As we prepare to enter whole hog into this holiday season, I had a thought that I found worthy of sharing with you. You may not feel the same after finding out what that thought is, but then you'll never know if you don't continue reading, right? I promise, I'll be quick.
Me and my people (that's how we like to refer to ourselves; sometimes we like to call ourselves the Chosen People, but that's a whole other discussion) have been feverishly dusting off the menorahs, stocking up on multi-colored candles, and maybe even running around town trying to find enough chocolate gelt for our games of dreidel. All to prepare for the celebration of Chanukah (my preferred way of spelling it, but I'll also accept Hanukkah). Chanukah typically falls before Christmas, but it's start date varies, at least on the American calendar. On the Hebrew calendar, it always falls on the 25th day of Kislev (which you knew because you heard it in the Chanukah song from the Colbert Christmas special, admit it), and since the Hebrew calendar is a lunar calendar, the first night of Chanukah (which typically falls in December), varies pretty wildly. Sometimes it's in early December, sometimes late December, but never, to my knowledge, has it started after Christmas.
I mention this to give you the foundation for the thought I found interesting enough that I had to share it with you: we Jews get our gifts earlier than Christians. At least we start to get them earlier. So we're luckier. Well, if you put aside the centuries of oppression and suffering, that is. For at least one week (plus one day) each year, we're the lucky ones. Yes, there aren't as many radio-friendly Chanukah songs as there are Christmas songs, though we do have Adam Sandler's contribution (in its various incarnations), and the newest entry from Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart (which I am still waiting to hear on the radio, hint, hint 98.3 and 106.7), but we get our gifts early. This year Chanukah starts on December 21st, and doesn't end until after Christmas, but we'll have 1/2 of our gifts safely liberated from their wrapping paper before good ole St. Nick drops off his goodies.
Not only do we start to get our gifts early, but we get eight nights of gifts compared to Christmas' one lone night. Yes, there's typically more work involved. I mean, we do have to light candles every night, which is a bit of added labor (not to mention an added fire hazard), but at least we don't have to lug home a tree and hang up (and later take down, hopefully before Spring) Christmas lights. I do recognize that, as Jon Stewart sings, it typically means we get one good gift, then a week of dreck (I think you're smart enough to figure out what that Yiddish word means; if not, Google it), but it still means at least eight gifts! Do you have that kind of guarantee with Christmas? I think not!
We also get the benefit of at least one day with absolutely no obligations, one on which we can be fairly sure that we'll be able to get good seats at whatever movie we want , as well as a nice quiet meal at our favorite local Chinese food restaurant. All while our Christian friends are home opening gifts, eating ham, and fighting with their families. Plus, sometimes our Christian friends invite us to their homes, so sometimes we even get a free meal! And, we don't have fruitcake.
So what I'm saying is that if you're one of my people, rejoice in your good fortune. Enjoy your neighbors' Christmas lights, wish them a happy holiday season, and thank them for the paid day off from work.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Sunday, November 09, 2008
2008 Post-Election wrapup.
I seem to recall having written a post-election wrapup after the 2006 mid-term congressional elections, but, to be honest, I'm very tired at the moment and haven't really been all that interested in checking my files. If I did do a 2006 wrapup, then this is my second such recap. If I didn't, well then you're in for something new I guess.
Why am I tired? Well, I worked the polls on election day. No, not the poles. There's not a really big market for watching an approaching 40 pasty white overweight male strut his stuff. I'm talking about the election polls. I work as a poll worker during each election here in New York. Primaries, congressional mid-terms, presidential general elections, I'm there. And it's a long day. In New York the polls open at 6am and close at 9pm. Poll workers have to be there at 5:30am to set up, and we don't usually leave until close to 9:30pm after cleaning up, counting the votes, and locking down the machines. I have never seen a line of people at 9pm requiring us to keep the polls open late, thankfully. But it's a long day.
I was expecting a large turnout, and that's what we got. At 5:30am there was already a line of people at our doors. Again, something I had never seen before. I think the news media convinced everyone that the lines would be long all across the country. Some people actually showed up carrying chairs, while others brought books to read. There were three separate voting districts in the school gym where I was working. One of them started out the day with a machine breakdown, which caused a long line to form. That same district would have two long lines during the after work rush. My district had a bit of a push in the morning hours, but nothing overwhelming.
I will tell you that we voted on the old mechanical lever machines. Those things are great. Easy to understand, not very intimidating to the new voter or the senior voter like I imagine touch-screen machines are. And I think they're actually quicker to vote on. New York is supposed to get new electronic machines for next year's votes, but at this point I don't know what kind. Personally I'm hoping for the optical scan machines, because I think those would be easier not only for the voters, but also for the poll workers, most of whom are admittedly not computer savvy.
We did have one of the new handicapped voting machines at our polling place. It allows voters with all kinds of disabilities to vote if they can't or don't want to use the regular machines. It accommodates blind people, deaf people, and, I believe, even people who are paralyzed, though I'm not sure exactly how it all works. They train people separately for those machines. There were three people staffing that one machine...and they got not a single vote on the thing. Mostly I think it was because people didn't know about the machine, but also because they told people right off the bat that it would take anywhere from 20-40 minutes to vote on the machine. So they need to work on that.
When I left for my lunch break around noon, about 35% of registered voters in my district had voted. Granted, my district consisted of just over 950 voters, but in the primary and the last congressional election, I don't believe we got that high even by the end of the day. When I left for my dinner break around 5pm, we had reached around 60%. And at the end of the day, we finished with close to 70% of registered voters having voted on the machines. This does not take into account absentee ballots or voters who voted by paper affidavit ballot, and I figure there are still people on the voter rolls who have passed away or moved out of the district but had not yet changed their registration, though I don't believe those numbers would have skewed our percentages much higher.
Most of the voters in my district are registered in one of three ways: Democrat, Republican, or Blank (meaning they did not choose to be affiliated with a political party, or at least that's how the board of elections saw things). My own personal observation is that we saw a pretty equal share of both Democrats and Republicans voting, with a surprisingly large contingent of unaffiliated voters (the blank ones) also. But at the end of the day, the vote was overwhelming and tracked the trend across New York State: Obama trounced McCain nearly 2 to 1.
But I had expected Obama to beat McCain in New York. What I was concerned about was the rest of the country. So I headed home and watched CNN and whatever other news programs were covering the election (which was apparently all of them), including parts of Comedy Central's Indecision '08 coverage. Obama had a clear electoral lead, but I still wasn't wholly convinced. At least not until 11pm when the polls on the west coast closed and all of the networks projected Obama as the winner. It was amazing. I watched Jesse Jackson with tears running down his face, imagining that this moment was what he has fought so hard for all of his adult life and the utter joy that he must have felt being able to see an African-American president in his lifetime after having struggled so hard for so many years.
As I write this a few days after the election from my seat on the Long Island Rail Road as I head to my job in Manhattan, I can tell you that there is a noticeable lightening of the mood around NYC. People have a sense of accomplishment at having helped usher change into the White House, particularly in the form of the nation's first black president. I'm still amazed that states like Virginia and North Carolina went to Obama. Out the window go all of my preconceived notions of America's racial predisposition. Good on ya, America.
Why am I tired? Well, I worked the polls on election day. No, not the poles. There's not a really big market for watching an approaching 40 pasty white overweight male strut his stuff. I'm talking about the election polls. I work as a poll worker during each election here in New York. Primaries, congressional mid-terms, presidential general elections, I'm there. And it's a long day. In New York the polls open at 6am and close at 9pm. Poll workers have to be there at 5:30am to set up, and we don't usually leave until close to 9:30pm after cleaning up, counting the votes, and locking down the machines. I have never seen a line of people at 9pm requiring us to keep the polls open late, thankfully. But it's a long day.
I was expecting a large turnout, and that's what we got. At 5:30am there was already a line of people at our doors. Again, something I had never seen before. I think the news media convinced everyone that the lines would be long all across the country. Some people actually showed up carrying chairs, while others brought books to read. There were three separate voting districts in the school gym where I was working. One of them started out the day with a machine breakdown, which caused a long line to form. That same district would have two long lines during the after work rush. My district had a bit of a push in the morning hours, but nothing overwhelming.
I will tell you that we voted on the old mechanical lever machines. Those things are great. Easy to understand, not very intimidating to the new voter or the senior voter like I imagine touch-screen machines are. And I think they're actually quicker to vote on. New York is supposed to get new electronic machines for next year's votes, but at this point I don't know what kind. Personally I'm hoping for the optical scan machines, because I think those would be easier not only for the voters, but also for the poll workers, most of whom are admittedly not computer savvy.
We did have one of the new handicapped voting machines at our polling place. It allows voters with all kinds of disabilities to vote if they can't or don't want to use the regular machines. It accommodates blind people, deaf people, and, I believe, even people who are paralyzed, though I'm not sure exactly how it all works. They train people separately for those machines. There were three people staffing that one machine...and they got not a single vote on the thing. Mostly I think it was because people didn't know about the machine, but also because they told people right off the bat that it would take anywhere from 20-40 minutes to vote on the machine. So they need to work on that.
When I left for my lunch break around noon, about 35% of registered voters in my district had voted. Granted, my district consisted of just over 950 voters, but in the primary and the last congressional election, I don't believe we got that high even by the end of the day. When I left for my dinner break around 5pm, we had reached around 60%. And at the end of the day, we finished with close to 70% of registered voters having voted on the machines. This does not take into account absentee ballots or voters who voted by paper affidavit ballot, and I figure there are still people on the voter rolls who have passed away or moved out of the district but had not yet changed their registration, though I don't believe those numbers would have skewed our percentages much higher.
Most of the voters in my district are registered in one of three ways: Democrat, Republican, or Blank (meaning they did not choose to be affiliated with a political party, or at least that's how the board of elections saw things). My own personal observation is that we saw a pretty equal share of both Democrats and Republicans voting, with a surprisingly large contingent of unaffiliated voters (the blank ones) also. But at the end of the day, the vote was overwhelming and tracked the trend across New York State: Obama trounced McCain nearly 2 to 1.
But I had expected Obama to beat McCain in New York. What I was concerned about was the rest of the country. So I headed home and watched CNN and whatever other news programs were covering the election (which was apparently all of them), including parts of Comedy Central's Indecision '08 coverage. Obama had a clear electoral lead, but I still wasn't wholly convinced. At least not until 11pm when the polls on the west coast closed and all of the networks projected Obama as the winner. It was amazing. I watched Jesse Jackson with tears running down his face, imagining that this moment was what he has fought so hard for all of his adult life and the utter joy that he must have felt being able to see an African-American president in his lifetime after having struggled so hard for so many years.
As I write this a few days after the election from my seat on the Long Island Rail Road as I head to my job in Manhattan, I can tell you that there is a noticeable lightening of the mood around NYC. People have a sense of accomplishment at having helped usher change into the White House, particularly in the form of the nation's first black president. I'm still amazed that states like Virginia and North Carolina went to Obama. Out the window go all of my preconceived notions of America's racial predisposition. Good on ya, America.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Go and buy Billy Joel's "The Stranger"
I am a big music fan. I have moderately large collection of CDs, cassettes, and vinyl records (but no 8-tracks or 78s). A few years back, I might have said that I'm a huge music fan, but after spending several years working within the music industry, and watching it descend into its current state (which could be the subject of whole other rant), I had to reevaluate my fan status.
One of the things that I always hated about the industry was the "remastered" album. That and the greatest hits package that threw in one or two new songs. In these days of single song downloads on iTunes, I guess that’s not as much of a problem, but back not too long ago, it wasn't easy to get those additional songs without buying the whole greatest hits package. Not a big deal if you're not a big fan of the artist and don’t already have the artist’s prior albums or an earlier greatest hits album - I have several greatest hits packages for bands and artists that I'm not huge fans of, but that's because I didn't have any of their previous albums. So that worked out well for me. But what if you are a huge fan of a given artist? What then?
I am a huge Billy Joel fan, as is a large percentage of the population of Long Island, where we’re both from. I think it's actually a law that at least one member of every family that lives on Long Island must be a devoted Billy Joel fan and possess at least one of the several greatest hits packages his label has released over the years. I guess I should clarify somewhat: I'm a huge fan of Billy Joel up until about 1980. Glass Houses. Maybe some Nylon Curtain. After that, things started to go downhill for me (with the exception of Songs In The Attic, but that was a live concert of his earlier songs, so that doesn't count in my book). Sure there's a good song or two (or maybe 3) on his later albums, but those albums pale in comparison to albums like The Stranger, 52nd Street, and Turnstiles.
I have just about every one of Billy Joel's albums on CD. Sorry, no Cold Spring Harbor (I can't get past the whole mastering issue; I guess I'm not much into chipmunks), and not that Russian album either (though I do have it on cassette). I did go ahead and buy his greatest hits package when it first came out, and my wife bought the box set they released a few years ago, that had some additional live recordings. So when I heard that they were coming out with a remastered version of The Stranger on its 30th anniversary I yawned. I am not an audiophile. I mostly listen to my music on my iPod on the train, or in my car. Not necessarily the best conditions for listening to music, given all the background noise, so I saw no need to go and spend money on yet another copy of the album, even if it was of superior audio quality to the copy that I already have.
But I think the good folks at Columbia records knew this. They weren't just going to release a remastered edition. Oh, no, not them. They would come up with some additional material that would surely entice people to pick up the re-release. And they weren't going to release just one version of their special package either. How do I know this? Well, I went into Best Buy recently to purchase equipment for my computer. On my way out, I happened to see a large box with The Stranger cover image on it. I had to stop and check it out. Remastered album, check. But then came the good stuff. A recording of a concert Billy Joel gave at Radio City Music Hall in 1977, and some DVD with that I think was a making of the album documentary and some of his live performances (I obviously didn’t buy this one, mostly because it was selling for around $45 and I'm a notoriously frugal person). I was initially slightly bummed, but then I looked down. And there it was: the affordable version. No DVD, no special booklet. Just the remastered original album and the Radio City CD. And for just $15. But wait, there's more. Because, in typical Best Buy fashion, they had an exclusive deal. Their deal included a bonus disc with tracks recorded live at Nassau Coliseum in December, 1977. For those who aren't familiar, that's the coliseum on Long Island where the New York Islanders hockey team plays. Sweet Georgia Brown! Billy Joel practically owns the joint. A CD recording of one of his concerts there? Not quite the motherload, since it only includes 5 tracks, but I was still giddy with excitement and snatched up a copy.
Some background. In my collection of cassette tapes, I have several copies of Billy Joel concerts from the 1970s that were recorded off of Long Island radio station WBAB, which broadcast them. These are pure gold and some of my favorite recordings to listen to...when I have access to a cassette player. Billy Joel in his prime. It's my firm belief that Billy Joel was not meant to record in a studio. I think all of his albums should have been live albums. Anyone who has listened to the original recordings of the songs on Songs in the Attic can attest to that. But Songs in the Attic doesn't have songs like “Angry Young Man,” “The Entertainer,” and “Souvenir.”
The Radio City concert disc does! Granted some of the live recordings that Billy has released over the last few years have these songs on them. But his performances on 12 Gardens pales in comparison to his live performances from the 1970s. It's not even close. The purity and power of his voice, the way he attacks the songs, even his attitude in delivery are worlds apart. It's the performance of someone in his 30's {VERIFY}, not someone 30 or so years removed.
Remember that these songs were new back then. New enough to still have meaning. He hadn't gotten sick and tired of them yet. Hell, there's something incredible about hearing him say that “Just the Way You Are” is a new song, or dedicating “Scenes From an Italian Restaurant” to Christianos restaurant. I was too young when these songs came out to appreciate their freshness back then.
I can see why Columbia wouldn't have released the Radio City album before. Radio City doesn't have the capacity of a larger venue like Madison Square Garden or Nassau Coliseum, where you can get the roar of the crowd on the recording. It's a more intimate setting, even if it does hold a few thousand people. And Billy Joel feeds off of crowds. The performances of songs like “Captain Jack” aren't as heated and fiery as the ones on Songs In The Attic. But the quality of the performance is still there. In fact, I would suggest to Columbia that they release recordings of those concerts I have on cassette in my basement from Nassau Coliseum. I'd buy them.
The Best Buy bonus disc with the 5 songs from the Coliseum is sadly too short. It's got some of the same songs from the Radio City disc, but a Nassau Coliseum performance on his home turf is nothing like a New York City performance, so I expected the bonus disc to be a little piece of gold. And, while it’s ok, it’s nothing like the recordings I have on cassette. Sorry Best Buy, but the disc doesn’t include any of the banter that make his shows great (and that is present on the Radio City CD), and it only has one of the songs (“The Ballad of Billy The Kid”) that really get the Long Island crowd going, with its New York or Long Island references. What, no “Scenes From An Italian Restaurant”? No “New York State of Mind”?
So go out and buy this release, if not the full package with the fancy booklet and DVD. If you're a Billy Joel fan, you probably already have it. If you're not a fan, but you appreciate good songs and great live performances, you'll enjoy the bonus material. And The Stranger is a classic album that you should have in your collection if you don't already. If you’ve got an extra $100 bucks lying around, you may still be able to get the special edition that WLIW television (Long Island’s PBS station) was hawking earlier this week.
One of the things that I always hated about the industry was the "remastered" album. That and the greatest hits package that threw in one or two new songs. In these days of single song downloads on iTunes, I guess that’s not as much of a problem, but back not too long ago, it wasn't easy to get those additional songs without buying the whole greatest hits package. Not a big deal if you're not a big fan of the artist and don’t already have the artist’s prior albums or an earlier greatest hits album - I have several greatest hits packages for bands and artists that I'm not huge fans of, but that's because I didn't have any of their previous albums. So that worked out well for me. But what if you are a huge fan of a given artist? What then?
I am a huge Billy Joel fan, as is a large percentage of the population of Long Island, where we’re both from. I think it's actually a law that at least one member of every family that lives on Long Island must be a devoted Billy Joel fan and possess at least one of the several greatest hits packages his label has released over the years. I guess I should clarify somewhat: I'm a huge fan of Billy Joel up until about 1980. Glass Houses. Maybe some Nylon Curtain. After that, things started to go downhill for me (with the exception of Songs In The Attic, but that was a live concert of his earlier songs, so that doesn't count in my book). Sure there's a good song or two (or maybe 3) on his later albums, but those albums pale in comparison to albums like The Stranger, 52nd Street, and Turnstiles.
I have just about every one of Billy Joel's albums on CD. Sorry, no Cold Spring Harbor (I can't get past the whole mastering issue; I guess I'm not much into chipmunks), and not that Russian album either (though I do have it on cassette). I did go ahead and buy his greatest hits package when it first came out, and my wife bought the box set they released a few years ago, that had some additional live recordings. So when I heard that they were coming out with a remastered version of The Stranger on its 30th anniversary I yawned. I am not an audiophile. I mostly listen to my music on my iPod on the train, or in my car. Not necessarily the best conditions for listening to music, given all the background noise, so I saw no need to go and spend money on yet another copy of the album, even if it was of superior audio quality to the copy that I already have.
But I think the good folks at Columbia records knew this. They weren't just going to release a remastered edition. Oh, no, not them. They would come up with some additional material that would surely entice people to pick up the re-release. And they weren't going to release just one version of their special package either. How do I know this? Well, I went into Best Buy recently to purchase equipment for my computer. On my way out, I happened to see a large box with The Stranger cover image on it. I had to stop and check it out. Remastered album, check. But then came the good stuff. A recording of a concert Billy Joel gave at Radio City Music Hall in 1977, and some DVD with that I think was a making of the album documentary and some of his live performances (I obviously didn’t buy this one, mostly because it was selling for around $45 and I'm a notoriously frugal person). I was initially slightly bummed, but then I looked down. And there it was: the affordable version. No DVD, no special booklet. Just the remastered original album and the Radio City CD. And for just $15. But wait, there's more. Because, in typical Best Buy fashion, they had an exclusive deal. Their deal included a bonus disc with tracks recorded live at Nassau Coliseum in December, 1977. For those who aren't familiar, that's the coliseum on Long Island where the New York Islanders hockey team plays. Sweet Georgia Brown! Billy Joel practically owns the joint. A CD recording of one of his concerts there? Not quite the motherload, since it only includes 5 tracks, but I was still giddy with excitement and snatched up a copy.
Some background. In my collection of cassette tapes, I have several copies of Billy Joel concerts from the 1970s that were recorded off of Long Island radio station WBAB, which broadcast them. These are pure gold and some of my favorite recordings to listen to...when I have access to a cassette player. Billy Joel in his prime. It's my firm belief that Billy Joel was not meant to record in a studio. I think all of his albums should have been live albums. Anyone who has listened to the original recordings of the songs on Songs in the Attic can attest to that. But Songs in the Attic doesn't have songs like “Angry Young Man,” “The Entertainer,” and “Souvenir.”
The Radio City concert disc does! Granted some of the live recordings that Billy has released over the last few years have these songs on them. But his performances on 12 Gardens pales in comparison to his live performances from the 1970s. It's not even close. The purity and power of his voice, the way he attacks the songs, even his attitude in delivery are worlds apart. It's the performance of someone in his 30's {VERIFY}, not someone 30 or so years removed.
Remember that these songs were new back then. New enough to still have meaning. He hadn't gotten sick and tired of them yet. Hell, there's something incredible about hearing him say that “Just the Way You Are” is a new song, or dedicating “Scenes From an Italian Restaurant” to Christianos restaurant. I was too young when these songs came out to appreciate their freshness back then.
I can see why Columbia wouldn't have released the Radio City album before. Radio City doesn't have the capacity of a larger venue like Madison Square Garden or Nassau Coliseum, where you can get the roar of the crowd on the recording. It's a more intimate setting, even if it does hold a few thousand people. And Billy Joel feeds off of crowds. The performances of songs like “Captain Jack” aren't as heated and fiery as the ones on Songs In The Attic. But the quality of the performance is still there. In fact, I would suggest to Columbia that they release recordings of those concerts I have on cassette in my basement from Nassau Coliseum. I'd buy them.
The Best Buy bonus disc with the 5 songs from the Coliseum is sadly too short. It's got some of the same songs from the Radio City disc, but a Nassau Coliseum performance on his home turf is nothing like a New York City performance, so I expected the bonus disc to be a little piece of gold. And, while it’s ok, it’s nothing like the recordings I have on cassette. Sorry Best Buy, but the disc doesn’t include any of the banter that make his shows great (and that is present on the Radio City CD), and it only has one of the songs (“The Ballad of Billy The Kid”) that really get the Long Island crowd going, with its New York or Long Island references. What, no “Scenes From An Italian Restaurant”? No “New York State of Mind”?
So go out and buy this release, if not the full package with the fancy booklet and DVD. If you're a Billy Joel fan, you probably already have it. If you're not a fan, but you appreciate good songs and great live performances, you'll enjoy the bonus material. And The Stranger is a classic album that you should have in your collection if you don't already. If you’ve got an extra $100 bucks lying around, you may still be able to get the special edition that WLIW television (Long Island’s PBS station) was hawking earlier this week.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Why I support Obama.
I follow politics pretty closely. That won't come as a surprise to those of you who know me. I am also a registered Democrat, though I consider myself more of an independent. In this election cycle, and with the current administration we have, there's just no way that I can support another Republican running for president. I have the utmost respect for John McCain the man and for his service to this country. I had more respect for John McCain the Senator during his earlier campaigns for president when he was riding the "Straight Talk Express." It's one of the reasons why I like Barack Obama. Tell it like it is, not like you want me to think it is. Unfortunately, McCain ain't doing that these days. He opted for public financing of his campaign and now he's opting out, after taking the public money. Some reports say that's illegal. But with the Federal Election Commission out of...commission, there will likely be little fallout for McCain. But then his campaign starts buzzing about how Obama once said he would opt for public funding in the general election and now he's equivocating about it. Sorry, McCain, you lose the high ground here and the ability to hold Obama to his earlier statements, if Obama is the Democratic candidate.
McCain also has lobbyists running his campaign. Lots of 'em. So whose interests do you think he'll be looking out for, yours, or those of the lobbyists' clients and corporations. McCain voted against George Bush's tax cuts twice, but now says he wants to make them permanent. I would argue that the country was in better financial shape when he voted against the cuts than it is now. Why does it make sense now to make the tax cut permanent? Flippity floppity Mr. McCain. This country has run a $400 billion deficit these past few years. We spend more than we earn now, and he wants to cut taxes even further? Contrary to core Republican beliefs, economic growth is not going to eliminate this deficit. And please don't fool yourself. If Bush or McCain cuts your federal taxes, all that really means is that your state and local taxes will increase to cover things like education and Medicaid. Or those programs will get cut. I'm currently working with my local school district's budget committee. If we don't get the tax money from the federal government, then we either raise school taxes or cut vital school programs, which we, like most of you, can't afford to do.
McCain is also fine with us staying in Iraq for another 100 years, has joked about bombing Iran, and has said that there will be other wars. Holy shit, man, that's just more of the same Bush nonsense, and this country can't take it. And if you keep the tax cuts or cut taxes even further, how the hell are we supposed to pay for all of the wars?
I think either Democratic candidate would be better for this country than John McCain, though I support Obama. Given the choice between someone who has been in Washington for a while now and someone who hasn't; between someone who won't forgo lobbyist money and someone who will (and who has raised most, if not all, of his money from individuals and not lobbyists), I'll take the latter. And that's Barack Obama.
Hilary Clinton likes to tout her executive and foreign policy experience. Um, what the hell is she talking about? She was first lady and a carpet-bagging Senator from my home state of New York. Nothing to sneeze at necessarily, but nothing that gives you the experience of running the most powerful country on the planet. If living in the White House gives you the experience to be president, then Laura Bush should succeed her husband, because she will have had just as much experience there as Hilary at the end of the Bush nightmare. But if experience were the all important factor in deciding who would make a better president, then I guess John McCain, old as dirt, should win by a landslide. Arguably so. But how important is experience anyway?
I think it's judgment that matters more than experience. And I put my trust in the judgment of Obama. Why? Well, he has said he would sit down with the leaders of countries that are our "enemies." Good for him. We have seen how well the foreign policies of the Bush administration have worked, right? And he, unlike Hilary, isn't beholden to lobbyists. You can't take money from the lobbyists and not tell me you aren't beholden to them. I want someone in there who will be more likely to stop the subsidies for oil companies that make $40 billion in annual profits while the entire country suffers from the high price of oil. I want the person who has taken money from the people and who would be beholden to the people of this country. Too many tax dollars are going into the pockets of oil companies and defense contractors. That needs to stop. We need to put money back into this country; into infrastructure, which will create jobs here in America. We don't need to send our tax dollars overseas to buy new airplanes for our military, or send money to corrupt contractors in Iraq who somehow can't keep accurate accounts of where that money went. Keep that money here and in the pockets of lower and middle class Americans.
I agree that Obama is much more of an unknown than is Hilary Clinton. But Obama is able to inspire people, and what we as a country need now more than ever is someone to inspire us to greatness, rather than a status quo Washington insider or a continuation of the same old Republican put-money-in-the-pockets-of-the-rich policies. I'm tired of no-bid military contracts with no oversight. I'm tired of governmental incompetence. And lord help me I want a president who can speak the English language properly. Republicans think government is the problem. So if you put them in charge of the government, they are going to do their best to run government into the ground, as they have proven time and again. A John McCain presidency will just be a third Bush term. This country...no, the entire world, can not afford that any longer.
I am not a fan of higher taxes. I am not a fan, necessarily, of big government. But I'm also not a big fan of big, unfettered capitalism. That's what gets you Enron. That's what gets you the sub-prime mess. And we've all seen what the free market has given us with respect to health care. No, it's time for something different. And while I think Hilary would make a fine president, I think Obama would make a great president.
McCain also has lobbyists running his campaign. Lots of 'em. So whose interests do you think he'll be looking out for, yours, or those of the lobbyists' clients and corporations. McCain voted against George Bush's tax cuts twice, but now says he wants to make them permanent. I would argue that the country was in better financial shape when he voted against the cuts than it is now. Why does it make sense now to make the tax cut permanent? Flippity floppity Mr. McCain. This country has run a $400 billion deficit these past few years. We spend more than we earn now, and he wants to cut taxes even further? Contrary to core Republican beliefs, economic growth is not going to eliminate this deficit. And please don't fool yourself. If Bush or McCain cuts your federal taxes, all that really means is that your state and local taxes will increase to cover things like education and Medicaid. Or those programs will get cut. I'm currently working with my local school district's budget committee. If we don't get the tax money from the federal government, then we either raise school taxes or cut vital school programs, which we, like most of you, can't afford to do.
McCain is also fine with us staying in Iraq for another 100 years, has joked about bombing Iran, and has said that there will be other wars. Holy shit, man, that's just more of the same Bush nonsense, and this country can't take it. And if you keep the tax cuts or cut taxes even further, how the hell are we supposed to pay for all of the wars?
I think either Democratic candidate would be better for this country than John McCain, though I support Obama. Given the choice between someone who has been in Washington for a while now and someone who hasn't; between someone who won't forgo lobbyist money and someone who will (and who has raised most, if not all, of his money from individuals and not lobbyists), I'll take the latter. And that's Barack Obama.
Hilary Clinton likes to tout her executive and foreign policy experience. Um, what the hell is she talking about? She was first lady and a carpet-bagging Senator from my home state of New York. Nothing to sneeze at necessarily, but nothing that gives you the experience of running the most powerful country on the planet. If living in the White House gives you the experience to be president, then Laura Bush should succeed her husband, because she will have had just as much experience there as Hilary at the end of the Bush nightmare. But if experience were the all important factor in deciding who would make a better president, then I guess John McCain, old as dirt, should win by a landslide. Arguably so. But how important is experience anyway?
I think it's judgment that matters more than experience. And I put my trust in the judgment of Obama. Why? Well, he has said he would sit down with the leaders of countries that are our "enemies." Good for him. We have seen how well the foreign policies of the Bush administration have worked, right? And he, unlike Hilary, isn't beholden to lobbyists. You can't take money from the lobbyists and not tell me you aren't beholden to them. I want someone in there who will be more likely to stop the subsidies for oil companies that make $40 billion in annual profits while the entire country suffers from the high price of oil. I want the person who has taken money from the people and who would be beholden to the people of this country. Too many tax dollars are going into the pockets of oil companies and defense contractors. That needs to stop. We need to put money back into this country; into infrastructure, which will create jobs here in America. We don't need to send our tax dollars overseas to buy new airplanes for our military, or send money to corrupt contractors in Iraq who somehow can't keep accurate accounts of where that money went. Keep that money here and in the pockets of lower and middle class Americans.
I agree that Obama is much more of an unknown than is Hilary Clinton. But Obama is able to inspire people, and what we as a country need now more than ever is someone to inspire us to greatness, rather than a status quo Washington insider or a continuation of the same old Republican put-money-in-the-pockets-of-the-rich policies. I'm tired of no-bid military contracts with no oversight. I'm tired of governmental incompetence. And lord help me I want a president who can speak the English language properly. Republicans think government is the problem. So if you put them in charge of the government, they are going to do their best to run government into the ground, as they have proven time and again. A John McCain presidency will just be a third Bush term. This country...no, the entire world, can not afford that any longer.
I am not a fan of higher taxes. I am not a fan, necessarily, of big government. But I'm also not a big fan of big, unfettered capitalism. That's what gets you Enron. That's what gets you the sub-prime mess. And we've all seen what the free market has given us with respect to health care. No, it's time for something different. And while I think Hilary would make a fine president, I think Obama would make a great president.
Monday, February 18, 2008
A lot of ob/gyns aren't able to practice their love with women...
"Too many OB/GYN's aren't able to practice their love with women all across the country." Remember that quote from our decider-in-chief? Of course you do. As most things that come out of his mouth, this quote sounded utterly ridiculous. But getting past the fact that our president can't very often put his words together so that they sound even remotely intelligent, the idea behind it did make sense - malpractice insurance is making it tough for doctors these days. I hadn't thought much about this until my wife recently had a regular checkup scheduled with her ob/gyn. The doctor who delivered both of our daughters, who are fast approaching the ages of 6 and 8, which means my wife has been seeing him for almost 9 years now, as have several of my friends. But when my wife called up to make an appointment, the only hours he offered were after 4pm, 2 days during the work week, or early Saturdays. Not the most convenient hours, since my wife likes to be able to visit her doctors without dragging along the kids (so the weekdays weren't good), and she didn't want to take time away from the kids on a Saturday. But she had no choice, since this was all he was offering. But why?
When she went in to see the doctor, she asked him what was up. Turns out he gave up all of his OB patients and was now teaching at a hospital, taking only GYN patients. Why? Because he said his malpractice insurance premium was $150,000 a year. Now I admit that I don't know how much revenue a typical ob/gyn takes in on Long Island (where we live), but $150,000 seems like a pretty hefty bit of overhead. And if you figure in staff salaries and the cost of maintaining a physical office space (rent, utilities, etc.), it's got to cost a pretty penny to be a doctor these days, though I imagine the payoff is still pretty good.
I don't envy the man and don't blame him for cutting back, especially when he told my wife that he had been sued by a former patient 5 years after he delivered her baby because the child showed developmental problems and "he must have done something." That's apparently what the woman's lawyer said. The doctor won the case, but it left him a little less enamored of the practice.
According to an article in today's Newsday (the main newspaper for Long Island) (http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzcov0218,0,7238563.story), one ob/gyn said he had to do 64 deliveries just to pay his malpractice insurance. Again, not being familiar with the intricacies of an ob/gyn practice, I don't know how many deliveries one doctor could conceivably handle in one year, what with office visits and gyn patients, but I have to think that that's a lot of deliveries. I'm familiar with the annual calculation of how many days the average person has to work just to pay their taxes, but given the added expense of malpractice insurance, I have to imagine an ob/gyn has to work that much longer in order just to break even.
Fortunately for my wife and I, we're done having kids, so we don't need to worry about finding a new OB doctor, but my wife's doctor was good, and he also did a lot of fertility work, so Long Island is short another highly qualified ob/gyn.
Now I'm a lawyer, but I'm not a litigator and I'm not going to defend litigators, especially when I hear of cases like the one mentioned above. I think litigators often bring cases just because they know they can get a decent settlement even if they don't win, or because, when they do win, the awards are extraordinary, so even a low winning percentage means a huge payout overall. I also think the insurers are at fault as they are all to quick to offer settlements because they can then hike up the doctor's premium (I'm not a big fan of insurance companies, by the way). I don't think capping awards is the way to settle this, but I think harsher penalties on lawyers who file frivolous suits or who have a propensity for bringing questionable claims, and more governance of insurance companies is probably a good place to start. But I also think we as a society have become too litigation happy, and we need to do something about that too.
When she went in to see the doctor, she asked him what was up. Turns out he gave up all of his OB patients and was now teaching at a hospital, taking only GYN patients. Why? Because he said his malpractice insurance premium was $150,000 a year. Now I admit that I don't know how much revenue a typical ob/gyn takes in on Long Island (where we live), but $150,000 seems like a pretty hefty bit of overhead. And if you figure in staff salaries and the cost of maintaining a physical office space (rent, utilities, etc.), it's got to cost a pretty penny to be a doctor these days, though I imagine the payoff is still pretty good.
I don't envy the man and don't blame him for cutting back, especially when he told my wife that he had been sued by a former patient 5 years after he delivered her baby because the child showed developmental problems and "he must have done something." That's apparently what the woman's lawyer said. The doctor won the case, but it left him a little less enamored of the practice.
According to an article in today's Newsday (the main newspaper for Long Island) (http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzcov0218,0,7238563.story), one ob/gyn said he had to do 64 deliveries just to pay his malpractice insurance. Again, not being familiar with the intricacies of an ob/gyn practice, I don't know how many deliveries one doctor could conceivably handle in one year, what with office visits and gyn patients, but I have to think that that's a lot of deliveries. I'm familiar with the annual calculation of how many days the average person has to work just to pay their taxes, but given the added expense of malpractice insurance, I have to imagine an ob/gyn has to work that much longer in order just to break even.
Fortunately for my wife and I, we're done having kids, so we don't need to worry about finding a new OB doctor, but my wife's doctor was good, and he also did a lot of fertility work, so Long Island is short another highly qualified ob/gyn.
Now I'm a lawyer, but I'm not a litigator and I'm not going to defend litigators, especially when I hear of cases like the one mentioned above. I think litigators often bring cases just because they know they can get a decent settlement even if they don't win, or because, when they do win, the awards are extraordinary, so even a low winning percentage means a huge payout overall. I also think the insurers are at fault as they are all to quick to offer settlements because they can then hike up the doctor's premium (I'm not a big fan of insurance companies, by the way). I don't think capping awards is the way to settle this, but I think harsher penalties on lawyers who file frivolous suits or who have a propensity for bringing questionable claims, and more governance of insurance companies is probably a good place to start. But I also think we as a society have become too litigation happy, and we need to do something about that too.
Monday, February 11, 2008
A life taken
So, a bit of a downer this time around. I was going to ruminate on the Grammy’s, but I found out today that a friend of mine committed suicide. Well, I use the term “friend” a bit loosely here. She was the ex-wife of a good friend. I’ve known her for about 23 years. She came into my life in an unusual way and went out in a way that I wouldn’t have expected. Then again, I haven’t seen her in a few years, so I don’t know what’s been going on with her recently.
I first met her when we were both around the age of 15. Well, I know she was 15 and I think we’re the same age, so I figure I was 15 also. She started dating my brother’s best friend around that time. And she already had a kid, which was totally unfathomable to me at the time. I don’t recall what the circumstances were at the time, but she and her kid came to live with us for a while, I think because her parents kicked her out or something like that. But I always felt she was a bit off, if you know what I mean. She would get dressed up in high heels and mini-skirts just to walk her daughter around the block in her stroller. Not the typical motherly thing to do, me thinks. Her sexuality was a bit uncomfortable for me and my two teenage brothers, and that’s probably why my parents asked her to move out not too soon after she moved in.
But she was with my brother’s best friend, so we all accepted her, to one extent or another. They ended up getting married and having three more kids. I even worked with them to have him adopt her first daughter, but that never happened. She later took to rescuing animals and keeping a bunch of them in their home, which I thought was admirable. Then she went back to school to become, I think, a medical assistant of some sort. The two of them had a falling out with my brother and his wife a few years back and then they ended up moving to Florida for better work opportunities (not necessarily to get away from my brother). That’s when we sort of lost touch with the both of them. At first I would keep in touch with the husband via email, but then that petered out. Over the past few years I haven’t heard much of anything from either of them, except through his sister, who is one of my good friends from grade school. They got divorced some time in the past couple of years, I think.
Today I heard from my brother that this woman hung herself. Totally caught me off guard. You know, it’s one of those things that just doesn’t happen to people I know. I see it on the news or hear about it happening to someone else’s friend or relative, but not anyone I know. I guess she had some psychological problems over the past few years, and the divorce probably didn’t help things.
I called over to my friend’s house (the sister, not the ex-husband), and the oldest daughter of the woman who killed herself answered the phone – the one who lived with us when she was an infant. Again, totally caught me off guard. I knew it was her but didn’t know how to deal with it, so I first asked to speak with my friend (the girl’s aunt – not home) or my friend’s husband (sleeping). So I had to talk to her, which made me uncomfortable, because I’m not good at handling death, and I’m especially not good at talking to someone so directly affected by it. She was a lot more cool with it than I was. I guess it hasn’t hit her yet – that her mom killed herself - but she was rock steady on the phone. Amazing. She said she was looking at pictures of a bunch of us holding her when she was an infant. And that’s how I still picture her, since I haven’t had a lot of contact with her over the years. But she’s all grown up now and, from all reports, she’s turned into a fine young lady. Not quite the mirror image of her mom, and that’s got to be a good thing. I just hope that she, her younger siblings and her father stay strong through this messy situation. I’m not sure how I would have handled this situation at age 23.
I first met her when we were both around the age of 15. Well, I know she was 15 and I think we’re the same age, so I figure I was 15 also. She started dating my brother’s best friend around that time. And she already had a kid, which was totally unfathomable to me at the time. I don’t recall what the circumstances were at the time, but she and her kid came to live with us for a while, I think because her parents kicked her out or something like that. But I always felt she was a bit off, if you know what I mean. She would get dressed up in high heels and mini-skirts just to walk her daughter around the block in her stroller. Not the typical motherly thing to do, me thinks. Her sexuality was a bit uncomfortable for me and my two teenage brothers, and that’s probably why my parents asked her to move out not too soon after she moved in.
But she was with my brother’s best friend, so we all accepted her, to one extent or another. They ended up getting married and having three more kids. I even worked with them to have him adopt her first daughter, but that never happened. She later took to rescuing animals and keeping a bunch of them in their home, which I thought was admirable. Then she went back to school to become, I think, a medical assistant of some sort. The two of them had a falling out with my brother and his wife a few years back and then they ended up moving to Florida for better work opportunities (not necessarily to get away from my brother). That’s when we sort of lost touch with the both of them. At first I would keep in touch with the husband via email, but then that petered out. Over the past few years I haven’t heard much of anything from either of them, except through his sister, who is one of my good friends from grade school. They got divorced some time in the past couple of years, I think.
Today I heard from my brother that this woman hung herself. Totally caught me off guard. You know, it’s one of those things that just doesn’t happen to people I know. I see it on the news or hear about it happening to someone else’s friend or relative, but not anyone I know. I guess she had some psychological problems over the past few years, and the divorce probably didn’t help things.
I called over to my friend’s house (the sister, not the ex-husband), and the oldest daughter of the woman who killed herself answered the phone – the one who lived with us when she was an infant. Again, totally caught me off guard. I knew it was her but didn’t know how to deal with it, so I first asked to speak with my friend (the girl’s aunt – not home) or my friend’s husband (sleeping). So I had to talk to her, which made me uncomfortable, because I’m not good at handling death, and I’m especially not good at talking to someone so directly affected by it. She was a lot more cool with it than I was. I guess it hasn’t hit her yet – that her mom killed herself - but she was rock steady on the phone. Amazing. She said she was looking at pictures of a bunch of us holding her when she was an infant. And that’s how I still picture her, since I haven’t had a lot of contact with her over the years. But she’s all grown up now and, from all reports, she’s turned into a fine young lady. Not quite the mirror image of her mom, and that’s got to be a good thing. I just hope that she, her younger siblings and her father stay strong through this messy situation. I’m not sure how I would have handled this situation at age 23.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)