One of the most depressing things about getting older is the reality of losing our parents. I had two fathers - my natural father who died over 10 years ago and my step-dad who died a little over 2 years ago. Both deaths were robberies. They were young by modern standards. In the land of entitlement I have created, I thought it was my right to have both of them around until I turned at least 60. Fat chance.
So much political debate, particularly around issues of poverty, sexual orientation and women's reproductive freedom rights, centers on fathers. We're told that fathers are necessary to keeping children out of poverty, that fathers are necessary to raising well-adjusted children unless, of course, they happen to be gay and there are two fathers instead of one in which case, the right wingers tell us that mothers are indispensible. We can honor fatherhood and its importance without making kids without fathers feel like they are destined to rob liquor stores and live in squalor.
For many kids, 2 well-adjusted parents, living in the same house, of opposite genders, sounds like Disneyworld or sounds so foreign to them that they might wonder if they know anyone who has a life like that. Having been through much of the good stuff and some of the bad stuff that comes along with "traditional" family life, I can say from those experiences that what matters most - and is often repeated - is showing up and doing the best you can. Human beings can only lose what they have made for themselves, something they have been given or something they gave away. Defining what we have lost has to be about what was actually taken (or sometimes given) away.
Being a father is not always about biology. It's often about unconditionally loving a child and treating the child as if you shared their DNA.
To me, that means there are far more fathers out there than we could count on birth certificates. All of them deserve to be honored, even when their own imperfections or fears left them incapable of doing all of things we might have wanted them to do. If they remain on Earth, forgive their shortcomings. If they are no longer with us, honor what was good about them and make it a part of yourself. If you can do those things, I am convinced that you will feel less loss and more gratitude for what you did get.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Borrowing Away Our Freedom
I have never considered the federal and state tax systems to be unjust because they are marginally progressive, even as my own income grew and I got kicked into higher marginal tax rates. People who make more money ought to pay higher marginal rates because, in my view, they benefit the most from our country's brand of free market capitalism. The questions are whether we should single out one or two industries and tax compensation in those industries at higher rates than we do others and, if we do, how much more should people working in these industries pay?
By the late 1970s, the top marginal federal income tax rates were in the neighborhood of 80%. Both political parties were involved. Part of it grew out of having to pay for the Vietnam War and other misadventures. Part of it involved notions of fairness that have changed dramatically in the last 30 years. Leaving aside flat-tax advocates and those who would simply tax consumption (the most regressive), the income tax is more than likely here to stay. When marginal rates were slashed during the Reagan administration and then slowly and modestly grew back in the 1990s, compensation managers were working hard to maintain competitive advantage in attracting talent in any number of industries. If the top marginal rate went up, increased compensation and perks followed. Lawyers and accountants got more creative.
When states like New York faced deficits, they borrowed rather than increase income tax rates. When the federal government passed unfunded mandates on state governments, they often borrowed more. Borrowing just to keep the government running is usually considered poor management but many states did it because their legislators were afraid of being associated with increasing taxes for any reason. When increased revenues were needed, "sin" taxes, lotteries, increased fees on toll roads and other strategies were used to help balance budgets. Wealthy people might have complained but most of the fee increases hit poorer people the hardest. Legislators were more interested in getting re-elected than in making wise policy decisions.
As a general rule, Americans are not stupid. They knew what was happening but lacked the political will or organization to make changes. In lieu of a real solution, many people began to attack those who made what they considered too much money. In some cases they might have been right. CEOs and other senior executives of publicly traded companies making $10-20 million per year irrespective of the profitability of the company were easy targets. Confiscatory taxes were not and will not be a solution. Financial industry executives started private hedge funds with their compensation being considered capital gains, taxed at 20%. Energy company executives could move to hedge funds, energy trading or any number of other industries.
Good governments pay their bills and balance their budgets and have the political will to eliminate tax loopholes and reserve borrowing for infrastructure improvements and other long-lasting projects like expanding public transportation. It's not that much different than a household that borrows for vacations they can't afford to take or a flat-screen television to replace a perfectly serviceable tube television but will not borrow or bother to replace a leaking faucet or purchase more energy efficient appliances. Priorities get shifted around and sometimes turned on their heads. When credit was easy to get, we forgot that our parents and grandparents actually saved money and used it to purchase luxury items and were unwilling to borrow for necessities. They bought houses they could afford with a large downpayment and drove at least one of their cars for 10 years instead of trading them in every three years. Most were not poor. They were frugal, responsible and lived within their means. If we held our legislatures to the same kind of principles we would not constantly face the prospect of huge deficits or, if we did, we would have a rainy day fund that governors love to talk about but rarely, if ever, establish.
The biggest tragedy of the second Bush Administration was its squandering of a budget surplus that could have been used for any number of good reasons. You can't fight an expensive war - whether the war is necessary or not - and cut taxes at the same time. If we didn't believe it then, we ought to believe it now. You can't borrow most of what you need from foreign countries and expect to keep control over your own economy. You can't tell states that since the federal government can't afford to fund a program, the states will have to pay even if they, too, face deficits. That's what our government has done. It did not have to happen. We let it happen.
It might help if we turned our national focus away from divisive social issues (gay marriage and reproductive freedom chief among them) and zero in on how to become energy independent and stop relying on the Chinese and others to keep us afloat by lending us billions - perhaps trillions - and all of the control that is associated with being a lender.
If you doubt me and your grandparents are still alive, ask them. I am pretty confident they would agree with me.
By the late 1970s, the top marginal federal income tax rates were in the neighborhood of 80%. Both political parties were involved. Part of it grew out of having to pay for the Vietnam War and other misadventures. Part of it involved notions of fairness that have changed dramatically in the last 30 years. Leaving aside flat-tax advocates and those who would simply tax consumption (the most regressive), the income tax is more than likely here to stay. When marginal rates were slashed during the Reagan administration and then slowly and modestly grew back in the 1990s, compensation managers were working hard to maintain competitive advantage in attracting talent in any number of industries. If the top marginal rate went up, increased compensation and perks followed. Lawyers and accountants got more creative.
When states like New York faced deficits, they borrowed rather than increase income tax rates. When the federal government passed unfunded mandates on state governments, they often borrowed more. Borrowing just to keep the government running is usually considered poor management but many states did it because their legislators were afraid of being associated with increasing taxes for any reason. When increased revenues were needed, "sin" taxes, lotteries, increased fees on toll roads and other strategies were used to help balance budgets. Wealthy people might have complained but most of the fee increases hit poorer people the hardest. Legislators were more interested in getting re-elected than in making wise policy decisions.
As a general rule, Americans are not stupid. They knew what was happening but lacked the political will or organization to make changes. In lieu of a real solution, many people began to attack those who made what they considered too much money. In some cases they might have been right. CEOs and other senior executives of publicly traded companies making $10-20 million per year irrespective of the profitability of the company were easy targets. Confiscatory taxes were not and will not be a solution. Financial industry executives started private hedge funds with their compensation being considered capital gains, taxed at 20%. Energy company executives could move to hedge funds, energy trading or any number of other industries.
Good governments pay their bills and balance their budgets and have the political will to eliminate tax loopholes and reserve borrowing for infrastructure improvements and other long-lasting projects like expanding public transportation. It's not that much different than a household that borrows for vacations they can't afford to take or a flat-screen television to replace a perfectly serviceable tube television but will not borrow or bother to replace a leaking faucet or purchase more energy efficient appliances. Priorities get shifted around and sometimes turned on their heads. When credit was easy to get, we forgot that our parents and grandparents actually saved money and used it to purchase luxury items and were unwilling to borrow for necessities. They bought houses they could afford with a large downpayment and drove at least one of their cars for 10 years instead of trading them in every three years. Most were not poor. They were frugal, responsible and lived within their means. If we held our legislatures to the same kind of principles we would not constantly face the prospect of huge deficits or, if we did, we would have a rainy day fund that governors love to talk about but rarely, if ever, establish.
The biggest tragedy of the second Bush Administration was its squandering of a budget surplus that could have been used for any number of good reasons. You can't fight an expensive war - whether the war is necessary or not - and cut taxes at the same time. If we didn't believe it then, we ought to believe it now. You can't borrow most of what you need from foreign countries and expect to keep control over your own economy. You can't tell states that since the federal government can't afford to fund a program, the states will have to pay even if they, too, face deficits. That's what our government has done. It did not have to happen. We let it happen.
It might help if we turned our national focus away from divisive social issues (gay marriage and reproductive freedom chief among them) and zero in on how to become energy independent and stop relying on the Chinese and others to keep us afloat by lending us billions - perhaps trillions - and all of the control that is associated with being a lender.
If you doubt me and your grandparents are still alive, ask them. I am pretty confident they would agree with me.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Energy Independence
I have read and listened to politicians', oil industry executives', scientists' and citizens' reactions to the crude oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I do not believe British Petroleum intended to lose an extraordinary amount of money - perhaps risking bankruptcy - or harm its reputation, but I do believe that BP was grossly negligent in failing to have multiple back-up plans in the event of a technological failure. The government deserves some of the blame by its obvious failure to demand and evaluate them prior to permitting off-shore drilling. In our desperate attempt to maintain at least some energy independence from Persian Gulf states and other international sources, we ignored or minimized risks associated with off-shore drilling.
In the short term, capping the well has to be the first priority. When it happens, I hope we ignore those who give themselves pats on the back for fixing something that never should have happened in the first place. Also in the short term, we will have to continue finding energy sources, including crude, to ensure that we are not hostages to oil exporting nations who either hate us or intend to take advantage of us.
Conservation, improving solar power technology, using wind power when possible, moving products via rail to the fullest extent possible and leaving large, gas guzzling vehicles to those who need them for their livelihoods might make a huge difference if we were serious about it. I don't know the answer but I wonder if we could all accept that a 1986 Honda Accord was once considered a perfectly good car for most families even though it is far smaller than the current Accord (The Accord is just an example; there are plenty of other vehicles that have become increasingly larger in the last quarter century after our brief dalliance with driving even smaller cars in the 1970s.) With safety advances and more efficient power plants, I wonder how much gasoline we would have saved over the years if we didn't demand ever larger vehicles as if it were a national birth right. For years, we have had special High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to encourage car pooling. At the same time, we marvel at 4 cylinder engines that push out over 200 horse power. Very, very few of us need 200 horse power. For five years I drove a 1988 Subaru Justy (considered quite a safe vehicle given its small size) that had a 3 cylinder 66 bhp engine. I drove back and forth from D.C. to Upstate N.Y. at speeds exceeding 65 miles per hour. It got about 40-45 mpg on the highway and in the low 30s in the city traffic. Would we lose our national identity if we decided it was more responsible to drive those kinds of vehicles?
I'll leave nuclear power alone as a solution because I don't believe I am sufficiently informed about its safety, particularly storing spent nuclear fuel.
What about railroads? A number of large cities have excellent, energy efficient public transportation options. Is riding a subway, commuter train or bus such a burden? Could we invest (admittedly at great expense) in high speed rail that reached most people in the country? Could most of us walk 20-30 blocks to visit a store or a friend instead of automatically driving? I think we could do all of these things. Again, I do not know the initial cost or the ultimate savings in energy use but I am persuaded that we could learn a great deal from countries that already do these things. Most are European. Does that matter?
I know one thing for sure. If we were completely energy independent, the likelihood that we would involve ourselves in wars in the middle East - with the exception of counter-terrorism and the protection of Israel - would be much lower, perhaps lower enough to take some of our defense budget and build a smarter transportation system right here.
None of what I am saying is new. It's all about developing a national willingness to try. $5/gallon gasoline might change a few minds.
In the short term, capping the well has to be the first priority. When it happens, I hope we ignore those who give themselves pats on the back for fixing something that never should have happened in the first place. Also in the short term, we will have to continue finding energy sources, including crude, to ensure that we are not hostages to oil exporting nations who either hate us or intend to take advantage of us.
Conservation, improving solar power technology, using wind power when possible, moving products via rail to the fullest extent possible and leaving large, gas guzzling vehicles to those who need them for their livelihoods might make a huge difference if we were serious about it. I don't know the answer but I wonder if we could all accept that a 1986 Honda Accord was once considered a perfectly good car for most families even though it is far smaller than the current Accord (The Accord is just an example; there are plenty of other vehicles that have become increasingly larger in the last quarter century after our brief dalliance with driving even smaller cars in the 1970s.) With safety advances and more efficient power plants, I wonder how much gasoline we would have saved over the years if we didn't demand ever larger vehicles as if it were a national birth right. For years, we have had special High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes to encourage car pooling. At the same time, we marvel at 4 cylinder engines that push out over 200 horse power. Very, very few of us need 200 horse power. For five years I drove a 1988 Subaru Justy (considered quite a safe vehicle given its small size) that had a 3 cylinder 66 bhp engine. I drove back and forth from D.C. to Upstate N.Y. at speeds exceeding 65 miles per hour. It got about 40-45 mpg on the highway and in the low 30s in the city traffic. Would we lose our national identity if we decided it was more responsible to drive those kinds of vehicles?
I'll leave nuclear power alone as a solution because I don't believe I am sufficiently informed about its safety, particularly storing spent nuclear fuel.
What about railroads? A number of large cities have excellent, energy efficient public transportation options. Is riding a subway, commuter train or bus such a burden? Could we invest (admittedly at great expense) in high speed rail that reached most people in the country? Could most of us walk 20-30 blocks to visit a store or a friend instead of automatically driving? I think we could do all of these things. Again, I do not know the initial cost or the ultimate savings in energy use but I am persuaded that we could learn a great deal from countries that already do these things. Most are European. Does that matter?
I know one thing for sure. If we were completely energy independent, the likelihood that we would involve ourselves in wars in the middle East - with the exception of counter-terrorism and the protection of Israel - would be much lower, perhaps lower enough to take some of our defense budget and build a smarter transportation system right here.
None of what I am saying is new. It's all about developing a national willingness to try. $5/gallon gasoline might change a few minds.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Softball
My previous post about Elena Kagan was written before I learned that the New York Times and others had begun to question Ms. Kagan's sexuality. It was already known that she was in her early 50s, had never married and had no children. I should have predicted that if her detractors were unable to make much out of the fact that she had not appeared in court very much and was never a judge, they would sink to the bottom like a stone and go after her for the possibility she might be a lesbian. Lots of people love to trot out the Salem Witch Trials when explaining this sort of phenomenon but I think it's a little shopworn at this point.
The reality is there are many, many men and women who are qualified to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. That should surprise no one. We have a lot of lawyers in this country, many of whom are scholarly, hard-working and are experts in Constitutional law. The interesting question is what disqualifies an otherwise qualified nominee. It's certainly not gender, race or religion any more. Is it sexual orientation, real or perceived? Certainly there are many people who would answer that question in the affirmative. There are also many people who would think that is preposterous. Put me in the latter camp.
It sometimes seems as if there are as many advocacy groups in this country as there are people. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT for those who didn't know where the acronym comes from) people have developed their own advocacy groups - some political and some social. Some focus their attention full equality and try to move the political debate by defining what true equality means or should mean. Even Republicans who advocate on behalf of the LGBT community (Log Cabin Republicans, e.g.) would say that sexual orientation should never play a role in employment decisions.
Call me crazy, but when a woman picks up a bat to play softball, it doesn't necessarily mean that she is a lesbian. Deciding not to marry or working so hard that you never find a suitable mate doesn't necessarily mean someone is gay or lesbian.
Assuming for argument's sake that Ms. Kagan is a lesbian, Senators in a position to vote on whether to confirm her as an Associate Justice should be very careful. If it is obvious that bigotry played a role in her failure to get the job, I predict that more than a few people in Washington, D.C. - many of them in Congress and other very visible positions - will wake up a couple of days after the vote on Ms. Kagan and find out that their name is on a list of closeted lesbian and gay government officials, many of them doing a fine job in their roles. Some will be married. Some will have children. Some will lose a bid for re-election. I don't advocate "outing" anyone but others don't share my views. If there is a mass "outing", it will change politics forever and those who are working hard to keep the LGBT community from achieving equality will have to work a whole lot harder than they are working now.
The reality is there are many, many men and women who are qualified to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. That should surprise no one. We have a lot of lawyers in this country, many of whom are scholarly, hard-working and are experts in Constitutional law. The interesting question is what disqualifies an otherwise qualified nominee. It's certainly not gender, race or religion any more. Is it sexual orientation, real or perceived? Certainly there are many people who would answer that question in the affirmative. There are also many people who would think that is preposterous. Put me in the latter camp.
It sometimes seems as if there are as many advocacy groups in this country as there are people. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered (LGBT for those who didn't know where the acronym comes from) people have developed their own advocacy groups - some political and some social. Some focus their attention full equality and try to move the political debate by defining what true equality means or should mean. Even Republicans who advocate on behalf of the LGBT community (Log Cabin Republicans, e.g.) would say that sexual orientation should never play a role in employment decisions.
Call me crazy, but when a woman picks up a bat to play softball, it doesn't necessarily mean that she is a lesbian. Deciding not to marry or working so hard that you never find a suitable mate doesn't necessarily mean someone is gay or lesbian.
Assuming for argument's sake that Ms. Kagan is a lesbian, Senators in a position to vote on whether to confirm her as an Associate Justice should be very careful. If it is obvious that bigotry played a role in her failure to get the job, I predict that more than a few people in Washington, D.C. - many of them in Congress and other very visible positions - will wake up a couple of days after the vote on Ms. Kagan and find out that their name is on a list of closeted lesbian and gay government officials, many of them doing a fine job in their roles. Some will be married. Some will have children. Some will lose a bid for re-election. I don't advocate "outing" anyone but others don't share my views. If there is a mass "outing", it will change politics forever and those who are working hard to keep the LGBT community from achieving equality will have to work a whole lot harder than they are working now.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Elena Kagan
Unless there are disturbing revelations in Elena Kagan's appearance before the Judiciary Committee, I am hopeful that she will receive the support necessary to her appointment as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Many people have already commented on Ms. Kagan's lack of courtroom experience but no one can deny that she is an exceptional scholar - legal and otherwise - and has held a diverse array of jobs that insulate her from any charge that she is out of touch with ordinary Americans. Harvard University and the University of Chicago would never have risked their reputations to hire a woman who was not prepared to teach at the highest level or to be dean of the most prestigious law school in the country. Her family background is marked by a father who was a lawyer, a mother who was a school teacher and siblings who attended the best universities in the country and became teachers themselves. No one can call her a dilletante with dynastic wealth. She is a product of what many people still believe is the American Dream.
It is difficult to say at this point what her judicial philosophy is or the way she would analyze a variety of cases. I believe she will answer those questions with candor and confidence but will not answer direct questions about whether she believes that Rowe v. Wade ought to be overturned or that, despite her statements about the lack of constitutional support for same-sex marriage, how she would rule on various challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). No nominee, except perhaps for Robert Bork, ever revealed what they might do in hypothetical cases. That - and his supreme arrogance - derailed his nomination.
Some left wingers are disappointed. Some right wingers are disappointed. That's exactly where she ought to be. Nominating individuals to serve on the Court is clearly an important Presidential responsibility but over the last few decades has become so overly-politicized that it is easy to become cynical about the process. I didn't like the idea of a Chief Justice Roberts but there was little question that he was fit for the job. Conservatives didn't exactly like the idea that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would ascend to the Court but they, too, had to agree that she was prepared to do the job. They frequently disagree with each other. In a balanced Court with a diversity of background, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation, the moderates have much of the control in decision-making. Most of those moderates believe that there is a place for divining the "original intent of the framers" and a place for recognizing that the nation is not what it was in the 18th century and that the Constitution is a living document. There are times when both philosophies work hand-in-hand when analyzing and deciding important cases.
For those of us who will watch or listen to the confirmation hearings, I hope that we pay as much attention to the questions Ms. Kagan is asked as we do to her responses. When we hear an unfair question or one primarily designed to pander to a Senator's local constituency, I hope we will organize to complain loudly. In this role, at this moment in time, each Senator has the same constituency: all of us. When politics gets out of control, we get Clarence Thomas. When it remains in check, we get Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and a host of other jurists who have never been completely predictable. Unless there is someone out there who knows every case that will come before the Court during the next 25 years, the search for predictability will always lead to a dead end. It was designed that way over 200 years ago. It is perhaps the only time I will agree with Antonin Scalia's orginalist dogma.
Many people have already commented on Ms. Kagan's lack of courtroom experience but no one can deny that she is an exceptional scholar - legal and otherwise - and has held a diverse array of jobs that insulate her from any charge that she is out of touch with ordinary Americans. Harvard University and the University of Chicago would never have risked their reputations to hire a woman who was not prepared to teach at the highest level or to be dean of the most prestigious law school in the country. Her family background is marked by a father who was a lawyer, a mother who was a school teacher and siblings who attended the best universities in the country and became teachers themselves. No one can call her a dilletante with dynastic wealth. She is a product of what many people still believe is the American Dream.
It is difficult to say at this point what her judicial philosophy is or the way she would analyze a variety of cases. I believe she will answer those questions with candor and confidence but will not answer direct questions about whether she believes that Rowe v. Wade ought to be overturned or that, despite her statements about the lack of constitutional support for same-sex marriage, how she would rule on various challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). No nominee, except perhaps for Robert Bork, ever revealed what they might do in hypothetical cases. That - and his supreme arrogance - derailed his nomination.
Some left wingers are disappointed. Some right wingers are disappointed. That's exactly where she ought to be. Nominating individuals to serve on the Court is clearly an important Presidential responsibility but over the last few decades has become so overly-politicized that it is easy to become cynical about the process. I didn't like the idea of a Chief Justice Roberts but there was little question that he was fit for the job. Conservatives didn't exactly like the idea that Ruth Bader Ginsburg would ascend to the Court but they, too, had to agree that she was prepared to do the job. They frequently disagree with each other. In a balanced Court with a diversity of background, gender, race, religion and sexual orientation, the moderates have much of the control in decision-making. Most of those moderates believe that there is a place for divining the "original intent of the framers" and a place for recognizing that the nation is not what it was in the 18th century and that the Constitution is a living document. There are times when both philosophies work hand-in-hand when analyzing and deciding important cases.
For those of us who will watch or listen to the confirmation hearings, I hope that we pay as much attention to the questions Ms. Kagan is asked as we do to her responses. When we hear an unfair question or one primarily designed to pander to a Senator's local constituency, I hope we will organize to complain loudly. In this role, at this moment in time, each Senator has the same constituency: all of us. When politics gets out of control, we get Clarence Thomas. When it remains in check, we get Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and a host of other jurists who have never been completely predictable. Unless there is someone out there who knows every case that will come before the Court during the next 25 years, the search for predictability will always lead to a dead end. It was designed that way over 200 years ago. It is perhaps the only time I will agree with Antonin Scalia's orginalist dogma.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Happy Mother's Day
A clear majority of my friends would say that I love my mother more than any other person on Earth. The only dispute I would have with that is that I romantically love my partner just as much and that my brotherly love for my sister is equivalent, even if it's different. Thank goodness that I don't have to choose. I truly believe that the best mothers' hearts grow larger with each child and that there is no limit to our ability to love others unless it is self-imposed.
I can tell my mother almost anything (I spare her intimate details about my partner's and my relationship as soon as it involves anything sexual or otherwise qualifies as "too much information") and she almost invariably finds a way to make me feel better about myself. She was and remains my cheerleader-in-chief. She pushed me and my sister to do sometimes difficult but important things and did whatever she could to smooth the way for us. Often, it involved letting us go our own ways and left her more physically isolated from us as we moved, got different jobs and became busy adults. She has never been afraid to say those were difficult things to do but she did them anyway and knew - and still knows - she made the right decisions.
I'll admit (I've already discussed this with her) that I sometimes was embarrassed when Mom would blow into my elementary classrooms dressed like Erin Brockovich and deliver cookies when it was her turn to do so. She doesn't apologize anymore for that. I'm glad. By the time my parents' marriage was over, so was her desire to let other people define who she was and truly believed - but rarely said it aloud - that despite 35 years of teaching English, her biggest accomplishments were helping get her kids into the most rarified places they could be. I don't ever recall her trashing other women for choosing a different path or a different way of parenting unless she was being attacked for not doing things that seemed so standard. Even then, she blamed herself for not trusting other women enough to confide in them. She lost trust in men, too, ultimately concluding that they were often weaker than she was, and almost pitying them.
That's not to say she didn't try to fit in. She did. Unfortunately for her contemporaries and fortunately for me and my sister, she didn't begin to fit in until she hit her 60s. I think that happened because, by then, women who had either shunned her or belittled her saw the results of what she very privately spent so much time and energy doing. How do you raise a lawyer and doctor with middle class wages, no woodie station wagon and very, very little baking or knowing where the vacuum cleaner is on any given day? It sounds like a tough question but it's actually pretty easy. You set priorities, talk to your kids, cry with them, laugh with them and tell them long before it was ever said in a movie theatre that "my kids will never sit at the back of the bus."
Last year, I recall overhearing a conversation on the day of my sister's rehearsal dinner which was being staged at her house under a tent in the back yard. She said that she couldn't believe how smart her kids were and that it scared her to death. How was she going to handle what she believed were 'these incredible gifts? I felt this overwhelming responsibility to make sure they got what they needed and wasn't at all sure I could handle it.'
She did.
To every mother who loves her kids, I wish you a Happy Mother's Day. I don't need to say it to Mom because she knows exactly what I think.
I can tell my mother almost anything (I spare her intimate details about my partner's and my relationship as soon as it involves anything sexual or otherwise qualifies as "too much information") and she almost invariably finds a way to make me feel better about myself. She was and remains my cheerleader-in-chief. She pushed me and my sister to do sometimes difficult but important things and did whatever she could to smooth the way for us. Often, it involved letting us go our own ways and left her more physically isolated from us as we moved, got different jobs and became busy adults. She has never been afraid to say those were difficult things to do but she did them anyway and knew - and still knows - she made the right decisions.
I'll admit (I've already discussed this with her) that I sometimes was embarrassed when Mom would blow into my elementary classrooms dressed like Erin Brockovich and deliver cookies when it was her turn to do so. She doesn't apologize anymore for that. I'm glad. By the time my parents' marriage was over, so was her desire to let other people define who she was and truly believed - but rarely said it aloud - that despite 35 years of teaching English, her biggest accomplishments were helping get her kids into the most rarified places they could be. I don't ever recall her trashing other women for choosing a different path or a different way of parenting unless she was being attacked for not doing things that seemed so standard. Even then, she blamed herself for not trusting other women enough to confide in them. She lost trust in men, too, ultimately concluding that they were often weaker than she was, and almost pitying them.
That's not to say she didn't try to fit in. She did. Unfortunately for her contemporaries and fortunately for me and my sister, she didn't begin to fit in until she hit her 60s. I think that happened because, by then, women who had either shunned her or belittled her saw the results of what she very privately spent so much time and energy doing. How do you raise a lawyer and doctor with middle class wages, no woodie station wagon and very, very little baking or knowing where the vacuum cleaner is on any given day? It sounds like a tough question but it's actually pretty easy. You set priorities, talk to your kids, cry with them, laugh with them and tell them long before it was ever said in a movie theatre that "my kids will never sit at the back of the bus."
Last year, I recall overhearing a conversation on the day of my sister's rehearsal dinner which was being staged at her house under a tent in the back yard. She said that she couldn't believe how smart her kids were and that it scared her to death. How was she going to handle what she believed were 'these incredible gifts? I felt this overwhelming responsibility to make sure they got what they needed and wasn't at all sure I could handle it.'
She did.
To every mother who loves her kids, I wish you a Happy Mother's Day. I don't need to say it to Mom because she knows exactly what I think.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Toughening Up
I sometimes wonder whether I ought to toughen up a little bit and make my reactions to things that are said or happen in my personal life resemble my reactions to things that are said or happen in my professional life.
The professional part is so much easier for me. I don't think too many people would disagree that an insult, however obnoxious, can be easily shaken off, particularly when your job largely involves working with lawyers who are expected to zealously advocate for a client. As most trial lawyers would probably tell you, they have been insulted, threatened (not with violence for the most part), belittled, laughed at and otherwise treated uncivilly by opponents, judges, arbitrators, employers and clients. Most learn very early that it is an occupational hazard and is ordinarily not necessarily personal. My favorite insult (if one can have a favorite insult) was lobbed at a friend of mine during a hearing when her opponent suggested that she consult a psychiatrist to get past what he considered to be some character defect on her part. In some ways, trial practice has become a sport where substance often takes a back seat to style and where an advocate cannot necessarily depend on a judge or arbitrator to admonish a particularly obnoxious lawyer who behaves as if the case is about him and the other lawyer - not the clients. When I was an advocate, I was repeatedly told that personalizing a case and making it about the lawyers was the worst thing you could do for your client and among the worst things you could do for your professional reputation.
After a couple of decades of advocacy, mostly as an attorney and mostly before neutral arbitrators, I have not seen a great deal of evidence that personalizing cases or hurling invectives at opponents makes any real difference in the reputation of the lawyers who engage in that kind of behavior. In fact, some lawyers are bold enough to go after the judge or the arbitrator (my very unscientific survey suggests to me that it happens to arbitrators much more than it does to judges). I admit to having made some snide remarks to my opponents, mostly when I was provoked and mostly when I thought my opponent was late to hearings or in some other way was wasting everyone's time and dragging out the process for no reason other than to bill the client for more time than was necessary to try the case. Ideology (or presumed differences in ideology) is sometimes to blame. Being overworked can contribute to it as well.
I think the first thing I learned was that the louder and more personal my opponents sometimes were, the more obvious it was to me that they did not have much of a case and knew it. There is the old adage that when the law is on your side, pound on the law; when the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; if neither the law nor the facts were on your side, pound on the table. The last bit of strategy happens more frequently than we like to admit. Early in my career I recall telling my boss that I wasn't sure I had the temperment to try cases because I have no natural inclination to yell or engage in name-calling. He told me that I did not need to change my personality to do my job and if I tried, no one would believe it was authentic, anyway. I don't know whether that was the best advice I ever received but it's pretty close. The more my opponents yelled and "pounded on the table", the quieter my own voice became. Whether it is universally true or not, the arbitrators before whom I appeared would actually lean in to listen to my arguments and attempt to tune out the yelling. I didn't always win but I am certain I was heard. The many times I was personally attacked, I said absolutely nothing and just smiled (or, sometimes, let's face it, smirked) back at him or her. Ironically, that usually infuriated my opponents more than if I had "given as good as I got." A former colleague of mine was defending a case before an arbitrator and while her opponent wasn't listening, she told the arbitrator in the presence of all parties that she acknowledged that her client was wrong from a contractual perspective and that she would grant the relief sought by her opponent without the necessity of an arbitrator's decision. Her opponent then continued the earlier argument until the arbitrator told him that my colleague had rendered the case moot because she was willing to grant the remedy sought. Rule? Listening is a good skill.
When I stopped advocating cases and became an independent arbitrator - something I had long wanted to do - I had at least a dozen examples to follow given the number of arbitrators before whom I appeared over the years. Arbitrators have their own personal styles of conducting hearings, come from different backgrounds and often disagree amongst themselves about the 'right way' to behave as a neutral. As soon as I was present at a hearing as an arbitrator, a few things became very clear to me. I cannot copy anyone I had appeared before whether I want to or not. I am not predisposed to asking lots of questions of witnesses and instead rely on the advocates to put on their cases the way they choose, rule on objections and limit my questions to clearing up any confusion I might have had relating to their testimony. I may change as I mature but if want to be happy with my work, I have to remain true to myself, subject of course, to contractual and legal constraints to which every arbitrator must adhere. There is a lot of room for many different approaches, one of the best parts of choosing this as a profession.
As I indicated earlier, the separation of one's personal life from one's professional life presents its own challenges. Busy arbitrators are used to a certain amount of deference and have much more control over events than they may have at home. Spouses, families and friends can say very personal, sometimes hurtful things to each other and even if I object, I don't get to write a final and binding decision at the end telling them that I am right. Life doesn't work that way. It shouldn't. I am lucky that I am not subjected to very much criticism when I am at home. When I am, it is sometimes more than a little unnerving but is often understandable and is usually out of love. I have discovered that I am not a particularly good advocate for myself and rather than argue, my typical reaction is to remain silent or apologize. I'm not sure if I need to work on that but I get hurt like everyone else, especially when I feel powerless to defend myself. I suppose the answer to my own question - whether to toughen up a bit more or not - depends on being less sensitive or even ignoring what I believe to be unfair criticism and to develop a better sense of humor. I think it also has to include a deeper understanding of the people I love, especially their own frustrations with me or something else. That's the hardest part which means it's probably the most important part.
The professional part is so much easier for me. I don't think too many people would disagree that an insult, however obnoxious, can be easily shaken off, particularly when your job largely involves working with lawyers who are expected to zealously advocate for a client. As most trial lawyers would probably tell you, they have been insulted, threatened (not with violence for the most part), belittled, laughed at and otherwise treated uncivilly by opponents, judges, arbitrators, employers and clients. Most learn very early that it is an occupational hazard and is ordinarily not necessarily personal. My favorite insult (if one can have a favorite insult) was lobbed at a friend of mine during a hearing when her opponent suggested that she consult a psychiatrist to get past what he considered to be some character defect on her part. In some ways, trial practice has become a sport where substance often takes a back seat to style and where an advocate cannot necessarily depend on a judge or arbitrator to admonish a particularly obnoxious lawyer who behaves as if the case is about him and the other lawyer - not the clients. When I was an advocate, I was repeatedly told that personalizing a case and making it about the lawyers was the worst thing you could do for your client and among the worst things you could do for your professional reputation.
After a couple of decades of advocacy, mostly as an attorney and mostly before neutral arbitrators, I have not seen a great deal of evidence that personalizing cases or hurling invectives at opponents makes any real difference in the reputation of the lawyers who engage in that kind of behavior. In fact, some lawyers are bold enough to go after the judge or the arbitrator (my very unscientific survey suggests to me that it happens to arbitrators much more than it does to judges). I admit to having made some snide remarks to my opponents, mostly when I was provoked and mostly when I thought my opponent was late to hearings or in some other way was wasting everyone's time and dragging out the process for no reason other than to bill the client for more time than was necessary to try the case. Ideology (or presumed differences in ideology) is sometimes to blame. Being overworked can contribute to it as well.
I think the first thing I learned was that the louder and more personal my opponents sometimes were, the more obvious it was to me that they did not have much of a case and knew it. There is the old adage that when the law is on your side, pound on the law; when the facts are on your side, pound on the facts; if neither the law nor the facts were on your side, pound on the table. The last bit of strategy happens more frequently than we like to admit. Early in my career I recall telling my boss that I wasn't sure I had the temperment to try cases because I have no natural inclination to yell or engage in name-calling. He told me that I did not need to change my personality to do my job and if I tried, no one would believe it was authentic, anyway. I don't know whether that was the best advice I ever received but it's pretty close. The more my opponents yelled and "pounded on the table", the quieter my own voice became. Whether it is universally true or not, the arbitrators before whom I appeared would actually lean in to listen to my arguments and attempt to tune out the yelling. I didn't always win but I am certain I was heard. The many times I was personally attacked, I said absolutely nothing and just smiled (or, sometimes, let's face it, smirked) back at him or her. Ironically, that usually infuriated my opponents more than if I had "given as good as I got." A former colleague of mine was defending a case before an arbitrator and while her opponent wasn't listening, she told the arbitrator in the presence of all parties that she acknowledged that her client was wrong from a contractual perspective and that she would grant the relief sought by her opponent without the necessity of an arbitrator's decision. Her opponent then continued the earlier argument until the arbitrator told him that my colleague had rendered the case moot because she was willing to grant the remedy sought. Rule? Listening is a good skill.
When I stopped advocating cases and became an independent arbitrator - something I had long wanted to do - I had at least a dozen examples to follow given the number of arbitrators before whom I appeared over the years. Arbitrators have their own personal styles of conducting hearings, come from different backgrounds and often disagree amongst themselves about the 'right way' to behave as a neutral. As soon as I was present at a hearing as an arbitrator, a few things became very clear to me. I cannot copy anyone I had appeared before whether I want to or not. I am not predisposed to asking lots of questions of witnesses and instead rely on the advocates to put on their cases the way they choose, rule on objections and limit my questions to clearing up any confusion I might have had relating to their testimony. I may change as I mature but if want to be happy with my work, I have to remain true to myself, subject of course, to contractual and legal constraints to which every arbitrator must adhere. There is a lot of room for many different approaches, one of the best parts of choosing this as a profession.
As I indicated earlier, the separation of one's personal life from one's professional life presents its own challenges. Busy arbitrators are used to a certain amount of deference and have much more control over events than they may have at home. Spouses, families and friends can say very personal, sometimes hurtful things to each other and even if I object, I don't get to write a final and binding decision at the end telling them that I am right. Life doesn't work that way. It shouldn't. I am lucky that I am not subjected to very much criticism when I am at home. When I am, it is sometimes more than a little unnerving but is often understandable and is usually out of love. I have discovered that I am not a particularly good advocate for myself and rather than argue, my typical reaction is to remain silent or apologize. I'm not sure if I need to work on that but I get hurt like everyone else, especially when I feel powerless to defend myself. I suppose the answer to my own question - whether to toughen up a bit more or not - depends on being less sensitive or even ignoring what I believe to be unfair criticism and to develop a better sense of humor. I think it also has to include a deeper understanding of the people I love, especially their own frustrations with me or something else. That's the hardest part which means it's probably the most important part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)