Thursday, September 25, 2008

Of Pregnant Teens and Ivy Leagues

"And let me tell you: There're more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than American parents with Harvard grads. She's real."

The above quote, attributed to working mother Beth Twiddle, was in a Marc Fisher column printed in the September 11, 2008 edition of THE WASHINGTON POST. The quote was taken when Ms. Twiddle was in attendance at a Virginia rally for Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain, and his running mate, Alaska governor Sarah Palin. The context of the quote is that Sarah Palin is very relatable to "regular" people, particularly women; Palin is "real."

What do we make of this? If we assume Ms. Twiddle's assertion about parents to be statistically accurate, does that truly make Sarah Palin, the mother of an unwed pregnant child, more "real" than Harvard grad and Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack Obama? If this is how we rate the realness of our candidates, could we not then counter with the claim that there are more parents with non-pregnant children than with pregnant children, thus giving Obama the edge on the Real-O-Meter? And then would we not shift the edge over to McCain, because he has more children than Obama?

That's silly, of course. Not that I don't like silly; it's just...maybe there is something else at work here.

This is not a question of politics, by the way; it's a question of character assessment and the importance on which we place certain things. When I decided to start banging these keys, one of my goals was, and still is, to be pragmatic above all else. This requires me to be as apolitical as possible, so that I might reach that group who thinks their opinion is right, as well as reach that OTHER group who thinks THEIR opinion is right, as well as reach the 17 folks in the middle. If I say blue, the Reds scream. If I say red, the Blues scream. But, if I say tartan plaid, everybody screams.

With that, I say again, maybe there is something else at work here.

Is any person's assertion of a candidate's "realness" simply a hollow replacement...let's call it a "McFeature"...for something more substantive? Is it easier to point out Palin's family or Obama's ethnicity or McCain's military record or Democratic vice presidential nominee Senator Joe Biden's daily Amtrak round-trips - McFeatures all - as reasons for liking them than it is to argue the finer points of their positions on immigration or foreign policy or energy or the economy? Of course it is...just like it's easier to cry "baby killer" than it is to construct an intelligent argument against Roe vs. Wade; just like it's easier to scream "Jesus freak" than it is to construct an intelligent argument against the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; just like it's easier to cruise the drive-thru than it is to actually cook a meal.

McFeatures are quick and McFeatures are easy, and we are a nation addicted to quick and easy. We like bumper stickers, news crawls, sound bites, and text messages. We read that way, we write that way, and we speak that way; why wouldn't we select our candidates that way?

Still...maybe there is something else at work here.

While I'm usually not quick to reference my own stuff, recently I wrote a couple of pieces about how people make themselves feel better about themselves. The first piece dealt with schadenfreude - people gaining pleasure from the misery of others. The second piece addressed people vicariously living through their children's youth athletics, as well as cheating at local sports. As I pondered this current piece, I noticed the trend.

Isn't this issue...this "realness" McFeature issue...yet another indicator that people will find - and use - the shortest path possible to feel some sense of self-worth, regardless of the consequences or collateral damage?

When I read a quote that says, "And let me tell you: There're more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than American parents with Harvard grads. She's real," I don't ask questions to indict Sarah Palin, or her unwed pregnant teenager, or anyone in her family. I don't ask questions to indict the operatives representing both sides, at all levels, who are guilty of politicizing the matter ("Pregnant Teen?: Where Are Your Morals, You Bible-Thumping Conservatives?" vs. "Pregnant Teen!: She's Keeping the Baby, You Abortion-Loving Liberals!"). I don't ask questions to indict those who once pointed a pious, now hypocritical, finger toward Jamie Lynn Spears, at one time an unwed pregnant teenager herself (and quite the pariah as a result).

I ask questions to indict any person...regardless of social, political, religious, economic, or cultural stripe...guilty of lowering society's bar to such a level that clearing it is not the worry, but tripping over it is.

Is this what we have become? A nation content with the taste of sour grapes? When did we reach the point when we failed to aspire to some predetermined definition of success, so we became malcontented to such a degree that teen pregnancy borne of premarital sex became virtuous, while a better resume became shameful? When did this happen?

There's a scene at the end of the movie Grease (1978), where it's the last day of school and Principal McGee (Eve Arden) tries to make an inspirational announcement to the graduating class:

"Attention seniors. Before the merriment of commencement commences, I hope that your years with us here at Rydell High have prepared you for the challenges you face. Who knows? Among you there may be a future Eleanor Roosevelt or a Rosemary Clooney, and among you young men, there may be a Joe DiMaggio, a President Eisenhower, or even a Vice President Nixon."

Of course, the Nixon reference was played for laughs, as the film is set pre-Watergate. That matters not. It's the message that counts: you are young, the world awaits you, the possibilities are endless, aspire to greatness.

Isn't this what our parents wanted for us? Isn't this what we should want for our own children? Don't we fail our children the minute we make our own inadequacies the basis for critical future considerations? So now, in addition to teaching our children to mock the misfortunate and cheat the fair, must we also teach them that they can achieve anything they want to achieve in life...because the bar goes as low as their depleted self-esteem can take it?

We should be saying, "Look at Barack Obama; he's a Harvard graduate," or, "Look at John McCain; he's a war hero." Why don't we do that? What is our fear? Is it that our children will be more successful than we have been, thus making them less real to us? Do we dare repress our children so as not to feel we have been bested by them?

You know, I considered involving my pre-teen daughter in the upcoming debates. Maybe we should just watch Zoey 101 instead.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Does This Legislation Make Me Look Fat?

In the years since Baby and I migrated from the suburbs to the deep suburbs (read: country), so too has urban sprawl migrated, and when you build a plethora of McMansions and fill them with McFamilies, you need McStores to support the McGrowth...and by "need" I mean "want," and by "support the McGrowth" I mean "cash-in on the McBoom." Struggling now are the mom-and-pops that were the backbone of our once-small town, as they are slowly being strangled by hands with fingers that look eerily like strip malls. But no growth industry has grown around here quite like the food service industry.

In 1999, we had three diners, a couple of pizza/sandwich shops, a Mexican place, a Chinese place, a Dunkin' Donuts, a Waffle House, a McDonald's, and a Burger King. There was something for everyone.

In 2008, we now have two diners, a few pizza/sandwich shops, two Mexican places, an Italian place, two Chinese places......an Applebee's, a Friendly's, a Hardee's, a KFC, a Taco Bell, an Arby's, a Dairy Queen, a Rita's, a Ruby Tuesday's, a Bruster's, a Starbucks, three Dunkin' Donuts, a Waffle House, a McDonald's, a Burger King, a couple of BBQ joints, some bagel hut, and a pretzel place (?!). Now, there is everything for everyone.

I wish I were making that up. As I cruise around town most days, I see a lot of people at these eateries, and these people I see at these eateries have a lot of people to them. What I'm trying to say is that this ever-growing town has ever-growing townsfolk.

It is no great secret that obesity is on the rise in this country. Simply watch your late local news every night for a week, and surely on one of those nights, a Health Watch or a Medical Alert or a First-Aid Warning will highlight something about obesity - something the network down the street probably reported the previous week, and something the network up the street will probably report the following week. The net result of most of these reports is usually nothing new: junk food is bad, fruits and veggies are good, and now here's Suzie with the five-day forecast. But sometimes they let us know how other parts of the country are handling obesity.

New York City has mandated that calorie-counts be included on many restaurant menus, so that patrons are better informed; but just because you give someone knowledge doesn't mean they know what to do with it. Think about it. Do we send our kids to schools or to libraries? Both are full of educational material, but one teaches while the other merely informs. So, when New York tells New Yorkers that Muffin X is 800 calories and Muffin Y is 400 calories, but they cost the same, will New Yorkers go for the 400-calorie muffin because fewer calories are healthier, or go for the 800-calorie muffin because if there is anything to be learned from the Wal-Mart model, it's that more of something for the same price is always better?

Los Angeles passed a temporary moratorium on the construction of new fast food restaurants in South L.A., where obesity is a greater issue than elsewhere in the city. How pointless. If overweight South Angelinos have access to X fast food restaurants today, and tomorrow they have access to the same X restaurants, do the city's decision makers expect their constituents to suddenly forget where all the fried greasy goodness came from yesterday and simply wile away their hours today standing on empty parcels of land, waiting for new fast food joints to fall from the sky? This isn't even school vs. library. This is telling the kid who never returns library books that he's not allowed to borrow any new books, but if he still has the old ones, eh, what's the harm.

And in Alabama, the State Employees' Insurance Board has indicated that it will begin charging obese state employees a $25-per-month fee to offset the increased health costs associated with obesity. This fee will also be charged to people with blood pressure, glucose, or cholesterol issues. If an employee's health improves (through various measures), the fee will no longer be assessed.

This one troubles me.

The thinking behind it is that these health problems are lifestyle-based, and if you change your lifestyle, you will improve your health, which will save your employer a few bucks, which will save you a few bucks. On the surface, it kind of makes sense: if you require more of something, then you ought to pay more for it, right?

Not so fast.

How will the boss know what to charge you for benefits? A visual assessment might work for obesity, but what about the other health issues? Do you remember that commercial with the studly older guy being eyed-up by some ladies at the pool, and instead of nailing the expected perfect-ten dive, he belly flops into the water? That was a pharmaceutical commercial, and the point of it was to illustrate that you could look great and still be plagued with health problems.
That means the boss has to make sure everyone is tested. Everyone. Are you up for that? Are you up for middle-management knowing the details of your health? They can't even change the toner in the printer; you want them to be privy to your bodily secrets?

Maybe you're ready for that, but what about the assumption that if you suffer from one of these ailments, it must be based on lifestyle, yet each of the ailments could be due to some other factor. Again with the stud at the pool in the commercial, the message is clear: you might exercise regularly and have a low Bady Mass Index or a muscular build, yet you might still be plagued with health problems.

That means someone, or a group of someones, gets to pass judgment on your health. Are you up for that? Are you up for some unknown committee or triumvirate...or worse, Human Resources...looking at your charts and hanging a price tag on you? I mean really...HR?! What if your vitals accidentally wind up in a PowerPoint presentation at the next quarterly?

So maybe you're ready for that, too. Maybe you just don't care. Maybe you believe that if someone requires more of something, then they ought to pay more for it. Faster cars, more money. Bigger houses, more money. Bigger health risks, more money, right?

Um, not so fast again.

Since when did you become a by-volume person? You are a person, period. When you go to the movies, you aren't charged by your weight or your size or your height, you are charged by your being. That's why the ticket stub says "Admit One," not "Admit (See Chart on Back)." In elections, you only get one vote. In Pollyanna, you only get one present. Why shouldn't healthcare be the same and treat you as one?

Even if Alabama has the perfect plan to avoid charging those with true genetic ailments (versus lifestyle-induced ailments), charging extra to those whose lifestyles create the potential for increased healthcare costs is a perilous path to follow, because its definition is so broad. Someday, someone in some office will be tasked with mitigating healthcare costs. The idea will hit him that the phrase LIFESTYLE can be applied to more than just diet. So, in addition to, "What's your BMI and LDL count?" you might be asked, "Do you rock climb?" "Do you ride a motorcycle?" "Do you frequently ice skate?" "Are you promiscuous?"

Feel invaded yet? Each example is a lifestyle (of sorts) and carries with it higher risks for health problems. Now, I want you to take those questions I just asked...and ask them of your spouse and of your children, because if $25 a month is helping subsidize healthcare costs, somebody in some cubicle is going to do the math as he imagines what $50, $100, or more could do.

I respect what the government is trying to accomplish, and I'm sure they are using the finest of intentions to pave that road to perdition, but Uncle Sam needs to keep his thumb out of the pudding. I mean, who knows where that thumb has been?

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

You Might Help Make It, So Try Not To Miss It

It doesn't matter what side you are on. Your party's convention is over. Now that the house lights are up...

...the thousands of delegates who trekked across the country have returned home to do whatever it is they do when not dolled-up in sequined shirts, giant hats, novelty glasses, buttons for days, and other egregious fashion crimes that would result in societal banishment during any of the other 207 weeks of the quadrennial cycle.

...the millions of viewers who tuned-in to watch the endless coverage and analysis can finally restore order to their lives by getting more sleep, acknowledging their loved ones, and setting their DVRs to record important things, like sports, reality TV, and the season premier of HEROES.

...the countless who worked so tirelessly to construct and deconstruct the stages can, if they wouldn't mind, lend me the giant Democratic pillars to use as a backdrop for my annual State of the Household address, and lend me the massive Republican TV screen to use for what surely would be the coolest round of golf...at Pebble Beach...on the Wii...ever.

...the balloons have been deflated, as have the expectations of some. The confetti has been swept away, as have the dreams of others. But while you might lie there, still a little dazed and trying to remember how on earth you wound up in bed with THIS candidate, there will be no sleeping-off the hangover. It's time for a little hair of the dog...or the donkey or the elephant.

It doesn't matter what side you are on. Your candidate's campaign has begun. With less than 60 days to go...

...there are Sunday talk shows to appear on, scheduled when supporters should be at church. Poor God. First football, now this.

...there are commercials to produce, aimed at that 20% of the voting public who have not yet made up their minds. After something like 700 days of fast-forwarding through these things, NOW the undecided want to pay attention? We return you to democracy, already in progress.

...there are phone calls to place. Check that. There are computers to program to place phone calls, offering "go vote" reminders to the forgetful, making donation pleas to the generous, talking smack about opponents to the base, and causing unwanted cooling effects on meatloaf everywhere.

...hands will be shaken, Purell will be abused, speeches will be made, bumpers will be stickered, blogs will be written, blog spelling will be critiqued, debates will be held, debates will be overanalyzed, Fox will be accused of pandering, MSNBC will be accused of pandering, mud will be slung, and foul will be cried!

Then the day will arrive.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008.

Election Day.

It doesn't matter what side you are on. You will bear witness to History. This might sound like a no-brainer, but...

...as passionate and engaged people, some of things we write, particularly in the political arena, can be pretty intense. We love our guy and we hate their guy, and in our zeal to make our case, we write anything we can to advance our cause or attrite theirs. It's a way of operating that can become so focused, it isn't a case of forest for trees, but rather trees for leaves. As discourse becomes discord, and as the time to debate becomes the time to demean, we tend to lose sight of what is about to happen. Yes, yes. History. So the professional blatherers say; so long as my guy is on the winning end, the History will be glorious, we tell ourselves. But the glory of what will happen in November isn't just the History itself, it's the inevitability of it.

...this History is different than what usually awaits us at the start of each day. History never stops; it occurs and is recorded - on film, in print, in our minds - every minute that ticks past, but it does so with the specter of COULD looming overhead. You COULD get that big promotion, but you might lose out to a coworker; you COULD get up the nerve to ask that person from accounting out to lunch, but you might get cold feet; you COULD win the lottery, but you might wind up with a worthless stub and a perennial dream of retiring to the coast of Maine. Because of all of this uncertainty, because anything is possible, because so much is probable, because very little is definite, we stop paying attention to things, and in the process, we miss History as it happens, and only know it as a reference point in the past.

...this time is special. The specter of COULD doesn't know this time. We WILL have our first African American president this time, or we WILL have our first female vice president this time. Love him and hate her, or love her and hate him, History doesn't really care. History only knows that one of these two people, already History-makers in their own right, will make History one more time. One of these two people will not only stand on the shoulders of those who have come before them - one of these two people will stand with shoulders upon which future generations will stand. History will make it so, and we know precisely when.

It doesn't matter what side you are on. This is too special to be missed. So I ask you...

...between now and November 3, do what you will for your candidate - volunteer, donate, stump, pray.

...between now and November 3, focus on those leaves, rally your allies, attack your foes.

...between now and November 3, plead your case and defend your case with the passion of a thousand white-hot suns.

...on November 4, watch History unfold, and consider yourself lucky for having seen it coming.