Be-Think [Please visit BeThink.org]

Thanksgiving; Time with Family. No Thanks

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org As Americans ponder the Thanksgiving Day holiday expectations are high. Young children look forward to all the activities loved ones plan. School age individuals are told tales of the Pilgrims and the Indians that befriended early settlers.  Most imagine that on this November day, people come together peaceably.  That, for the little ones is a welcome thought.  Too often, tension exists in the parent child relationship.  Some say angst increases as the offspring age.  Whilst many wish to believe the strain occurs over time, as a child becomes more autonomous, indeed, recent research shows early interactions give rise to the relationship that will be. Toddlers and tots rarely have opportunities to quietly, calmly, and genuinely converse with parents or the caregivers they are fond of.   Hence, lads and lasses feel a sense of loss.  By the teen years, the thought of another Thanksgiving celebration with relatives evokes an almost automatic response, "No thanks."

Many know the routine and the rhetoric.  Yet, adolescent and adults live the truth.  Mostly Mama or Papa chats are instant, online, and consists of more banter than conversation.

Thankfully, a second stolen in the car, a tender thought expressed while on the run, these are life's little riches.  Yet, these treasures occur infrequently.  Oh, how much Mike and Michelle yearn for a few hours of tête-à-tête with the Moms and Dads they love.  Juanita and Jorge too hunger for a long and heartfelt talk, followed by a hug.  Angelique and Akil desire discourse.  A deep discussion with Mama and Papa would mean so much.  Children crave a balance, parental involvement coupled with reciprocal reverence.  A baby, a boy, a girl, or a blossoming adult wants a hand to hold gingerly rather than a hand that guide.

While mothers and fathers also hope to establish a strong relationship with their offspring and other relatives what occurs at home is often other than fulfilling.  Time together on Thanksgiving Day does provide for a new normal.  Superficial exchanges are as common during the commemoration as they are day to day. We dream of the good times and too frequently feel the holidays are not it.  Nevertheless, individuals still hold on to hope.  Let there be a reason to give thanks.

In some, Thanksgiving Day, and the entire celebratory season, elicits memories of fight or flight.  Nonetheless, there is a thought that usually associated with appreciation; a turkey feast will likely be featured on the menu.  Pumpkin pie will probably be served too.  Oh my!  

Thank goodness for food.  With childhood memories intact, men and women who reflect on the delicious delicacies expect to feel fulfilled or full even if they feel forced to endure the company of family.  Sights, smells and that ever-present sense of loss will stimulate emotional overeating.   Elders promise themselves, just this once they will indulge.  After all, Thanksgiving Day is special occasion.  At least food is a fine distraction from feelings of loneliness or a lack of involvement.  Indeed, as headlines howl, Isolated Americans try to connect  . . .  not with Mom, Pop, and siblings, with all the other more welcome traditions.

A time to party, to perform, to watch football, to prove to ourselves that we are [authentically] close to others, and to pretend.  Thanks for the distractions.

Those that wish to act in the spirit of the national holiday can also take refuge.  After all, the intent of the celebration is good.  Community Service acts of kindness can be even better.  A Christmas Gift Drive, Homeless Shelters and Soup Kitchens, helping the elderly, animals, and others in need can never be wrong.  However, even when engaged in an honorable pursuit, so many say they feel alone in the crowd.  The sensation can be as it is in a home full of holiday lore and little love.  Grateful? For what?

Thanksgiving Day, and more so the day after, illustrate an American truth.  "People are increasingly busy," said Margaret Gibbs, a psychologist at Fairleigh Dickinson University. "We've become a society where we expect things instantly, and don't spend the time it takes to have real intimacy with another person."

Author, and Clinical Psychologist, Madeline Levine reflects on what she sees in her practice.  As recounted in a Washington Post article, the mother of three observes; over-involved parents who pressure their children to be stars -- in school, on athletic fields, among their peers -- have created a generation that is "extremely unhappy, disconnected and passive." Immodestly materialistic and indifferent to worldly affairs, young persons, from an early age on are both bored and "often boring," writes Psychologist Levine.

When the apathetic, acquisitive find themselves lost and without a cause, they do what is familiar.  People shop until they drop..  Much to the delight of retailers, the parents and their children shop.  Bye-bye forced family togetherness.  Hello , buy, buy, buy.  Thanks for the gifts.

Purveyors are happiest whence the Thanksgiving holiday arrives.  During these November and December days, people rush to the stores with a greater sense of purpose.  The Friday after the traditional Thursday celebration begins their best time of year.  People purchase presents to give to one and all.  It seems that love is in the air from late November until the New Year. In truth, even when individuals meet with family or friends in the winter, when they mix, and mingle in the spirit of gratitude, few feel connected.  

Indeed, Americans express a sense of separation..  It is no wonder we hope a holiday will console us, help us feel connected.

Yet, as John Powell, a Psychologist at the University of Illinois Counseling Center, states "The frequency of contact and volume of contact does not necessarily translate into the quality of contact." The observer of social behavior understands; most persons, young or old, do what is comfortable, even if that means stay a safe distance apart from the persons he or she most wants in their lives.

Thus on this Thanksgiving Day, it may be important to reflect on all the hours before and after. Lynn Smith-Lovin, a Duke University Sociologist offers, "We know theseclose ties are what people depend on in bad times. "We're not saying people are completely isolated. They may have 600 friends on Facebook.com [a popular networking Web site] and e-mail 25 people a day, but they are not discussing matters that are personally important."  Nor are these persons, when home, engaged in conversations that communicate much.

Possibly, parents and children can find more personal ways to establish and then retain a reciprocally reverent relationship.  On this day of thanks, and the eve of Black Friday people may ponder; food, fun with those we barely know, and material finds are not golden.

Psychologist Madeline Levine, Author of The Price of Privilege" proclaims advantages are not always as they appear to be.  Affluence does not breed brotherly alliances.  Nor does money beget benevolence.  Children do not connect to cash givers.  Possessions may not leave a loved one proud.  Moms and Dads cannot bequeath material goods and hope to receive emotional gifts in return.  However . . 

There are several thing parents can do: Families should eat dinner together [and truly talk]  as much as possible, and kids should be involved in rituals -- at church, the synagogue, at Meals on Wheels or wherever.

Parents need to impose consistent discipline, which will help kids develop self-control, which is vital.

Kids should never, ever, be paid for grades. Real learning is about effort and improvement, not performance. Your kid's C actually may be the far greater achievement than the A that comes easily.

And they should have chores. A lot of kids I see don't have to do anything except shine. And if you turn out kids who aren't expected to do anything but shine, you turn out narcissistic or self-centered kids. As one girl I see told me, "If I'm so special, why do I have to clear the table?"

Ah, the mundane deeds can be so divine.  Everyday errands and exchanges can build character and give birth to a quality bond. On any date we can choose to be more open and honest in our interactions.  

Thanksgiving Day and the holiday season are a good time to slow down, chat, and pay homage to the humanity that resides within your home. With relatives near or far, everyday deference would be even better.  It is never too late to learn how to relate, to change habits, and to bring into being the tenderness that might not have existed in the early years.  Expressions of gratitude and kindheartedness have no season, and need no reason.  Thankful.  Hopefully that is what each of us might feel.  Beginning today, we can chose to consciously create togetherness from birth, in childhood, as adults, and always.

References and relationships . . . 

• Tension common in parent-child relationships. Live Science.  MSNBC. May 7, 2009
• Gene-Environment Interplay and the Origins of Individual Differences in Behavior, Frances A. Champagne and Rahia Mashoodh.  Columbia University. Association for Psychological Science  Volume 18-Number 3.  Copyright 2009
• More Parent-Child Quality Time? Thank Harvard,  BV Catherine Rampell.  The New York Times. August 26, 2009, 2:25 PM
• That Parent-Child Conversation Is Becoming Instant, and Online, John Schwartz.  The New York Times. January 3, 2004
• Fathers Gain Respect From Experts (and Mothers),  By Laurie Tarkan.  The New York Times. November 3, 2009
• When parents are too hands-on, By Stephanie Dunnewind.  The Seattle Times. September 4, 2004
• I'm dreaming of a right-size Christmas, By Carolyn Butler. Washington Post. Monday, November 23, 2009 3:44 PM
• stimulate Mindful Emotional Eating: Leveraging More Coping per Calorie, By Pavel G. Somov PH.D. Psych Central. November 24, 2009
• Community Service Projects for Kids,Youth,& Families.  Families With Purpose.
• Isolated Americans trying to connect.  The Associated Press.  USA Today.  August 5, 2006
• Social Isolation Growing in U.S., Study Says, The Number of People Who Say They Have No One to Confide In Has Risen.  By Shankar Vedantam.  Washington Post.  Friday, June 23, 2006
• Parents create 'disconnected' generation." UPI NewsTrack. 2006. Retrieved November 01, 2009 from accessmylibrary
• National Young Readers Week November 9 through the 13, 2009.

Capitalism; Dead, Alive, and Broken

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org For but a moment, whilst the Group of 20 [G20] met in London's ancient financial capital, ,"The City," the roars of remorse, could be heard.  Words of woe had been whispered in hushed tones for quite some time.  Scholars spoke of various possibilities on occasion.  Whether Senior Economic Fellows from various think-tanks thought a system to be dead, alive, or near doomed, there was perhaps a bit of agreement.  "I see what you mean.  It is broken," Economist Mark Thoma mused more than a year ago.

The public screamed out in pain for decades; however, few cared about the cries of countless common folks.  Those who argued against principles that place profits before people were easily ignored for they had no power and less influence.  Much to the chagrin of corporate titans, even Economistswarned; this could be the end of Capitalism.  Yet, until early in the day, only weeks ago, no one paid much attention to what has become a customary declaration for everyday workers.  Morning has broken, and Capitalism is shattered as well.  

America adopted and advanced a system that was unsustainable..  More than once, "systemic failures" revealed the folly of free enterprise principles.  Nonetheless, worldwide people were convinced to purchase damaged goods and premises.  Yet, as Journalist Professor, Robert Jensen contends, "most notably those in the business world and their functionaries and apologists in the schools, universities, mass media, and mainstream politics" do not want to admit that this is so.

Wanted; Dead or Alive 
The evidence is everywhere.  What was a question rarely uttered, "Is Capitalism Dead?" has become a statement, or perhaps the dream of those who have been severely affected by this most devastating downturn.

Wealthy watch breathlessly as stock markets crash.  Banks fail.  Blue Chip companies crumble.  Foreclosures flourish, and people, those once thoughtprosperous, pour out onto the avenue in search of a job, or some sense of stability.

Perhaps, that is why, average citizens felt a need to break the silence, to speak of the broken Capitalist system.  In the shadow of powerful and prosperous Presidents and Prime Ministers, who gathered together for the G20 Conference, 4,000 demonstrators pleaded, not for pity, but for relief from a fiscal system that requires poverty.  

Frustrated and forlorn by an attitude that fosters further advancement of free market principles, at least in the United Kingdom, dissenters shouted in disgust.  It would not be wise to work within an economic structure that changed the global culture in ways that ultimately brought international institutions down.  

On a fateful day, early in April a young girl in the crowd, Aeyla Windridge pleaded.  I want "the death of Capitalism."  The twelve-year-old spoke to what Heads of State had not for centuries.  "Capitalism isn't in crisis, capitalism is the crisis," so said another activist.  

Recovery, Reinvestment, and Rescue 
Few of the principal players, those who represented the twenty participant countries were willing, or able to acknowledge the free market theory is flawed.  Most of the prominent Heads of State were, and continue to be, content with sanguine assessments.  Up to 85 percent of global gross national product comes from the shores of but a score of countries.  Eighty [80] percent  of world trade comes from these territories.  Americans, who might be thought of as the authors of Capitalism, saw and see no reason to change the status quo, at least not substantially.

Borrow and spend had worked well in the past for the superpower, or so the US government attempted to advocate.  While the President poses this philosophy cannot stand, America must move away "from an era of borrow-and-spend to one where we save and invest," in the same breath, the Chief Executive who represents the country that gave birth to free enterprise, endorses the framework, just as those who preceded him did. (Please peruse the text What Ever Happened to Free Enterprise, By Ronald Reagan)

Capitalism, the Obama Administration states, was not the cause of the planet-wide monetary collapse.  Only greed, excesses, and a lack of regulations brought about the demise of the dollar, and the rate of exchange.  As he addressed other world leaders in attendance at the G20 Conference President Obama conceded, "the crisis began in the United States.  I take responsibility even if I wasn't even president at the time." However, Mister Obama contends all countries must be accountable for this massive macro-breakdown.  America's Chief Executive proposes plans intended to strengthen a Capitalist structure.

In his April 4, 2009 Action to Address to the Global Economic Downturn, President Obama encouraged more regulations in an attempt to expand a consumer-based Capitalist theory.  With little regard for how the American way of life, which the President does not apologize for, cripples common, people throughout the world, Mister Obama declared. 

"(W)e know that the success of America's economy is inextricably linked to that of the global economy. If people in other countries cannot spend, that means they cannot buy the goods we produce here in America,  . . . if we continue to let banks and other financial institutions around the world act recklessly and irresponsibly, that affects institutions here at home as credit dries up, and people can't get loans to buy a home or car, to run a small business or pay for college.

Ultimately, the only way out of a recession that is global in scope is with a response that is global in coordination."

One is reminded of why, in earlier years, no one spoke vociferously of the crisis that is Capitalism.  Ordinary people were busy.  For centuries, regular folks worked day and night only to bring home a nominal paycheck.  Even in prosperous nations, people could barely afford to put food on the table.  People took trivial jobs just to secure shelter.  Millions felt forced to pursue professional paths that offer few rewards.  The only goal for the average Joe and Jane was to stay afloat.  Few have had the time or energy to protest their circumstances, or what the powers-that-be had and have imposed internationally.  Today, and in the past, worldwide economic slavery has sufficed.  That is until now.  

Lest the President and Prime Ministers elsewhere forget, in the States, and abroad, people are out of work.  The promise of an ownership society,where "people, from all walks of life," would open the door of their private residence and say, "Welcome to my home" proved to be but a myth.  The pledge of plump stock portfolios for everyone through Capitalism was a claim never substantiated.  Contrary to the oft-voiced assurances, the American Dream could be achieved anywhere on Earth If people only invested in a free market economy, this current fiscal crisis has shown the world, words were but wishes promoted by the prosperous.

Regardless of how average people are punished by a fiscal formula that requires there be poor people, the current President intends to preserve the Capitalist principles that govern a global economy.  While Mister Obama may not profess a commitment to an "ownership society," he too wishes to encourage people to possess what they cannot afford.  

Broken Beyond Benevolence 
In contrast, more than a few Economists have begun to contemplate the wisdom of a system based on constant consumption.  Experts in monetary movements examine, What went wrong and, rather more importantly for the future, what did not. Other statistician who study the social science of fiscal affairs suggest there is ""Good Capitalism, (and) Bad Capitalism."  Certainly, no matter the belief, with cause, "Capitalism is under fire."  

William Pfaff, the author of eight books on American foreign policy, international relations, and contemporary history has pondered the depths of a paradigm profoundly broken. Mister Pfaff offers a perspective less limited than the simpler theories often presented by Administrations and Academics.  The  observer of intercontinental issues writes . . . 

The essential question is, what capitalism are we talking about? Since the 1970s, two fundamental changes have been made in the leading (American) model of capitalism.

The first is that the "stakeholder," post-New Deal reformed version of capitalism (in America) that prevailed in the West after World War II was replaced by a new model of corporate purpose and responsibility.

The earlier model said that corporations had a duty to ensure the well-being of employees, and an obligation to the community (chiefly but not exclusively fulfilled through corporate tax payments).

That model has been replaced by one in which corporation managers are responsible for creating short-term "value" for owners, as measured by stock valuation and quarterly dividends.

The practical result has been constant pressure to reduce wages and worker benefits (leading in some cases to theft of pensions and other crimes), and political lobbying and public persuasion to lower the corporate tax contribution to government finance and the public interest.

In short, the system in the advanced countries has been rejigged since the 1960s to take wealth from workers, and from the funding of government, and transfer it to stockholders and corporate executives.

There is ample evidence to support the author's contention.  In 1970, the recipient of a Nobel Memorial Prize on Economic Sciences, Milton Friedman, encouraged an emphasis on corporate earnings. A culture that creates a vibrant community, Friedman insisted is counter to "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits"

Decades later, his disciples of sorts, Presidents Ronald Reagan,  George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, each implemented plans that increased earned income for the influential and decreased available dollars for the already disadvantaged.  Policies designed to protect and promote an American entrepreneurial taxonomy, or Capitalistic interests, were proposed as a means to spread democracy.  Planet-wide, people and economic practices were transformed. 

The second change that has taken place is globalization.  The crucial effect of this for society in the advanced countries is that it puts labor into competition with the poorest countries on earth.

We need go no further with what I realize is a very complex matter, other than to note the classical economist David Ricardo's "iron law of wages," which says that in conditions of wage competition and unlimited labor supply, wages will fall to just above subsistence.

There never before has been unlimited labor.  There is now, thanks to globalization - and the process has only begun.

The variance is vast.  Those who have possess so much.  The portion of population that owns little, have far less than even an average individual might imagine.  The wealthy cannot conceive of a life where food might be the most valuable commodity.  A world in which water is worth more than gold seems unthinkable to those who thrive in "civilized" communities,  Yet, this reality may come to towns in a Capitalist country.   Indeed, in some American communities, this truth appears today.

Nonetheless, agreements secured at the G20 summit ensure the adoption of a debt-driven American-style "democracy."  An arrangement, in which all are not created equal, will continue to be the practiced and preferred economic system planet-wide.  People will once again forget assessments presented less than a decade ago. 

Many of the radicals leading the protests may be on the political fringe.  But they have helped to kick-start a profound re-thinking  about globalization among governments, mainstream economists, and corporations that, until recently, was carried on mostly in obscure think tanks and academic seminars.

The reassessment is badly overdue.  In the late 20th century, global capitalism was pushed by leaps in technology, the failure of socialism, and East Asian's seemingly miraculous success.  Now, it's time to get realistic.  the plain truth is that market liberalization by itself does not lift all boats, and in some cases, it has caused damage to poor nations.  What's more, there's no point denying that multi-nationals have contributed to labor, environmental, and human rights abuses as they pursue profits around the globe . . .

(After a ten-year expansion of market capitalism around the world, as of the year 2000) The World Bank figures the number of people living on a $1 a day increased to 1.3 billion, over the past decade.

The extremes of global capitalism are astonishing . . .  If global capitalism's flaws aren't addressed, the backlash could grow more severe.

Indeed, the repercussions have been relentless.  Near a century of consumption, solely for the sake of profits, has weakened the world.  The current fiscal crisis reveals Capitalism was never the cure for what ails the people on this planet.  Persistent poverty, and the threat of increased insolvency, born out of a free enterprise system is an expense few, if any, can afford.  One need only look at the Capitalism and what it has wrought.  Avaricious individuals may acknowledge one reaps what one sows.  Independently, or collectively, as a global community anyone might come to understand, "If my brother is poor, I/we too will suffer.  Ultimately, I/we will pay for the poverty I/we accept."  

Without such a realization, and inspired by the spirit of an individualism that has flourished amongst free-marketers, people may, as President Obama proclaimed.  Worldwide, or here at home, we "want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that [has] been missing."  However, it is not another glorious "morning in America."  Nor is it a beautiful day in most neighborhoods.  Were the clouds to clear, globally people might avow, authentically, there need be an actual new dawn.  It is time to dream of economic structures that have never been.

The majorities in the States, and throughout the globe, are no longer silent.  Common folks have spoken.  Capitalism is broken.  It is not wanted, dead or alive.

Sources for economic and empathetic structures . . . 

• Is Capitalism Dead?  No. By William Galston.  National Public Radio. March 11, 2009
• Is Capitalism Dead?  Maybe. By J.D. Foster.  National Public Radio. March 11, 2009
• Is Capitalism Dead?  Yes. By Alan Reynolds.  National Public Radio. March 11, 2009
• I See What You Mean, It Is Broken, By Mark Thoma.  Economist View.  January 24, 2008
• 'The World As We Know It Is Going Down', By Marc Pitzke.  Spiegel International. September 18, 2008
• Systemic Failure: Capitalism "Lays An Egg," By Stephen Lendman.  SteveLendmanBlog. March 2, 2009
• Capitalism Under Fire, By William Pfaff.  The International Herald Tribune. 30 March 2006
• Is Capitalism Dead?  The Washington Post. October 20, 2008
• Recession Pain, Even in Palm Beach, By David Segal.  The New York Times. April 12, 2009
• Blair: Global economic fallout is nation's major threat.  Cable News Network. February 12, 2009
• The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits, By Milton Friedman.  The New York Times Magazine. September 13, 1970.  Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company.
• Colorado bank biggest US bank failure of 2009.  AFP. April 10, 2009
• Slump Humbling Blue-Chip Stocks, By Mark Healy.  The New York Times March 6, 2009
• U.S. foreclosure filings rise in February, By Lynn Adler.  Reuters. March 12, 2009
• In Defense of Income Inequality, By Peter Schwatrz.  Capitalism Magazine. March 28, 2009
• Congressional Finance Chair Discusses U.S. Economy. NewsHour.  September 3, 2007
• Disowned by the Ownership Society, By Naomi Klein.  The Nation. January 31, 2008
• The End Of American Capitalism? By Anthony Faiola.  The Washington Post.  October 9, 2008
• The G-20 and the Future of Capitalism - Part I,  By Jeffrey E. Garten.  Yale Global. March 30, 2009
• President Obama's News Conference; Transcript.  The New York Times. March 24, 2009
• Century of Self.
• Story of Stuff.  By Annie Leonard.  The Sustainability Funders and Tides Foundation.
• Address by Governor Ronald Reagan, Installation of President Robert Hill, Chico State College. May 20, 1967
• What Ever Happened to Free Enterprise, By Ronald Reagan.  Ludwig Von Mises Memorial Lecture at Hillsdale College.  November 10, 1977
• 12-Year-Old Protester: 'Death of Capitalism.' By F. Brinley Bruton.  MSNBC News. April 1, 2009
• Capitalism Under Fire, By William Pfaff.  The International Herald Tribune. 30 March 2006
• Global Capitalism,  Can it be made to work better?  By Pete Engardio with Catherine Belton.  Business Week. November 6, 2000
• Obama's G-20 confession: "I take responsibility." By Marc Hujer, Wolfgang Reuter, and Christoph Schwennicke.  Salon. April 7, 2009
• Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama Weekly Address, The White House. Saturday, April 4, 2009
• Globalization: A Reference Handbook, By Justin Ervin, Zachary A. Smith.  2008
• Capiatlism at bay, What went wrong and, rather more importantly for the future, what did not.  The Economist. October 16, 2008
• "Good Capitalism, (and) Bad Capitalism," By David Wessel.  Wall Street Journal.  Economist's View. May 10, 2007
• Drinking water costs lots of dollars.  MarketPlace. March 17, 2009
• Analysis: Obama takes 'morning in America' mantle.  Cable News Network.  February 25, 2009
• A Different Sort of Red America, By Tobin Harshaw.  The New York Times. April 10, 2009

Somewhere in America

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org Somewhere in America, a man loses the job he has held for more than thirty years.  Somewhere in America, a woman cleans out the office she had occupied for close to a decade.  Elsewhere in the United States, a teen unsuccessfully tries to find work.  He knows he needs to help his Mom and Dad; each toiled in the factory that closed just down the street.  A young woman searches for a professional position, just as she has for the two years since she graduated form the University.  Each of these individuals is not startled by the headline, Economy Shed 598,000 Jobs in January.    All ask, where have the "experts," Economists, and elected officials been?

There is a stark reality barely revealed in this report. For the many who live somewhere in America, the statistic is not news.  It is the culmination of life or strife as it has been in the United States for a long time.  Countless experience the misery of an economic crisis that consumes them.  There is no joy in jobs lost or the threat of more layoffs to come.

What occurs most every moment, somewhere in America is the reason President Obama stated in his recent address, this country needs a stimulus package now, not tomorrow, not in a week, or in a month.  At least, "3.6 million Americans  . . . wake up every day wondering how they are going to pay their bills, stay in their homes, and provide for their children.  That's 3.6 million Americans who need our help."

What the President does not say is that these numbers represent only the persons we know of.

Somewhere in America, in a rural residence, children cry.  There is no food in the cupboard.  Mom, who is the sole supporter in this family, has been out of work for months.  Dad, too depressed, left his loved ones long ago.  He labored part-time for years.  When the economic downturn began, in 2007, he realized he could not even count on temporary employment.  Nor can the young one who hopes to enter college; she understands "career path" may be a euphemism from the past.  Today in America, the streets are not golden.

As Senators and Congresspersons, all of whom are gainfully employed, bicker, and build an Economic Stimulus Bill filled with pork, and, or tax cuts that benefit only the rich, somewhere in America, a mother cannot buy food for her son.  A single father, without a High School diploma, wonders how he might hold on to his factory job and still adequately prepare his daughter for school.  Somewhere in this great country, educational institutions go without textbooks.  Perhaps, it matters not, the students cannot read.

Somewhere in America, a cancer patient is refused treatment, for, although he has insurance, the policy will not cover the costs.  

A firefighter is given a furlough.  In California, State workers are forced to take  an unpaid leave.  Somewhere in America, a  plan to bring recovery to America cannot wait.

Elsewhere in this country, citizens, the few secure in their circumstances, argue over the proposed stimulus package. Certain that all is well, at least for them, these affluent Americans say the situation is not dire.  They encourage their Representatives not to sign on to a incentive measure that might spend money on other than they, personally, think right.  Meanwhile, somewhere in the United States, a family in the frozen Midwest is thrown out on the cold streets.  The mortgaged house, the five had lived in for near a score, went into foreclosure.  

In a country, where the words "economic crisis" is not hyperbole, few wish to help move the nation forward.  People rather quarrel.  Free speech is fun for those who still feel safe.  Today, the public does not ponder the bridge that collapsed in Minnesota two summers ago.  August 2007, was eons ago.  The public does not hear the stressful sounds of a viaduct ready to crumble.  The roar of engines is too loud, or perhaps, when the conversation turns to fiscal responsibility the screams from silly squabbles drown out the noise steel makes when it bends and breaks.

People plump with power, profits, or an ideology can safely ignore federal government studies that show "Nearly a quarter of the nation's roughly 600,000 major bridges carry more traffic than they were designed to bear,"  When an American lives elsewhere in America, it may matter not that  the "Federal Highway Administration data from 2006 shows that 24.5 percent of the nation's bridges longer than 20 feet were categorized as "structurally deficient" or "functionally obsolete" (data from Utah and New Mexico was from 2005)."

Rarely do individuals reflect on what does not affect them directly.  Many are happy to refuse to see what is invisible to their eyes let alone the reality numbers might represent.  Empathy, elsewhere in America can be elusive.

People who have a roof over their heads rather rant.  Those who toddle off to the office much prefer to rage.  It is "pork" they say.  The Obama stimulus plan is nothing but needless government-funded expenditures.  "Taxes must be cut;" screech the tycoons and venture Capitalists.  These influential persons of means make telephone calls.  The rich reach out and touch Republican and Democratic Legislators alike.  Why?  Because they can.  Powerful persons have access, the privilege of the affluent.  The plight that occurs somewhere in America is alien to them.

Insulated and isolated, the wealthy worry not.  Elsewhere, many in the Middle Class cannot imagine what it must be like to live somewhere in America.  Most do not believe an economic catastrophe will become a personal truth.

Those whose children are enrolled in private schools, or in public school out in the suburbs subsidize their progeny's education.  They wonder why others cannot.  Perchance these individuals have not traveled to somewhere in America.  Persons whose families are well-funded, who hear, and see no evil on the streets of this nation, do not imagine that somewhere in America might ever be where they live.  

These citizens, comfy, cozy, and content with what is, have no need for the Head Start programs now cut from the stimulus package.  Education for the Disadvantaged, another program now eliminated from the Bill, will not have an effect on friends or family of the economically-established.  Persons who have the ability to care for their own do not understand the plight of those they have never encountered.

Thus, they exclaim, the "fat" must be removed from the stimulus package, and so it is.  

School improvement stipends were removed from the proposed fiscal plan.  These critical contributions, in a  country, which ranks low, or last, in many categories of learning seems unnecessary.  Child Nutrition grants are lavish in the minds of the physically and financially satiated.  Surely, the well-off say, there is no need for such remunerations.  

Individuals who are safe and sane do not wish to sponsor programs such as Funds for Violence Against Women.  These planned provisions were erased from the proposition.  Persons not in harm's way questioned why would society wish to assist those ladies who did not chose their companion wisely.  

Food Stamps surely are wasteful spending, say the scornful and satiated.

These same persons are happy to see an end to what they think exploitive expenditures.  Dollars expected to be doled out to The National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA, National Science Foundation NSF, and the Western Area Power Administration were also expunged from the package.

Firefighters are now forsaken. Cash for the Coast Guard was deemed redundant.  Payments for better prisons, are said to be decidedly pointless.  Community Oriented Policing Services COPS Hiring programs, are among the allowances that have been cut.  Apparently, community safety is not critical, at least not for those who think private industry better cares for any communal needs.  

That may be why these same individuals decided dollars devoted to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC were also wanton.  Certainly, these would not stimulate the economy.

Perchance, the persons who live elsewhere in the United States, do not realize that cash spent on services contributes to jobs somewhere in America.

Possibly, the prosperous do not recall that poverty produces greater poverty.  Persons who love to engage in arguments, think it fun to find fault with each and every point,   These individuals, whose intention is to wrangle, do not wish to acknowledge, as Nobel Prize winner and Princeton Professor of Economics and National Affairs does in his most recent NewYork Times column.  "As the great American economist Irving Fisher pointed out almost 80 years ago, deflation, once started, tends to feed on itself."

As dollar incomes fall in the face of a depressed economy, the burden of debt becomes harder to bear, while the expectation of further price declines discourages investment spending.  These effects of deflation depress the economy further, which leads to more deflation, and so on."

Hence, as a country we stand still.  Democrats and Republicans are divided.  Congress cannot or will not decide to support an authentic stimulus package.  Policymakers will do as they have always done, dicker, and deliver little.  What may ultimately pass will likely be more irresponsible than it might have been.  

When somewhere in America is not where you are; nor is it a place you chose to imagine as real, then you do not reflect upon the parent who has not had a paycheck for years, or the child who cries out for a but a mere morsel of food.  Sadly, somewhere in America, for members of Congress, and for citizens comfortable in their circumstances, is a place far, far, far, away.  

In truth, were the quarrelsome to look out their window, they might see, somewhere in America is right next door.

• Obama Announces New Economic Recovery Board, President: Job Losses "Devastating News."  CQ Transcripts Wire.  Washington Post. ?Friday, February 6, 2009; 12:38 PM
• Economy Shed 598,000 Jobs in January, By Edmund L. Andrews.  The New York Times February 6, 2009
• Obama Raises Stakes for Senate's Economic Stimulus Bill, By William Branigin, Paul Kane and Shailagh Murray.  Washington Post. Friday, February 6, 2009; 1:11 PM
• Grim Illiteracy Statistics Indicate Americans Have a Reading Problem.  Education Portal.  September  20,, 2007
• Schwarzenegger orders mass layoffs, unpaid furloughs,  By Patrick McGreevy and Jordan Rau .  The Los Angeles Times.  December 20, 2008
• Firefighters in Colorado Springs Have More Than Just Fires To Worry About.  Employment Spectator. January 26, 2009
• U.S. Teens Trail Peers Around World on Math-Science Test,  By Maria Glod.  Washington Post. Wednesday, December 5, 2007; A07
• Lawmakers Seek to Revise Stimulus; Bill Now in Senate (Update2) By Brian Faler.  Bloomberg News. February 3, 2009
• Latest Cuts To The Stim Package: Head Start, Child Nutrition, Food Stamps Public Transit, By Greg Sargent..  Who Runs the Government.  A Washington Post Publication. February 6, 2009
• Baldwin Township couple, among millions facing foreclosure in U.S., turn to nonprofit aid program.  By Tim Grant.  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.August 28, 2008
• Experts: Leadership, money keys to building bridges. Cable News Network.  August 3, 2007
• Community Oriented Policing Services COPS.
• The National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA.
• National Science Foundation NSF.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC.

Seung-Hui Cho. I Mourn Your Life and Loss

© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert

My heart aches. Of course I mourn the passing of the thirty-two Virginia Polytechnic University students, as do we all throughout the globe. Nevertheless, I cannot forget how my heart hurts for the thirty-third victim, the one the media never seems to count among those killed, Seung-Hui Cho. On April 16, 2007 thirty-three lovable and fragile individuals passed.

Seung-Hui Cho, as he called himself, was a young man locked in Hades for decades. His death began long before the day of infamy. He longed for comfort and company. All he received was chiding. Even in death, Seung-Hui Cho is scorned. I am forlorn.

From the first, there were labels. Many said he was "Chinese"; they would then add their political concerns for China. Then he was, and today he is still frequently referred to as a Korean National. Calls for restraints on immigration are common. Of course, in the minds of many American's anyone that is not white is not right, and definitely, if they are not born in this country, they are aliens.

Among some, there is ample discussion for the name of this now notable student, the "shooter." Many believe his ethnicity is more important than the person.

The Asian version of the name - Cho Seung-Hui - appeared to be more widespread, in part because of its use in the ubiquitous wire stories from Reuters and the AP. As a result, some Korean-Americans felt media groups were playing up Cho's foreign-ness, according to the Asian American Journalists Association, which advised reporters to use the American order.

Thankfully, and I do note the use of the name is Americanized, as family members and Cho himself seem to prefer, National Public Radio retorted as I had when speaking to friends and family. This young and deeply disturbed man was, is an American.

How American was Seung-Hui Cho? Despite being a South Korean national living in America, his upbringing, and his problems, were distinctly American.

The system or lack of social services in the United states let this man slide through many a crack.

Seung-Hui Cho and his parents were hoping to find streets paved in gold in America. Unfortunately, they discovered what many of us do, life is good if you are among the fertile few. Actually, life, even for the affluent can be a struggle. Life is life. People yell; they scream, they damn, and they slam. Consider the woes of an eleven year old. The daughter of Alec Baldwin may have been born into money; nevertheless, she receives the wrath of a supposedly loving father. She is verbally slammed and damned.

Imagine how loved this little girl must feel after being told she is a "thoughtless little pig," Her Dad, actor Baldwin, threatens to set here straight during their meeting the following day. Were I she I would want to run for my life. Seung-Hui Cho, the wounded must have often felt a need to escape. Perhaps, his sullen manner was his means for flight. Seung-Hui Cho said in an 1,800-word rambling . . .

'I didn't have to do this. I could have left. I could have fled. But no, I will no longer run.'

Cho lived in shadows, deep and dark. He attended classes at a prestigious University. He was a scholar, a writer. Yet, he was shunned. His dialect was odd, mumbled, and his words were difficult to discern. This academic was nearing graduation, a scary proposition all in itself. He did not feel excepted in the world. From what we know of his history, he never had.

Some say he was paranoid, obsessively anxious, or unreasonably suspicious. Perhaps he was. Many of us feel family and friends expect much of us and from us. Often we compare ourselves to others and we believe we fall short. Acceptance into an esteemed University is glorious. Maintaining good grades is meaningful. Yet, any of us may wonder, is that good enough. Perchance when our sibling excels, we are far more aware of our failings.

Though Monday's shootings at Virginia Tech had already cast a shadow over campus, the news yesterday morning that the gunman's older sister is a recent Princeton alumna brought the tragedy even closer to home.

Sun-Kyung Cho '04 was an economics major who interned at the U.S. Embassy in Bangkok during the summer before her senior year and wrote briefly for The Daily Princetonian. She now works as a "State Department contractor," The Washington Post reported yesterday, and was listed on Princeton's alumni directory as living in Centreville, Va., with her parents.

The parents of these fine children are so devastated, they are residing in a community hospital. They feel deeply pained by their son's circumstance. The mother and father meant no harm; they as all parents hoped to provide the best for their children. In an interview with Seung-Hui Cho's grandfather, the elder stated

"Seung-hui troubled his parents when he was young because he wouldn't talk, but he was well-behaved," said the man, who asked to be called Mr Kim, in interviews with two Korean newspapers.

"I don't know how I can compensate for the responsibility for raising my kids improperly. I don't know how he could do this when his parents went to a country far away and worked hard."

They are troubled and think themselves responsible. Perhaps, America has let the Cho family down. They expected so much, all Americans do. However, little is received. The rewards are few.

In an editorial, the Hankyoreh newspaper wrote today that Cho’s case illustrated a problem faced by many South Korean immigrants in the US, where parents are too busy at work to take care of their children.



“It is the reality of our immigrants that parents are so busy making a living that it’s not easy for them to have dialogue with young children,” the newspaper wrote.



“We should think about whether our society or our (Korean) community abroad has been negligent in preventing conditions that could lead to such an aberration,” it said.

Many in the Korean community think the problem lies in the life of an émigré; however, even native born Americans struggle to make a decent wage or create a comfortable caring environment for their children.

Most neighbours could barely recall talking to the couple. "They're very quiet, very nice people. They worked very hard for him. It's very sad," their next-door neighbour, Abdul Shash, told the Associated Press.

"They valued education, just like any other parents in this country, and they worked sometimes 12, 13 hours a day to send a daughter to Princeton and to send their son to Virginia Tech," said Jeff Ahn, president of the League of Korean Americans in Virginia.

Most of us think our lack of personal success is our fault. When our offspring struggle or hurt another, we are pained. A Grandfather feels responsible for his own progeny and the product of their love. Mister Kim the eldest representative of a kind and caring family reflects,

“How could he have done such a thing if he had any sympathy for his parents, who went all the way to another country because they couldn’t make ends meet and endured hardships,” Cho’s maternal grandfather, identified only by his last name Kim, was quoted as saying.

As a child Seung-Hui Cho was ridiculed and bullyed. As an adult he hid; he hoped to avoid the taunts and teasing.

Former classmates recalled Cho being taunted over his speech difficulties.

He almost never opened his mouth and would ignore attempts to strike up a conversation, said Chris Davids, a Virginia Tech senior who graduated from Westfield High School in Chantilly, Va., with Cho in 2003.

When Cho read out loud in class, other students laughed at his strange, deep voice that sounded "like he had something in his mouth," Davids said.

In a video Cho mailed to NBC in the middle of his rampage at Virginia Tech, the 23-year-old portrayed himself as persecuted and rants about rich kids.

One professor saw his angst. She read the words of a tormented soul. She was frightened. Initially, she embraced the long-suffering spirit of this neglected man.

Lucinda Roy, a co-director of the creative writing program at Virginia Tech, taught Cho in a poetry class in fall of 2005 and later worked with him one-on-one after she became concerned about his behavior and themes in his writings.

The professor pondered. She realized Seung-Hui Cho was without friends. He did not know how to relate; perhaps, he had never had the chance.

Roy told ABC News that Cho seemed "extraordinarily lonely—the loneliest person I have ever met in my life." She said he wore sunglasses indoors, with a cap pulled low over his eyes.

In his writings he was lashing out as all wounded animals do. His actions amplified the distance he felt and thus, created.

He whispered, took 20 seconds to answer questions, and took cellphone pictures of her in class. Roy said she was concerned for her safety when she met with him.

Professor Roy became fearful. Sadly, we all are when we do not understand. Often, when any of us think we are threatened, instead of continuing to assist, we withdraw from what causes us great apprehension. We avoid knowing what we recognize and prepare to protect ourselves further. Thus, we as a society discuss increasing security in our schools rather than raising the standards and funding for mental health.

Such is the situation, the shortsightedness. It is all so sad to me. We separate ourselves from each other. We create stress. Then instead of coming together we try harder to take control. Emotions cannot be regulated; in truth, we cannot mandate behaviors. If we are to be truly safe, we must ensure that every individual feels cared for to his or her core. I believe we must interact, not react.

I beseech us all; I ask Americans, émigrés, and individuals in every corner of the globe, do not hold your children tighter, lock them up in buildings where there is little genuine affection. Love them; they need to feel safe and secure and only your authentic fondness can fill their hearts and provide stability. Pay attention to the progeny. They are our future.

Do not apply pressure as a tourniquet might. Suffocating a wound appears to stop the flow. However, scars form from within. What is not released, calmly and with care, in the moment builds up. Feelings must be felt, expressed, and received gently with concern.

Please let your loved ones be and breathe. Provide them with the freedom to speak and to feel. Be with those that are special to you. Listen to their concerns. Allow them to lean on your shoulder when they wish to. Tenderly teach autonomy. Do not dismiss the essence of interdependence as well. May we honor our children wholly in our homes and schools.

Please let us not place imprison our pupils, our progeny. Provide for them in meaningful ways. Trust them to grow and nurture them on their unique path.

Instruction begins when you, the teacher, learn from the learner; put yourself in his place so that you may understand
. . . what he learns and the way he understands it.

~ Soren Kierkegaard

Everything depends upon the quality of experience . . . just as no man lives or dies to himself, so no experience lives and dies to itself. 

Any experience is mis-educative that has the effect of arresting or distorting the growth of further experience.

The central problem of an education based upon experience is to select the kind of present experience that live fruitfully and creatively in subsequent experiences.
~ John Dewey [American Philosopher, Psychologist, Educational Reformer]

The object of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives.
~ R. M. Hutchins [American Educator, Author, The University of Utopia and The Learning Society]

The sorrow is deep and the family feels more than any of us might imagine. I share the Cho family statement. I think that we each can feel their pain in these words.

Text of Cho family statement
By The Associated Press
Statement issued to The Associated Press by Sun-Kyung Cho, sister of Seung-Hui Cho:

On behalf of our family, we are so deeply sorry for the devastation my brother has caused. No words can express our sadness that 32 innocent people lost their lives this week in such a terrible, senseless tragedy.

We are heartbroken.

We grieve alongside the families, the Virginia Tech community, our State of Virginia, and the rest of the nation. And, the world.

Every day since April 16, my father, mother and I pray for students Ross Abdallah Alameddine, Brian Roy Bluhm, Ryan Christopher Clark, Austin Michelle Cloyd, Matthew Gregory Gwaltney, Caitlin Millar Hammaren, Jeremy Michael Herbstritt, Rachael Elizabeth Hill, Emily Jane Hilscher, Jarrett Lee Lane, Matthew Joseph La Porte, Henry J. Lee, Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan, Lauren Ashley McCain, Daniel Patrick O'Neil, J. Ortiz-Ortiz, Minal Hiralal Panchal, Daniel Alejandro Perez, Erin Nicole Peterson, Michael Steven Pohle Jr., Julia Kathleen Pryde, Mary Karen Read, Reema Joseph Samaha, Waleed Mohamed Shaalan, Leslie Geraldine Sherman, Maxine Shelly Turner, Nicole White, Instructor Christopher James Bishop, and Professors Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, Kevin P. Granata, Liviu Librescu and G.V. Loganathan.

We pray for their families and loved ones who are experiencing so much excruciating grief. And we pray for those who were injured and for those whose lives are changed forever because of what they witnessed and experienced.

Each of these people had so much love, talent, and gifts to offer, and their lives were cut short by a horrible and senseless act.

We are humbled by this darkness. We feel hopeless, helpless, and lost. This is someone that I grew up with and loved. Now I feel like I didn't know this person.

We have always been a close, peaceful, and loving family. My brother was quiet and reserved, yet struggled to fit in. We never could have envisioned that he was capable of so much violence.

He has made the world weep. We are living a nightmare.

There is much justified anger and disbelief at what my brother did, and a lot of questions are left unanswered. Our family will continue to cooperate fully and do whatever we can to help authorities understand why these senseless acts happened. We have many unanswered questions as well.

Our family is so very sorry for my brother's unspeakable actions. It is a terrible tragedy for all of us.

Source: North Carolina attorney Wade Smith, who provided the statement on behalf of the Cho family

Those that passed can no longer physically help teach us to be kind, aware, active, and giving. However, through them, I hope we all learn. Every moment of life is fragile, fleeting, and a foundation for the future.

This is not the time to teach fear. It is an occasion, an opportunity to reflect. Perhaps, we might learn to love every being, even those that appear to be different or distant.

Seung-Hui Cho My Sadness for Yours . . .

In Virginia, a Day of Mourning Associated Press. The New York times. April 20, 2007

pdf In Virginia, a Day of Mourning Associated Press. The New York times. April 20, 2007

Cho Seung-Hui or Seung-Hui Cho? By Michelle Tsai. Slate. Thursday, April 19, 2007

Weighing Cho's Heritage and Identity, By Robert Siegal. All Things Considered. April 18, 2007

Alec Baldwin's Threatening Message to Daughter. By TMZ. April 19th 2007

Tragedy at Virginia Tech, Gunman kills 32 in dorm and classrooms before taking own life. By Jonathan Zebrowski. Princetonian. April 17, 2007

Virginia Shooter Spoke Little As Child, By Bo-Mi Lim, Associated Press. SFGate. Thursday, April 19, 2007

Text of Cho Family Statement. Seattlepi.April 20, 2007

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 20, 2007 at 04:43 PM in "Take me as I am!", American Family, Approval or Love, Art of Loving, Have or Be, Change the World [Within], Communities, Communities and Communication , Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Education, Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Family, Functioning, Fables, Humans, Self-Destructive, Looking at Life, Loss of Life, Nature or Nurture, Quality of Life, School Days, School Shootings, School Violence, Society, Teach The Children | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Live Your Life; Rest In Peace

Live Your Life © copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
I offer my thanks to the creator, Danny Smith, and to the Sandwichman at MaxSpeak for stimulating this sharing.

We wake to work, dress for the job, drive to the office, factory, educational institution, the fields, or perchance, a restaurant. Perhaps, we travel to the site, go underground, or seek scaffolding. Some soar above the clouds to complete their designated task, or is the word "required" a more accurate term for what we do daily.

We spend hours "slaving away" while at work. We then take a bus, a car, a taxi, a train, or a plane and return home. We eat quickly, do a few chores, and chatter with our loved ones, just for a bit. There is so little time for what we enjoy. We are exhausted! We climb into bed, knowing the cycle will begin again tomorrow.

Even the weekends bring no respite. We must run. There is so much to do; it cannot all be done while we are at work. There is little time for relaxation. While on vacation, there are distractions. Our heads are filled with fear of what we have not done for our employer, the company, our customers, clients, or patients. We make a call or two; just to be sure, all is well. Those still on the clock call us. We must stay connected to what counts. The cash we earn is crucial. Without it, how could we afford a holiday?

Even exercise is rote and regulated. How quickly can you jog the mile? Is your walk brisk enough to be beneficial? Swim, but watch your speed. We need a strategy for success.

I will pencil you in. My schedule is tight. Nevertheless, we will meet. We have our priorities. Family is first, then friends, our neighborhood; finally, financial obligations are attended to. Our lives are, as they say, in balance. We spend quality time with those we love. We make sure of this, for we know the quantity of time devoted to work will not decrease. We have our day-planners up-to date.

Excellence in every aspect of life is essential. Thus, we gather and glean. We calculate our every move.

Ultimately, we earn an abundance of wealth, or at least we hope to. We yearn to make enough money to survive. Sadly, and often, our funds may just barely meet our minimal needs. A budget, yes, we have that. Now, where is it? I had the accounting log right here. It must be somewhere in all this mess.

We buy this, then that. Our houses are full with so much stuff. We need to use the garage, basement, attic, crawl space, or a storage space to stock it all. For many, homes hold all they have. In these abodes, we haphazardly arrange what we no longer need, or what we purchased on a whim. Some of what we "possess" has not been seen by a living human soul for decades. The animals and insects may be enjoying our wares. Clutter consumes us as we consume it.

We clean house to settle our soul. Still, we do not feel fully serene. It must be money is on our mind. We do not earn enough, have enough, or handle what we have well. Thus, we work, and work, and work again.

Labor is love. We are providing for our families and taking good care of ourselves.

When legally, we have the right to retire, we do not have the means, or perchance we love our job. Possibly, we feel a fondness for our careers. We are less connected with our families. After all, we are more familiar with our work and co-workers than we are with our spouses, children, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nephews, and community. We see and speak with the individuals that we toil with regularly. Colleagues know us well, perhaps, better than those that we "live" with. Eight hours here, more minutes there, it matters. It adds up. The sum may truly be greater than the parts. Quality can evolve when the quantity of time together is ample.

Sooner, more often than later, we do slow down. The pace is more than we can endure. Years of ignoring our health, and perhaps happiness, take a toll. We tire. We must rest. Perhaps in a box or in an urn, we will find peace. May you find in peace before it is too late to enjoy your life here on Earth!

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 2, 2007 at 11:00 AM in American Family, American Jobs, Americana, Approval or Love, Communities, Communities and Communication , Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Family, Functioning, Fables, Health, Looking at Life, Over-Scheduling, Philosophy, Quality of Life, Question Everything, Think Travels, Time, “Art of Loving” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Are Stepparents Real Parents? Are Biological Parents Best?

© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert

More than a month ago, I began writing this treatise. The significance of stepparents and adopted parents was on my mind. Gerald R. Ford had passed and there was ample discussion of his heritage. Gerald Rudolff Ford Senior did not father his son in a biological sense. Still, the elder Ford was Daddy. Jerry Ford spoke of his father often and how significant he was in the his life. The elder Ford raised his son as any parent would, even though he was actually a stepparent. Ford, the President was not adopted until he in his twenties. At that age, an adoption was perhaps a gesture; after all Jerry Ford was legally an adult. Gerald R. Ford Junior wanted to honor his father or the man that, young Jerry truly felt was Daddy.

I too was fathered by a man not my biological match. For years, this gentle human choose to relate to me as if I was his own offspring. Legally, we had no connection. Let us call him "Adam," was my stepparent. Yet, this soft-spoken man was my Dad. Long before I could, with permission from the government, call him Daddy he nurtured my heart, mind, and spirit. I too am adopted; my adoption was long in coming. For years my biological father, perchance, we can title him Michael, refused to give his permission. In some states, possibly all, this is necessary. As I listened to President Ford's history, I thought of how it mirrored my own.

My natural father, Michael was extremely wealthy and aloof, as was President Ford's. My birth father could be abrasive, though fortunately not abusive as our President's father was. Perhaps that is why my biological parents were together for more years than the President's were. Still, there are parallels that I think important.

Leslie Lynch King, the biological father of our former President, beat his wife, Dorothy Ayer Gardner, two weeks after the baby's birth. The baby, the man we now know as Jerry, was named Leslie Lynch King Junior. However, life changed after the assault. Dorothy moved in with family and ultimately, years after her divorce from Mister King met a mild manner paint salesman, Gerald Rudolff Ford. The two married. Mister Ford and Dorothy Ford changed the name of their two-year-old toddler. Young Leslie became Gerald Rudolff Ford Junior. The lad was not officially adopted; still, he was Mister Ford's son in every way that mattered.

The Ford family lived a solid and stable life.

Ford grew up in a middle class family. He was a healthy, industrious youth who helped out with the chores.

When he was 12 or 13, Ford's parents told him he was adopted. He first met his biological father when he was 17 and would see him only one other time. Young Ford was bitter about his wealthy father's indifference toward him. He called their first meeting the most traumatic experience of his youth.

"Indifference" was not a term the President used to define Gerald R. Ford Senior; nor is it the word I would choose to define my Dad Adam. However when speaking of Michael, my natural father the utterance, "indifference" seems most apt!

President Gerald R. Ford, often proudly mused, he was a Ford, not a Lincoln. Just as a Ford automobile is considered a car for common people, Gerald Ford thought himself average. The former President was as his Dad, average, a workingman. He was everyman. Leslie Lynch King Senior, Ford's birth father was as a Lincoln vehicle, luxury defined him. Lavishness did not describe young Jerry. He was his "[step]father's" son!

Gerald Rudolff Ford Junior felt as I do, the man I call Daddy may not have been part of the birthing process. Nevertheless, he was there for me, he was with me always. My Dad lives large in my heart and in my mind. Most of my habits are his. I am Daddy's little girl!

Many adopted or stepchildren feel as strong bond with a parent that is not a blood relative. People that do share Deoxyribonucleic acid [DNA] are often disconnected. Yet, the courts do not necessarily honor such truths, a stepparent can be a real father or mother. The bias towards gay couples may have helped to cloud the issue.

Are Stepparents Real Parents?
By Po Bronson
Time Magazine
Wednesday, May. 17, 2006

This week the Supreme Court let stand a ruling, that ultimately could affect as many as one-third of all Americans — anyone in a stepfamily. But you'll probably never realize it from any news reports on the ruling.

The case comes out of Washington State. Sue Carvin and Page Britain were lesbians living together since 1989. Their baby, L., was born in 1995, using an at-home artificial insemination kit and some sperm donated from their gay friend. Page Britain carried L. and gave birth, but Sue Carvin became the stay-at-home mom while Page worked to support the family. Their child called Sue "Mama" and Page "Mommy."

For several years, they were a model of lesbian co-parenting.

The two split; bad feelings ruled what was no longer a family roost. You may relate as I do. My biological parents appeared to be picture perfect. We had a gorgeous, very large home, in an upper Middle Class suburb. For my eldest sister's twelfth birthday, an extension was built onto the house so that she might have a private entrance. Life looked good; many thought our family was great. Oh, the stories I might tell.

I recall the day that my Mom walked out. My natural parents had been together for twenty years and ten days. One might think that after two decades plus, after sharing a bed, babies, and billions of memories together, a couple would know for certain that they are right for each other. Considering the two dated extensively prior to matrimony, one might believe that they thought their togetherness was a treasure, one to keep eternally.

Yet, my experience said that this was not true. The day was April 14. It was a Sunday. On most every day of rest we, as a family went out to dine at a local eatery, Litton's, in Philadelphia. The restaurant is no longer there. Eventually the business folded, just as the marriage did. Perchance, my parents were modeling dissolution.

Might that be the destiny for many? After watching a relationship sever, we have a frame of reference. We know how do end an association. I apologize for the digression. I was merely thinking aloud.

I return to the telling. That particular evening was an odd one. The air was ominous. Every moment was unusual. I did not know why. My father actually spoke to me. That alone was somewhat strange or strained. He said we were going to "Lin Ton's" as though dinner would be a Chinese dining experience. I always ordered fried shrimp, on this occasion, I asked for what I usually loathe, "Chicken in the basket." My elder sisters ate that meal regularly and I thought I might try it.

A conversation ensued after we requested our food. It revolved around cleaning bedrooms, maids, money, and obliquely values. My Mom concluded we, her husband, and by extension, her children had none. We were spoiled, stained by materialism, and motivated by money. My Mom got up from the table and walked out. She returned days later, and initiated divorce proceeding.

I was eight years of age at the time and thankfully not connected to Michael, my natural father. I was perhaps less influenced by Michael's love of money, for my biological father never wanted my birth. He had hired someone else to raise me. Fortunately, a very "real" woman did look after me for many years.

When I was still quite young, the man that would eventually become my Dad entered my life. I was five. At the time. My Mom returned to college, realizing that she wanted and needed to create a life for herself. She has a brilliant mind and thought it best she use it! "Daddy" was a classmate of hers. They were in a study group together. The academics often met in our home.

There was no romance between them before my natural parent's split. It was not even a thought, that all came much later. Nevertheless, the man in my life, the man I bonded with was an outsider, not a member of my family.

My story may not be similar to your own; however, I trust that many, according to statistics, at least a third of you are intimately familiar with stepfamilies.

Consider that for every 1,000 couples with children in the United States, only two of those couples are same-sex-oriented. Meanwhile, thanks to the huge number of second marriages, a third of all Americans are part of a stepfamily. The question "Are they real parents?" applies not just to gays and lesbians — it applies to every stepfamily. That's what the kids are testing when they angrily scream, "You're not my real mommy!" And when the biological mother hears that her son has been spanked by his stepmother, she wonders, "She can't do that, can she?"

While we closely monitor how gay rights are granted and taken away, we pay almost no attention to the fact that stepparents are in the same legal limbo. Despite being ubiquitous, step-relationships are rarely recognized by the law. In most states, stepparents are considered "legal strangers" even if they have cared for and supported a stepchild for years. They have almost no official responsibility and barely any rights.

What kind of rights are they deprived of? Some are remarkably banal. For instance, a stepparent can't sign a child's school report card or field-trip permission form. Others are significant. A stepfather can't include his stepdaughter on his family health insurance plan, for example. And she can't inherit from him when he dies.

In the last few years, state family courts have tried to accommodate the stepparents and stepchildren who appear before them, without granting so much that it subtracts rights from a biological parent. In Colorado, a stepparent can now sign the form that allows a minor to apply for a driver's license. And in Oregon, a stepparent can petition the courts for visitation of former stepchildren, if that marriage has ended. In Arkansas, it's even theoretically possible now for a stepparent to win custody over a biological parent. But in each state, it's a different story, and many states are still in denial.

So, a stepmother can take a month off work to care for her sick stepson, thanks to the federal law on Family Leave. But if she has to take her stepson to the emergency room, state law might prevent her from authorizing medical treatment. And if her son ends up dying due to hospital negligence, she can't sue.

Step-parenting may have been difficult for my "Dad;" it was more so for me. Times were tough or just different, perchance, confusing. The man that felt like Daddy, was Daddy, legally could not be called my father.

My Mom refused child support and alimony though she was granted each. She believed Michael's money was tainted. She wanted none of it. We were extremely poor. Welfare came to us, stating we qualified and needed to apply. My parents refused. We grew our own vegetables. My Mom baked our bread. The details are endless; however, they may distract. Thus, I will leave those for another anecdote.

The truer challenge for me was carrying a surname that I felt no connection to. I wanted to legally be as I was in life, Daddy's little girl. I called my Mom's second husband Daddy. He was the only actual father I ever felt I had. He taught me everything, how to build a house, clean my room, ride a bike, reading, writing, 'rithmetic, telephone manners, and best of all how to engage with people. Prior to Daddy entering into my life, I was the exemplary loner. I was totally self-sufficient and felt little need for personal exchanges. I never trusted whether closeness would end. The woman that raised me for five and a half years was fired. I was listening on another telephone line when my father delivered the news to my caretaker.

In Kentucky, a stepchild could use the stepfather's surname in school. I did. However, this inexplicably hurt my natural father. A man that never cared for me, felt carrying on his name was meaningful. I visited him on my tenth birthday. He ranted and rage. He yelled at me. Prior to this event, I had not witnessed screaming directly, certainly, no one had ever hollered at me. I was frightened. The man that was supposed to be a loving father, on one of the rare occasions I ever saw him was shrieking. His shouts were meant for me.

I, thought this meeting was quite traumatic! A man that never acted as my father wanted me to bear his name. Why? The man that was my Daddy had no rights in reference to me. Again, Why, or more accurately, why not?

The legal field is sitting on a huge time bomb. One-third of Americans are just one unfortunate circumstance away from ending up in court demanding their rights — where they will be told that those relationships aren't real, and don't count.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never been pressed to rule whether a stepparent is a real parent, and if so, under what conditions. But when it declined to review Britain v. Carvin, Washington State's test for "de facto," parents instantly became a model for other states to replicate. Through a case everyone thought was about gay rights, stepfamilies just opened the door to the recognition they truly deserve.

Typically, stepparents are thought to be cruel and wicked. As children, we learn this lesson well. Perchance we come to expect this; stepparents must be sinister. They are often under suspicion. You may recall Cinderella was treated with disdain by her stepmother. Her stepsisters ridiculed her and required the fair maiden to be at their beck and call. Newspaper articles support this postulate. While admittedly the research did not assess the quality of relationships or the feelings found within stepfamilies, this report concludes that a biological parent will take better care of a child than a stepparent might.

Differences Found in Care With Stepmothers
By Tamar Lewin
New York Times
August 17, 2000

Children raised in families with stepmothers are likely to have less health care, less education and less money spent on their food than children raised by their biological mothers, three studies by a Princeton economist have found.

The studies examined the care and resources that parents said they gave to children and did not assess the quality of the relationships or the parents' feelings and motives.

But experts said that while the findings did not establish the image of the wicked stepmother as true, they supported the conclusion that, for complex reasons, stepmothers do invest less in children than biological mothers do, with fathers, to a large extent, leaving to women the responsibility for the family's welfare.

''Being raised by the biological mother gives children a lot of protection,'' said the chief researcher on the studies, Anne Case, a professor of economics at Princeton. ''It's a very big thing to ask someone to care for children instead of the birth mother, who, as the sociobiologists tell us, invests so heavily in carrying the child, nursing the child.''

I agree, a paid caregiver may not have the same bond, or at least the biological parents may not allow it. Even if they do, I suspect my story solidifies what often happens. The employee does not feel they have the right, legally, or emotionally, to stay connected and in touch with the young child they raised.

The studies took their data from two of the broadest, most respected surveys of Americans' households, income, spending, and health habits. While those surveys were not created to analyze stepfamilies, their information is detailed enough to allow comparisons between different kinds of families.

Among children over a year old, living with both biological parents, the health study found that 61 percent have had a medical checkup within the last year. But among those living with a stepmother and birth father, that number dropped to 46 percent -- and of those whose biological mother was dead, only 35 percent had seen a doctor.

Did the survey consider the legal restrictions on a stepparent authorizing health care for a minor child? Might they have looked at the finances? Even when a parent re-marries, it often takes time before the new union is as financially sound as the previous blending was.

My natural parents were exceptionally wealthy. When my Mom married my "Daddy," Adam, he was a student. He belatedly received his Bacheloriate degree and was going on to pursue post-graduate studies. It was years before we were stable. My biological father had great wealth, in part, because professionally his standards were such he had no qualms; stepping on or over others was his way. He was attentive when assessing his assets; however, children were to be seen and not heard. At least that is the experience of his last child, me, you know the unwanted one.

Of the children living with their biological parents, 74 percent wear seat belts almost all the time, compared with 63 percent of those living with a stepfather and biological mother and 52 percent of those living with a biological father and stepmother.

Daddy, the man that truly raised me and adopted me, refused to start the engine unless and until we were all buckled into our car seats. He maintained the car with infinite care. His passengers were his prize. He had always wanted the loving family he helped to create.

Families with a stepmother reported overall household food spending that was about 5 percent lower for each stepchild than in families in which both biological parents were present, the food study found.

You may recall, my newer family did not have the money to spend on food. Although we spent less, the quality of our fare was far superior. My Mom is a gourmet cook. When with the biological paternal person, going out, entertaining, was what passed for normal. Rarely were we children part of these hedonistic pleasures. Potpies were my friend. Television dinners as they were once called were frequent. Now processed food is considered healthy.

With Daddy [Adam] in our lives, we ate together. We shared all our meals. My mom grew the vegetables and baked the breads and desserts. Later, Daddy took up fishing. We watched our pennies, for we had few. Still, each evening we dined from a different country. Mommy put up a monthly calendar. She filled in each date. My mom never wrote the specifics for the meal, she only penned the country of origin for the entrée. We ate well. I learned to try what I would have rejected in my earlier life.

In families in which women care for both their stepchildren and biological children, the biological child, on average, went to college for a year, while the average stepchild did not go to college.

Children reared by a stepfather also have lower educational achievement than those reared by both biological parents, although, as in most other measures, the negative effect is only about half as much as with stepmothers.

Oh my gosh; the paternal pretense of a parent in my life thought that girls, only need to attend college to receive an M.R. S. degree. Daddy is a scholar. Daily, he and I would read the paper and review what was read. He would ask me questions, ensuring my comprehension. We would discuss how the news was relevant to our lives. He, my Mom, and I looked up any issue relating to the article. Gaining wisdom was our entertainment. It was not costly, although it was infinitely valuable!

Prof. Frank Furstenberg, a sociologist of the family at the University of Pennsylvania, said that he did not question the findings and believed that the studies raised important questions, but he noted that stepfamilies vary widely.

Perhaps, the learned Professor might benefit from what I learned. Mommy and Daddy encouraged me to "Question everything!" In truth, it is still a family theme.

For example, women who take on a 2-year-old child step into a role very different from that of women who care for a 12-year-old stepchild, and for all stepmothers the relationships evolve as the family becomes better established.

''I don't think most stepmothers are evil,'' Professor Furstenberg said. ''If they're less involved, if they take a step back, it may be for the most noble motives, to give the parent more room, to decrease the tension. They may be relying on the child's father when perhaps their trust is unwarranted.''

This may be very true. My sisters were much older than I and had a very different experience of our blood father. They were not ready to open their arms to Daddy and rejected much of what was to come.

I often see among friends, the stepparent may want to be a part; yet, the natural parent presumes the children will not understand. The stepfamilies do not often blend, as much as they live together, if that.

With more than half the nation's children living apart from at least one biological parent by the time they reach 18, the functioning of stepfamilies has become increasingly important. Most stepfamilies involve stepfathers, rather than stepmothers, and compared with families in which a single mother is rearing a child alone, the presence of the stepfather and his income help raise the family's standard of living.

Still, previous research has shown that children who did not live with both of their parents had bleaker futures: among other things, they were more likely to drop out of school, become delinquents or engage in early sexual activity and drug abuse than children raised by both parents.

My own experience suggest two parents are the preferred; however, if one or both are not truly loving, caring, sharing, involved and connected, then what comes is chaos. Children, no matter what the age need to know that someone, preferably a parent figure is there for them in thick and thin. Humans are social animals. We need each other. We are expressive or not; whatever we are, we do not perform well or feel well if we do not feel safe, secure, and sane.

Parents guide us. They facilitate our growth. They protect our hearts and nurture our minds. We need them; actually, they need us too. Love is a necessary. It breeds happiness, joy, and it is the avenue for inspiration, imagination, and innovation. If we are struggling to survive, we do not have time or the means to thrive. Fortunately, even social scientists are beginning to realize this.

But while those outcomes are well known, there has been almost no research on the care, attention and resources such children receive -- and therefore, no way to know whether the damaging effects reflect poor parenting, family instability, lack of money or other factors.

Yet, as the article goes on, excuses are made, energies are diverted, and enigmas are voiced.

Many stepmothers are quick to acknowledge that being a stepparent is complicated, particularly when they take on older children and that it is unrealistic to imagine that the new bonds will be the same as those between a biological parent and child.

Unrealistic, I think not. We create what we believe. If we expect to be rejected, we will be. If we believe that the children are his, or hers, we will never treat them as ours. Sadly, I contend so much of the chaos we experience we create. When we do not legally give stepparents the right to authentically attend to a child's needs, why would they believe they are able.

I think we must truly evaluate our legal system and family structures. If people wed only to have companionship, if they do not work as a unit to create comfort for their shared children, then stepparents will always be separate from the equation. The sum of the parts, Mom plus Dad plus Children, step or otherwise, is best when it is greater than the whole.

Step through the looking glass and find your world turned inside out. Step Parenting references . . .

Gerald R. Ford The White House.

Gerald R. Ford. The Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum.

'Good man, faithful servant' honored, By Jonathan Peterson and Richard B. Schmitt. Los Angeles Times. December 31, 2006

pdf 'Good man, faithful servant' honored, By Jonathan Peterson and Richard B. Schmitt. Los Angeles Times. December 31, 2006

pdf Gerald R. Ford, 93, Dies; Led in Watergate's Wake, By J.Y. Smith and Lou Cannon. Special to The Washington Post. Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Gerald R. Ford, 93, Dies; Led in Watergate's Wake, By J.Y. Smith and Lou Cannon. Special to The Washington Post. Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Ancestry of Gerald R. Ford The Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum

Gerald R. Ford, Character Above All. James Cannon. Public Broadcasting Services.

Differences Found in Care With Stepmothers, By Tamar Lewin. New York Times. August 17, 2000

pdf Differences Found in Care With Stepmothers, By Tamar Lewin. New York Times. August 17, 2000

The Child-Stepparent Relationship: Its Fragility and its Importance. 9th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 13, 2007 at 08:55 PM in "Take me as I am!", Adult Influence on Children, American Dream, American Family, Americana, Approval or Love, Art of Loving, Have or Be, Change the World [Within], Communities, Communities and Communication , Dreams Live and Die , Effects of Divorce, Effects of Poverty , Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Evolution [Emotional, Physical, Spiritual], Family, Functioning, Fables, Life, A Forward Motion, Looking at Life, Looking for Love, Nature or Nurture, Profound , Quality of Life, Question Everything, Society, Think Travels | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Procreate or Annul the Marriage. Washington Initiative

© Copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert

After marrying, my Mom tried diligently for four full years to give birth to a child. She went from specialist to specialist. Batteries of tests were run, and then, re-run. Although she and my father were both fertile and they were a couple that thoroughly enjoyed intercourse, they could not seem to produce a baby. My Mom, a scientist at heart, concluded that perhaps, she was not fecund when most women were. Perchance her cycle was different. Once considering that possibility was enough. From then on, she was able to plan her pregnancies. My Mom gave birth to three children, none born in the first three years.

Apparently, if a Washington State initiative passes, couples such as my parents would be required to have their marriage annulled. "Naturally," gay partnerships, would not, could not be considered. Obviously, such a union would not be classified as marriage material. The Religious Right, may have felt embolden after the state Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage, however they did not propose a plan to go further. They did not restrict what constitutes marriage in a manner that might seem feasible to them. Numerous pious persons say the bible deems the purpose of matrimony is procreation. Thus, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance took action.

This organization, [WDMA] has filed papers stating

marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

Organizer Gregory Gadow proclaimed in a printed statement, “For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage." As absurd as this measure is, it may have purpose. Profundity is always welcome and wise, though the dynamics for introducing such depth could go awry.

I have other relatives, friends too, that though bountifully able to produce babies struggled to do so. Many discovered they could not produce. For one or both the machinery was not as it was meant to be. Infertilty is common. Some couples, when first married cannot afford to give birth to a newborn. Times are tight. They plan to become parents; however, for now there is a need to wait. Many fathers and mothers want to provide a secure and stable home for their offspring. They are building a nest egg and attempting to establish a foundation. Furthering their family is in the plans; it will be, though in the future. First, they need to find the funds. Down payments on homes are steep.

Some persons purposely choose not to have children. They may marry late. They may fear being the best of parents; theirs were not. There are a myriad of reasons for not bring children into a marriage.

There is much to be considered when preparing for progeny. Customs and conventions do not always equate to wisdom.

That being said, I am baffled. Conservatives claim the Progressives want too much government in their lives. Yet, when it comes to "privacy" issues, it seems the traditionalists want greater restrictions, even, or especially, in the bedroom. They actively wish to stamp out sex, unless the intent is to procreate. The Right seeks to further scrutinize what goes on in the boudoir.

Supporters must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot.

Opponents say the measure is another attack on traditional marriage, but supporters say the move is needed to have a discussion on the high court ruling.

Perhaps, enthusiast are not working to change the law. Perchance they are only wishing to discuss how ridiculous the people in America are. When, we as a nation, determine the definition for family we forget circumstances within our own. I understand the logic; I fear unexpected results.

Please peruse the Initiative . . .

Initiative 957
If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;

require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;

require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized";

establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and

make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

Consider this assessment. Fewer Americans married with children - Census Bureau statistics show that married people with children account for 25% of American households. USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Then, make your own. What does "marriage" mean to you.

Contemplate the references . . .

Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids. NorthWest Cable News. Associated Press. Tuesday, February 6, 2007

Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance.

Statement by Gregory Gadow, Sponsor of I-957 (the Defense of Marriage Initiative). Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance

Defense of Marriage Initiative Accepted by Secretary of State Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance

Married Without Children Marriage Partnership. Christianity Today International Fall 2003

The State of Our Unions, The Social Health of Marriage in America 2006. Essay: Life Without Children. By Barbara Dafoe Whitehead Dav. 2006

Childless: Some by Chance, Some by Choice, By Nancy Rome. Special to The Washington Post. Tuesday, November 28, 2006; Page HE01

pdf Childless: Some by Chance, Some by Choice, By Nancy Rome. Special to The Washington Post. Tuesday, November 28, 2006; Page HE01

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 10, 2007 at 02:14 PM in American Family, Approval or Love, Art of Loving, Have or Be, Civics, Civil Rights, Communities, Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Compassionate Conservatives, Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Ethics, Looking at Life, Looking for Love, Marital Status, Marriage, Quality of Life, Question Everything, Religious Right | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What is in a Name? Buday or Bijon ©

What is in a family surname, a first name, or a middle moniker? Today as I reflect on a current court case, I am reminded of my own history, my Mom's, and several stories told by former President Gerald R. Ford. Michael Buday is petitioning a federal judge for the right to take Diana Bijon's last name. The two recently married. Michael never felt connected to his own natural father. Mister Buday declares, "I had a rough childhood with my father," He continues, "We never really got along. Diana's father stepped up, gave me career advice. He's family." The term "family" is often heartfelt; it means more than any surname. At least it does to Michael Buday.

Long before they got engaged on a ridge in the Grand Tetons, they had talked about the future and children and names — specifically their own surnames. She loved hers. He wanted to shed his.

Diana Bijon asked her boyfriend if he would take her last name if they got married.

"I always hoped I would meet a guy who would let my kids take my name. My name dies with me, and my sister and I love my dad so much," said Bijon, 28, an ER nurse at UCLA whose father is a French émigré.

Mike Buday, estranged from his father, felt little attachment to his last name. He agreed to change it.

"Diana's father, to a certain extent, is a father figure to me," he said.

A couple of years later, when Buday, 29, proposed marriage while on a backpacking trip, Bijon reminded him about their previous conversation.

"I said, 'Remember we talked about names? Are you really going to take my last name?' "

Buday, unfazed, said yes.

"It was," he said, "not a big deal."

Not until he actually tried to take his fiancée's last name.

It seems changing names is easily done if you are a woman, marrying a man, and taking his name as yours. If the arrangement is other than the accepted convention, stumbling blocks are conveniently placed in your path.

I know this from my own life experience. My Mom had her own traumas and dramas. Former President Ford also changed his name. As a very young child, "Lesley Lynch King" was given his stepfather's name, Gerald Rudolff Ford. However, the legal papers were not prepared until Jerry Ford Junior was an adult.

The past President was given the name Leslie Lynch King, Junior, at birth. Two weeks after baby "Leslie" was born, his mother, Dorothy Ayer Gardner [King] separated from the senior King and sought a divorce. The divorce was granted a little over a year after she left. Another four years later, "Leslie's" mother remarried. This time she wed a gentle man named, Gerald R. Ford. They began calling her son theirs and unofficially changed the child's name.

President Ford spoke of his "father" often and always expressed his deep love. Gerald R. Ford Junior did not declare his fondness for the man that helped to give him a physical presence in this world; he lovingly stated his care for the man who had meaning in his life, Gerald Rudolff Ford Senior. The former President did not officially change his name until he was twenty-three [23] years of age. Securing the surname that Mister Ford thought most significant was important to him, even as an adult.

In my own life, my natural father, also very well off, was indifferent. We were not close. In truth, according to my eldest sister, after my birth my "father" barely came home. I trust that her observation is true, for I do not recall my "father" being part of my life.

My biological father was an excellent provider. He worked hard; nevertheless, he was not part of my life. My Mom, apparently had her own complaints or concerns. After more than twenty years of marriage, my Mom chose to leave.

After my Mom's divorce, she met and married another man, one that was meaningful in my life. I too was using my "Dad's" last name before being adopted. I met with my birth father once after Daddy formally entered my life and it was not good. As the former President's biography states . . .

Ford grew up in a middle class family. He was a healthy, industrious youth who helped out with the chores.

When he was 12 or 13, Ford's parents told him he was adopted. He first met his biological father when he was 17 and would see him only one other time. Young Ford was bitter about his wealthy father's indifference toward him. He called their first meeting the most traumatic experience of his youth.

The same could be said for my meeting. In my "parents" home, no one yelled or screamed. Our home life was quite quiet and calm. On the afternoon I met with my birth father, loud voices were all I heard.

The man that gave me a physical life was beyond distressed; his name would not live on. Not only was he, in his own mind, unfortunate enough to produce three daughters, this one, me, did not want to retain his last name. I had no desire to pass my birth name on. My biological father thought the tradition of "passing on the family name" was important. Our family name seemed more significant for him than the family ever did. According to my "father," tradition and history are lost when the name no longer lives. Michael Buday acknowledges this.

Michael Buday describes his reasons: how his new bride, Diana Bijon, came from a son-less family and wanted to continue her family name, and how he's much closer to her father than his own. "Diana's father stepped up, gave me career advice," Buday says. "He's family."

However, changing one's name is not as easy as we might imagine. In my own life, I understood, I needed my biological father's permission. It was four long years before my "father" relented and authorized the legal adoption. Perhaps, Gerald Ford was forced to wait to change his name. It may be that his biological father was as reluctant as was my own. "Leslie Lynch King, Junior" being a boy, had the power to perpetrate the tradition in a way that I, as a woman, might not. Possibly Gerald R. Ford Junior was not granted the right to change his names as a youth. Once an adult, he may have elected to follow his heart

Sadly, even adults are not always awarded the privilege of doing as they desire. Michael Buday is realizing this.

If you're a California man wanting to take your wife's last name in marriage, bring your wallet or your lawyer. One recent groom is opting for the latter, suing the state for not making the name-switch an equal opportunity proposition.

Mister Buday contends women can change their names easily, and they can; however, at times there are repercussions. USA Today reports . . .

a bride wanting to change her name can do so in California for less than $100, it's no easy task for a groom, he says. "To officially change his name to hers — and for future Social Security benefits, Buday says — a man must pay a $320 court fee, advertise his intention in a newspaper for four weeks and get a judge's approval."

There are many unexpected dynamics involved in changing names, first, last, and middle.

In my own life, I had to meet with a judge. At the age of thirteen, I was interviewed. My parents were probed. An attorney was present and yes, money changed hands.

My Mom had another experience, different than Mister Buday's, Jerry Ford's, or my own. After marrying a third time, my Mom chose to retain her second husband's name. It was my last name as well. We shared it, just as we shared a deep emotional bond.

Her new husband took our surname as his middle. She, in turn acquired his last name as her middle moniker. Thus, professionally my Mom was secure. The last name on her credentials was the same surname that appeared on her office door. Personally, she was still as she was. Physically and emotionally, she had a more solid marriage and a better sense of herself. Her last name was no longer tied to her being in the traditional manner.

Yet, when she went to the bank, with important documents to sign, she was harassed. My Mom was told she could not take her husband's last name as her middle. The banker said, "You are not legally a person because of what you did with your name." She cried.

This was the second difficult and painful event my Mom experienced while grappling with her names. At the age of forty-eight she discovered her father had never done as he promised. When she was seven years old, she was told she could change her first name. Her Dad, my Grandfather would file the proper papers. He never did.

My Mom realized this accidentally while doing official government business. The circumstances were typical. She was engaged in a bureaucratic endeavor. She needed to prove that she was she. She thought she could and then discovered, records did not match. Having learned that the necessary rules and regulations were not followed in her youth, my Mom was told she had to create documentation validating that she was who she said she was. The course of action was costly. It was a time consuming process. The unconventional often is. Michael Buday realized this.

On the marriage license application, which now costs $70 to file in L.A. County, Bijon could simply fill in her last name or her soon-to-be husband's last name.

But if Buday wanted to become a Bijon, he would have to get an order of the court to do so — and not before he had filed a petition, paid $320, advertised public notice of his intention to change his name for four weeks in a local newspaper and then appeared before a judge.

Mister Buday thought this obscene, offensive, or over-the-top. He said of the experience . . .

"It strikes both of us — especially me — that this is not on equal ground," said Buday, now married to Bijon for more than a year but reduced to still using his, well, maiden name. "This is about gender equality."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California agrees and wishes to represent Mister Buday in his endeavors. Indeed, they believe Buday has a case for such an argument and

Today the organization plans to file suit against the state of California in federal court, arguing that the difficulty a husband faces when changing his name to his wife's violates the equal protection clause provided by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

"This is important to the couple and it's important symbolically," said the local ACLU's legal director, Mark Rosenbaum, who called the current license application "the perfect marriage application for the 17th century."

When the couple, who live in Marina del Rey, sent an e-mail about their plight to the ACLU — one of thousands of inquiries the group receives — the organization took on the case with gusto.

"Every step of that process reflects a process of subordination of the wife," Rosenbaum said. "You have to get permission of the state to choose the name of the wife, you have to pay for it … you have to let the public know…. And finally, you have to go to court to get approval.

"If you want to set up a system to discourage couples from adopting the name of the wife, this is it."

Six states within this country do allow individuals to choose their names with little if any interference. These seem to allow for sentiment and free choice. Others demand dollars or deem the significance is bureaucratic.

Some naming books speak of a sacred association. The forename, given name, middle name, maiden name, surname, and family names, connect an individual to his or her own being. They validate a feeling, or sustain a tradition. Supposedly, a title means more than, 'I filed the required papers' or 'The government sanctioned my mark.' However, one wonders.

What is in a name? Does your moniker personify your identity?

Does our name unite us with those we love or are our names only legal representations used to generate commerce and establish government records.

Please tell me, what is your name? Is it significant; does it speak to your sense of family, self, or is it merely a connection to Social Security and other official doings? Soren Kierkegaard professes, "Once you label me, you negate me." Might we have the right to describe ourselves.

Name your moniker . . .

Take your wife's name? That'll cost you -- so ACLU steps in, By Carla Hall. Los Angeles Times. December 15, 2006

L.A. man sues to take wife's last name, By Martin Kasindorf, USA Today. January 12, 2007

Taking wife's name not so easy. USA Today. January 12, 2007

Make California Marriage Law Equal for Husbands Who Take Their Wives’ Last Name. American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. Friday, December 15, 2006

Gerald R. Ford, 93, Dies; Led in Watergate's Wake, By J.Y. Smith and Lou Cannon. The Washington Post. Wednesday, December 27, 2006

pdf Gerald R. Ford, 93, Dies; Led in Watergate's Wake, By J.Y. Smith and Lou Cannon. The Washington Post. Wednesday, December 27, 2006

The Power of a Name, By Valerie. The Castilleja School. Palo Alto, California

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 14, 2007 at 10:50 PM in "Take me as I am!", American Family, Approval or Love, Art of Loving, Have or Be, Looking at Life, Marriage, Nature or Nurture | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Thanksgiving. Will Our Past, Our Present Be Prologue? ©

As the celebration continues and the cynicism mounts, a delivery was made to me. I thank William S. Burroughs for his Thanksgiving Prayer. I am grateful to bzbb of My Left Wing fame. S/he shared the text and resource with me.

After reading my Thanksgiving story of genocide, some decided that they knew I loathe the holiday; I do not. I do have disdain for humans that knowingly hurt other humans. I am disquieted when I realize that man, woman, or child intentionally commits crimes against nature.

When people speak against "evil" and then act in ways that I think they might deem "sinful" I am confused. While, I personally do not believe in either concept, I wonder why those that do think these constructs are valid behave in ways that could be defined as wicked.

As I listen to William Burroughs and read the text of his musings, I am miffed. What are we giving thanks for on this the fourth Thursday in November? What do we welcome in the days that follow? I offer the Burroughs prayer so that we all might ponder.

Thanksgiving Prayer
By William S Burroughs [1914 to 1997]
American Novelist, Essayist, and Social Critic

Thanks for the wild turkey and the passenger pigeons,
Destined to be shit out through wholesome American guts.
Thanks for a continent to despoil and poison.
Thanks for Indians to provide a modicum of challenge and danger.
Thanks for vast herds of bison to kill and skin leaving the carcasses to rot.
Thanks for bounties on wolves and coyotes.
Thanks for the American dream,

To vulgarize and to falsify until the bare lies shine through.
Thanks for the KKK.
For n****r-killin' lawmen feelin' their notches.
For decent church-goin' women, with their mean, pinched, bitter, evil faces.
Thanks for "Kill a Queer for
 Christ" stickers.
Thanks for laboratory AIDS.
Thanks for Prohibition and the 
war against drugs.
Thanks for a country where nobody's allowed to mind the own business.
Thanks for a nation of finks.
Yes, thanks for all the memories-- all right let's see your arms!
You always were a headache and you always were a bore.
Thanks for the last and greatest betrayal of the last and greatest of human dreams.

I cannot thank William Seward Burroughs II enough. My mind would never travel in the places his did. However, perchance, you dear reader might relate.

If nothing else, I think this performance might provoke a deeper pondering. I invite each of us to reflect, to meditate, and contemplate, what does Thanksgiving Day mean to us. What does the holiday season connote?

How might our past relate to our present and what will our future be.

"Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them."
~ George Santanya

"What’s past is prologue."
~ William Shakespeare

Consider Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Korea. Is there talk of occupation or might we overthrow regime after regime?

Contemplate racial profiling. Does the Patriot Act make this legal.

Look within your local cities. Are there slums, ghettos, gangs, and girls walking the streets to make a decent wage? Perhaps, workingwomen are not the only ones looking for work. There are those that lost their employ so long ago they are no longer counted by government tallies. They dropped off the rolls, and have since dropped out of sight. In actuality, these persons are still visible; look out your window. There they are, on the avenue.

Are Blacks treated as whites; are the rich revered, are the poor?

What of women; what of immigrants?

Might we recall the Native Americans and the wilderness that welcomed our forefathers? What became of these?

What occurs in your home or that of your neighbors? Is communication prevalent in your abode, or in that of those living adjacent to you? Is care evident and flourishing or is this concept one you and others crave, but only dream of. I wonder.

What did you give thanks for yesterday and what will you be grateful for tomorrow?

Thanksgiving. The Past, Present, and Pondering

Burroughs By bzbb. My Left Wing. Friday, November 24, 2006

William S. Burroughs - Thanksgiving Prayer. YouTube.com

Practice to Deceive Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks' nightmare scenario--it's their plan. By Joshua Micah Marshall. Washington Monthly April 2003

US Patriot Act. American Civil Liberties Union. November 14, 2003

Streetgangs. Streetgangs.com

Ghettos: The Changing Consequences of Ethnic Isolation, By Ed Glaeser. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Spring 1997

Living Wage, Facts at a Glance. The Economic Policy Institute. 2006

Jobs Picture, November 2006. The Economic Policy Institute. 2006

The Two Nations of Black America. Frontline. Public Broadcasting Services

The Rich Get Richer. The Washington Post. Tuesday, April 12, 2005

Income Inequity. The Real Reason the Rich Get Richer. © By Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Women's History in America.
Presented By Women's International Center

Poverty in America, One Nation Pulling Apart. Poverty in America Project

The World Confronts Its E-waste Nightmare By Tam Harbert. Natural Resources Defense Council Fall 2006

Talking Turkey, Eating Shit and Taking the Heat, By starkravinglunaticradical. Booman Tribune November 24, 2005

Immigrants' Rights. American Civil Liberties Union

The Natural History of Neighborhood Violence, By Jeffrey Fagan, Columbia University and Garth Davies, Simon Fraser University. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, SAGE Publications Vol. 20, No. 2, 127-147. 2004

Communication. By Stefanie Cox, Larry Graber, Gregory Olson, Peacemakers. Better Endings, New Beginnings

Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. By Kerry Patterson, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan and Al Switzler. McGraw-Hill Trade June 2002

Give Thanks for Genocide. Thanksgiving, National Day of Mourning © By Betsy L. Angert. BeThink.org

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on November 25, 2006 at 12:09 AM in Abundance and Scarcity, American Dream, American Family, American Jobs, American Patriotism, Black History, Past/Present, Communities, Communities and Communication , Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Current Affairs, Dreams Live and Die , Economics, Looking at Life, Politics, Profound , Society, Success. Failure., “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Daily Distress. Heartbreak, Heartache, and Heart Felt Feelings ©

Currently I am writing for an educational organization. In penning my pain for what occurs today in our schools, I realized the same impersonal approach, awareness, or lack thereof, is evident in offices, neighborhoods, and in our broader community.

People pretend to or believe they “know” their fellow workers, their family members, and their friends. Yet, more often than not, I observe that this is not necessarily true. I, we, she, or he only comprehends what is visible on the surface.

Few choose to ask of, address, or answer the deeper concerns that life delivers daily. I offer this narrative and request your reflections. We all have our own tale to tell. I invite you to share yours. Please trust that I care; your secrets are safe with me. I suspect that others will honor you as I choose to do. I believe we all relate to sorrow.

Today the distress I wish to discuss is heartbreak, heartache, and heart felt feelings.

In my own life, I am witnessing that many close to me are battling life-threatening illnesses. Their terminal diagnoses effect me deeply. They weigh heavy on those closer to the “patient” than I. I cannot begin to imagine the pain long-suffering persons feel.

I feel such sorrow for their friends, family, or even the individual that is hurting, struggling to survive. Each time I hear of a person waiting to pass, I wonder. What are they thinking, feeling; how will their own being be altered, and what of their loved ones.

As I listen to many in my life speak of loss, I am aware that even those that lose a loved one to divorce, physical separation, or a break-up are also feeling great pain. There is so much that occurs daily in the lives of each of us. Yet, we rarely discuss our deepest anguish. Students are often satiated; their personal pressures can be overwhelming. Anxiety has an effect on the work of pupils; yet, few educators address such concerns. I wish to share a personal story, one that illustrates how loss can take a toll on our students.

I recall a time when I was teaching high school students. A young girl, quite bright was struggling to connect in most of her classes. Many of Marsha’s instructors pondered, “What were they to do with her?”

Each educator in Marsha’s life approached her; they wanted to help. Teachers truly believed that Marsha could achieve if she just put her mind to it. She was “not working to her potential.” Her mentors felt certain if they affirmed their belief in her that would be enough. All else would change. Thus, instructor after instructor spoke of with this young scholar. They discussed her grades, her attention to detail, and her chatty nature. When I arrived at the school, I observed that in respect to Marsha, teachers focused on what they could see; they had for the last two years.

What they could not envision and did not experience was what occurred in the two years prior. Marsha witnessed a suicide. Her father killed himself in front of her. She shared that after the incident, she and her mother were told by law officers that they had to clean the mess, the splattering blood, brains, and guts that covered the walls of her once tranquil home. Wow. How traumatic!

This young woman shared the tale calmly; it was “just” part of a conversation. She showed no emotion as she described the details. After all, she had two years to become numb.

Had I not “been there” sitting with students and discussing daily distresses as they do while they work I would not have learned of this alarming event. In my own teaching, I do not place myself at a distant “teacher’s” desk in the front or the back of the room. I casually chat with students while they work. I purposely did not and do present an imposing influence, in part because that is not my nature.

As a tablemate, I learned what many teachers had not. Thus, I ask, are we as instructors attending to success, achievements, and to verifiable standards? How often might we miss knowing our students? I too acknowledge that with overcrowded classes and curriculums that must be completed, time and care can capture our attention.

I wonder what might we do. Please share your thoughts, experiences, and observations. I, we as educators, as parents, as persons in a society that stresses “accountability” in our schools can learn from you!

For those of you that are reading this saga and are not mentors in the conventional sense, please trust that you too are a teacher. We all are. Simultaneously, we tutor and we learn. We are all students and guides; we each facilitate expansion. I invite you to advance my own. I thank you for offering opportunities for our greater growth.

Posted by Betsy L. Angert on October 19, 2006 at 02:01 PM in American Family, Approval or Love, Communities and Communication , Daily Distress, Desire to Learn, Dreams Live and Die , Education, Effects of Divorce, Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Heartbreak, Heartache, Humans, Self-Destructive, Life, A Forward Motion, Looking at Life, Loss, Nature or Nurture, Psychology , Society, Teach The Children, “Social Isolation in America." | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack