A Blog for the People... + one.
The Bulls force Game 7 in Boston Saturday.
Sing it with me?
'Cause This Is Thriller, Thriller Night
There Ain't No Second Chance Against the Thing
with Forty Eyes.
You Know It's Thriller, Thriller Night
You're Fighting for Your Life Inside of
Killer, Thriller Tonight.
It looks like the Veep wants in on the "Mommy administration" advising.
Now if I were a lesser thinking American, I might be wondering if it was safe to fly, or otherwise be in a crowd this weekend ...
Now, I'm saving the Martin Gilbert 8-volume biography for my retirement. More reading time then. And I like Winnie. He's got a dope reputation as not giving in under pressure.
But do I think President Obama's verbal reference* was effective last night? Nope.
It's the same reason we had to take out the pirates holding American captives -- you don't mess w/Americans like that. We don't care if the shipping interests would be willing to see Americans held as ransom, only too happy to do the cost-benefit calculations and find it cheaper to pay the private costs of doing business.
And you fight tooth and nail, together as Americans, not to get yourself in that position of weakness again. That's why the crew immediately disabled the ship as the pirates initially boarded, so it couldn't be seized.
Sure, the young liberals, the well educated expressed their humane concerns: "Was it really necessary to kill them?" or, "What evidence did the SEAL shooters have that the captain's life was in 'imminent danger'?" as if the military men were not to take those shots at the first opportunity to free the American.
Respectfully, I think that talk doesn't understand the American mindset. At the time, I thought President Obama "got it". Maybe it was holiday generosity, because lately he seems to be embracing the academic outlook again.
Back to Winston Churchill. A bulldog. Led his country through some dark days... days that perhaps England might not have survived were it not for America's infusion of fresh blood into the fight.
A Sunday painter (I've got a book around here somewhere...) A sharp, military minded man. Not a quitter.
But, c'mon. How do you go in a news conference from the deadly seriousness of advising hand washing for a pandemic, into a not-so-veiled slap at an earlier administration's policies, and then blow off a serious question about, "But what if Pakistan's nuclear weapons fall into Al Quada hands, would you consider Enhanced Interrogation Techniques on the table even then?"
I'm not saying you don't stick by your principles necessarily. Just that evoking the leadership of Winston Churchill in a different time on torture, and bringing up an image of Britains huddled in their subway holes as the bombs rained down ... well again, wouldn't they have lost w/o American help in that War? So can we really look to Churchill on the subject, or put Americans in that metaphorical condition to justify our enlightened policies of late?
See, we're all playing on one team here, folks. (D) and (R) maybe to a society entuned lately in a show of reality that somehow revolves around "You're Fired" or "The Tribe has Voted You Out" or a dozen other variations of "We Don't Work Together, but Scheme Against Each Other to Final Elimination."
Is your reality like that? Not me. Must be tough to maintain families, communities and cooperative workplaces if that mentality has truly set in.
Which brings us back to the bomb shelters and those who see American capture as just another cost of doing business. If you don't have that other understanding of why it's important not to show weakness to outsiders who will use it against you, then I would submit you're not fully versed in American history.
Not just the written down kind to be probed and studied. But the pulsing, moving ... winning young energy kind that forces the play, and moves us forward in the end. Words are good, but actions are priceless.
------------------------
Underlying my concern, is how the president seems to push off the big problems as not of his making, and somehow unexpected.
You ran for President, and are now bleating -- in a smiley way --that there are too many problems demanding your attention? Wow. I'm sure Mr. McCain knew what he was getting into, and wouldn't be talking like that.
Ditto this cocky, smiley talk of inheriting the debt and economy. He talked his way through the serious questions -- about pulling out of Iraq on timetable, just referencing possible al Quaeda operations there today. And he expressed gratitude to America's service members, like he didn't really understand -- having no experience himself -- how humbling their positions often are.
Maybe it's me. I don't have kids in daycare; I think we're going back to the days of easy-living-on-borrowed-credit (and look where that got us when the bills came due); and on this liberal-based, John-Kerry-in-a-darker-skin-tone foreign policy approach, I vote "no confidence".
Just don't see how we can survive 4 years huddling and hoping, and joking about America's security. It's a false ease, really.
-------------------------
In case you missed the press conference, here's the transcript reference:
President: I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British, during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "we don't torture," when the -- the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And -- and -- and the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts, and over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people.
It corrodes the character of a country.
And -- and so I strongly believe that the steps that we've taken to prevent these kind of enhanced interrogation techniques will make us stronger over the long term, and make us safer over the long term, because it will put us in a -- in a position where we can still get information. In some cases, it may be harder. But part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals, even when it's hard, not just when it's easy.
At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians. And it makes us -- it puts us in a much stronger position to work with our allies in the kind of international coordinated intelligence activity that can shut down these networks.
So this is a decision that I am very comfortable with, and I think the American people over time will recognize that it is better for us to stick to who we are, even when we're taking on a unscrupulous enemy.
Okay --
QUESTION: Sorry, sir --
MR. OBAMA: I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Do you believe the previous administration sanctioned torture?
MR. OBAMA: I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that the -- whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake.
Mark Knoller.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Let me follow up, if I may, on Jake's question. Did you read the documents recently referred to by former Vice President Cheney and others, saying that the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques not only protected the nation but saved lives? And if part of the United States were under imminent threat, could you envision yourself ever authorizing the use of those enhanced interrogation techniques?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I -- I have read the documents.
Now, they haven't been officially declassified and released. And so I don't want to go into the details of them.
But here's what I can tell you, that the public reports and the public justifications, for these techniques, which is that we got information, from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, doesn't answer the core question which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn't answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?
That's the responsibility I wake up with. And it's the responsibility I go to sleep with. And so I will do whatever is required to keep the American people safe.
But I am absolutely convinced that the best way I can do that is to make sure that we are not taking shortcuts that undermine who we are.
And -- and there have been no circumstances during the course of this first hundred days in which I have seen information that would make me second-guess the decision that I've made. Okay?
So 100 days ... isn't it kind of condescending how the bar on performance has been lowered to get those "A" grades?* The way the Democrats are cheering Specter's defection, you'd think we actually have this economic mess behind us. Today's economic news is not good. There's still no self-sustaining long-term plan put on the table, much less to cut into.
We're giving the president credit for spending a lot of money with no results in yet, and putting off plenty of happy talk. This earns an "A" grade?
And today, the President of the United States displays compassionate leadership by reminding parents to have backup daycare plans if/when schools close.
"If the situation becomes more serious and we have to take more extensive steps, then parents should also think about contingencies if schools in their areas do temporarily shut down, figuring out and planning what their child care situation would be," Obama advised.
Just moving children from schools to day care centers in infected areas "is not a good solution," he said.
Obama said the federal government is ''prepared to do whatever is necessary to control the impact of this virus.'' He noted his request for $1.5 billion in emergency funding to ensure adequate supplies of vaccines.
And he advised individuals to take their own precautions -- washing hands, staying home if they are sick, and keeping sick kids home.
...
Said (White House press secretary Robert) Gibbs, "The test results coming back on the infant are a very, very painful reminder of what we have to do to remain safe."
They're holding their own against the defending champs, and it's a bears market these days, but Rick Morrisey looks past the numbers to the passionate play:
Oh, I know what the scoreboard said. And I know the Celtics lead this best-of-seven playoff series 3-2. But I also know the series returns to Chicago on Thursday and that what the Bulls might lack in talent, they make up for in grit. This isn't youthful ignorance at work. The Bulls know exactly where they are and what they're up against.
And they don't care.
"We came in confident, and we're leaving confident," forward John Salmons said.
(Ben) Gordon had said earlier in the day that he would need some divine intervention to help heal his injured leg, and who knows, maybe there was a pregame laying-on of hands in the Bulls' locker room. Or maybe the spirit of Michael Jordan's famous flu game infused him with extra willpower. Or maybe the hammy wasn't all that bad. Whatever the case, Gordon came out and played Tuesday night. Afterward, he said he felt fine.
You could feel the legend-making machine getting fired up, but Gordon was playing on two legs, not one. The Celtics didn't get his best Tuesday night, but they got something close enough.
It was Gordon, sore hamstring and all, whom the Bulls called on to take the last shot in regulation. He missed. It was Gordon who was fouled by Tony Allen on a three-point attempt in overtime, and it was Gordon who hit all three free throws to tie the game at 104.
But the Bulls didn't know how to deal with Paul Pierce, who struggled early and then hit his last five shots to lead Boston to victory. He made back-to-back jumpers late in the overtime to give the Celtics a 104-101 lead. And then he followed Gordon's three free throws with a jumper over Salmons with 3.4 seconds left.
Oh, and he had hit a 15-foot jumper over Derrick Rose with 10.5 seconds left in regulation to tie the game 93-93.
Gordon's hamstring is not going to improve markedly for Game 6 at the United Center. Strained hamstrings don't work that way. But he proved to himself that he could deal with the pain and still get his shots. The goal Thursday will be to make more of them. He was 6 of 21 from the floor.
"He was terrific," Celtics coach Doc Rivers said. "He made some unbelievable shots. And we'll [let him] take those shots."
...
The Bulls eventually are going to go away in these playoffs. Just not right away. And maybe not in this series.
And someday we'll find:
These are the Best of Times.
A little history lesson in Time perhaps provides some perspective this morning to news consumers who may be waking up to a scratchy throat, or a child with a spring fever.
It is pollen season afterall, and you'd hate to have unaffected people nurturing unnecessary fears and anxieties in the desire for good health. Right?
In February 1976, an outbreak of swine flu struck Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey, killing a 19-year-old private and infecting hundreds of soldiers. Concerned that the U.S. was on the verge of a devastating epidemic, President Gerald Ford ordered a nationwide vaccination program at a cost of $135 million (some $500 million in today's money). Within weeks, reports surfaced of people developing Guillain-BarrÉ syndrome, a paralyzing nerve disease that can be caused by the vaccine. By April, more than 30 people had died of the condition. Facing protests, federal officials abruptly canceled the program on Dec. 16. The epidemic failed to materialize.
"I think 1976 provides an example of how not to handle a flu outbreak, but what's interesting is that it made a good deal of sense at the time," says Hugh Pennington, an emeritus professor of virology at Britain's University of Aberdeen.
...
Despite modern advances in microbiology, today's health officials still make decisions in a "cloud of uncertainty," Pennington says. "At the moment, our understanding of the current outbreak is similarly limited."
...
In a quickly evolving situation, deciding what public health orders to make becomes as much an art as a science, and can often stir debate. On Monday, for example, health officials in Europe advised citizens to cancel all nonessential trips to Mexico and the U.S. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) said that advisory was too severe. Such decisions, difficult enough to make on purely medical grounds, become even more complicated when they involve politics. In 1976, President Ford's vaccine program came during an election cycle, and some historians believe he was swayed as much by a desire to display strong leadership as by the advice of health experts
Howard Markel, director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan and a historical consultant to the CDC on flu pandemics, says the most vexing decision facing health officials is when to institute mass vaccination programs. Vaccines carry risks of complications, leading to agonizing ethical dilemmas. In 1976, Ford offered indemnity to the vaccine manufacturers.
But according to reports, President George W. Bush decided in 2002 not to administer a nationwide smallpox vaccination program - despite Vice President Dick Cheney's belief that doing so was a prudent counterterrorism step - because it could have resulted in dozens of deaths (the smallpox vaccine kills between 1 and 2 people per million people inoculated).
...
Markel says, "The good news is that our surveillance, methodology and public health professionals have never been better. But we are human and mistakes may be made - as happened with the 1976 swine flu affair - and we may jump the gun in the hope of preserving life."
Nevermind generational or other demographic sticking points -- this new First Amendment battle is really shaping up to be Libertarians vs. Nanny Staters ... right?
Years ago, the Supreme Court ruled you can't force a motorist to drive around with the "Live Free" tag, though it wasn't the living but the dying part he apparently objected to.
Now ... blame Florida for being the first to smell a money-making opportunity and helping confuse the issue of force vs. permission. Not that there's anything wrong with that -- the former anyway.
Florida started the trend in 1987, when it sold a specialty plate to honor the astronauts who had died in the Challenger space shuttle disaster the year before. It raised millions of dollars for a memorial, and these days the Web site of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles offers many other options, including license plates celebrating Nascar, various sports (“Play Tennis!”) and parents who “make a difference.”
It also sells, for $20 extra, a bright yellow plate with the cartoonish faces of two smiling children and the words “Choose Life.” The state says it raised more than $33 million from specialty plates in the 2007 fiscal year and turned most of the money over to private groups.
The “Choose Life” plate generated about $800,000 that year. A state law requires that the money raised from those plates, after administrative expenses are deducted, be given to adoption agencies. The law forbids sharing the money with groups offering “counseling for or referrals to abortion clinics.”
Illinois, on the other hand, has refused to issue a “Choose Life” plate, a decision that was challenged by a group called Choose Life Illinois, which promotes adoption. The federal appeals court in Chicago upheld Illinois’ refusal in November, and this month the losing side asked the Supreme Court to return to the question of what the constitution has to say about speech on license plates.
The Supreme Court has turned back at least four requests to hear cases concerning “Choose Life” license plates in recent years. But the volume of litigation on this question and the doctrinal free-for-all it has given rise to in the lower courts have convinced many legal scholars that the court must soon step in.
There have been lawsuits in Arizona, California, Missouri, New Jersey and New York challenging denials of “Choose Life” plates. And there have been a similar number of suits on the other side, challenging approvals of such plates, in Florida, Louisiana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Tennessee.
There are apparently only two states with specialty plates sympathetic to abortion rights. Montana has a plate that says “Pro-Family, Pro-Choice,” and Hawaii has an official decal that says “Respect Choice.”
Though Illinois refused to approve a “Choose Life” plate, it does have some 60 other specialty plates, including ones for the alumni of 18 different colleges, for people who support youth golf and for those who wish to assure you that they are “pet friendly.” Five different plates put hunters to the choice of declaring whether they like to shoot deer, ducks, geese, pheasants or turkeys.
Now who remembers this one, off the Let's Get Physical album?
Forget all your plans
They're out of your hands
You're falling, falling, falling...
BLOOMINGTON, Minn. – Police said a 23-year-old man is in stable condition after he pretended that he was falling off a bridge over the Minnesota River, then actually fell off the bridge. Police got a call just before 5 a.m. Sunday from a 21-year-old man who said his friend fell off the Highway 77 bridge and into a marshy area about 30 feet below.
The caller said he was driving north when his friend, who he said had been drinking, told him to pull into the bridge's emergency lane so he could urinate.
The 23-year-old stood eventually climbed to the ledge of the bridge, then looked at his friend and pretended to fall. "He then in fact fell," reads a press release from the Bloomington Police Department.
“For people who still love print, who like to hold it, feel it, rustle it, tear stuff out, do their I. F. Stone thing, it’s important to remember that people are living longer,” he said. “That’s the most hopeful thing you can say about print journalism, that old people are living longer.”
And when your world seems cold, you got to let your spirit take control....
(everybody now:)
Let your soul shine,
It's better than sunshine,
It's better than moonshine,
Damn sure better than rain.
Lord now people don't mind,
We all get this way sometime,
Gotta let your soul shine, shine till the break of day.
JERUSALEM – As terrified teenagers 65 years ago, Menachem Sholowicz and Anshel Sieradzki stood in line together in Auschwitz, having serial numbers tattooed on their arms. Sholowicz was B-14594; Sieradzki was B-14595.
The two Polish Jews had never met, they never spoke and they were quickly separated. Each survived the Nazi death camp, moved to Israel, married, and became grandfathers. They didn't meet again until a few weeks ago, having stumbled upon each other through the Internet. Late in life, the two men speak daily, suddenly partners who share their darkest traumas.
"We are blood brothers," said Sieradzki, 81. "The moment I meet someone who was there with me, who went through what I went though, who saw what I saw, who felt what I felt — at that moment we are brothers."
The twist of fate doesn't end there. Two brothers who were with them in the tattooist's line have made contact since hearing of their story.
One of the brothers joined them for a reunion on Sunday at Israel's Holocaust memorial Yad Vashem. With tears in their eyes, the three embraced warmly and caught up on painful memories in Hebrew and in Yiddish.
"This is my victory," Sieradzki said.
The meeting came a day before Israel marks its annual Holocaust remembrance day beginning Monday night, commemorating the 6 million Jews murdered in World War II.
...
(T)he name Sieradzki on the Web site didn't ring a bell. Then Sholowicz, 80, saw the man's number and he froze.
"I rolled up my sleeve and sure enough — I stood exactly ahead of him in line at Auschwitz," he said. The discovery "was a moment of great emotion, great excitement. We went through it all together. We are like two parallel lines that never met."
...
He never noticed the others in line with him. "At that moment, everyone was busy with their own thoughts," he said. "I don't remember who was in front of me and who was behind me."
Up early, thinking of the domestic simplicity in Steinbeck's The Pearl. Not that the sound of the family is buzzing in my ears -- just that people are getting out, yard sale signs are up, and the day is gleaming afresh with possibilities: everything from the flowerbeds to the gearheads are busting forth with that good ole American "yes we can!" spirit.
I like it.
Another thing that's good to read, is this presumably reliable update on relations between two allied countries:
No less a figure than White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel — whose father fought with the militant Zionist group the Irgun, and whose appointment had provided such reassurance to Israeli officials — was quoted this week laying down the law to Israel.
If Israel wants US help to defuse the Iranian threat, Mr Emanuel was reported to have told Jewish leaders in Washington, then get ready to start evacuating settlements in the West Bank.
Talkback radio blazed with fury across the country the same day, as Israelis protested that no US official had the right to tell them where to live.
Then on Thursday came the news that Mr Netanyahu's planned first meeting with President Obama in Washington next month had been called off.
Mr Netanyahu had hoped to capitalise on his attendance at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington to visit the White House. But Administration officials informed Mr Netanyahu's office that the President would not be "in town".
Washington sources added that the Obama Administration would not be continuing the tradition that had developed during the Bush years of hosting Israeli prime ministers whenever they showed up in town, sometimes with just a phone call's notice.
It might have been no more than coincidence, but yesterday Israeli defence officials told the liberal daily Haaretz that Israel's $US15 billion ($A21 billion) purchase of 75 US-made F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets was now under review due to "the unexpected high cost and disagreements with the manufacturer".
...
Tel Aviv barman Meir Avraham, 30, says he can feel on the street the tensions being played out between the US and Israel.
"This is one of the the main things that the people are talking about at the moment," says Mr Avraham, who recently returned to Israel after several months in Townsville.
All Israelis, says Mr Avraham, understand the vital nature of the relationship between Israel and the US. "If we lose America, then we are alone," he says. "So we must listen to what America wants. But really I think this is more about the little brother testing the limits of the big brother."
I only wish John Madden had retired before Brett Favre, so maybe the quarterback might have learned a lesson or two about making a decision when you're ready, and sticking with it.
When John Madden went to cable a few years back with Monday Night Football, I first mourned the loss of his presence. Then he was back again on regular tv. I'll miss him this football season -- who won't, it was a unique American calling voice -- but I can always pull this book off the shelf if needed next winter ...
-------------
Regarding the post below: was that clear? I believe no one should presume government entitlement to free prenatal care and delivery costs, not that it's unnecessary for a woman and her child.
President Obama's speech today is very inspirational. He's trying to explain where he plans to take us, and gives a fair enough summary of "how we got here today."
Still, I wish there would have been some accountability, financially.
The pundits, historians and chroniclers no doubt will mark today's speech at Georgetown as a date he officially called for a revamp of Social Security entitlements, for example.
But short of numbers, I tend to agree that the speechwriter here, and President Obama himself, aren't really straying off the familiar path to lead us out of any woods. There's hope ... that the light ahead isn't just a small clearing, but the actual outskirts of the wooded territory we've wandered into.
But of course, you want to keep your head, and not bank it all on what you think is that light ahead being the way out...
Eventually, somebody within the administration will have to produce some credible numbers, some reassuring proof that major spending now indeed will prove a wise and efficient investment. Otherwise -- well, talk to the parents of some youngsters who have college degrees, but that doesn't exactly place them on the cutting edge of technology, entrepreneurship, or first in line at the hiring hall.
Green light bulbs, new trees, and solar panels indeed are wise property investments, and can save an individual and his family money in the long run. But not every day is sunny, and not every tree can feed a family. Critics can indeed respond positively to better choices from local governments and businesses, and energy efficiency definitely can be encouraged by the government.
But show me some numbers that these money savings are something to bank the American economy on. I think the mass production, and big changes to re-fit society are years in the future in terms of generating jobs to put people to work. Or is everyone with their new college degree going to become an inventor, is that the idea?
Absent numbers, I don't get how this plan will pay for itself, either in the long-run or quickly, so let's not insinuate that people who want to see the estimated price tag for all the extras are thinking short-term.
I appreciate the attempts at honesty -- if I was called on in a town hall meeting, I'd ask the president's opinion if he believes all this government spending he says is necessary now! to stimulate the economy in response to household frugality, is really going to be short term. Does he really believe that?
Or will the bloat from today be the entitlement reform called for in 50 years from our heirs? I'd consider it an important speech if you could show me -- numerically -- how the administration policy makers have indeed struggled with that issue and established disincentive safeguards -- meaning no one would see today's "extras" as encouraging bad behavior.
(I truly believe that the out-of-wedlock birth rate today -- even amongst upper middle class children of professionals who marry a few years later when it's financially more convenient -- is due to the automatic assumption that a single pregnant woman, and her child, deserves prenatal childcare including delivery and healthcare costs, if she and the baby's daddy are not stepping up together to see the child born and raise it without "extra" government help, short of a public education that provides the three R's. Tax credits and subsidies for daycare, but nothing for families that choose to prvately insure their own children's heath, or stay home and parent. This is good for society?)
We're still stuck on the poor incentives of the state health care programs today; we should open the floodgates to spending more money in these down times, before we have the answers on how human nature will respond to providing more government teats?
I'm getting carried away with my descriptive language here, but let me finish with one story that probably is familiar to many readers out there:
Personally, I liked the "House on the Rock" bit that was written in no doubt with the Catholic Georgetown audience in mind. President Obama tried to secularize it, nothing wrong with that. (Though I see some critical commenters are emphasizing that government can never replace God, just as the Easter Bunny can never replace completely the three crosses as symbolic of the recent Christian holiday. But I digress...)
We all know people who draw up wonderful plans for house rebuilding. Maybe it's not even a remodeling job, working with what the previous owners left you, but let's say you're even lucky enough to be starting to build from scratch...
The ones who budget properly often scale back their big plans when the numbers come in. You want to err on the side of building a cushion -- so if something comes in over cost, you can absorb that into the budget and continue with the project. Modesty first -- there is plenty of time tomorrow to finance the "extras".
It's better to scale back the project early on, than to find out later that you are going to cut back on the quality of materials, or leave parts of the big wonderful plan unfinished and sucking money. That's embarrassing, and teaches you not to put the dreams before the numbers. Happiness and hope is good, but for the "House on the Rock" metaphor to work, humility in planning is emphasized, and the knowledge that there are many many things beyond the homeowner's control that could return him to dust based on no actions or misactions of his own.
I wonder if anyone in this administration has actually grappled with finite budgets, and the sinking realization that sometimes you are in this alone financially. That friends are not always there to call on, available with the needed cash to finance the property expansion, the house remodeling. Once that person realizes -- it really is sweat equity that fuels pride to rebuild and see through any hard times, then maybe he doesn't end up right away in a house with all the "extras", but still lives in secure comfort working today and paying his way as he goes.
Then tomorrow's needs are determined by tomorrow's dollars and the household, slowly but in a planned way, grows until one day somebody notices, "My, what a wonderful house!" and perhaps wishes to emulate the builder.
Labels: ime
Fresh from the warm ups, the president is called out by Roger Cohen to play a deeper foreign policy game:
To avoid that nightmare, Obama will have to get tougher with Israel than any U.S. president in recent years. It’s time.
Chorus:
He said, "It's my job to be cleaning up this mess
And that's enough reason to go for me
It's my job to be better than the rest
Today, we celebrate the promise of God's eternal love as fulfilled through the resurrection of His Son.
We also got good news about the American captain hostage, and the responsiveness of American military action under the new Commander in Chief. Job well done. It's a day of new beginnings, in a year that must get brighter, and early signs are promising.
Alleluia, and thanks to the Almighty, from whom all blessings flow. This I believe.
------------
Has it been almost 4 years already?
Last Tuesday, I was kayaking the upper Apple River in northwest Wisconsin. The Apple feeds into the St. Croix River, which divides Minnesota and Wisconsin that far north. The St. Croix feeds into the Mississippi, which separates St. Paul and Minneapolis, and from there flows south to divide the two states just south of River Falls.
We could tell from the paths that other people had put in where we did already this year. But it was still a good challenge, with enough downed trees to navigate around, and rocks creating ripples. The river is running fast this spring, so a six-hour trip in years past turned out to be four.
Four is also the number of bald eagles we spotted, and again, feral animals touch me with their freedom. The first nest had at least one eagle in it, poking its head up, and a protector who flew off its perch and circled, while calling out. The wingspan, the white head and tail, the talons, the sounds -- a cross between a crow's caw and a duck's quack, I'd say -- the nest! Twigs and sticks aren't really the right words -- think big-ass branches, overlaid to create about an eight-foot nest. The first one was in a living tree, only about 10 to 12 feet up, and soon will be hidden from the water as the leaves fully open. We kept quiet and just drifted with the flow, taking in the sight of an eagle aroused, but not really provoked, warning us not to mess with the nest but just to continue on.
The next one was around a few more bends, this time on a dead tree, no doubt fishing in the eddies formed after a particularly shallow part of current, complete with rocks and ripples. Unstill waters don't run deep. This one too flew off after a bit, again putting on a magnificent show. At one point, we could see 4 eagles circling at a distance down river, and their markings and sizes -- and seeing them in the sky together -- make me confident that we weren't just chasing the one pair along, like you sometimes do with ducks.
The last one was the most magnificent. Huge. The white head and tailfeathers. I spotted him way off, in a living tree where his dark body from a distance was too wide to blend in, even with the stout branches that high up in the tree. I stopped paddling and just watched him, steering with the paddle like a rudder. Finally, when I got close enough, he flew off, opening up those wings six or seven feet, and spreading wide the white tailfeathers. He didn't fly over the trees, or circle, just took off down river as we were in an open stretch, growing smaller and smaller until finally the white head and tail disappeared, and he looked only the size of a crow from such a distance.
I'm hoping to get back later this summer, with a camera and my binoculars. They were so close, to see the underbelly of an eagle as it flys over you, well, it was somewhat spiritual. What's that line? "Surely be a poorer man if I never saw an eagle fly..."
A DEA officer stops at a ranch in Montana , and talks with an old rancher. He tells the rancher, 'I need to inspect your ranch for illegally grown drugs.'
The old rancher says, 'Okay, but do not go in that field over there' as he points out the location.
The DEA officer verbally explodes saying, 'Mister, I have the authority of the Federal Government with me.' Reaching into his rear pants pocket, he removes his badge and proudly displays it to the farmer. 'See this badge? This badge means I am allowed to go wherever I wish...on any land. No questions asked or answers given. Have I made myself clear? Do you understand?'
The old rancher nods politely, apologizes, and goes about his chores.
A short time later, the old rancher hears loud screams and sees the DEA officer running for his life chased close behind by the rancher's prize bull. With every step the bull is gaining ground on the officer, and it seems likely that he'll get "horned" before he reaches safety. The officer is clearly terrified. The old rancher throws down his tools, runs to the fence and yells at the top of his lungs.....
...
...
' YOUR BADGE ... SHOW HIM YOUR BADGE !!!!!! '
If you have a longstanding Chicago background, you've probably heard of this one.
On Dec. 1, 1958, a helmeted (firefighter Richard) Scheidt, his face drawn in sorrow, carried the wet, lifeless body of 10-year-old John Jajkowski Jr. from Our Lady of the Angels grade school on the West Side. The fire, one of the worst tragedies in Chicago annals, killed 92 children and three nuns.
Scheidt died Monday at his home in southwest suburban Oak Lawn, a day after he was brought home from the hospital following a minor stroke a month ago, according to relatives.
Scheidt, a member of Rescue Squad 1, carried the bodies of 20 children from the school. Jajkowski was the first.
Scheidt was forever haunted by the memory. In an interview with the Tribune in 1995, in the wake of the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building in which another image of a firefighter cradling a dying child went around the world, Scheidt described the horror of the Our Lady of the Angels School conflagration.
"It just broke my heart all over again for those poor people, having to pick up those babies," Scheidt said at the time. "There's nothing that prepares you for that. Thirty-some years later, I'm not over it yet."
Scheidt had been a Chicago firefighter for eight years when all 13 of the city's rescue squads were dispatched to the school. The fire, he recalled, "was just roaring through the building."
Firefighters eventually broke a hole through a second-floor wall to find a smoky classroom full of unconscious pupils. Scheidt said he and his colleagues immediately tried to rescue as many as they could. He grabbed a boy and rushed out of the building.
But Scheidt said, with tears in his eyes, "He was dead. He didn't make it, like so many of the rest of them."
He then went back and brought out 19 more children, all dead.
Meanwhile, Chicago American photographer Steve Lasker, arrived at the scene and saw one firefighter -- Scheidt -- heading down an interior staircase with a child. Lasker aimed his camera and waited for the rescuer to emerge.
Scheidt said he never noticed the cameraman.
"It was just an accident that they took that photograph," Jack Gallapo, 82, an old friend of Scheidt's and fellow firefighter, said this morning. "He just came out and they took it."
The photograph not only appeared on the front page of the Chicago American, but in newspapers around the world. But in his home, the fire and the picture were rarely spoken of.
"He and all the men that he worked with -- that was their job, and they were brothers in that," his daughter, Nancy Coughlin of Tinley Park, recalled this morning. "He never thought he was any more of a hero than any of the men he worked with."
Scheidt, three of whose older brothers also were firefighters, said he almost quit the fire department after the school fire. "But I went on," he said.
"You just live with it," Scheidt said in the 1995 interview. "It happened. You were part of it. You might not have liked it, but you did your job. You might have liked to have done more, but you did as good as you could."
...
"He never asked anyone to do something he wouldn't do himself," said son Andy Scheidt. "His biggest thing was making sure all his guys got home to their families."
In the days following the deadly fire at Our Lady of the Angels grade school, John Jajkowski's anguish over the death of his eldest son, John Jr., was made worse by the questions about his son's last moments. Was he still alive when rescuers found him? Was he afraid? Did he have any last words?
His need for a measure of resolution was so great he sought out the firefighter he saw in a newspaper photograph carrying his son's body from the flaming building. He found the man in the photo, Richard Scheidt, and though Scheidt usually avoided talking to victims' families because it was too distressing, he agreed to come to the Jajkowski's West Side home.
"He told my dad, 'I'll come and talk to you, but I have one condition,' " said Steve Jajkowski, John Jajkowski Sr.'s second son. "Your wife can't be in the room."
Tonight, the Scheidts and Jajkowskis met again in Oak Lawn, at the visitation service for Scheidt. Steve Jajkowski stood by his mother, Josephine, with tears in her eyes, as she embraced one of Scheidts' daughters, Nancy Coughlin, near her father's casket.
Looks like we will get to see the Obama administration leadership in action on this issue afterall:
Reporting from Washington and Nairobi, Kenya - The first pirate attack in more than 200 years against a U.S.-flagged vessel off Africa led to a tense standoff today after a crew of Americans retook control of the ship and the hijackers fled into a lifeboat - taking the American captain as a hostage.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The crew of a U.S.-flag ship seized by pirates off Somalia is believed to have retaken the vessel, the Pentagon said Wednesday, even as a shaken national security establishment confronted troubling questions about the hostage-taking at high sea.
Capt. Joseph Murphy, an instructor at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, told The Associated Press the Department of Defense that his son Shane, the second in command on the ship, had called him to say the crew had regained control.
"The crew is back in control of the ship," a U.S. official said at midday, speaking on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to speak on the record. "It's reported that one pirate is on board under crew control—the other three were trying to flee," the official said. The status of the other pirates was unknown, the official said, but they were reported to "be in the water."
...to come to the aid of their country. Not just a typing exercise anymore.
Today, we have the first real-time foreign policy challenge to America under the Obama administration, he's back in town ready to go, and we will get to see how our leader responds.
Cmdr. Jane Campbell, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Navy's Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, said that it was the first pirate attack "involving U.S. nationals and a U.S.-flagged vessel in recent memory." She did not give an exact timeframe.
When asked how the U.S. Navy plans to deal with the hijacking, Campbell said: "It's fair to say we are closely monitoring the situation, but we will not discuss nor speculate on current and future military operations."
It was not clear whether the pirates knew they were hijacking a ship with American crew.
The boys of springtime are back in town, in deed:
The Twins pulled off a stunning comeback to beat Seattle 6-5 on Tuesday night at the Metrodome behind three ninth-inning runs -- all with two out.
...
Alexi Casilla's line single to center off Mariners reliever Miguel Batista scored pinch runner Brendan Harris with the tying run and pinch hitter Brian Buscher with the winning run, as those who remained from the announced crowd of 23,755 roared.
...
"I was expecting champagne in the air when we came in, but it was just the first win of the season. We have a lot more to go."
Jeff Jarvis:
The Newspaper Association of America is meeting in San Diego this week and they’re preaching up at their own choir loft with angry, self-righteous fire and brimstone about their plight. Today, Google CEO Eric Schmidt will address them, but he’ll be polite because that’s the way he is and because there’ll be a few hundred aging but armed publishers with blunderbusses aimed at his heart. They need to hear a new message, a blunt message from the outside. Here’s the speech I think they should hear:
You blew it.
You’ve had 20 years since the start of the web, 15 years since the creation of the browser and craigslist, a decade since the birth of blogs and Google to understand the changes in the media economy and the new behaviors of the next generation of - as you call them, Mr. Murdoch - net natives. You’ve had all that time to reinvent your products, services, and organizations for this new world, to take advantage of new opportunities and efficiencies, to retrain not only your staff but your readers and advertisers, to use the power of your megaphones while you still had it to build what would come next. But you didn’t.
You blew it.
And now you’re angry. Well, gentlemen - and that’s pretty much all I see before me: angry, old, white men - you have no right to anger. Instead, you are the proper objects of anger. The public should be angry with you for the poor stewardship you have exercised over the press and its service to society. Your journalists are angry at you for losing their jobs. Your pressmen and drivers and classified-ad takers are angry at you for the same reason (and at the journalists for paying attention only to their own plight). Your advertisers were angry at you for using your monopolistic power to overcharge them and for providing inefficient platforms and bad service for so long. But they’re not angry anymore because they left you for better advertising vehicles and better prices in a competitive marketplace.
But you’re the ones who are acting angry.
Yesterday, you delivered a foot-stomping little hissy fit over Google and aggregators. How dare they link to you and not pay you? Oh, I so want Eric Schmidt to tell you today that you’re getting your wish and that Google will no longer link to you. Beware what you wish for. You’d lose a third of your traffic overnight. If other aggregators (I work with one) and bloggers (I am one) and Facebook all decided to follow suit, you’d lose half your traffic. On most of your sites, only 20 percent of the audience in a day ever sees your homepage and its careful packaging; 4 of 5 readers instead come in through search and links. In the link economy - instead of the outmoded content economy in which you operate - Google and aggregators and bloggers are bringing value to you; they should be charging you for the value they bring. You should rise up today and give Mr. Schmidt a big thank you for not charging you. But you won’t, because you’ve refused to understand this new business reality.
You blew it.
Your Google snits don’t even address your far more profound problem: the vast majority of your potential audience who never come to your sites, the young people who will never read your newspapers. You all remember the quote from a college student in The New York Times a year ago, the one that has kept you up at night. Let’s say it together: “If the news is that important, it will find me.” What are you doing to take your news to her? You still expect her to come to you - to your website or to the newsstand - just because of the magnetic pull of your old brand. But she won’t, and you know it. You lost an entire generation. You lost the future of news.
You blew it.
You had a generation to reinvent the business but you did too little. I by all means include myself in that indictment because I spent my career in our industry: Guilty. I didn’t raise loud enough alarms (it felt as if they were too loud already) or accomplish enough change (not nearly enough). I blew it, too. But no last-minute hail-Mary passes will make up for our failings. Having not taken advantage of the last two decades to reinvent the news business, you’re not going to manage a rescue in two months, before the creditors come calling. That was your worst hail Mary: stoking up on debt and hoping to milk these cows for years to come. Mad cash-cow disease, that’s what too many of you had. Your other desperate moves: suddenly fantasizing that you can fix everything by going behind a wall (to tell with Google and its billions of readers!) and charging us because you think we “should” pay. Since when is a business plan built on “should?” I haven’t seen a sensible P&L justifying this dream from any of you. If you have one, please stand up show us now….. I thought so. Other desperation moves: fantasies of white knights from foundations buying you and letting you stay just the way you are…. government subsidies (do we even have to discuss the danger?)…. switching to not-for-profit, as if that suddenly takes away the need to sustain the business still… misguided, self-righteousness thinking that Google or cable companies owe you money, as if you have a God-given right to the revenue and customers you lost….. No, none of this will save newspapers and in your subconscious, at least, you know it. You know the truth.
You blew it.
So what can you do? Two years, even a year ago, I would have said that you had time to build the networks and frameworks and platforms that would support the ecosystem of news that will come next. I would have said you could retrain your staff to take on new responsibilities: organizing and supporting that ecosystem, curating the best, training people to be the best. I would have advised you to offer your staff members the opportunity to join that ecosystem, setting them up in business. I would have told you to take advantage of the efficiencies the web allows (do what you do best, link to the rest, I used to say). I would have argued that we need to invent new forms of marketing help for an entire new population of businesses-formerly-known-as-advertisers. I did say that. But the financial crisis only accelerated your fall. It didn’t cause the fall, it accelerated it. So now, for many of you, there isn’t time. It’s simply too late. The best thing some of you can do is get out of the way and make room for the next generation of net natives who understand this new economy and society and care about news and will reinvent it, building what comes after you from the ground up. There’s huge opportunity there, for them.
You blew it.
MONTPELIER, Vt. — The Vermont Legislature on Tuesday overrode Gov. Jim Douglas’s veto of a bill allowing gay couples to marry, mustering one more vote than needed to preserve the measure.
The step makes Vermont the first state to allow same-sex marriage through legislative action instead of a court ruling. The law goes into effect Sept. 1.
...
After the final tally, cheers erupted in both legislative chambers of the State House and in the hallways outside, and several lawmakers on both sides of the debate looked stunned.
“It’s a great day for equality,” said State Representative Margaret Cheney, a Democrat from Norwich. “People saw this as an equality issue, and we’re proud that Vermont has led the way without a court order to provide equal benefits.”
Here's the first story I read from yesterday's opening day that reminds me why we get excited for the start of a new season: two stolen bases, and an inside-the-park homer.
"It's one game. I don't want to blow it out of proportion, but we see what he can do on the bases to energize the team in a lot of ways."
"I'm on their level. What that means to me, about what I do? It just really knocks me down."
~Little Anthony, inducted today into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
The sun is out, errands to be run.
Get the work over, then have your fun!
(Hands to Work, Hearts to God)
I hope somebody can make a rule that the surviving Binghamton citizenship-test-takers are in, much like there's a campus myth that if your roommate offs himself, you get all A's that semester.
Not to joke about it, but of all the people a suicide might consider taking with him when he blows, he sure picked one mighty vulnerable population, eh? Welcome to America, stay strong, and keep your values close. No doubt in my mind the survivors in that room will come through this ... the ones who toss in their personal lots just to legally gain American citizenship usually are strong stock.
God bless them all.
If you get a chance and are interested, read the full opinion. It's a good read, really:
This lawsuit is a civil rights action by twelve individuals who reside in six communities across Iowa. Like most Iowans, they are responsible, caring, and productive individuals. They maintain important jobs, or are retired, and are contributing, benevolent members of their communities. They include a nurse, business manager, insurance analyst, bank agent, stay-at-home parent, church organist and piano teacher, museum director, federal employee, social worker, teacher, and two retired teachers. Like many Iowans, some have children and others hope to have children. Some are foster parents. Like all Iowans, they prize their liberties and live within the borders of this state with the expectation that their rights will be maintained and protected—a belief embraced by our state motto. ("Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”)
Despite the commonality shared with other Iowans, the twelve plaintiffs are different from most in one way. They are sexually and romantically attracted to members of their own sex. The twelve plaintiffs comprise six same-sex couples who live in committed relationships. Each maintains a hope of getting married one day, an aspiration shared by many throughout Iowa.
Unlike opposite-sex couples in Iowa, same-sex couples are not permitted to marry in Iowa. The Iowa legislature amended the marriage statute in 1998 to define marriage as a union between only a man and a woman. Despite this law, the six same-sex couples in this litigation asked the Polk County recorder to issue marriage licenses to them. The recorder, following the law, refused to issue the licenses, and the six couples have been unable to be married in this state. Except for the statutory restriction that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, the twelve plaintiffs met the legal requirements to marry in Iowa.
As other Iowans have done in the past when faced with enforcement of a law that prohibits them from engaging in an activity achieving a status enjoyed by other Iowans, the twelve plaintiffs turned the courts to challenge the statute. They seek to declare the marriage statute unconstitutional so they can obtain the array of benefits of marriage enjoyed by heterosexual couples, protect themselves and their children, demonstrate to one another and to society their mutual commitment.
how 'bout that radical Iowa Supreme Court?
Imagine those heartlanders buying the old equal protection argument**, no more special rights and privileges for the heterosexual families. You offer civil marriage rights to some, you can't discriminate against offering the same to others solely based on gender.
And no need for the separate-but-equal "civil unions are good enough for your kind for now" liberal comfort blanket argument that good heterosexual people currently enjoying special privileges can cling to in distinguishing themselves from the bile bigots. I always saw that as too easy an out, just like the Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell nonsense that discriminates against some servicemembers on the job.
Afterall, it's easy today to be against involuntary racial segregation, but look at how many good people were content to live that way for so long, never considering how their passivity and personal contentedness with the status quo contributed to the long wait for justice.*
3 down, 47 to go!
----------
*
I tire so of hearing people say,
Let things take their course.
Tomorrow is another day.
I do not need my freedom when I’m dead.
I cannot live on tomorrow’s bread.
Freedom
Is a strong seed
Planted In a great need.
I live here, too.
I want freedom
Just as you.
We are firmly convinced the exclusion of gay and lesbian people from the institution of civil marriage does not substantially further any important governmental objective. The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification. There is no material fact, genuinely in dispute, that can affect this determination.
We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law. Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute, Iowa Code section 595.2, violates the Iowa Constitution. To decide otherwise would be an abdication of our constitutional duty. If gay and lesbian people must submit to different treatment without an exceedingly persuasive justification, they are deprived of the benefits of the principle of equal protection upon which the rule of law is founded.
"It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian
person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a
committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation,and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the 31
statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class—their sexual orientation. In re Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 441. The benefit denied by the marriage statute—the status of civil marriage for same-sex couples—is so “closely correlated with being homosexual” as to make it apparent the law is targeted at gay and lesbian people as a class."
I don't care if Monday's blue
Tuesday's grey and Wednesday too
Thursday I don't care about you
It's Friday, I'm in love
Monday you can fall apart
Tuesday, Wednesday break my heart
Oh, Thursday doesn't even start
It's Friday I'm in love
Saturday, wait
And Sunday always comes too late
But Friday, never hesitate...
Last fall, we were all talking about "change". We were talking tough -- about the need to face up to costs and balances, to budget honestly, and the need for people to come off their high horses and live within their means.
So much for that.
It's become clear to me lately, that these are no hard times in entitlement circles. Costly programs that previously were put off by state budgets are now being green-lighted, thanks to all this extra federal surplus floating around. "Spend it, consume!, that's the only thing that's going to bring the boom times back..." so the thinking goes.
Today, I want to address just one small piece of the puzzle affecting social services in this country. A bit of history, a bit of policy, a large dose of reality.
IN THE BEGINNING... there were no social safety nets, outside of family, religion and community. You saw many people step up in those days -- women who did not work outside the home often contributed significantly to their schools, towns, and the welfare of the people around them. They weren't paid in dollars for their services, yet many lived highly prosperous lives practicing the Golden Rule. Good health, long lives, a feeling of contentment and purpose.
Religious communities also played a big role in establishing and running hospitals, educating students outside their own faiths, and meeting the daily needs of the poor, who will always be with us, of course. With workers who had taken a vow of poverty, and with daily practice in sacrifice, skimping, and making do ... you often saw miracles come forth from people and places that years before, you might not have given very good odds of success.
Of course, teaching self-respect, self-discipline and self-sacrifice often accompanied the services received. (meaning, you can attend our school tuition-free, if you agree to play by the rules.) (or, we can help your daughter bear her baby and pay for her shelter and medical costs, but if she's not ready or capable to care for/pay for her child herself or with family help, it's probably best for the child and it's extended family to adopt it out to someone who can.)
Now, I can hear you now readers: "but, but ... wasn't that a bad thing taking the babies away from young poor mothers and adopting them out" or "I don't want a Catholic nun delivering my baby and how can I help it if the only hospital in my community is Catholic?" or "why should a child have to attend a school outside of his own faith in order to receive a decent education in some parts?" or "That was a horrible when women were not paid for their contributions in the public realm. Are you advocating a return to the past?"
No. Let's be clear on that last one: no. I think options are wonderful, for everyone -- man and women. But I also am a realist enough to realize that all choices have consequences. And it takes not a little bit of bravery, and brains, to recognize them before you take action.
Today, I'll take on Disability Payments for children. Some of you may know a bit about this system, some of you may not. But it's an interesting game that is being played out there by plenty of single mothers, and it's a sad one for plenty of children. Let me explain:
Social Security enables disabled workers, and their families, to receive monthly monetary payments. Years ago, the welfare program was structured so that each little baby was another increase in the monthly paycheck, up to a limit. When that was done away with, modelled nationally on Wisconsin's welfare-to-work program, mothers didn't get paid just for being poor and having children (and as I understand it, rarely would a poor woman stop at one -- the incentives were to continue breeding for a living, that is how one increased the "paycheck".)
When we did away with welfare, there was no payoff (minus the complex tax credit system) per child. So, many mothers found another way to qualify their children: get them a medically disabled rating.
My friend Brenda has a disabled child, who is now 21 and attending college. Brenda's car went off a cliff in her parent's native Puerto Rico when she was many months pregnant, and the first country hospital they took her to once they extracted her from the vehicle just was not equipped for such a complicated delivery. (no word on the denomination of the hospital, for those readers who might be guessing)
Brenda's child was born with CP, but mentally, she is all there. She's had surgeries to cut her hamstrings to stretch them out, and she doesn't walk, but otherwise, I am so proud of my friend for never treating her child as a "victim" and concentrating on what her daughter can do, not focusing on her physical limitations. Bilingual, an excellent student, and such a kind, patient and mature young woman, I have no doubts that she will find her role and contribute greatly to society. (exploring emergency dispatch careers, at this time)
There are many parents with disabled children who benefit greatly from that monthly check, specialized services, and the government help. I know that. I support that with my tax dollars. But I know the system is being abused, and I wonder how long it will be before someone has the nerve to tackle this problem, much like we took on the welfare crisis and consequences.
If you're like me, it might be hard for you to believe that a parent -- a mother -- could ever hope that their child be labeled as disabled. If they are not. But think back to that welfare history -- how non-working women who were no longer rewarded for simply bringing a life into society, who were not willing to work, would pay their bills?
How about ... off their child's monthly disability check? It happens, folks, due the perverse incentives now set up. You see, the Social Security disability listings are much easier to meet when one is under 18. Where an adult has to essentially prove how the physical or mental disability has affected their ability to work or perform activities of daily living, we substitute children's standards for those under 18. (for example, can the child tie their shoes at the same time as their peers? Speech, socialization, learning skills?)
Where no adult with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder alone would qualify for Social Security disabililty, a child can. Thus entitling the parent to the monthly benefit check.
Again, just so we are clear: surely there are youngsters struggling with mental and physical disabilities who need extra help outside the home, who indeed are medically diagnosed -- accurately -- for their own good. With a good treatment plan, active parenting in conjunction with the schools' special education programs, and COMMITMENT TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, many can prosper in society and go on to function as tax-paying workers who someday can afford to raise families of their own.
But... what of those parents who urge a behavioral disability listing, who are thrilled when their child qualifies them for a monthly benefit? Who speaks for those children in this skewed system?
If we want to tackle entitlements, and sooner is always better than later if you ask me, let's start here: with the increasing numbers of special education students who graduate high school (because the schools, afterall, have financial incentives of their own) who are re-evaluated at age 18 for their disabilities using the harder, adult listings, and no longer qualify as disabled.
What becomes of these young adults, some who are now not qualified to even complete a job application independently, much less get hired and hold a self-supporting job? In my state, we call this the "transistion" period, and committees have formed to address the over-18 problem -- what then?
So often, like so many non-disabled young adults in their late teens and early 20s, these former children drift. Perhaps experimenting, perhaps engaging in criminal matters -- minor or significant, perhaps not knowing what to do with their newfound freedom if the educational institutions never really addressed life skills like working, budgeting, and paying one's own way through life.
I don't like to see children medicated for the wrong reasons. I don't like to see schools, parents, and our social programs intentionally or not rob these children of productive and fulfilling futures. College is not a realistic goal for many children with behavioral and mental limitations, yet with a committed team of parents, teachers, and vocational resource workers, surely some could learn the necessary skills for plenty of vocational and service jobs. I know they can, because I have seen it work in the places where it's not just all about the money, where there really is some honest emphasis on the disabled child himself.
Finally, let's talk about the public-interest sphere today. Not too many taking vows of poverty these days, and again, not that there's anything wrong with that. Wonder why so many women -- particularly women from high- and upper-middle income families go into public interest work? Because students who have tuitition to pay, and bills of their own to meet, rarely can take the unpaid internships and low opening salaries that these jobs pay. But with a higly paid spouse, a public-interest career can be lucrative -- particularly if one is looking to work part-time hours to raise a family of one's own, or if a divorced working father is looking for a family-friendly place that he can cut out early, say, if it's his weekend with the children.
I don't have all the answers -- never said I did. But I can look the problems in the eyes, see the skewed incentives, and wonder where all this is going to end up.
Those poor, poor kids... and I don't mean monetarily either.
"Nothing you can do that can't be done. Nothing you can write that can't be run..."
