The Undesirable Demographic

I am pretty OK being over 50. Yes, I am. On the other hand, I don’t need constant reminders.

So, the umpteenth mailing from AARP and its various services gets tiresome. However, while many marketers have abandoned me because I’m no longer in the “desirable” 18-49 range (and given the junk snail- and e-mail I get, that’s not all bad), there are some who have figured out that people MY age actually spend money!

So, I am trying to figure out how I feel about a recent e-mail I got.
This is a complimentary issue of Advising Boomer’s e-News. You are not subscribed. To become a FREE subscriber and guarantee your continued delivery, send a blank email to: sub-advising_boomers@lists.highlinemedia.com

I’m always suspicious of sources that that say things like, “The Financial and Lifestyle Resource for Trusted Advisors”. Indeed, anything with the word “lifestyle” sets my teeth on edge.
The sample articles were about
“A Boomer Look at Marriage”: interesting
“Destiny: Americans Save Little For Retirement Health Expenses”: stop depressing me
“Bush To Keep Talking About Social Security”: MEGO

Well, I guess NOT.

ROG

Supreme surprise

One of the things that I think is generally a good thing is getting my assumptions challenged now and then. Well, that’s happened to me this past month with regard to the Highest Court of the Land.

Apparently, the term “liberal” and “conservative” are not as meaningful on the Supreme Court as I thought they were, or mean different things than I thought. In the medical marijuana case that I mentioned on June 7Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, while Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, considered a moderate, penned the dissent, supported by the ailing Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, part of the conservative wing of the court.

Last week, in the eminent domain case, Justice Stevens, deemed the most liberal on the Court, wrote for the 5-4 majority in favor of the government, while Justice O’Connor again authored the dissenting opinion, saying that the Court abandoned a basic limitation on government power and, in doing so, “washed out any distinction between private and public use of property.” O’Connor said economic development is not a constitutionally permissible reason to take people’s land.

Further, she wrote: “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.” O’Connor was supported by the conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and again by Rehnquist and Thomas. I can’t remember the last time I agreed with Rehnquist AND Thomas on a non-unanimous decision twice in one month.

The cautious, mixed Ten Commandments ruling this week adhered more to the traditional liberal/conservative split of the Court.

I was disappointed by the marijuana ruling, and generally pleased by the Ten Commandments decision, but I remain deeply troubled by the eminent domain case. It appears that the underlying assumption in the latter case is that government will always work for the benefit of all, rather than just the “connected,” and I’m suspicious enough of government – all government, however well-meaning – that that chance of greed and corruption driving a land grab is very high. I predict that in a couple decades, this ruling will be overturned when some egregious activities are uncovered.

My regrets to the folks of New London, CT, who have vowed to stay in their houses until the bulldozers come.

ROG

Mixed CD-Greg Burgas

For some obscure reason, I was singing “Istanbul (not Constantinople)” in the locker room of the Albany Y a few weeks ago. I noted to one of my compatriots, Phil, that the original came out in 1953, the year I was born, but I didn’t know who performed it. (It turned out to be the Four Lads. It entered the charts on 10/17 and went to #10.) Please know that I don’t USUALLY go around singing “Istanbul”.

I’m involved in this CD exchange among two dozen bloggers, organized by Chris “Lefty” Brown (May 23). The first disc to arrive was on that same day from a guy named Greg Burgas, and what’s on it? “Istanbul”! It’s the They Might Be Giants version (which I own), but still pretty spooky.

It’s a pretty eclectic mix from Delenda Est Carthago, the name of his blog. Some of it I liked a lot. The title cut is a relatively obscure Diana Ross and the Supremes hit, “Forever Came Today,” a fine song (though how that defines the theme of the disc, I’m not quite sure yet.) Only two songs I didn’t care for, and I attribute that to a generational thing. (A Fred Hembeck lets me know that I’m the second oldest one in the exchange; he has 5 weeks on me.) One was Ugly in the Morning, an apt description of the Faith No More song, and the other some Jane’s Addiction song that would have driven me to drugs if I didn’t have willpower.

On the other hand, a lot of stuff worked. Alison Krauss’ Down to the River to Pray (the second O Brother cut on the disc) oddly segues nicely with the guitar noodling in the beginning of a song by the hard rockin’ Cinderella! Who knew? There are other links like that throughout.

But for me, THE find was: “Somewhere between a 1930s Cuban dance orchestra, a classical chamber music ensemble, a Brasilian marching street band and Japanese film noir is the 12-piece Pink Martini. Tasty. I want MORE.

(Oh, and I just figured out WHY Greg was first – his wife just had a baby. Congrats, Greg, but did you think having a baby might interfere with blogging and making mixed CDs? Can’t understand THAT.)

OK so I wrote that, but now I have two dozen MORE CDs I should address. Four I haven’t heard, and – fortunately – a few I haven’t received yet. Don’t know that I’ll be as verbose in the future. BTW, I expect that, eventually, the song lists of all of these bloggers will show up on Lefty’s page. If Chris’ list shows up on the page, I’ll link to that. MY list will show up on THIS page, also eventually.

ROG

The Lydster -Part 15: Adventurers in Babysitting

I was reminding someone that I was going to be out of work for a day earlier this month in order to watch Lydia. Someone said, “Oh, you’re going to babysit Lydia.” Hmm. Can you babysit your own child? I’ve heard this before, and something about it has never resonated correctly with me, but maybe I’m being overly sensitive.

So, I go to several dictionaries to look up babysitting/babysitter:

  • to take care of someone’s baby or child while that person is out, usually by going to their home
  • a person engaged to care for one or more children in the temporary absence of parents or guardians
  • a person who cares for or watches over someone or something that needs attention or guidance

    OK, so there’s some wiggle room in the third definition.

    Then I asked Carol: “Has ANYONE EVER said to you, “Oh, you need to babysit Lydia [because she’s sick, etc.]? And the answer, as I suspected, was “No.” SHE watches, SHE tends to, SHE cares for. And I babysit? Nah, *I* watch, *I* tend to, *I* care for.

    I really believe the linguistic distinction matters. When she’s ready to be in a relationship and have children THOUSANDS of years now, I want her to have a partner who is a caregiver, not a babysitter.

    Of course, it was difficult to give Lydia care when she went three or four days this month when she ONLY wanted Mommy, ironically around Father’s Day, but that too has passed.

    What hasn’t passed is her utter rejection of her high chair in the past 72 hours in favor of a “grown-up” chair that she can pull herself onto. She is now at the table (in the booster seat), just like everyone else.

    And that’s what I learned about myself from my daughter THIS month. Happy year and a quarter, Lydia.

    • ROG
    Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial