Penalties

Quick note today...

Emotional day around here yesterday, as the surviving marathon bomber was convicted of all 30 charges against him, including all of the Federal charges that carry the potential of the death penalty. I have somewhat mixed feelings about this...not about his guilt, but about the trial and the penalty phase.

To recap: he admitted to placing the bombs. He admitted to shooting the MIT cop. His lawyers acknowledged in their opening remarks that he was unquestionably guilty of murdering four people. Those charges, taken alone, would have led to his four-times-over guilt of the single worst charges under State law. In other words, four times the maximum penalty. And by most accounts, he was willing to plead guilty to those murders.

The only charges in dispute were the Federal charges, which basically amounted to "Terrorism". There was only one reason to charge him with this: the death penalty. Murder charges are State charges, and Massachusetts does not allow for the death penalty. Terrorism charges are Federal, and carry that potential. The purpose of trying him at all was to convict him of a charge that he was not willing to plead guilty to: the Federal terrorism charges.

I guess I just don't see the point of the trial. Not that it was a huge circus, but it kept this animal in the public eye for two months, it allowed for this bizarre pop-star style fetishization of him, tied up enormous law enforcement and legal system resources and forced the re-living of all of the raw emotions of that day.

And for what? So we can execute him...after we exhaust 10+ years of extraordinarily expensive appeals? After we let that ridiculous fucking Rolling Stone cover be plastered on the news 100 more times every time he is in court for some minor hearing? (Side note: someone needs to put that fourth-rate rag out of its misery already.) So that we can make him a martyr for a cause that he just spent two months claiming he didn't really care that much about..?

The death penalty is super expensive. And it's irreversible. And it doesn't deter crime or, obviously, rehabilitate criminals. The only real argument for it is that some people are just so incredibly horrible that this is the only punishment of appropriate severity. By that benchmark, clearly, if anyone deserves it, this shit does...

But, I dunno...I'm just not feeling like we get much out of this other than a little bit of vengeance. Frankly, sending him to Florence ADX seems a much worse fate.

Some Bad, Some Good...

Busy stretch around here, filled with all kinds of highs and lows....

I'll back up to last week, when The Boy's Uncle died, somewhat suddenly. He had a heart attack a couple of weeks ago, and the initial prognosis was actually quite good, but then he developed an infection and his kidneys stopped working, and then there were a couple of weeks where he seemed like he was getting better, only to deteriorate. Finally, it was simply too many things at once, which probably combined with his deep longing for his wife, deceased five years ago to take him.

That made for an emotional week, not at all helped by what proves to be a somewhat messy situation between his two sons. They don't get along at all, and while they are very different, they are both, in different ways, totally self-absorbed. Also, son #2 has a son and an ex-wife that complicate things...but probably not how you would guess. I'll spare you the details (they aren't secret...I'll happily tell you if you are curious, but they are long!) but there is a little bit of money, and two houses and no will. It could be very simple, or it could be very complicated, depending on whether the sons choose to make it so. And as something of the resident family expert on such matters, The Boy may end up getting dragged into it.

But, for the love of God, people...write a will. It's not that hard, and it's not that expensive.

So, the funeral was Friday, and it got worse from there! Papa Bear's adorable, beloved golden retriever died on Sunday:-(. She's been around for longer than I've been around these parts, and she was just the best dog in the world:-). The girls loved her, and have been very good about giving her gentle hugs and head pats all summer long because they knew that she didn't feel good.

She was very healthy until earlier this summer, when she seemingly hurt her hips and had trouble walking. But it turned out that she hadn't hurt her legs at all, but had actually gotten a very fast-growing tumor in her stomach that just basically sapped all of her energy. She never seemed to be in any discomfort, but she got very lethargic and lost her appetite, and within the last week and a half she couldn't stand up on her own (she could still walk...she just needed help getting upright!) and stopped eating entirely.

Papa Bear had already decided as of Saturday night that he was going to have to have her put down on Monday morning when the vet opened, but she died peacefully with several people around her on Sunday afternoon. And yes, I am crying writing this:-).

I told the girls that she was very, very sick, and that she had to leave us to go to Heaven, but that she would be with her doggy Mommy and doggy Daddy. We had been preparing them for that for a couple of days;-). They were a little sad, but didn't seem too phased by it...they asked who came to pick her up to take her there:-)

Enough with the sad news, and on to the good stuff...Great Euro Trip 2013 kicks off on Thursday!!! Munchkin, MA and I leaving for Paris for about five days, and then Nice for the rest of the following week, returning on Sunday. I doubt I'll blog, but I will have my laptop, so maybe I will...

Until then, though,

Au Revoir!

On Nelson Mandela, George Washington and Greatness

Nelson Mandela appears to be gravely ill, and tributes are beginning pour out from all corners of the world. Clearly, I am in no position to say anything special that won't be said elsewhere, but that isn't going to stop me from postponing work this morning for a couple of minutes while I give you my thoughts.

I think we have established that I am not an overly sentimental person, nor do I tend to overtly idolize people I don't know (although I have maybe been known to be a little bit hyperbolic). I also tend to be pretty hard on elected leaders and public officials. But you know what I am going to throw out there today? For all of the praise heaped upon Mr. Mandela, I actually think he is somewhat under-appreciated as a historical figure.

I'm sure that seems a little strange to say about someone who is pretty universally adored and rarely, if ever, criticized. So, let's examine the whole story...

Mention Mandela, and almost immediately the thoughts of most listeners go to his achievements in leading the fight to overturn Apartheid. And indeed, he led a revolution from a political prison, laboring tirelessly under extreme oppression to push a consistent message of equality and democracy. Ultimately, his revolution came peacefully, through negotiation and election.

But that, to me, is only a small piece of the story. History is littered with revolutionaries, many of whom suffered similarly to throw off horribly oppressive regimes. What there are very few of, however, are revolutionaries that transitioned seamlessly into effective governors. In fact, there is a much longer list of revolutionaries who became absolute monsters - Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Amin, the Ayatollahs...

Mandela joins only a small list of people who led a revolution, but then became a nation-builder. He served as the first democratically elected leader of the post-apartheid South Africa, and his government was marked by inclusion, openness and development...never once with feelings of revenge or retribution. He spent 27 years in prison for demanding equality, but from the day he was released, his entire focus was on moving forward, not on delivering punishment for the past.

There is, as far as I can see, only one real historical parallel to Mandela: George Washington. While they led very different types of revolutions, both were the unquestioned leaders of their struggles. After winning their prize, though, both instantly became effective executives firmly devoted to the business of governing and to the principles of democracy and self-rule.

And most importantly...the truly remarkable, unmatched historical event...they both voluntarily ceded power. After the American Revolution, Washington appeared before Congress to return to them the commission as Commander in Chief that they had bestowed upon him early in the war.  He ignored the likely temptation to use his status as head of the army to install himself King, and established the principal that no man is bigger than the nation, and that the military answers to civilians. It was this act that led George III to say "If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world."

Just to drive the point home, Washington did the same thing again after he was called out of "retirement" to serve as President. After serving two terms, and guaranteed of an easy, landslide election for as long as he cared to serve, he voluntarily chose to step down and once again established a standard (now a law) that no person should hold the Presidency for longer than two terms.

Nelson Mandela did the same. He served one term as President, establishing a forward-looking, conciliatory tone for the new South Africa, and then turned down the opportunity to be President for life, with an unlimited ability to expand his own power.

And that, more than leading a revolution, is why I think he is under-appreciated. He stands, in all of recorded history, on the smallest and tallest of pedestals reserved only for those immune to the corrupting influence of power.

Empathy

When I sit at my desk in the morning, checking my Google Reader is on of my first activities...it takes a couple of minutes, keeps me updated on my blog-friends, and allows me to prepare to start working (other activities...checking personal email, the news and the stock market). Often, I am spurred to respond and leave Reader to leave a comment on a post somewhere.

(Occasionally, I will leave a witty, sarcastic comment that badly misses the mark on the sarcasm and requires some explaining;-) Like this one.)

So, this morning, I read this from Alana Margaret at Runaway Bunny. I'm not entirely sure how I found her blog, but I added it maybe four months ago and have been reading ever since, even after a change in address. She is, by any measure, a very thoughtful blogger, but I don't know her at all beyond what she has written publicly.  (Let's be honest...the fact that she is a baker/ice cream maker/pastry chef makes me want to be best friends with her). This morning's post made me go back and read some of the archives, which has revealed that we have somewhat similar backgrounds...or at least some key life events that are similar.

Then a weird thing happened, though...I couldn't respond. I just didn't know exactly what to say or how to say it. I kinda knew what I felt, but it wasn't coming out of my head and onto the screen at all. At least not in a way that didn't make me look like a colossal bitch. Which is actually making me think that maybe I am a colossal bitch (keep reading...there is more evidence to support this).

On and off for about four hours, I tried to formulate my thoughts into a coherent response...which seemed to be turning into a twelve paragraph ramble of inconsistent thoughts and somewhat counter-productive anger. Whatever I wrote, I just felt really small and bitter, and I felt like I wasn't getting out what I wanted to say.

I was struck by how differently we viewed a subject, in this case addiction, that we seem to have had similar exposure to. She starts (I am paraphrasing...and hope I am not mis-characterizing) by almost apologizing for having such a deep empathy for people suffering from addiction, for being blessed to not be afflicted with addiction herself, and for not having more time to volunteer with those that are afflicted.

It is, to me, a remarkable sentiment that indicates a humanity that we should all aspire to. And a level of humanity that I, for one, am not remotely close to.

She once wrote, of her mother's long-ago addiction "It never occurred to me that I needed to forgive my mother." That breaks my heart a little bit...not because it is sad - her magnanimity is, in fact, incredibly uplifting - but because it makes me sad that I am so far from being in that place. I don't know that I have forgiven my mother entirely, or if I ever will, and I can't even imagine being in a place where I don't think that what she did to me endowed me with the right to grant or withhold that forgiveness.

Is that petty of me? Yes, it probably is. But that just sounds "fair" to me, despite fair having nothing to do with anything. I never got any say in whether or not to live with a raging alcoholic, and she never chose to listen to my pleas to stop...and as compensation for that, I get the sole and unimpeachable right to decide when, and if, to grant forgiveness. This is not, I know, my most endearing side...

It's a weakness that I am aware of: I am not a very empathetic person (that extends to subjects far beyond substance abuse). If the subject is something that I, maybe arbitrarily, find to be unimportant whining, then I am a terrible listener. I have a frighteningly low tolerance for complaints that I deem to be trivial, or for problems that I think are self-inflicted. For much of my life, I have had very real problems that took up all of my attention, and there was often little help in solving those problems.

I don't have nearly the same kinds of problems these days, but I don't feel like I have ever emotionally opened up the space to care about other peoples' problems in a way that is balanced and healthy. Often, I am unreasonably cynical and dismissive of personal "sob stories," and my snap judgements go to the things that the affected could have done to make his or her life better instead of the unfairness that caused their troubles.

It probably doesn't take a genius to figure out how I got here, or even to figure out some of the reasons that Alana and I may think about this particular subject differently. That, however, is neither here nor there, really. The relevant point is that she seems to see this through a much more humane lens than I do.

And I wish I was more like her.

Some nonsense, and some seriousness

The absolutely divine Katie and I managed to solve a whole lot of problems via chat yesterday, including the moving of Christmas to a much better time of year and the invention of the Thanksgiving Tree. Then, just for good measure, we made a whole lot of progress towards World Peace, and outlined some solutions to the fiscal cliff. And we did this all before 10:00 AM. You can thank us if you'd like, and we would be happy to give you the details. You're welcome.

In a slightly more serious vein, I am not going to be blogging much for a while. You may have noticed that I have been struggling to write much lately, and that what I have written has been unrelated to the day-to-day goings on around here, which is very much not my style. The truth is that there is sort of "a thing" going on that is dominating the agenda in my world, and unfortunately it is "a thing" that I can't really write about.

That makes it hard to write, because I just don't have much else to say. The election gave me a little bit of subject matter, but even that is gone now...and I wasn't quite as engaged in it as I was last time around. I have just basically always blogged in a manner that is mostly kind of "running journal", and I am not really sure of another way to do it.

So, I may check in occasionally (I am certain to have some Munchkin updates for you and some baby girl stories!), and I will continue to read and comment on blogs, and will still send emails and chat when I am trying to avoid working:-).  But I am not going to force any blog posts that aren't going to be very good.

I will, however, be back...I pinky swear to that!

Breathe

I haven't written in a while, and have fallen woefully behind in reading all of your blogs as well. It's been a tough week or so, and also extremely busy, so this sort of fell by the wayside.

Nothing terribly exciting to report...girls have recovered from their colds of last week (did I write about that? They were sick in back-to-back weeks). The best news is that they have finally started to consistently go to bed in their own beds and sleep there all night...they have been sticklers about either falling asleep in the living room or getting up in the middle of the night and going there to sleep. Fingers crossed that we are finally done with that.

It is suddenly October, which is horrifying...when did that happen? And how? It was August like five minutes ago...wasn't it? The first of the Presidential debates is this week, but I would be surprised if much happens. I have felt since early in the summer that this was never going to be a race, and I am sticking to that. There is huge disappointment and discontent with the President, but Romney doesn't have the ability to articulate a case for his election. So, barring some terrible economic news (or, more accurately, news that is more terrible than the utterly atrocious current state of the economy) Obama looks to coast to an easy win.

I took the afternoon off last Thursday to go to Munchkin's soccer game, which was just about the best idea I have ever had. After running all over the place on a million things, it was an hour and a half of absolute peace and quite. And it was spectacular! Then I got sad remembering that she has very few of these games left:-(

Weekend was busy, too. The Boy had some stuff to take care of on Saturday, so I took the girls to a birthday party. There was a bouncy house, which is a cause for celebration. For LK, this was her second weekend in a row at a bouncy house...there was another party the weekend before that she got to go to with The Boy while I stayed home with a very sick MA. Hopefully, she does not think that this is the beginning of weekly bouncy house trips...

We are going to try to get away this weekend for a couple of days, but that is up in the air. We also may or may not take the girls with us...that is up in the air as well. The Boy desperately needs a few days away...even if we can't find a baby sitter, I may send him away on his own for a night. He could use some rest:-)

Worst of all...I am completely unexposed to the new TV season. Tragedy of tragedies...I have had so little time to do anything that I haven't watched any new shows, or the new seasons of old ones. What am I missing?

Also, I am pretty sure he believes in the Tooth Fairy

I am back at work today, sort of, and wanted to spew some more public policy junk while it is fresh on my mind...and then, before I could get to Medicare shenanigans, Todd Akin went and stole the spotlight.

Really, on the long list of stupid things that politicians have said, this one goes right near the top...it is just outstanding beyond belief. I am not going to sit here and rail about it, because there is really nothing I can say that will do him justice, nor do I think anyone needs any context or explanation to make their own judgement.

You know what I am going to rail against? People in Missouri (especially those in the western suburbs of St. Louis who elected him)!!! He didn't become a US Rep by accident, nor did he become the Republican nominee for Senate by accident, either...he did it because people voted for him (well, in the case of the Senate Primary, he was helped by his now opponent, Clair McCaskill, who deemed him the weakest of the three challengers and then set about supporting his campaign. They kick you out of the Badminton Olympics for that, you know.)

First sign of trouble? According to Wikipedia, his mother's maiden name (Bigelow) is also his father's middle name...which means they may well be related. They may well not be, but I have no journalistic integrity that prevents me from implying it:-)

More seriously, this guy has sort of always been this way. He may have never said anything quite as dumb as this, but he is no newcomer to saying things that expose his overall intelligence level: he once said that Liberalism was built on a hatred of God, and also said something really kooky about Davy Crockett getting Blackberry messages from Congress at the Alamo, too.

Nor has his policy platform changed. He has been a vehement opponent of abortion, defender of guns, proponent of religion in government and several other cookie-cutter Republican positions. That is what his supporters vote for. And you know what else? Public Policy Polling says that the voters in Missouri won't hold this latest flap against him, either. Part of that is related to his relatively weak opponent...but that gets us to another issue entirely: why has the State of Missouri picked the two ass hats as its Senate candidates?!?!? Seriously...I know people from Missouri, and there is a lot going on there. You should have plenty of people to choose from, and who on earth wouldn't want to be a Senator?

I suppose it is too late to go back to the drawing board (unless Akin drops out and they find someone better) which means we are stuck with one of these folks. But really, MO, try and do better next time;-)

Paul Ryan

So, the big non-Olympic news of the last week is that Mitt Romney has chosen his running mate: Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. Ryan is young, bright, articulate and handsome, and is widely known as the architect of the House Republicans budget plan. He was chosen over a number of other candidates, and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida seemed to be the most likely alternative.

For some background, Romney seems to have been sliding in the polls a bit lately. A month ago, the race looked to be tied, and now he seems to be behind by 4-8 points. Given the consistently atrocious economic news from here and from abroad, he should have been able to at least hold steady during that time, and probably should have been making some gains. His slipping is a pretty clear sign that whatever message they were delivering all summer was not working.

As a side note, the campaigns and the pundits are reading WAY too much into those polls. There is no way on earth that the race was ever really tied, and it defies all logic that Obama magically pulled ahead by a huge margin during a time period when all of the news was bad for him and no one really pays much attention anyway. Just plain common sense should tell you that Obama has probably been ahead by 2-4 points the whole time. But, I suppose they have to do something for the summer, and overreacting is their only choice...

But I think this guided Romney's VP pick. Generally, a candidate can go a number of different directions with their VP selection. They can try to pick someone who is similar to them in order to re-enforce an image (like Clinton did with Gore in 1992). Or, they can try and pick someone who is viewed as strong in an area that the candidate is weak (like Obama did with Biden in 2008). Often there are those who think a VP can help turn a swing state, although there isn't much evidence that this actually works. Sometimes, a campaign is just lost, so they pick the craziest VP they can in hopes of shaking up the race (which is how we all met Sarah Palin).

I think Romney has gone a different way...he has picked someone who is heavily associated with an issue in hopes of driving the debate towards that issue. He is appeasing his base, and Wisconsin is maybe (in a very broad definition) a contested state, but I really feel like the primary purpose was drawing Obama into a discussion about the budget.

In that sense, I love the selection. Not that I necessarily love Ryan or think his budget proposal is much better than Obama's, but to me this should be the issue, and it constantly baffles me that young people so blatantly ignore it. I certainly understand why none of the other candidates appeal to people under 35 or so, but it consistently puzzles me how Obama can remain so incredibly popular after basically telling us to go and fuck ourselves for four years.

I can promise you that the budget discussion will be ill-informed, misleading and full of half-truths and blatant lies...but I am all for anything that ensures that we at least have the discussion. Just as a heads up, Obama is going to tell you that we can solve all of our problem by "asking the very richest Americans to pay their fair share." Which is only mostly a lie because he doesn't define what is "their fair share" is...otherwise it would be totally a lie. Ryan (and by extension Romney) is going to tell you that we can solve our problems by cutting taxes further and making some minor tweaks to Medicare and Social Security that won't really require anyone to sacrifice. I probably don't really need to explain the idiocy of that.

One thing is for sure, none of them are going to actually tell us the truth: the fiscal management of the Federal budget has been so bad that we can not even stop the accumulation of new debt without substantial new tax revenues and substantial spending cuts. And not just taxes on "the top 1%", and not just cuts in "wasteful government programs". No, everyone is paying more, and everything is getting cut.

But I will take a bad debate over no debate for now, and for that reason, I am glad that Ryan will be in the race. His proposals have all kinds of flaws, and all kinds of absurd assumptions...but he is at least willing to put his ideas on paper and talk about that. Just being willing to move the discussion forward makes him better than most.

So, short version...I like Ryan, but I don't really love him and I have a LOT of issues with his grand plan. I suppose it shows well on Romney that he is willing to pick someone how may upstage him at times. But mostly, I think he will be a welcome addition to the race, and that we will all be better off for having talked about the things that he is going to make them all talk about.

The Facebook

Just for the record, I would not recommend an "All Peanut Butter Cup" diet. I am not saying that it was a terrible idea, but it also wasn't really a great one (and I did have a sandwich in addition to the hundred-odd peanut butter cups that I ate yesterday)...

Jumping back in time a bit, I promised last week to give you my (partially informed) opinion of the Facebook IPO brouhaha. I will warn you up front that it is kinda long, a little dry, and may not be all that satisfying...but here goes anyway. I will also acknowledge that I have a financial interest in shares in Facebook now, although I won't tell you exactly how, how much, when they were bought, or what the cost was. I don't think it actually matters here...

First, a little primer on what happens when a company goes public. Let's use Company XYZ as an example...XYZ is a private company that has 100 million shares, all owned by the founders, employees and early investors. XYZ decides to raise some money by selling 10 million new shares to the public. However, in addition to selling these brand new shares, the original shareholders want to sell some of their shares to the public as well.

To some, this seems a little bit shady...the cash raised in the IPO goes to the founders and investors and employees, and not to the company for the purpose of funding growth. However, this is pretty common and has some legitimate, non-nefarious reasons: those people may incur a huge tax bill when the company goes public, and need to cash to pay the Gub'ment. They may also have some basic asset allocation issues and have a desire to transfer some of their wealth to other assets.

So, that leaves us with an initial offering of, say 20 million shares...10 million new shares (the proceeds of which go to the company) and 10 million existing shares (the proceeds of which go to the original shareholders.) The company hires and investment bank (in FB's case, Morgan Stanley) to run the IPO and sell all of those shares.

The Bank puts together a series of investor presentations, takes the company to visit potential investors and recruits other banks to do the same to their big customers. The goal is to increase interest in the IPO and get as high a price as possible for the shares that it is selling (or at least it should be, more on that later). Shortly before the actual IPO date, the lead bank issues a potential range of IPO prices, and investors get the chance to subscribe to the IPO, with the final price to be set later.

Usually, these shares go to big institutional investors that are the Bank's "best customers". And here is where the process starts to get a little fishy in my book. Typically, the actual IPO price (which is set based on final demand for the shares) ends up being somewhere around 20% lower than the price at which the stock starts trading the next day.

Back to XYZ, let's say that the final IPO price is $10/share. XYZ then gets $100 million for its shares, the insiders get $100 million for their shares, and the company is valued at $1.1 billion (110 million shares at $10/shr.) The next day, the stock starts trading and anyone can buy shares on the open market. In a normal IPO, the stock would start trading at about $12 or so, valuing the company at $1.22 billion. Anyone who bought shares in the IPO now has 20% more money than they did the day before.

Here is where I start to call bullshit. The Bankers will tell you that the 20% bump is the reward that the buyers get for taking on the risk of the new issue. I say that reward is totally disproportionate to the actual risk, and that the first day bump is really a way that Banks reward their best clients using money that should belong to the company. In XYZ's case, $20 million ($2/shr on 10 million shares) has been transferred from each of the company and the original shareholders to the best customers of the Investment Bank.

So, first thought on Facebook...much of the "failure" of the Facebook IPO was that it didn't open higher than its offering price, and has in fact fallen below that price. Well, TOUGH SHIT!!! These are not riskless transactions, and all of that crowing about how the first day premium is in exchange for the risk of the issue means that sometimes you actually take a loss on these offerings. There are no promises that initial buyers make money on these deals...economic sense says that, if the markets are fair, they would often result in immediate losses.

There has been a lot of ink about "the little guy" getting screwed here, because small investors made up a larger than normal portion of the initial issue. Ignoring the insider information allegations (I will get to them later), that is just not an argument that holds economic water. They were all issued a prospectus, all got to review the published financials of the company and bought what everyone knows to be extremely risky shares. They then lost 20% or so of their money...well, again, tough cookies. These are supposed to be high risk transactions, and there is a reason that they are not considered to be appropriate for all investors. This was the most highly publicized, overhyped IPO that I ever remember...is it at all surprising that demand outstripped reality?

For another perspective, put yourself in the shoes of Facebook, Inc and its original shareholders...Morgan Stanley just sold your shares for $38 each, and the market is now telling you they were really only worth $32. So, the Bank did a great job for you! Morgan's other customers, who are used to being bought off with company money, may be pissed, but the issuing company should be ecstatic. As much as this is a disappointment for the original buyers, it is a huge victory for the seller...who probably could have expected under normal circumstances to be the sucker in this deal.

Which gets us to another interesting point...there was a higher-than-normal percentage of insider shares in this deal. And some of those insiders are really, really influential people who may be deciding on a Bank to handle other IPO's in the near future. Did Morgan reverse course and sell out its Institutional clients in exchange for buying the loyalty of new Banking clients? Hmm...interesting theory that I just thought of there...

One party that unquestionably failed...NASDAQ. For whatever reason, their systems were totally incapable of handling the first day open, and it was delayed longer than it should have been, and the handling of orders was atrocious. Investors went for days not knowing whether or not orders were executed, or at what price. If you compare that to NYSE's opening of the only two larger IPO's (Visa and GM), NASDAQ looks like a completely amateur operation. I find it hard to believe that the next mega-IPO ($10 billion or more) will spend more than a cursory minute considering its listing exchange.

One final note...there are some allegations that an analyst at Morgan knew about a forthcoming bad earnings report and passed the information out only to his best clients. This, of course, is the absolute dumbest kind of insider information dealing...and if it is true, then the guy belongs in jail both for violating securities law #1, and also for being so incredibly stupid. Whether the company should have released the information is actually a pretty sticky question that I can't really cover because it is a LONG answer and above my legal pay grade;-) (there is a "quiet period" issue that I am just not terribly familiar with the ins and outs of.)  I am not sure where this stands (and it would explain the large number of small investors as opposed to institutions...although the sheer popularity of Facebook could explain some of that as well), but that is what the various state AG's are investigating. If it is true, then it is a really easy conviction...

So, that is my long-winded take...the whole thing makes me say "Eh" and shrug my shoulders. The fact that the price fell is not bad for the company (in fact it implies they had a great IPO), and it is not at all a scandal. IPO buyers are not entitled to make a riskless day one profit!!! If there was insider information passed to key investors, then that indeed is a criminal activity, but that seems like it would have eroded the demand somewhat as well.

If you made it this far, then you probably need a more exciting day job;-)

Marriage

So, big brouhaha today because the President came out and said that he "supports" same-sex marriage, which is at least better than the Vice President saying he "is comfortable" with it.

A part of me understands why it is a big news story (and comes on the heels of the state of North Carolina passing a ballot initiative re-stating the current illegality of same-sex marriage there), but most of me just wants to shrug my shoulders and say "Huh"? Kudos to him for going out on a bit of a limb, although he gets points off for trying to pretend that he didn't always think this and has just been too chicken-shit to say it.

Really, what he does and doesn't support might be newsworthy, but it doesn't actually matter legislatively. What he is willing to do matters greatly, and he is yet to announce any plans to try and do anything. It is really unlikely that he will, either, which is disappointing.

He can't (and he shouldn't) do much about States making their own rules about who can and can't get married. I don't really wanna live in a State that bans gay marriage, but for a variety of reasons, it is important that States have the right to make that restriction. But he absolutely can move that the Federal Government recognize any valid marriage that is executed legally. Whether or not he "supports" gay marriage, it offends me that he is unwilling to support the right of certain States (Massachusetts being the first, but also Iowa, Maryland, California, Connecticut and some others) to make their own contractual law.

Let's take my Sister-in-law as an example. She and her wife are married. They are not in a civil union, they did not have a commitment ceremony...they got married in exactly the same legal way that The Boy and I are. Under a legally valid, recognized, enforceable contract.

Yet, when they file their Income Taxes, they are not allowed to file as Married. Should one of them ever receive Social Security, the other can not be treated as a spouse under survivorship rules. The Federal Government has denied the Constitutionally designated right of the State of Massachusetts to enforce marriage contracts. Yes, bad news to the talking heads on the right...all of those "States rights" arguments that you like to use (and which are often valid)? Well they should apply here, too.

It is also totally up in the air as to whether other States have to recognize marriages that are legally created in Massachusetts or in other States. If there are other examples of States being able to choose which of other States contracts are valid, I am unaware of them...one of our basic rules of law is that valid and legal contracts signed in one State are enforceable in all of the others. Just, apparently, not these ones.

You want a parallel? Well, I am glad you asked, because I have one!!! In 19 States, it is legal to marry your first cousin. In 6, it is sometimes legal (if at least one of you can't reproduce...say what?!?). And in 25, it is illegal. Why is it illegal? Because we think it is icky, that's why!!!

But two cousins who get married in, say, Colorado, will be treated as married if they move to Iowa, despite cousin-marriage being illegal there. And the Federal Government has no problem allowing those people to be treated as married, regardless of where they live. Because that is how legal reciprocity works in this country. Or at least, that is how it is supposed to work.

So, in conclusion, good for the President for at least saying something. But let's not pretend that what he did actually matters...there are very real, tangible laws that he could propose and champion that will matter, and he has yet to choose to do that.

Evolution

I am going to be 30 in just about three months, which is a pretty obvious time for some assessment and self-analysis. I am not even going to touch the question of "Am I where I thought I would be when I was 20?" because there is absolutely no way to reconcile my current life with my expectations from July of 2002.

But I am going to talk about some changes that I have noticed, and as the big day approaches this summer, I will probably do the same on at least a few more occasions. Today, I wanna talk about gray...as in "shades of" (and not the middle-aged woman porn that means these days;-)).

At 20, things seem black and white. Honestly, by 23 or 24, they seem even clearer...the world seems to make sense, or at least your ideas seem to make sense. At that age, we have pretty strongly formulated opinions about work, life, politics, friends, etc. A less kind assessment would be that we are know-it-alls;-)

I think I am starting to appreciate better what I don't know...and I am becoming more open to the idea that people can hold opposite opinions from me and not be totally crazy. At 30, I think I am realizing that things are a lot more gray than I ever thought. I find myself getting less and less off-the-bat outraged over things because I am better at looking for other sides to issues.

Take this election season, for example. It seems like every week has been marked by a "War on (fill in the blank)". I especially like how there has been a war on the rich, the middle class AND the poor...that is the kind of equality war-mongering that I can really get behind. There have also been wars on women and students and conservative women and the environment and business. Oh, and definitely dogs. (But surprisingly little talk about an actual war...you know, in Afghanistan? Remember that one?)

And really, the overly-dramatized outrage doesn't serve any purpose other than to desensitize us all to really serious issues. With some limited exceptions (I am looking at you, proponents of mandatory vaginal ultrasounds), my basic reaction is that people just need to chill the fuck out a little bit. Every time someone proposes a new law, it is not THE WORST THING EVER!!! We should be able to disagree without flying off the handle.

Part of it is having kids, which should come as a surprise to no one. But that has changed my ideas not just about children and raising them, and not just about obvious things like parental interaction with children. I guess you just view the world a little bit differently when you feel like you are responsible for it to your kids. And I think you realize that a lot of opinions you previously held are more selfish than you ever thought they were. That probably seems a little bit preachy...

Part of it comes from seeing more academically and professionally, too. I think I view activism, for example, a whole lot differently because I have been around so many people who "get stuff done". No one ever built a monument by sitting around and bitching about it, I guess. And it's helped me to identify those things that really are important, and those things that may be irritating but which really don't matter.

Not everything is the end of the world. Not everything you miss out on is really the best opportunity you will ever get. Not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot. Nor are they evil. Not everything is cut and dried, black and white.

They world is much more gray than that.

On Booze

Kind of based on an email conversation with So Midwestern earlier today...

As we have established, my sister is 17. She is smart, popular and very social. She does the things that most 17 year old social butterflies do. In about a year and four months, she will leave me for college, at which point she will likely do all of the things that 18 year old college freshmen do. Frankly, her popularity with older kids has meant that she has done a lot of the things that 17 and 18 year olds like to do since she was about 14.

Wrapped up in all of that, of course, is alcohol. This may come as a huge surprise to many of you, but a lot of teenagers spend a lot of time trying to come up with stuff to drink, EVEN THOUGH THEY AREN'T OLD ENOUGH TO!!!

Without a doubt, I benefit from being her sister and not her mother. She doesn't do things without telling me (often to discuss it, at length, beforehand:-)) and I am about 99% confident that I know all of the times and places where she has been presented with such libations, and her reaction to every one of those instances. I will spare you the details...and this isn't really about that.

What I have for you are two questions, neither of which I will answer in this space ('cuz I am paranoid) but which I would encourage discussion of and will gladly answer off-line.

Question 1: Many parents choose to let their kids drink a little bit at home. This could mean a glass of wine with dinner, or a beer watching a football game or something similar. Such consumption is, in most states, legal and the arguments in favor are largely wrapped up in demystifying alcohol, encouraging responsible behavior and helping to kind of "learn" how it works. Arguing against, it could be seen as a tacit permission to partake in consumption outside of the house in less legal and more dangerous circumstances. As this applies to me, please discuss your approval or disapproval of allowing Munchkin to have a drink or two with dinner, or possibly a delicious sunset cocktail on the beach...

Question 2: Is it my obligation as a big sister to get her absolutely hammered at least once before she leaves for college? Or my obligation as her mother to discourage that as much as I can?

OK, go...

Bang Bang

Remember when I promised to continue my thoughts "tomorrow"? Well, for argument's sake, let us pretend that I said that yesterday...good, moving on.

My third thought in the Trayvon Martin case is about guns. There has certainly been a lot written about the fact that Martin didn't have a gun, but I don't feel like I have seen enough coverage of the fact that George Zimmerman did have a gun. And I am going to do my best to piss off Aaron enough to make him comment by saying that this is just one more in a million cases of violence that would be much less likely to occur, or would be much less serious, if we had some reasonable gun laws.

George Zimmerman had a gun. George Zimmerman used his gun, not only to shoot Trayvon Martin, but he used it to embolden himself to cause the whole incident in the first place. Since I don't actually know him, I am going to make a gigantic, and probably unfair (but more fair than shooting an unarmed kid) leap, and say that George Zimmerman would have been much less likely to confront Martin had he not felt emboldened by him gun.

Do I know that Zimmerman was a wannabe cowboy who was slightly paranoid and openly looking for excuses to flex his machismo in a pretend game of Cops? No, I don't know that for sure. I also don't know for sure that he imagined himself vigilantly defending the innocent against the nefarious intentions of the evil black menace. Do I even know for sure that Zimmerman is probably a pretty big coward who delighted in finding a fight that was completely rigged in his favor, then used that fight as an excuse to play out his own pseudo-military fantasies, and then immediately turtled and concocted the most asinine story possible to avoid answer for his decisions? Of course not...I have never met the man.

What I do know is that it is easier for George Zimmerman to buy that gun in America than in almost every other country in the world. I know that people like George Zimmerman are more dangerous in America than anywhere else in the world because it is so easy for them to buy guns. Every half-assed phony is a tough guy when he is holding a gun.

Yes, I know that a huge portion of gun owners are responsible and cause no harm to anyone. I have no moral obligation to hunting. I completely understand why target shooting could be challenging and fun. But we have no capacity to, no willingness to, and even a disdain for the idea that we might do something to try and keep gun away from people who just love the idea of being a heat-packing tough guy. Wanna know what I mean? George Zimmerman could buy a gun in almost every state in the country today...and whether or not you think he committed a crime, you would be a fool to think that he constitutes a "responsible gun owner."

Alright, so this isn't my most eloquent blog post ever, or even the best I have written about guns. But I will say it until I am blue in the face: Guns don't protect people. Guns embolden criminals.

Outrage

First things first, Munchkin is home safely and had a fantastic trip...another whole week with Frenchie, and another whole week in Paris, this time with one of her very best friends along for the trip. Not a bad spring break:-) I am fairly certain that she has decided to go ahead and jump ahead a year to graduate in 2013, but we are going to finalize her decision later this week...a senior in High School...holy shit...

Speaking of kids her age...I am gonna get serious here for a bit...Trayvon Martin. I will skip the details of the case, because I am sure you have all heard them, and I will skip the outrage over George Zimmerman's actions because that has been covered pretty completely. I wanna talk about three other things...one I have been over before (and we will find out if Aaron still reads!) one is really bad, and one really sad.

First, the very bad. This situation is going to get worse before it is going to get better, because George Zimmerman is not going to go to jail, at least not for murder. There are a bunch of reasons he hasn't been arrested yet, and at least one of them is that he has a good claim that he didn't commit a crime.

Just to clarify, I am not talking about the "common sense" reasonableness of his actions. Make no mistake, emboldened by a gun, he stalked and confronted a much-smaller man who had had no reason to believe was armed and had no reason to believe was doing anything wrong, dangerous or illegal. Further, he did this after he was specifically told by the police that they were on their way and that he should not confront the "suspect". Zimmerman picked this fight, he picked it on his own terms, and he used it as an excuse to kill someone.

Unfortunately, people don't get life in prison for the breaking of "common sense" laws. They get convicted of murder by breaking the letter of the law, and based on all that has been said so far this week, the letter of the law in Florida doesn't seem to care whether or not you are wholly responsible for the altercation. All that seems to matter is whether or not there was a physical confrontation. So, all of the outrage that we have seen over Zimmerman not being arrested yet? Unless there is a really outstanding prosecutor who can sell the jury on the intent of lawmakers and get a conviction (and it won't be for murder, it will be for something less), I fear that the outrage is going to get a lot louder, and likely less peaceful.

Second, let's talk about that outrage...demonstrations and marches and protests all over the country. I have kinda mixed feelings about them, and this is probably not gonna come out right (which is fine, none of you know where I live:-P). On the one hand...great: it is good that people are paying attention and voicing their displeasure over what they perceive as an injustice. Our elected officials ultimately react to votes, and if they think something matters to the voters, they will treat it as if it does. Standing in a big crowd around a single issue says that like very little else.

And I don't wanna sound preachy (because really, no one is obligated to protest anything they don't feel like showing up for)...but where were these protests for the 15 or 20 other young black males who were shot in Orlando last year? Where was the outrage over probably half of those cases going unsolved, and no one serving a day in jail for? There was a march in Boston on Friday...but not a single peep about the unknown male who was shot in Roxbury that very same weekend? Never mind not arresting someone...police haven't even figured out who the dead guy is yet!

Where were the athletes and entertainers in 2000 when my friend Nikia got shot for no crime other than drinking coffee? Why no rally for her and the 625 other murder victims in Chicago that year, and a demand that the police take action against someone for her death? They knew who shot her, or at least they knew the people who were fighting when a gun went off and shot her.

Where were the media and the socially conscious celebrities when my friend Ty got executed for the dangerous act of "looking like the person they really meant to kill from behind in the dark"? The people that shot him? They leave a fucking calling card every time they do this let everyone know it was them!!! How hard can it be to find them? Where were the great crusaders for equality and justice that day? Oh, that's right, they were probably all busy spreading the "Stop Snitching" gospel and using their influence to actually encourage witnesses to NOT help put the killers in jail...

So yes, be angry, and protest. Because Trayvon Martin was nothing worse than a kid who wanted some candy, and he and his family will pay an ungodly price for what will turn out to be a dreadfully under-punished atrocity. But if you really want to have an impact, don't only protest when it is trendy and gets on the news...protest and direct your anger to the areas where it has the most difference. Ranting about a single guy in Florida with a paranoid outlook and a cowboy machismo is leaving out entirely too much of the tragedy.


Now I have ranted for too long, so I am gonna leave point #3 until tomorrow.

The other Decision 2012

Today is Super Tuesday, including the primary here in Massachusetts. It is nice to be able to go back to 2008 and see what I wrote about that day...and to see how much more I wrote about Politics as a whole that year. Really, it is kind of interesting how much more discussion there seemed to be in 2008 across the whole of the blogosphere, which is probably due to a couple of obvious things (bloggers on average are pretty liberal, and therefore don't care about the Republican primaries as much; the 2008 Democratic fight was a pretty unusually big one, etc.)

But I did promise to tell you who I am going to vote for, and LaurWilk hit my rationale pretty soundly in her comment last week...I am gonna vote for Ron Paul (disclaimer: Romney will win the state by a mile, and whoever wins today will lose by a mile in November. Ergo, my vote is not really cast with the idea that it has some input into the outcome.

So let's start with Romney, who Republicans seem to very begrudgingly choosing as their nominee. He just seems like a guy who's whole is less than the sum of his parts. Because on the surface, the resume is all there: he is unquestionably smart and hardworking and successful at a bunch of things. His private sector background is outstanding (despite the nonsense that his opponents have tried to play in the last couple of months). His quasi-government role at the Olympics earned raves from everyone who was involved on any level, and his time as the Governor here was basically successful as well (the one BIG mark against him is that he really only did it for about three years...he didn't seek re-election and largely disengaged for at least the last year of his term).

Yet for some reason, he seems to constantly want to apologize for who he is, and he has a very long (and disconcerting) habit of saying what it seems like people want to hear. I almost feel like his campaign advisers told him early on that he needs to come across as likeable, and he has been vainly trying and looking incredibly phony in the process. You know what, Mitt? You are rich and smart and handsome and successful...just go ahead and be arrogant about it! Most of us will never be able to identify with someone like you, so stop apologizing for it and just embrace who you are. We don't want to hire you because you are just like us...we want to hire you because you are capable.

Then, of course, there is Rick Santorum...oy. It is one of the great marvels of my memory that he is considered a contender in this race. He comes from a key swing state where, six years ago, voters took the really unusual step of throwing him out as a very powerful incumbent, and doing it by SEVENTEEN PERCENTAGE POINTS!!! If that has ever happened before, I have never heard of it. And yet here, six years later, preaching the same message, the national party thinks he might be a good candidate for President? How on Earth did that happen? (Actually, that is an easy question to answer...have you seen his opponents?)

More specifically, my problem with Santorum is that he is the natural successor to George W. Bush. It was never McCain, and it won't be Romney, and it's not even Jeb Bush...but Santorum is the exact kind of "compassionate Conservative" that Bush was. Socially, he seems to be stuck somewhere between 1885 and 1902...forget about abortion, he wants to talk about contraception. Really? What fucking planet are we on? And he is from the very worst school of unsustainable spenders that Bush is from...huge tax cuts for everyone and huge benefits for everyone and let the children pay for it in 40 years when the bill comes due. We are all blessed that he is such a colossal idiot, because he is unquestionably the most dangerous person in this race.

Newt Gingrich is just too much of an asshole to be President, and while Romney takes the blame (because he runs most of the ads), Gingrich is really the one most responsible for the tone of this race. He is the one who started on the intellectually dishonest attack ads, and the rest simply reacted...or over-reacted if you think so. Newt's legislative record as Speaker of the House was actually not that bad...he and Bill Clinton ran a fiscally sound state (or, at least as sound as anyone else has...but for the love of God, can we learn what it means to actually balance a budget? Because they didn't do it, despite claiming it incessantly for 15 years), and they put together at least one signature achievement: welfare reform. But then he got off track on a blow job infused witch hunt and destroyed himself and a lot more else in the process.

Which brings us to Ron Paul, who for some reason never gets treated like a "real" candidate. Which makes no sense...he raises tons of money, has a huge organization and draws the biggest crowds. He is also the spiritual father of so many of the current deficit hawks... And unquestionably the most intellectually consistent and honest of the bunch.

I think he is off base with his insistence on the gold standard, which wouldn't really accomplish anything near the trouble it would cause, and he is probably overly isolationist. He also remains a pretty staunch social conservative (although I will give him this: I disagree with him, but he makes one of the most eloquent pro-Life arguments I have heard), and I think he underestimates the need to maintain an energy policy as a part of foreign policy.

But he is just so right about so much else...he is the only one of the bunch (including the President) who is even remotely serious about deficit reduction, let alone balancing the budget. He is the only one who talks sincerely about shrinking Government (the others say so, but don't actually propose to do it). And he is alone among Republicans...and, this week, Democrats, too...in acknowledging the lives, money and resources that we are wasting overseas.

So, I am going to vote for him and feel pretty good about it. I expect Romney to win the nomination, and unless something really dramatic changes, I will vote for Obama in November (and expect him to win handily). He may be a crappy President, but save for actually starting a war with Iran, it is hard to see what he could do to make me think one of the other guys would be better at it.

In really fun news...

I kind of hinted last week that I had another issue to talk about, and I just needed a few days to deal with it before I wrote about it. And I am not entirely sure that I will get through this post without having to leave my desk to go walk around for a while...fortunately I am not wearing eye makeup today.

Munchkin's best friend has leukemia. She found out Thursday, and told Munchkin right away. As you would expect, Munchkin went over to see her immediately, doing her best not to get too upset or emotional...and then left to come home and immediately became a complete blubbering mess. Which paled in comparison to the blubbering mess of her older sister...

And really, I shouldn't be as affected as I am. Cancer sucks. And I know way too many people who have been impacted on way too many levels. I have met a whole bunch of girls that are the same age as Munchkin's friend, and have shared in at least some of the heartbreak that every one of their families feels. In this case, the girl is strong and otherwise healthy and has been diagnosed at a time and with a disease that gives her a very high chance of a complete recovery.

She has two great parents, two wonderful siblings and at least one remarkable best friend, and she will be treated at one of the world's very best hospitals without ever having to leave home. In the universe of people with cancer, she is unquestionably one of the lucky ones. She is also a wonderfully sweet, adorably upbeat girl, and she has taken the news without a drop of anger or fear...she knows she is going to get better, and she is ready for the battle.

I know all of that. I know she is going to be fine. I know that she is going to be sick for a while, but that she will look radiant and stunning when I send her and Munchkin to their senior prom. And she will have a full head of long hair when she and Munchkin hug each other and promise to call every day when they leave for college. This has a happy ending.

So why am I so completely devastated by this? For four days now, I find myself periodically bursting into tears...and have sobbed uncontrollably at least twice. Obviously, it hit Munchkin pretty hard, but she did all of her crying in one day, and now is just concerned with figuring out when and how she will be able to visit, and what the treatment schedule looks like. She has begun helping her friend pick out wigs.

Really, I should be helping her deal with her own emotions while she helps her friend. I should be helping her to not panic, to understand the reality and to be prepared to offer emotional support. I should be encouraging her and her friends to help her friend's sister (two years younger, and therefore friendly with all of them) deal with her own issues. I certainly shouldn't be trying to avoid the subject for fear of bursting into tears on a moment's notice (which I may have done on Friday).

I have to get over myself...I am not sick, nor is Munchkin. I just have to keep reminding myself of that one key point: this has a happy ending.

This is gonna be long, sorry

I actually have a couple of things to write about...one of which I can't even bring myself to because I am at work and don't want to be a blubbering idiot, but I will try and get out early next week. I always feel better after I write things down, but this is a big one and I don't really know how to deal with it just yet.

So, first, another kinda serious subject that has lit the Internet on fire this week: Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood. If you have been living under a rock, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Research Foundation has, for maybe seven years, participated in a partnership with Planned Parenthood whereby they give some money (around $500,000 annually) specifically to support a program that gives mammograms and other early-screening breast cancer services to mostly low-income women.

Someone earlier this year (I think, I am not sure) a Congressman from Florida launched an investigation into Planned Parenthood, ostensibly investigating claims that PP is using Federal Money to provide abortions, which would be a violation of Federal Law (I will reserve comment on the reasonableness of that law), and of the terms of whatever grants that PP gets from the Federal Government.

Also this year, the Komen Foundation initiated a policy dealing with charitable organizations that they support - specifically, that they will suspend aid to any organization that is under local, State or Federal investigation. As a result of this, they pulled their funding of PP because of this investigation.

So first, the "I don't knows". I don't know whether or not there were any other organizations that also lost funding from SGK as a result of this policy. I don't know whether this policy was the result of a normal risk assessment, or whether it was a specific act intended for only this one program. There seems to be an assumption that Komen did this to send a specific message to PP, but I don't know that to be true...it is possible that the news story broke because PP took it as an affront to their pro-Choice charter. I also don't know (although I suspect that it may be) whether or not the Congressional investigation is a legitimate exercise, or a witch hunt. Much of the outrage has been built under the assumption that it is, but I don't actually know that to be true.

Some additional background. I have been to Planned Parenthood as a client, and I know/knew a number of girls for whom the PP clinic was a key health care provider. Even as a teenager, it was pretty obvious that they have an agenda, and that the organization is dominated by their status as the most visible pro-Choice health care provider...but it is grossly misleading and unfair to call it an "abortion business" as I have seen a number of "news" outlets do in recent days. And it is impossible to deny their role as a health care provider, especially to women with few (or no) other options.

And I have always (basically) been pro-Choice. I believe in parental notification. I believe that the decision point should be pretty early in a pregnancy. I believe in a number of things that might be considered restrictions on abortion...but fundamentally I believe that it is a medical procedure that should be safe and should be available.

So, with all of that said...I just can't seem to get myself all worked up about the Komen foundation's decision. First of all, the policy is totally reasonable...if they have to ask people to give them money, which they do, then they simply can't take the risk of giving it to a charity for some period of time after they hear that the charity is under investigation. We are innocent until proven guilty in court...but not in the court of potential donor's minds. Just hypothetically, imagine that this investigation turns out to be real, and in 9 months, Planned Parenthood is exposed to have done all kinds of bad stuff, and the CEO gets sent to jail (no, I don't expect that to happen...but just go with it.) How does the SGK foundation then respond to a potential donor who asks "Why did you sent them $500k after you knew that they were accused of wrongdoing?"

Or, change the facts entirely...imagine the CEO of Charity Y has been arrested for beating his wife, but remains in his job while the case goes to trial. Could the SGK foundation justify continuing to send that charity money before a verdict was reached? Legally, sure...and maybe even ethically. But eventually, they answer to donors, who don't care about the legalities, they care about the emotional reasons that they give. If the Foundation feels like the best way to fulfill its mission is to cut this funding, then so be it...that is ultimately their responsibility.

To that end, I was sort of surprised to see that they even gave PP money in the first place. Understanding that the specific program is firmly within the goals of the SGK, there is no denying that PP is a controversial organization...partly because of what they do, and partly because an additional part of their goals is to be a very vocal, very visible proponent of pro-Choice causes and legislation. It would undeniably turn off a certain segment of potential donors.

Could I get worked up about a sham Congressional investigation? Sure...and this wouldn't be the only one...Congress does that sort of shit regularly. But most of the anger I have seen has been directed at SGK, including lots of threats to withold donations (which strikes me as cutting off funding from women's health care, which is what we are angry at them for in the first place.) I just can't really blame them, though. I understand why a massive charity would choose to not opine on the validity of an investigation and just take them all as "serious".

And finally, I feel like the rhetoric around the impact of all of this has been a little blown out of proportion. I have read in a couple of places about how this is impacting "millions of women's lives". Really? It is $500,000...not to say that is insignificant, but it is not going to impact "millions" of people. Additionally, the money will then eventually be re-allocated somewhere else within the Komen foundation to another of its assumedly noble causes...possibly something very similar. And further, out of Planned Parenthood's total budget of just about $1 billion, this represents one half of one tenth of one percent. In other words, a rounding error. Planned Parenthood ran a surplus in its most recent year of something like $60 million...meaning that they could provide the same program, with the result being that their annual surplus falls to $59.5 million...not exactly a crippling loss.

So, in the end, as much as it smells funny to have what appears to be a Congressman in Florida cutting funding for breast cancer prevention, it is hard to see where this will actually have a material impact on anyone. And if you really do think that the SGK does good work in achieving its primary goals (good enough that it caused you to donate), then I can't really believe that this, on its own, changes that. 

Alright, this is already way too long, and I KNOW that many of you disagree with me, so have at it.

This is 999 posts, which means that whatever I write next will be the 1,000th (math lesson, eh?). That is kind of a lot of pressure, especially for someone who has struggled a lot recently to blog at all, let alone write anything worthwhile. I sort of feel like I have been wasting Internet space for a while now, and now I am faced with the desire to write something important and deep and reflective and full of meaning to commemorate the occasion.

But really, I am having trouble finding time or desire to blog lately, and that may be a sign in itself. I think of all the things that this blog has meant to me, and all of the things that I (used to?) love about it...and I am not sure that I still feel the same way. This stands as a (somewhat scrubbed) account of a very important part of my life, recounting a whole lot of day-to-day activity, a whole lot of thoughts and feelings and a whole lot of me that would probably be lost if I hadn't written it down. Do I risk losing those things going forward because I don't write them anymore?

I actively chose not to make this into a "baby" blog, and to leave out the minor details about what they ate and how long they slept for and how many times I changed their diapers. Largely, I did that because no one cares. Unfortunately, I don't have a whole lot else to write about...that takes up all of my time. And beyond worrying whether others care, maybe I have to ask myself whether I care? I don't know the answer to that...right now I don't, but will I someday regret not having a day-to-day account of their first years? I don't have an answer to that.

Normally, people give advice like "write about whatever you want," or "write about whatever you are thinking." If I am being totally honest with you, I don't know what I want to write about, and I don't really care to document what I am thinking. I may change my mind later, but I don't really care to go back and re-read forty straight posts about how I can't get them to sleep all night in their cribs.

I also have a confession to make...I have decided how I am going to "end" this blog. That doesn't mean I am thinking strongly about actually doing it, or that I have any desire to, but I have already written the last post. While I don't know when I may decide to post it, should I be worried that I have even thought about it? I dunno.

But I do know that I feel like I owe you a doozy of a post next, and I am not feeling terribly confident that I am up to it.

The wedding toast approval process begins

OK...this is my current working version of my toast for BFFg's wedding. I am having trouble with the beginning, but I think I like the second half of it. Unless it is entirely too personal, which is possible.

Also, the chances of me getting through it without bawling are absolutely zero:-)

-----------------

I tried to find poems or book or songs that I could quote from to help me with this, but nothing really seemed to fit, so I am just going to tell you what I think about [BFFg] and hope that it helps you to understand exactly how special she is.

I've known [BFFg] since we were four, and I can't even imagine how life would have turned out if I didn't have her as a best friend. Both of us were only children then, and almost right away we considered each other the sisters that we wished we had. Certainly there were challenges, but when I look back...all that matters is that she and [BFFb] and I were together. We were a team, and it was the best team that a confused, insecure, slightly-neglected girl could have had.

She (and her Mom) were there when I needed a place to stay, which was entirely too often.

She was there to make me laugh when all I wanted to do was feel sorry for myself.

She was there to get into trouble with me. And then to get out of it and then to laugh about it later on.

We sat next to each other in every class we ever took in high school, when it wasn't important to anyone else that we be there. Except for each other, because we made a promise to each other that it mattered, and we take promises to ourselves seriously.

And maybe most importantly, she was there to be a sister, a friend and a guiding voice to my own sister when I couldn't be.

Frankly, life wasn't always easy, and a lot of the kids that we grew up with became victims of our environment. But we didn't. And we didn't because we were always a team. We were always a "we" and we were always together.

We started high school with nearly 800 students. 250 graduated and maybe 25 went to college. But we were two of them, and that wasn't an accident. I made it because she held me to my promise to do it, and I think she did the same.

But she was always the stronger one. She never cared what others thought as much, and she never got as discouraged as I did. We lost friends, and all I could get from it was anger and resentment...she turned that into a strengthened resolve to make ourselves better than that.

Whatever I am, she made me. Whatever she is, I would like to take just a little bit of credit. And now, here we are, almost all grown up, and we made it.

I can give no higher praise to someone than to tell him that he is worthy of her, but [Husband], I think that you are. You are the only person I ever met that I thought worth setting her up with, and I am glad to know that my instincts were that strong. You are not only is so obviously handsome, but you treat her like a princess, challenge her and he make her even better.

BFFg and I have been a team for as long as I can remember, and we still are. But now she has a new teammate, and I can tell you from 25 years of experience, [Husband], that there is nobody you'd rather have on your side.

-----------

Thoughts?

More ranting on Libya

Only a couple of responses on my Libya comments...which I think sort of gets to the point here. No one really knows what to think. We all beat up George Bush for not letting sanctions and the inspection process and diplomacy run their course in Iraq, but now we seem to have just skipped all of that stuff, shoved through some bogus UN Resolution and started bombing.

But, in the absence of the sort of debate that led up to Iraq and Afghanistan (they may have ignored a lot of the debate, but there was at least a debate)...does anyone know what we are doing? What our goals are? What the objectives are? Obama says that overthrowing Ghaddaffi (and for real, how the fuck does he spell his name?!?!?) is not an objective, but the Brits and the French say that it is. Isn't this the sort of thing that we should iron out ahead of time?

The prevailing argument seems to be a humanitarian one...what's-his-name is being extra mean to his own people, so we need to step in and stop him. As noble as that sounds, why has no one intervened in Darfur? And where were we in Rwanda? Or the Ivory Coast? There is a lot worse stuff going on in other places in the world. And right now, in Bahrain and Yemen, almost the same things are happening...political demonstrations being broken up by excessive force by authoritarian governments. So, why is Libya worth intervening but those other places aren't? The economic arguments are weak, too...there isn't even that much oil there. If anything, the risk of violence on the Arabian peninsula destabilizing Saudi Arabia is a much bigger economic story.

So, I remain mostly just confused by the whole thing. George Bush will be judged by history as having made specious, borderline-truthful arguments about Iraq. But at least he said something. The Great Diplomat has decided to have a couple quiet meetings, drop some bombs and then think about maybe explaining it later on. If he gets around to it.