Phone Phears and Phriending

Thanks to Facebook, I found one of my good friends from high school.  He wasn’t actually lost.  I just misplaced him for the past 27+ years.  Rick and I shared limos rides to proms, crushes on unsuspecting girls, and the occasional Miller pony(s).  There’s a good chance that we’ve seen one another throw up from some ill-advised self-inflicted behavior.  I’m not sure.  After high school, we went our separate ways, as commonly occurs.  I headed south to become a Fightin’ Blue Hen at the University of Delaware, and Rick headed north to Ithaca College (“It’s Gorgeous”).  I visited him there once with another misplaced friend, John, and I remember eating the best deep-dish pizza of my life at The Chariot in downtown Ithaca.  The rest is pretty sketchy, but the remaining pixels of memory from the trip are all positive.  We had fun, that’s for sure (two words: Utica Club).

After recently friending one another, Rick posted a note on my wall.  “Call me to catch up at 732-555-5555”.  The note sparked a level of excitement at reconnection, but also the impending dread of performance.  The 27+ year catch up conversation can be an exercise in self-analysis, not unlike the process of choosing your own tombstone inscription.  (“This is Joe.  He worked, had a family, people tolerated him most days, and he sometimes tolerated them back.”)  This exercise forces one to sum up their life’s accomplishments and purpose in a mere 10-15 granite etched words.  Our final tweet, if you will.  In a similar fashion, the 27+ year catch up conversation forces one to sum up their life’s accomplishments and purpose in a mere 10-15 minutes of digital chatter.  In preparation for the call, we are required to take inventory of our adult lives, condense it to the big chapters, sprinkle in some highlights and key disappointments, and then shift the camera seamlessly to our opponent with the stock closing question, “So, what have you been up to?”  Have notes ready.

Did I just say ‘opponent’?  Perhaps this is why the feeling of dread comes into play.  The anticipation feels like the jitters before an important game.  Will my big chapters, highlights, and disappointments be bigger and better than his big chapters, highlights, and disappointments?  Scarier still, has my life for the past 27+ years matched the hopes and dreams that I revealed to my long misplaced friend while sitting in limousines and dorm rooms, around kitchen tables and bar stools?

Now I remember one of the reasons that I delayed joining the Facebook community…

Don’t get me wrong – I am happy with my choices and the results.  I have a loving spouse, 3 healthy kids, interesting work, fenced yard.  I’m not sure, but 27+ years ago when engaging in late night talks, laughing and daring one another about our futures, I don’t recall wife/kids/house/work as the stated pinnacle of my life’s ambitions.  Maybe it should have been, because this reality more than measures up to any youthful goals I might have set.  When I look at my kids, any potential inferiority I may feel headed into this digital steel cage match melts away.  I am up to the challenge.

‘So, what have you been up to?”

Send Lawyers, Guns and Money

Can someone explain the actions of the GOP to me, as described below? 'Cause I do not get it.  I just do not get it. 

From The Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/)
'TERRORISTS AND GUNS'.... Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) has been pushing a bill that seems pretty reasonable -- if you're on the FBI terror watch list, you should be ineligible to buy weapons in the U.S. Law enforcement has long supported the proposal, but Congress keeps rejecting it.

The Senate Homeland Security Committee held a hearing on the subject yesterday, and as Gail Collins noted, it didn't go well.

"I think you're going too far here," said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday. He was speaking in opposition to a bill that would keep people on the F.B.I. terrorist watch list from buying guns and explosives.

Say what?

Yes, if you are on the terrorist watch list, the authorities can keep you from getting on a plane but not from purchasing an AK-47. This makes sense to Congress because, as Graham accurately pointed out, "when the founders sat down and wrote the Constitution, they didn't consider flying."

The subject of guns turns Congress into a twilight zone. People who are perfectly happy to let the government wiretap phones go nuts when the government wants to keep track of weapons permits. A guy who stands up in the House and defends the torture of terror suspects will nearly faint with horror at the prospect of depriving someone on the watch list of the right to purchase a pistol.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said, "Let me emphasize that none of us wants a terrorist to be able to purchase a gun." She then proceeded to explain her opposition to a bill that would prevent those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.

The NYT's Gail Collins added, "There seems to be a strong sentiment in Congress that the only constitutional right suspected terrorists have is the right to bear arms."

That's a good line, but it's also an important point. Conservative Republicans have spent the week reminding us of their firm belief that terrorist suspects should be afforded no rights at all. Miranda? Don't bother. Citizenship? Probably not. Due process? That's pre-9/11 thinking.

But if you're on the terrorist watch list and want to stock up on automatic rifles, conservative Republicans will do whatever it takes to make sure you can do just that.

Keep in mind, the terrorist watch list is admittedly flawed. But Lautenberg's proposal would allow those on the list to challenge their inclusion, and if cleared, to then be able to purchase firearms like everyone else. For the GOP, that's asking too much.

Even now, when a given a choice between being "tough on terror" and offending the NRA, Republicans are loath to consider the latter, even at the expense of the former.

The Creative Mind

“The worst enemy to creativity is self-doubt.”
Sylvia Plath

Nice thought, but what we really want to know is the enemy of self-doubt. If we could conquer self-doubt, then we’d all be creative.

This quote doesn’t explain Emily Dickinson for me, the great American poet who lived a reclusive life, wrote extensively about death, and only had a few of her 1,800 poems published before she died. Her sister found the poems amongst her personal effects, and brought them to the light of day. I think it’s a fair leap to say that Emily had some self-esteem issues. History is replete with highly creative self-doubters. Good quote otherwise.

I have no doubt that this is a creative entry.

Band Identity

“Are you a Beatles person or are you a Rolling Stones person?”

I was recently asked this question during an otherwise forgettable conversation, and I responded reflexively.  I knew the answer in my heart, and any momentary internal processing was imperceptible.  I answered with conviction, even though I had no way of knowing if my interpretation and personal definition of a “Beatles person” was the same as my questioner.  I had never considered the idea prior to this inquiry.  But I knew my answer.  Why was this so easy for me?

There are layers upon layers of meaning associated with these two iconic bands.  Beyond their musical legacies, consider the line-ups, the politics, the relationships, the drama.  Both were bands that came of age with the British Invasion in the 1960s, and both were unafraid to sample inventive musical styles and the occasional inventive pharmaceutical.  The band personalities diverge in subtle ways after that, ways so subtle that I knew what they were without thinking.

There are obvious differences, of course.  The Beatles have already lost 2 founding members, and their last new song came out 40 years ago.  The Stones represent a longevity, band loyalty and to some degree, consistency, that the Beatles sacrificed in 1970.  The Beatles catalog has been repackaged and adapted for the ears of children, and many toddlers have come to recognize and love Yellow Submarine and I Want to Hold Your Hand as readily as Twinkle Twinkle Little Star.  Very few of the parents buying Baby Einstein DVDs are adventurous enough to expose their little vessels to Beggar’s Banquet before naptime. 

But the subtle differences, the differences that I cannot trace back to their source within my psyche, are the ones that have the most clarity in my mind.  These subtle tracks are buried somewhere within me, hidden, but came into crystal clear focus once I was asked the question.

Here’s my list of what I know to be true:

A Beatles person experiments; a Rolling Stones person takes risks.

A Beatles person has a dry sense of humor; and chuckles; a Rolling Stones person enjoys a more boisterous, physical comedy, and laughs out loud.

A Beatles person has relationships with drama; a Rolling Stones person has relationships with passion.

A Beatles person prefers red wine; a Rolling Stones person prefers amber ale.

A Beatles person, when alone in his car, will try to sing the harmony parts in Eleanor Rigby; a Rolling Stones person, when alone in his car, will try to sing all the whoo-whoos in Sympathy for the Devil.

A Beatles person is smart and knows it; a Rolling Stones person has more common sense.

A Beatles person exudes warmth and inclusiveness; a Rolling Stones person exudes heat and competition.

A Beatles person will try new foods; a Rolling Stones person likes what he likes.

A Beatles person tells you that his political affiliation in Independent; a Rolling Stones person votes that way.

A Beatles person has the greatest hits compilations; a Rolling Stones person has the individual original albums.

I am sure that I have some of both qualities within me, and that’s great.  We all need balance, and few of us are defined solely my one extreme or another (except perhaps Glenn Beck).  I answered that I am a Rolling Stones person. 

What are you?

The HIRE Act – Political Misdirection

Did your local representative vote against the HIRE Act last month? During a period of entrenched unemployment, how could anyone be against more jobs and more hiring? In an era of hyper-partisanship, it was passed by a near unanimous consent (78-12 qualifies in 2010 as near unanimous). After implementing the guidelines personally, it is hard to believe that the measure passed for any reason beyond its’ positive sounding name.

The HIRE Act provides a Social Security employer payroll tax holiday for this year (6.2% of the employee’s gross wages) to any employer who hires a qualified individual. An individual is “qualified” for the credit if he/she has not worked more than 40 hours for any employer over the past 60 days, and he/she is not related to the hiring business’ owners (to prevent fraud). If the qualified individual is still in the hiring companies’ employ after 52 weeks, the business receives an additional $1,000 tax credit.

The newly hired employee signs an affidavit (Form W-11, brand new from the IRS!) to certify that they meet the Act’s conditions. The employer can then start taking the tax credit against their payroll tax liability immediately. A simple reward and incentive for businesses that put hard working Americans to work.

If only.

Here are my problems with the Act:
1. Rewards business to hire people into existing job openings, not to create new jobs. If someone quits a job, that business has an open position. That business fills the job opening. Explain to me why the business deserves a tax credit for that activity. Is the theory that the job would not have been filled if the credit had not been in place to encourage this hiring? I doubt that is part of the business owner’s decision process.

In order for the Act to spur hiring that would not have occurred otherwise, the business would need to place classified ads that read something like this:
WANTED: Qualified, unemployed workers. Candidates who have been out of work for less than 60 days need not apply. Must be detailed oriented, have strong computer skills and be willing to sign IRS Form W-11 upon hire.
Seriously, a business owner, one who plans to remain in business, will hire the best individual for the job, not the one who has been unemployed the longest.

2. There is no mechanism for an employer to verify the validity of the signed employee affidavit. New employees sign a variety of forms on their first day. Now companies will include IRS Form W-11. What happens when the employee signs it without completely reading it (that never happens!)? What happens when new employee signs the affidavit, but in reality, they have only been out of work for 55 days? The employer has no way to verify if the affidavit is correct. If the affidavit is incorrect, will the business be penalized for underpaying their taxes? As an employer, we are taking the signed affidavit on faith, since the employee has signed it under penalty of perjury. I believe that many companies will use this signed form, take the tax credit, and either later be held to account for false forms, or receive a credit when one was not deserved.

3. The Act demonstrates a government with little idea on how business decisions are made. You can’t decide to hire more people on the assumption that you might receive a credit…because you might not. Should we be surprised that the bill had bipartisan support? Should we be worried? The Act seems to have only one redeeming quality: everyone who voted for it can claim to be “pro-job creation”.

The HIRE Act should help create jobs that would not have existed without the Act. Instead, it created 535 pats on the back, but not much else.

Crosseyed and Painless

For those of you who commented on my Fox News related blog entry, this one’s for you:

From The Week:

The Atlanta Progressive News fired Jonathan Springston for trying to be too objective in his reporting.  The editor was quoted saying that he was let go for clinging to “the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively.”

As Talking Heads said so succinctly:

Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things.

Jefferson: Dead or Alive?

My son, Thomas, has the gift of being a voracious reader. The fact is that all of my children (at least those who have learned to read) enjoy spending extended periods of time reading for pleasure. As long as there is not a test or written report required to measure their reading comprehension afterwards, they derive peaceful pleasure from exercising their imaginations with a good book. While we as parents have modeled reading for pleasure and enjoy a Saturday visit to the library, their love of books must also have a genetic component to run so deep in their personalities.

Thomas always reads for at least 10 minutes, usually longer, every night before bedtime. One night when he was about 8 years old, I passed by his open bedroom door. He was sitting on his bed, propped up with that evening’s selection, a biography on the life of Thomas Jefferson – inventor, writer, patriot, president. I was proud of his choice of historical non-fiction for pleasure reading – like father, like son.

Thomas, on this occasion, was crying – really sobbing. Red eyes, tear-stained cheeks, and the intermittent heaving chest gasping for more air. To say that I was caught off guard would be an understatement. For a moment, witnessing such a dramatic, emotional display was scary for me. What could have happened to my innocent boy to evoke such an outpouring? School bullying? Teacher reprimand at school? Guilty feelings about who-knows-what?

“Thomas, buddy, what’s the matter?” I tried to be calming, while inside I was preparing myself for any situation that he might share. I was ready to lift his burden, solve his problem, be the pillar of strength that a vulnerable boy needs.

He didn’t hold back. “I was reading about…Thomas…Jefferson,” he forces out through the tears and the overused Kleenex. His face was spotted red and his eyelashes were stuck together. He was, in a word, a mess.

“I didn’t know that he died at the end of the story.”

His cries came rushing out now, freed of this terrible news. I did the only thing I could do in the situation. I hugged him close, told him that everything was going to be OK, and snuck his copy of Ben Franklin’s biography under my arm and out of his room.