stories of the Bible are exaggerated and probably based on some myth from long ago. For example, a flooded out valley in a time when people rarely traveled far from their own valley could very well feel like the end of the world by flooding. I'd like to think there is something after life, and I'll find out one way or the other eventually (and will never know if there is nothing).
I don't know what Mormons believe in and, frankly, I don't care. I'm more interested in whether Obamacare will be repealed under Romney. whether my taxes will go up, whether Medicare will still exist in a few years and other issues that are important to middle class people. Whether or not I vote for Romney in the fall will have nothing to do with his or my religious values and everything to do with what I feel is the right track for this nation. And that is what we should all really be concentrating on.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Incompetent HR Departments and Facebook
Another day and another story about how horrible it is that employers are requiring prospective employees to hand over Facebook passwords. I say that everybody is looking at this issue the wrong way. The real issue is what employers have human resource departments that are so full of fail that they are setting them up for a major lawsuit?
An employer may not ask about my religion, age, marital status, organizations I belong to and several other protected classes during an interview -- it is illegal. By looking at my Facebook page today (which is set to the most private setting Facebook allows) they will see pictures at some recent events I have attended and comments I have made. Just from there they will know if I am married, of a certain age, whether I have children and what my religion is (they will also see I'm a Mets fan, which some would argue should also be a protected class). From this they may surmise I wouldn't work on certain days due to my religion or parental obligations, I wouldn't want to travel extensively or wouldn't want to work 36 hour days (lawyer joke -- if you ever worked at a big Manhattan firm you'd get it).
And this was just my page. We have married gay friends and family whose marital status is noted on their page. Pregnant friends and family who share the news on their page. Older friends and family who note that they are moving along in life on their pages. By looking at their pages, their prospective employers will have just found out information that they are not allowed to ask.
Now, if I, or any of the people I mentioned above weren't hired we could potentially turn around and file a claim with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against them because, by looking at our Facebook pages and obtaining information they are not allowed to ask, they have just opened themselves up to claims of discrimination (religion, age, politics, pregnancy). Pretty dumb on the employers part.
You want to Google me? Fine. You may or may not find this blog (one of the pluses of having a common name) and I don't post anything here that you couldn't find out anyway -- and truthfully, probably the same for my Facebook page as pretty much anything I have on there I'm not really hiding. But, my Facebook page is rather lame and tame these days -- posts aren't of drinking binges and doing illegal things, they revolve around normal, mundane things that people my age and in my position in life tend to do. Professionally, my LinkedIn page is a better barometer of how I will be as an employee.
But hey, if being lazy and demanding my Facebook password to know my religion and what political organizations I may belong to are so important, my lawyer (my wife) is standing by. Bring it on.
But hey, if being lazy and demanding my Facebook password to know my religion and what political organizations I may belong to are so important, my lawyer (my wife) is standing by. Bring it on.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Parents of children with Autism earn less? DUH!
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.
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.
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)