carol's blog

Marriage

This is best story about the marriage debate I've seen. Even though it isn't ostensibly about the gay marriage debate. It's about my friend Cora's parents an their decision not to marry. Unspoken is the context that when they met, a marriage between them -- a black man and a white woman -- had only recently become legal in many states.

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

April 4, 2004
LIVES
Not the Marrying Kind
By CORA DANIELS

found out in sixth grade. I was supposed to go to a friend's house after school, but during lunch period, she remembered it was her parents' wedding anniversary. I'd have to come over another afternoon. I understood. It was the divorce decade of 80's Manhattan; we were two of the few kids in our class who even lived with both of our parents. So an anniversary wasn't something that should pass without notice. And it got me thinking: why was it that I never made my parents an anniversary card?

My family was close. Most days, we ate dinner together at 4:30 in the afternoon because my dad's shift ended at 4. On weekends, the four of us -- my parents, my younger brother and I -- would ride our bikes through our neighborhood like some street gang pedaling in unison to jam sessions in Washington Square Park. But we never celebrated my parents' anniversary. After school, I asked my mom why. A little pink in the cheeks, she shot back that they had never been married.

To say that my parents were unconventional is an understatement. They met in the late 60's, when they were New York City cabdrivers and worked out of the same garage. My dad was black, from a rough part of Chicago and 14 years older. She was white, Jewish, from a tiny town in Virginia and living on her own for the first time. The story goes that one day in the garage, my dad asked my mom out for coffee. My mom replied that she didn't drink coffee. From there, the simple mating ritual deteriorated into an argument over whether the offer was limited to just coffee or could also include tea or even conversation. Within 14 seconds, my mother says, she was in love, and within 16 seconds, they were fighting. It was a pattern that never stopped.

They did not marry because she didn't want to. It was completely unnecessary and too conventional. If you loved someone as deeply as she loved my father, there was no reason to limit that love with legal binds. It wasn't that my mom didn't want a wedding. If that had been the case, they could have gone to City Hall, as most of their friends had. She didn't want a marriage. Without the piece of paper, she felt, their connection was pure, limitless and unscripted.

Through the years, I've reacted differently to my parents' decision. During college, when I left the city and mingled in much more traditional circles, I was proud of their nonconformity and would tell acquaintances that they had never been hitched. More recently, as a black woman surrounded by a generation of unmarried parents dragging a community further into poverty and dysfunction, I don't bring it up as much.

Almost five years ago, I married. You can see my parents' shock on the wedding video. I purposely kept my mom in the dark about the details of my wedding day, because the experience would be a first for both of us, and I wanted her to be surprised. I think she appreciated the gift. When I took my fiance -- instead of her -- shopping for bridal gowns with me, the uptight salespeople freaked, but not my mother.

In the end, it took death to part my parents. When my dad went suddenly three years ago, they had been together 30 years. It was a lifetime more than many of us get with people we vow to love forever. Without a marriage certificate though, my mother wasn't my father's next of kin under the law. As my father's oldest child, it was my say that counted. Every time I signed another document, it felt as if I were further erasing my mom's role in my dad's life. Or at least helping society to.

My dad, an Army vet, had a formal military burial. After taps was played, soldiers folded the flag draped on my father's coffin and presented it to the family. Actually, they handed the flag to me. I didn't want to take it. It should have been presented to my mother, whose lap was empty. But she was not his wife, so the military refused. The idealistic bubble my mom had created for their love collapsed when it rubbed against the real world. No one cared about our weekend bike rides.

My mom, my brother and I rode home from the funeral in silence. In a room full of friends and family who had gathered at the house, my mom whispered to me that her only regret was that she never married my dad. If she had it to do over again, she would have. We hadn't spoken about the fact that they weren't married since that day after school when I was 11.

My mother's remorse is much larger than flags or funerals. I understand that now. She had believed the world could see the love and commitment that she and my dad shared. But what she didn't grasp sooner is that when you are lucky enough to find a love as strong as she found, you show it off to the world proudly. Because in the end, regretfully, the world couldn't see what they shared. Now, when I look at my wedding band, I can't help thinking of my parents and what they gave up because they thought their hearts were all that mattered.

Cora Daniels is a writer at Fortune magazine and the author of ''Black Power Inc.: The New Voice of Success,'' to be published by John Wiley & Sons this month.

Cheapskate Overtime Rules

Some of you may have heard the story on NPR this week about how the Bush administration is proposing changes to the overtime rules. They are touting it as a way to give more OT to some million low wage workers. But, what it's really about is not allowing overtime to many more millions. Anybody who makes over $22,000 and supervises two or more people. So, your 7-11 manager? Executive, ineligible for overtime. Your McDonald's boss? Management: ineligible.

NPR pointed out that the last day to comment is Monday. I looked high and low on the Labor Department website and couldn't figure out how. So, I called. They told me it may be too late. Got another number. Was transferred. Finally got the email address. If they want to keep people from commenting this much, I'd say it's worth it so send an email.

HERE'S WHO YOU WRITE:
whd-reg@fenix2.dol-esa.gov

HERE'S WHERE THE INFO IS
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/

March 27, 2003
U.S. Department of Labor Proposal Will Secure Overtime for 1.3 Million More Low-Wage Worker
Department Seeks to Modernize 50-Year-Old Wage Regulations
The U.S. Department of Labor today published a proposal to modernize its 50-year-old regulations defining exemptions from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for "white-collar" employees, a measure that will help small businesses grow and guarantee overtime pay for 1.3 million more low-wage workers.
"Our proposal will strengthen overtime for the most vulnerable low-wage workers and allow for stronger Department of Labor enforcement of this important worker protection," said U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao.

SARS & KOREA: 2 Worries at once

Looking to consolidate your time worrying about global crises? Why not worry about North Korea getting SARS? So far neither Korea says they have it. North Korea claims to have set up a vague "brisk" defense against the disease.
Would they really be able to detect it? Or fight it given that their population is starving and
living in basically the dark ages, at least as far as electricity is concerned.

So far SARS has been largely among health care workers and international business travellers. Having a negligible economy and scant tourist traffic, North Korea's isolation may serve it well with SARS. And even though its refugees flee to China, its border isn't near the south where most SARS cases are.

More worrying is that the SARS chief victims so far -- the nurses and executives -- are the people most likely to get the very best care. What happens if starts slipping into the poor underground populations like illegal immigrants?

Grocery Cards

Turns out those irritating grocery cards don't even save you money overall. They just make you feel like you're saving money and let stores boast of savings they don't offer to everybody.
The Poynter Institute has a good summary on the latest on the cards, which includes a WSJ story comparing savings in stores with and without cards and a Businessweek story on the privacy issues.

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=2

Those Annoying Grocery Cards

It does annoy me that I now have three -- count them, three -- grocery cards to carry around so I can pretend I am saving money. You probably use them too, those little "discount" cards they swipe at the grocery checkout to "save" you money. But do cards save money? You might have guessed the answer is no. Stores use them to track your purchases.

The Wall Street Journal reports, "How much cash are you really saving by shopping at a supermarket that has a card, instead of a noncard store? To find out, we went shopping at both types of stores and talked to a range of card experts. We found that, most likely, you are saving no money at all. In fact, if you are shopping at a store using a card, you may be spending more money than you would down the street at a grocery store that doesn't have a discount card.

We learned this the hard way, by going on a five-city, shop-till-you-drop grocery spree. In each city, we shopped at a store using its discount card, and afterward went to a nearby grocery store that doesn't have a card and bought the same things. Then we rolled up our sleeves, unrolled our receipts and crunched the numbers.

In all five of our comparisons, we wound up spending less money in a supermarket that doesn't offer a card, in one case 29 percent less.

The bottom line: Sale prices -- which were once available to all shoppers -- are now mostly restricted to cardholders in stores with cards and are called "card specials." In our experience, items not covered by card discounts tended to be more expensive than at nearby noncard stores. As a result, we paid more at card stores than at noncard stores.

Supermarkets strongly defend their programs. The cards let stores "target savings" to their most loyal customers, says Ertharin Cousin of Albertsons. Still, according to industry experts, the WSJ shopping experience was typical, because cards are designed to make customers feel like they got a bargain, without actually lowering prices overall.

Less income, higher prices? BusinessWeek also explored the issue in a thoughtful article. BusinessWeek said:

Longer-term, the impact of data collection could be far more disturbing. Using cards to track purchase histories, stores are beginning to segment customers into groups based on how much and how often they purchase. Such information will help stores target desirable -- read: profitable -- customers and cater to their needs.

This is high priority in the grocery business. After all, the top 30 percent of customers account for 75 percent or more of sales, while the bottom 30 percent account for just 3 percent, according to independent grocer Gary Hawkins, who also serves as president of the Syracuse (N.Y.) consulting firm DataWorks Marketing. Ultimately, the information could be used to tailor prices to individual shoppers -- much the way airlines charge vastly different prices for two seats on the same flight. While that makes economic sense, under a worst-case scenario, the system could discriminate against lower-income shoppers who may simply have less money to spend.

The strategy is called customer-specific marketing, and it's the supermarket industry's Holy Grail. The reason? In a nutshell, Wal-Mart. As grocery stores see revenues and profits flatten, Wal-Mart, with its low prices and huge selection, continues to lure shoppers.

Supermarkets need to fight back. But they don't want to compete on price, says DataWorks' Hawkins. "They need to extend special prices, but only to certain customer segments," he says. "As stores begin to better understand the data they're collecting, they'll use it not just for marketing but to develop new metrics to manage and serve customers."
Some stores even rate their customers. They have a system that gives more discounts to people who shop more.

Microsoft

Looks like big companies are finally getting involved in the fight against spam and pop-ups. Today Microsoft said it wouldn't let hotmail subscribers send more than 100 messages a day -- at least not unless they paid for more storage. It's half-hearted, but still a start. Even a small fee might be deterent enough since spam only works by being essentially free.

AOL and other providers are now getting into the act. Mainly their efforts are lame, like the totally ineffective pop-up blocker I have from Earthlink.

With spam now making up half of all email, it's about time for corporate America to get involved.

REDMOND, Washington (AP) -- To cut down on junk e-mail, Microsoft Corp. is capping the number of e-mails that users of its free Hotmail service can send each day.

By limiting to 100 the number of messages that could be sent in a 24-hour period, Microsoft's MSN division hopes to stop people from using its service to send the unsolicited messages, known as spam.

"MSN is strongly committed to helping stop the widespread problem of spam and this change is one way we are preventing spammers from using Hotmail as a vehicle to send the unwanted e-mails," said Lisa Gurry, MSN lead product manager.

Microsoft said it viewed the limit as a reasonable cap that would affect less than 1 percent of its active subscriber base of 110 million. The company would not disclose its previous cap.

The limit took effect earlier this month. It does not apply MSN 8 subscribers or those who purchase extra storage on Hotmail.

What did Kamel Say?

Last week Newsweek reported that Hussein Kamel told the CIA that Iraq did destroy all its chemical and biological weapons. You'll remember Kamal as the son-in-law who defected, became a Western informant, then stupidly went back to Iraq, where he was quickly executed.

Newsweek had been one of many publications that had held Kamel up as an information goldmine, one that proved Iraq was up to no good.

The Newsweek story failed to make clear how this information fit in with their years of other reporting. The Guardian tried to put the whole thing together, saying that the former UN inspector now thinks Kamel was a "consumate liar."

Nobody gives much guidance on how much of what we think about the programs is based on Kamel. Much of what he said was backed up by documents, so it can't be all wrong.

Weeks or Months

"Weeks not months," has been the big phrase thrown around in the last month. It's used to describe how long Iraq has to give in to real disarmament and so, effectively, how long we have before the war starts.

The issue of when this phrase first became the policy is probably going to become relevant very soon. That's because soon it will have been policy for months, not weeks.

I went back looking for the first reference. It seems to have been Donald Rumsfeld on Jan 19. Within a week it was the catchphrase in both London and Washington.

Will they meet their own deadline?

New York Times
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
01/20/2003
Mr. Rumsfeld said the decision on whether Iraq was cooperating with the United Nations, a determination generally regarded as a possible precursor to war, would be made ''in a matter of weeks, not in months or years.'' He added, ''That judgment call will just have to be made.''

New York Times
01/22/2003
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and JAMES DAO
Administration officials said the timetable was still to press for a decision from the Council in a matter of weeks rather than months, on the ground that Mr. Hussein's defiance of the demand for cooperation was already obvious. The French may disagree, one official said, but their argument that the inspections are working to disarm Iraq ''won't stand up to scrutiny.''

01/26/2003
The Sunday Telegraph
Washington and London were agreed last night that Iraq would be given "weeks not months" to disarm or face attack.

01/26/2003
Associated Press Newswires
Asked whether they should have weeks or months, Blair replied "Well, I don't believe it will take them months to find out whether he is cooperating or not, but they should have whatever time they need."

01/28/2003
By JOHN TAGLIABUE
The New York Times
Some legislators said tonight that the inspectors should be given more time, and that Mr. Blair's mention on Sunday of ''weeks, not months'' was not sufficient.

01/28/2003
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
The New York Times
In Mr. Powell's memoirs, one of his dictums is: ''Remain calm. Be kind.'' But the time for talking to allies calmly and kindly, aides readily concede, is most likely a matter of weeks now rather than months

01/30/2003
By ALEX BERENSON
The New York Times
After Mr. Bush's speech, ''the market expects a resolution within weeks instead of months,'' said Harvey Hirschhorn, the head of asset allocation and strategy for the Columbia Management Group, which manages $150 billion, including more than $50 billion in stocks.

01/31/2003
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 -- President Bush all but set a timetable for war today, warning Saddam Hussein that Iraq has ''weeks, not months'' to disarm or face an invasion led by the United States.

Perpetually-New Homeland Security Dept. Story

The start up of the Homeland Security department is threatening to become one of those stories that just seems to never really happen, but keeps appearing in the news over and over and over again.

Today there are wire stories about the department's first day. Didn't we already have that? I'm so disinterested in this department I'm too lazy to go check what all that fuss was about a week or so ago.

This is like the story "Human Genome Mapped" that kept infecting newspapers. When it really happens, lemme know.

For Homeland Security it's even worse becuase the whole department seems to be an intellectual abstraction anyway.

Homeland Security Dept. Marks First Day

By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) promised a "united defense of our homeland" Friday in marking the launch of the department created to answer the danger of terrorism.

The Homeland Security Department combines the forces of 22 agencies and 170,000 workers who patrol America's borders, secure computer networks, check for contamination of crops and otherwise help guard against terrorism. Saturday is its first full day of work.

Al Queda Meeting Notes

The Smoking Gun has some odd documents showing the meeting minutes of the birth of Al Queda. They come out of some case of a charity group that was raising money for Al Queda. It's chilling to see this petty and bureaucratic beginning to this group. Members had to pledge to be early-rising and obedient and they were only supposed to take members who had good references, good manners and were good listeners.


http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bifladen1.html

The Smoking Gun also has Al Queda's terror manual.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jihadmanual.html

We Don't Pray Together

England is giving Blair lots of grief for palling around with George Bush. Brits are really squeemish about Bush's dogmatic Christian rhetoric. That's especially interesting because this is the country the US broke away from because of its dogmatic Christianity.
The BBC's Jeremy Paxman asked if he prayed with Bush.
Blair curtly responded:
"No, we don't pray together. No, Jeremey, No."
Newsweek was great to point out that in the US, politicians would have jumped at the chance to brag that they prayed with Bush, no matter how much that flew in the face of the establishment clause.