When I told Leroy that there would be an Easter egg hunt on the grounds after church, he offered to stand outside and wait for the Easter bunny to show up.
Leroy turned six and a half just before Easter, yet he still has a very sweet belief in magical creatures which I do nothing to talk him out of. For me, it's cute. For him, it's serious business. The magical critters bring him things.
Last Christmas he wanted to wait for Santa in the living room, and kept "hearing" him outside whenever he heard a noise. In February he went through a true crisis of faith when a cartoon character told him there was no Tooth Fairy when he'd just lost a tooth. I had to whip up a fancy desktop published letter from the Tooth Fairy herself, with dollar bill, to restore his soul. Before Easter he wanted to hunt down a leprechaun and demand some of his gold when he found out that St. Patrick's Day doesn't come with a gift (not counting the adult license to drink yourself stupid one day of the year).
So when do I tell him that these creatures don't exist? I don't. He finds that out for himself. He's already got his suspicions. When he wanted to hunt for the Easter bunny at his grandma's house after Easter dinner, Mom offered to put some eggs out for a second go 'round. "Daddy, is Mommy an Easter bunny?", he asked. No, but she can pretend she's one. He knows that some Christmas presents come from the store, because he had to buy some, and there were some for him under my brother's tree in Utah the Thanksgiving before.
But the notion that there are magical creatures out to do him good seems to reassure him, and why mess with that? It's a beautiful world to live in. We all remember that, and miss it, which is why "Lord of the Rings" and other fantasy does so well among ticket-buying adults. We remember what it was like to actually believe that fairies and elves were real.
Our gradual realization that there is no Santa Claus is part of growing up. We accept that the world consists of what we can see, hear and feel. We realize that it offers magic in other ways, through love, ambition and a game winning homer in the bottom of the 9th. We realize that we really don't need play magic. The real world can offer mystery enough.
Now, it's back to watching "The Magic School Bus" with Leroy. He wants me to buy a car like that, you know. I think I'll wait for the sale.
Monday, March 28, 2005
18 Things We Learned from the Schiavo Case
[Sent to me from a friend]
1) Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, and Tom Delay are all world renowned neurologists.
2) 22 successive court battles that all ended in exactly the same way means there is something wrong with the courts, not the Schindler's case
3) Mike is after money which is why he turned down 1 million dollars and 10 million dollars to sign over guardianship.
4) Congress and the State Legislature of Florida has nothing better to do than pry into the private medical affairs of others.
5) Pulling life support is bad in Florida when authorized by the legal next-of-kin, but pulling life support is good in Texas when you run out of money and the mother pleads not to pull the plug on her baby.
6) Medical diagnoses are best performed by watching highly edited videotape made by Randall Terry rather than in person by trained physicians.
7) Minimum wage making nursing assistants are more qualified to diagnose a persistent vegetative state than experienced neurologists.
8) Cerebral spinal fluid is a magical potion that can mimic the entire functions of a missing cerebral cortex.
9) 15 years in the same persistent state is not really enough time to make an accurate diagnosis.
10) A feeding tube that infuses yellow nutritional goop is not really "life support".
11) Jesus was wrong when he said that a man and woman should leave their parents and cleave only to each other.
12) Marriage is the most sacred of all unions, except when it isn't.
13) Interfering in a family's private tragedy is a great reason to cut short a vacation, but
getting a memo that warns a known terrorist is determine to strike inside the US is cause to relax and finish up some R&R.
14) Pro-lifers are really compassionate people which is why they are hoping that Michael Schiavo dies a horrible painful death.
15) The Supreme Court of the United States and the State Supreme Court of Florida mean "Maybe" when they are saying "No!".
16) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a bleeding heart liberal.
17) 7 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican presidents, so it's Clinton's fault.
18) A judge who makes rulings based on the law is obviously an atheist, liberal, Democratic activist even though he is a conservative, Republican, Southern Baptist.
The saddest part of this whole thing? Every one of those things is based on reality. Sad, sad reality.
1) Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, and Tom Delay are all world renowned neurologists.
2) 22 successive court battles that all ended in exactly the same way means there is something wrong with the courts, not the Schindler's case
3) Mike is after money which is why he turned down 1 million dollars and 10 million dollars to sign over guardianship.
4) Congress and the State Legislature of Florida has nothing better to do than pry into the private medical affairs of others.
5) Pulling life support is bad in Florida when authorized by the legal next-of-kin, but pulling life support is good in Texas when you run out of money and the mother pleads not to pull the plug on her baby.
6) Medical diagnoses are best performed by watching highly edited videotape made by Randall Terry rather than in person by trained physicians.
7) Minimum wage making nursing assistants are more qualified to diagnose a persistent vegetative state than experienced neurologists.
8) Cerebral spinal fluid is a magical potion that can mimic the entire functions of a missing cerebral cortex.
9) 15 years in the same persistent state is not really enough time to make an accurate diagnosis.
10) A feeding tube that infuses yellow nutritional goop is not really "life support".
11) Jesus was wrong when he said that a man and woman should leave their parents and cleave only to each other.
12) Marriage is the most sacred of all unions, except when it isn't.
13) Interfering in a family's private tragedy is a great reason to cut short a vacation, but
getting a memo that warns a known terrorist is determine to strike inside the US is cause to relax and finish up some R&R.
14) Pro-lifers are really compassionate people which is why they are hoping that Michael Schiavo dies a horrible painful death.
15) The Supreme Court of the United States and the State Supreme Court of Florida mean "Maybe" when they are saying "No!".
16) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a bleeding heart liberal.
17) 7 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republican presidents, so it's Clinton's fault.
18) A judge who makes rulings based on the law is obviously an atheist, liberal, Democratic activist even though he is a conservative, Republican, Southern Baptist.
The saddest part of this whole thing? Every one of those things is based on reality. Sad, sad reality.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Help Wanted: Angel of Death - Apply Within
I'll burn in liberal Hell for saying this, but I agree with Justice Scalia (oh, the -pain-!) that there are many things best left to legislatures. Defining the substance and process involved in these decisions are a great example.
For example, in a recent op-ed, Charles Krauthammer holds that says a court should be able to turn custody over to any first-degree relative willing to keep a vegged-out patient alive. Fine. But that means you have to have one.
Leroy, my only child, will have no siblings. Under the Krauthammer view, Leroy would be out of supposedly beneficial options if either we die before he marries or he dies and just one of us parents is left to decide. Given the increasing number of people who come from smaller families these days and who marry later or not at all, this policy would favor Mormons and Catholics over everybody else.
Also, who pays? If hubby says "pull" but son wants to take over, does the son then assume legal responsibility for the hospice care? What if there's a hefty settlement or judgment sitting in the bank as a result of the accident which left wife as a veg? Does son assume that money to pay the bills? Or does hubby keep it, for "loss of consortium" and all the other stuff he can recover over? If the state has to pay the bill, can it collect from hubby even though the circumstances creating the financial liability are over his clear objections?
These are the kind of things legislatures need to figure out and apply. Courts can't, and don't, which is why the parents aren't gettin' any love at the docket over this. As a matter of fact, the more controversial this becomes, the -less- likely any court will intervene, for fear of pre-empting what should be a political discussion among the law-making agencies of the state.
There really isn't much at issue here for a court to work with. Either the Florida law was properly applied, or there is a Constitutional bar to anyone making that kind of decision for anyone else. Or for themselves, perhaps, through a health care directive or other instrument. If the first, then it's clearly been reviewed inside and out. If the latter, it's too sweeping a consequence for a court to take it on, preferring to let the legislative process work it out all.
And yes, it's just too funny for words to see all these conservative activists screaming for a level of "judicial activism" they scream about when liberals supposedly do it.
For example, in a recent op-ed, Charles Krauthammer holds that says a court should be able to turn custody over to any first-degree relative willing to keep a vegged-out patient alive. Fine. But that means you have to have one.
Leroy, my only child, will have no siblings. Under the Krauthammer view, Leroy would be out of supposedly beneficial options if either we die before he marries or he dies and just one of us parents is left to decide. Given the increasing number of people who come from smaller families these days and who marry later or not at all, this policy would favor Mormons and Catholics over everybody else.
Also, who pays? If hubby says "pull" but son wants to take over, does the son then assume legal responsibility for the hospice care? What if there's a hefty settlement or judgment sitting in the bank as a result of the accident which left wife as a veg? Does son assume that money to pay the bills? Or does hubby keep it, for "loss of consortium" and all the other stuff he can recover over? If the state has to pay the bill, can it collect from hubby even though the circumstances creating the financial liability are over his clear objections?
These are the kind of things legislatures need to figure out and apply. Courts can't, and don't, which is why the parents aren't gettin' any love at the docket over this. As a matter of fact, the more controversial this becomes, the -less- likely any court will intervene, for fear of pre-empting what should be a political discussion among the law-making agencies of the state.
There really isn't much at issue here for a court to work with. Either the Florida law was properly applied, or there is a Constitutional bar to anyone making that kind of decision for anyone else. Or for themselves, perhaps, through a health care directive or other instrument. If the first, then it's clearly been reviewed inside and out. If the latter, it's too sweeping a consequence for a court to take it on, preferring to let the legislative process work it out all.
And yes, it's just too funny for words to see all these conservative activists screaming for a level of "judicial activism" they scream about when liberals supposedly do it.
Help from Odd Places
You know, I was just thinking. The Schiavo mess might actually help the pro-choice side regarding defending reproductive rights.
The pro-choice side has always argued that it's a private decision where the state shouldn't be be butting its nose in because of all the painful and personal issues involved. Given the seventy percent of the public who feel similarly about the Schaivo case, that there's a clear line between private and public decisions, the "pro-life" side out raising hell is making a pretty good case for the pro-choice position here.
Funny how things work out sometimes.
The pro-choice side has always argued that it's a private decision where the state shouldn't be be butting its nose in because of all the painful and personal issues involved. Given the seventy percent of the public who feel similarly about the Schaivo case, that there's a clear line between private and public decisions, the "pro-life" side out raising hell is making a pretty good case for the pro-choice position here.
Funny how things work out sometimes.
Monday, March 21, 2005
Rumsfeld's Ownership Society
[From today's AP]
Rumsfeld laments Iraq invasion restriction
By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press Writer
Last Updated 6:26 am PST Monday, March 21, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) - The level of insurgency in postwar Iraq wouldn't be so high if the U.S.-led coalition had been able to invade from the north, through Turkey, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday.
Rumsfeld told "Fox News Sunday" that if the United States had able to get its 4th Infantry Division into northern Iraq through Turkey, more of Saddam's Baathist regime would have been captured or killed, diminishing the insurgency.
U.S. forces had to enter Iraq from the south, so by the time Baghdad was taken, much of Saddam's military and intelligence services had dissipated into the northern cities, Rumsfeld said. "They're still, in a number of instances, still active," he said.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it amazing that the people who want to bring us "the ownership society" because we need to take complete ersonal responsibility for ourselves until the day we die absolutely refuses to take any responsibility for their own rotten decisions in Iraq?
The insurgency isn't the fault of a Bush White House which didn't have the foresight to plan for it because that might undermine all the love the Iraqis were going to shower on us, from the po' Shiites in the south to the Sunni technocrats in Baghdad. No, there would be no insurgency, they knew, so why plan for it? Why plan for the looting of arsenals which would arm it, or equip enough troops to combat it when it first arose? And now, why not just admit you didn't plan for the right eventuality?
You know the Bush administration planned a different scenario. You know they would have loved to have had the transfer of power ceremony be a little more gaudy and elaborate than Bremer handing over the keys and hopping on a plane like a deadbeat tenant skipping out on a couple of months' rent. But the insurgency has served well in other areas. I think it was the single biggest factor in Bush' s re-election. No matter how Kerry spun it, a vote for Kerry was a vote against the war, and enough folks didn't want to change horses in mid-stream.
So I expect the Bush team to be internally grateful to the insurgency for the help it gave them in winning a second term. But for the rest of us, taking a little personal responsibility for a lot of bad decisions and poor judgment would be just a little consistent, don't you think?
Sunday, March 20, 2005
Raising Arizona
So, I'm the proud daddy of a six-year-old boy who sometimes won't sit down in class. Working with him, school and others has been an interesting experience in what it means to raise a kid in today's overdiagnosed kids' world.
One of my better acquaintances, a noted blabbermouth and fine criminal defense lawyer, says he rarely said a thing until he was almost four. Since then he can't shut up and makes good money as a consequence. Had he been raised today, he would have had a battalion of experts all over him by the time he was three. He didn't, and turned out fine. Years from now the grown up version of Leroy and I will look back at his six year old edition and laugh at it all.
Oh, I fuss and worry, but my general answer to "What's up with Leroy?" is "He's six." A lot of mommas and too many daddies today go nuts over not getting the "diagnosis" early enough. "Oh, if -only- I had known ... a week after he was born!" We've forgotten that kids don't all bloom the same way at the same pace and that most of us turn out just fine.
I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many times "autistic" has been waved at me. With some reason. My wife has a severely autistic brother who's been under state care since he was a child. He's autistic to the point of being unable to learn anything. This means I've seen what autistic is, and my son ain't that. Another acquaintance has a son who's speech delayed. He's a bright kid, he just doesn't have much to say. He's quite happy sitting by himself and creating very detailed Lego and other put-togethery toys. So one of momma's friends fretted to us that this means he's probably 'obsessive-compulsive' and ooooh ... Or he's a budding engineer, I said.
God or Nature, take your pick, developed genetic diversity to create different outcomes. That's why some of us are artistic, some talkative, some quiet and contemplative, some outgoing, etc. That's how we're built. It's how collectively we come up with all the skills we need to survive as a group. But we've come up with a "cookie cutter" guideline about how kids develop. And it's according to plan. An evil plan.
The capitalist credo is "find a need and fill it." The marketer's corollary is "if a need doesn't exist, invent one and fill that." All this fretful parenting stuff is just another way to suck money out of our pockets.
Which leads us to meds, which came up during the discussions surrounding my son. It was someone saying, "well, it seems to help some kids, so maybe we need to try 'em out here ...". To which I said, still say and will continue saying, "NO!" And needless to say, one of the school folks said, "if money's an issue (which it isn't) I know where you can get 'em cheap." I'll bet you can, lady.
Part of this is just sheer laziness. By looking at a few cues, I recently saw that some of my son's recent wackiness was his way of calling for a change in afterschool routine. He didn't like the noisy yet regimented on-site program. But he's not good for his age expressing his wants (except for new toys and ice cream), so it took a little figuring. So we moved him back to the private aftercare program he enjoyed in kindergarten. Since we've done that, he's fine. Except on Mondays, and we're -all- a little short that day, aren't we? Pretty understandable.
This drug silliness is also the byproduct of money. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies pay money hand over fist to get kids on meds. This drives my sister, a VA psych nurse, nuts. She says she's already seeing grown men who've been on Ritalin or whatever all their lives and can't imagine being without it. But that's what the bill payers pay for because that "fixes" the problem. The whole idea behind meds, she says, was to bring people down to Earth long enough to work on a long term solution, not dope 'em up 'til the day they die. But if people are actually taught how to work things through, then they're no longer patients, and don't need the drugs.
Scary.
BTW, my son's grades are fine. This baffles his teacher, who swears he's not paying a lick of attention. I hate to tell her that his daddy was pretty much the same way.
One of my better acquaintances, a noted blabbermouth and fine criminal defense lawyer, says he rarely said a thing until he was almost four. Since then he can't shut up and makes good money as a consequence. Had he been raised today, he would have had a battalion of experts all over him by the time he was three. He didn't, and turned out fine. Years from now the grown up version of Leroy and I will look back at his six year old edition and laugh at it all.
Oh, I fuss and worry, but my general answer to "What's up with Leroy?" is "He's six." A lot of mommas and too many daddies today go nuts over not getting the "diagnosis" early enough. "Oh, if -only- I had known ... a week after he was born!" We've forgotten that kids don't all bloom the same way at the same pace and that most of us turn out just fine.
I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many times "autistic" has been waved at me. With some reason. My wife has a severely autistic brother who's been under state care since he was a child. He's autistic to the point of being unable to learn anything. This means I've seen what autistic is, and my son ain't that. Another acquaintance has a son who's speech delayed. He's a bright kid, he just doesn't have much to say. He's quite happy sitting by himself and creating very detailed Lego and other put-togethery toys. So one of momma's friends fretted to us that this means he's probably 'obsessive-compulsive' and ooooh ... Or he's a budding engineer, I said.
God or Nature, take your pick, developed genetic diversity to create different outcomes. That's why some of us are artistic, some talkative, some quiet and contemplative, some outgoing, etc. That's how we're built. It's how collectively we come up with all the skills we need to survive as a group. But we've come up with a "cookie cutter" guideline about how kids develop. And it's according to plan. An evil plan.
The capitalist credo is "find a need and fill it." The marketer's corollary is "if a need doesn't exist, invent one and fill that." All this fretful parenting stuff is just another way to suck money out of our pockets.
Which leads us to meds, which came up during the discussions surrounding my son. It was someone saying, "well, it seems to help some kids, so maybe we need to try 'em out here ...". To which I said, still say and will continue saying, "NO!" And needless to say, one of the school folks said, "if money's an issue (which it isn't) I know where you can get 'em cheap." I'll bet you can, lady.
Part of this is just sheer laziness. By looking at a few cues, I recently saw that some of my son's recent wackiness was his way of calling for a change in afterschool routine. He didn't like the noisy yet regimented on-site program. But he's not good for his age expressing his wants (except for new toys and ice cream), so it took a little figuring. So we moved him back to the private aftercare program he enjoyed in kindergarten. Since we've done that, he's fine. Except on Mondays, and we're -all- a little short that day, aren't we? Pretty understandable.
This drug silliness is also the byproduct of money. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies pay money hand over fist to get kids on meds. This drives my sister, a VA psych nurse, nuts. She says she's already seeing grown men who've been on Ritalin or whatever all their lives and can't imagine being without it. But that's what the bill payers pay for because that "fixes" the problem. The whole idea behind meds, she says, was to bring people down to Earth long enough to work on a long term solution, not dope 'em up 'til the day they die. But if people are actually taught how to work things through, then they're no longer patients, and don't need the drugs.
Scary.
BTW, my son's grades are fine. This baffles his teacher, who swears he's not paying a lick of attention. I hate to tell her that his daddy was pretty much the same way.
Death and Dying - Schiavo case
Lord, I'm glad my relatives have more sense than Terri Schiavo's.
Lord, I wish Republicans in Congress had something better to do than get mixed up in all this. (On the other hand this, plus the steroids mess which they also shouldn't be involved in, keeps them from doing truly stupider stuff.)
For the Republicans it's a freebie. They get to pose on other people's suffering in a way which endears them even more to the loony religious right, and if and when the federal courts walk away from this one, they can say, "hey, it's those nutty courts again! But we did our best ... ".
One wonders what the proponents of this power play hopes to gain from all this in the specific case at hand. It's unlikely the courts are going to hold that pulling the plug is some constitutional violation. Dragging it out through the courts isn't like to make Terri's hubby drop it and go do something else. At the end of it all, we're just going to right back here anyway.
What amazes me about the supposed "right to life" here is that whatever life the poor lady has right now is artificially induced. Had she fell into her current state a hundred years ago this never would have been an issue because she'd have died years ago. If Nature takes its course, then it will clearly decide that the system She has set up, where the brain has to be around to tell the body what to do for life to continue, is a good one, and all of Terri dies. The "life" being preserved isn't a natural one. It's organs being kept functioning by the chance of technology. Is this truly what the "right to life" crowd is working for? Bleah ...
Another issue which comes to mind is the role of the nuclear family. Shouldn't a husband or wife make the call, under both our laws and the laws of any higher power? Heck, didn't Jesus hisownself say "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" So isn't this decision to be made by the 'flesh' itself, the husband or wife forced to make such a hard choice? Where's "family values" here?
So I'm again glad that my family wouldn't do this to me. My wife would argue to pull the plug and love my memory and the rest of my family isn't silly enough to intervene. I should thank the Lord for that.
Lord, I wish Republicans in Congress had something better to do than get mixed up in all this. (On the other hand this, plus the steroids mess which they also shouldn't be involved in, keeps them from doing truly stupider stuff.)
For the Republicans it's a freebie. They get to pose on other people's suffering in a way which endears them even more to the loony religious right, and if and when the federal courts walk away from this one, they can say, "hey, it's those nutty courts again! But we did our best ... ".
One wonders what the proponents of this power play hopes to gain from all this in the specific case at hand. It's unlikely the courts are going to hold that pulling the plug is some constitutional violation. Dragging it out through the courts isn't like to make Terri's hubby drop it and go do something else. At the end of it all, we're just going to right back here anyway.
What amazes me about the supposed "right to life" here is that whatever life the poor lady has right now is artificially induced. Had she fell into her current state a hundred years ago this never would have been an issue because she'd have died years ago. If Nature takes its course, then it will clearly decide that the system She has set up, where the brain has to be around to tell the body what to do for life to continue, is a good one, and all of Terri dies. The "life" being preserved isn't a natural one. It's organs being kept functioning by the chance of technology. Is this truly what the "right to life" crowd is working for? Bleah ...
Another issue which comes to mind is the role of the nuclear family. Shouldn't a husband or wife make the call, under both our laws and the laws of any higher power? Heck, didn't Jesus hisownself say "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" So isn't this decision to be made by the 'flesh' itself, the husband or wife forced to make such a hard choice? Where's "family values" here?
So I'm again glad that my family wouldn't do this to me. My wife would argue to pull the plug and love my memory and the rest of my family isn't silly enough to intervene. I should thank the Lord for that.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Motherhood and Apple Pie
So I have to admit, the whole Congressional inquiry farce into baseball and steroids is turning out a whole lot more interesting than I thought.
Oh, it's still silly. There's nothing more ridiculous than members of Congress dragging down baseball because they're so worried about it. It's a great photo op with a lot of highly recognizable guys, and guaranteed to play back home. (And what's the Government Reform Committee doing here? Aren't they supposed to be out reforming government or something?)
What's fun are the players. There's formerly-loved-now-hated-in-Chitown Sammy Sosa, of clearly illegal corked bat fame, trying to rebuild a shattered image. There's Rafael Palmeiro wondering why in the hell he was called. Honest, he said, the only drug I take is Viagra, which is amazingly less embarrassing than steroids.
Then there's Mark McGwire, who's set the whole thing spinning with a "yes, but, no, but then I'm not saying anything" which has some idiot from the Midwest hollering to have his name taken off Hayseed Highway. Mark is the man who brought back baseball from the depths of its own near self-destruction in 1994, when duel sets of millionaires amazingly couldn't decide how to divide their riches. He's not the Savior, but durn close to Moses in terms of leading the game into the current promised land.
What he says isn't all that important. Steroid use to pump up wasn't against the rules when he allegedly used them. No, it's that Americans love contrition. That's why Martha Stewart got a heroes welcome after a turn in the slammer. (That and many Americans feel she was a sacrificial lamb for far greater corporate crimes.) Now, if Mark had fallen down and tearfully confessed, and told li'l chillin' out in the heartland and cities to stay off the hard stuff, he'd be the toast of Broadway. No, he prevaricates, and we don't like prevaricators. So Mark will suffer. He might even lose his name on that highway.
Which is why Barry Bonds is my hero in all this. Barry doesn't prevaricate. Barry shoots back. Barry sneers at this foolishness. Barry knows that he's about to break the sport's most cherished record, they need him more than he needs them. He's safe at home. Giants fans never worried about whether he was lovable enough. They pay Bay Area prices to see him hit a baseball. You've never seen anything like what happens at Big Phone Company Park when Barry comes up. Everything stops. Even the sausage dogs and garlic fries are put on hold and everyone stands mesmerized. Also, it's Northern California, and who around here cares about performance enhancing drugs? We've all been to college. We've been there.
Yes, Barry shows disdain, which is why he got a pass from the performance. "He doesn't stay on point", the congresscritters' spokesperson says. Translation: he's bad teevee. We all learned from Ollie North what happens when the target knows how to take over the stage, and that ain't happening.
So it's back to the soaps, er, the hearings, to see what happens next? Will Mark confess? Will Sammy and he kiss and make up? Will Curt Schilling speak in tongues? Stay tuned ...
Or turn to the sports page and find out what's up with Barry's knee. But that's only if you want real news.
Oh, it's still silly. There's nothing more ridiculous than members of Congress dragging down baseball because they're so worried about it. It's a great photo op with a lot of highly recognizable guys, and guaranteed to play back home. (And what's the Government Reform Committee doing here? Aren't they supposed to be out reforming government or something?)
What's fun are the players. There's formerly-loved-now-hated-in-Chitown Sammy Sosa, of clearly illegal corked bat fame, trying to rebuild a shattered image. There's Rafael Palmeiro wondering why in the hell he was called. Honest, he said, the only drug I take is Viagra, which is amazingly less embarrassing than steroids.
Then there's Mark McGwire, who's set the whole thing spinning with a "yes, but, no, but then I'm not saying anything" which has some idiot from the Midwest hollering to have his name taken off Hayseed Highway. Mark is the man who brought back baseball from the depths of its own near self-destruction in 1994, when duel sets of millionaires amazingly couldn't decide how to divide their riches. He's not the Savior, but durn close to Moses in terms of leading the game into the current promised land.
What he says isn't all that important. Steroid use to pump up wasn't against the rules when he allegedly used them. No, it's that Americans love contrition. That's why Martha Stewart got a heroes welcome after a turn in the slammer. (That and many Americans feel she was a sacrificial lamb for far greater corporate crimes.) Now, if Mark had fallen down and tearfully confessed, and told li'l chillin' out in the heartland and cities to stay off the hard stuff, he'd be the toast of Broadway. No, he prevaricates, and we don't like prevaricators. So Mark will suffer. He might even lose his name on that highway.
Which is why Barry Bonds is my hero in all this. Barry doesn't prevaricate. Barry shoots back. Barry sneers at this foolishness. Barry knows that he's about to break the sport's most cherished record, they need him more than he needs them. He's safe at home. Giants fans never worried about whether he was lovable enough. They pay Bay Area prices to see him hit a baseball. You've never seen anything like what happens at Big Phone Company Park when Barry comes up. Everything stops. Even the sausage dogs and garlic fries are put on hold and everyone stands mesmerized. Also, it's Northern California, and who around here cares about performance enhancing drugs? We've all been to college. We've been there.
Yes, Barry shows disdain, which is why he got a pass from the performance. "He doesn't stay on point", the congresscritters' spokesperson says. Translation: he's bad teevee. We all learned from Ollie North what happens when the target knows how to take over the stage, and that ain't happening.
So it's back to the soaps, er, the hearings, to see what happens next? Will Mark confess? Will Sammy and he kiss and make up? Will Curt Schilling speak in tongues? Stay tuned ...
Or turn to the sports page and find out what's up with Barry's knee. But that's only if you want real news.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
The Old Folks
So, of course the whole point of Bush's Social Security "reform" is political. As long as enough old folks are pulling government checks they're likely to vote Democratic. As long as young folks feel they're pulling their own weight through managing their own retirement investment portfolios the GOP figures it can lock 'em up by separating them from supporting the old folks. It's political math, and I can respect that.
The system really isn't all that broken. Some estimates are that relatively modest increases in the payroll tax and relatively modest decreases in the rate of benefit growth would take care of it all. No one disagrees that the intake/outtake will hit the red at some point. It's just not that catastrophic a tilt. So the only real reason for all this "reform" is the political reasons given above.
Social Security was never intended to be the primary foundation of old age income security. It was designed to buttress other income, which is does marvelously. In my dad's day one got the gold watch and the company pension. Along with his SS, he and my mom were able to live a comfortable enough life. One or the other was tight, together the bills could be paid and a pleasant retirement had. Nowadays, folks will have various 401(k)'s and such, or other investments. Social Security is there to provide enough additional cash to ensure that it's all livable.
I have an older family member who serves as a model case. She cashed out the family home for a decent sum, then turned it over for a smaller place and lives off dividends generated by the rest. The investment income in and of itself isn't adequate for a livable wage, so to speak. With SS, it is. That's what it was designed for, that's what it does. So why "fix" it if it ain't broken? To dis' the AARP, of course. It's really the only reason.
Fortunately, even the GOP can't swallow a lot of this. Oh, there will be some modest proposal to maybe give perhaps some people some flexibility so the Bush team can claim victory, but that's about it. All the Dems have to do is drag this out until the end of the year when the 2006 campaign season starts and the GOP runs for cover.
But I'm not a complete naysayer here. There are a couple of tweaks we could tack on, perhaps linking benefits closer to overall income level, stuff like that. But even there I'm conservative. FDR's brilliance in setting this up so that workers kicked in, unlike many other industrial systems where the public sector and/or industry do the heavy lifting, is that it locks in the system. Start cutting off the rich folks and they'll turn against it, which screws the middle and lower classes in turn.
The Media Blab:
This debate has led to an interesting "What's in a name?" discussion among the media. By following the Bush team's lead in calling this "reform", they are in effect agreeing about the need for reform, which is part of the debate itself. So they say it's a "revision" or "reworking" or something similar. Which just opens them up for charges of anti-Bush bias.
But it's about time. In a time where the line between government propaganda and real news has become invisible to too many viewers, what with stage managed "town halls", plants in press pools and government payments to presumably impartial commentators, the rest who haven't been co-opted have a duty to report what actually is. It's fair to call it a "Social Security revision" because that's what it is. George Will outlined the goal in a recent column, to keep retirees from being so-called "wards of the government", the keystone of the (kaff!) "Ownership Society." It's a different way of doing business, with radically different goals than present. So call it that.
This debate hits home. In eight years I'll be AARP-eligible, so maybe I'm too close to relying on the current system to see it objectively. (Just like those Kerry-voting New Yorkers are too close to gays and terrorist attacks to see those objectively). I'll also be paying a mortgage into my '70s, at current rates. So I gotta plan.
Maybe this debate oughta be "grandfathered." If the next generation wants to toss dirt over their own retirement security, let 'em. Just let me die first.
The system really isn't all that broken. Some estimates are that relatively modest increases in the payroll tax and relatively modest decreases in the rate of benefit growth would take care of it all. No one disagrees that the intake/outtake will hit the red at some point. It's just not that catastrophic a tilt. So the only real reason for all this "reform" is the political reasons given above.
Social Security was never intended to be the primary foundation of old age income security. It was designed to buttress other income, which is does marvelously. In my dad's day one got the gold watch and the company pension. Along with his SS, he and my mom were able to live a comfortable enough life. One or the other was tight, together the bills could be paid and a pleasant retirement had. Nowadays, folks will have various 401(k)'s and such, or other investments. Social Security is there to provide enough additional cash to ensure that it's all livable.
I have an older family member who serves as a model case. She cashed out the family home for a decent sum, then turned it over for a smaller place and lives off dividends generated by the rest. The investment income in and of itself isn't adequate for a livable wage, so to speak. With SS, it is. That's what it was designed for, that's what it does. So why "fix" it if it ain't broken? To dis' the AARP, of course. It's really the only reason.
Fortunately, even the GOP can't swallow a lot of this. Oh, there will be some modest proposal to maybe give perhaps some people some flexibility so the Bush team can claim victory, but that's about it. All the Dems have to do is drag this out until the end of the year when the 2006 campaign season starts and the GOP runs for cover.
But I'm not a complete naysayer here. There are a couple of tweaks we could tack on, perhaps linking benefits closer to overall income level, stuff like that. But even there I'm conservative. FDR's brilliance in setting this up so that workers kicked in, unlike many other industrial systems where the public sector and/or industry do the heavy lifting, is that it locks in the system. Start cutting off the rich folks and they'll turn against it, which screws the middle and lower classes in turn.
The Media Blab:
This debate has led to an interesting "What's in a name?" discussion among the media. By following the Bush team's lead in calling this "reform", they are in effect agreeing about the need for reform, which is part of the debate itself. So they say it's a "revision" or "reworking" or something similar. Which just opens them up for charges of anti-Bush bias.
But it's about time. In a time where the line between government propaganda and real news has become invisible to too many viewers, what with stage managed "town halls", plants in press pools and government payments to presumably impartial commentators, the rest who haven't been co-opted have a duty to report what actually is. It's fair to call it a "Social Security revision" because that's what it is. George Will outlined the goal in a recent column, to keep retirees from being so-called "wards of the government", the keystone of the (kaff!) "Ownership Society." It's a different way of doing business, with radically different goals than present. So call it that.
This debate hits home. In eight years I'll be AARP-eligible, so maybe I'm too close to relying on the current system to see it objectively. (Just like those Kerry-voting New Yorkers are too close to gays and terrorist attacks to see those objectively). I'll also be paying a mortgage into my '70s, at current rates. So I gotta plan.
Maybe this debate oughta be "grandfathered." If the next generation wants to toss dirt over their own retirement security, let 'em. Just let me die first.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Whine Country
[Letter to The Betting Fool, San Francisco Chronicle]
Fool,
Sure, the Giants will win the West, and possibly go up a postseason rungs. What will be annoying is that after the Giants finally get dimed short of a World Series ring, a lot of fans will have the nerve to claim that they're long suffering, cursed, yada yada.
It just don't work here. You can't live here near cable cars, the wine country and Lake Tahoe and claim you're doomed and oppressed. It just don't work. Red Sox and Cubs fans have to stare down into long, dark and miserable winters after their teams tank. Giant fans get to go to Point Reyes. The only curse here is the traffic.
But they'll whine anyways. Over living in God's Backyard. That's really irritating.
Fool,
Sure, the Giants will win the West, and possibly go up a postseason rungs. What will be annoying is that after the Giants finally get dimed short of a World Series ring, a lot of fans will have the nerve to claim that they're long suffering, cursed, yada yada.
It just don't work here. You can't live here near cable cars, the wine country and Lake Tahoe and claim you're doomed and oppressed. It just don't work. Red Sox and Cubs fans have to stare down into long, dark and miserable winters after their teams tank. Giant fans get to go to Point Reyes. The only curse here is the traffic.
But they'll whine anyways. Over living in God's Backyard. That's really irritating.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Seven (Latest) Signs of the Apocalypse
First horn – First Lady Laura Bush, who makes Donna Reed seem like Paris Hilton, is put in charge of “Biatch slappin’” ’ Boyz in the ‘Hood out of gangs.
Second horn – President Bush offers African Americans a favor by giving them more retirement money before dying their earlier. “Look, bro’, you wanna live now or die later?”
Third horn – Europeans see a German leader meeting an American president, and root for the German to talk peace.
Fourth horn – Screaming Arab mobs blame someone other than Israel and/or the U.S. for their woes.
Fifth horn – The Boston Red Sox not only win one World Series but might actually win a second.
Sixth horn – A Democratic national chairman not from the South actually goes there and organizes a crowd.
Seventh horn - Michael Jackson finally goes to court for preeversion … and no one cares.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Multitasking
I came out to work during the tail end of the “Go-Go ‘80s.” This was the decade where the nation rediscovered the joy of hard work and personal wealth. One of the products of this renewed focus on the workday was renewed commentary on what makes a productive worker. Not the assembly line kind, because those jobs were all heading offshore. No, it was how to be the most effective office grunt you could be. This was important. Prior generations counted how many widgets they made to know if they were going well. When your tools of the trade are the phone, fax and then computer (and now all kinds of gadgets) how could you tell when you’re having a good day?
So everyone and their mother decided they’d tell us. You couldn’t be seen on the subway without your current copy of “Secrets of Successful People” tucked under your arm. It wasn’t a bad idea. I found a lot of insight into some of these pages. Certain things held true for me, like combining similar activities, such as letter writing, and doing certain tasks at certain times of the day when you found yourself better focused for doing them.
For example, I prefer reading and reflective activities in the morning, social activities (meetings and the like) in late morning to mid-afternoon and production work, writing reports and the like, from early afternoon on. This uses my attention span in the best possible way. I’ve generally found it effective.
But I shouldn’t tell my bosses this any more. The big mantra now is “multitasking”, the purported ability to jump from one thing to another without batting an eye. Bosses all think they can do this. Science says otherwise. According to research, it takes time for the brain to shift to unfamiliar tasks. Go here for the link. This seems to be common sense. So why are we all so hip on multitasking now?
The answer, according to a New York Times piece, lies in our technology. Our computers and other doohickeys can move at near lightspeed, much faster than the human hand, eye and mind. While we’re moving from one task to the next, a machine has zipped through dozens, even more. Needless to say, our machines can multitask, and the technicians have got them doing it right before our eyes. Teevee news and sports shows are full of split screens and “crawls” across the bottom. Our word processor is interrupted when a new e-mail or Messenger request comes in. It’s no wonder that now we have headsets let us listen to music or NPR while we balance the checkbook or write that report. Heck, now one friend tells me his boss is offering iPods to workers. No problem listening to music and banging away at the keyboard. I remember when that was looked down on. You weren’t paying sole attention to your work. Now, it’s encouraged.
I wonder what kind of example I’m setting for my six year old son. I like the fact that he likes to play with blocks or cars or whatnot while he watches teevee. Any decent parent cringes at the mental image of their slackjawed young one staring mindlessly at the flickering tube. But I wonder if he’s the edge of a new generation which never takes doing just one thing as the basic rule of work and play. Maybe all those kids we’re diagnosing with ADD aren’t wounded. They’re just tomorrow’s multitaskers.
So everyone and their mother decided they’d tell us. You couldn’t be seen on the subway without your current copy of “Secrets of Successful People” tucked under your arm. It wasn’t a bad idea. I found a lot of insight into some of these pages. Certain things held true for me, like combining similar activities, such as letter writing, and doing certain tasks at certain times of the day when you found yourself better focused for doing them.
For example, I prefer reading and reflective activities in the morning, social activities (meetings and the like) in late morning to mid-afternoon and production work, writing reports and the like, from early afternoon on. This uses my attention span in the best possible way. I’ve generally found it effective.
But I shouldn’t tell my bosses this any more. The big mantra now is “multitasking”, the purported ability to jump from one thing to another without batting an eye. Bosses all think they can do this. Science says otherwise. According to research, it takes time for the brain to shift to unfamiliar tasks. Go here for the link. This seems to be common sense. So why are we all so hip on multitasking now?
The answer, according to a New York Times piece, lies in our technology. Our computers and other doohickeys can move at near lightspeed, much faster than the human hand, eye and mind. While we’re moving from one task to the next, a machine has zipped through dozens, even more. Needless to say, our machines can multitask, and the technicians have got them doing it right before our eyes. Teevee news and sports shows are full of split screens and “crawls” across the bottom. Our word processor is interrupted when a new e-mail or Messenger request comes in. It’s no wonder that now we have headsets let us listen to music or NPR while we balance the checkbook or write that report. Heck, now one friend tells me his boss is offering iPods to workers. No problem listening to music and banging away at the keyboard. I remember when that was looked down on. You weren’t paying sole attention to your work. Now, it’s encouraged.
I wonder what kind of example I’m setting for my six year old son. I like the fact that he likes to play with blocks or cars or whatnot while he watches teevee. Any decent parent cringes at the mental image of their slackjawed young one staring mindlessly at the flickering tube. But I wonder if he’s the edge of a new generation which never takes doing just one thing as the basic rule of work and play. Maybe all those kids we’re diagnosing with ADD aren’t wounded. They’re just tomorrow’s multitaskers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
