Born in Berlin, N.H.; bachelor of arts, major in journalism, Northeastern University; master's degree in urban studies, Southern Connecticut State University; was an editor and reporter at New Haven Register, an editor at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and a reporter at The Meriden Record-Journal. Now a freelance writer and editor.
#natalists #babies #children #MothersDay #HavingMoreChildren We just celebrated Mother’s Day. Certain people want more mothers. Or, more accurately, more children. Nedra Rhone, the “Real Life” columnist for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, cites a lot of reasons women don’t have children, or as many children, as some would like. She discussed the issue in her May 8, 2025, column. As Rhone, who happens to be a mother, points out, there are many reasons women don’t have children. She also says that some women may want children, but circumstances haven’t allowed them to have them. In fact, the U.S. population, as is the case with most developed countries, is aging. People are not “replacing themselves” at a rate that keeps the population growing. We want the population to grow for many reasons, including having enough workers to replace those who retire. But this natalist movement appears aimed at creating children that only fit a certain demographic. Immigrants can bolster the work force, and have lots of children, but most don’t match the desired demographic. The elephant in the room, of course, is the cost of children. Rhone points out that it costs about $200,000 to raise a child from birth to age 18. Not everyone has that kind of money, or the ability and opportunity to earn that much. Women are a significant boost to the work force, but the natalists prefer women to stay home and raise children. Again, not every woman has the luxury, opportunity or desire to do that. Then, as Rhone points out, some women don’t really want to bring children into the world as it currently is. What she doesn’t talk about in her column is what happens to children when they become adults. With the cost of living, housing etc. as it is, many young adults cannot afford to live on their own, never mind starting a family. They often live with mom and dad long after age 18. Some are burdened with student debt. Some just can’t find work that pays enough to live independently. The natalist and pro-life movements want children to be born at any cost – even if the mother dies doing so. But, they offer no means to ensure these children are properly fed, clothed, housed, educated and otherwise taken care of. Many other countries do take care of their children. The citizens may pay dearly in taxes for it, but, to them, it’s well worth it. These natalists say they love individual freedom. That is, unless you are a woman of child-bearing age. Would you want to have more children if you live in a place in which your medical providers are severely restricted in how they can care for you during and around your pregnancy? This should not be a matter of debate. People should have the freedom to start and grow families as they see fit – or not. The natalists can do much more to encourage more births by giving women – and men – the resources to be able to work AND tend to families, without unwanted sacrifices. Being pro-life means not only encouraging life’s creation, but also making it easier for both parents and children to sustain a quality of life. Peter
#government #GovernmentCuts #GovernmentEfficiency #GoodGovernment “They paved paradise, put up a parking lot.” That Joni Mitchell lyric rings true as certain government programs that many cherish get chopped. We all think of government as too big, spending too much and we, as citizens, don’t really know what all those people do. But, we learn all too well when we go to a government office for, say, Social Security information, a driver’s license or to mail a package. When staff at those places get cut, the wait is much longer. In some places, you can wait hours to see a Social Security counselor, or to renew a driver’s license. When government affects us, we feel the cuts. MSNBC news anchor Ali Velshi pointed out that some of the government agencies we don’t know much about, or don’t hear about regularly, are working well BECAUSE we don’t hear much about them. In other words, if they were full of fraud and waste, we would know it because a journalist, inspector general or other watchdog would find out and point it out. By the way, oversight personnel are among the priority cuts in this milieu, BECAUSE those doing the cutting do not want people to know what they are doing, or how they are doing it, until it’s too late. The cutting of government agencies and personnel that’s being done today seems haphazard, at best. The chainsaw approach will lead to some mistakes, Elon Musk says, and his Department of Government Efficiency will fix those mistakes as they occur, he said. Everyone wants government to be as efficient as it can be. No one wants government, or those in it, to commit fraud. But, throwing the baby out with the bathwater will lead to a dead, or badly hurt, baby. We may not know that until we actually have to wait hours for badly needed service, or, when benefits we are entitled to suddenly stop coming. Government has a function in all of our lives. We don’t often hear about, or realize, those functions until they stop. As another Joni Mitchell lyric in the same song says: “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.” The best way to make government more efficient is to first look for the good that government does, and either let it be or enhance it. If services are duplicated between or among agencies, consolidate those tasks in one place. If tasks can be accomplished with fewer people, or if machines can replace people more efficiently, by all means make those changes. People have said that government should be run like a business. But, government is different from business, in that the process of how things get done can be as important, or even more so, than the result. Not all government work can be easily quantified. The service one might get from a good government employee who meets an individual’s need can be as important as the number of needs that person may meet in a given day, week, month or year. And, if that person meets YOUR need properly, you won’t really care how much that person costs. We all need government. We all need good government. We all should be willing to pay for good government that is as efficient and corruption-free as possible. Peter
#employers #employees #ToxicWorkEnvironments #BullyEmployers #WorkingOurOfFear #ServantLeaders Certain employers believe fear is the best motivator. If you are afraid to come to work, or if you fear doing something in your job that would upset your boss(es), can you really work like that? In the employer’s mind, they can dominate people who are afraid. In non-employment parlance, that’s called bullying. Employers would be better served, and get more from employees, if they created a work environment that was not only relatively free of fear and toxic behavior, but also inspiring and protective of employees. Employers who believe their employees are their best and most valuable resources will protect those employees. Certainly, with any job, there will be chores that an employee does not love to do. But, those chores should be few and well distributed among employees. Mostly, though, employees – even if they don’t necessarily look forward to coming to work – should feel they will be well treated at work. They should feel that their contributions are not only valuable but cherished. If they feel that way, they will give the employee all their efforts, perhaps even more than the employer is paying for. In short, employers should serve their clients AND their employees. How does a bully employer expect his or her employees to perform under duress? How does such an employer expect employees to perform with chaos in the workplace? How does such an employer expect employees to perform in a toxic work environment, in which they are harassed or taken advantage of? Remember, employees are people. They are indeed valuable tools, but they are people first. They expect to be treated with dignity and respect. Remember, as an employer, you don’t know everything. You may know a lot, but you don’t know everything. Employees, more often than not, know things that you don’t. As an employer, you are not the only one with valid ideas. Some of your employees will think of things that you did not. So, as an employer, don’t be a bully. Instead, be a servant leader. If you want people to work hard for you, you have to work hard for them. You may not be able to give them everything they want, or even everything they need. But you have to show that you are giving them as much as you are able. If you do, people will want to work for you. If you don’t, you’ll continue to be chronically short of staff, and your company will not perform for your clients the way the clients expect. Serve your employees, and they will serve you to a much greater degree. Peter
#think #do #FeelGood #RunGovernmentLikeABusiness Don’t overthink it. Think before you act. Measure twice, cut once. If it feels good, do it. These adages produce contradictions. As one goes through life, one has to make decisions. If one has a job, one has to make decisions on the job. But, how do YOU make decisions? Are you more spontaneous? Or, do you think, and think again, before you act? If you work in government, how you get to a result is as important, sometimes more so, than the result itself. Those who “want to run government like a business” are misguided. Certainly, rules can be a burden. But most of them are there to ensure fairness to all in the process, and to be sure those acting are doing so legally, ethically and in compliance with regulations. It’s easy to sit back and say we don’t need all those rules and laws. Those who feel that way may be reveling in how the federal government is currently operating. But, acting quickly and decisively can actually hurt people who don’t deserve to be hurt. When procedure is important, as it is in most work situations, it’s always better to think before you act. In social situations, impulsiveness sometimes can be fun. Today, however, mistakes are happening all around us. Cruelty seems to be desirable. It may seem fun to watch, but those watching with glee could be hurt by much of this. We may not know how badly it will hurt the unsuspecting until the damage is already done. Certainly, it’s easier to wield a hatchet than use a scalpel. But, hatchets are imprecise. Mistakes will occur. When so many people could be affected, more thought is necessary before acting. Analysis paralysis can exist in some situations. But, the actor needs to know how his actions will help or hurt, and whom his actions will help or hurt. So, if you think before you act, generally you are better for it. Remember to call before you dig. Measure twice, cut once. Give more than a passing thought to important decisions. You need to know what, or who, will be hurt by your actions. If you don’t care what, or who, gets hurt, shame on you. Remember, someone watches every action. Sometimes, you may not know who is watching. But, everyone should strive to do the right thing, no matter who is watching. Peter
#heat #flavor #SpicyFood #SeasonedFood #cooking #eating Some people like spicy food. The hotter, the better. Others prefer food that is seasoned, but not spicy. Seasoning adds flavor. Heat is NOT flavor. Eating should be a decadent pleasure. Your taste buds should thoroughly enjoy what you are eating, with other parts of the body mostly unaffected. When eating overly spicy food, other parts of the body can react in unpleasant ways. Your lips and tongue may tingle. Your nose may run. Your ears may get hot. That’s not to mention what may be happening, or will happen, in your gut. In an Amazon TV ad, the lady who makes the spicy sauce for chicken wings tells the eater: “Don’t touch your face” with the sauce on his hands. After all, his face might burn. If you take pleasure in eating, it should not be an endurance test. Many of those who enjoy spicy food don’t get the reactions listed above. Or, if they do, they relish the displeasure. Some even want to make EVERYTHING they eat spicy. Some chefs even put spicy peppers or pepper flakes in chocolate, or other sweet things. For those not expecting heat, it can take pleasure out of enjoying something sweet. Certainly, different people have different tastes and tolerances. But, let’s not confuse heat with flavor. Heat is, well, just heat. Flavor is the proper mix of tastes and seasoning that turns bland food into something very tasty. Those who cook or serve need to warn diners of heat in certain dishes. Chinese and other ethnic restaurants often do that. But, if you are a cook who loves heat, don’t presume everyone does. Don’t presume that something you may think of as “mild,” or, with a very gentle “kick” that everyone will react the same way when eating it. If you are sensitive to heat and you visit places like New Orleans, ask a lot of questions before you order food. In general, cajun food is spicy and creole food is not. So, if are among those who consider spicy food flavorful, other people don’t see heat as flavor. If you cook for others whose tastes you may not know, season the food as needed without the heat. Those who like the heat will add hot sauce to it, while those who don’t like heat will enjoy the food as prepared. Heat should be used FOR cooking, not necessarily in cooking. Peter
#gratitude #respect #DemandingGratitude #DemandingRespect #people It’s been said we all should have an attitude of gratitude. Indeed, we need to be grateful for all that is good in our lives – family, friends and other blessings we may have. We should also respect those who earn our respect. But, when gratitude and respect are demanded, rather than earned or given, it sets a different tone. If you don’t ask, the answer is always no. That adage plays well in sales, but not in terms of gratitude and respect. If you have earned respect and been given gratitude, whether stated or not, you should not have to ask for or demand it. It’s probably better that you don’t know someone respects you, or is grateful to you. Gratitude and respect are not – or should not be – transactable. I’ll scratch your back, if you scratch mine. That is a transaction. Those who ask for or demand gratitude or respect are likely not going to return the favor. Nor should the giver of gratitude and respect expect anything in return. Be nice to me. One may see that on a T-shirt as a joke. But, if someone is constantly asking for someone, or everyone, to be nice to him or her, it makes one wonder why that person would have to ask in the first place. Is everyone mean to him or her? Does everyone not give him or her the time of day? If the answer to either question is yes, the person has to ask himself or herself why that is. Very likely, it has less to do with the people with whom the person interacts, and more to do with the person himself. Who’s going to win this battle? I am. I usually do. Such a question may be posed to a parent with an antsy or misbehaving child. To the parent, it should not be a battle to be won. The parent should have full control of the situation. If the parent does not, it’s usually on the parent, not the child. When an adult is in the same situation with another adult, and that person thinks he or she always wins no matter what, there may be some injustice there. It’s my way, or the highway. People who feel this way have an oversized sense of self, which can be destructive. In most human interactions, goals can be the same, but the paths to get to them may be different. In other instances, the goals are as different as the paths. That can lead to impasse, or worse. To summarize, treat others as you would like to be treated. Don’t expect people to treat you differently from how you treat them. Try to give gratitude and earn respect whenever possible. Expect nothing in return – not even the acknowledgement of the respect or gratitude. Then, give gratitude and respect, whether or not you get it in return. If you do right by others, others are more likely to do right by you. There should be no need for demands. If you give with good intentions, chances are you will get in return. Peter
#secrets #ClassifiedInformation #Signal #ChatApps #PersonalData #PublicInformation We all have secrets. Some have more secrets than others. Though many people would like to be “open books” about themselves, there are some things about people best left unknown. If you have a job in which you must keep company secrets, you can be placed in a quandary. Some company secrets, like proprietary formulas, should be kept. But, sometimes, if your company misbehaves or does illegal or unethical things, you may want to blow the whistle. Then, you have your quandary: Tell and lose your job, or not tell and keep it. The decision depends on the person and, to a lesser extent, circumstances. Government, in general, should not keep secrets. However, there are some government activities that require secrecy, to protect citizens, service members etc. This past week, some government secrets, designed only to be discussed in a secure facility that cannot be penetrated, were discussed on an open chat app called Signal, through a text chain. By accident, a journalist, who should not be seeing some of the information, was brought into the chain. The app is designed to delete the information after a certain time. Still, it could have been preserved by anyone in the chain via a screenshot. Although it’s likely the chat organizer allowed in the reporter by accident, each person in the chain should have been aware of EVERYONE who was receiving the information. It also begs the question: Do the officials in the text chain care more about keeping their discussions from the American public, since the information could be gone quickly from the public and historical record, than they do about foreign adversaries finding out about it? Having such discussions in secure facilities keeps it from foreign adversaries and unauthorized hackers, but preserves the information for historical purposes later. Also, the journalist who accidently was brought into the conversation showed much more discretion with the information than the officials who were supposed to have discretion. The journalist was obliged by his ethics to expose the mistake, without exposing the sensitive information contained therein. But, when other officials in the chat said publicly that no “classified” information was discussed, the reporter published the entire text to have others decide what should have been “classified.” Fortunately, the incident described had been completed. Recently released files from the investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 shed little new light, but exposed a lot of personal information of those who participated, which needn’t, and never should have been released. In the name of government efficiency, many unauthorized people are getting access to personal data of individuals, which they have no business having. Who knows what they will ultimately do with it. The worrisome pattern here is the effort to cover up things that should be exposed, while playing fast and loose with information that should be securely guarded. This should concern everyone. Some with power are putting our lives at risk. This outrageous behavior should not be tolerated, and those with the ability to stop it should do so immediately. If they don’t, they do not deserve to be in power. Peter
#science #knowledge #learning #reading #BanningBooks #neighbors In past decades, we wanted our children to be smarter and more knowledgeable than we are. We wanted them better educated than we might not have had the opportunity to be. We wanted them to be more successful at whatever they did, than we were. In recent weeks, that has changed. We now don’t want children learning certain things, reading certain books or even interacting with other children who might be, perhaps, different from them. We don’t want the agencies we rely on to conduct the research into diseases to help find a cure. We now don’t think colleges and universities, which in the U.S. are the envy of the world, should educate, research and otherwise do what they do best without constraints. The term “we” is certainly not everyone. Likely, it is not the vast majority of us. It is a small group of people who want to take the country backward, rather than forward. The next time someone tells you “I want to move forward,” you might ask them, “Are you sure?” If you are not among those who want to move backward, it is important that you, and those who agree with you, resist with every fiber of your being. There are certain things you can’t do without the power to do them, but there are many things you CAN do, even without the power you might desire. The best places to resist these trends are in the courts, at the ballot box and in the streets. Tell your elected officials what you think. The more people you have on your side, the more likely the officials will get the message. If your officials are not resisting these trends to your liking, check your state law to see whether they can be recalled. If they can, start a petition. If they can’t, work to make sure they are not re-elected. Whatever you do, VOTE whenever you have the opportunity. The U.S. is still, despite what some would prefer, a country by and for the people. People need to use their power to beat back the tendencies of some in power. You may be looking at what’s going on and wondering, “did I vote for this?” If you think not, you may not have been paying attention. These tendencies were well advertised ahead of the last election. But, that is thinking backward. Now is the time to think forward. It’s time to think about ways to move the country forward at a time when some are working to move it backward. Short of action in the courts, at the ballot box or in the streets, begin by being kind to your neighbor, even if he or she is different from you. Most mean you no harm. Some could even become your friends. And, always think forward, toward more knowledge, more science and a smarter population as a whole. The country, as you know it and would like to see it, will depend on it. Peter
#CryptoCurrency #crypto #investing #InvestmentPlans #FinancialSecurity Crypto currency looks appealing as an investment, but there are many pitfalls. Without going further, the best way to invest for your future is a plan for slow, gradual growth over time. There are quick bucks, but they are not always sustainable. There are shiny objects, trends and fads. But they are seldom permanent. As for crypto, it is seen as a way to invest in a vehicle that is completely unregulated – off the financial grid of stocks, bonds, banks, metals, commodities, real estate etc., that all have rules and laws regulating them. Violating those rules is fraud, and quite punishable. These are online memes. They have no value to back them up, other than the money people use to buy them. As traditional investment products have supply and demand scales, crypto has only a demand scale. Supply is irrelevant. MSNBC news anchor Rachel Maddow compared crypto coins to Beanie Babies. To those who don’t remember, the company Ty put out these stuffed toys decades ago that, according to the movement, would become very valuable. People were buying them in bulk for cheap, thinking they would become a collector’s item. When stores ran out of them, buyers stalked the UPS trucks, hoping to get back to the store as the new shipment arrived. Today, they typically sell for about $6 each. Hummel figurines were another past collector’s item. They were a bit more expensive than Beanie Babies, but their appreciation in value has become, well, suspect over the years. Crypto is the new thing. Folks with lots of money are getting in on it. Some people have been charged with fraud in connection with it. They also can be hacked, and an investor could lose everything. Another rule of thumb in investing: When the big investors decide to cash out, the smaller investor is left holding the bag. These small investors may have a nice online meme, but it could become worthless. So, if you are thinking of investing in crypto because it looks easy, lots of folks are getting in on it and it is completely unregulated, stop. Get some good financial advice from someone you trust. Whatever money you put into it could be gone tomorrow, or next month or next year. Anything is possible. The demand for crypto could go on for years. The big guys may not cash out or commit fraud. And, no investment of any kind, other than, perhaps, a bank account or CD that is insured, is guaranteed. But, crypto may be worth an extra careful look. The person of relatively low means almost always has the desire to make it big easily and never worry. That’s why the lottery and casinos stay in business. It may be too early to equate crypto with gambling, but it is plainly insecure as an investment. Remember: Trends tire. Fads fade. And shiny objects lose their luster. To repeat: If you want a secure financial future, be a good, diligent saver. Adopt a plan in which you contribute those savings over time. Stay disciplined and don’t spend the money too soon. Keep an eye on it, but don’t watch it constantly, because there will be ups and downs. Make changes as needed over time. Staying relatively consistent with a good plan is the best way to secure your financial future. Peter
#government #CuttingGovernment #GovernmentService #SocialSecurity #Medicare #Medicaid It’s really easy to hate government. It’s really easy to presume that government services are for “someone else,” perhaps someone undeserving of the favor. It’s easy, until something gets taken away from you that you did not believe was a “government” program, or that you had “earned.” Certainly, government is extremely in debt and that needs to be addressed. Certainly, also, there are places and agencies in government that could run more efficiently. But, think of government as a porcelain piggy bank. When it gets full, normally one would yank the stopper, take out some coins to buy what he or she had saved for and replace the stopper. Generally, one does not take a hammer and break the bank to smithereens just to get some money out. Also, believe it or not, bureaucrats are people, too. If you impulsively admire the sledgehammer or chain-saw approach to cutting government, you could be personally affected by it. Or, your spouse. Or, one or more of your children. Or, someone else you know and love. If you are used to getting government help through, say, veteran’s benefits or Social Security, how would you feel if those benefits were taken away? Yes, you have earned them, through service or contribution, but that doesn’t mean someone won’t, or can’t, take them away. Medicaid, which helps provide health care to those in financial distress, is used by more “everyday people” than you might think. It is not just for “welfare queens” and others you might dismiss as “undeserving.” For example, do you receive health insurance through your employer, or through your own insurance policy? If you don’t, chances are you are using Medicaid. Or, do you have a relative in a nursing home? Chances are, Medicaid is paying a good portion of that person’s care. Even if you are paying for the care yourself, most other patients in a nursing home rely on Medicaid because they simply cannot afford the daily fee for care. If Medicaid goes away, the nursing home likely would close. Then what, for your relative? The other danger from this meat-ax approach to cutting government is the access by unnamed, and certainly unapproved people to everyone’s personal data. Do you want your name, address, Social Security number and banking information in the hands of someone who should not have it? Some may extrapolate this concept to ask who might BUY all that data, and who would get the proceeds? In short, there is a right way and a wrong way to reform government. We all want government that is lean, but effective. The chain-saw approach might make great television, and some might say is long overdue. But, government agencies need to work for everyone. Former U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney, when he ran for president, said that 47 percent of the population is dependent on government for some funding in their lives. In reality, we are ALL dependent on government for something. The best things politicians can do is to make sure it works well for everyone, that everyone pays for it according to their ability to pay and that it runs as efficiently and fairly as possible. Peter
