THE UNITED STATES OF BOSTON

There are a lot of us Americans out here who believe what happened in Boston is really indicative of a much more pervasive threat in America. The simple truth is that there are way too many human beings of varying nationalities who abhor all things American. We are roundly hated in many corners of the earth, and our one-time “impenetrable” borders are now anything but. Everybody is fully exposed now. We American citizens are seemingly dangerously exposed to unknown individual enemies with psychopathic intentions, and those very enemies are exposed to unprecedented law enforcement technology and countless cameras. We’re all naked in the worst way.

 Those of us in my generation trace one of our earliest memories to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. From that moment, we progressed on through a number of other mid-to-late-20th century bloody assassinations, and right into the ongoing carnage of the Vietnam war. In between it all was the civil rights struggle that saw eruptions of street rioting coast to coast. We were raised on violence and mayhem. As children we saw our President shot through the brain. As teens we watched blood and guts in Vietnamese rice paddies every night on Walter Cronkite’s evening newscast. As young adults we were already inundated with unnatural acts of horror. By the time we were full adults, the Murrah Federal Building (left) was blown up in Oklahoma City. This time the carnage was the work of a disgruntled American angry at the government for another violent confrontation in Waco, TX two years earlier. And then the road winds around right into 9/11.

And now…Boston.

The day JFK was murdered, the U.S was about as low-tech as a developed nation could be. When the riots happened late at night in Washington, D.C. and Harlem the night Martin Luther King was murdered, many of us had no idea it was happening until the next day. Vietnam happened on our TV screens, but generally not in real time. Even so many years later when Oklahoma City happened, and later when the planes hit the buildings in NYC, although we watched it happen live on TV, there was not much social media happening and cameras in phones were not widely available yet.

But Boston? The world is so high tech now that not only did law enforcement rely heavily on private citizens’ phone photos, but the second suspect was caught after a helicopter used infrared imaging technology (right) to determine that he was hiding under a sealed canvas in a boat. Those in the know explained it to us laypeople as technology that senses heat
to indicate there is an animal or human being in the targeted region. X-Ray vision, 21st century style. Technology did in the Tsarnaev brothers. As one network reporter put it, the phrase “lost in a crowd” no longer exists in 21st century America. If not technology, what other explanation is there that the Tsarnaev boys were identified and targeted by law enforcement within 24 – 48 hours of the marathon bombings?

 But there are other differences between Boston and the history-making violent events through which we have lived. Chief among them may be the fact that Chechnya, a country of just over 1.2 million citizens could be a threat to the mighty USA. It speaks to the undeniable shift in world security that these two boys were able to pull this off. Another meaningful difference between Boston and past violent incidents is the complex fact that although they caught us by surprise with the bombings, we are no longer fully shocked that it could happen. We know now that terrorist attacks can happen anywhere, anytime. Three days after the Boston bombings a bomb threat at the New Orleans Marriott hotel forced its officials to evacuate the entire 41 floors and 1300+ guest rooms. Right here in New Orleans – we’re not a major U.S. center of commerce; we’re not a national government seat; we’re not even a tremendously populated city, compared to our more cosmopolitan sister cities. Yet even we have bomb threats.

The difference between Boston and other events we’ve witnessed is simply that now we know terrorism has no geographical preferences or boundaries. So – we are Boston. And Boston is us. And that “new normal” that you hear bandied about in contemporary vernacular is real. The new normal can be summed up this way: We are not necessarily safe in America. We know that, and we navigate our way through life with that sort of hanging over us each day.

It is still the freest country in the world, but freedom has been somewhat redefined. It now means we are on camera most of the time that we are not at home. It means there is even technology being used that can determine if someone is indeed in their home at any given time. The new normal holds that we Americans are not internationally adored. In many places just the opposite is the case. And the new normal holds that those who would commit violent mass attacks walk right among us. The surviving Tsarnaev brother is described by some of his American high school and college classmates as a great guy, fun, and just “one of us.” So far, to a person they describe someone who they would never have known had it in for Americans.

 Those are the necessary lessons of Boston. We are now the United States of Boston. I remember not so many years ago when we were all called upon to be the United States of New Orleans. It was a powerful feeling. The larger lesson I take away from these moments? That would be that unity is our true, best shot at national security.

MY 7 OBSESSIONS WITH "MAD MEN"

I’m one of those people who can’t get enough “Mad Men,” and after waiting almost a year for the show to come back with new episodes, Sunday night was a major event. Maybe it’s the focus on the 1960’s, the decade in which I grew up, and the uncanny social accuracy the creators achieve. The sets, the costumes, the drinks, the cigarettes, the music, the sexy overtones (more on that later!), but especially the mindset. How could our cultural status have appeared so sophisticated, but really have been so, so innocent? This new set of episodes appears to be set right around 1968, and if ever there was a year that altered the American psyche and the future of the society, it was that year. As one who is obsessed with the show, here are 10 objects of my obsession from the first new episode:

1. THE CHANGING ROLE OF WOMEN: Main character Peggy Olsen represents the antithesis of what women were supposed to be back then. Career-laser-focused, Peggy is in a new, more responsible advertising position, and true to form,her behavior is now mirroring the behavior of her male counterparts at her former ad agency. That’s what women thought they had to do back then, and well into the 1980s, actually. They believed they had to become men to make the unlikely climb up the corporate ladder. “Can you get me some coffee?” she barks from her office while working all night on New Year’s Eve and forcing her male subordinates to do the same.

2. COUNTER CULTURE: A few seasons ago there was an NBC TV drama called “American Dreams,” also set in the 1960s, in which the year 1968 was just touched on in the third season. Those who didn’t live through the “hippie era” were about to see how it changed some young people from innocents into members of a new societal counter culture. It got cancelled. “Mad Men” is about to pick up right where “American Dreams” left off, with a view of how some young people rejected convention and formed their own youth movement.

 3. SEX: (As promised!) The birth control pill was only seven years old by 1968, and the HIV/AIDS scare was decades away, so sex was in the air, next door, in the office, at the holiday party, everywhere you can imagine. Back then, people blamed the more open attitude toward sex on the hippie movement, but truly it was a grownup phenomenon fueled by a widespread “because we can” attitude. Don Draper’s return to extra-marital flings in the first episode makes perfect sense. Comments now deemed inappropriate were de rigueur in the office back then. In the New Year’s Eve party scene in Don and Megan’s ultra-mod high rise apartment, a female guest who is in attendance with her husband, openly comes on to Don right in front of Megan. Later that same night, Don has sex with his neighbor’s wife. If only Sinatra were still with us to narrate that moment with his trademark “Ring-a-ding-ding.”

4. DEATH: Don Draper is focusing too often and too heavily on all things death-related. In one scene, a drunk Don questions the doorman at his apartment building, who had suffered a heart attack a while back and been declared clinically dead before being revived. “What did you see?” Don demands. “What was it like?” In another scene, Don plays the doorman’s death over again in his memory in slow motion. When Don attends a funeral gathering for co-worker Roger Sterling’s mother, he throws up in front of the entire crowd. In a rare faux pas, Don creates an ad campaign for a hotel/resort company that is rejected by the client, who says it strikes him as suggestive of suicide. Don’s got death on the brain.

 5. VICES: Cigarettes and booze are players in almost every scene in “Mad Men.” There is smoking in hospitals and at dinner tables, drinking at the office and even at funerals. When Roger Sterling’s secretary must inform him of his own mother’s death, he quickly pours her a stiff one, which she downs in one long gulp. On vacation in Hawaii, Megan Draper trudges down to a skeezy part of the beach to score a joint, which she victoriously brings back to the hotel room to smoke before she and Don have sex. Smoking pot was still considered sneaky, naughty, and yes…sexy. Very sixties.

6. MEN’S BURIED EMOTIONS: If you think men are denying their feelings orconcealing their emotions today, you really had to see 1960s men. Don Draper is great at withholding everything he feels and internalizing it all into some deep, dark tunnel of grey matter. And Roger Sterling, who barely blinked upon hearing of his mother’s death, cries wild tears upon hearing that his regular shoe shine man died – but only in his office, alone. 1960s men are accurately depicted in “Mad Men” as in emotional denial about everything and unable to converse with anyone in any circumstance about feelings.

 7.FASHION:“Mad Men” captures the look of the 1960s better than almost any fictionalized piece I have ever seen. In my first job out of college (1975) I worked at a TV station in which we absolutely had a woman of the Joan Holloway genre. Full figured, proud of it, and dressed to accentuate all of it. The office attire is dressy, tailored and dry-cleaned within an inch of its fibrous life. Men’s fashion is stylized, but understated. But, as mentioned, it’s 1968, and I predict soon we’ll see the leisure suits, chains, miniskirts, platform shoes, etc. But by 1968, office attire was still very 1960ish. My hat is way off to the costumers. Perfect.

Even with all of my above-mentioned obsessions, the real genius in the series rests in the writers’ words. For five seasons the writers have slowly and meticulously revealed that Don Draper is a human train wreck. Now it becomes more obvious: On vacation in Hawaii, he is on the beach reading “The Inferno,” of all things. Creator Matt Weiner walks a fine line of over-symbolizing… “The Inferno” was a bit much, but it fits with everything we already know about Don’s dark psyche.

The writers are also smartly and slowly working in references to Vietnam. So far the references are pretty benign, but 1968 was the year of the Tet offensive, a series of attacks by the North Vietnamese that escalated the war in an unprecedented way. Some say the Tet offensive did in Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, caused Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s military career to crash and burn and caused everyday Americans to truly realize we were in a war. How will “Mad Men” handle this new infusion of faraway blood and guts to influence its scripts? How will the writers balance their material between Wall Street, Hanoi and Haight Ashbury. That 1960s innocence I mentioned earlier? It’s due to fade to black in this season’s “Mad Men.” Why oh why aren’t you watching???!

BRILLIANT

BAD BOYS IN ANYTOWN, USA

Edgar Gonzalez, 18 (left) and John Toribio, 18

At first glance, Torrington, CT could be anytown USA. It’s so “anytownish” that a drive through town reveals a mix of neatly manicured lawns, nicely rehabbed old buildings mixed with environmentally-correct newer architecture. With a population of under 40,000 people, (over 90 percent white), the town is reminiscent of Thornton Wilder’s enduring drama, “Our Town,” except a century later. The big difference? In Torrington, two high school football players are currently charged with forcibly raping a 13-year-old girl. That did not happen in Wilder’s Grovers Corner.

Trent Mays, 16 (l) and Ma'Lik Richmond, 17

Coming on the heels of the highly-publicized case of two footballers being convicted of rape in Steubenville, OH, the case seems eerily similar. According to published reports, Edgar Gonzalez and John Toribio were charged with felony second-degree sexual assault and other crimes last month in cases involving different 13-year-old girls. Toribio also was charged two weeks ago in another second-degree sexual assault. Not guilty pleas have been entered on behalf of both. Similarly, in Steubenville, Trent Mays and Ma'Lik Richmond answered charges of raping a drunk 16-year-old girl. Since they were minors at the time of the crime, they were sentenced as juveniles. It is likely one of them will spend a year in juvenile jail, while the other may spend two years.

There are two issues that jump off the page in both of these cases. First, via these two cases we are witnessing the extreme downside of social media. In both towns, other teens have taken to Twitter to express their anger at the victims of these assaults. The unidentified 13-year-old girl in Torrington has been called all the predictable names – snitch, bitch, slut, whore, hoe, etc. Very few Tweets have been reported that are directed at the alleged attackers. The same thing happened in Ohio. Such is the duplicitous nature of our collective morality. Some Tweets asked why a 13-year-old girl was hanging out with 18-year-old boys. One Tweet admonished the victim for “ruining two people’s lives.” Another Tweeted, “young girls acting like whores there’s no punishment, young men acting like boys that’s a sentence.” Have we not yet moved past or evolved up from the “boys will be boys” argument?

Blaming women for being raped is nothing new, but here in the early 21st century one might believe we’d be a bit more enlightened than to perpetuate such ignorant admonishments. By now, you have no doubt heard the intense criticism leveled at CNN’s anchor Candy Crowley and correspondent Poppy Harlow for their post-Steubenville sentencing coverage. More than 200,000 people have signed a petition criticizing the two reporters for allegedly sympathizing on-air with the convicted rapists rather than the young victim. Both have publicly denied that their reporting was skewed toward the boys, but the proof is in the video. Watch: A tip of the socially-conscious hat to those 200,000 plus people who signed the petition asking why the reporters never saw fit to even mention the plight of the young woman who was raped. The petition demands an on-air apology from CNN. Oh, and it gets worse: Shame, shame on CNN for airing a courtroom clip in which the name of the 16-year-old victim was said out loud. Come on CNN. What the hell is going on?

Beyond the clear sexism in the public’s and the media’s response to these types of cases is the issue of obvious negligence on the part of adults. Is no one teaching teens the necessity of social consciousness, respect for fellow human beings and the importance of behavioral boundaries? We all know that left to their own devices, some young teenage girls will recklessly flirt with older boys, and those older boys will most often be ruled by their own raging testosterone levels. Put those two combustible agents together and poof – teen rape in Anytown, USA. Don’t misinterpret this: I place the blame for these sexual assaults directly on the boys who perpetrated the crimes. But I have to wonder why we adults are not working a bit harder to properly socialize kids.

As mentioned above, there is nothing new about any of this. When I was in high school in what seems about 100 years ago, a young male teacher told one of my horny male classmates this, when pointing out a particularly big-breasted teenage girl: “See? That’s the kind of shit you go after and you don’t stop until you get it.” I never forgot that moment. How many other teachers and coaches are counseling their randy young male students or athletes to pursue that “kind of shit” even today? I daresay it’s pretty widespread. As usual, the numbers tell the story: 10.5 percent of all American high school-age girls have been forced into sexual intercourse, according to a report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That figure is conservative, based on the CDC’s further finding that up to 50 percent of sexual assaults against women are never reported. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice reports that in 2007 that one in two rape victims was under age 18; one in six was under age twelve.

Often the perpetrators simply continue their daily lives, uninterrupted. Why weren’t any of these boys suspended from their football teams when the formal accusations were made? In Steubenville, Gonzalez had already been charged in a March 2012 alleged felony robbery after he and three others allegedly jumped three 14-year-olds in search of money, yet he was allowed to play in the 2012 football season anyway.

These incidents are hard reminders that we are still a paternalistic society; that we still give our young athletes a pass when it comes to their blatantly bad – and sometimes felonious – behavior; that victims of sexual crimes are often further victimized by onlookers and even Tweeters; and most importantly, that the grownups have fallen way down on the job of teaching kids right from wrong. When two grown, educated, successful women broadcast their extreme compassion for two rapists on national television, something is way, way off. When high school football coaches attempt to cover up the criminal actions of their players, the entire community suffers. It all serves only to perpetuate the myth that “it’s just sex.” It’s not just sex. It’s about power and violence and every time we protect or sympathize with a boy who rapes a girl we put another ethical dent in an already damaged culture.

CPAC SOUNDS OFF ON GAY MARRIAGE

Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) ignited a firestorm this week when he anounced his sharp u-turn on gay marriage. Long a vocal and hard-voting conservative on all issues gay (he actually co-sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA]), Portman’s stunning reversal happened after his own 26-year-old son came out as gay. (See “A Senator Sees the Light” on the left side of this page) It so happens Portman’s revelation of his change of political heart happened at the exact moment the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was in session. The ultra-liberal blog “Think Progress” dispatched a team of reporters to cover the conference. Today, one of them talked to several CPAC attendees to get their reaction to Portman’s comments. Their reaction, while predictable, is still jarring in its intolerance. In the midst of rapid societal progress, these comments illustrate how divided the country still is on social issues Watch: Interestingly, the younger attendees at CPAC have a different take on gay marriage. While not necessarily in favor of changing the law, many of them express more inclusive suggestions for social change. Watch:

ANIMAL CRUELTY LAWS: Weak and Unenforced

On Sept. 12, 2011, Milan Rysa, an illegal immigrant tossed his three-year-old Shar-Pei dog out of his third-story apartment window in Queens, NY.  The dog died upon impact, barely missing two women pedestrians before it hit the street. I have been closely following the progress of Rysa’s case since that night.  Rysa, a bodybuilder who worked at a local gym, was arrested the night of the incident, although he initially said he was asleep when the dog died and had nothing to do with it. He was taken to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation and then put in prison. He eventually pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment March 15, 2012 and was given a sentence of 364 days in prison. He served just three-quarters of his sentence.

Milan Rysa and "Brooklyn"

 Rysa then became subject to Immigration and Customs Enforcement action.  He is awaiting a court date to find out if he will be deported to his native Czech Republic. The message Rysa’s experience sends to the world is that in America you can murder an animal that you own, serve a brief prison sentence and then be released. If the American animal abuse laws are inadequate, it is largely because they are archaic and not prioritized by individual states. 

  

"PRIMO"

 Consider what happened in my own home town, New Orleans.  Primo was a six-year-old Belgian Malinois who served in the K-9 division of the New Orleans Police Department. In May, 2009, his handler, Officer Jason Lewis, left Primo unattended in a police vehicle in extreme heat.  The dog evidently struggled to escape the vehicle, but weakened and died of heat stroke.  Prior to dying, the dog was taken to a veterinarian, where he suffered three seizures before succumbing. Photos of the vehicle (above, left) in which Primo died show a torn up interior, likely the result of Primo’s desperate attempt to escape. It should be noted that the necropsy report by the Louisiana Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory shows Primo’s temperature upon arrival at the veterinary clinic was 109.8 degrees.

Lewis was appropriately fired.  But he appealed his termination and in May, 2012 the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal in New Orleans said it found no evidence that officer Jason Lewis was negligent in his care for Primo, his 6-year-old Belgian Malinois, and Lewis was reinstated to his NOPD position.

Also in May, 2009, veteran K-9 NOPD officer Sgt. Randy Lewis falsified a permission slip to use another police dog named Phantom in a security search of a shuttered New Orleans hospital.  The dog, who was not technically supposed to be on this detail, broke free from Lewis while in the hospital and fell 17 floors down an elevator shaft.  Lewis, court records indicate, then tried to cover up the details of the dog’s death.  He was charged with malfeasance in office, but remarkably, he was acquitted.

These disgusting examples of animal abuse and neglect may seem as though they are isolated incidents, but the hard truth is that animal mistreatment is epidemic in our culture. The Humane Society of America reports that most victims (65%) are dogs.  It is further reported that 71 per cent of human domestic violence victims report that their abuser also targets their animals. Forty-seven states currently have felony provisions for animal abuse. Those that do not have such laws are Idaho, North Dakota and South Dakota.

The problem is that these laws are weakly enforced, and individual judges can dismiss cases, which is exactly what happened with Sgt. Randy Lewis. The felony animal abuse laws are unevenly prosecuted nationwide.  Perhaps this rather nonchalant view of animal abuse will explain why in 2010, there were only 16 reported cases of animal abuse in Louisiana.  In New York, where Milan Rysa murdered his dog, there were 100 cases, still a fraction of the number of animals that were most likely abused in the state that year.

Some perspective:  In Louisiana, the penalty for purse-snatching is two to 20 years in prison. But, as stated above, the penalty for allowing a dog to die under the cruelest conditions in a hot car with windows closed was…well, there was no penalty. In New York, the penalty for breaking windows in someone’s house is imprisonment for up to 10 years or a fine of not more than $15,000.00 or 3 times the amount of the destruction or injury, whichever is greater, or both imprisonment and a fine. But, in the case of Milan Rysa, the penalty for murdering a dog is less than a year in prison, and no fine. There are many states, most notably Kentucky and New Mexico, in which owners do not even have to forfeit their animals if they abuse them and get caught.  They get to keep them and most likely abuse them further. There is no consistency from state to state regarding animal abuse laws and penalties and many states almost ignore the problem. In Iowa, for example, police officers are not even required to report animal abuse that they witness, or to intervene to try to stop the abuse. You can beat your dog up in front of an Iowa cop and he or she has no obligation to stop you.

In 2012, the Animal Legal Defense Fund issued a report, "U.S. Animal Protection Laws Rankings," in which it ranked every state in the U.S. as to its animal abuse laws and enforcement.  Even in Illinois, which it ranked in the top five states for animal protection, it revealed that if a citizen is convicted of animal abuse, he or she does not have to give up their animal. Further, just like Iowa, if police officers witness animal abuse, they do not have “an affirmative duty to enforce animal protection laws.”   Other states have animal protection laws that lack definitions, so enforcement of the laws becomes arbitrary.  Still other states lack basic laws to protect animals from obvious mistreatment. In New Mexico, for example, remarkably there are no provisions for sexual assault of an animal. We humans have to start taking action in our individual states to strengthen these laws.  Here is what you can do:

1.      Contact your state legislators and express your concern about animal protection. Many legislators do not take much of an interest in animal protection because it is not a hot button topic that gains them notoriety or votes. You have to push them to act. WE ALL HAVE TO BECOME ACTIVISTS AND LOBBYISTS.  Animals are depending on us.
2.      If you suspect or witness animal cruelty or neglect, report the abuse to the Humane Society, document what you have seen or suspected and be willing to testify against the perpetrator.
3.      Work within the system to strengthen existing animal protection laws in your state. Start locally, move to the state level and then the national level, via groups that are already involved with animal protection.
4.      Know the laws in your state so that you can know what is missing. Click here to learn the specifics of the laws in your state, as listed by the ASPCA.    Also, know what laws are pending.  You can find this out through an interactive map

6.      at Born Free USA, a national non-profit organization that lobbies for the care and protection of animals. 

 5.  Contact the media to get coverage for instances of extreme cruelty and neglect. If you contact a local television station, ask to speak directly with the news director and be brief, concise and specific.  Offer to be interviewed, if necessary. 

Most importantly, adopt animals that you can take care of properly. Encourage people you trust to do the same. If you truly love animals, now is the time for us all to mobilize against animal cruelty.  Never give up and never stop caring.

YAHOO!'s 12,000 NEWLY-DISGRUNTLED WORKERS

UPDATE - March 7, 2013 One week after YAHOO! announced that it would no longer allow telecommuting, Best Buy, the struggling home appliance and electronics giant, announced it will now do much the same thing. Best Buy will end a program started in 2005 that allowed many of its corporate employees to work flexible hours, including some from their homes. Click here to read the details. The original post about YAHOO! follows below:

From all outward appearances, Marissa Mayer is the epitome of a 21st century young business-woman, balancing her formidable work life and her new role as mother. Mayer, 37, is the Stanford-educated over-achiever who just last year was installed as CEO of YAHOO!, after a 13-year career with Google. Her trajectory, while enviable (she will earn a reported $59 million this year), hit a nasty public image snag last week, when she announced that the approximately 12,000 YAHOO! employees who telecommute will now be required to work regular business hours in the office. For a company that has touted itself as the “grandfather” of the tech industry, Mayer’s announcement seemed to some about as forward-thinking as a manual typewriter.

Among those who will be adversely affected by Mayer’s decision are physically challenged workers, some who care for disabled or elderly relatives, those who live great distances from the workplace, and especially parents, who have found the best of both worlds, being able to raise their children at home and have fruitful careers. It is the latter group who are the focus of much of the media swell that resulted from Mayer’s announcement.
The media has demonstrated sharp division in its reaction to Mayer’s decision. One wonders how many more articles with titles like “5 Reasons Melissa Mayer is Right” or “3 Reasons Melissa Mayer is Short-Sighted” will flood the editorial inventory before the dust settles. But one thing is for sure: Mayer’s decision is a one-way ticket back to 1973ish, when everybody got up every day, put on their best corporate duds, inhaled coffee, delivered the kids to strangers and took off for big glass boxes to invest their eight hours into whatever it was they did to make money to buy coffee and have kids. It was an inefficient way to run a world then and it certainly makes no sense in 2013, when gas lingers near $4 a gallon, there are more single parents than ever before in American history and the big glass box office buildings cost more than ever to maintain. What in the world was she thinking?

Well, according to the digital doyenne, togetherness is the key to success: “To become the absolute best place to work, communication and collaboration will be important, so we need to be working side-by-side,” Mayer wrote in a memo to the staff. "That is why it is critical that we are all present in our offices."

Oh Marissa, Marissa, Marissa. Take it from an almost-60-year-old American worker who has worked in one office or another for decades, right next door and down the hall from hundreds (thousands?) of others who have also worked in their own corporate boxes: Togetherness is highly over-rated in the workplace. What galls me more than anything is that you, Marissa, know that to be true.

First, many of your workers get to their offices in the morning and never leave them, except possibly to go to lunch or the restroom, until they leave at 5 p.m. How is that collaborative? Second, about those many married and single parents who work for you: Because your company graciously enabled many of them to work from home, they do not have to pay the astronomical monthly fees for childcare services. Unless you are planning to reasonably increase their salaries, I’m wondering how you expect them to adjust to your new rules.

According to a September, 2012 report from Child Care Aware of America, a year of full-time childcare in a center for a 4-year-old costs an average of $3,900 in Mississippi, compared to $11,700 in Massachusetts, while care for an infant costs $4,600 in Mississippi, compared to nearly $15,000 in Massachusetts. Still not convinced? Get this: In California, where YAHOO!’s corporate offices are located, the average cost of full-time infant child care is more than $11,500, almost double average tuition and fees at a public college. Average full-time day care costs for a four-year-old in California is more than $8,200 — and it also exceeds the almost $6,000 tab for a year at a public college, according to the report by the National Association of Child Resource and Referral Agencies in Arlington, Va.

So, Marissa, is it reasonable and humane for you to expect your workers to add $11,500 to their annual expenses for childcare, not to mention the cost of their commute to and from work, without adjusting their salaries? If Mayer’s answer falls under the “Not my problem” category, that may have something to do with the fact that she brings her own four-month old child (left) to work with her, and has the distinct advantage of having a nursery in her office. Your average worker will not, of course, have that option. While I applaud Mayer’s ability to run a $4 billion company while simultaneously raising a newborn child, it does seem rather non-empathetic of her to expect her underlings to achieve work/life balance with their kids miles away in costly daycare centers. It is complex territory. Watch this report from ABC News:
 The real issue here, however, is Mayer’s commitment to her belief that togetherness is the key to the company’s success. Not so, say researchers. In fact, a Forester Research report projects that 43 percent of Americans will work off-site at least one day a week by 2016. A recent Stanford University study of 249 call center workers at a Chinese travel agency found that those who were randomly selected to work from home four days a week for nine months -- after they volunteered to do so -- experienced a 13 percent increase in their work performance. There are other studies that show increases in productivity for those who work at home, and additional studies that indicate worker satisfaction increases with autonomy and independence from an office setting.

To Marissa Mayer, I would say this: Those 12,000 bodies you want to add to the in-house corporate culture so they can have that free exchange of ideas in person? Many of them will spend their time talking and focusing on anything but their jobs. They will talk a lot about you, and how you have single-handedly set the workplace back a good 25 years. They will talk about each other, about the fabulous new restaurant they went to last night, about how their wireless service sucks, about how somebody’s dress at the Oscars was inappropriate, about when new episodes of “Mad Men” are supposed to debut, about how ridiculously expensive Super Bowl tickets are, about how worried they are about their spouses’ job security, about how hot so-and-so is down the hall…..Marissa, they will talk about almost anything except work. You already know that because you have worked in the corporate culture your whole adult life. So why be so idealistic to believe that returning to a 20th century business model will save a struggling company like YAHOO! in the 21st century?

 Mayer is YAHOO!’s 5th CEO in six years. That is very telling about the current state of the company. She is clearly attempting to make an unprecedented move in a desperate attempt to turn the company around. Desperation doesn’t solve problems in corporateland, I have found. Strong leadership and smart supervision, a nurturing business environment and humane treatment of employees will go much further than squeezing another 12,000 people into a big glass box.

NEW TIMES

Social change is happening at record speed right now in this country. We all feel it. It is the risk takers and those who have uncommon bravery who really generate these big changes. Barack Obama and Leon Panetta revealed this week that women will now be allowed to assume combat positions in the military. America is seriously evolving. And then there’s this boy, Jacob Rudolph, an 18-year-old high school senior from New Jersey. Watch as he shows real grit in revealing himself to his entire high school. It is reported that Jacob’s father, Jonathan Rudolph said of his son’s act, “What he did took more guts than anything I have ever attempted in my life.” Watch: Since the sound is somewhat distorted, here is exactly what Jacob said: "Sure I've been in a few plays and musicals, but more importantly, I've been acting every single day of my life. You see, I've been acting as someone I'm not. Most of you see me every day. You see me acting the part of 'straight' Jacob, when I am in fact LGBT. Unlike millions of other LGBT teens who have had to act every day to avoid verbal harassment and physical violence, I'm not going to do it anymore. It's time to end the hate in our society and accept the people for who they are regardless of their sex, race, orientation, or whatever else may be holding back love and friendship. So take me, leave me or move me out of the way. Because I am what I am, and that's how I'm going to act from now on."

STEP ASIDE, MR. SCALIA...STEP WAY ASIDE

What if a Supreme Court Justice publicly expressed discriminatory opinions against an entire population segment? And what if that same Justice repeatedly voted in a way that would deny that population segment the same rights as other Americans? And most importantly, what if the culture was rapidly changing in favor of the above-mentioned population segment, but the Justice continued to vote in favor of what he has referred to as “rather modest attempt to preserve traditional sexual mores against the efforts of a politically powerful minority."

The very bad news is that there is indeed such a Supreme Court Justice. For those who have not really paid much attention to him, let me introduce Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (below, left). And that much talked-about population segment? That would be gay Americans, a part of the U.S. citizenry that Scalia has clearly chosen to disenfranchise at every turn. That is why I am using my citizen voice to ask Scalia to recuse himself from the Court’s 2013 votes related to gay rights. I believe Scalia should step aside during these votes based on his unfortunate, discriminatory and fully homophobic past votes on issues related to gay Americans.

 

This year, the Supreme Court is slated to vote on two critical issues related to gay rights -- California's Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, and a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.  In the first case, the Court will consider the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of California’s Proposition 8, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.  The second critical decision will have to do with the Defense of Marriage Act, which also holds that only men and women can marry one another, and that all of the following are not legal for gay couples:  Insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, immigration, and the filing of joint tax returns.

For the record, DOMA was signed into law in 1996. These past 17 years have seen more rapid social change regarding gay Americans than in any time in U.S. history. Even the President who signed the bill into law, Bill Clinton, now disagrees with it. So do a number of federal courts that have ruled the bill unconstitutional. DOMA does not really apply to contemporary America. And although 1996 may not seem like such a long time ago, we all know that much has changed since then. So, those “traditional sexual mores” Scalia once referred to are not so traditional anymore.

Here is why Scalia needs to dismiss himself from this debate. First, and most recently, during an appearance before the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think tank), Scalia, said, “Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state."  Scalia’s comments are uninformed on two fronts: First, homosexuality is not all about sodomy. Without going into the graphic details, let’s just say that just like heterosexuals, some homosexuals engage in sodomy and some do not. And just like heterosexuals, homosexuals base their loving relationships on a number of human elements, only one of which is sex.  Second, many laws that were enacted 200 years ago no longer apply to the wide population in the U.S. Has Scalia taken a look at copyright laws, for example, since technology wrought online publications?  The “200-year” rule is not a valid argument for discrimination.

Further, in an address to students at Princeton University in December, Scalia said, ““If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?” Clearly, Scalia, 77, came of age at a time when World War II had recently ended, and the country was in the throes of true conservatism. There was little or no talk of civil rights, and almost no talk of homosexuality. He was raised in a strict Catholic household, and attended a private Catholic high school.  In a 2010 NY Times article,a high school classmate of Scalia’s said, "This kid was a conservative when he was 17 years old. An archconservative Catholic.” It is the “archconservative” part that matters here, not the “Catholic” part. Believe me, there are plenty of gay Catholic Americans who would jump at the opportunity to get married.

There is a federal statute that governs judicial recusals.  Here is what it says: (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.”

How much clearer could it be? Scalia is unqualified to rule on issues related to gay rights. I could easily make the case that Scalia is simply too out of touch with contemporary culture and society to rule on these cases, but instead, it is more appropriate to simply label him as unqualified to do so, based on the above-mentioned federal statue. His “impartiality might reasonably be questioned” and he clearly “has a personal bias or prejudice” against the homosexual population in America.

Justice Antonin Scalia needs to recuse himself from both cases that are due to be heard in the Supreme Court this coming Spring.

SANDY HOOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: LESSONS FOR GROWNUPS

A few days after the Newtown school shooting, I saw a group of elementary students being led by their teacher down a New Orleans street. They walked in a single file line and held hands. They were joyful. The stark and obvious contrast struck me as I thought of the now iconic photo (right) of the 6-year-olds in Newtown being led away from their school after the carnage.  We are told those children had been instructed to close their eyes as they walked through the hallway inside the school building. But you and I both know that the most curious among them managed a glimpse of whatever it was they were not supposed to see.  Six year olds are curious beings. And of course, many of us know how traumatized they will be by what they saw in that clandestine glance at the unthinkable horror.

I believe many of us would agree that we who are way beyond six years old are somewhat responsible for their trauma. We allowed a society that was once more orderly to become anything but. We allowed and even enabled cultural shifts to happen all around us that resulted in a widespread disrespect for life.  We allowed dangerously disturbed human beings like the Newtown shooter to walk freely among us, without any type of therapeutic intervention. It is not our fault that the shooter planned and carried out the executions of young children. But it is incumbent upon all of us to realize that our coveted freedoms all come with a price.

The freedom to commit crimes in our society with uneven judicial consequences has resulted in more people committing violent crimes. 

If we mark mass murder in America starting with Columbine in 1999 (left), there have been 31 mass shootings since.  Thirty-one times one or more deranged Americans has planned and carried out violent shootings sprees. Only one week before Sandy Elementary, another mass shooting took place in a shopping mall near Portland, OR, at the height of Christmas shopping season. Shopping malls, schools, churches, movie theatres – it can, and does, happen anywhere in America at any time. And now it has happened in a kindergarten classroom in a town that seems like Anytown, USA.

Newtown’s population doesn’t even crack 30,000 people. The entire town occupies less than 60 square miles.  It was the hometown of James Thurber. Film director Elia Kazan (Splendor in the Grass, On The Waterfront) also hailed from Newtown. Bruce Jenner went to high school there. The images of the town we have seen on television suggest a sort of Bedford Falls quality from the classic holiday film, It’s a Wonderful Life. Parents of the slain children who have granted television interviews appear articulate, family-centered and noticeably all white. The town is, according to census figures, about 95 percent white.  Additional census figures tell us that the median household income in Newtown is over $100,000. So it would seem the last possible place in America for 20 school children and six adults to be savagely gunned down in an elementary school.

Therein is the possible explanation for the fully unwanted attention the town has received. That attention is doing the residents of Newtown more harm than good, and there is no sign that the national focus on the town will abate anytime soon.  Therefore, the first takeaway from this event is that we who do not live in Newtown need to be more respectful of those who do.  Specifically, media companies need to

back off – way off.  Why are reporters like Anderson Cooper and Katie Couric (right) working so hard to land TV interviews with parents of dead children who have not even been buried yet? Why are the networks and major cable companies not forming a smaller media pool to cover Newtown, rather than sending in hundreds of reporters from multiple companies?

ABC News producer Nadine Shubailat actually tweeted people she thought might be parents or friends of Sandy Hook elementary students, in her misguided efforts to land interviews. FOX News, in its overly-competitive zeal, misidentified the shooter as Ryan Lanza, who, it turns out is actually the brother of the shooter. Multiple news organizations reported that the shooter’s mother worked at Sandy Hook Elementary as a kindergarten teacher.  She did not. None other than the esteemed NY Times reported wrong information about the type of gun used in the shootings. The NY Times also jumped on the above-mentioned claim that the mother worked at the school.  I could go on, but just know that CBS, CNN, NY Times, NPR and Associated Press each reported inaccurate, unverified information about the shootings. Shame on every one of them, and especially on newly installed NY Times executive editor Jill Abramson, who was quoted (in the Times): “I am proud of every aspect of our coverage and beyond thankful to the people who reported and edited this horrific story. Our approach is always accuracy over speed.” Disingenuous?  You be the judge.

The second takeaway from this tragedy is, of course, the national debate about gun laws. Today a new Bloomberg study was released with a startling projection: By 2015, firearm fatalities will probably exceed traffic fatalities for the first time ever.  So here I will employ simple logic,

rather than politics: Gun advocates have been quite vocal since the Sandy Hook shootings about the need for more guns, rather than fewer guns. Many have gone so far as to say teachers and school administrators should be armed while at work.  I have been a teacher for several years and I can tell you that some teachers I have known should definitely not be armed. The argument to arm teachers assumes that teachers will routinely be more responsible gun owners/users than the general public. It should be noted that teachers are simply a microcosm of the public at large, which means the teacher population may include just as many murderous lunatics as the general population. That’s logic, not politics. Here’s some more logic: If the shooter at Sandy Hook had been unable to enter the building, the shootings would not have happened as they did. So, it would seem school building security should be the focus here, not adding more firearms to the general population.

Firearm advocates who have appeared in media interviews in these past several days seem more hell bent on protecting their Second Amendment freedom than they do on protecting 6-year-olds in kindergarten classrooms. What they never acknowledge is that the Second Amendment was written at a time when there were no such things as AR-15 automatic assault rifles (right)

capable of firing 800 rounds per minute, and originally intended for use by the military only. By the way, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms that Americans can have and use.  It does not say anything at all about prohibiting restrictions on the types or number of firearms. I do not see how any thinking individual reads that into the Second Amendment. Here are the exact words:  “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The bottom line has everything to do with moderation. No one is proposing taking away all Americans’ guns.  That will not happen, but let’s employ reason and caution. And no one is trying to prohibit the media from covering the Sandy Hook tragedy or any tragedies yet to come. But let’s employ discretion in the way stories are covered, and let’s get the story right before it is put out to the public. And when mistakes are made like the NY Times printed errors, let’s not have editors like Jill Abramson praise their publications’ efforts. And above all, let’s quit giving so much TV time, online exposure and print coverage to the shooters. Let’s ignore them so that potential future assassins will not expect to be lionized in media.