I’m having this fantasy that I’m Hillary Clinton and that I’m answering questions.
I’m having this fantasy because I’m expecting to vote for her and I’m hoping she’s really not the monster that some people are painting her to be. I did support Bernie Sanders, but it appears that he’s not going to be the nominee and I do feel that she’s likely better than Trump.
I never really liked to think of myself as a socialist. I supported Sanders, because he had some other positions that I liked: for instance, being against overthrowing dictators, because we don’t really have anything to put in their place; saying that addiction is a disease and not a crime; and also the Medicare for all thing (which I guess is socialist).
Anyway, I’m thinking right now that I’ll vote for Clinton, so I’m hoping there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for what she’s been doing with respect to the e-mails and the apparently unqualified member of a committee on nuclear policy.
So here are my fantasy responses, delivered not in her characteristically tight-lipped, defensive, bellicose way, but rather in a more relaxed, thoughtful, candid way.
E-mails
—————
Well, at the time it seemed like a good idea. It seemed like a more secure, private system than, say, gmail or Yahoo! In retrospect, I see that those big companies were probably better protected against hackers than my private system, but back then I did not realize that.
I did think we had permission. Joe, the Secret Service guy who went over the thing, said he got everything checked out. I guess maybe he didn’t clear it with the State Department. I didn’t double check.
Managers are supposed to be big picture people. We have to delegate details to others, or we wouldn’t get anything done.
Nuclear committee
————————————
As we go through life, we meet many people in many different ways. Yes, I met Mr. Fernando because he was a donor; but that’s not why I put him on this board. I put him on the board, because I got to know him, because I found him to be a person of exceptional thoughtfulness and good character. I think that, if you met him, you would also like him.
I find very sad that this extraordinarily sensitive, generous man is being subjected to the horrible implications that the media is putting forward.
***********
This is kind of like my books, where I write fantasies as novels.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Monday, May 23, 2016
Another teen suicide due to bullying
A teen suicide connected with bullying.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/23/after-years-of-alleged-bullying-an-ohio-teen-killed-herself-is-her-school-district-responsible/
In this case, we have someone insecure about her race, because adopted by white parents, then bullied about her race and perceived sexual orientation.
People can be bullied for all sorts of things. In my case, I think I was bullied because I was an Aspie. My Aspie kids were bullied, too. Now that’s not to say that they didn’t contribute, because they were socially inept, because they were Aspies. But, again, that was part of their disability.
Neurotypical people think that an Aspie could just stop being socially inept. No. They can’t — any more than a person in a wheelchair can stand up and walk.
Tony Atwood recommends that Aspie children be appointed a mentor, preferably an older child, who can accompany them at recess and lunch and guide them through social situations. I asked for that for my kids, but it didn’t happen.
We really need to look at this public perception that school is good for kids socially. Really? It seems to me that it’s a place where they’re more likely to be socially traumatized.
Did the school have notice in the case of this suicide? How could they not have had notice if there was a shouting incident over the bullying? Moreover, if they don’t notice the bullying, they must not have enough supervision. Bullying happens very often. It should be expected and checked for. Schools should not be waiting for reports.
Maybe kids need one of those pendants, like they give older people, so that they can press a button and call for help when they’re being bullied. Perhaps kids should be given surveys monthly to ask if they’ve been bullied and get them help.
Maybe every adult should have a survey asking them whether on the whole they thought school was socially beneficial or traumatizing. Most adults I know remember traumatic experiences and feelings of being socially stigmatized at school.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/23/after-years-of-alleged-bullying-an-ohio-teen-killed-herself-is-her-school-district-responsible/
In this case, we have someone insecure about her race, because adopted by white parents, then bullied about her race and perceived sexual orientation.
People can be bullied for all sorts of things. In my case, I think I was bullied because I was an Aspie. My Aspie kids were bullied, too. Now that’s not to say that they didn’t contribute, because they were socially inept, because they were Aspies. But, again, that was part of their disability.
Neurotypical people think that an Aspie could just stop being socially inept. No. They can’t — any more than a person in a wheelchair can stand up and walk.
Tony Atwood recommends that Aspie children be appointed a mentor, preferably an older child, who can accompany them at recess and lunch and guide them through social situations. I asked for that for my kids, but it didn’t happen.
We really need to look at this public perception that school is good for kids socially. Really? It seems to me that it’s a place where they’re more likely to be socially traumatized.
Did the school have notice in the case of this suicide? How could they not have had notice if there was a shouting incident over the bullying? Moreover, if they don’t notice the bullying, they must not have enough supervision. Bullying happens very often. It should be expected and checked for. Schools should not be waiting for reports.
Maybe kids need one of those pendants, like they give older people, so that they can press a button and call for help when they’re being bullied. Perhaps kids should be given surveys monthly to ask if they’ve been bullied and get them help.
Maybe every adult should have a survey asking them whether on the whole they thought school was socially beneficial or traumatizing. Most adults I know remember traumatic experiences and feelings of being socially stigmatized at school.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
Response to @Forbes re: weight loss & science
I feel like I’ve said these things before, but, then, I don’t know whether anyone consistently reads what I write, so I guess it is worth repeating.
I read this article:
link to recent Forbes article re weight loss
I tried to comment on it on the Forbes website, but, somehow, the accounts that I had set up wouldn’t work. I guess I had to agree to receive e-mails from them in order to set up an account, so that -- if I refused to receive e-mails -- their little widget wouldn’t register me? Not sure.
First, I do NOT believe these numbers associated with calories per gram of carbs, protein, and fat. These numbers were arrived at by a primitive system, burning or autoclaving food. It’s not at all clear to me that that method is bio-equivalent to what is going on with digestion. In particular, the idea that fat has so many calories per gram strikes me as *very* suspect.
Fat burns well in air, releasing a lot of heat. Is that what it does in the body? That’s not clear to me. For instance, when I took biology, I learned that fat was used in the digestion of glucose. It seemed to me more like it was helping the reaction, rather than being digested itself, at least not completely.
Studies are starting to come out showing that this whole low fat diet craze that our country is coming out of was totally wrong. There was never any science to back it up. It was just magical thinking: eating fat makes you fat. No. It doesn’t. One recent study said that for best weight loss most adults should have a diet that is over 30% fat.
I believe that people are overweight, because they are overeating. A maintenance level food plan will not keep a person in an overweight condition. They don’t have to eat below maintenance level to lose weight if they are overweight. I’ve seen this in OA.
This is a really important point. Restrictive diets lead to starve/binge eating behaviors. These behaviors are a very efficient way of gaining weight.
During periods of starvation, the body goes into a low metabolism storage state where weight loss is difficult. People who diet frequently mess up their metabolisms and have less and less effect from diets.
Moreover, if someone binges while in a low metabolism storage state, they put on fat much more efficiently than if they binged while eating in accordance with a maintenance level food plan.
Dieting is a primary cause of the obesity epidemic.
This article is just re-hashing approaches that don’t work and which I believe are false.
I read this article:
link to recent Forbes article re weight loss
I tried to comment on it on the Forbes website, but, somehow, the accounts that I had set up wouldn’t work. I guess I had to agree to receive e-mails from them in order to set up an account, so that -- if I refused to receive e-mails -- their little widget wouldn’t register me? Not sure.
Specious calorie numbers
First, I do NOT believe these numbers associated with calories per gram of carbs, protein, and fat. These numbers were arrived at by a primitive system, burning or autoclaving food. It’s not at all clear to me that that method is bio-equivalent to what is going on with digestion. In particular, the idea that fat has so many calories per gram strikes me as *very* suspect.
Fat burns well in air, releasing a lot of heat. Is that what it does in the body? That’s not clear to me. For instance, when I took biology, I learned that fat was used in the digestion of glucose. It seemed to me more like it was helping the reaction, rather than being digested itself, at least not completely.
Studies are starting to come out showing that this whole low fat diet craze that our country is coming out of was totally wrong. There was never any science to back it up. It was just magical thinking: eating fat makes you fat. No. It doesn’t. One recent study said that for best weight loss most adults should have a diet that is over 30% fat.
Specious comments about associating calories with weight loss
I believe that people are overweight, because they are overeating. A maintenance level food plan will not keep a person in an overweight condition. They don’t have to eat below maintenance level to lose weight if they are overweight. I’ve seen this in OA.
This is a really important point. Restrictive diets lead to starve/binge eating behaviors. These behaviors are a very efficient way of gaining weight.
During periods of starvation, the body goes into a low metabolism storage state where weight loss is difficult. People who diet frequently mess up their metabolisms and have less and less effect from diets.
Moreover, if someone binges while in a low metabolism storage state, they put on fat much more efficiently than if they binged while eating in accordance with a maintenance level food plan.
Dieting is a primary cause of the obesity epidemic.
***********
This article is just re-hashing approaches that don’t work and which I believe are false.
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Current version of assistance in dying.
Yesterday, I went with Compassion & Choices to lobby for a bill, identical to the laws in states like Oregon & Vermont, to allow aid in dying.
I first got interested in this topic, because my father was in it. He spoke repeatedly about how frustrated he was both that there was no aid in dying and also that heroin, which is apparently the best pain killer for terminal cancer patients, and which was developed originally by a commercial prescription drug manufacturer, was illegal even for terminal cancer patients. He belonged to some groups that were advocating for changes in the law in that area.
Sadly, changes in the law did not arrive in time fo him.
He got terminal cancer and died in hospice. I want to make some observations about this process.
First morphine had been touted to him as this wonder drug that would make the dying experience bearable. This turned out to be wrong. He hated morphine. It caused severe constipation (the kind that requires a nurse to physically go in there and get the poop out). It also caused unpleasant hallucinations.
Moreover, he did not like the sensation produced by this drug. We hear reports all the time that morphine is addictive and that it makes people high. My father hated the way it made his thinking cloudy. He valued clear thinking.
Morphine may be wonderful for some people, but not for everyone.
Second, people have told me that you can die within two days if you don’t have anything to drink. It took my father 3 weeks, with nothing to eat or drink and no feeding tube, to die. I guess you only die so quickly if you’re out in the hot desert sun, not if you’re lying in a comfortable bed in a climate controlled house.
And all of that time, my father wished that he had the option to get aid in dying.
*****
But I learned, as part of my lobbying trip, that the current bill has some significant limitations intended to prevent abuse
- you have to be terminally ill, with less than 6 months to live and no available treatments
- you have to be mentally competent.
- the drug prescribed must be self-administered, not administered by anyone else
- you have to make at least two requests for aid in dying within 15 days of each other
My dad could have met these criteria.
On the other hand, other friends family members, who I watched die, could not have.
Let me take first the example of my maternal grandmother.
She had an initial major heart attack when I was in 4th grade, which left her somewhat brain damaged. In the following two years, she had a series of small strokes, each of which left her more disabled than the previous, so that she was essentially a “vegetable.” After 2 years, during much of which she was helpless, confined to a wheelchair and unable to speak, she died; however, within 6 months of her death she was not mentally competent and therefore could not have exercised an option for assisted dying, under this law, even if she had left clear directives indicating that she would like aid in dying. She would also likely not even have been able to self-administer the drug.
Another example was a friend whose wife died of early onset Alzheimers. For several years prior to her death, she was paralyzed and mute. Again, six months prior to her death, she was not mentally competent, so she could not have used the procedure from this bill.
The representatives of Compassionate Choices spoke — as if this were a good thing — of only 1/500 Oregonians opting for assisted dying. I would submit that this low number is due to at least part of the people who would have liked to exercise this option were not mentally competent within 6 months of their death.
Therefore, though my father would have benefited from this bill; a lot of people wouldn’t really have the kind of dying experience that would be compatible with this bill.
Ideally, I would like to be able to sign a paper upon getting an Alzheimer’s diagnosis that I would like assisted dying at some particular time, or when my symptoms were at some threshold of acuteness — like maybe I could no longer recognize my children — or maybe I could no longer get to the toilet. This law would not help in such a circumstance.
Another example would be if my cancer were to recur and they could treat me, but the treatment might result in paralysis or being maimed by invasive surgery/radiation/chemo. What if I would prefer not to have such treatment, but also do not want to go through a painful death? I would not be eligible under this law, because treatment would be considered available to me.
I’m glad that this law is being considered, but I don't think it goes far enough.
I first got interested in this topic, because my father was in it. He spoke repeatedly about how frustrated he was both that there was no aid in dying and also that heroin, which is apparently the best pain killer for terminal cancer patients, and which was developed originally by a commercial prescription drug manufacturer, was illegal even for terminal cancer patients. He belonged to some groups that were advocating for changes in the law in that area.
Sadly, changes in the law did not arrive in time fo him.
He got terminal cancer and died in hospice. I want to make some observations about this process.
First morphine had been touted to him as this wonder drug that would make the dying experience bearable. This turned out to be wrong. He hated morphine. It caused severe constipation (the kind that requires a nurse to physically go in there and get the poop out). It also caused unpleasant hallucinations.
Moreover, he did not like the sensation produced by this drug. We hear reports all the time that morphine is addictive and that it makes people high. My father hated the way it made his thinking cloudy. He valued clear thinking.
Morphine may be wonderful for some people, but not for everyone.
Second, people have told me that you can die within two days if you don’t have anything to drink. It took my father 3 weeks, with nothing to eat or drink and no feeding tube, to die. I guess you only die so quickly if you’re out in the hot desert sun, not if you’re lying in a comfortable bed in a climate controlled house.
And all of that time, my father wished that he had the option to get aid in dying.
*****
But I learned, as part of my lobbying trip, that the current bill has some significant limitations intended to prevent abuse
- you have to be terminally ill, with less than 6 months to live and no available treatments
- you have to be mentally competent.
- the drug prescribed must be self-administered, not administered by anyone else
- you have to make at least two requests for aid in dying within 15 days of each other
My dad could have met these criteria.
On the other hand, other friends family members, who I watched die, could not have.
Let me take first the example of my maternal grandmother.
She had an initial major heart attack when I was in 4th grade, which left her somewhat brain damaged. In the following two years, she had a series of small strokes, each of which left her more disabled than the previous, so that she was essentially a “vegetable.” After 2 years, during much of which she was helpless, confined to a wheelchair and unable to speak, she died; however, within 6 months of her death she was not mentally competent and therefore could not have exercised an option for assisted dying, under this law, even if she had left clear directives indicating that she would like aid in dying. She would also likely not even have been able to self-administer the drug.
Another example was a friend whose wife died of early onset Alzheimers. For several years prior to her death, she was paralyzed and mute. Again, six months prior to her death, she was not mentally competent, so she could not have used the procedure from this bill.
The representatives of Compassionate Choices spoke — as if this were a good thing — of only 1/500 Oregonians opting for assisted dying. I would submit that this low number is due to at least part of the people who would have liked to exercise this option were not mentally competent within 6 months of their death.
Therefore, though my father would have benefited from this bill; a lot of people wouldn’t really have the kind of dying experience that would be compatible with this bill.
Ideally, I would like to be able to sign a paper upon getting an Alzheimer’s diagnosis that I would like assisted dying at some particular time, or when my symptoms were at some threshold of acuteness — like maybe I could no longer recognize my children — or maybe I could no longer get to the toilet. This law would not help in such a circumstance.
Another example would be if my cancer were to recur and they could treat me, but the treatment might result in paralysis or being maimed by invasive surgery/radiation/chemo. What if I would prefer not to have such treatment, but also do not want to go through a painful death? I would not be eligible under this law, because treatment would be considered available to me.
I’m glad that this law is being considered, but I don't think it goes far enough.
******
Here is an interesting story about a woman in The Netherlands who was granted assisted suicide/aid in dying, because she had incurable PTSD from childhood sexual abuse
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/netherlands-sex-abuse-victim-euthanasia-incurable-ptsd-assisted-suicide/
Friday, April 22, 2016
Correcting deficits in bariatric treatment
I am very frustrated with the state of bariatric treatment. I'm not talking about surgery.
Surgery does not work for everyone.
First, doctors are reluctant to do surgery on people who weigh more than 400 lbs, lest the lungs of the patient collapse under the patient's own weight, while the patient is under anesthesia.
Second, people figure out how to eat past the surgery. They gain the weight back. The problem is in the person's brain, not in their digestive tract.
Super morbidly obese people need rehabilitation. I find that their treatment is often misguided. I had a super morbidly obese friend die at top weight 800 lbs. I saw numerous opportunities where he could have been saved, but medical personnel -- who were treating him improperly -- ultimately caused his death, when I feel that could have been avoided.
Here is a list of points that they apparently did not know.
2. Food addiction
Surgery does not work for everyone.
First, doctors are reluctant to do surgery on people who weigh more than 400 lbs, lest the lungs of the patient collapse under the patient's own weight, while the patient is under anesthesia.
Second, people figure out how to eat past the surgery. They gain the weight back. The problem is in the person's brain, not in their digestive tract.
Super morbidly obese people need rehabilitation. I find that their treatment is often misguided. I had a super morbidly obese friend die at top weight 800 lbs. I saw numerous opportunities where he could have been saved, but medical personnel -- who were treating him improperly -- ultimately caused his death, when I feel that could have been avoided.
Here is a list of points that they apparently did not know.
1. Aquatherapy
Fat is
lighter than water, so bariatric patients can exercise normally in water,
whereas they cannot on dry land. I saw
my super morbidly obese friend unable to lift his leg because of a several hundred
pound grade 5 panniculus resting on it.
He could lift his leg fine if in water.
Bariatric
patients develop infections, both fungal and bacterial, in the folds of their
skin. Showers cannot adequately clean
these areas. Submerging in salt water is
amazingly effective. My friend’s final
illness was triggered by bacterial infections in the folds of his skin.
Doctors kept treating the fungus that they saw there, while not adequately treating the bacteria, which were more dangerous.
He was in several rehab facilities specializing in bariatric patients, but none of those facilities had aquatherapy.
Doctors kept treating the fungus that they saw there, while not adequately treating the bacteria, which were more dangerous.
He was in several rehab facilities specializing in bariatric patients, but none of those facilities had aquatherapy.
2. Food addiction
Many
bariatric patients are addicted to certain foods. Common triggers for addictive behavior are:
refined carbs (sugar, flour, starch), sweeteners mixed with fat, and salt mixed
with fat. Many dieticians cling to the
false belief that overweight people can eat these foods in moderation. The food addict can no more eat their trigger
foods in moderation than an alcoholic can drink alcohol in moderation. I have seen many abstinent food addicts
relapse in hospitals because hospital dieticians fed them trigger foods. In a weakened, helpless state, they ate those
trigger foods. This is appalling to me.
3. Restrictive diets
People are
overweight, because they are overeating.
They do not need to be put on a restrictive diet. They need to be put on a normal, maintenance
level food plan.
Restrictive
diets result in starve/binge eating behavior.
People maintain the restrictive diet for a while. Then, when they get
hungry enough, they binge. This is a
very effective way of gaining weight: yo-yo dieting. Restrictive diets put the body into a low metabolism
storage state. In this state, the body
gains more weight from a binge than it would if the person were eating
normally.
Super
morbidly obese patients can die of an anorexia induced heart attack before they
reach goal weight if they are eating a restrictive diet. Fat is a symptom of past eating behavior, not
of current eating behavior.
People lose
weight faster on a maintenance level food plan, because their metabolism is
more efficient. Super morbidly obese
people may actually have to eat more because of the extreme effort they are
putting in to carry around hundreds of extra pounds. They will still lose weight, because even if
they’re eating 3000 calories they’re still eating a whole lot less than they
have been eating.
4. Psychiatric
The vast
majority of people who are more than 100 lbs overweight have been severely
abused as children, either violently or sexually or both. Many have severe mental health issues such as
bipolar, borderline personality, or schizoaffective disorder. They are using food to medicate themselves
for their severe mental health issues.
If they stop overeating without proper psychiatric support, they will
very likely have a breakdown. Trying to
put a very overweight person on a weight loss diet without adequate psychiatric
support is a recipe for doom.
12 step
programs use the 12 steps to deal with emotional problems, but that may not be sufficient for everyone.
5. Prayer and Meditation
The effect
of prayer and meditation on the brain has been slightly, but not extensively,
researched. 12 step programs are based
on the belief that prayer and meditation are good for interrupting compulsive
behavior.
6. Lying on back
Pregnant
women are told to sleep on their left sides, because the weight of their
pregnancy resting on the circulatory system can cause extensive health
issues. This problem is even worse for a
super morbidly obese person who is more than 100 lbs overweight. Yet such patients are routinely put on their
backs.
My super
morbidly obese person could not breath lying on his back, because of the weight
of his body crushing his lungs. Yet, the
hospital where he died insisted on putting him on his back. I believe that this decision was the direct
cause of his death.
They had to
entubate him. Ultimately, they did a
tracheotomy. The surgery killed him,
because he was too weak for surgery.
However,
even if he was breathing, lying on his back was still causing circulation to be
cut off to the lower half of his body – and making his toes go black.
Another
problem was that they were making insufficient efforts to turn him, because of
his weight, and he was lying on bedsores that were big enough to put your fist
in.
7. Restraints
Another
issue for my friend was that they put him in restraints, because he was trying to free
himself from tubes, so he could roll over.
The restraints were too small and cut deeply into his wrists -- I'm talking tearing his flesh an inch deep all around his wrists. I found this appalling
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Mental Illness -- It takes a village
I maneuvered impatiently to get past them to get on the train — the mother pushing a baby carriage while shouting at the boy trailing behind to hurry. I wanted to get on the train myself. I figured I would let her deal with whatever it was.
I got in the train and walked through the aisle through several cars to get closer to the front, to be suer to get a seat.
Curiously, despite her hurry to get her son on the train, she walked outside the train to the same car where I ended up. Then she stood in the door yelling at him to get on the train. I could hear the desperation in her voice as he refused and ran the other way. She called for people to help her. Her voice was hoarse. She complained that she was sick and could not run after him.
I recognized that desperation. Having raised 2 kids with Asperger’s Syndrome, I know what it is to have children who don’t obey, who have no sense when something is important, no sense that they are causing their mother pain, no sense that they are being completely inappropriate and outrageous.
The signals were ringing indicating that the doors were closing. She was standing in the doorway holding the door open and he was running the other way. I went to the next car and alerted the conductors.
Finally a burly black man, about 40, grabbed this boy, who was white, concerned that he wasn’t obeying his mom, and brought screaming for his mom onto the train. It was a bold thing for him to do, to grab a white child to help a white mom. His move could easily have been misinterpreted. I felt he was very brave.
Then, curiously, the mother did not get on the train, and the boy was there inside screaming for her.
I was puzzled. A black woman, who claimed she did this every week, explained that the boy had a day pass to visit his mom and he normally lived in a group home.
The black man was there with his own children and he got the boy calmed down. He tried to encourage the boy by saying if he could clean up his behavior he could be with his mother all the time. He introduced the boy to his own children. He said he was stepfather of one.
The boy calmed down. He was happy to find people to talk to.
The conductor came by and thanked me for alerting them to the problem. The mother had explained the situation to me. Another conductor came by and told the boy that he would look for him next Sunday and that he was going to become the boy’s friend.
When they got off the train, the boy tried to say goodbye to the man, addressing him as stepfather, clearly hungry for that. The man was looking at his cell phone, which broke my heart, but got off at the same stop. I hope he said goodbye nicely, because the boy had obviously become attached to him.
It was one of those examples of what Hillary Clinton meant when she said “It takes a village to raise a child.” Normally in NYC we don’t want to get involved, but here people did. They intervened to help a mother who needed backup to gain control of a child.
I hoped that the man was right, that the boy would be able to get his act together and go back to his mom. I doubted it, though. I felt that once in a group home this boy’s chances were poor.
It reminded me of when my younger son was evaluated in high school by a private neuropsychologist and she said we should send him to a residential treatment facility. We didn’t do it. I couldn’t bear the thought of sending him away. He’s never really been able to get back on his feet and now lives as a parasitic computer addict. I’ve wondered whether we did the wrong thing by not sending him away, but then I think it could have been much worse. He might have hated being sent away and done worse than he has. You can never know. Fortunately, he’s at least a nice young man, despite being dysfunctional.
I wondered whether than man knew how good he is with kids, whether he knew he had a chance to make a difference in that boy’s life, that the boy really came to like him, that he hoped that he had made a new friend.
I wondered if I would ever see that boy again. Maybe if I take that same train some Sunday? And could I help him, when I couldn’t really help my own sons? Or did I do better than I think? Are they doing better than they might have without me?
So many questions.
I got in the train and walked through the aisle through several cars to get closer to the front, to be suer to get a seat.
Curiously, despite her hurry to get her son on the train, she walked outside the train to the same car where I ended up. Then she stood in the door yelling at him to get on the train. I could hear the desperation in her voice as he refused and ran the other way. She called for people to help her. Her voice was hoarse. She complained that she was sick and could not run after him.
I recognized that desperation. Having raised 2 kids with Asperger’s Syndrome, I know what it is to have children who don’t obey, who have no sense when something is important, no sense that they are causing their mother pain, no sense that they are being completely inappropriate and outrageous.
The signals were ringing indicating that the doors were closing. She was standing in the doorway holding the door open and he was running the other way. I went to the next car and alerted the conductors.
Finally a burly black man, about 40, grabbed this boy, who was white, concerned that he wasn’t obeying his mom, and brought screaming for his mom onto the train. It was a bold thing for him to do, to grab a white child to help a white mom. His move could easily have been misinterpreted. I felt he was very brave.
Then, curiously, the mother did not get on the train, and the boy was there inside screaming for her.
I was puzzled. A black woman, who claimed she did this every week, explained that the boy had a day pass to visit his mom and he normally lived in a group home.
The black man was there with his own children and he got the boy calmed down. He tried to encourage the boy by saying if he could clean up his behavior he could be with his mother all the time. He introduced the boy to his own children. He said he was stepfather of one.
The boy calmed down. He was happy to find people to talk to.
The conductor came by and thanked me for alerting them to the problem. The mother had explained the situation to me. Another conductor came by and told the boy that he would look for him next Sunday and that he was going to become the boy’s friend.
When they got off the train, the boy tried to say goodbye to the man, addressing him as stepfather, clearly hungry for that. The man was looking at his cell phone, which broke my heart, but got off at the same stop. I hope he said goodbye nicely, because the boy had obviously become attached to him.
It was one of those examples of what Hillary Clinton meant when she said “It takes a village to raise a child.” Normally in NYC we don’t want to get involved, but here people did. They intervened to help a mother who needed backup to gain control of a child.
I hoped that the man was right, that the boy would be able to get his act together and go back to his mom. I doubted it, though. I felt that once in a group home this boy’s chances were poor.
It reminded me of when my younger son was evaluated in high school by a private neuropsychologist and she said we should send him to a residential treatment facility. We didn’t do it. I couldn’t bear the thought of sending him away. He’s never really been able to get back on his feet and now lives as a parasitic computer addict. I’ve wondered whether we did the wrong thing by not sending him away, but then I think it could have been much worse. He might have hated being sent away and done worse than he has. You can never know. Fortunately, he’s at least a nice young man, despite being dysfunctional.
I wondered whether than man knew how good he is with kids, whether he knew he had a chance to make a difference in that boy’s life, that the boy really came to like him, that he hoped that he had made a new friend.
I wondered if I would ever see that boy again. Maybe if I take that same train some Sunday? And could I help him, when I couldn’t really help my own sons? Or did I do better than I think? Are they doing better than they might have without me?
So many questions.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Answers to those who are suddenly abandoning Sanders
I am distressed at issues which are apparently causing former Sanders supporters to change over to Clinton.
Issue #1: He does not yet know how he will break up major banks.
This is the correct answer. Breakups of monopolies are done through the FTC. These breakups need to be done after study and through proper legal channels. They are not done solo by POTUS. He should not yet know how they should be done.
Issue #2: He does not campaign for other Democratic party candidates.
He is not the machine candidate. We already knew that.
Hillary scratched everyone’s backs carefully before running. That’s why she has all those pledged super delegates who may give her the nomination even if Sanders wins the majority of the regular delegates. That’s also probably why Elizabeth Warren refused to run, even though progressives wanted her to.
He’s not the machine candidate. He was the only one who voted against the War on Iraq -- the war that has nearly bankrupted us, that was improperly and deceptively justified, that overthrew a stable government and instituted a state of violent anarchy where terrorism thrives. He does not go along with the crowd.
He’s the one who wants Medicare for all. He’s the only one saying that. He does not go along with the crowd.
He’s the one saying addiction is a disease not a crime. Hillary is the one who is saying that young people are predators, when in fact many young people of color are being entrapped by law enforcement officials who convince young people to buy and sell drugs. Yes young people will do foolish things. We give white young people a pass on youthful offenses. We send young people of color to jail. Bernie does not go along with the crowd.
Why should he be campaigning for other party candidates? What have they done for him? He isn’t plugged into the machine to know who to endorse — to know whose positions might be incompatible with his.
Hillary is all plugged in, getting large donations and speaking fees from the wealthy. Is that really what we wanted? Isn’t that why we didn’t want her in the first place?
These issues do not persuade me to change my opinion
Issue #1: He does not yet know how he will break up major banks.
This is the correct answer. Breakups of monopolies are done through the FTC. These breakups need to be done after study and through proper legal channels. They are not done solo by POTUS. He should not yet know how they should be done.
Issue #2: He does not campaign for other Democratic party candidates.
He is not the machine candidate. We already knew that.
Hillary scratched everyone’s backs carefully before running. That’s why she has all those pledged super delegates who may give her the nomination even if Sanders wins the majority of the regular delegates. That’s also probably why Elizabeth Warren refused to run, even though progressives wanted her to.
He’s not the machine candidate. He was the only one who voted against the War on Iraq -- the war that has nearly bankrupted us, that was improperly and deceptively justified, that overthrew a stable government and instituted a state of violent anarchy where terrorism thrives. He does not go along with the crowd.
He’s the one who wants Medicare for all. He’s the only one saying that. He does not go along with the crowd.
He’s the one saying addiction is a disease not a crime. Hillary is the one who is saying that young people are predators, when in fact many young people of color are being entrapped by law enforcement officials who convince young people to buy and sell drugs. Yes young people will do foolish things. We give white young people a pass on youthful offenses. We send young people of color to jail. Bernie does not go along with the crowd.
Why should he be campaigning for other party candidates? What have they done for him? He isn’t plugged into the machine to know who to endorse — to know whose positions might be incompatible with his.
Hillary is all plugged in, getting large donations and speaking fees from the wealthy. Is that really what we wanted? Isn’t that why we didn’t want her in the first place?
******
These issues do not persuade me to change my opinion
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)