Lift Up Your Hearts!

The 4-Hour Workweek:  Escape 9 - 5, Live Anywhere, and Join the New Rich, by Timothy Ferriss (Crown Publishers, New York, 2007)

Examine what is said, not him who speaks.
‎— Arabian Proverb

I discovered this proverb recently, and it goes well with my own, "The wise man recognizes truth in the words of his enemies," which I use to remind myself that there may be much to learn from people with whom I disagree, even on critical issues.

Janet found Tim Ferriss online.  I found some of his ideas familiar—I think I read something about him, or watched someone's posted YouTube video from him...or something.  (This is the problem with information glut.  I used to be able to tell you, not only the book where I found certain information, but often the section of the page.  No more.  Did I read it in a book?  On a blog?  See it on YouTube?  Hear it on the radio?  I have no idea.)

It would be easy to be turned off by Tim Ferriss.  He comes across as brash, self-centered, bombastic, and as subtle as an infomercial, and I'm certain his moral compass points several degrees shy of north.^*  But to ignore him on that basis would be a mistake.  In amongst the infomercial fodder there is some truth, and some really good ideas.

Ferris may be the polar opposite of the denizens of the Front Porch Republic, and thus a good balancing viewpoint for me.  The FPR values localism, meaningful work, community, neighborhoods, and staying put. Ferriss not only thinks outside the box, he has no box.  His "work" is impersonal, mostly outsourced, and of value to him only for funding his dreams. The world is his home.  No tourist he:  he can put three months' intense work into learning a new language, plunk himself down in the middle of a foreign city, find a cheap apartment, and totally immerse himself in the local culture for three weeks, three months, or three years, all the while maintaining his business seamlessly.  If I find his attitude towards work and his lack of roots disturbing, I find his love of other places, languages, and cultures admirable.

Ferriss has looked at the "traditional" view of working long, hard, and faithfully at a job while saving money so one can finally enjoy life at retirement, and shouted a resounding "No!"  It's hard to blame him, given that advancement and security are no longer the rewards of faithful service, the work-week has stretched from 40 hours to 60 or 80, and savings can be wiped out in an instant.  His suggestion is not to retire at all, but to organize one's life to fund frequent "mini-retirements" throughout life.  One of the differences between those he calls the New Rich and those stuck in the old way of thinking is that the latter want to be able to buy all the they want to have, while the New Rich want to be able to do all the things they want to do and be all the things they want to be.

Ideas fly from Tim Ferriss like popcorn from a popper with the lid off.  (Is that analogy still viable in these days of microwave popcorn?)  Even if you don't want to outsource your everyday life to India, I think you'll enjoy these excerpts.

Some people remain convinced that just a bit more money will make things right.  Their goals are arbitrary moving targets:  $300,000 in the bank, $1,000,000 in the  portfolio, $100,000 a year instead of $50,000, etc.  Julie's goal made intrinsic sense:  come back with the same number of children she had left with.

She reclined in her seat and glanced across the aisle past her sleeping husband, Marc, counting as she had done thousands of times—one, two, three.  So far so good.  In 12 hours, they would all be back in Paris, safe and sound.  That was assuming the plane from New Caledonia held together, of course.

New Caledonia?

Nestled in the tropics of the Coral Sea, New Caledonia was a French territory and where Julie and Marc had just sold the sailboat that took them 15,000 miles around the world....All said and done, their 15-month exploration of the globe, from the gondola-rich waterways of Venice to the tribal shores of Polynesia, had cost between $18, 000 and $19,000.  Less than rent and baguettes in Paris....

The trip had been a dream for almost two decades, relegated to the back of the line behind an ever-growing list of responsibilities.  Each passing moment brought a new list of reasons for putting it off.  One day, Julie realized that if she didn't do it now, she would never do it....

One year of preparation and one 30-day trial run with her husband later, they set sail on the trip of a lifetime.  Julie realized almost as soon as the anchor lifted that, far from being a reason not to travel and seek adventure, children are perhaps the best reason of all to do both.

Pre-trip, her three little boys  had fought like banshees at the drop of a hat.  In the process of learning to coexist in a floating bedroom, they learned patience, as much for themselves as for the sanity of their parents.  Pre-trip, books were about as appealing as eating sand.  Given the alternative of staring at a wall on the open sea, all three learned to love books.  Pulling them out of school for one academic year and exposing them to new environments had proven to be the best investment in their education to date.

Now sitting in the plane, Julie looked out at the clouds as the wing cut past them, already thinking of their next plans:  to find a place in the mountains and ski all year long, using income from a sail-rigging workshop to fund the slopes and more travel.

Dreamlining.  That's what Ferriss calls his version of setting and achieving goals. 

For all their [complaining] about what's holding them back, most people have a lot of trouble coming up with the defined dreams they're being held from.

He includes a number of questions designed to help you clarify your desires and determine the cost of actually accomplishing them.  The whole procedure is a lot of work, but a quick take-away is that if you stare down both your desires and your fears, it may cost a lot less than you think to fulfill your dreams. I'm convinced that he's onto something here, especially on a smaller scale.  How often do we defer trips or purchases or projects that would make our lives (or someone else's) more delightful, because we've never clearly defined the issue and determined the cost?  We'll curse a recalcitrant piece of equipment for months, then curse ourselves when we finally get around to fixing it and discover the solution was a $5 part and 20 minutes of work.  Often my unexamined mental image of how much something will cost (in money, time, or effort) is vastly inaccurate.  For years I put off scanning my father's journals because I couldn't imagine finding time for such a mammoth job—and suffered much fear that fire or flood would destroy the only copy of this family treasure.  When I finally sat down and did the calculations, I discovered that by setting aside a manageable half hour a day for the project I could complete it in just eight months.  And I did.

Speaking of fear, Ferriss names it as a major culprit holding us back, and urges us not to allow our fears to remain amorphous.  Define them clearly (as Yoda said, "Named must your fear be before banish it you can"), consider worst-case scenarios and how you might recover from them, deterimine the possibilities of positive outcomes, and do a risk/benefit analysis, not forgetting to include the costs of not taking action.

Usually, what we most fear doing is what we most need to do.  That phone call, that conversation, whatever the action might be—it is fear of the unknown that prevents us from doing what we need to do.  Define the worst case, accept it, and do it.....What we fear doing most is usually what we most need to do.

Jean-Marc Hachey landed in West Africa as a volunteer, with high hopes of lending a helping hand....He arrived in Ghana in the early 1980s, in the middle of a coup d'etat, at the peak of hyperinflation, and just in time for the worst drought in a decade....  He had also missed the memo.  The national menu had changed, and they were out of luxuries like bread and clean water.  He would be surviving for four months on a slushlike concoction of corn meal and spinach....

Jean-Mark had passed the point of no return, but it didn't matter.  After two weeks of adjusting to the breakfast, lunch, and dinner...he had no desire to escape.  The most basic of foods and good friends proved to be the only real necessities, and what would seem like a disaster from the outside was the most life-affirming epiphany he'd ever experienced:  The worst really wasn't that bad.  To enjoy life, you don't need fancy nonsense, but you do need to control your time and realize that most things just aren't as serious as you make them out to be.  Now 48, Jean-Marc lives in a nice home in Ontario, but could live without it.  He has cash, but could fall into poverty tomorrow and it wouldn't matter.  Some of his fondest memories still include nothing but friends and gruel.

The 80/20 Principle:  80% of the results come from 20% of the effort and time.  Applying this analysis to his business was life-changing, and it applies to much more than business.

Out of more than 120 wholesale customers, a mere 5 were bringing in 95% of the revenue.  I was spending 98% of my time chasing the remainder, as the aforementioned 5 ordered regularly without any follow-up calls, persuasion, or cajoling....All, and I mean 100%, of my problems and complaints came from this unproductive majority, with the exception of two large customers who were simply world-class experts of the "here is the fire I started, now you put it out" approach to business.  I put all of these unproductive customers on passive mode:  If they ordered, great--let them fax in the order.  If not, I would do absolutely no chasing:  no phone calls, no e-mail, nothing.

That left the two larger customers to deal with, who were professional ball breakers but contributed about 10% to the bottom line at the time.  You'll always have a few of these, and it is a quandary that causes all sorts of problems, not the least of which is self-hatred and depression.  Up to that point, I had taken their browbeating, insults, time-consuming arguments, and tirades as a cost of doing business.  I realized...that these two people were the source of nearly al my unhappiness and anger throughout the day, and it usually spilled over into my personal time....I finally concluded the obvious:  The effect on my self-esteem and state of mind just wasn't worth the financial gain....The customers are always right, aren't they?  Part of doing business, right?  ["No," rather more rudely put, followed by an explanation of how he "fired" these customers, one of which he lost and the other of which changed his behavior and remained.]

I then identified the common characteristics of my top-five customers and secured three or so similarly profiled buyers in the following week.  Remember, more customers is not automatically more income.  More customers is not the goal and often translates into 90% more housekeeping and a paltry 1-3% increase in income....I duplicated my strengths, in this case my top producers, and focused on increasing the size and frequency of their orders.  The end result?  I went from chasing and appeasing 120 customers to simply receiving large orders from 8, with absolutely no pleading phone calls or e-mail haranguing.  My monthly income [doubled] in four weeks and my weekly hours immediately dropped form over 80 to approximately 15.  Mot important, I was happy with myself and felt both optimistic and liberated for the first time in over two years."

Parkinson's Law:  Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.

[A] task will swell in (perceived) importance and complexity in relation to the time allotted for its completion.  It is the magic of the imminent deadline.  If I give you 24 hours to complete a project, the time pressure forces you to focus on execution, and you have no choice but to do only the bare essentials.  If I give you a week to complete the same task, it's six days of making a mountain out of a molehill.  If I give you two months...it becomes a mental monster.  The end product of the shorter deadline is almost inevitably of equal or higher quality due to greater focus.

The best solution is to use both [laws] together:  Identify the few critical tasks that contribute most...and schedule them with very short and clear deadlines.

No multitasking allowed.

You should have, at most, two primary goals or tasks per day.  Do them separately from start to finish without distraction.  Divided attention will result in more frequent interruptions, lapses in concentration, poorer net results, and less gratification.

Okay, so I really fail at that one.  It may work for some jobs, and I acknowledge I multitask too much, but I defy any parent to do a good job following the letter of this law.

Battling information glut.  What information consumes is rather obvious:  it consumes the attention of its recipients.  (Herbert Simon)

[Develop] an uncanny ability to be selectively ignorant....It is imperative that you learn to ignore or redirect all information and interruptions that are irrelevant, unimportant, or unactionable.  Most are all three.  The first step is to develop and maintain a low-information diet.  Just as modern man consumes both too many calories and calories of no nutritional value, information workers eat data both in excess and from the wrong sources.

[E]-mail...is the greatest single interruption in the modern world.  Check e-mail twice per day, once...just prior to lunch, and again at 4:00 p.m.  Never check e-mail first thing in the morning.  Instead, complete your most important task before 11:00 a.m.

This obviously won't work for Lime Daley.  Ferriss makes it work for his business (indeed, he checks e-mail only once a week) by outsourcing the work, and that is not the Lime Daley way.  But I know I don't need to check e-mail nearly as often as I do (nor blogs, for that matter), and I have already benefitted from the small steps I've taken to tame the beast.  Not going online first thing in the morning is liberating!

To live is to learn.

Though you can upgrade your brain domestically, raveling and relocating provides unique conditions that make progress much faster.  The different surroundings act as a counterpoint and mirror for your own prejudices, making weaknesses that much easier to fix.  I rarely travel somewhere without deciding first how I'll obsess on a specific skill...I tend to focus on language acquisition and one kinesthetic skill.  [Sports are especially good because you don't need superior language skills, but he recommends dancing, hiking, chess, or almost anything that encourages interaction with the community in which you've chosen to live.]

Language learning deserves special mention.  It is, bar none, the best thing you can do to hone clear thinking.  Quite aside from the fact that it is impossible to understand a culture without understanding its language, acquiring a new language makes you aware of your own language:  your own thoughts.  The benefits of becoming fluent in a foreign tongue are as underestimated as the difficulty is overestimated.  Thousands of theoretical linguists will disagree but I know from research and personal experimentation with more than a dozen languages that (1) adults can learn languages much faster than children when constant 9-5 work is removed and that (2) it is possible to become conversationally fluent in any language in six months or less.  At four hours per day, six months can be whittled down to less than three months....I learned six languages after failing Spanish in high school, and you can do the same with the right tools.

Do I recommend The 4-Hour Workweek?  Yes.  Now that I've read it from the library, will I buy it?  Probably not.  There's a lot in there of little interest to me, business practices and tricks that leave me feeling a little queasy.  (Although I'll admit I learned a thing or two about Google ads and pay-per-click.)  But even though it contributes to the information overload Ferriss decries, I say it's worth a quick reading, borrowing if you can, buying if you can't.  (It's only $13 on Amazon.)  There are definitely ideas worth wrestling with.  You can also check out the website.

Dipping once again into the blogging backlog.

It's old (from October 2008), and long, but this Financial Crisis for Beginners from InvestorsInsight is definitely worthwhile if you want a better understanding of what happened to the credit markets and why.  Here are a few excerpts to give you a taste.

Historically local banks took deposits from savings account customers and lent money to homebuyers. They paid 1% for the savings accounts and collected 6% on the mortgages, and the spread (5 percentage points in this case) was more than enough to compensate for any homebuyers who couldn't pay their mortgages. (The numbers are illustrative only.)...Then, as any explanation of the subprime crisis says, banks started reselling and securitizing mortgages. But what does it mean to resell (let alone securitize) a mortgage?

To [banks], a mortgage is a product. This product gives them a monthly stream of payments...from their perspective, they are "buying" the stream of payments by paying you the loan amount....If Bank A resells your mortgage to Bank B, Bank B buys your payment stream from Bank A in exchange for a lump sum of money....[I]n practice, Bank B (or C, or D, …) is often an investment bank. And Bank B often securitizes your mortgage. This means they take your mortgage and combine it with many (thousands of) similar mortgages....Now you have a pool of [mortgages, which] as a whole has a price—the amount someone would pay to get all of those payment streams of that riskiness. In a securitization, the investment bank divides the pool up into many small slices [also referred to as tranches]....Each slice can be bought and sold separately, and each slice entitles the buyer to [a fraction] of the payments streaming into that pool.  The price of these slices is based on current assumptions about the riskiness of those payments....The problem is that at the time those mortgages were securitized, the buyers assumed that housing prices could only go up, and therefore the payments were not very risky [hence prices were high].

Let's say you are an investment bank and you paid $1 million for a slice of a securities offering (a pool). You put that on your books as an asset...valued at $1 million. However, a year later, that slice is only worth $200,000 (you know this because other people selling similar slices of similar pools are only getting 20 cents on the dollar). You generally have to mark your holding to market (account for its current market value), which means now that asset is valued at $200,000 on your balance sheet. This is an $800,000 writedown, and it counts as a loss on your income (profit and loss) statement.

The next problem is that, over the last two decades, most of our banks have become giant proprietary trading rooms, meaning that they buy and sell securities for profit. Let's say you start a bank with $10 million of your own money. That's your "capital." You go out and borrow $90 million from other people, typically by selling bonds, which are promises to pay back the money at some interest rate. Then you take the $100 million and buy some stuff (like slices of mortgage pools), which pays you a higher interest rate than you are paying on your bonds. Suddenly you are making money hand over fist. But then let's say that housing prices start falling, securitized subprime mortgages start plummeting in value, and your $100 million in assets are now only worth $80 million. Since the value of your debt ($90 million) hasn't changed, you are technically insolvent at this point, because your losses exceed your capital; put another way, the money coming in from your slices of mortgage pools isn't enough to pay your bondholders.

[S]ince the Lehman bankruptcy on September 15, the crisis has moved into a new phase. In this phase, financial institutions are facing liquidity runs, or bank runs, whether or not they are solvent. How can this happen?...[B]anks tend to borrow short and lend long. [A typical mortgage is for 30 years, and the bank can't require the homeowner to pay it off early, while savings deposits tend to be short-term, perhaps a withdraw-on-demand savings account or a two-year certificate of deposit.]  In the classic case, the bank takes money from depositors and loans it out as mortgages....If every depositor tries to withdraw his money at the same time, the bank can't call in its mortgages, and there won't be enough cash for everyone. Now why would this happen, since it is unlikely that everyone will need his cash at the same time? It happens if each depositor starts worrying that his...money might not be safe...then everyone tries to withdraw his money at the same time.

In ordinary times, bank runs don't happen. First, the FDIC insures all deposit accounts up to $100,000 [now $250,000] per account holder, precisely to prevent this kind of panic. However, in a real bank many of the liabilities are not deposit accounts and hence are not insured. Second, banks can ordinarily borrow money "against" their assets; that is, a bank with $100 in good mortgages can borrow almost $100 from another bank...by pledging those mortgages as collateral. [Securities] can also be used to raise short-term money.

These are no ordinary times, however. The fundamental problem is that all players in the financial system have realized that a bank that is solvent...can still be subject to a bank run. Once that happens, Bank A doesn't want to lend money to Bank B for two reasons: first, Bank A wants to hold onto its cash in case it becomes the target of a bank run; and second, Bank A is afraid that Bank B could be the target of a bank run, and hence is afraid that if it lends to Bank B it won't get its money back. Like all such panics, of course, this becomes self-fulfilling.  [When perfectly solvent banks try to replace or renew their short-term loans—remember, they lend long and borrow short—they can't because no one is willing to lend them money.]....The key characteristic of such a crisis is that banks can be hit by bank runs—and go bankrupt—even if their assets are worth more than their liabilities.

There's a lot more, including an explanation of such TLAs as CDS and CDO, but if I put too much here it won't count as "excerpts."  Besides, my head's still spinning.

The people who sold us our worm farm gave us this advice for giving the worms a special treat:  put some melon in their bin.  Red wiggler worms love melon, they assured us, and will mob any pieces you give them.  On the way home from church yesterday, we bought a watermelon from a local farmer.  It was red, sweet, dripping, and delicious...and I couldn't wait to share the remains with the worms.

When I last checked, they hadn't shown any interest, possibly because I froze the melon pieces first, so they would also provide some Worm A/C.  I'll check again tomorrow.  However, I can report that they are going absolutely bananas for their Carnegie Mellon moisture mat.

 

On the left is what it looked like when I first put it in the bin, not quite two months ago.  On the right, what it looks like now.  If you click on the picture and enlarge it, you'll see a few worms (red-brown), some melon (green and pink), a lot of castings (brown), and the shredded-paper bedding showing through a large hole that they have eaten through the middle.  (The green is another piece of cloth on which I place the frozen water bottle for cooling; I've pulled it aside so you can see the hole.)   What you can't see is the masses of worms swarming under and through the mat; "infesting" would be a good word.

It's true:  Worms love melons.  But they can't spell.

God Grew Tired of Us (Newmarket Films, 2006)

Subtitled The Story of the Lost Boys of Sudan, this award-winning, PG-rated film tells the stories of three Sudanese men who, as chldren, fled the genocide in their country, walked over a thousand miles through difficult terrain and terrible deprivation, first to Ethiopia and finally to a refugee camp in Kenya.  After many years in the camp, they were brought to the United States to live.

Steering clear, for the most part, of political issues, the film is simultaneously horrifying, inspiring, and even funny, such as the time one of the boys picked up a bottle of Pepsi and proclaimed, "In Africa we call this Coca-Cola."  I'm sure the Coke folks loved that.  Two of the boys were resettled in Pittsburgh, so there are some fun shots for Pittsburgers, including one of the good ol' 86B bus.  One of the boys—now men—works at Whole Foods, so it's possible I might even have seen him.

Having observed the resettlement of many Southeast Asian refugees after the Vietnam War—some with great success, some with little—I was all the more impressed by the boys' ability to adjust to such a radically different culture.  It helped greatly, I'm sure, that they had already had a good start at mental and physical development before entering the starving times, and also that there was a school at the refugee camp, so that their English was already quite good when they arrived in America.  God Grew Tired of US does a nice job of pointing out negative aspects of American culture without indulging in America-bashing.  The men honor their new country without forgetting or dishonoring their homeland.

It is, however, a tad embarrassing to see the men reacting to bikini-clad women on television, and bemused by our Christmas traditions.  "Can you tell me about this Santa Claus?  In Africa, Christmas is about Jesus being born."  And downright heartbreaking to hear them talk about the loneliness here, how people pass each other without greeting, and how neighbors don't know each other.  They speak with sincere longing for the community spirit they had in their homeland, on their trek, and in the refugee camp.  It reminded me of a friend of Janet's, from Russia, who was happy that in America we don't stand in long lines for little choice in food, but sad that we don't have the mealtime camaraderie common in Russia.  Saddest of all, perhaps, was one man's observation—this may have been in the DVD commentary rather than the movie itself—that family is of great importance in the Sudan, but that in America it's very difficult to have children unless you can get someone else to take care of them for you.

Watch the trailer. 

A Sane Woman's Guide to Raising a Large Family, by Mary Ostyn (Gibbs Smith, Layton, Utah, 2009)

This book sounded useful to Heather, who wishes both to have a large family and to retain her sanity, so we bought it for her as a Mother's Day gift.  Naturally, I read it first.  (Book-gift recipients are accustomed to that behavior from me, I'm afraid.)

I recommend A Sane Woman's Guide to all families who aspire to sanity, even if their hopes don't include a large family.  Although I don't agree with all of Mary Ostyn's advice, it's a surprisingly useful collection of ideas in a slim 192 pages, amusingly presented. Here's the table of contents for a quick preview, followed by a few, rather random, excerpts.

• Growing a Family: Are We Crazy to Want Another Baby?
• Money:  Just How Broke Are We Going to Be?
• Making Space:  Will We Need a Shoehorn to Fit Another Bed?
• Kids and Activities:  Is It Still "Home Sweet Home" If I'm Never There?
• Affordable Vacations:  Is a Disney Vacation a Childhood Essential? [Absolutely not.  But a Central Florida vacation is, if your grandparents live in the Orlando area.]
• The Supermom Myth:  Where is My Supersuit?
• Parenthood and Stress:  Will Bedtime Ever Come?
• Parenting Hacks:  Isn't There a Better Way to Do This?
• Likeable Kids:  Will Grandma Be Worn Out by Our Brood?
• School Success:  What if My Kid Isn't an Honor Student?
• Encouraging Sibling Friendships:  Why Can't They Be Friends?
• Celebrating Each Child:  Will They Know How Special They Are to Me?
• Conclusion:  Never Alone

Making it work on a moderate income comes down to clarity of purpose.  What do our children need most from us?  They need love.  They need food, clothes, and shelter.  The need clear expectations and responsibilities.  The need time just to be kids....But they do not need huge allowances, rooms of their own, TVs in their rooms, and name-brand clothes.

Though I am a tightwad at heart, years of mothering a large family have made me a reluctant fan of high-quality components in certain places [e.g. faucets, carpets and other flooring, cabinets, and doorknobs].

Every household should have a good collection of books....The library is a wonderful resource as well.  But kids should be able to find something to read anytime, not just when you have time to hit the library.

My mom taught me to sort laundry the traditional way:  whites, lights, mediums, darks, and towels.  As a new wife, I dutifully emulated my mom's approach.  A few kids later, I got lax and tried the "grab any heap and chuck it in the washer" approach.  To my surprise, the laundry didn't look much different.  Sure, there were those few rare occasions when I forgot about that new red shirt and my (very secure) hubby ended up wearing pink underwear to work.  But those times were rare.  My casual approach saved minutes every day and decreased our quality of life not one bit.

Instead of aiming to get out the door five minutes before I had to get out the door, I started aiming to leave half an hour sooner.  Don't get me wrong:  I've never managed to actually leave half an hour early.  But often I manage to walk out the door five or ten minutes ahead of schedule.  After years of unsuccessfully trying to beat the clock, let me tell you, that's a sweet, sweet feeling.

A huge key when dealing with poky homework-doers is to give children ownership of the problem.  Make sure they know what they're supposed to do and remind them that nothing else is going to happen till this is done.  Then leave them be.  Sometimes kids will need a session or two of staring at the problems till bedtime to decide to work.  Sprinkle a bit of exercise in there even if the work isn't done.  Chasing the dog around the yard for ten minutes is sometimes just the thing to break the logjam in the child's brain and motivate them to finish the work.  But stick to your guns and require that the work get done.

My husband and I only had two kids when we realized that the whining had to quit in our house.  We made a serious push to stop rewarding that behavior.  Though it didn't end entirely—we still fight the battle some days—it did diminish the level dramatically, which made my job as mom much more enjoyable.

Pick a few essential house rules and stick to them.  Here are the rules we have at our house:

• Be respectful to your parents.
• Be kind to each other.
• Work hard without complaining.

Once the child knows what behavior you expect, give consequences with every offense.  Too often we parents think we are being merciful when we give kids one more chance to obey, but, really, we are training them to disobey....Kids are smart, and they learn quickly when it is in their best interest.  And here's the truth:  learning to obey the first time you say it is in everyone's best interest.  It makes for a happier family.

Over the years, I've learned to vary the consequence [for misbehavior] depending on the occasion.  If a child doesn't cooperate during work time, he'll need to work during part of his playtime.  If a kid is cranky and argumentative, maybe he'd benefit from an earlier bedtime.  If a child destroys his bedroom, he cleans up the mess.  Kids who hurt siblings can make up for it by doing a chore for the hurt sibling....Most kids do not like to do extra work.  I will often give a disobedient child an extra job to atone for defiance....If kids learn that misbehavior takes away their free time, they'll be less likely to do the same thing again.  I also find that getting a bit of assistance helps me feel more positive towards the child.

I've stopped berating children about the state of their rooms right before they fall asleep at night.  No kid needs the last words of the day from mom to be a lecture, no matter how well deserved.  Better to brush the clutter aside and end the day on a positive note.

When you're feeding half a dozen kids, you'd go nuts trying to be a short order cook for each and every child.  So you offer fewer choices, and kids learn to be more flexible.  Here's another thing that moms of many know:  kids almost never starve themselves, despite their parents' fears.  If they're given a reasonable variety of food, they'll eat enough to live on.  Really.

Thomas Edison once said, "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work."  By training our kids to work, we are making it more likely they will see those opportunities when they come along in life.  Training should start young.  Even a twelve-month old can help put blocks into a bucket.  Kids need to know that everyone in your family helps out, and they need to learn that complaining will not get them out of work.  In fact, at our house, complaining is a great way to earn an extra task.  Even an indignant "Uh!" means kids need to practice giving the right answer in the right tone of voice...Don't just give children busywork.  Kids are competent....It is better to overestimate your children's ability a bit and then train them to the task.  Don't keep kids doing the same overly simplistic jobs for years.  Promote them!

One of the best things we can give our kids is the right kind of praise.  Words of affirmation come naturally to many parents these days....The problem is that kids get used to being applauded for the simplest things....Rather than giving huge applause for every action, it is better to praise specifics and to match the level of praise to the amount of effort that the child made....The most powerful praise focuses on things that children can control.  We should notice effort.  We should notice concentration.  We should especially notice when kids have worked hard on a project.  In the end, hard work will get kids farther than native ability.

Here's something that a lot of people don't realize.  All kids come out of school with "gaps," no matter what type of schooling they've had....But if we can instill in our children an ethic of hard work, the ability to read, and a curiosity about the worlds, they will have the tools they need to overcome any gaps they may have.

When I notice my kids picking on other children's weaknesses, I pick a quiet time to speak directly to the person who is being unkind.  "Have you noticed how Ben really hates to wear his glasses?"  Usually the child will admit that he has.  If he pretends ignorance of the issue, I'll explain the other child's feelings in a non-accusatory way and ask the child if he will help me support his brother.  "Could you help me make sure nobody teases him about his glasses?  Let me know if anyone does, okay?"  Enlisting the child's help as his brother's protector will often discourage teasing.  You may not even have to mention the child's part in the teasing.  Most likely his conscience will do that work.  If we can teach our children to make allowance for the weaknesses of others, we will be encouraging a kinder gentler spirit in our home.

I've come to realize that fighting between children is most intense when they are having a hard time getting their own needs met.  If a kid is feeling neglected or out of sorts, he can't have the emotional energy to speak gently to another child, to forgive, to be kind.  Often I can trace an increase of fighting in the family directly to a too-busy schedule, especially a too-busy momma, or to a too-great focus on accomplishment at the expense of family fun.

A Sane Woman's Guide to Raising a Large Family is a quick first-time read, during which most people will find sound principles worth re-reading a time or two.  It's also well-written, and the tone is not condescending.

In the back corners of my "to blog about" list, I finally found In Defense of "The Rich," by Larry Elder.  I'd originally bookmarked it because of the facts about charitable giving (see below); I'd remembered, from another source, George W. Bush's impressive record in this matter, but couldn't find it when I needed it in a debate with my brother.  This article gave the hard numbers for my hazy memory, but at that point it was but l’esprit de l’escalier, so I filed it under "sometime"...you know.

But sometime is now here, and I find that the article has several good points, and complements my previous post, Think You're Rich?  Or Poor?

A recent poll commissioned by Investor's Business Daily asked, in effect, "What share [of the tax burden] do you think the rich pay?"  Their findings? Most people are completely clueless about the amount the rich actually do pay.

The top 5 percent (those making more than $153,542) pay 60 percent of all federal income taxes. The rich (aka the top 1 percent of income earners, those making more than $388,806 a year)...pay 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 1 percent's taxes comprise 17 percent of the federal government's revenue from all sources, including corporate taxes, excise taxes, social insurance and retirement receipts.

[Of those polled,] 36 percent thought the rich contribute 10 percent or less of all federal income taxes. Another 15 percent thought the rich pay between 10 and 20 percent, while another 10 percent thought the rich's share is between 20 and 30 percent. In other words, most people thought the rich pay less—far less—than they actually do. Only 12 percent of those polled thought the rich pay more than 40 percent.

A U.S. News & World Report blogger went to the Democratic National Convention in Denver and conducted an informal poll of 24 DNC delegates. He asked them, "What should 'the rich' pay in income taxes?" Half the respondents said "25 percent"; 25 percent said "20 percent"; 12 percent said "30 percent"; and another 12 percent said "35 percent." The average DNC delegate wanted the rich to pay 25.6 percent, which is lower than what the rich pay now.

Thirty percent of American voters pay nothing—zero, zip, nada—in federal income taxes.

And here's the above-mentioned charitable giving data.

• In 2007, President George W. Bush and his wife had an adjusted gross income of $923,807...and donated $165,660 to charity—or 18 percent of their income.
• Vice President and Mrs. Cheney, in 2007, had a taxable income of $3.04 million...and donated $166,547 to charity—or 5.5 percent of their income.
• Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, earned between $200,000 and $300,000 a year between 2000 and 2004, and they donated less than 1 percent to charity. When their income soared to $4.2 million in 2007, their charitable contributions went up to 5 percent.
• Joe and Jill Biden...made $319,853 and gave $995 to charity in 2007, or 0.3 percent of their income. And that was during the year Biden was running for president. Over the past 10 years, the Bidens earned $2,450,042 and gave $3,690 to charity—or 0.1 percent of their income.

Liberal families earn about 6 percent more than conservative families, yet conservative households donate about 30 percent more to charity than do liberal households. And conservatives give more than just to their own churches and other houses of worship. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, give far more money and donate more of their time to nonreligious charitable causes than do liberals—especially secular liberals.

I thought I was finished writing about Judy's trial and the circumstances that led to it, but Jon wrote some excellent comments in response to a discussion at allnurses.com, and they're worth repeating here.  (Following the link will take you to the page where Jon's comments are; from there you can see the whole thread if you'd like.)

To the EMT who would get children out of the parents' custody because they don't agree with his advice: That is completely horrible, and unacceptable for any case but perhaps some sort of huge abuse problem. Perhaps you haven't seen what sort of issues there are once the state steps in to take care of the children. Way worse than 99% of the parents that are out there.

The EMT's comment is worth quoting here.  Let those who take our basic liberties for granted observe both his attitude and the fact  that he said it's "very easy" to have a baby declared in need of protective custody, at least for long enough to strong-arm the parents into obedience.

Actually we can force the mother to go to the hospital, it's kind of a trick but unless there is a religious reason for the baby not to go, we say that the parent's action[s] are placing the child at risk of injury and have the police put the baby in protective custody (very easy to do) and transport the baby, but they're attached so mom has to go.

Back to Jon. Some people suggested that 911 should have been called earlier, that having EMTs there sooner would have made a difference in the outcome.

We do have a phone. In my mind, once a baby is partially out of the mother, there isn't much that an EMT is going to be able to do, so not worth calling. (Now that I've seen what experience the EMTs have with babies (out of the 6 EMTs and physician that showed up, one had seen a baby delivered before, the rest testified that they had never seen a baby that small—10 pounds—or young before. They had no experience with umbilical cords, and depended on the midwife to properly handle that. They had no experience with infant CPR, and one testified that our midwife was doing things incorrectly, but upon further research into infant CPR (I never had infant CPR certification myself, just adult and child) [I] saw that Judy was doing exactly the right thing, and the EMT was referring to child CPR, which doesn't apply to a 10 minute old baby.

As for legality of things, I refer you to the Diane Goslin case last year, where it was clearly stated that PA law does not treat midwifery as the practice of medicine. So, the only thing left was to charge our midwife with the practice of midwifery without a certificate, which for some strange reason, PA requires a certificate, but doesn't have any means of getting a certificate. Many midwives practice openly in this state, sign birth certificate, do the blood tests, apply for social security cards, etc. and the state accepts them. As far as I can tell, it is legal in PA to be a non-nurse midwife. Hopefully this case will urge the legislators to fix the law where they have created a law that is not possible to live by, and the hundred or so non-nurse midwives currently in the state should have some way of following that law.

"The Daleys have used both a certified nurse and unlicensed midwives. Mr. Daley said he is more comfortable with the latter because they are less 'medical' and don't overcompensate for risks in fear of legal liability."

Hopefully that statement came out right—it was given over the phone to one of the newspapers—he didn't write everything I said, and you can probably twist those words to mean things that I didn't mean. I think it is crazy that some doctors think that there "aren't any risks in childbirth if you are in a hospital," and I think that is precisely the reason that there are so many lawsuits—they set themselves up to be perfect, and say that every other case was negligent, etc. In our case, 78 other babies died that year in the county, in hospitals, and none of those deaths resulted in the county pressing charges. I don't know whether the parents pressed civil charges in any of those deaths—they didn't make the news if they did.

One point that someone brought up is that even with a judge who (given his closing remarks) was quite against midwifery, and the actions of this particular midwife, but still could not find her guilty of anything [deserving a penalty of] more than $100 (though presumably he tried as hard as he could) shows that there really isn't a problem with midwifery in Pennsylvania.

As for other facts of the case, you might be interested in our version of the story, most of which did not get published elsewhere, even if it did get mentioned in the various hearings. I was fairly unprepared for the prosecution to not be interested in facts and the truth, but rather just winning the case. I expected the county to want to find out what happened, and have that judged, rather than twisting my words, (even trying to get me to not be able to testify), and coming to our house to yell at us unless we agreed to change our story. Very bizarre.

Link to Isaac's story (You can click on the "page" links at the bottom of the page if you want to start at the beginning; otherwise, you'll be reading in reverse chronological order.)

Lastly, [to] those people who said that our midwife should have left a laboring mother, or call 911 "to cover her behind", seems kind of strange to me. I wouldn't expect any health care provider to stop providing care, unless it was a danger to themselves (i.e. fallen power line, avalanche, etc). Judy (presumably) knew that she didn't have to worry about being sued by us, and so was able to make medical decisions and not legal decisions. Too many medical professionals are making legal decisions rather than medical decisions. I don't blame them, since Americans like to sue people, and I don't know what the answer is, other than never using those professionals, and seeking out people (like the doctors and midwives that we do use) who agree, at least partially, with that statement.

It comes down to an issue of responsibility. I think it is crazy that the government thinks that they should prosecute someone who was acting on the wishes of their client. I think it makes far more sense for the government to prosecute us—and if we had older children I would have been concerned for their safety, since the government can easily take away our kids any time they feel like it, and like the EMT commenting above, lots of people seem to think that is a perfectly acceptable way of dealing with issues.

I was told early on that the state would not come after us, because then it would look bad, and they would definitely lose the case. The media coverage was particularly poor early on, and contained numerous factual errors, and so even our neighbors assumed that we were pressing charges. Pretty much everyone I have talked to has been very surprised to hear that our government is pressing charges on our behalf, without our consent. One humorous point in the trial was when the judge corrected the prosecution when she said that Judy wasn't a certified midwife—that one of "her" witnesses had testified that she was. Apparently, the prosecution is allowed to argue against the defense witnesses, but not her own. Thus, she had to reluctantly accept what my wife said, but then changed her mind about calling me, since that would result in me being "her" witness, and she knew that wouldn't work, given that only three people witnesses what happened that day, and all three are against the prosecution.

I think if the medical examiner hadn't hated midwives so much, we would have had a much fairer trial, and this would have been over a long time ago. He believes that all midwives, (CNMs or otherwise) have no place in childbirth, except maybe in a jungle in Brazil, and should be prosecuted on that basis alone (that we were in Pittsburgh).

I found it humorous that one of the prosecution's detectives recommended to the district attorney that the charges be dropped, that they weren't going to be able to win. He had the luxury of coming into the case later on, so wouldn't lose "face" by dropping the charges. The original detective and prosecutioner would have to admit they had wasted tens of thousands of dollars if they dropped the charges so late.

Hopefully, people in Pittsburgh and Allegheny county will realize what a waste this was, and can figure out how to stop the county from pursuing frivolous charges against people who don't want to be "protected" by the state.

From a subsequent post by Jon:

Oh, I forgot to say, (in response to [someone's comment about the Amish) that I don't know if you think we are Amish (we aren't, though I do see some positives in the lifestyle they lead).

And the media often asks us if we made decisions about a midwife based on religious beliefs (I gather that makes for a more sensational story in the media). I sort of find that question odd. We don't go to a church that believes in home births or anti-doctors or something like that—though there are some who see the legal/medical quandary we (the United States) have gotten ourselves into, and so agree on some level.

But, as best as I can tell, all decisions a person makes are based on their religious or philosophical beliefs. A person's world view has to affect how they see the world and what decisions they make. So, every decision I make (where to work, live and even whether to post on this forum) are all "religious" decisions.

[The] reason I am posting here is so that folks get the true story—when I testified in the trial, I affirmed to tell the whole truth, but the prosecution made it impossible for me to do so, and so the judge and the media did not hear what actually happened. And I suspect the defense attorney knew that things were going to be dropped, and so didn't find it worthwhile to correct certain points.

Here Jon provided a link to his comment here, on The Trial, Part II, for examples of how it was impossible to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" at the trial.  [Jon has my complete sympathy.  I don't know how I would manage in such a situation; I get frustrated merely trying to answer surveys that claim to want my opinion but accept only multiple-choice answers that often don't come close to the truth.]  I've excerpted his comment here.

The questioning was pretty rough. The prosecution made up a number of stories, saying, "Isn't it true that you..." or "Do you remember testifying previously..." and the ends of the sentences were really random stuff. In retrospect, I think the prosecution's goal was to try to get us irritated, which she succeeded with me, and didn't with Judi [not Judy, who was on trial, but a different midwife, who testified for the defense]. I don't know if her stories were also intended to try to convince the judge that they actually happened even though I said they didn't.

Maybe prosecutors need to take an oath of telling the whole truth as well as the witnesses.

I can't remember most of what was asked of me now; I do remember one question of Judi: Do you use pitocin? No. What if I told you that I had talked to some people who said that you did use pitocin? Uhh... I've never used it. Okay, my next question is....

I am not sure if that was supposed to try to make Judi nervous that Lisa [the prosecutor] had actually talked to someone. It seems like a silly thing to bluff on.

Lisa said that when I called her after being told I would be arrested if I didn't talk to her that I said Lee [the defense attorney] was my lawyer, and when she said he wasn't, I insisted that he was. I wish I recorded more of my phone conversations, because that is a complete fabrication. I said that I had talked to Lee, and he had said she couldn't serve me a subpoena to show up at her office. She asked if I had legal counsel, and I said that I had the one friend that we talked to sometimes, but no, we didn't have anyone officially representing us.
I am not sure how she could have possibly heard that as "Lee is my lawyer."

She also asked whether Judy had told me that Isaac could die during a breech birth, and whether she had told me that my wife could die of hemorrhaging, and if I actually cared about my children or not. I guess in writing you miss out on the facial expressions and tone of voice. It was quite entertaining.

She also accused me of not answering her questions, but then when I tried to answer them, by asking clarifying questions, she would say, "YES or NO, Mr. Daley."

One line of questioning went like this:
Q. Do you remember Judy telling you that everything would be okay?
A. No.
Q. Do you remember testifying at the open inquest?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you remember saying at that point that Judy said everything would be okay?
A. No.

Q. Here is your testimony, read from here to here.
Q. Now do you remember testifying that Judy said everything would be okay?
A. No.
Q. WHAT?!?!?! So, you are now testifying today that what you testified previously was incorrect?
A. No.
Q. It says right here: "She said that Lucille said that everything would be okay." Now do you remember?
A. No.
Q. WHATHAHATATA??!?!?!?!
A. I said that Lucille said that, not Judy.
Quite frustrating,

Similar line of questioning regarding whether Judy had done any vaginal exams. Again, back and forth, until she accused me of lying, and changing my testimony.  (My current testimony is that I don't remember if she did or not.)  What Lisa quoted me as saying 5.5 years ago is: "There was a, probably, I think, when she got there, she did a vaginal exam to see in terms of dilation, whatever. I wasn't particularly interested in that part of it, so I wasn't paying attention."  And she somehow took that to mean that I was sure then, and had changed my mind now.

While questioning me about whether I thought we should have transported or not, I said that I didn't think it was a good idea to transport a mom with a baby half hanging out of her.  (It seems medical folks are split about 50-50 on that decision—some people say you can always transport, other people say you shouldn't.)  Lisa's follow-up question was: And what medical institution did you get your medical degree at?

I guess her idea is that you can't have any opinions about your own medical care.

Hence the vital importance of a free press. Kudos to Jon for making the effort to tell the truth on allnurses.com, and to that forum for publishing his remarks.

In Switzerland you must bring your own bags to the grocery store, or buy them there.  We've tried variations on that theme here, with little success.  Thirty years ago one of our stores in New York started using cardboard boxes instead of bags, and paid five cents for every one you brought back and reused.  That the store went out of business not much later was probably not due to that particular policy, but it certainly put an end to it.  At one time or another the stores here in Florida would pay a nickel for each reused bag, and some still do.  But, frankly, five cents isn't enough incentive one way or another.

Then several stores began selling reusable "green" bags.  A good idea, but I couldn't see buying them, even for the low $1 price, when we had plenty of bags at home I could use—especially since the new bags are made in China.  I don't boycott Chinese products altogether, but their dominance makes me nervous, and I like to find alternatives when I can.  Besides, it just seems ridiculous to ship products halfway across the world in the name of protecting the environment.  Despite having bags at home that would do, however, I never got around to making the switch...

...until a dear and practical family member gave me three Trader Joe's bags for Christmas.  Knowing my aversion to Chinese bags, she found me some made in Vietnam—not much better, perhaps, but at least an alternative.  They were better than our existing bags:  the right shape for groceries, and one was even insulated for cold items.  Soon I was hooked, and even acquired some more (Chinese) bags when our store offered them "free with purchase" on a couple of occasions.  They live in the back of the car and are thus always handy, which is a good thing because if I had to remember to bring them with me I'd forget half the time.  On the occasions when I walk to the grocery store I still follow in the tradition of my father, and use my good ol' L.L. Bean pack basket.

There's no economic incentive to use the reusable bags, not even the aforementioned nickels.  I know myself:  I wouldn't continue the practice if it were difficult or awkward.  But it's not.  The reusable bags are a lot more fun to handle than the floppy plastic ones:  they're sturdy, hold more, stand upright, and don't accumulate in large quantities that must be returned to the store for recycling.  What amazes me is how many of those plastic grocery store bags I'm now saving.  After only a few months of using the new bags, I deliberately left them in the car for one trip because I had run out of plastic bags at home.  Such a situation would have been unthinkable last year.

Our worms now have more living space:  we put the second level onto their condominium/college dorm.  There's still a small amount of uneaten food in their first level, but that section is full, and I think they need more food.  They've been munching on their Carnegie Mellon t-shirt moisture mat, and while I know they will eventually consume it no matter what I do, I'd rather tempt them with kitchen waste.

I wrote a long comment to Mark Shiffman's Front Porch Republic article, Why we do not own a Television; not being one to waste an item on a single use if it can be recycled, I reproduce it here.  You'll have to follow the link to see the context (and other readers' comments), but I think what I wrote is pretty clear on its own.

To my total surprise and (almost) mortification, I write in defense of television.  I agree with some of the comments that DVD is the only way to go, but most if not all of the content I find valuable on DVD originated in the TV and movie media, so despising them completely would be a bit hypocritical on my part.

It was Marie Winn's The Plug-In Drug that first alerted me to the dangers of the beast, and when our first-born, at age two, asked to watch Sesame Street at a time when the television was off, I said, "That's it.  No more."  Had the decision been mine alone, I think I would have discarded the television set altogether, and certainly that would have been the easiest course.  What we did instead—because my husband was not quite ready to give it up himself—was to make it less convenient.  At first we moved the TV to a room away from the main traffic of the household; later we put it on a shelf with doors that remained closed most of the time.  Out of sight, out of mind.  We also never had cable, and reception was not that great, and the TV screen was small.

Our first concern was for the effect of watching television on our growing children, so we instituted some pretty strict non-watching rules.  This was not difficult for the children, since we started when they were young enough not to have developed an addiction.  At this stage it's much harder on mom than on the kids, because anesthetizing lively preschoolers with an "educational" television program sounds like a guilt-free way to grab a precious half-hour of peace.  I'm standing here today to tell you that removing that option—and thus forcing yourself to help your children develop the ability to entertain themselves—is one of the greatest gifts you can give to your future self.

And your kids?  The benefits of growing up free from a television addiction far outweigh any social harm that comes from not having TV as a conversation-starter.  (Our children became quite adept at picking up enough information about TV shows from their friends' conversations to be able to hold their own without ever seeing the shows themselves.)  Even long ago when our children were young there were one or two high-quality shows available, but we soon discovered that even a half hour a day of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood was better filled with real-life activities.

It's also important to point out that, when it comes to creating or avoiding a TV addiction in children, it matters little whether the show is broadcast, cable/satellite, VCR/DVD, or online.  We do our children no favors by calling them "TV free" yet popping in a movie every afternoon so we can fix dinner without interruption.

And yet...and yet....  If the only way to avoid the ravages of the beast were to destroy it altogether, I would do so.  Taming the beast, however, may have greater benefits.  Our youngest's lifelong love of opera began when she was 10 years old and we let her stay up—wide-eyed and astonished—to watch the four-day PBS presentation of Wagner's entire Ring Cycle.  Performances were meant to be watched, and if they remain true to the original, television and movie productions give us cultural opportunities often out of our reach in real life.  (My definition of "true to the original" is admittedly hazy.  I'd call Kenneth Branagh's Henry V a great, accessible version for neophytes, even if it omits parts of the play.  But the movie adaptation of The Lord of the Rings fails miserably to capture the book, perhaps because the book was not meant to be performed in the first place.)

Television is also great, as was mentioned, at providing an entryway to books and further investigation of a subject.  Ken Burns' treatment of the Civil War succeeded where friends, family, and all my history teachers failed, overcoming my lack of the Y chromosome that seems to give interest to studies of war.  "Educational TV" may be somewhat of an oxymoron, but a little, at the right time, can be invaluable.

I could go on—discussing the value of armchair travel as preparation for the real thing, for example—but the point is made.  Television and its cohorts (movies, DVDs, computers, video games) I dare to say, are the hot peppers of life:  In small amounts they enhance the experience; in greater amounts, they wash out all other flavors; overused, they destroy the senses and wreak havoc on the whole system.

More random tidbits found while sweeping the corners of the Internet.

Professor John Stackhouse gives a cheer, a half a cheer, and a hiss to Charles Darwin in honor of his birthday:

[W]e can all cheer Darwin's work in bringing microevolution—the phenomenon of small-scale changes happening within species as they adapt to their environment—into focus. Even "creation science" proponents grant the reality of evolution on this scale.

[M]ost of us will cheer Darwin's work in helping us understand macroevolution, a comprehensive theory of how all species have arisen in the complex history of life on Earth....To be sure, Darwin's theory is not complete in its details. Confirmed Darwinists argue over how life emerged from non-life, how single-celled organisms could have evolved into multi-celled organisms, how various complex organs of this or that organism (most notably the eye) originated and so on. Darwinists also dispute whether the man's own allegiance to "gradualism" was misplaced (as his advocate T. H. Huxley warned him it was). Some wonder whether another understanding of evolution's timetable (such as the idea of rapid evolution in outlying populations—Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge's theory of "punctuated equilibria") would be better.

Where we theists get off, however, is at the third level of Darwinism, the level of "myth." It's one thing to believe in microevolution and macroevolution. Both of those levels, to be clear, are zones of scientific investigation and disputation. But at the third level—where Darwinism becomes "The Theory of Everything"—we leave the realm of science entirely. Darwinism now functions as a religion, as an all-encompassing worldview and as a "myth" in the anthropological sense—the governing story of a people. It is no longer a scientific theory....Darwinism as myth...makes no room for God or the supernatural. The physical cosmos is all there is—everything important can be explained in terms of physical phenomena. And human behaviour, in particular, is simply a result of the evolutionary imperative to reproduce oneself as prolifically as possible....The world is reduced to a grim arena of competitive reproduction. No more science pursued "to think God's thoughts after him," as the great astronomer Johannes Kepler put it. No more "art for art's sake." No more altruism or heroism or honour.

[H]ere's a cheer for Darwin celebrating the glorious adaptability of species. Here's another for the great sketch of the world as an ever-changing kaleidoscope of variation, improvisation and wonder....But only a sad shake of the head instead for Darwin's dark world, shrunken down to mere sex and violence. There's nothing we can celebrate there.

One of my favorite of Stackhouse's articles appeared in the February 2009 issue of Christianity Today:  Memo to Worship Bands:  Five Sound Reasons to Lower the Volume.  I've become inured to, if not happy about, the necessity of carrying earplugs with me at all times.  I never know when my hearing will be assaulted, though I can pretty much guarantee it at theme parks, movie theaters, skating rinks, and—sadly—church.  I fail to see why volume levels above the threshold of pain are attractive.  "Feeling the music" should be an emotional sensation, not a physical one:  with the exception of some very low bass tones, if the music registers on any part of my body less delicate than my eardrums, it's too loud.

But I'm just an old curmudgeon, so I'm delighted to have a bone fide, rocking, electric guitar-playing lover of loud music, who has no doubt already damaged his hearing, stand up and shout—not rudely, but in order to be heard—"TURN IT DOWN!"

I am not 110 years old, friends. I grew up in the 1970s with fuzz boxes, stacks of Marshall amplifiers, and heavy metal bands loud enough to take on Boeing 747s and win. I have played in worship bands for more than 30 years, and like lots of juice running through my Roland keyboard or Fender bass or Godin guitar. Furthermore, I'm a middle-aged man and my hearing is supposed to be fading. But even I find almost every worship band in every church I visit to be too loud—not just a little bit loud, but uncomfortably, even painfully, loud.  So here are five reasons for everyone to turn it down a notch—or maybe three or four.

1. I know it's breaking the performer's code to say so...but cranking up the volume is just a cheap trick to add energy to a room....Do not compensate for mediocrity by amping it up to MEDIOCRITY.
2. [W]hen your intonation is not very good—and let's face it, most singers and instrumentalists are not anywhere close to being in perfect tune—turning it up only makes it hurt worse.
3. [T]he speakers in most church PA systems cannot take that much energy through their small, old magnets and cones, especially from piano, bass, and kick drum. So we are being pounded with high-powered fluffing and sputtering—which do not induce praise.
4. [C]onsider that you might be marginalizing older people, most of whom probably do not like Guns N' Roses volumes at church. And if you suspect older congregants may be secretly delighted behind their tight smiles, ask them. I dare you.
5. [L]et me drop some church history and theology on you. By the time church music matured...in the 16th century, it had become too demanding and ornate for ordinary singers. So Christians went to church to listen to a priest and a choir.  The Protestant Reformation yanked musical worship away from the professionals and put it back in the pews....The problem today, to be sure, is rarely elaborate music. We could use a little more artistry, in fact, than we usually get with the simplistic and repetitive musical figures of many contemporary worship songs.  No, the contrast with the Reformation is the modern-day insistence that a few people at the front be the center of attention. We do it by making six band members louder than a room full of people. But a church service isn't a concert at which an audience sings along with the real performers. Musicians—every one of them, including the singers—are accompanists to the congregation's praise. They should be mixed loudly enough only to do their job of leading and supporting the congregation.

[C]hurch musicians, if you want to perform a fine song that requires advanced musicianship, by all means do it. We will listen and pray and enjoy it to the glory of God.  But when you are leading us in singing, then lead us in singing. And turn it down so we are not listening to you—or, even worse, merely enduring you. I know that is not what you want to happen. But I am telling you that's what is happening.

I would expand the message to include all church musicians, not just worship bands.  We attend the most "traditional" of our church's four services, which has a choir, not a worship band, and sings primarily hymns.  But the "organ" is actually an electronic keyboard, and a recent change is philosophy has jacked the sound up to the point where I must wear my earplugs almost every time we sing.  It's not easy to sing with earplugs, and I have some concern about blend and pitch...but console myself with the thought that no one can hear me over the organ anyway.  But when the "old, deaf" people in your service complain that the music is too loud, maybe it's time to rethink.

Let me add one more reason to Stackhouse's list:

6.  The church, of all places, should be "safe," especially for children.  In all too many church services, however, babies and children who have no choice nor chance of escape are assailed by sound volumes that threaten to damage their hearing.  If we do not fear the wrath of God for injuring his little ones, let's at least fear the potential for crippling lawsuits.

Dr. Mark Gendreau offers some very reasonable advice, mostly about travel, for those who wish to avoid swine flu or any other airborne illness.  A combination of individual, corporate and governmental action could make a great difference.

[H]and hygiene is...the single most significant thing you can do to protect yourself and your family when you are traveling or out in public.  Study after study shows marked reductions in transmission in public spaces when hand hygiene is practiced, and a recent study found nearly undetectable influenza particle levels after hands contaminated with influenza were washed with either soap and water or an over-the-counter gel containing at least 50 percent alcohol.  Sanitize your hands before eating, drinking and after retrieving something from the overhead bin or returning from the restroom, and you have just cut your chances of getting infected by at least 40 percent. One of my disappointments with the airline industry is its lack of providing alcohol-based hand sanitizers to passengers. Such a service would go a long way in eliminating infection spread within aircraft.

Unlike antibacterial soaps, plain handwashing and alcohol-based hand cleaners have not been shown to promote the development of resistant strains of microbes.  I've always been in favor of handwashing (with plain soap), but it was the advice of a physician friend during the SARS crisis that led to the habit of carrying a pocket-sized bottle of hand sanitizer—particularly useful in restaurants and grocery stores, before the Eucharist at church, after changing diapers in public place, and before consuming airplane food.

Most commercial aircraft in service recirculate 50 percent of the air delivered to the passenger cabin....The recirculated air usually passes through high-efficiency particulate (HEPA) filters before delivery into the cabin.  HEPA filtering of recirculated cabin air to minimize exposure to infectious particles is established within scientific literature, practiced daily in health care facilities and is strongly endorsed by the medical community and cabin health experts.  However...the Federal Aviation Administration, its British counterpart, the Civil Aviation Authority, and Europe's Joint Aviation Authorities do not require the use of these filters on commercial airlines.  Efforts to improve international regulations regarding the certification, inspection and maintenance of aircraft environmental control systems are needed. To minimize the risk of disease spread by aircraft, regulations requiring HEPA filters for any aircraft that uses recirculated air should be seriously considered....In the meantime, you can improve the ventilation at your seat by turning on the overhead air vent to low and positioning the airflow to be slightly in front of your face. This may create enough air turbulence to push a viral particle from landing on your face and mucous membranes.

I haven't tried this portable air filter device, but frequent air travellers might want to consider it.  (Hat tip to Heather.)

Use a surgical mask when you are traveling to areas that have reported cases of swine flu and bring an additional one to give to anyone near you who forgot one or appears to be sick and is coughing or sneezing....A recent analysis of public health interventions used during the SARS epidemic suggests that the use of masks by the public was 68 percent effective in decreasing rates of infection, with simple face masks, and 91 percent effective for more sophisticated N95 face masks.

Okay, so it's very uncool to wear a face mask when ill, but it needn't be so.  "Sick masks" are common in Japan, even amongst the coolest high school students, who see them for what they are:  an invitation to sympathy, especially from teachers and pretty girls.

The only way to eliminate any risk of cross-infection in the aircraft cabin—or the rapid worldwide spread of an infectious agent—is to prevent would-be passengers who are either substantially exposed to or carrying transmissible infections from flying....This needs to come from education and promoting individual responsibility, since the systematic screening of passengers for contagious diseases is impractical. Although thermal scanners used in airports may detect travelers with symptoms, they are not effective since people exposed to an infectious disease could travel without any signs or symptoms and yet still be infectious.

May I suggest a change in the way airplane ticket refunds are handled?  When a family is about to embark on a long-planned vacation, and one of the children begins to sniffle or develops a low-grade fever, it's unlikely that any policy change will make them decide to stay home, as brief, inconsequential illnesses happen frequently to children.  However, many people with health issues are deterred from rescheduling their flights because of the financial consequences of cancelling a flight.  If the airlines had a standing policy of rebooking, at no additional charge, all the members of the sick person's party, I suspect we'd see a substantial increase in the number of people who were civic-minded enough to stay home when ill.  In a health emergency, during which flight cancellations could be expected to have a substantial impact on the airlines' financial situation, it would be appropriate for the federal government to bear some of the burden, much in the same way our local government lifts the tolls on major roads during a hurricane evacuation.

Be prudent, fear not, have fun, and stay safe, my friends.

(This is a follow-up to previous posts:   Options In Childbirth: A Personal Odyssey; The Trial; The Trial, Part II; and The Trial, Part III.)

I am not a lawyer, and I have no idea what Judy or her lawyer really think, but that doesn't stop me from pondering what happened in Judy's trial.  It has been an interesting look into our criminal justice system.  We know, personally, good policemen and excellent prosecutors who work hard for truth, fairness, and speedy justice, so any negative comments are not a blanket indictment, but food for thought.

• I can't help wondering if Heather and Jon were treated differently because they lived in the city, rather than in a wealthy suburb, where the police might be more likely to find themselves facing a lawsuit for interrogating a cold, naked, hungry, and exhausted woman immediately after a traumatic birth and in the midst of unimaginable grief.
• I learned that if you are accused of a crime the police can take away your computer, no matter how essential it is for your for your daily life and business, and no matter how much personal and irreplaceable data is on it.  Memo to self:  buy an "emergency" computer, make frequent backups of all data, and figure out a search-warrant-proof hiding place.  I'm not planning to get in trouble with the police—but who does?
• The proceedings were dragged out for seven years, prolonging the agony for Heather and Jon, leaving Judy and her family in limbo, and incurring great financial costs to both Judy and Allegheny County.  Why not, since there was little incentive for the powers that be to move it along?  The prosecution got what it wanted in the interim—Judy prohibited from doing her work—so why should they rush to judgement, and risk losing their case, as they did?  Delay increases lawyers' fees, and even ordinary civil servants go to work and go home and get paid, independent of whether any one particular trial takes seven years or seven days.  The only person with any incentive for speedy justice was Judy herself.  And in the cases where the defendent knows himself guilty, even his desire would probably be to delay the verdict.  No wonder our court system is overwhelmed.
• I learned something of how frustrating it is for those who know better to see false evidence enshrined as truth.  In this case, the medical examiner, who exhibited an obvious prejudice against all midwives, testified—and his word was taken as authoritative—that the injuries he found on Isaac were due to Judy's efforts to assist the birth, despite the verifiable fact that all injuries except for one (a small mark on the back of Isaac's head) corresponded exactly to the locations of the various injections, sensors, and other bodily indignities that were part of the attempt to save Isaac during his two-day stay in the hospital.  I wish this testimony had been properly contradicted during the trial, but it was apparently not part of the defense attorney's strategy, so it was left to become "truth" forever. (See Jon's comments after this Daley Ponderings post.)
• Knowing that the judge was also a medical doctor, I wondered at the decision of Judy's attorney to go with a non-jury trial.  There is a strong and often acrimonious division between physicians and midwives, especially traditional midwives who work independent of a doctor's control, but even nurse-midwives feel the sting.  My guess is that he knew the integrity of the judge, whereas juries can be swayed by emotional appeals.  The judge clearly wanted to throw the book at Judy, and, had he had the authority, at Heather.  (What he thinks about Jon he apparently kept to himself, but I doubt it's complimentary.)  However, in an exercise of that increasingly rare commodity, judicial restraint, he ruled according to the law, contenting himself with a tongue-lashing from the bench and imposition of the maximum allowed penalty ($100 fine) for the most minor charge of practicing midwifery without a certificate, a grey area in Pennsylvania's law.  (See the ruling in midwife Diane Goslin's case.)
• While I had been hoping for an enthusiastic endorsement of the rights of Pennsylvanians to be attended in childbirth by the assistants of their choice, and of the value of traditional midwives in retaining critical knowledge that is rapidly being lost in an overly-litigious and highly medicalized society, I consider this case a solid victory for midwives, because a judge with an intense desire to convict Judy ruled that Pennsylvania's law would not allow him to do so.

Tribune-Review article, with Heather interviewed

Post-Gazette article, with Jon interviewed

KDKA report, with misinformation including number of subsequent children

Let's not do it again.  Back in 1976, panic over swine flu led to a mass-vaccination program in which nearly a quarter of the U.S. population received immunizations at a cost of $137 million—followed by millions more the government paid out in damages to victims of vaccine-related Guillain-Barre syndrome.  Working in a medical facility at the time, I stood in line and received my free shot and thought no more about it.  However, the whole affair is now considered a debacle, a textbook case of governmental over-response to fears of a pandemic, fears that turned out to be unfounded.  Let's not do it again.

Panic and misinformation are spreading online, aided and abetted by the mainstream news media, which I know from local hurricane reports are adept at the art of crying wolf, deliberately creating fear because fear keeps people glued to the news reports, no matter how little real information is imparted.

Should the government be aware, alert, and prepared to act if this becomes a true emergency?  Certainly.  But let the ordinary citizen take reasonable precautions of the kind we should always be taking (handwashing, keeping sick people home), and avoid spreading panic, which is itself a dangerous disease.

(Standard legal disclaimer:  I am an Ordinary Citizen, not a doctor.  If your doctor tells you to panic, don't let me stop you.)

I couldn't have told you anything about Mary Ann Glenon before turning to Wikipedia, except for this:  the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican has both principles and courage.  The University of Notre Dame, which has apparently forgotten that it is a Catholic University, is planning to bestow an honorary degree upon President Obama, who will be giving the commencement address. Glenon, who had been scheduled to receive the University's Laetare Medal at the same time, demurred.  To deflect speculation, her letter of refusal was released to the press and published in First Things.  (Hat tip to Patrick Deneen.)

[I am] dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

When Notre Dame suggested that her acceptance speech might be good for the President to hear, she correctly reminded the university that graduation is a time for honoring the students, not for political debate.

A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

Brava!  I am not a Catholic—but courage is courage, and someone needed to remind Notre Dame that being Catholic isn't only about praying for your football team to win.