So, I went to the office today with a firm commitment: I was not going to eat any junk food. No way, no how, no bad food. To help me with the commitment, I went to go buy some sugar-free gum, a crutch to help me get over the moments of temptations. I walked to a nearby convenience store, picked up a package of gum, and proceeded to the service counter.
As I paid for my purchase, an employee leaned over the nearby ice-cream counter and asked, "Excuse me, sir, would you like this free chocolate malt?" Arrgh! Apparently, they had made an extra malt during a training session and wanted to give it away.
I tried to resist, but couldn't. I am a weak and sinful man.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Sorting out the truth [Bryan]
Sometimes, people ask me how they can determine who is telling the truth in political debates. The mainstream media isn't very good about this. They usually tell us that "Republicans claim X" while "Democrats deny X," and don't try to explain who is telling the truth. The best way, in my mind, to determine the truth in such matters is to look at prominent fact checking websites like Factcheck.org and Politifact.org. These sites bend over backwards to try to be fair, and they can be found debunking claims by both liberals and conservatives. The other day I heard someone claim that health care reform would euthanize the elderly, and I thought I would check Politifact about this and other such claims about health care. Politifact classifies each claim according to a scale, the lowest scales of truth being "false" and, last of all, "pants-on-fire false."
Claim: "The Democrat-backed health care reform plan will require (Americans) to subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars."
Politifact says: False
Claim: "Page 992 of the health care bill will establish school-based 'health' clinics.Your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted!"
Politifact says: Pants-on-fire false. (Nothing like that has been proposed)
Claim: "Health care reform legislation is likely to mandate free ‘sex change’ surgeries.”
Politifact says: False. (No such mandate has been proposed)
Claim: "All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services"
Politifact says: Pants-on-fire false. (The proposals say exactly the opposite)
Claim: "In the health care bill, the 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None."
Politifact says: Pants-on-fire false. (The proposed health insurance commissioner has nothing do do with choosing your benefits, only making sure insurance companies stick to the rules)
Claim: "The health care reform bill would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner."
Politifact says: Pants-on-fire false. ("The sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning.")
Claim: "Under a public health care option, 120 million Americans will lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage."
Politifact says: False.
Claim: "Under the Obama plan all the health care in this country is eventually going to be run by the government."
Politifact says: False.
Check it out yourself.
Claim: "The Democrat-backed health care reform plan will require (Americans) to subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars."
Politifact says: False
Claim: "Page 992 of the health care bill will establish school-based 'health' clinics.Your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted!"
Politifact says: Pants-on-fire false. (Nothing like that has been proposed)
Claim: "Health care reform legislation is likely to mandate free ‘sex change’ surgeries.”
Politifact says: False. (No such mandate has been proposed)
Claim: "All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free health care services"
Politifact says: Pants-on-fire false. (The proposals say exactly the opposite)
Claim: "In the health care bill, the 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None."
Politifact says: Pants-on-fire false. (The proposed health insurance commissioner has nothing do do with choosing your benefits, only making sure insurance companies stick to the rules)
Claim: "The health care reform bill would make it mandatory — absolutely require — that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner."
Politifact says: Pants-on-fire false. ("The sessions are an option for elderly patients who want to learn more about living wills, health care proxies and other forms of end-of-life planning.")
Claim: "Under a public health care option, 120 million Americans will lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage."
Politifact says: False.
Claim: "Under the Obama plan all the health care in this country is eventually going to be run by the government."
Politifact says: False.
Check it out yourself.
Friday, August 07, 2009
Pearlstein on Health Care Nonsense [Bryan]
Washington Post business writer Steven Pearlstein, hardly a flaming liberal, has a breathtakingly honest piece about health care reform today.
Question: Do the Democratic plans involve a government takeover of health care?
Answer: "There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation. Under any plan likely to emerge from Congress, the vast majority of Americans who are not old or poor will continue to buy health insurance from private companies, continue to get their health care from doctors in private practice and continue to be treated at privately owned hospitals."
Question: So what do the Democratic plans entail?
Answer: "The centerpiece of all the plans is a new health insurance exchange set up by the government where individuals, small businesses and eventually larger businesses will be able to purchase insurance from private insurers at lower rates than are now generally available under rules that require insurers to offer coverage to anyone regardless of health condition. Low-income workers buying insurance through the exchange -- along with their employers -- would be eligible for government subsidies. While the government will take a more active role in regulating the insurance market and increase its spending for health care, that hardly amounts to the kind of government-run system that critics conjure up when they trot out that oh-so-clever line about the Department of Motor Vehicles being in charge of your colonoscopy."
Question: Won't health care reform cost a trillion dollars?
"Another lie. First of all, that's not a trillion every year, as most people assume -- it's a trillion over 10 years, which is the silly way that people in Washington talk about federal budgets. On an annual basis, that translates to about $140 billion, when things are up and running.
Even that, however, grossly overstates the net cost to the government of providing universal coverage. Other parts of the reform plan would result in offsetting savings for Medicare: reductions in unnecessary subsidies to private insurers, in annual increases in payments rates for doctors and in payments to hospitals for providing free care to the uninsured. The net increase in government spending for health care would likely be about $100 billion a year, a one-time increase equal to less than 1 percent of a national income that grows at an average rate of 2.5 percent every year."
Question: But don't the Republicans want to save costs?
Answer: "The Republican lies about the economics of health reform are also heavily laced with hypocrisy. While holding themselves out as paragons of fiscal rectitude, Republicans grandstand against just about every idea to reduce the amount of health care people consume or the prices paid to health-care providers -- the only two ways I can think of to credibly bring health spending under control.
When Democrats, for example, propose to fund research to give doctors, patients and health plans better information on what works and what doesn't, Republicans sense a sinister plot to have the government decide what treatments you will get. By the same wacko-logic, a proposal that Medicare pay for counseling on end-of-life care is transformed into a secret plan for mass euthanasia of the elderly. Government negotiation on drug prices? The end of medical innovation as we know it. ... Reduce Medicare payments to overpriced specialists and inefficient hospitals? The first step on the slippery slope toward rationing."
Question: Who is being honest in this debate?
Answer: "The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition..."
Question: So, what is at stake in this debate?
Answer: "Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done."
Question: Do the Democratic plans involve a government takeover of health care?
Answer: "There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation. Under any plan likely to emerge from Congress, the vast majority of Americans who are not old or poor will continue to buy health insurance from private companies, continue to get their health care from doctors in private practice and continue to be treated at privately owned hospitals."
Question: So what do the Democratic plans entail?
Answer: "The centerpiece of all the plans is a new health insurance exchange set up by the government where individuals, small businesses and eventually larger businesses will be able to purchase insurance from private insurers at lower rates than are now generally available under rules that require insurers to offer coverage to anyone regardless of health condition. Low-income workers buying insurance through the exchange -- along with their employers -- would be eligible for government subsidies. While the government will take a more active role in regulating the insurance market and increase its spending for health care, that hardly amounts to the kind of government-run system that critics conjure up when they trot out that oh-so-clever line about the Department of Motor Vehicles being in charge of your colonoscopy."
Question: Won't health care reform cost a trillion dollars?
"Another lie. First of all, that's not a trillion every year, as most people assume -- it's a trillion over 10 years, which is the silly way that people in Washington talk about federal budgets. On an annual basis, that translates to about $140 billion, when things are up and running.
Even that, however, grossly overstates the net cost to the government of providing universal coverage. Other parts of the reform plan would result in offsetting savings for Medicare: reductions in unnecessary subsidies to private insurers, in annual increases in payments rates for doctors and in payments to hospitals for providing free care to the uninsured. The net increase in government spending for health care would likely be about $100 billion a year, a one-time increase equal to less than 1 percent of a national income that grows at an average rate of 2.5 percent every year."
Question: But don't the Republicans want to save costs?
Answer: "The Republican lies about the economics of health reform are also heavily laced with hypocrisy. While holding themselves out as paragons of fiscal rectitude, Republicans grandstand against just about every idea to reduce the amount of health care people consume or the prices paid to health-care providers -- the only two ways I can think of to credibly bring health spending under control.
When Democrats, for example, propose to fund research to give doctors, patients and health plans better information on what works and what doesn't, Republicans sense a sinister plot to have the government decide what treatments you will get. By the same wacko-logic, a proposal that Medicare pay for counseling on end-of-life care is transformed into a secret plan for mass euthanasia of the elderly. Government negotiation on drug prices? The end of medical innovation as we know it. ... Reduce Medicare payments to overpriced specialists and inefficient hospitals? The first step on the slippery slope toward rationing."
Question: Who is being honest in this debate?
Answer: "The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition..."
Question: So, what is at stake in this debate?
Answer: "Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done."
Friday, July 31, 2009
Cruel Paradoxes of Parenting [Bryan]
Parenting is full of contradictions. On the one hand, you want your children to grow up, becoming more independent, maturing, developing their personalities, their confidence growing and horizons expanding, testing themselves against the world. On the other hand, you treasure those little hands, those eyes who see in you ultimate wisdom and protection, who see you as ultimate playmate, who beam with joy and laughter when you come home from work. I have never known a relationship as intimate as I have with my children. I have watched them every step of their lives, and there is little, if anything, I don't know about them.
And yet, this will all change. And it is my job to make it change, to turn my little ones into people that I might only see once or twice or year (as I see my parents), or talk to on the telephone every now and then. In some ways, I can't wait for them to grow up; in other ways, I can't imagine anything more dreadful.
And Michael Gerson writes today, "So this is the independence we seek for our children -- to turn our closest relationships into acquaintances. Of course, I knew this getting into parenthood. But the reality remains shocking. For a time, small hands take your own -- children look upward, and you fill their entire universe. They remain, to you, the most important things in the world. To them, over time, you become one important thing among many. And then an occasional visit or phone call. And then a memory, fond or otherwise."
And yet, this will all change. And it is my job to make it change, to turn my little ones into people that I might only see once or twice or year (as I see my parents), or talk to on the telephone every now and then. In some ways, I can't wait for them to grow up; in other ways, I can't imagine anything more dreadful.
And Michael Gerson writes today, "So this is the independence we seek for our children -- to turn our closest relationships into acquaintances. Of course, I knew this getting into parenthood. But the reality remains shocking. For a time, small hands take your own -- children look upward, and you fill their entire universe. They remain, to you, the most important things in the world. To them, over time, you become one important thing among many. And then an occasional visit or phone call. And then a memory, fond or otherwise."
Krugman on Health Care Nonsense [Bryan]
More health care blogging today.
Paul Krugman has an excellent column today in the New York Times. He begins with an amusing anecdote about a man who recently exclaimed during a recent town hall meeting: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare." Not only is this quote funny (Medicare is, of course, a government program), but it is also instructive. People simply don't know how health care works in this country. Americans covered by Medicare generally report being more satisfied with their coverage than do people covered by private insurance; however, they often don't think of Medicare in terms of a government program. It is, in fact, America's best example of "single payer," socialized medicine. In short, people love "socialized" medicine, but don't know it. The same goes for other government interventions. Krugman argues:
Paul Krugman has an excellent column today in the New York Times. He begins with an amusing anecdote about a man who recently exclaimed during a recent town hall meeting: "Keep your government hands off my Medicare." Not only is this quote funny (Medicare is, of course, a government program), but it is also instructive. People simply don't know how health care works in this country. Americans covered by Medicare generally report being more satisfied with their coverage than do people covered by private insurance; however, they often don't think of Medicare in terms of a government program. It is, in fact, America's best example of "single payer," socialized medicine. In short, people love "socialized" medicine, but don't know it. The same goes for other government interventions. Krugman argues:
Yet private markets for health insurance, left to their own devices, work very badly: insurers deny as many claims as possible, and they also try to avoid covering people who are likely to need care. Horror stories are legion....
And in their efforts to avoid “medical losses,” the industry term for paying medical bills, insurers spend much of the money taken in through premiums not on medical treatment, but on “underwriting” — screening out people likely to make insurance claims. In the individual insurance market, where people buy insurance directly rather than getting it through their employers, so much money goes into underwriting and other expenses that only around 70 cents of each premium dollar actually goes to care.
Still, most Americans do have health insurance, and are reasonably satisfied with it. How is that possible, when insurance markets work so badly? The answer is government intervention.
Most obviously, the government directly provides insurance via Medicare and other programs. Before Medicare was established, more than 40 percent of elderly Americans lacked any kind of health insurance. Today, Medicare — which is, by the way, one of those “single payer” systems conservatives love to demonize — covers everyone 65 and older....
Still, most Americans under 65 do have some form of private insurance. The vast majority, however, don’t buy it directly: they get it through their employers. There’s a big tax advantage to doing it that way, since employer contributions to health care aren’t considered taxable income. But to get that tax advantage employers have to follow a number of rules; roughly speaking, they can’t discriminate based on pre-existing medical conditions or restrict benefits to highly paid employees.
And it’s thanks to these rules that employment-based insurance more or less works, at least in the sense that horror stories are a lot less common than they are in the individual insurance market.
So here’s the bottom line: if you currently have decent health insurance, thank the government. It’s true that if you’re young and healthy, with nothing in your medical history that could possibly have raised red flags with corporate accountants, you might have been able to get insurance without government intervention. But time and chance happen to us all, and the only reason you have a reasonable prospect of still having insurance coverage when you need it is the large role the government already plays.
Which brings us to the current debate over reform.
Right-wing opponents of reform would have you believe that President Obama is a wild-eyed socialist, attacking the free market. But unregulated markets don’t work for health care — never have, never will. To the extent we have a working health care system at all right now it’s only because the government covers the elderly, while a combination of regulation and tax subsidies makes it possible for many, but not all, nonelderly Americans to get decent private coverage.
Now Mr. Obama basically proposes using additional regulation and subsidies to make decent insurance available to all of us. That’s not radical; it’s as American as, well, Medicare.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Health Care Nonsense [Bryan]
I’ll be the first to admit that, like most other things, the health care debate is too complex for me to get my mind around. But there are some things that are clearly true, some things that are unknown, and some things that are just nonsense. Here is my attempt to sort of facts from nonsense.
Claim: We have the best health care system in the world.
Truth: This is wrong by pretty much any broad-based measure. We pay much more for health care than any other nation, yet many health outcomes (like life expectancy, infant mortality, and so forth) are worse here than in many other OECD countries. The World Health Organization ranks the USA health care system 37th, below such countries as Dominica and Costa Rica. True, we do some things well, like treat cancer. Overall, though, we are less healthy and we are paying much more money. Polls show that Americans are more dissatisfied with their health care than they are in many other developing countries.
Claim: But in other countries you can’t choose your own doctor.
Truth: The reality is, in fact, that in American you can’t choose your own doctor. I, for example, have a very limited choice of primary care doctors under my plan, which is a very generous plan.
Claim: But in other countries, you have to wait a long time for procedures.
Truth: Actually, polls show that our wait times are often longer than in other countries. In my family, for example, we have waited weeks to get a procedure for our baby Stephen (and, again, we have good insurance).
Claim: In other countries, they ration care.
Truth: We ration care in the this country. You may have noticed that your insurance company decides what you can and cannot have.
Claim: I don’t want a government bureaucrat making medical decisions.
Truth: Well, right now you have a corporate bureaucrat making your medical decisions. The trouble is, the corporate bureaucrat has a vested interest in denying you medical care. When insurance companies deny claims, they make more money; indeed, they have no interest is providing you care if they can legally get out of it. (And they do try to get out of it: check out the highly questionable practice of “rescission” sometimes exercised by insurance companies. If you made any sort of mistake at all in providing your medical history, no matter how trivial, they can void any claim you make thereafter at any time. Hence, we have people being denied treatment for breast cancer because they failed to list past acne treatments. Check out this report, about 30 minutes in.)
Claim: I don't want socialized medicine.
Truth: We already have "socialized" medicine, just a very inefficient form of it. We are socialized in that everyone can receive health care if they just go to the emergency room. Unfortunately, this is probably the most expensive way to take care of sick people, and guess who pays for it. You do. You are, in effect, already paying for an very inefficient type of socialized medicine. The question is not about socialized medicine, it is about being smart about socialized medicine.
Claim: But those darn liberals are going to take away my choices in medical care.
Truth: You don't have choices now. In most states, for example, you don’t have much choice in health insurance providers. Most states have a near monopoly of insurance providers. And, if you are employed, you have to take what your employer gives you.
Claim: Well, Obama is out to take away the few choices that remain.
Truth: No, actually, what he and Democrats have proposed is intended to give you more choices. You can keep what you have, if you want it, or enroll in a not-for-profit public insurance plan if that might better meet your needs. The public plan, if it is included in the bill, will give you a choice you don’t have now.
Claim: Markets are the best way to allocate resources. Government should not be involved.
Truth: I'm a big fan of markets. Markets are cool, nifty things. But markets are not a good way to allocate health care, morally speaking. For markets to work, we have to admit that it would be okay if certain people did not have a certain good. If some people can't afford a plasma TV, we must be prepared to accept that some people will go without. That is how demand is reduced. But, are you going to refuse breast cancer treatment to that single mom because she didn't have adequate insurance? True, if things are too expensive the market may adjust to make things cheaper. But let's be clear: things would adjust in such a way to maximize profit, not to take care of all the sick people.
Claim: We have the best health care system in the world.
Truth: This is wrong by pretty much any broad-based measure. We pay much more for health care than any other nation, yet many health outcomes (like life expectancy, infant mortality, and so forth) are worse here than in many other OECD countries. The World Health Organization ranks the USA health care system 37th, below such countries as Dominica and Costa Rica. True, we do some things well, like treat cancer. Overall, though, we are less healthy and we are paying much more money. Polls show that Americans are more dissatisfied with their health care than they are in many other developing countries.
Health Care Spending as Percent of GDP
Truth: The reality is, in fact, that in American you can’t choose your own doctor. I, for example, have a very limited choice of primary care doctors under my plan, which is a very generous plan.
Claim: But in other countries, you have to wait a long time for procedures.
Truth: Actually, polls show that our wait times are often longer than in other countries. In my family, for example, we have waited weeks to get a procedure for our baby Stephen (and, again, we have good insurance).
Claim: In other countries, they ration care.
Truth: We ration care in the this country. You may have noticed that your insurance company decides what you can and cannot have.
Claim: I don’t want a government bureaucrat making medical decisions.
Truth: Well, right now you have a corporate bureaucrat making your medical decisions. The trouble is, the corporate bureaucrat has a vested interest in denying you medical care. When insurance companies deny claims, they make more money; indeed, they have no interest is providing you care if they can legally get out of it. (And they do try to get out of it: check out the highly questionable practice of “rescission” sometimes exercised by insurance companies. If you made any sort of mistake at all in providing your medical history, no matter how trivial, they can void any claim you make thereafter at any time. Hence, we have people being denied treatment for breast cancer because they failed to list past acne treatments. Check out this report, about 30 minutes in.)
Claim: I don't want socialized medicine.
Truth: We already have "socialized" medicine, just a very inefficient form of it. We are socialized in that everyone can receive health care if they just go to the emergency room. Unfortunately, this is probably the most expensive way to take care of sick people, and guess who pays for it. You do. You are, in effect, already paying for an very inefficient type of socialized medicine. The question is not about socialized medicine, it is about being smart about socialized medicine.
Claim: But those darn liberals are going to take away my choices in medical care.
Truth: You don't have choices now. In most states, for example, you don’t have much choice in health insurance providers. Most states have a near monopoly of insurance providers. And, if you are employed, you have to take what your employer gives you.
Claim: Well, Obama is out to take away the few choices that remain.
Truth: No, actually, what he and Democrats have proposed is intended to give you more choices. You can keep what you have, if you want it, or enroll in a not-for-profit public insurance plan if that might better meet your needs. The public plan, if it is included in the bill, will give you a choice you don’t have now.
Claim: Markets are the best way to allocate resources. Government should not be involved.
Truth: I'm a big fan of markets. Markets are cool, nifty things. But markets are not a good way to allocate health care, morally speaking. For markets to work, we have to admit that it would be okay if certain people did not have a certain good. If some people can't afford a plasma TV, we must be prepared to accept that some people will go without. That is how demand is reduced. But, are you going to refuse breast cancer treatment to that single mom because she didn't have adequate insurance? True, if things are too expensive the market may adjust to make things cheaper. But let's be clear: things would adjust in such a way to maximize profit, not to take care of all the sick people.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Flexitarianism [Bryan]
So, people ask once in a while how our "semi-vegetarianism" is going. If you are one of those people curious to know about the food the Warnicks are shoveling into their bodies, this post is for you. I am pleased to report we have successfully cut out much of the meat from our diet. We usually only eat meat on weekends and special occasions. I'm told that this sort of diet is called "flexitarian." So be it.
Some comments on our experience:
1. Alas, our new diet actually hasn't saved us any money. Buying more fresh fruits and vegetables ends up costing as much as the meat did.
2. It has made me really enjoy cooking. Before, it was easy to just let meat carry the meal. Cooking without meat has made me more adventurous and made cooking really exciting for the first time. Ellie will tell you that I've pretty much taken over in the kitchen.
3. It has opened up a whole new world of food to us. I've been making Dal and Falafals, and perfecting the art of Kung Pao Tofu. Some favorite recipes we've found online include: Artichoke Lasagna, Hot and Spicy Tofu, Linguine With Snow Peas, Cucumber, and Peanut Sauce
4. We don't feel any sense of loss. We feel like we are doing the planet good and that we are living better the precepts of our religion (albeit a minor precept). I think we feel a little better physically. You could say, I guess, that it has been a success.
Some comments on our experience:
1. Alas, our new diet actually hasn't saved us any money. Buying more fresh fruits and vegetables ends up costing as much as the meat did.
2. It has made me really enjoy cooking. Before, it was easy to just let meat carry the meal. Cooking without meat has made me more adventurous and made cooking really exciting for the first time. Ellie will tell you that I've pretty much taken over in the kitchen.
3. It has opened up a whole new world of food to us. I've been making Dal and Falafals, and perfecting the art of Kung Pao Tofu. Some favorite recipes we've found online include: Artichoke Lasagna, Hot and Spicy Tofu, Linguine With Snow Peas, Cucumber, and Peanut Sauce
4. We don't feel any sense of loss. We feel like we are doing the planet good and that we are living better the precepts of our religion (albeit a minor precept). I think we feel a little better physically. You could say, I guess, that it has been a success.
Sarah Palin [Bryan]
She really is a piece of work, ain't she? Her resignation speech was one of the least coherent ramblings I have ever heard from a politician, and that is saying something. Between her and Mark Sanford, it appears all the right-wing governors of the country are going insane.
Summer Pictures [Bryan]
A busy summer so far, camping trip with friends, playing outside in the unusually nice weather, going to Cincinnati for a friend's wedding (congrats again Sarah!), celebrating holidays, taking care of the yard, and so forth.
One of the best parts of the Summer has been having Ellie's brother Sam and his wife Emily around. Sam is working up in Akron over the Summer. They have really made us feel connected to family again in a new way.
Here we are celebrating the Fourth. We went to the Hilliard parade, grilled hamburgers and brats out back, lit sparklers, and went to the Hilliard fireworks display (well, Ellie and the kids went anyway). Ellie said it was fun to watch the kids watch the fireworks, their eyes glued to the sky, mouths frozen in an awestruck smile, gasping and cheering. After each burst, Andrew would say, "That was my favorite." Then the next one would come and he'd say, "THAT was my favorite."
Ellie celebrated her 32nd birthday. Here she is opening presents. I gave her some "body butter" from Crabtree & Evelyn. Flavor: Avocado, Olive Oil, and Basil.
Sam also celebrated his birthday while he was here a few weeks ago. He turned 56.
Bryan and Ellie playing Guitar Hero.
Baby Stephen picture. Notice the strategically placed wash cloth.
On a sad note, somebody bashed out my car window in an attempt to steal...I'm not quite sure what. They didn't take anything, not even the Tic Tacs in my glove compartment. Hey guys, what part of "It doesn't even have a tape deck" do you not understand? To add insult to injury, the next day, while we were in Cincinnati, parked in the Newport Aquarium parking lot, somebody bashed into the bumper of our Highlander, then drove off without even leaving a note. Nice.
One of the best parts of the Summer has been having Ellie's brother Sam and his wife Emily around. Sam is working up in Akron over the Summer. They have really made us feel connected to family again in a new way.
Here we are celebrating the Fourth. We went to the Hilliard parade, grilled hamburgers and brats out back, lit sparklers, and went to the Hilliard fireworks display (well, Ellie and the kids went anyway). Ellie said it was fun to watch the kids watch the fireworks, their eyes glued to the sky, mouths frozen in an awestruck smile, gasping and cheering. After each burst, Andrew would say, "That was my favorite." Then the next one would come and he'd say, "THAT was my favorite."
Ellie celebrated her 32nd birthday. Here she is opening presents. I gave her some "body butter" from Crabtree & Evelyn. Flavor: Avocado, Olive Oil, and Basil.
Sam also celebrated his birthday while he was here a few weeks ago. He turned 56.
Bryan and Ellie playing Guitar Hero.
Baby Stephen picture. Notice the strategically placed wash cloth.
On a sad note, somebody bashed out my car window in an attempt to steal...I'm not quite sure what. They didn't take anything, not even the Tic Tacs in my glove compartment. Hey guys, what part of "It doesn't even have a tape deck" do you not understand? To add insult to injury, the next day, while we were in Cincinnati, parked in the Newport Aquarium parking lot, somebody bashed into the bumper of our Highlander, then drove off without even leaving a note. Nice.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Blogging and Gender [Bryan]
I am usually fairly late in adopting new technologies. The Internet, though, has been an exception. I was on Prodigy before hardly anyone else knew what the Internet was. I began reading blogs around 2002 during the debate about the Iraq war. At that time, blogging was a rough and tumble world of flame wars and impolite ranting. It was totally a man's world.
Now, however, most of the bloggers I know personally are women. They tell me that I am the "only guy they know who blogs." It has been a strange evolution.
I think my perception of change has to do with the growth in LDS culture of mommy blogs and family blogs, which consist mostly in pictures and updates on family happenings. This type of blog is particularly popular among student families, who use blogs as a way of keeping in contact with family "back home" in Utah.
This, of course, is a completely legitimate way of thinking about blogging. I like to check in on family blogs, too. But I'm sure many people find our blog to be odd, with, for example, a series on posts on economics and health care. The reason for this difference is this: I was "raised" on the Internet during my formative years to see blogs as places to debate ideas and I can't quite shake that upbringing.
Now, however, most of the bloggers I know personally are women. They tell me that I am the "only guy they know who blogs." It has been a strange evolution.
I think my perception of change has to do with the growth in LDS culture of mommy blogs and family blogs, which consist mostly in pictures and updates on family happenings. This type of blog is particularly popular among student families, who use blogs as a way of keeping in contact with family "back home" in Utah.
This, of course, is a completely legitimate way of thinking about blogging. I like to check in on family blogs, too. But I'm sure many people find our blog to be odd, with, for example, a series on posts on economics and health care. The reason for this difference is this: I was "raised" on the Internet during my formative years to see blogs as places to debate ideas and I can't quite shake that upbringing.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Taking history into your hands [Bryan]
I've been following closely the hopeful/historic/troubling events in Iran. I don't know if the election was stolen, although I suspect that it was. I don't know much about this Mousavi guy, although he doesn't seem like much of an improvement. It has been hard, though, not to be deeply moved by what is happening -- to watch people with the courage and determination to take history into their hands and try to shape it into something better.
I watched a YouTube video today of a young Iranian girl bleeding to death in the streets of Tehran. It was horrific thing to watch -- a series of images that will stay with me for a long time. She was probably in her twenties or late teens, dressed as a more conservative Muslim. She was shot in the chest. One can see the blood spread. One can see the life drain from her eyes. One can hear the panicked screams as people realize how badly hurt she is. All for what? It could be for nothing. Or for everything.
Times like this make me feel small and trivial. Today, for example, I went to Walmart, went to the lake, and played Guitar Hero. It was a fun time, well spent with family. But I have never taken history into my hands. I have never left in the morning knowing that, during to day, I might be beaten or even killed for taking a stand. I have never really stood up to someone (or for someone) like that, fought for justice with everything on the line. What would I do? Would I find an excuse?
I pity people who face such situations. But, sometimes, I also envy them. They know something about themselves that I do not know about myself.
I watched a YouTube video today of a young Iranian girl bleeding to death in the streets of Tehran. It was horrific thing to watch -- a series of images that will stay with me for a long time. She was probably in her twenties or late teens, dressed as a more conservative Muslim. She was shot in the chest. One can see the blood spread. One can see the life drain from her eyes. One can hear the panicked screams as people realize how badly hurt she is. All for what? It could be for nothing. Or for everything.
Times like this make me feel small and trivial. Today, for example, I went to Walmart, went to the lake, and played Guitar Hero. It was a fun time, well spent with family. But I have never taken history into my hands. I have never left in the morning knowing that, during to day, I might be beaten or even killed for taking a stand. I have never really stood up to someone (or for someone) like that, fought for justice with everything on the line. What would I do? Would I find an excuse?
I pity people who face such situations. But, sometimes, I also envy them. They know something about themselves that I do not know about myself.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Why Was Our Healthcare So Expensive? Part II [Bryan]
I should clarify, I think, Dr. Gawande's position. His project is to explain why health care costs vary so much from city to city. He cites some studies about differential treatment between cities:
What this suggests is that better science can help us reduce costs. For this reason, I think the Democrats are wise to push "comparative effectiveness research" and the Republicans wrong to oppose it (the Republican strategy appears to be to stringently oppose reforms that would save money in medical practice, and then bitterly complain that health care reform is too expensive).
Health-care costs ultimately arise from the accumulation of individual decisions doctors make about which services and treatments to write an order for. The most expensive piece of medical equipment, as the saying goes, is a doctor’s pen. And, as a rule, hospital executives don’t own the pen caps. Doctors do.
If doctors wield the pen, why do they do it so differently from one place to another? Brenda Sirovich, another Dartmouth researcher, published a study last year that provided an important clue. She and her team surveyed some eight hundred primary-care physicians from high-cost cities (such as Las Vegas and New York), low-cost cities (such as Sacramento and Boise), and others in between. The researchers asked the physicians specifically how they would handle a variety of patient cases. It turned out that differences in decision-making emerged in only some kinds of cases. In situations in which the right thing to do was well established—for example, whether to recommend a mammogram for a fifty-year-old woman (the answer is yes)—physicians in high- and low-cost cities made the same decisions. But, in cases in which the science was unclear, some physicians pursued the maximum possible amount of testing and procedures; some pursued the minimum. And which kind of doctor they were depended on where they came from.So, in cases where the science is unclear, doctors in high-cost cities tended to adopt a "more treatment is better" approach. He points out that this can't all be explained by differences in the doctors' training. In any given city, doctors come from many different medical schools. He argues instead that, sometimes, a culture of over-treatment arises in some cities. And, sometimes, that culture arises because some doctors develop an entrepreneurial spirit about the practice of medicine. Health care costs are explained, then, by some mixture of hazy science combined and the particular culture of medicine in some cities. It's the culture, then, not simply individually greedy doctors.Sirovich asked doctors how they would treat a seventy-five-year-old woman with typical heartburn symptoms and “adequate health insurance to cover tests and medications.” Physicians in high- and low-cost cities were equally likely to prescribe antacid therapy and to check for H. pylori, an ulcer-causing bacterium—steps strongly recommended by national guidelines. But when it came to measures of less certain value—and higher cost—the differences were considerable. More than seventy per cent of physicians in high-cost cities referred the patient to a gastroenterologist, ordered an upper endoscopy, or both, while half as many in low-cost cities did. Physicians from high-cost cities typically recommended that patients with well-controlled hypertension see them in the office every one to three months, while those from low-cost cities recommended visits twice yearly. In case after uncertain case, more was not necessarily better. But physicians from the most expensive cities did the most expensive things.
What this suggests is that better science can help us reduce costs. For this reason, I think the Democrats are wise to push "comparative effectiveness research" and the Republicans wrong to oppose it (the Republican strategy appears to be to stringently oppose reforms that would save money in medical practice, and then bitterly complain that health care reform is too expensive).
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Why Was Our Healthcare So Expensive? [Bryan]
We recently added up the total hospital bills for the birth of baby Stephen. Remember, we had an emergency C-Section, plus a brief visit to the NICU. Ellie's bill totaled $20,000, while Stephen's totaled about $10,000. That is a lot of money. Luckily, we didn't have to pay these bills with our insurance, but it got me wondering: Why does health care cost so much?
In addition, I've been wondering why American health care performs so poorly against other health care systems worldwide. In other countries, they spend a fraction of what we spend on health care, but their health outcomes are usually much better than ours. Why does our health system do so poorly with all the money we put in?
I think I've finally found an answer, and it has almost nothing to do with malpractice lawsuits, greedy insurance companies, or "socialized medicine" or lack thereof. The problem is, unfortunately, doctors that have become businessmen (and women). Doctors make money on tests, surgeries, procedures, referrals, and so forth. It is in their interests to maximize the use of health care, which drives up total costs and, since all medical procedures have risks, this actually makes for poorer health outcomes. Or so this article (byAtul Gawande) claims. Go read it. Most interesting thing I've ever read about the health care cost problem.
A snippet from the conclusion:
In addition, I've been wondering why American health care performs so poorly against other health care systems worldwide. In other countries, they spend a fraction of what we spend on health care, but their health outcomes are usually much better than ours. Why does our health system do so poorly with all the money we put in?
I think I've finally found an answer, and it has almost nothing to do with malpractice lawsuits, greedy insurance companies, or "socialized medicine" or lack thereof. The problem is, unfortunately, doctors that have become businessmen (and women). Doctors make money on tests, surgeries, procedures, referrals, and so forth. It is in their interests to maximize the use of health care, which drives up total costs and, since all medical procedures have risks, this actually makes for poorer health outcomes. Or so this article (byAtul Gawande) claims. Go read it. Most interesting thing I've ever read about the health care cost problem.
A snippet from the conclusion:
When you look across the spectrum from Grand Junction to McAllen—and the almost threefold difference in the costs of care—you come to realize that we are witnessing a battle for the soul of American medicine. Somewhere in the United States at this moment, a patient with chest pain, or a tumor, or a cough is seeing a doctor. And the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue.
There is no insurance system that will make the two aims match perfectly. But having a system that does so much to misalign them has proved disastrous. As economists have often pointed out, we pay doctors for quantity, not quality. As they point out less often, we also pay them as individuals, rather than as members of a team working together for their patients. Both practices have made for serious problems.
Providing health care is like building a house. The task requires experts, expensive equipment and materials, and a huge amount of coordination. Imagine that, instead of paying a contractor to pull a team together and keep them on track, you paid an electrician for every outlet he recommends, a plumber for every faucet, and a carpenter for every cabinet. Would you be surprised if you got a house with a thousand outlets, faucets, and cabinets, at three times the cost you expected, and the whole thing fell apart a couple of years later? Getting the country’s best electrician on the job (he trained at Harvard, somebody tells you) isn’t going to solve this problem. Nor will changing the person who writes him the check.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
A Little Better? [Ellie]
A few months ago, I read an article in the Atlantic Monthly by Hanna Rosin called "The Case Against Breastfeeding." I'm sure they chose that title just to be provocative, since its author was, in fact, a breastfeeding mother (eerily, nursing her third and last newborn, a boy--just like mine). Rather than actually arguing against breastfeeding, Rosin was more rebelling against the powerful medical and social coercion associated with it.
I can see why she wants to rebel. Breastfeeding is such a fraught issue. I have friends who can't nurse but dearly want to. I have friends who can but wish they had a reason not to. I have friends who've nursed for years and friends who've nursed for months. I have friends who've gone to extreme measures hoping that nursing would eventually work out and then been devastated when it never did. No matter the variation on this theme, no mother I know has escaped completely unscathed. We are judged if we do (she nursed her kids for how long?) and judged if we don't (she's so selfish).
In her article, Rosin contends that, while recent studies have found only modest benefits, if any, tied to breastfeeding, women are continually bombarded with the message that you are only a good mom if you breastfeed. She is irritated by what she sees as the constant yet unwarranted cheerleading of breastfeeding advocates. Rosin would modify the "breast is best" chant of La Leche-leaguers to "breast is only a little better."
A little better? Well. I'm not here to contest her point. I haven't read the research. She might be right. But I need to believe that the sacrifices I'm making to breastfeed are not just "a little better." For instance, I recently had to turn down the invitation of some friends to go camping because I didn't know how I would manage the breastfeeding issues (To vanish or not to vanish? If not, then I'll have to wrestle with a nursing cover. . .). I've had to interrupt the writing of this blog post on breastfeeding to breastfeed (no lie). I can't really take my kids to the zoo by myself this summer because I don't know what I'd do with my other two in such a vast public place while I breastfeed. Plus the whole nastiness of having to breastfeed in public, period.
Anyway, what I'm arguing for is this: I want to retain my mistaken belief that it is a LOT better to breastfeed. I want Stephen to be healthier, smarter, richer, better looking, and better behaved. I want his guaranteed admission to an Ivy League institution. And for me I want. . .a medal.
But I'll settle for the fact that despite its myriad inconveniences, I kinda like breastfeeding. I love the physical and emotional connection it builds between me and my son. While it might not be as beneficial as I'd like to believe, it still feels like The Right Thing to Do. And I'm a sucker for that kind of stuff.
I can see why she wants to rebel. Breastfeeding is such a fraught issue. I have friends who can't nurse but dearly want to. I have friends who can but wish they had a reason not to. I have friends who've nursed for years and friends who've nursed for months. I have friends who've gone to extreme measures hoping that nursing would eventually work out and then been devastated when it never did. No matter the variation on this theme, no mother I know has escaped completely unscathed. We are judged if we do (she nursed her kids for how long?) and judged if we don't (she's so selfish).
In her article, Rosin contends that, while recent studies have found only modest benefits, if any, tied to breastfeeding, women are continually bombarded with the message that you are only a good mom if you breastfeed. She is irritated by what she sees as the constant yet unwarranted cheerleading of breastfeeding advocates. Rosin would modify the "breast is best" chant of La Leche-leaguers to "breast is only a little better."
A little better? Well. I'm not here to contest her point. I haven't read the research. She might be right. But I need to believe that the sacrifices I'm making to breastfeed are not just "a little better." For instance, I recently had to turn down the invitation of some friends to go camping because I didn't know how I would manage the breastfeeding issues (To vanish or not to vanish? If not, then I'll have to wrestle with a nursing cover. . .). I've had to interrupt the writing of this blog post on breastfeeding to breastfeed (no lie). I can't really take my kids to the zoo by myself this summer because I don't know what I'd do with my other two in such a vast public place while I breastfeed. Plus the whole nastiness of having to breastfeed in public, period.
Anyway, what I'm arguing for is this: I want to retain my mistaken belief that it is a LOT better to breastfeed. I want Stephen to be healthier, smarter, richer, better looking, and better behaved. I want his guaranteed admission to an Ivy League institution. And for me I want. . .a medal.
But I'll settle for the fact that despite its myriad inconveniences, I kinda like breastfeeding. I love the physical and emotional connection it builds between me and my son. While it might not be as beneficial as I'd like to believe, it still feels like The Right Thing to Do. And I'm a sucker for that kind of stuff.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
What kind of world will Stephen have? [Bryan]
Last night I watched a show that really, really bothered me. It was called 2100, an ABC News special broadcast. The premise of the show was following a fictional girl, named Lucy, through life as it might play out if some of the projections currently being made about climate change and other environmental problems turn out to be accurate. The segment claimed that these were "worst case" projections, but they seemed relatively moderate to me (at least until the end, which seemed a bit far-fetched). The effects of climate change, judged by melting sea ice and glaciers, seem to be outpacing even the most pessimistic assumptions. They did the segment with some good graphic-novel type of animation, which had a surprising impact on me.
The segment stuck with me because this could be the life of my kids. Stephen, like the character Lucy, was born in 2009. I really wonder what sort of world we are leaving behind for Nora, Andrew, and Stephen. Not a good one, I think. We've really trashed the place -- and it wasn't our place.
The projections are relatively familiar: Gas shortages and riots as oil demand vastly exceeds supply. Outer suburbs become vast slums as people abandon them to live closer to the cities (can't afford to drive). Water shortage in the American Southwest (bye, bye, Las Vegas) and in cities that depend on glacier run-offs. Water shortage and soaring cost of oil lead to food shortages and mass starvation in other countries. Thirsty and starving people destabilize national borders, populations move as islands and low-lying cities flood, leading to war and civil unrest. It is all very grim.
Now, this isn't the only scenario, and certainly the human race has avoided disaster before. There was never a nuclear war, for example, which was a prospect that used to terrify me as a kid. But, in that case, it was obvious that our short-term interest was in not getting blown up. That created restraint and, to some degree, wisdom. With these sorts of problems, our short-term "economic" interest lies in doing more of the same. Humanity has never shown much interest in thinking about long-term problems. I like to think we can avoid this, but governments (and I am looking at you US Senate) seem resistant to even the most modest measures of restraint. I hope somebody proves me wrong.
Here is the opening segment.
Earth 2100: Civilization at Crossroads
Shared via AddThis
The segment stuck with me because this could be the life of my kids. Stephen, like the character Lucy, was born in 2009. I really wonder what sort of world we are leaving behind for Nora, Andrew, and Stephen. Not a good one, I think. We've really trashed the place -- and it wasn't our place.
The projections are relatively familiar: Gas shortages and riots as oil demand vastly exceeds supply. Outer suburbs become vast slums as people abandon them to live closer to the cities (can't afford to drive). Water shortage in the American Southwest (bye, bye, Las Vegas) and in cities that depend on glacier run-offs. Water shortage and soaring cost of oil lead to food shortages and mass starvation in other countries. Thirsty and starving people destabilize national borders, populations move as islands and low-lying cities flood, leading to war and civil unrest. It is all very grim.
Now, this isn't the only scenario, and certainly the human race has avoided disaster before. There was never a nuclear war, for example, which was a prospect that used to terrify me as a kid. But, in that case, it was obvious that our short-term interest was in not getting blown up. That created restraint and, to some degree, wisdom. With these sorts of problems, our short-term "economic" interest lies in doing more of the same. Humanity has never shown much interest in thinking about long-term problems. I like to think we can avoid this, but governments (and I am looking at you US Senate) seem resistant to even the most modest measures of restraint. I hope somebody proves me wrong.
Here is the opening segment.
Earth 2100: Civilization at Crossroads
Shared via AddThis
Nora Happenings [Bryan]
Nora's Kindergarten didn't do a graduation (thank goodness!). But they did have a little open house with punch and cookies on the second-to-last day of school. Here is Nora on the school playground with some friends.
Nora and her teacher, Mrs. P., on the last day of school.
Nora's school. Not much to look at, but we like it. The school district is very short on funds (the community refuses to pass a levy), but they do great things with their very modest resources.
Nora recently wrote a series of books we've taken to calling the "Haley series" -- Haley at the Park, Haley Goes to Wal-mart, etc. Haley, from what I understand, is the name of a friend of hers at school. Here she is showing off her work.Nora's latest piano recital.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Huntsman, Romney, and the Mormon Vote [Bryan]
Interesting commentary on the new Huntsman gig with the Obama administration:
It may be that Huntsman is setting himself up as a picture-perfect, bipartisan-friendly Republican presidential candidate in 2016. Whatever the case, it reinforces the message I've been peddling for a long time now: the base of the Republican party despises Mormons. Why we Mormons want to associate ourselves so closely with that mean-spirited group perplexes me.The nomination, yesterday, of Utah Governor Jon Huntsman to be US Ambassador to the People's Republic of China - like Romney, a handsome and articulate boy-wonder billionaire of that faith - has those eyebrows wagging again. It speaks volumes of the outside-the-box tendencies of the President and his team that the thought would even occur to them to appoint such an unexpected envoy, that they would know that Huntsman - a former LDS missionary in Taiwan - speaks Mandarin, and that they'd be able to convince the Governor to switch jobs for a post that is not necessarily a promotion. They must have also had good enough intelligence to sense that Huntsman was bored at his current gig. That they made the sale is a head turner, indeed.
That they announced this shortly after Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele gaffed his way into another controversy, this time regarding the evident anti-Mormon bigotry in Evangelical Christian circles, is nothing less than political poetry. Steele said, on Bill Bennett's radio show, "Remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism..."
What is a gaffe? Generally it's something that's true but that society doesn't want to admit.
Mitt Romney is technically the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012. He's got the money, a national organization, and the on-camera talent and political experience to handle the national spotlight. Ideologically, his positions line up pretty perfectly with the conservative GOP platform. If any Republican "deserves" it for having paid his dues loyally to the party, it's Mitt. And yet it's extremely unlikely that the said GOP base - we're talking mainly white Southern Baptists here - is going to get over its Mormonphobia in just three years enough to make that possible.
The appointment of Huntsman is thus, politically, a slam dunk. When GOP primary voters inevitably reject Romney once again in the 2012 primaries and caucuses outside of the Mountain West, the resentment - already boiling after last year's adventures in presidential politics - among rank-and-file Mormons that the party to whom they've given so much still doesn't really want them in the Master's house rather than the servant's quarters, will sting. Meanwhile, another of their prominent citizens will likely still be Obama's man in Beijing, proof that somebody in American politics isn't dissing the LDS and its members. And in key swing states like Nevada and Colorado, LDS members are legion.
Some said Obama was crazy, back in 2007 and 2008, to reach out to what conventional wisdom thought was an impenetrable GOP base... Crazy, like a fox.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Mother's Day Rant [Ellie]
I'm pretty sure that I've failed to keep every one of the "my child will never. . ." resolutions I made before I became a parent, and my oldest is only six.
My child will never be the one to hit. (How many two-year-old boys don't? Mine did.)
My child will never be the one with the permanent runny nose. (Pass the Kleenex--from October to April, Baby.)
My child will never run around the house naked. (Oh, I've beat that. I've had--within a period of months--two kids naked in public because I forgot to bring changes of clothing.)
My child will never wear dirty clothes out of the house. (How many times can you change one child's clothing in a day?)
I have no more illusions that I am now or ever will be a perfect mom. I've waved a tearful goodbye to each illusion as it flew out the window and I turned to face the reality of life with my children.
But, this isn't the rant you might expect. I'm not going to tell you how much I hate Mother's Day because I'm not good enough and I feel guilty and why do people idealize mothers, anyway etc., etc., etc. I know many women feel that way. But I, personally, love Mother's Day. My rant is directed to mothers who don't. Here are my "Top Five" reasons they should love Mother's Day, too.
1. You went through 9 months of pregnancy and then hours of excruciating pain during labor just to get the kids here. I think that alone deserves one day of thanks per year.
2. No matter how inadequate you feel, think for a moment about the sacrifices you have made for your children. No mother sacrifices nothing, and most sacrifice many things--sleep; careers; money; free time; being surrounded by clean, beautiful, unbroken things; time alone with their spouse--every day. Let them thank you for it.
3. How do you think your kids feel when you tell them you hate Mother's Day because you don't feel like a good mother? Like they must be lousy since you're so unhappy with how they turned out. That's how.
4. Who doesn't like to be treated well--breakfast in bed, sloppy kid kisses, hand-drawn cards, the obligatory Mother's Day school-made flowerpot complete with wilted flower, dinner made for you--for one day. Just enjoy it!
5. There is no ideal mother. She is imaginary. We are all inadequate to the task. But we give it our all, and that dedication is worth celebrating.
My child will never be the one to hit. (How many two-year-old boys don't? Mine did.)
My child will never be the one with the permanent runny nose. (Pass the Kleenex--from October to April, Baby.)
My child will never run around the house naked. (Oh, I've beat that. I've had--within a period of months--two kids naked in public because I forgot to bring changes of clothing.)
My child will never wear dirty clothes out of the house. (How many times can you change one child's clothing in a day?)
I have no more illusions that I am now or ever will be a perfect mom. I've waved a tearful goodbye to each illusion as it flew out the window and I turned to face the reality of life with my children.
But, this isn't the rant you might expect. I'm not going to tell you how much I hate Mother's Day because I'm not good enough and I feel guilty and why do people idealize mothers, anyway etc., etc., etc. I know many women feel that way. But I, personally, love Mother's Day. My rant is directed to mothers who don't. Here are my "Top Five" reasons they should love Mother's Day, too.
1. You went through 9 months of pregnancy and then hours of excruciating pain during labor just to get the kids here. I think that alone deserves one day of thanks per year.
2. No matter how inadequate you feel, think for a moment about the sacrifices you have made for your children. No mother sacrifices nothing, and most sacrifice many things--sleep; careers; money; free time; being surrounded by clean, beautiful, unbroken things; time alone with their spouse--every day. Let them thank you for it.
3. How do you think your kids feel when you tell them you hate Mother's Day because you don't feel like a good mother? Like they must be lousy since you're so unhappy with how they turned out. That's how.
4. Who doesn't like to be treated well--breakfast in bed, sloppy kid kisses, hand-drawn cards, the obligatory Mother's Day school-made flowerpot complete with wilted flower, dinner made for you--for one day. Just enjoy it!
5. There is no ideal mother. She is imaginary. We are all inadequate to the task. But we give it our all, and that dedication is worth celebrating.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Photos [Bryan]
Stephen is a gloriously fat and generally happy baby.
Andrew at an Easter-egg hunt (one of three)
Happy Stephen again.
Nora showing off her new pink dress.
Dressed for Easter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)