Traditions connect generations; don’t give up on them

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 12/20/09

TERRE HAUTE — “If you guys buy an artificial Christmas tree, I’m leaving.” Although I don’t recall writing it, I found that note in my hand writing in one of the numerous boxes of my parents’ precious pictures and papers. The handwriting and paper it was written on leads me to think I was 14 or 15 when I wrote it.

Two things struck me when I read it: First, why was I so strongly against the idea of an artificial Christmas tree and, second, why did my mother keep the note.

Coincidentally, a few hours before I found that note I had suggested to my wife that we consider buying an artificial tree. She was surprised that I suggested it (“I’m surprised you, of all people, would suggest that.”) We didn’t make any decision but later that evening she found the note I’d written more than 30 years ago, and I’m looking at our real tree as I write this. I guess my disdain for artificial trees is obvious to my family.

No one should be surprised that people respond passionately, angrily and/or forcefully to change, especially when that which is changing carries a lot of meaning for them. I’ve tried to remember writing that note, I can’t. But I recall tensions at Christmas time related to the traditions in our home. My dad always put up outside Christmas lights, but he never varied what he did. It was always exactly the same. Sometimes my mom would suggest a change. I think we changed the color of the light in the cupola once. Our tree was always very similar, though a couple of years we put it in a different room. I do recall when the mini lights arrived in stores, my dad liked them and wanted to give them a try. My mom was not pleased. One year we had a tree with a mixture of mini lights and the older larger lights. The older style lights meant something to my mother, perhaps something similar to my “line in the sand” regarding real trees.

People attach much meaning to rituals and traditions and no more so than at this time of the year. My parents continued to leave milk and cookies for Santa Claus for years beyond the time I was a child. Those rituals and traditions seem to take on added importance during times of change. And in today’s society, change is constant. Don’t be surprised if family members are crankier about family traditions this year. The last year has been full of change and it is the end of the decade.

I think it has become traditional and ritual for some to express outrage at what they see as the diminution of “Christmas” in both the public and commercial spheres. Lamenting the increasing commercialization of Christmas has been going on as long as I can remember. Nevertheless, there is no evidence whatsoever that the trend is abating. Indeed, the success of the commercialization of Christmas now seems critical to the health of our economy. And the commercialization of Christmas assures that anything controversial (like the greetings that shoppers receive when they enter the store, the music played on the intercom) will continue to move toward what the retailers think is the least offensive until a seasonal greeting and seasonal music is all but eliminated. Some would argue that point is already here.

Traditions and rituals connect generations and they demonstrate the importance of “our” values. My mother was a very complicated person. No one was particularly good at understanding why she did some things, including her. But I suspect that she kept that note I wrote so long ago because she saw it as validation of “our” values.

One of my family’s Christmas Eve traditions is changing this year. I haven’t written any passionate notes about it, but I am searching for some kind of compromise/alternative. My kids have suggested the change and I guess I am glad that they care about our Christmas Eve traditions. And I want to work with them, but I admit to feeling a bit sad, which surprises me. Sometimes we don’t realize how much “silly traditions” mean to us until someone suggests changing them. This year, indulge a family member who insists on a “silly tradition.”

Americans’ opinion on access to abortion unwavering

Originally published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 11/22/09


A CBS News poll of adults taken in early October asked: “Which of these comes closest to your view? Abortion should be generally available to those who want it. Or, Abortion should be available, but under stricter limits than it is now. Or, Abortion should not be permitted.” Forty-one percent indicated generally available, 35 percent stricter limits, 20 percent indicated it should not be permitted and 4 percent were unsure. On Nov. 7, the Congress voted 55 percent to 45 percent to impose stricter limits on abortion through the Stupak Amendment that restricts the use of public monies in either the “public option,” insurance exchanges or in use of insurance credits. Adding together those who indicated stricter limits and those who oppose abortion entirely, you account for 55 percent of the adults polled.

PollingReport.com has compiled the results of 349 polls of Americans on the subject of abortion covering more than 30 years.

Examining these polls, I’m struck how consistent the results are, how little change there is across the years. For instance, Gallup asked a similar question in April 1975, “Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?” Twenty-one percent indicated legal under any circumstances, 54 percent legal only under certain circumstances, 22 percent illegal in all circumstances, and 3 percent were unsure. Gallup last asked this question in July ‘09, the findings were virtually the same, 21 percent, 57 percent, 18 percent, and 4 percent.

Time/CNN polled in April 1989, asking: “Do you favor or oppose the Supreme Court ruling that women have the right to have an abortion during the first three months of their pregnancy?” Fifty-four percent favored, 39 percent opposed, and 7 percent were unsure. The same question was asked in January 2003 (the most recent for this question) and the results were nearly identical: 55 percent, 40 percent and 5 percent.

Anyone who follows public opinion on the abortion issue knows that public opinion has remained stable since the 1973 Roe v Wade. So, why does the controversy still rage so hotly? It lies in understanding what the poll results really say.

While public opinion doesn’t seem to change, abortion law, availability and access have. Perhaps the first legal restriction was passed in 1976 in Missouri, a parental notification law, which now at least 35 states have. A spousal notification law was passed in Pennsylvania, but the U.S. Supreme Court overturned it in 1992. Twenty-four states have a mandatory waiting or counseling period before a woman can get an abortion. In 1976, the Hyde Amendment banned appropriated funds for the Department of Health and Human Services to be used for abortion services. The effect of these and other measures is to restrict the access or availability of abortion to women, despite the overall public support for the Roe decision. Harris Polls, taken 14 times since 1973 and last taken in 2009, consistently show a majority favoring the Roe decision. The Supreme Court has at least four times upheld Roe in subsequent rulings.

The movement has been to restrict abortion either through direct laws such as parental notification laws, waiting periods or restricting access through funding restrictions. Compared to the mid 1970s, the availability of abortion is much less than what it used to be. Yet, support for more restrictions remains constant. When those who support more restrictions combine with those who oppose abortion, we can expect more and more restrictions.

I wish pollsters would ask a question about abortion similar to one they have asked over the years about gun control: “In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict or kept as they are now?: Asking about keeping laws, availability or access as it is now, would be very telling about where the future of abortion availability will head. With gun laws, 78 percent favored stricter laws in 1990, and as gun laws got stricter, public opinion shifted to keeping things as they are, from 17 percent in 1990 to 43 percent in October 2009 (Gallup Poll).

Unlike American’s opinion on gun control, which seems to respond to changes in those laws, American’s opinion on abortion seems “inelastic” with respect to the availability or access to abortion services. A coalition of those who favor stricter laws or narrowed availability and those who oppose abortion in any circumstances, suggests women’s ability to exercise their constitutional right will continue to be narrowed. Perhaps pro-choice groups could learn something from pro-gun groups about defending a constitutional right in face of political majorities to restrict it.

Working hard isn't enough for some living in poverty

Previously published in theTerre Haute Tribune Star, 10/25/09

If the United States contained only 100 people, how many would be living in poverty? According to a September 2009 US Census publication, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008, based on data collected in March 2009 (Current Population Survey), 13.2 individuals would be living in poverty. After living in Indiana and Vigo County for over 20 years, one thing I’ve learned is how proud we are to be different than other places. And certainly Vigo County is different when it comes to poverty.


According to the most recent data available on poverty in Vigo County (2007), 15.4 individuals out of 100 were living in poverty. Keep in mind the Vigo County data is taken prior to the financial meltdown in 2008. The US rate then was 12.5 percent.

Figure 1 shows the percent of persons living at or below the poverty line in 2007 for Vigo County and its border counties. True to Vigo County exceptionalism, we stand out, with the highest poverty rate in the area. Is there any credible evidence that as the US’ poverty rate climbs, that Vigo’s is heading down? Already I can hear those who don’t want to confront the facts; college students are not counted in the census unless they make Vigo County their residence, otherwise they are counted as part of their parents’ household and prisoners are not counted in poverty statistics.

While there is ample data on poverty for the US as a whole, detailed data on local communities is much sparser. But a comparison of current US statistics with detailed local statistics from the 2000 US Census is revealing in how exceptional poverty is in Vigo County. However, we follow the trend when it comes to female poverty, it strikes harder at females everywhere. Figure 2 shows female poverty rates by age. What is most revealing about Figure 2, is that poverty hits younger people the hardest. This was not always true, once, less than 100 years ago, poverty struck hardest at the elderly, but government programs, especially Social Security, new public policies protecting pension plans, Medicare and Medicaid, transformed the “face” of poverty from one of single, elderly people, to children and women.

Figure 3 shows how disproportionate the impact of poverty is on children. Almost one-quarter of every child in Vigo County, 10 years ago, was living in poverty. What about today? Nearly one in five pre-schoolers live in poverty. How does that affect their education and personal development? Should we blame the children for their poverty status the same way we blame their parents?

Poverty is not an equal opportunity. Indeed, poverty strikes much harder at minority people. Figure 4 shows rates of poverty for the US and for Vigo County by race and ethnicity. So many people object to policies like Affirmative Action, but few seem to object to what seems like a racial preference program for poverty. The odds of living in poverty, if you are “different”, is nearly double in Vigo County and nearly triple in Vigo County compared to the US as a whole.

One reason why poverty is so hard to alleviate in the US compared to other industrial democracies is because of our long cultural history of Protestant-individualism. In short, we tend to blame those in poverty for their situation. We believe that poverty is caused by the presence of poor people, both materially, culturally, and morally. One of the most persistent myths about poverty, which emerged in the early 1980s, is that of generational poverty. Yet, according to the US Census bureau, in the 48 month period from 2003 to 2007, only 1.8 percent of the US population fell below the poverty line for all 48 months. People move in and out of poverty; the rates, however, stay stubbornly persistent.

Poverty is a social condition. It is a structural feature of our society. Yes, that is a sociological insight which, in a society so inoculated to the presence of poverty, in a county where high rates of poverty have been normalized to the point that most of us who live here don’t even notice it, a statement like “poverty is a structural feature of our society” is pretty abstract and likely meaningless. Maybe these examples will help.

Figure 5 shows the federal poverty guidelines for 2009. Currently minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. Working full time and for a full year, a worker at the minimum wage would earn $14500. That is 130% of the poverty income threshold for a one person family. Make that person a single-mother with a child and working full time at minimum wage lands her in poverty. In short, public policy mandates that people be paid a minimum wage that is at or below the poverty level. Hence, the willingness to work and work hard at any job is not good enough to escape poverty.

According to the most recent Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the third fastest growing occupation in the US is that of home health aide. The BLS notes that this job requires very little training, limited to short, on-the-job training. Hence, anyone can do it, who is physically able. And currently almost 900 thousand people do, with opportunities growing daily. Home health aides earn on average $21,400, or below the poverty threshold for a family of four. The question to ask is not why would anyone do this work, but instead, the question should be, we need nearly 900 thousand people to do this work, who is going to do it? Poverty assures that we have people to do it as well as such jobs help create the structural poverty in our society.

One of the largest occupations in the US is known by the BLS as “Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers, Hand,” a precise and clinical term for “back labor.” The OOH notes this job, like home health aides is easily learned, with a short, on-the-job training. Anyone can do it, who is physically able. And over 2.3 million people do and earn, on the average, $24,690, just above the poverty level for a family of four. These jobs may pay a wage that keeps people just above the official poverty threshold, but one dollar above the threshold doesn’t change much, except reduces one’s access to many services…hence, just above the official poverty thresholds might actually be worse.

Understand that our society needs home health aides and needs people to move boxes around in warehouses and to load UPS and FedEx trucks. In just these two occupations, we are accounting for 3 million people, 2.7 percent of the labor force. There are many, many more low income jobs, that require little training or education, that pay low wages. When I state poverty is a structural feature of our society, this is what I am talking about. Our society needs these people to do this work. If everyone earns PhDs, that just means there will be PhDs doing that kind of work and for similarly low pay.

If “hard work” is a core value of the United States, what does it say when hard work is rewarded with poverty? For millions of Americans and thousands of Vigo Countians, working hard isn’t enough.

Wine-and-cheese Marxists or vodka-and-borscht Burkians--they still rant

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 8/13/2009
This summer I took a break from the blogosphere. Last week when I returned to my familiar trek through it, the shrill rhetoric from all points, right-left-center, was so off-putting that I felt like I had been dropped into a shriek fest. This is progress from reading two or three good daily newspapers?
The rant of the moment was President Obama’s pablum speech to the nation’s school children about the importance of staying in school. With a high school graduation rate among the lowest in the industrialized world, 70 percent or so, I suppose among all the other pressing issues that President Obama must focus, a speech to youth about the importance of staying in school is plausibly justifiable. I doubt the speech will “move the needle” on the high school graduation rate and since the speech doesn’t signify (another new) policy to “fix the nation’s” schools, I don’t expect much “impact” from this event.
Yet, apparently there are many who fear that President Obama addressing K-12 students about the importance of staying in school will have an impact. It will spawn a new generation of socialist/commie/fascists. The slurs of socialism, communism, and fascism, are so shrill and ill-used that it is laughable but this kind of response has caused schools to expend limited resources on notifying parents of the interloper Obama with his controversial messages (“The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough, it’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.”) to the students in our schools and the creation of alternatives to keep the students occupied. As parsed as the school day is already, what valuable time will be lost in teaching to the state mandated tests?
The left wing has it’s “wine and cheese” Marxists, those well educated, high earning, and portfolio managed who sneer at the workings of capitalism, who posture by choosing to invest in or purchase from “socially responsible” dividend paying firms, and who send their children to private schools to keep them away from the “riff raff.” The right wing has their “vodka and borscht” Burkians, who rant at every government “intervention,” who label everything they dislike socialist or communist, who wish to live according to late 18th century policies but unlike the Amish who pretty much do live in the late 18th century, aren’t willing to do much beyond rant.
Just as the wine and cheese Marxists aren’t going to do anything to threaten their interests such as helping to organize workers and poor people into a political force or abandoning the Democratic Party in favor of a more labor oriented party where the interests of workers are front and center instead of Wall Streeters, the vodka and borscht Burkians aren’t going to do anything to undermine the “socialized” aspects of our country like prisons, law enforcement, the court system, or public schools. How many of the vodka and borscht Burkians are going to refuse to eat food grown with an agricultural subsidy? How many will organize a tax protest and refuse to pay taxes that go for roads, police, parks, and licensing boards for such occupations as physicians, dentists, lawyers, school teachers, plumbers, barbers, and the list could go on and on? All of these are “interventions” in the free market, hence, socialism, right? And the cost of funding these interventions are paid for by all of us, whether we use them or not. Sounds like socialism. Yet, I suspect the same groups who rant about “socialism” are the first to line up to support more money for prisons, more for police, more for the military. These are three of the most “socialistic” institutions in the US. Why aren’t the vodka and borscht Burkians demanding that the military be run like Wal-Mart? For the same reason that the wine and cheese Marxists aren’t leaving the Democratic Party for mouthing concern about cutting taxes on the rich.
As ill-informed as the ranters seem to be, Thomas Jefferson’s belief that "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be" (from a letter to Charles Yancy, 1816) seems especially timely. At a time when information is so available, so free of gatekeepers, that a technologically sophisticated people would seek only to validate its fears over reason and understanding, seems a triumph for those who would traffic in fear and ignorance, the antithesis of civilization.

That's Entertainment! (Are We Talking About College?)

Previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star (1 September 2009)

“Are we going to have fun today?” A student asked me that question at the beginning of a class this summer. Summer classes are, contrary to popular belief, more intense than regular classes. Indeed, this particular class was a special class that involved class meetings for nearly six hours a day for two weeks, an entire semester’s worth of work in two weeks. I told the students and their parents less than 48 hours before that this would be the most demanding academic challenge any of them had undertaken. The question about having fun was a statement about expectations than anything else.

This student’s question/statement triggered something that has been nagging at me for some time. After attending a high school open house and listening to the principal’s welcome, where again “fun” was a central message, the message finally got through my thick skull…”school” is not fun, but we offer other attractions that are.

In the last three years, I’ve been on college tours with my daughters. At this point, I have toured a dozen or more . There is a rhythm to the presentations the schools make and they follow one of two. Either the rhythm is “fun, fun, fun, academics” or “academics, academics, academics, fun.” I’ve toured both public and private, big and small campuses, and the rhythm isn’t really related to those distinctions. Indeed, the loudest “academics, academics, academics, fun” rhythm was on a large public university. When did learning and fun become mutually exclusive?

The usual college tour is conducted by a current student. Often parents ask questions of the student guide like “why did you choose this school?” or “what has been your favorite class so far?” Inevitably “fun” is part of the answer, even eating in the cafeterias is described as “fun.”

“Fun” is used so much to describe the college experience that it seems to lose its meaning (at least for over-thinking folks like me). Maybe fun means “enjoyable.” So, when the campus is described as “fun” it is enjoyable. It could mean “acceptance.” The students are fun here because I can find people who accept me. It could mean “I’m happy.” The beauty of some of these campuses would make the sourest person happy. One school’s campus was an arboretum.

Nevertheless, I don’t really think that is what “fun” means in these contexts. I think it means “entertaining.” The fun message is really saying, “come here and we’ll entertain you for four years.” Students increasingly expect everything to be entertaining, hence “fun.” One school I recently toured spent an incredible amount of time talking up one of its sports teams. Few people participate in the sport itself, rather, the “fun” is being entertained by the team on its way to another championship. Even the school’s president was described as “fun.”

I’m not bashing students; they reflect our culture. The pursuit of “happiness” is a core value of our society. “Fun” is part of that pursuit. Learning and formal learning (education) has long been a path to pursuing happiness. The US has never been a society where formal learning was a goal in itself, rather it is a means to an end. Colleges are better known today by their role in the entertainment industry (big time college sports) than by accomplishments in their core mission, despite the efforts of public relations and information offices.

The juxtaposition of academic work and fun seems to send a negative message about academic work. When did it become necessary that academics be “fun,” or entertaining? For some students, some classes are fun because it stimulates an interest they have or they discover a talent for a particular subject. For others, learning calculus is a gateway to designing technology to deliver communication signals across a radio spectrum.

Entertainment, especially “spectating,” is a passive activity. Surfing the internet, watching YouTube videos, and even catching up with friends on Facebook are mostly passive entertainment forms. Learning is not. Learning requires effort ; it is not passive. Entertainment is not hard, it is easy, it is something we consume. Education (learning) is something we do, or at least we should be doing. If you follow the “issues” in higher education, one of the bigger issues is “retention,” or keeping first-year students persisting to the second and on to graduation. If part of the retention problem is student expectations of being entertained, no wonder they exit.

Oops. Time to get ready for class. Now, where is my clown suit and ventriloquist dummy?

Cash for Clunkers

The CARS program, more affectionately known as "Cash for Clunkers," is gaining more opposition as it shows more success. let's be real here, this is a stimulus plan for the American Car Companies, and certainly it is doing that. Ads around where I live show that with the rebate, one can get an economicaly car for a damn good price; one dealer is doubling the bonus...taking 9k off the price. I checked today to see if my "clunker" a 91 Plymouth Acclaim qualified (it doesn't).

Interesting that Fox News slams the program as early claims are that the average mpg of vehicles traded in is 10 mpg less than what people are driving away with.

some of the controversy comes from the destruction of the cars. This takes energy (as does building a new car). yes, these criticisms are accurate, but then let's be honest and all recycling is just down cycling, not true recycling. These criticisms are coming from fairly radical environmentalists. If we narrowly look at just transportation, the savings in mpg, assuming that people will not double their driving due to the increased mpg, we are saving gasoline. Some people will undoubtedly drive more, just as people who switch to compact flourescent bulbs, leave the lights on longer since cost is the driver, not energy consumption

Addendum to previous post

In my newspaper essay I complained about poor journalism around the healthcare debate. Finally somebetyer journalism. This week's Time has a chartehst shows how major features of the proposals would effect people in different demographic groups; both ppsitives and negatives. The chart also outlines the major players in the debate like insurance companies, docs, and others this is much better .