On ethical balance, women do better

First published in Newsday.

Another week in New York brings fresh news of corruption and efforts to punish it. A former Nassau County police supervisor was fined and sentenced to community service for covering up a buddy's son's theft of high school electronics equipment. A Brooklyn assemblyman is on trial for allegedly taking bribes from undercover FBI agents. Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo is pushing an ethics bill that he hopes will lock legislators into better behavior.

In fact, 30 New York legislators have faced legal or ethical trouble since 2000. They were charged with embezzlement, perjury, extortion and tax evasion. If this is our political class, what's a society to do?

What strikes me about the list is how few women are on it - just four. Could it be that women are more ethical than men? And if so, do we need more women in politics?

For years, researchers couldn't find any difference between the genders when it came to ethical decision-making. The typical way to measure ethical differences was to present people - usually students - with case studies and ask them to judge the morally acceptable actions. The results were inconclusive.

But two business professors in England decided to choose case studies that would differentiate what motivated men's and women's judgments. What they found, as published in the journal Business Ethics, was a tendency for men to justify actions based on law and rules. Women, by contrast, felt responsible to be compassionate - in relationships, for the environment, and even for strangers with whom they could empathize.

Among the scenarios presented by Roberta Bampton of Leeds Metropolitan University and Patrick Maclagan of the University of Hull to 98 undergraduate accounting students was: Is it acceptable for a company to legally make equipment used in torture? The equipment was employed by military and police in other countries to extract information from prisoners. Fifty-seven percent of the men said this was an acceptable business practice, but only 28 percent of the women.

In another case, an organic food store that buys its produce from local farms was offered the opportunity to purchase from overseas growers at a lower cost, and make more profit. The overseas fruits and vegetables, also organically grown, would be flown in, resulting in a greater environmental harm - because of carbon emission and the use of fuel. Here, 93 percent of men found the switch in suppliers to be a "perfectly acceptable" or "fairly acceptable" business practice. Only 66 percent of women agreed.

These two scenarios underscore how men and women come to ethical decisions differently.

"While our findings tend to support the original research hypothesis (that women subscribe to a compassionate ethic of care more than men do), these findings also suggest that men are more likely to support the impersonal values of profit or 'business,' and perhaps proper procedures, or law and order," Bampton and Maclagan wrote.

Law and order weren't exactly uppermost in the minds of the wayward New York politicians, but the politicos did display a clear attraction to profit.

Of course, these are generalities. Forty-three percent of men found the manufacture of torture equipment "somewhat" or "very" unacceptable. And women politicians have been convicted or caught short of the truth. Wendy Davis - the abortion rights heroine and Democratic gubernatorial candidate from Texas - fudged her personal history to make her rags-to-Harvard transformation more dramatic.

So, while there are exceptions to any generality, there is also safety in numbers. And the numbers on ethics favor the women.

Sweeping up 'Mad Men'-era policies

First published in Newsday


If you're a woman and you vote, prepare to become very popular.

Democrats and left-leaning groups are jockeying to hold onto congressional seats in this year's midterm elections by appealing to voters' economic misery and sense of fairness. They are cultivating women generally, and moms in particular.

"Today's policies for women and children need some cleaning up," reads an invitation to a Rockville Centre workshop sponsored by the National Association of Mothers' Centers.

The invitation depicts the U.S. Capitol, a baby and a smiling woman with a broom. She's apparently there to sweep up what President Barack Obama called "Mad Men"-era workplace policies last month in his State of the Union address.

NAMC, a support and advocacy organization, wants to advance paid family and medical leave and paid sick days, as well as universal pre-K and affordable child care. Increasing the minimum wage and fair pay for men and women are also on the agenda.

NAMC's advocacy coordinator Valerie Young, who is based in Washington, says her calendar is jammed with related events: briefings and panel discussions with think tanks and congressional committees.

"In the past, one event would happen, and then our issues would sink below the surface," she said. "Now I can't keep up with them."

These are vital supports for families, but can they generate enough backing to become law?

Last month, the Working Families Organization and other groups held a town hall forum on women's economic equality. Hosted by actress Cynthia Nixon and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the dial-in conference drew 16,000 participants.

Valerie Ervin, the new executive director of the Manhattan-based Center for Working Families, said the strikes by fast-food workers and others to raise the minimum wage has built momentum for family-friendly reforms. Two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women.

"There's a real alignment of what have been traditionally thought of as women's issues; we see them as family issues," said Ervin, who just completed eight years in elective office in Montgomery County, Md.

Another overture to women comes from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which has scheduled a "Women's Issues Conference & Luncheon" next month in Manhattan, led by Pelosi. The invitation lists 12 women House candidates, from Arizona to New Hampshire, with check-boxes for donations.

Many of the women running this year have school-age children - one fruit of the "Off The Sidelines" effort led by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, which encourages women to get involved in shaping public policy. And Hillary Clinton's visibility as a potential presidential candidate has heightened the anticipation that American politics would more often be wearing a skirt - or at least a pantsuit.

But as much as the DCCC would like to pack Congress, this midterm election is likely to tilt Republican - meaning that many family-friendly policies will be viewed as too expensive or as more "entitlements." Advocates are wisely looking to state legislatures and city councils, instead, to pursue reforms.

Ervin is excited that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has included public campaign financing in his budget proposal - a long shot idea she says could open elective office to more women and working-class people. It's one more way that "women's issues" are broadening to become everyone's issues.

Schools experiment with meditation to improve grades and attendance

First published in Newsday

A woman I had just met was so upset that she began to confide in me about her high school daughter. The girl had burst into tears when she got a 92 on a test, and she was concerned that if she didn't attend a summer study program, she wouldn't be able to compete with her peers for college admission.

"Why are kids so anxious now?" the mom asked. "Was life such a treadmill when we were young?"

This family lives in one of Long Island's better public school districts - with plenty of academic pressure - but these questions are being raised all around. A poll released in December - conducted by National Public Radio, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health - said that 40 percent of parents believe their high school kids are stressed over school.

Admirably, some schools are trying what could be a stress antidote: mindfulness and meditation.

At Centennial High School, south of Baltimore, physics teacher and meditation instructor Stan Eisenstein is offering a 10-week course in mindfulness to 30 teens after school. The nonreligious course is based on Buddhist principles and shows students how to tune in to their bodily sensations and breath, as well as their thoughts and emotions. According to a story in The Baltimore Sun last month, Eisenstein calls these skills "a first-aid kit" for stress.

His course has become so popular that fellow teachers want to sign up, and the school administration is talking about having it approved as an elective - a class for credit held during the regular school day.

Centennial is a high-performing school, but meditation is also working at the other end of the spectrum, for the San Francisco Unified School District, which struggles with truancy and behavioral problems. Starting in 2007, the district began offering 15-minute breaks, called Quiet Time, at the beginning and end of each school day, in middle school and high school.

Students sit, close their eyes and allow their attention to travel to a less active, quieter place. San Francisco's Visitacion Valley Middle School says the number of suspensions has been cut in half - from 13 per 100 students in 2006-07 to six per 100 students in 2010-11. Unexcused absences also have dropped, and schools are reporting higher schoolwide grade-point averages.

This is a district where 61 percent of the students qualify for federally funded free or reduced-price lunches, meaning many of the families are poor. The Quiet Time breaks add consistency and predictability. They can unleash creative forces.

"Kids can quiet their minds, rest their bodies, and restore their readiness to learn," explains Linda Esposito, a licensed social worker who blogs at TalkTherapyBiz.com.

I would imagine that the breaks would be restorative for classroom teachers, too, in this age of tax caps and Common Core anxiety. But would Long Island schools go for meditation?

Certainly, schools here are moving in the direction of training students in lifelong skills. Gym classes aren't just about basketball or volleyball anymore. They're incorporating aerobic workouts and strength training. Beyond shop and home economics, students are discussing how to be smart consumers and weighing various careers. Like these practical lessons, meditation offers lifelong benefits.

In a world hyped up with social media, performance measurements and short attention spans, doing nothing twice a day might be a remedy we need.

Congress should extend unemployment benefits

First published in Newsday
When leading libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says extending unemployment benefits discourages people from taking a job, he's right. Many economists back him up. People have been out of work 7 percent longer after the Great Recession, according to one study, because of the federal extension that allowed benefits for 99 weeks.

But what Paul doesn't seem to understand is that 7 percent of a job search - an extra 3.6 weeks in a year - might be the smartest investment a family can make in its future.

My husband was out of work during the 2001 recession for - well, let's say he fell into the category of "long-term" unemployed - more than six months, the same as 4 million Americans today.

Saying that halting unemployment checks at six months would give these 4 million an incentive to work - even at a lower salary or a lesser job - sounds like an accusation of laziness. Maybe she's taking a six-month vacation and will only get serious about work when the checks stop. Maybe he's spending a half-hour a day shooting out resumes on Monster.com, and then retreating to the couch for "Judge Judy."

Perhaps some tough love, Rand Paul-style, is what's called for.

But I remember my husband Dan's months out of work as a diligent search. If it hadn't been, we might not be married today. We had two preschool-age daughters, and my newspaper salary wasn't going to pay the mortgage. We didn't have much savings, and our families couldn't help other than to take us in if we lost our home.

We began making decisions in the context of when Dan might find work. Our 4-year-old was in a Montessori preschool; there was no public preschool. Should we take her out, save the tuition, and maybe extend our savings another few weeks? We value education - Dan and I both have master's degrees and were paying off student loans. I wanted our daughters to have a good start.

Sometimes, we'd see an ad for a handyman - Dan has those skills - and we'd consider whether he should forget about his MBA and take up work with less earning potential. There would be security in that. But day care for our daughters would have eaten up most of one of our paychecks. And we would have had to sell our home - losing neighbors and changing schools and routines.

So, we held off. Eventually, Dan found a good job, and a decade later, we're fine: paying taxes, employing baby sitters, buying lacrosse sticks and music lessons, saving for retirement.

But it resonates with me when I read reports from the Urban Institute and Pew Research Center on the financial and personal costs for the long-term unemployed: about 10 percent file for bankruptcy; 40 percent say they've lost self-respect; nearly half say joblessness has put a strain on family relationships; more than half put off medical care.

Conservatives have been citing North Carolina as an example of how to get people back to work. In June, the state's GOP-led legislature reduced the maximum number of weeks of benefits from 63 to 19. By October, the state unemployment rate had fallen from 8.8 percent to 8 percent. A victory?

Not quite. According to Politifact.com, while the number of unemployed North Carolinians fell by 44,558, the number of jobs increased by just 1,902. In other words, most of the decline in the jobless rate was because people had "dropped out" of the job market.

I always wonder, where do those people drop to? Thanks to the extended unemployment benefits in the early 2000s, I didn't have to find out through personal experience.

Break by Swarthmore Hillel is emblematic of generational divide on Mideast

First published in Newsday

Students at a small liberal arts college outside Philadelphia have inserted themselves into one of the most uncompromising debates in world history: the question of Israel and Palestine.

Swarthmore College's Hillel, the Jewish student association, is the first in the nation to defy its parent organization and announce it will host groups and speakers who do not support Israel. The move earned the 100-student group at Swarthmore a public rebuke from the president of Hillel International, Eric D. Fingerhut, who said he will not allow the Swarthmore chapter to continue using the name Hillel.

The outcome of this clash is yet to be determined, but I am inspired by the students' brave defense of intellectual freedom. Their openness to hearing diverse ideas and beliefs runs opposite to so much of what we see today: the gridlock in Washington, the struggle over gun control, the fundamentalist and ethnic hatreds fueling wars.

Call me naive, but I don't think people resolve disputes by retreating into corners with their partisans. Besides, isn't college the very place to debate ideas, test one's opinions and decide where one belongs in the world?

This campus' jump into the Israel-Palestine controversy began in 2010 when Hillel International adopted a policy barring chapters from sponsoring events, hosting speakers or partnering with groups that deny Israel's right to exist, that apply a double standard to Israel or that support a boycott or divestment of its products.

The new policy was a response to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, originally Palestinians who urge the boycott of Israeli products and sporting, cultural and academic institutions. Begun in 2005, BDS has grown and added last month the 5,000-member American Studies Association, which promotes the study of American culture. The ASA urges American colleges and universities to stop collaborating with Israeli scholars and academic institutions.

It's ironic that the ASA's members, who are teachers, researchers and faculty - essentially people who devote their lives to learning - would act to quash the exchange of ideas.

Threatened by the advance of the BDS movement, Hillel International retreated to its own corner, raising another irony. The organization that is the foundation for Jewish life on campus is named for Hillel the Elder, a first century sage who believed that discussion leads to learning, and that intellect should play a vital role in figuring out the right thing to do.

Last spring, students at Harvard University started a campaign called Open Hillel, which seeks inclusive discourse at campus Hillels and wants Hillel International to reverse its 2010 policy. Nearly 1,300 people have signed the Open Hillel petition online.

The Swarthmore Hillel board voted last month to renounce the international organization's restriction. The board stated in a resolution that "all are welcome to walk through our doors and speak with our name and under our roof, be they Zionist, anti-Zionist, post-Zionist, or non-Zionist." The group hasn't yet held events or gatherings on this basis.

Fingerhut posted a gracious response online to Swarthmore Hillel, stating nevertheless that "this position is not acceptable." A spokesman for Hillel International likened some pro-Palestinian activities to "hate speech."

It's not difficult in this conflict to perceive a generational divide. The elders defend Israel's long struggle for existence. But by their openness, it's the young who may chart a path to peace.

NYS bills on harassment and equal pay held hostage by abortion issue

First published in Newsday If you paid attention to New York State government once a year - say, during the agenda-setting State of the State speech, live from Albany - you might wonder what happened to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo's women's agenda.

In his 2013 address, the 10-point Women's Equality Act received significant emphasis. He paired his call to action with a photo of his three daughters and shouted over heavy applause, "It is not a man's world in New York. Not anymore."

Yesterday, the measure was made to wait in line until the end of his to-do list, trailing even the New York State Yogurt Summit.

Last year, the rollout of a progressive women's agenda stirred speculation that Cuomo wanted to broaden his appeal to run for president in 2016. So what happened?

Probably, our pragmatic governor recognizes that the abortion-rights portion of the bill, which was radioactive to State Senate Republicans last year, has become kryptonite as the legislature heads for re-election in November.

That's a shame, because this series of proposed legal changes has substance. The Assembly and Senate should consider passing the nine points on which they agree.

One measure would amend state labor law to make it illegal to pay women less for the same work men perform. Employers would have to show that pay differences are based on education, training or experience. This state bill has the same intent as the federal Paycheck Fairness Act being championed in Congress by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), among others.

Are women paid less for the same work? Lily Ledbetter, a manager at Goodyear Tire and Rubber in Alabama, certainly was - and she could prove it, but not in time to meet a requirement of the U.S. Supreme Court. Her lawsuit spurred Congress to loosen the statute of limitations on discrimination claims.

Many workers can't even compare salaries because employers discourage sharing that information. The New York bill would ban wage secrecy, too.

Another of the 10 points would protect pregnant women from being pushed out of jobs - or being made to go on unpaid leave - when they request a modest, temporary accommodation, like more frequent bathroom breaks or to refrain from heavy lifting. According to the coalition backing this legislation, women in low-wage jobs suffer most from this problem.

Also included are legal protections for human trafficking survivors, who are often charged with crimes related to prostitution. Instead, in many cases, this bill would make them eligible for assistance through state welfare, domestic violence and victims' services agencies. And pimps and patrons would face greater penalties.

Another measure would allow video testimony for restraining-order cases, so that domestic violence victims don't have to face abusers in court. The bill also would make it illegal for landlords to turn away tenants on the grounds that they have been victims of domestic violence.

The legislation would extend sexual harassment law to employers with fewer than four workers. Currently, small businesses are exempt, yet they make up nearly 60 percent of private workplaces.

All of these measures, except for strengthening the state's abortion law, passed the Assembly and Senate last year. But none will become law unless the two houses have identical bills.

A group of female Assembly members has vowed to keep the 10-point package intact. But in an election year, it's probably a losing play to continue to wrap abortion in motherhood and apple pie.

Why are we fascinated by politicians' unfaithful marriages?

First published in Newsday

A friend emailed me over the holidays, "Eliot Spitzer and his wife have called it quits. What does this mean?"

In any marital breakup, there are at least two significant parties - and possibly more. But when one of them is a former New York governor, there is always a third party: the public.

One might have thought that interest in the Spitzers' marriage would have died by now. He resigned as governor in 2006 amid a prostitution scandal. So much time has passed. Why do we still care?

One could ask the same question, of course, about so many prominent political marriages that have imploded over infidelity. Jenny and Mark Sanford - he the former South Carolina governor and now a congressman newly married to his paramour. Dina Matos and Jim McGreevey, the former governor of New Jersey. Marianne and Newt Gingrich. Donna Hanover and Rudy Giuliani.

For that matter, why do we care, 30 years on, that Joan Kennedy hauled herself out of rehab and depression - post Chappaquiddick - to campaign alongside her husband, Sen. Ted Kennedy, to boost his presidential chances? Or that Hillary Clinton stays married to Bill after his philandering? If I may paraphrase her attitude about the question, she believes it's a private decision.

And yet we obsess as though it's our business, too.

"Domesticated," about a political couple's life post-sex scandal, opened on Broadway this fall. The CBS series "The Good Wife," which the writers say was inspired by Silda Wall Spitzer, tells the story of a district attorney who goes to jail on corruption charges after a relationship with a prostitute - but then rebounds to win the governor's race. The original Netflix series "House of Cards" portrays a vengeful congressman who begins sleeping with a news reporter, with his wife's consent. The wife, who is having her own side fling, only wants to be sure that she and her husband are getting more out of his affair than the reporter is.

One reason for the public obsession may be that we are deeply ambivalent about infidelity in our own lives. Marriage therapists estimate as many as 80 percent of marriages survive infidelity.

Of course, reliable statistics are scarce, largely because people don't want to own up to their affairs. However, the explosion in couples counseling serves as one proxy for the troubles in modern marriages.

In 1996, there were about 1,800 couples counselors nationally, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. By 2012, the government's Bureau of Labor Statistics was listing "marriage and family therapist" as one of the top 10 growth fields, expected to expand 41 percent by 2020.

Membership in the Beyond Affairs Network is another proxy. An international support group for people who have been betrayed by an intimate partner, BAN in 2006 consisted of 61 groups in 27 states and 10 countries. By 2013, it had mushroomed to 129 groups in 38 states and 16 countries.

The Internet and social media, with all of their benefits, have also unfortunately been a great boon for affairs. Sex and marriage researchers Katherine M. Hertlein and Fred P. Piercy noted in 2008 that "the prevalence of this problem for couples is increasingly rapidly." Experts say the Internet has three characteristics that suit it for this role: the "Triple A" of accessibility, affordability and anonymity.

We claim that we care about Eliot Spitzer's romantic fidelity because it says something larger about his ability to serve the public ethically. But the source of our fascination is likely much closer to home: We see ourselves in the mirror of the decisions our most prominent couples make.

Schools consider ban on children's books from Iran, Afghanistan

In the children's book "Nasreen's Secret School," a young girl living in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan loses her parents. Her father is taken away by soldiers, and then her mother disappears too. Nasreen is so distraught that she inexplicably stops speaking. Her grandmother helps by enrolling her in school - although, because Nasreen is a girl, she must keep her education secret.

When Taliban soldiers visit the school, the students pretend to be reading the Quran. In the end, Nasreen recovers her voice, but not her parents. The story teaches about repression in other parts of the world, and by contrast, how precious we should hold our universal schooling, gender equality and transparent legal system.

So, why has Nasreen's story upset some Long Island parents? In Southold, Islip and West Islip, parents have asked school boards to ban "Nasreen's Secret School" and another by author Jeanette Winter, "The Librarian of Basra."

Both are true stories, the latter from Iraq, and celebrate literacy and learning - even when one has to fight for those opportunities. The books are written for ages 6 to 9 and are included as optional texts on New York's Common Core reading list for third grade. As such, Nasreen has marched directly onto today's battleground over who decides what kids should learn.

One Southold school board member, Scott DeSimone, sees in the book a "pro-Muslim agenda" that comes straight from the White House. DeSimone touched off a barrage of letters about censorship and prejudice to the Suffolk Times by saying at an October school board meeting, "My take is the intended message is about Islam and Allah." In fact, parents of a third-grader said they were considering taking their son out of public school if the book continued to be read there.

He elaborated in an email to Newsday: "I thought the book was introduced at this young age and grade level as part of the underlying doctrinal forces pushing Common Core ... in this case, the social justice agenda and pro-Muslim agenda."

People left the school board meeting with the impression that the book would be banned, but that's not so, said Southold Superintendent David Gamberg. He has faith in the choices of his classroom teachers. "As long as we have a teacher who has the skill to use the text in an appropriate and responsible way - and I believe our teachers do - the message about the power of literacy comes through," Gamberg said in an interview.

One mother of a third-grader posted in the Suffolk Times' comments section that discussing the book with her son had been "one of the most poignant points of the school year" leading to a talk about freedom, education and persecution. But third-graders aren't all alike.

One Brooklyn child psychologist and author, Laura Markham, said parents are in the best position to judge reading materials. "For a child, [this story] teaches that parents can be taken away by soldiers and never return," she wrote in an email. "It should not be part of the core curriculum. This is not banning books, this is leaving the parents in charge."

In Islip, teachers and administrators decided to pull both Winter books from the third-grade reading list, said Superintendent Susan Schnebel. However, a copy of each is available in the middle school library - a "more appropriate" age level.

These books present too harsh a reality for some third-graders, but I admire the Southold superintendent for standing by his teachers' judgment. And as ugly as these Common Core debates have become, it's a testament to our culture that we have them full-throated, in public. Nasreen would probably agree with this freedom to speak.

Anti-business bias informs opposition to the Common Core curriculum

There's a disturbing bias that comes up in debates about the Common Core education standards: that business has no business in the classroom.

This bias takes on different forms. Some say the purpose of education is to produce engaged, informed citizens, as opposed to a "flock of hardworking animals" for profit-making corporations, in the words of Alexis de Tocqueville. Others worry that test-preparation companies, such as Pearson and Harcourt, will suck profits out of public schools already strapped for funds.

A third concern, most prominently articulated by education historian and activist Diane Ravitch, is the outsized influence of the wealthy - Bill & Melinda Gates, Eli Broad and the Walton Family - through their foundations. Is their support for "reform" and "choice" really an anti-union agenda? An effort to privatize public schools? At the least, Ravitch argues, the extreme influence of one man, Microsoft mogul Gates, is undemocratic.

As a parent who hopes my children graduate from high school "college- or career-ready," I find this anti-business bias hard to understand. Naturally I want my kids equipped with the skills they will need to earn a living. That means establishing a connection between what they're learning in school and what employers need them to know.

But I wonder what was the original purpose of public education: to raise citizens or workers or both? In his "Notes on Virginia," Thomas Jefferson showed how democratic countries have to ensure the literacy and education of their citizens in order to grow and prosper.

But even in the earliest of times, there was emphasis on training students for a profession. Harvard, in 1636, opened its doors to prepare doctors, lawyers and ministers for Colonial leadership. In 1862 and 1892, the Morrill Acts established public land-grant colleges to teach agriculture, mechanical arts and military science, and to provide business- and industry-oriented instruction.

Practicality mattered then, and it matters now.

Fear of test-preparation companies is understandable, but it's overblown. The same companies that write the tests also sell study guides to schools and students - British publisher Pearson, which owns the Financial Times newspaper, is most vilified for this cartel-like practice.

But, what about the College Board, writer and grader of the SATs, Advanced Placement and many other tests? Just because it's a "non-profit" doesn't mean it's not making money. With "readiness tools" and expensive SAT-prep courses, this organization has a monopolistic air as well.

The complaints about Pearson also assume that textbook companies like McGraw-Hill, Macmillan and Harcourt Brace haven't been making money selling to schools for eons. They have. But educational publishers don't dictate curriculum or what's taught in the classroom, nor should they.

As for the foundations, Ravitch has a point when she advocates for more transparency about their donations to government, think tanks and other research. However, we also must accept a balance of contributors to education - of ideas as well as money - if we are to limit the burden on property taxes.

The anti-business bias against the Common Core seems to be resentment of its top-down nature - that it was a plan hatched in boardrooms instead of classrooms. That can excite powerful emotions in days of widening income inequality. But we shouldn't allow a bias to defeat a program that promises students a brighter future.

Thanksgiving -- and Friendsgiving -- kindle a feeling of belonging

Recently, I remarked to another marching-band mom how grateful I am for the program.

"It gives my daughter something to belong to, and I think kids really need that," I said.

"I think everyone needs that," she replied. With perhaps a few exceptions, she's right.

Feeling that we belong is what makes Thanksgiving, and the holidays in general, either heavenly or hellish, and sometimes we alternate between the two within a few hours. Do we have a tribe in which we feel welcome, that shares our values and tastes? Do we briefly resemble a Norman Rockwell painting? Or do those mythical American images make us miserable when we contrast them with our awkward moments, mismatched dishes and families that are so post-nuclear they look like Fukushima I after the tsunami?

The holidays can magnify both our feelings of inclusion and of not belonging.

One new way to strengthen our bonds is "Friendsgiving." The celebration is usually held the day before or after the actual holiday, with a group of friends instead of the (obligatory) family members. People who live far from family members have celebrated alternative Thanksgivings since the Mesozoic Era, when I began pursuing a career.

But Friendsgiving is different. It's an additional celebration on an alternative day, not simply a collection of the geographically stranded. And it has its own hashtag on Twitter, as well as a Buzzfeed list of 17 rules. Rule No. 1: The host makes the turkey. Rule No. 17: Don't tell Mom if you like the gathering more than regular Thanksgiving.

The tradition's exact origin is unknown, although it may derive from the old NBC sitcom "Friends," which depicted such Thanksgiving-related gems as Chandler being forced to repent inside a giant box for kissing Joey's girlfriend, and Monica's head stuck inside a turkey. The show's characters made such bad choices about jobs and love that it lifted the spirits of viewers who were also struggling.

Friendsgiving seems to have the same "we're in this together" flavor. Hey, we're drinking rum from Mason jars and the centerpiece is a squash, but at least no aunt is asking when we'll be producing offspring. Perhaps this is a sign of our time. As the economy continues to tease with a glint that shines on an individual here or there, we're especially in need of acceptance and belonging.

Social networking sites like Facebook offer potentially powerful opportunities for people to connect and build social support. However, according to researchers from the University of Michigan, seeking reassurance on social media can backfire. In a two-week study, the more people used Facebook, the more negative they felt about their lives and social skills.

When it comes to belonging, there may be no substitute for face-to-face.

Another study sought to understand how human connection is related to the alarmingly high suicide rate among returning veterans.

The National Center for Veterans Studies at the University of Utah defined belonging as a meaningful connection to others, and strong relationships that held together without constant strain. Even when a veteran was noticeably agitated, angry or withdrawn, researchers noted, having a family member or colleague suggest getting help seemed to reduce the chance of suicide. "A strong sense of belonging protects against suicidal ideation," the Utah group concluded.

It's a wonderful virtue of our culture that we can invent unconventional gatherings when our souls need soothing. How about Vetsgiving? Just don't tell Mom if you like it more.

NYC suburbs will need de Blasio's love too

So the "two New Yorks" campaign finally worked, this time for Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio.

Fellow Democrat Fernando Ferrer tested the theme in his 2001 and 2005 mayoral campaigns, without success. But eight years later - with a Great Recession partly blamed on Wall Street excesses behind us and many New Yorkers still struggling to regain their economic security - "two New Yorks" resonated with voters.

It now falls to de Blasio to lift up those New Yorkers who've felt poorly served - or lacked the proper connections - during Mayor Michael Bloomberg's 12-year tenure. People living in badly maintained public housing, occupying Wall Street or beset by mental problems and sleeping on the sidewalk. People who are stopped and frisked, whose kids attend city schools, or who work multiple jobs to afford the rent or child care. Certainly, their voices should be heard at City Hall.

But I hope that de Blasio will consider a third New York as well - the many of us who inhabit this amazing city's suburbs. On Long Island, in Westchester, in New Jersey and in southwestern Connecticut, we're here with our shoulders pressed against New York City like lovers on a park bench. We don't need the city to be livable as much as we need it to be visitable, commutable.

The third New York will be watching very closely to see how de Blasio manages safety, crime and transportation.

Clearly, we aren't the mayor's constituents. We don't vote in city elections. What we do is travel to the city, work there and spend money. We visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Bronx Zoo and the Brooklyn Botanic Garden. We take out-of-town visitors on Circle Line tours and to see Broadway performances. We send teens into the city to shop the boutiques or take summer classes in fashion design.

Not too many years ago - when the last Democrat ruled City Hall - some of these things became impossible. Or, at least, they became unpleasant. Beggars with paper cups or squeegees were everywhere. Take a wrong turn, and suddenly you were no longer safe. Nobody wants to return to days of high crime and poverty - least of all city residents.

Can de Blasio relax police tactics that some say make life feel like a police state, while also keeping the streets safe? During his campaign, he spoke in favor of community policing and against "the stop-and-frisk era." He mentioned names of two potential police commissioners - Bill Bratton, who served as Rudy Giuliani's first police commissioner, and Philip Banks III, the chief of department in the New York City Police Department. Both are law-and-order veterans, but floating names during a campaign isn't the same as a swearing-in.

Suburban New York also cares deeply about railroads, subways, buses and taxis. The mayor doesn't run the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, but he nominates board members, the city subsidizes the MTA's budget, and the city transportation commissioner sets policies. The city is paying to build an extension of the No. 7 line to the Javits Convention Center. Those levers give the mayor influence, if not control, to ensure service is sufficient, clean, efficient and affordable.

Mayor-elect de Blasio would be wise to find a seasoned transportation commissioner who can reassure the third New York that we can get in and out of the city, after a blackout or even a superstorm.

I'm not someone who moved to Long Island to "escape" city life. I moved to New York from another state so I could accept the city's invitation. The new mayor would be wise to keep the lines open.

Pediatricians' prescription of 2 hours a day online not healthy for family openness

Thousands of children will hit the streets today, or attend school or community center parties, in search of Halloween treats. How effective would it be to tell them to accept just one of every 10 treats they're offered?

Human nature being what it is, by forbidding nine out of 10 treats, you would tap into all the ingenuity and stealth young people could summon to get what they want.

I have a similar hunch about Monday's report from the American Academy of Pediatrics, an influential pediatricians group, that recommends limiting children's and teens' screen time to no more than two hours a day. Not going to happen. In fact, I'm angry that the AAP issued the guideline.

When the recommendation was just about limiting TV viewing, many times I dutifully shut off the box and told my daughters to find something else to do. Not always, but at least when I denied that they were planted in front of the TV for hours, I felt guilty about it.

But the new recommendation is impossible to enforce - see the ingenuity and stealth of young people - and unwise. There are many treats behind the websites of Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram and Ask.fm, as well as cellphone texts.

For one thing, putting something as attractive as social media off-limits means independent-minded tweens and teens would hide their activity from parents and other adults. Far better to have them talk about it. This way, we grown-ups can say wise things like, "Don't put anything on Facebook you wouldn't want your future employer/date/mother-in-law to see."

We adults can also identify really bad features, such as Ask.fm's attraction the kids call "Hot or Not." Kids post their photos and rate each other on attractiveness. The site also apparently allows users to masquerade as other people, which could lead to cyberbullying. Last year, Ask.fm wisely blocked anonymous questions.

When adults don't know about these issues, we can't counsel our kids. When was the last time you were surfing on Instagram or Kik? Kids are going places we aren't, and we need them to clue us in so we can guide them.

Underlying the concerns of the pediatrics academy, in addition to cyberbullying, is the potential for ills that come with social media: sexting, Internet addiction, exposure to inappropriate content, compromised reputation and privacy, influence by advertisers and sleep deprivation. Granted.

But there's a wealth of good too - good that wasn't obvious from the viewer's potato-like relationship with the television. Social media allow people to keep in touch with cousins in another state, friends who've moved away, tech-savvy grandparents. Although email and other new media may have sealed the coffin on phone calling and letter writing, we're informed about each other's lives.

Social media users also learn manners. During an in-depth interview from the backseat of my car, my daughter said Instagram users will tell you to get over your vanity if you post a "selfie" photo too often. There were kids in my high school who could have benefited from such a dose of reality.

Social media also promote real-life activities. My other daughter uses Facebook to organize members of a high school extracurricular group to get together in person. So retro.

Those of us who didn't grow up with social media, including the pediatricians group, must acknowledge that kids now have two lives - one real and one online. It's a dramatic change that's not easily tucked into two hours a day.

The case for a U.S. workplace flexibility law

Trying to put a million people together has a way of amplifying their voices. The Million Man March demonstrated this in 1995, and gave rise to the Million Gay March, the Million Mom March, the Million Youth March, the Million Moderate March - each with its own agenda.

Now comes 1 Million for Work Flexibility - conducted online, appropriately enough, for those who prefer to telecommute to this virtual event.

The timing of the online campaign is perfect, says Kenneth Matos, an industrial and organizational psychologist with the Families and Work Institute, a Manhattan think tank.

"We're at the end of the fad stage," Matos says of the initial era, when flexible work schedules produced success stories for a smattering of companies and employees. And some want flexible work to become law. "That's a conversation we're going to have over the next couple of years," Matos predicted.

The pressure is building because that previously unpaid force of caregivers - women - is now more and more in paid jobs and unavailable for child care or elder care. The United States has neglected to put in place a national child care program, although some states are offering universal prekindergarten. But the other care crunch, an aging U.S. population, will be a growing dilemma.

Sara Sutton Fell, a Boulder, Colo., entrepreneur, launched 1 Million for Work Flexibility last week at WorkFlexibility.org. The site asks visitors to leave an email address and expect updates. Since 2005, Fell has run a national service, FlexJobs. She has a team of 36 people working around the country - mostly from their homes.

"I wanted to inspire people and give them a way to show their support for work flexibility, to contribute to the greater voice," Fell said in an interview. "So much of what happens depends on individual corporations, and it's moving very slowly."

In England, parents with young children and those caring for sick relatives have a legal right to request flexible work schedules, without being fired or punished for asking. That can include matching work hours to coordinate with children's school schedules, job-sharing, going part time or concentrating work into certain times of the year or days of the week. Employers don't have to grant the request, but they must provide a reason for denying it.

England is now debating whether to extend this right to people caring for someone with dementia. Jeremy Hunt, the country's health services secretary, calls the increase in dementia care "a time bomb," predicting that the number of caregivers will grow by a quarter to 850,000 by 2020.

In this country, San Francisco's board of supervisors has passed the Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance. Beginning Jan. 1, workers who have caregiving responsibilities will have the right to request changes to their working conditions to meet those obligations. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and then Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan) sponsored national versions that failed.

Nationwide - or even corporate - policies are needed, Matos says, because many employees are reluctant to request time off for family obligations. It can be seen as the equivalent of saying one is not committed to the organization.

More employers will move toward offering flexible work to retain people, Matos believes, but that won't persuade every employer. "For generations," he says, "the marker of your commitment was that you were there at work."

Perhaps the 1 Million for Work Flexibility will change that. Surely, the need for families to care for loved ones isn't going away.

Successful nations de-emphasize school sports. Should we?

Parents are understandably distressed when U.S. high school students score badly in math, science and reading compared with kids in other countries.

There has been an endless series of seemingly fruitless education reforms here at home to deal with the gap. Now comes an intriguing approach based on the insights of U.S. exchange students who spent a year in some of the most successful high schools in the world - in Finland, Poland and South Korea.

Author and journalist Amanda Ripley followed three exchange students for her new book, "The Smartest Kids in the World - and How They Got That Way," and argues that a way to improve academics and help American students compete in the modern economy is to de-emphasize school sports.

Instead, the United States should bring its sports-like passion and intensity to academics, she concludes. "High school in Finland, Korea, and Poland had a purpose, just like high-school football practice in America," she writes. "There was a big, important contest at the end, and the score counted."

Sports are a distraction, Ripley argues, and most countries require them to take place outside of school. Trading in our school sports culture would require a huge change for Americans, who revere teamwork and sportsmanship as training for life. Whole communities are built around school sports teams, and colleges reward student-athletes with admissions and scholarships.

But playing down sports could pay off, as it has elsewhere, if we redirect money, focus and glory to learning.

One exchange student, Kim, studied in Finland, where she noticed that "the students here care more. They see how what they do now will affect them. It's more real to them."

Jenny grew up in South Korea and moved to New Jersey with her family for high school in 2011. She put it this way: "Kids in Korea have this thing inside them. They feel this necessity to study and get a good job and have a better life."

Finland ranks first in science, second in reading and third in math on the PISA - the Program for International Student Assessment - that's given to 15-year-olds. (The United States ranks 12th in reading, 17th in science and 26th in math.) PISA looks not at the test-takers' ability to memorize knowledge, but to reason and think critically.

South Korea ranks first in reading, second in math and fourth in science. Ripley is critical of memorization in Korean education, but she praises its high goals and the freedom students have to fail and recover through hard work - good lessons for American parents.

Too often, we don't ask teachers to give our kids harder assignments - and we're quick to complain about a failing grade. What's working elsewhere is to set ambitious goals for kids, and then allow them to discover that they have it within themselves to reclaim success from failure.

Each of the countries in "Smartest Kids" came to education reform after an economic crisis. Finland was losing jobs after graduating just 10 percent of its teens from high school in the 1950s. Today, the graduation rate is 95 percent.

Poland's wakeup came in 1999, as students consistently tested below average in reading. By 2009, they were outperforming U.S. students in all three PISA measures. In just a decade, Poland changed course, despite having similar levels of child poverty as the United States, and in spite of spending half the money per pupil.

Have the Great Recession and sluggish recovery been sufficient to persuade Americans to raise our school standards? We've tried so many "reforms" in education. Maybe what we need is a truly radical shift away from sports in favor of schooling.

A 2013 date - with 2016 in the air; speech just one stop in Hillary Clinton's still-busy public schedule

Hillary Clinton isn't a name that draws a halfhearted response. Most people have a distinct opinion, good or bad. So, it will be intriguing to see how she plays to a crowd of pre-eminent Long Island businesspeople tomorrow - a familiar audience of mixed political allegiances.

This is, of course, exactly the type of monied crowd Clinton needs if she runs again for president. Her talk isn't billed as a campaign speech. We are waaaaay too far ahead of 2016 for that, right? And it would be bad form for Clinton to talk about presidential ambition just a year into the second term of her fellow Democrat and former boss, Barack Obama. Not to mention that as a New Yorker, her governor may also covet the job.

Formal announcements aside, this event presents an opening for the recently retired secretary of state. It's an opportunity for her to reintroduce herself - four-plus years after stepping down as New York's junior senator.

Most of us know this woman, this leader, through filters - usually, the media, but also our friends and neighbors. Another filter was in the works until Monday: a four-hour miniseries from CNN Films and NBC. The Republican National Committee voted in August to boycott the networks during the presidential primary debates if the "Hillary Clinton infomercials" were produced.

CNN and NBC pulled the plug on the project this week, but said it wasn't the GOP's threat that scuttled the program, it was that Clinton and her aides refused to participate.

Given the acrimony from the RNC, it was probably wise of Clintonland to keep their distance. But I also have to wonder if Clinton isn't just a little weary of having herself explicated by the media, no matter how well-intentioned.

Here's what her husband, Bill, had to say Sunday on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." Speaking about "anybody" who runs for president next time, he said, "You have to have a strategy for presenting your true self to the voters in an environment where there are unprecedented opportunities for those who don't want you to win to paint a different picture of your true self."

How many people have written tell-alls about the "true" Hillary Clinton? I found a dozen books during a quick Internet search - not to mention groups like Citizens United, which produced an anti-Hillary documentary that led the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that corporations have free speech rights.

Meeting with audiences looks like a priority for Clinton now. Her speaking schedule is busier than an Affordable Care Act Web server. In September, she accepted a Liberty Medal from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and addressed the Greater Fort Lauderdale Convention and Visitors Bureau. She drew a crowd for a social services agency in Chicago and booked gigs with the Elton John AIDS Foundation and the Beth El Synagogue in Minnesota.

Tomorrow is her chance to tell New Yorkers what she saw and learned as secretary of state. The audience at the Crest Hollow Country Club is going to want to know her views on the crisis in Syria, Obama's rapprochement with Iran, the domestic surveillance controversy and the evolving role of the United States as the world's cop.

LIA members will want to hear Clinton's predictions on how health insurance reform will shake out. And there's a good chance she will mention her project to measure the progress of equal participation of women around the world, which she announced last week at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting.

Is she warming up the crowd for her next act - whatever that is?

The myth of 'takers' vs. 'makers'

This essay first appeared in Newsday.

An acquaintance of mine often rants about people who do no work and live on government handouts - while she has to work for everything she has. She runs a cash business, and I suspect her belief that the government supports lazy oafs is how she justifies hiding her earnings from the tax man.

Once, tired of her rants, I asked, "Have you met any of these people who live off the government? I haven't met anyone like that."

She mumbled something I couldn't make out.

My friend couldn't produce any examples because this vast population of "takers" is a myth. Yet this myth has hardened like a knot in the gut. Many of us feel we've lost ground financially since the 2007 economic collapse, and some find refuge in this politics of resentment.

The resentment often attaches itself to President Barack Obama, who has presided over these tough times. I hear it from doctors and others in health care who feel that Obamacare will squeeze their earnings. Another acquaintance told me that, as whites, my daughters will grow up second-class citizens in the majority-minority Obama world. Watch his immigration policies closely, this person says with a conspiratorial gleam.

When I counter with facts about Obama's record of deporting people here illegally and white Americans having fewer children, this acquaintance doesn't want to hear it. As social psychologist Jonathan Haidt so exhaustively argued in "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion," we humans intuit our opinions first - in our guts - and find reasons and arguments to buttress them later.

So it seems with the House Republicans and food stamps. The House voted last week to cut spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by $40 billion over 10 years, or 5 percent. Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) relied on a biblical passage from 2 Thessalonians to defend his vote: "If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat."

That's pretty harsh, given that households with children, elderly or disabled people receive 83 percent of food stamp benefits. Would we prefer these people to be out on the streets begging, as in so many other countries that don't have a social safety net? Hey, mademoiselle, carry your bag?

House Republicans like to say that the food stamp cost to taxpayers has more than doubled in four years, from $38 billion in 2008 to $78 billion last year. When he was running for president in 2012, Newt Gingrich called Obama the "food stamp president."

Those numbers are high, but they disguise other important truths. First, the food stamp program was structured so that everyone who qualifies can receive aid. Its growth has everything to do with the millions of jobs that were lost in the recession.

Second, many food stamp recipients do work. Unemployment is still high, and many people have taken part-time jobs or lower salaries. If they earn up to 30 percent more than the federal poverty level of about $30,000 a year for a family of four, they can combine their wages with the program benefits to put food on the table every day.

Finally, food stamp spending should eventually shrink on its own. As the economy improves, the Congressional Budget Office predicts, the number receiving benefits in the next decade will drop by almost 28 percent.

Is it really humane to grab food from people's mouths now? My gut tells me it's not.

Of course, the politics of resentment will whisper fables that lazy, cheating food stamp recipients are duping us. We may never know for sure, but I'm inclined to risk a little duping if it means that children, old people, the disabled and the working poor have a meal.

Don't believe the unemployment rate; joblessness is higher than government statistics say

The unemployment rate fell again in August, to 7.3 percent, down from 8.1 percent a year ago. Time to celebrate, right? That must mean 92.7 percent of adults are employed! Good times!

Well, not exactly. The unemployment rate only measures people who have actively looked for work in the past four weeks. It's a tremendously deceptive measure that ignores millions of discouraged and freelance workers, yet the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has been using it since the 1940s. In fact, the labor force participation rate - the percent of the U.S. adult population that has a job - isn't anywhere near 92.7 percent; last month, it was 63.2 percent, nearly the lowest level in 35 years. Good times?

The official unemployment numbers mask a couple of trends - one undeniably bad, but one potentially good. A significant group that isn't counted in the unemployment rate comprises people who've given up looking for work - so-called discouraged workers. Some aging workers have retired early and unwillingly, after finding that many employers won't hire people in their 50s, 60s or 70s. A friend in investment banking tells me he never runs into anyone older than 60.

With people living longer, those who retire before they're ready may not live as securely as they'd hoped. Few baby boomers can rely on a pension. Also among discouraged workers are the 4 million-plus who have been unemployed for six months or more. Between 1948, when the government began keeping these records, and 2009, this group had never numbered more than 2.9 million. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has called long-term unemployment a "national crisis."

Yet another group is discouraged college graduates who couldn't find work and went back to school for a graduate degree, hoping to return to the job market in better times. They're putting off doing many of the things that would stimulate the economy, like buying homes, cars - and Baby Bjorns. We need a better way to measure joblessness, so there is sufficient pressure on political leaders to further job creation.

Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders told MSNBC last week that talk of war in Syria is a distraction from our needs at home. "[The] truth is that a largely dysfunctional Congress has difficulty today focusing on the very serious issues facing our country: the disappearing middle class, high unemployment, low wages, the high cost of college, the decline of our manufacturing sector and the planetary crisis of global warming," Sanders said. "I fear very much that U.S. involvement in another war in the Middle East, and the cost of that war, will make it harder for Congress to protect working families."

Now, for the promised better news: There are many more people working than the Labor Department tallies. According to Sara Horowitz, founder and executive director of Freelancers Union, official numbers haven't kept up with the changes in the new workforce. Blogging at freelancersunion.org, Horowitz argues that the government ignores people who have abandoned the 40-hour workweek and instead work project to project. She estimates that 42 million people are independent contractors, nearly a third of the workforce.

This is, potentially, a very good development. It gives individuals more control over their time - hello, work-life balance. And companies may be more willing to pay project by project, rather than commit to hiring employees with all the attendant retirement and health benefits.

Good jobs with benefits are the ideal, of course. But even a freelance boom is better than a modest dip in a bogus unemployment rate.