Real Moms Dont Cook

A  shortened version of a great article in sunday's new york times by Jessica Soffer.

Wow , I hope my kids feel this way!

Real Moms Dont Cook

My mother is a great believer in takeout. She has her reasons.

She is a pragmatist. For her, it’s about the destination — not the journey. Five minutes devouring something scrumptious does not justify, in her opinion, hours and hours of shopping and chopping.

Perhaps most important, she’s not a big eater. She could survive on a steady diet of grapes and books. When smoothies became the fad, she jumped right on the bandwagon. Not for their health benefits, but because they freed her from the pretense of a traditional meal.

Food in a cup. Call it done. Call it dinner. 

It’s not that she never cooked. She had her go-to recipes  but even had she not, I wouldn’t have minded. Growing up, I pined for nothing in the mother department. My mother is the stuff that dreams are made of, minus the meatloaf and marble cake. The fact that she preferred talking to me while paging through the Times’ Book Review than while stirring a caldron of Bolognese did not mean that she loved me less, was any less motherly. 

And yet it seems that everywhere — in commercials, films, books — I find the conflation of parental love and cooking. Somehow, we’ve come to believe that mothering can be smeared onto a sandwich, nurturing tucked between the wings of a garlicky roasted chicken. 

 But my impulse is to defend her — as if telling the truth would be revealing a dark family secret, my mother’s shortcomings, and worse.

  As if I have to justify it. As if she didn’t feed me. As if she didn’t love me. As if she wasn’t quite simply the best, which she was. Is. 

But cooking accounts for only one part. Whenever I visit my mother for dinner there is all the love a person can handle in the tidy form of endless sashimi, shumai and Stella Artois. Love is evident in takeout, too.

When Hurricane Sandy hit last fall, my boyfriend and I headed north from our apartment in Lower Manhattan to my mother’s place, on higher ground, where there was electricity, running water and cellphone service. After the storm, more than one person said how nice that must have been: a home-cooked meal.

But no. Yes, it was nice. But the nice part was her: being with her, ordering Indian for dinner, watching the news and eating apples on the couch, reading as she tucked my feet into a blanket.

The nice part was being in my mother’s hands, whether those hands held a spatula or not — then, now or ever. 

Jessica Soffer is the author of the novel “Tomorrow There Will Be Apricots.”

A Nation of Wusses! Listening to Rendell

A Nation of Wusses!

Had the great pleasure of seeing Governor Rendell speak last night in Upper Dublin. He is promoting his book, A Nation of Wusses: How America's Leaders Lost the Guts to Make Us Great.

Appropriately, he was introduced by a beautiful young woman who spoke warmly and articulately of her admiration for him and also poked a little fun at his tendency to shoot his mouth off. It was a great introduction.

The governor began by saying that he believes his greatest achievement was the changes in Philadelphia under his time as mayor. Not so much the substantive changes, though they were significant, but that he restored a sense of pride in Philadelphians and made people believe in the city again.

He remarked that he had spent 34 years in public life; as a DA, mayor, governor and Democratic party chair. In what I felt was the most moving part speech he said that his life of public service has been thrilling, exciting and rewarding. “I didn’t make a lot of money but I made peoples lives better.”

How many of us will be able to say the same about our lives work? 

According to Rendell he wrote the book for two main reasons. One was to encourage young people to go into public service as he worries that the current negative political scene will discourage them.

The other was to clearly articulate his view that government is not the enemy. While it may not have 100% of the solutions it is essential in protecting our most vulnerable citizens and creating opportunity for those who do not have any. As he pointed out after 9-11, Katrina, and Sandy no one was calling for less government.

He spoke about what he sees as the main problem facing the country today; elected leaders who lack the guts to get anything done. He noted that our country was founded by shopkeepers and farmers who had the chutzpah to think they could defeat the greatest army in the world, and by men with fortunes who were willing to risk it all to do the right thing.

He emphasized that we cannot have a first rate economy with a second rate infrastructure. Currently America has the 22^nd best railroads and the 32nd best airline transport system. As every successful business knows you need to invest in yourself.

He noted that democrats need to stop being afraid to agree to entitlement reforms and republicans need to agree to revenue enhancement. He believes politicians are terrified of special interests and of making a mistake in the media. They need to believe in the intelligence of the voter. He noted that he raised taxes significantly in his first term as governor, a point hammered on by his opponent. But he won by 22 points because “we did stuff”.

During the Q and A he was asked if he had any future political ambitions. He joked that while he wouldn’t mind being president he had no interest in running for president. ‘I don’t want to spend three years of my life in Iowa and New Hampshire’. He felt Hillary received terrible campaign advice in 2008 and offered to run her next one for free!

He reminded us that we must vote in all elections, not just presidential ones. The ‘off years’, when we elect the state legislatures, are often the most important as they determine who controls Congress thorough redistricting.

It was a terrific evening and we can only hope that we can fill Rendell’s prescription for our national health with elected officials who have the ”heart, courage and willingness to do the right thing”

Volunteering. How it all goes terribly wrong.

Volunteering. Not as easy as it looks.

I've done a lot of volunteering in my life for a variety of organizations. Religious, political, art related, educational. Along the way I've learned a few things both about being a volunteer and also about how to, and how not to, use one.
Since every non-profit has a disproportionate amount of work to funds you would assume they would be ecstatic to have a free, enthusiastic labor. Sadly, this is often not the case.

Many non-profits suffer from dystracto-volunteer, the inability to
properly handle a volunteer.

The most common variety is slotism, where the organization is only able to use a volunteer in one narrow way. The 'slot' could be anything from fundraising to answering phones. What if that slot isn't immediately available, or the volunteer is unable to do that particular task?  The organization sends them away, losing their talent, passion, and connections to their friends and family.

Another common variety is non-prepareism, also known in-capablism, in which the organization is completely incapable of knowing how to use a volunteer.
Symptoms can range from having volunteers sit around for hours doing nothing to, in severe cases, never returning emails or calls from prospective volunteers.

The final variety, volunteer odiumism, is the rarest but most harmful variety. In odiumism the employee assigned to give work to or train the volunteer approaches them with fear or disdain rather than appreciation.  In some cases this is a result of the employee being insulted by the idea any portion of their job could be done by an unpaid, and therefore less skilled, person. In other cases the paid employee fears that the volunteer is secretly there to make them look bad and steal their job. There is little to no cure for this affliction.

Not that all volunteers are blameless. While the ideal volunteer comes to an organization with the noble intention of reducing its workload, and helping it to achieve its mission without increasing its expenses, not all volunteers are noble. Some come with the conviction that they alone know the secret to making the organization more successful. Others are more interested in socializing than working, or are uninterested in performing any task they feel is beneath their lofty perch.

Still, the smart organization can usually find a way to sooth these egos and successfully match their volunteers’ skills with their own needs. The result is well worth the effort.

   

What do we really want?

Just watched The Words on demand. Don't bother. There, I just saved you $5. Your welcome.

The premise (revealed in the coming attractions so I’m not ‘ruining’ anything for you) is that Bradley Cooper’s character finds a lost manuscript, has it published under his own name and is rewarded with fame and money. He is unable to enjoy his success because all the accolades don't compensate for the fact that the work product isn't his. Its a pretty standard and generally accepted premise. But is it really true?

After all we live in a world of reality TV where people are rewarded not for their accomplishments, but simply for being famous. On television, magazines, basically everywhere, we see the glorification not of what someone has achieved but what that achievement has brought them.  What we aspire to is the swag, the reward, not the work. It’s not the labor but the carrot that is endlessly dangled in front of us. We aspire for the homes of the Real housewives, the clothes and jewels in Vogue, the bodies on Victoria Secrets angels.

Outside of a mediocre movie is anyone really more interested in the accomplishment than in the glory that attaches to it?  What do we honestly desire more, to do something great or to reap the accolades? Do we long for the satisfaction of writing a great book, painting a masterpiece, or inventing the next great thing? Or is it really about invites to the Vanity Fair party, court side seats, chatting with Fallon, or sitting in the first row at NY fashion week?  If the movie were honest wouldn’t Bradley Cooper’s character shrug off the fact that he didn't write the book? After all, he's drinking champagne in the back of a limo and isn’t that what really matters?

It's Over...Looking Back

Just dropped of the last of the lit, supplies, and paperwork to the Obama office. It feels good to finally catch up on my sleep, and to get 12 large boxes out of my car but it felt sad to say goodbye to something that’s been a fairly large part of my life for so many months. There were so many great parts of the campaign its hard to know what I’ll miss most. Certainly, I’ll miss being part of something outside of my own life; something so large and so important. In my own, very small way, I feel I made a difference. I feel I did something to leave the country a better place for my kids. It’s pretty much impossible to match that feeling.

I also had the opportunity to meet and work with some amazing people. Their energy, dedication and enthusiasm were inspiring. In addition they were fun and smart and made boring tasks, and long days fly by. I will miss them all.

Hard to believe but not everyone I know follows me on twitter. So here are a few of my tweets from the campaign. Newest first, then back in time. 

-Take 5 mins to watch amazing emotional video of Obama thanking volunteers in chicago office. Wow.  http://t.co/4qjTO0y5

-Big Bird speaks out. @frankrichny http://t.co/BLDML8aQ”

-Mad love to my friends and family who seem to think I won the election singlehandedly. #deMOMcracy

-I fought my cold and the cold won. GOTV over. Pa won. I'm off to bed.

-RT @mebe22 Regardless how the night turns out, mom deserves a shout out for all those thankless hrs volunteering. Here's to you @css1222!

-Ryan opposed same-sex marriage & civil unions. He voted against “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” & the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act.

-A curse on Jewish Republicans: May you be reunited in the world to come with your ancestors; all socialist garment workers. Thx paul krugman

-Our small business healthcare costs went down by 7.25% thanks to the President.

-Paul Ryan opposed a bill to provide medical care for people exposed on 9/11. Twice. Pres. Obama signed it.

-People Romney rips for not paying income taxes? Seniors, students, the disabled, and Vets They pay payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes

-Thx to govt subsidies I have clean water, endless electricity, safe roads, a mortgage deduction, and student loans. Guess I'm a taker.

-Wouldn't it be nice to live in a country where folks cared enough about voting to lie, cheat, & use fake ids to do it? You know, like drinking.

-Best explanation for the 1st Obama debate performance? (thx 2 amy) Too much anniversary celebration. Don't u know, no sex b4 the big game! #Debate2012

-Have a daughter? Then don't vote for a guy who opposes the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, & wants to defund Planned Parenthood.

-So girls, going as a woman in a binder for Halloween?

-Per Mitt. 'Syria is Iran’s route to the sea' Iran does border Caspian Sea, Persian Gulf & Gulf of Oman. Just not Syria. Ignorance? Or lies?

Debate One. Just the Facts

 OK, first debate over. No getting around it, Romney did a terrific job. He looked and sounded calm and confident. President Obama, while a great orator, is not always a terrific debater but last night was poor. Wish I could say otherwise! 

However, Mitt's facts' did not meet the level of his performance. As he himself told the President, "you aren't entitled to your own facts". So here's a review of a few of the claims made in last nights debate. I highly recommend factcheck.org for any political claims or ads you want to verify. They are terrific.

Medicare

 Claim: Romney said Obama's health care law cuts $716 billion from Medicare which will hurt current beneficiaries.

Facts: This has been one of Romney's favorite lines of attack, but his claim that Obama's health care law cuts $716 billion in benefits for current Medicare beneficiaries is not true. The health care law will limit payments to health care providers and insurers — not senior citizens' benefits — as part of an effort to rein in costs over the course of the next decade. The fact is, the money isn’t being taken away from Medicare. Instead, Medicare would spend it, but over a longer period of time than was expected before the health care law. The law extends the solvency of the Medicare Part A trust fund.

HealthCare Board

Romney claimed a new board established by the Affordable Care Act is “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” Not true. The board is a 15-member panel that’s tasked with finding ways to slow the growth of Medicare spending. So, its work concerns Medicare, not everyone seeking health care. The board only recommends cost-saving measures for Medicare, and is legally forbidden to ration care or reduce benefits.

Tax cuts

 Claim: Obama says Romney's tax plan would cut taxes by $5 trillion over 10 years, inflating the deficit.

Facts: Romney said his plan will be paid for by curtailing tax deductions, Romney has declined to say what tax deductions he would end. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center has contended that middle-class families would see taxes rise about $2,000 a year under Romney's plan if he keeps his promise to make the tax reform revenue-neutral, arguing that it can't be done without ending popular middle-class deductions on mortgage interest and charitable contributions.

Private-sector job gains

 Claim: Obama said the U.S. economy has created 5 million private-sector jobs the past 30 months.

Facts: After the economy plummeted in late 2007 and throughout 2009, the United States has gained 4.6 million private-sector jobs since the labor market bottomed in February 2010 — or 5.1 million under preliminary revisions released last week that are not part of the official tally by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Clean energy
Claim: Romney said clean energy interests got $90 billion in tax breaks under Obama, and that half of those companies receiving breaks went out of business.

Facts: The president's 2009 stimulus bill included a combination of over $90 billion in spending, financing and tax breaks for clean energy investments, but it's false that half of the companies went broke. Some of the Energy Department's loans went to firms that failed, but Romney's claim that half of the companies went broke is inaccurate. In a 2011 story, USA TODAY reported that the stocks of many of 45 publicly traded companies receiving stimulus funds had outperformed the stock market, despite Solyndra and other, smaller failures. The money, mostly in loans and loan guarantees, are helping build factories for companies such as Ford, Nissan and Tesla Motor. One beneficiary is health care technology company Athenahealth, whose shares have more than doubled. Its CEO, Jonathan Bush, is a first cousin of President George W. Bush.

Rising health care costs
Claim: Health care costs have risen $2,500 per family per year under Obama.

Facts: Partly true, but health care inflation has slowed notably under Obama. Health insurance costs rose 4% last year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That rate is far below the 10% to 13% seen in 2003 and 2004

Deficit

It’s not true that Obama “doubled” the deficit. He inherited a $1.2 trillion deficit and deficits have remained at or above that level, as Romney said, every year since then.

Will your Vote effect the Supreme Court? And does that matter?

Are you sick of the influence of money in politics? Or about the gun violence in our country?

Want to make sure that rape and incest victims don’t have to carry their babies to term?

Then think twice about whom you vote for in the upcoming presidential election. Because, Yes, your vote really does matter.

Here are some excerpts from a recent article in the LA Times. A link to the full article is at the end.

The Supreme Court is not on the ballot in November, but its future direction on issues such as abortion, gay rights, gun rights, voting laws and the role of money in politics depends on who is elected president for the next four years.

Given one more liberal vote, the court would likely switch directions on campaign money and uphold laws that limit election spending and require the full disclosure of donors. With an extra conservative vote, however, the justices on the right are likely to go further and free big donors — including corporations — to give money directly to candidates and parties.

The law on abortion could also switch with a change of one justice.

With an extra vote on the right, the six Republican appointees would likely uphold strict regulation of abortion, and possibly a criminal ban.

The justices are closely split along ideological lines. The court's makeup means that a President Mitt Romney could tip the court decisively to the right

"A change in the ideology of only one justice could have a profound impact on the course of constitutional law," said professor Geoffrey Stone at the University of Chicago Law School.

Clint Bolick, a lawyer for the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix, is not rooting for an Obama victory, but he agrees the election could have a lasting effect on a closely split court.

"The average justice remains in office nearly 25 years — more than six presidential terms. Supreme Court nominations are one of most enduring legacies a president has," he said.

Presidential race may leave lasting imprint on Supreme Court by By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times

http://soc.li/WDoYO0M