blogs: Let's talk about family life 

Those of you who remember bylines -- and God bless you -- may remember when Gardiner Harris (now of The New York Times) regularly graced the pages of The Courier-Journal. As a cops reporter, and then as the Eastern Kentucky reporter, Harris was one of those rare journalists who managed to bring both sophistication and grass-roots sensibility to his work. Now, his first novel, "Hazard" -- named after the town where he was stationed in Eastern Kentucky -- has hit the bookstores. Released this week by Minotaur books, in hardback, the book received a coveted "starred review" from Publisher's Weekly, which called it "top-notch" and described it as an "engrossing mystery-thriller." The book tells the story of sudden mine flood that kills 9 miners -- and the investigation that turns up more than was expected. I've not yet read the book, only started it, and any review I offered would be suspect, given that Gardiner is a friend and former colleague of mine. But BookBrowse.com notes the following reviews: "The quiet authority of Harris' prose and his singular knowledge of an esoteric subject make this a suspenseful and informative debut, despite some predictable plot elements." - Kirkus Reviews "Starred Review. His intriguing debut will appeal to mystery fans who want to learn about the reality behind the headlines." - Library Journal Those are great reviews for a new fiction writer and people who love books, and who love Kentucky, should be pleased with this literary development.

ADD A COMMENT

I'm one of those people who actually looks forward to getting the Census form. I know it's goofy. I also liked taking tests in school. There's something about a long list of questions that I find satisfying. But then I got my Census form yesterday and it struck me as sort of .... inept. I'm not one of these anti-government types who thinks all governmental enterprises are boondoggles. Watching corporate endeavors at even a marginally involved level has convinced me that the federal government has no patent on incompetence. At least when the "government" screws something up, we get the chance to vote the bums out afterward. We don't have to read in the news about their big bonuses. So in general, when it comes to government screw-ups, I pick my battles and accept that all human endeavors are imperfect. But come on. Is this really the best they could do? There appears to be significant problems with the first TWO questions. Which seems troubling, given that they've had 10 YEARS to perfect the forms. And I got the short form, which basically has only four questions to begin with. (I'm not counting things like listing birthdates as questions.) The form starts with some general info. It explains, for example, that you should count all people living or staying in the house, including babies. (Who wouldn't count babies?) It further instructs you NOT to count people who are away at college, in the Armed Services, in a nursing home or in jail. Ok, fair enough. I can see where people would be confused about whether to count little Billy, who is away at UK. So with those simple instructions, we're off: "How many people were living or staying in this house, apartment, or mobile home on April 1, 2010?" Ok. If you leave aside the issue that April 1st hasn't happened yet, that question appears fine. (Of course, that's a fairly big issue to leave aside. Are they assuming that everyone is going to hold on to the census form for two weeks? Because if I do that, I'll lose it or forget about it. But if I mail it off right now -- horrible as it is to think about -- there is a chance that the form will be inaccurate. I don't know how many people will be living here on April 1. I have a pretty good guess, and I hope and pray that I'm right. But in the course of the entire nation, lots of people are going to die between now and then -- or move out, or get sentenced, or moved into a nursing home, or decide to run away. Someone else in my family might have some sort of misfortune that requires them to move in with me. Populations are constantly in flux -- we know that. You have to pick a day and run with it. But shouldn't you pick a day that has already happened? Rather than asking people to make a prediction about a day that has not yet arrived?) But that's not my big issue. My big issue comes with the second question. "Were there any additional people staying here April 1, 2010 that you did not include in Question 1?" Huh? It told me to include everyone, so why would I not have included some people? It makes me think I must have misread the first question, or the instructions. So I reread both. But I quickly discover that I read them correctly the first time. I notice then that the second question gives examples of the sort of people who you might not have included. "Ah," I think, "this will explain it." The first example: "Children, such as newborn babies or foster children." WHAT? It specifically told me to include children, including babies, in the first question. Do they think maybe I gave birth between answering the first and second questions? Or do they think I may be so obstinate that I simply refused to count children in the first question, despite being told to? I suppose that's possible. But in that case, would the pressure exerted by a second printed question really make me cave in and admit the truth? All I can figure is that they threw in the second question to try to "catch" people who were too incompetent to answer the first question correctly. But in doing so, they only made the form confusing to everyone. The form then asks if I rent or own. (As if there is a meaningful distinction at this point.) and if I've paid off my mortgage. And then, it asks for my phone number in case my answers manage to be more confusing than their questions. And that's it. The rest of it is a list of the people living in the house and their pertinent demographic info: age, race, sex. The Census does not even attempt to understand the relationship of all the people in the house to each other -- but only asks for their relationship to the first person listed. This means that I list myself. Then I list the nice guy who lives here with me. They ask if I'm married to him, and I say "yes." Then I list the cute little people who leave their Legos on the floor. The form wants to know if they're my biological children. I indicate that they are. But they never ask if my current husband is the father of my kids. Obviously, you can't assume he is. Now, in some regards, I suppose, it's no one's business. But if you want to get a snapshot of how people live today, the number of kids living with both biological parents seems at LEAST as interesting as whether we've paid off our mortgage. (Because there are SO many people who have!) Why? Why? Why can't we do better than this?

ADD A COMMENT

	Liz Wynter #322763   wed mar 17 2010 at 10:05 am         ·  My favorite part was that last week, we received a letter stating that the census would be arriving this week. Other than wasting lots of money and paper, what was the point of that?
	Right_in_KY   wed mar 17 2010 at 10:29 am         ·  I started getting Census material in early January. One was a multi-page form with all sort of questions about my house - number of bedrooms, whether or not I had running water, electrcity - how many cars I owned, how many televisions - etc. I thought it was extremely invasive. Then there were questions about my race - which I was so tempted just to write in big letters - AMERICAN - and be done with it. I looked through it and realized it would probably take an hour or longer to fill out - so I trashed it. Two weeks later I got a phone call from the Census - asking me questions that were on that long form. I suffered through a 25 minute phone conversation - much of which was very repetative in nature, asking me not only of my race, but of my ancestory. As with many Americans - I've got blood from probably most European countries, from England, France, Germany and then some. Throw in a little American Indian and how am I supposed to answer. Again - what's wrong with AMERICAN? Supposedly the short census form is like 10 questions and seems a little more reasonable. The purpose of the Census was for a headcout in order to draw up legislative boundaries. Why the government needs to know how many bedrooms I have or if my water heater is powered by gas or electicity is puzzling. Well - unless the motive is to find reasons to justify increasing certain entitlement programs.
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 17 2010 at 10:33 am         ·  Exactly what entitlement programs are based on how many bedrooms you have? Why does everything have to be some liberal conspiracy?
	Rick Redding   wed mar 17 2010 at 10:35 am         ·  i think my issue with it is that I just don't believe it will be anything close to accurate, and that the government is spending so much money on it. That, and the dependence on the U.S. Mail. Seems the Census should be ripe for some vast technology upgrade.
	DavidsonDuke   wed mar 17 2010 at 10:44 am         ·  Some of the questions do seem invasive, but the census is used as the most comprehensive demographic study in the U.S.--the data is prized by social scientists and government offices. It is not entitlement programs, but about getting an accurate picture of American life each decade. The extra letters, tv ads, and such that appear to be quite expensive are ways to increase the participation % before the really expensive measure is taken: door-to-door by hourly wage workers. I, too, wonder how technology could have been used more effectively. The census has become more of a political football lately (largely because congressional districts get re-drawn as a result and demographic trends are not kind to Republicans), and that results in inertia in methodology.
	J.S. Holland   wed mar 17 2010 at 10:48 am         ·  In principle I have no problem with the census, but what really gave me pause this year were the words that cooperation was REQUIRED BY LAW, printed on the envelope in big unfriendly letters. In my head anyway, I still live in a country where people are free to say "none of your @#$%* business" to nosey questions unless we're on trial.
	Right_in_KY   wed mar 17 2010 at 10:53 am         ·  Housing information will be used to compile stats such as the number of Americans living in substandard housing. If a family of six is living in a two-bedroom home - that will be considered substandard housing. In some cases, some would even label that family as being labeled 'homeless' - and all those figures will be used to justify more government spending. If you think differently - you're simply naive.
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 17 2010 at 11:02 am         ·  Right in Kentucky -- Fine. I'm not going to discuss it with you. If you insist that anyone who disagrees with you, even in the most mild way, of being naive. Rick.... I am in favor of non-paper, electronic communication in almost all aspects of life. But I think that in the case of the Census, the use of the mail actually does make "some" sense. You're trying to tie people to an actual geographic spot on the ground, and our mail address is the only thing that really does that. I mean, I don't feel really strongly about this issue, and if they decided to do it another way, I wouldn't get bent out of shape. But I can kind of understand the thinking of approaching people by each address. It's not like they have a way to email us and tell us to report in, since there's no directory that links our email address to our physical address. (This makes sense in my head, but as I'm reading it, I'm not sure it does!)
	Right_in_KY   wed mar 17 2010 at 11:06 am         ·  Beverly - you accused me of reading into the census a conspiracy and I never suggested that. It's not a conspiracy - it's just how government works - regardless of the administration. How many news reports and government studies will start with the words "According to the latest census figures..." and then will go into detail about some great need that government poses the cure for. The Census should be solely a head count. It shouldnt matter what color my skin is, what heats my water or what I drive to work or how many miles I drive to get there (maybe that's government's way of measuring my carbon shoe size?)
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 17 2010 at 11:14 am         ·  I apologize. I didn't mean to be "accusing" you of being a conspiracy theorist. I honestly thought that was what you were saying, when you said: "the motive was to justify entitlement programs." I just think the inertia (to use DavidsonDuke's word) is a better explanation. The fact is that the way people heat their water -- I'm taking it that this was a literal question you got -- is never going to be used for any sort of entitlement program, neither is the distance of your commute. I generally think that if we're going to go to the trouble and expense of doing the census, we might was well get some widespread demographic info, but I've got mixed feelings about it and guess, if pressed, I'd come down on the side of anything other the headcount (and probably age) being voluntary.
	J.S. Holland   wed mar 17 2010 at 11:16 am         ·  I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of why we even need a basic head count. I mean, who cares? Each city already knows how many people live in it. The IRS knows how many people pay taxes and how many dependents they claim. If a few people are "off the grid" and slip through the cracks and don't get head-counted, I don't think it's the end of the world. Maybe for some aspergian statisticians it might be.
	Right_in_KY   wed mar 17 2010 at 11:19 am         ·  No problem Beverly. I'm not a anti-Census guy. I feel it's my duty to respond to the Census in the fact that a headcount is warranted. But information beyond that I think can be invasive.
	DavidsonDuke   wed mar 17 2010 at 11:35 am         ·  One reason for the census is that it is required by law to establish congressional district boundaries. IRS records to not give an accurate accounting of population (and besides, if you want to get into invasive, how would folks respond if you started using tax/financial info in the census). There have been proposals to do the census much more cheaply by sampling instead of an every person headcount. These efforts have been opposed by Republicans because numbers of the poor/immigrants, etc. rise if you do a sampling. Since less settled folks are harder to "find," their numbers are lower in an actual headcount than if you use social science methods to estimate the population. As well, the methods for estimation become a political football, so the default is the total headcount.
	Right_in_KY   wed mar 17 2010 at 11:40 am         ·  Why not just do another "Hands Across America" event - supply everyone with a Coke - and then do a head count starting in Maine and ending in San Diego? Each person would state their name, age and address and then the next person would go. I figure Coke could provide the drinks for .25 cents and the event could be finished in a few hours and a minimal cost to taxpayer.
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 17 2010 at 11:55 am         ·  But what about the PEPSI drinkers? ;-)
	Right_in_KY   wed mar 17 2010 at 11:56 am         ·  See how catering to diversity all the time can ruin any perfect plan? lol
	Tin Knocker   wed mar 17 2010 at 12:08 pm         ·  I thought at first I should wait until april 1st to answer and mail. But I
	Tin Knocker   wed mar 17 2010 at 12:11 pm         ·  Damn hit the wrong key and off goes an incomplete reply. I thought at first I should wait until April 1st to answer and send. I then read the part that said to fill it out and mail it today. The government wants everyone to lie about it obviously and thus sets the stage for innacuracy. Government is run by complete incompetents.
	J.S. Holland   wed mar 17 2010 at 12:56 pm         ·  "Why is it if the government asks these kinds of questions about home size, race, income, etc. its an invasion of privacy?" Because "privacy" means, by definition, something that you want to keep private. If someone says it's nobody's business what religion they are, or how many cars you own, that should be their right. It doesn't matter that the information isn't "important" or doesn't really change everything. It *doesn't have to make sense*. What someone wants to keep private should be their business. It isn't an "invasion of privacy" to ask nosey questions. But for many, it is when you mandate nosey questions by law.
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 17 2010 at 1:06 pm         ·  I really am a moderate on this issue, I think. So I'm not really disagreeing with you, J.S. But I do think there is a caveat in that you don't have a reasonable right to "privacy" about anything that is obviously not private to begin with. What kind of car I drive is obvious to hundreds of people who encounter me every day. And the size of my house is "roughly" obvious to anyone who knows me, as is my race. I don't know how much sense there is in having a big government survey to tabulate that info, but I also think I can reasonably feel like my privacy is invaded by being asked about it. Other things, like salary, are considerably more private, I would say. I'm not really arguing with you ... although I realize it may sound like I am. :-/
	J.S. Holland   wed mar 17 2010 at 1:24 pm         ·  "you don't have a reasonable right to "privacy" about anything that is obviously not private to begin with. What kind of car I drive is obvious to hundreds of people who encounter me every day." Agreed, but that's not the kind of information we're talking about.
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 17 2010 at 1:35 pm         ·  I'm sorry. You said "how many cars" -- not what kind. But I still think that's reasonably apparent to anyone who is observing me -- plus is a matter of property tax records.
	DavidsonDuke   wed mar 17 2010 at 1:53 pm         ·  Some further thoughts. There are two distinct pieces being administered this year by the Census Bureau. The first is the standard census that sets congressional boundaries, etc. The second is the American Community Survey. This is the one with the "intrusive" questions. Only a random sample of households receive the ACS--everybody receives the census. From a sociologist friend of mine: "The ACS is a survey administered by the Census Bureau so that the American people can know what the American people are like. The bureau has had to change some of its methods over the last several years (pre-Obama), and I believe the ACS is part of that shift. You may freak out, but don't do it about the Census Bureau (which doesn't exactly connote "excitement" in my mind). Keep in mind, too, that the Census collects no info about religion. Such surveys provide the only ways that we can make national claims about who Americans are, what they're like, and what they do." You can learn more about the ACS at: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/
	J.S. Holland   wed mar 17 2010 at 2:47 pm         ·  I haven't looked at the current census form yet. They may have simplified it now, but they DID used to ask what religion you were, and many other obtusely nosey questions.
	DavidsonDuke   wed mar 17 2010 at 2:52 pm         ·  I don't know about the census form, but the ACS doesn't ask religion. There's actually a fascinating story (to me) that links Kentucky, the census, and the creation of a Christian denomination.
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 17 2010 at 3:15 pm         ·  Do tell! (Also, for what it's worth, my short former census does not ask about religion.)
	DavidsonDuke   wed mar 17 2010 at 3:25 pm         ·  If you insist. The largest revival in U.S. history took place in Cane Ridge, just outside of Lexington around 1801. At the time Lexington was KY's largest city, about 1500 residents. 20,000 per day were gathering in Cane Ridge. The leaders of the revival were Presbyterian ministers, Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone. But the Presbyterians, predictably, found the extreme forms of piety unsettling (in addition to practices that would look Pentecostal to us--Pentecostals didn't exist until a century later--folks did things like barking like dogs in their spiritual excitement). So the Presbyterians and these two ministers parted ways. So part of this revival experience was the rejection of denominations. So instead of calling themselves Presbyterian or Methodist, they decided to call themselves by New Testament names--names they took literally: Church of Christ, Christian Church, or Disciples of Christ. During the mid-19th century, census workers went through Kentucky and Tennessee asking for people's religion. People affiliated with the movement that Campbell and Stone began would answer honestly: they were members of the Church of Christ, or they were members of the Christian Church, or they were Disciples of Christ. 10 years later the census from comes out and listed right there with Baptist and Presbyterian are the Church of Christ, etc. So, American church historians say that the U.S. census "created" these "denominations"--i.e., Southeast Christian.
	DavidsonDuke   wed mar 17 2010 at 7:51 pm         ·  Okay . . . so it wasn't THAT interesting.
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 17 2010 at 9:21 pm         ·  Hah! No, no, that was very interesting. I was just preoccupied for awhile.... Although, I don't think Southeast Christian is part of the "Christian" denomination... Thanks for sharing that DavidsonDuke!
	DavidsonDuke   wed mar 17 2010 at 9:55 pm         ·  That's the whole point. It is part of that tradition--"no creed but the Bible, believers' baptism, and the weekly sharing of the Lord's Supper are some of the markers. It is a loose organization, and SE has blazed its own path a bit, but it is part of the Campbellite tradition. But they would resist the term denomination. It can be hard to talk about since the movement, by its very nature, resists being described in sociological categories. The term Campbellite is sometimes considered offensive because it implies that they follow a particular human leader. Nonetheless, that is the tradition from which Southeast Christian comes. No doubt.
	DavidsonDuke   wed mar 17 2010 at 10:03 pm         ·  If you go to http://www.christianchurchtoday.com/ and use the locator, Southeast will show up.
	Strawberry Burns   wed mar 17 2010 at 11:56 pm         ·  Beverly, some people need things spelled out for them more than once. Any repetitiveness on the form is necessary I'm sure. (I can give you some of my ex husbands relatives for examples of why things need repeating if you want though.) Right- AMERICAN is not a RACE. It's a NATIONALITY. (I had to explain this same thing to someone the other day who was wanting to mark it OTHER and put down Confederate.) If you are a legal citizen then it is assumed that your nationality is American, this is why you don't see a question asking what your nationality is. Some of you are missing the SMALLER pic here. State and local governments also use Census Data. So say if an "invasive" question asks what is the average time you leave for work, the reason behind it is so your local government knows how jammed their roadways are during rush hour and can base the need for federal funds to help expand their roadways. For every "intrusive" question there is a logical and important reason it's asked. There's water supplies and electric grids, etc. to think about. It should also be taken into account that we have grown A LOT as a nation, and with it the role of the Census has had to grow too. A simple headcount just isn't enough anymore. Wow Right! You "Suffered" a whole 25 minutes?! Seems a small price to pay for a road to drive to work on to me. And yes, entitlement programs are one of the reasons for the count. Damn wussy government caring about the homeless! How dare they!
	Strawberry Burns   thu mar 18 2010 at 12:41 am         ·  The Census Bureau HAS made many tech advancements Rick. GPS plotting, GIS programs created specifically for the 2010, use of satellite imagery, vast computerized data bases. At any given time during the day I can have close to 10 different programs and satellite imagery in front of me on my 2 monitors. WE ARE THE WORLD STANDARD as far as censuses go. We have people on the ground in Kenya as I type this helping them to pull together a census for their country. Are we capable of mistakes? Yup! But an operation of this size is no easy task. We do our best. Beverly, about kids in college, people in the military, etc.? There is a separate "group quarters" count that is a part of the Decennial operations. We worked our asses off tracking down shelters, group foster homes, assisted living, and other types of group living situations. And Rick, we did that via internet research. Use of the internet for Decennial research is one of the tech upgrades I talked about. The US mail still remains the cheapest way of doing the Census and as already pointed out it is tied to the need for knowing geographic locations. I have a figure to compliment Duke's statement about spending money in hopes of saving money in the long run. Every 1% increase in form return SAVES 85-90 MILLION dollars!!!
	Beverly Bartlett   thu mar 18 2010 at 10:02 am         ·  I understand that repetition is needed in almost any form of mass communication. Or even just in my household, apparently! ;-) But there are clear ways to repeat things and unclear ways. The clear way is to, after question one, say something like: "Please look at question one and make sure you included all people, including babies, etc." That would be repetitive, but clear. The way it's done makes you think there might be some legitimate reason to exclude people and it's confusing... At least it was for me. (Luckily in my case, I didn't have any remotely close calls, so I didn't worry about it too much.)
	Right_in_KY   fri mar 19 2010 at 9:22 am         ·  As stated before - I'll gladly answer questions about where I live, how many are in my household and inquirees that pertain to getting an accurate population count - but that is where the Census should start and end. There tax-payer funded Media blitz makes it clear that they think the purpose of the media is to determine how to fund big government. Who needs roads? Who needs schools? Who needs hospitals? etc. That's not the purpose the founders had for the Census - and those questions are answered by demonstrated need, not just numbers. The Census has become a tool of big government - which is why there is backlash.
	Strawberry Burns   fri mar 19 2010 at 5:29 pm         ·  The founders were living in a much different time and America was a much different place when the Census originated. To assume what they would feel about the Census, knowing that they had no knowledge of our modern day society, or what America is like right now, or what it needs is about as far from reality as it gets.
	Strawberry Burns   sat mar 20 2010 at 2:15 am         ·  Secretary Locke addressed several questions that have been raised here during his visit to the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/267812/thu-march-18-2010-gary-locke

At a time when many gyms boast of hosting "boot camps" to get the out-of-shape into shape, the actual Army is changing it's actual boot camp to something that looks like an "ab blaster" class, according to an Associated Press story this morning. In the first major revision of standard boot camp training since 1980, the Army is dropping five-mile runs and bayonet drills for exercises that they believe might better train a sedentary generation for the conditions of modern warfare. (I gather they don't use a lot of bayonets anymore in actual wars. Also, they don't usually run five miles.) For example, instead of long distance running, new recruits will focus on sprinting in a zig-zag pattern. Yesterday, I noted that I'm not a doctor and don't play on television. That disclaimer goes double for being a soldier. But I covered Fort Knox (where the new standards are supposed to start being used this month) as a reporter, and specifically covered a Marine boot camp at Parris Island once. Even just observing the first few hours and days of boot camp is an unforgettable experience, so I can imagine that the going through it is truly life altering. Maybe not for people who were in incredible physical shape to begin with, but for most people. I bet there will be a lot of "old-school" observers who decry these changes and undoubtedly they will have some points. Speaking as non-runner, non-soldier, non-fit person, I would think that even if you don't actually run five miles in war, being ABLE to do so might speak to an overall level of fitness that is valuable. But, on the other hand, it's a little hard to see how bayonet drills would help. I, for one, will just trust our military leaders to make this decision. You?

ADD A COMMENT

	J.S. Holland   tue mar 16 2010 at 11:00 am         ·  Personally, I wouldn't trust "our military leaders" to make a cup of coffee, but the zig-zag sprinting actually IS a beneficial and sorely-needed spruce-up (They've already been doing it in Special Forces for years). I predict the new wars will be soon fought entirely with drones, anyway, and the actual soldiers will be more of a clean-up-the-mess force after the squawking's over. Which means that physical fitness isn't as important as reflexes, marksmanship and alertness.
	Mysanthropyc   tue mar 16 2010 at 11:40 am         ·  Naw. War has been, and will always be brutal, bloody, and face-to-face. No matter how much we spend on drones and wonder-weapons, boots-on-the-ground will always be the staple of any army, from Rome to present.
	Beverly Bartlett   tue mar 16 2010 at 12:35 pm         ·  I'm not anti-zig-zag sprinting, which does sound like a good idea. I just thought the long distance running would also be useful. The prospect of drone-only war is kind of depressing to me. Then it will be less-risk politically to go to war, but higher-risk for the civilians of whatever country is getting attacked.
	Right_in_KY   tue mar 16 2010 at 12:36 pm         ·  I went through basic/AIT at Ft. Knox in 1984. We ran two miles every morning and did a five-mile run on a few occassions during the 14-15 weeks I was there. Never saw a bayonet. I think the military has softened a lot over the years, and not all for the better. Our defenders need to be mentally sharp and physically strong. Future wars my be fought with drones and long-range weapons - but they won't be decided until blood has been shed. Defeat comes by surrender and surrender comes by submission. Few will submit to a drone - but by the physical occupation of an advancing army of men - which most often will wage real war with those who oppose them.
	J.S. Holland   tue mar 16 2010 at 12:58 pm         ·  "I think the military has softened a lot over the years, and not all for the better." I totally agree, but it's been going on over the course of a century. I suspect that in a time-travel hand to hand combat smackdown, the U.S. Army of 1918 could mop the floor up with the U.S. Army of 2010. (However, I also suspect that the men who fought the Revolutionary War could open the proverbial can on all armies that have followed since.)
	Beverly Bartlett   tue mar 16 2010 at 1:45 pm         ·  Is that really true? I always thought that soldiers of yesteryear were supposed to be sort of rag-tag -- you know, guys who were half deaf from untreated ear infections, people who walked funny because of broken bones that weren't set properly, 14-year-old kids. Now, they weren't FAT and certainly had some mental toughness, but when I picture a Revolutionary War soldier, I don't really imagine someone that could take on a modern Marine in hand-to-hand combat all that well. But.... all my former disclaimers... apply.
	Right_in_KY   tue mar 16 2010 at 2:46 pm         ·  I think soldiers of old were tougher than today. Not as big, some maybe not as strong as some of the bulky ones of today - but there were plenty of 'country-strong' men - those raised on farms, who worked the factories - who labored with their hands under conditions that our generation simply whines about. Just the barracks in the Army have changed. When I was at Knox - we were in brand new quarters - complete with air conditioning - our meals were pretty good and we were really treated pretty well. Those who trained a few years before me were in WWII-era housing (which I stayed in at other times) and they get cold in the winter and hot in the summer. Maybe a good analogy is the game of football. Today's players are bigger, faster and stronger - but those of yesteryear were tougher. They lost teeth, wore leather helmets and limped around with broken bones. It's still a dangerous game -but I think you had to have a tougher shell to play the game a few decades ago than you do now.
	J.S. Holland   tue mar 16 2010 at 2:53 pm         ·  Yeah, but that's just the point - men back in the day were tough enough and stubborn enough to fight with broken bones, walking pneumonia, malnutrition, frostbite, what have you. Speaking as an old hillbilly myself, who has seen pure rustic old-school stubbornness and gumption kick the livin' tar out of splenda-drinkin', videogame-obsessed whippersnappers with biceps the size of canned hams, my money's on tenacity. The Viet Cong had tenacity. That's why they won.
	J.S. Holland   tue mar 16 2010 at 2:56 pm         ·  My previous comment was directed at Beverly. Yeah, for once "Right_in_KY" and I agree 100% - there's strong, and then there's old-school yesteryear COUNTRY strong, and the whiners of today don't have it and can never get it.
	Beverly Bartlett   tue mar 16 2010 at 3:28 pm         ·  I think people in general -- soldiers and non soldiers -- are more pampered today than they were 100 years ago. Consequently we complain about things previous generations wouldn't even think to complain about. (It's cold in the winter. It's hot in the summer. My TMJ is acting up. And so forth.)I don't know that that is the whole story. I mean: "So beaten down by pain that I stopped complaining" is not exactly a mental state to strive for. To be clear, I'm not completing disagreeing with you all. I'm not about to suggest that I'm as tough as a pilgram woman, for example. And the "country-strength" thing -- I've heard it referred to as "man strength," meaning you get it from life not from the gym -- I think there is something to that. But when compared to 200 years ago, today's army is better educated, healthier, and just more sophisticated (knowing how to play psychological tricks on themselves, etc.)I'd never want to bet against one of the Americans at Valley Forge, certainly. But I think if you read their letters they did complain AND, the thing is, I wouldn't really want to bet against our current soldiers either. When I covered them at Fort Knox, they were an impressive group of people. I don't think you can judge them because ... you know, they complain when the air conditioner breaks. I do that myself. Doesn't mean I couldn't muster up some toughness in a situation that called for it.
	Right_in_KY   tue mar 16 2010 at 3:37 pm         ·  Sure there was complaining at Valley Forge - just as there surely was in the Ardennes Forest in 1944 and on the Battan Death March. Human suffering breeds complaints. I'm also sure that many of today's soldiers would fight side by side with their counterparts of yesteryear and show just as much bravery - but I do wonder about the overall toughness of the common soldier. Of course - this story is about whether or not that toughness is needed today as it was back then. Apparently military leaders think it's not quite as important to have your troops able to run 5 miles. And maybe they're right. I think the toughness that will get soldiers through the worst battles is just as much mental than it is physical. I read about Daniel Boone not long ago - how he survived on his own in the wilderness that was Kentucky for nearly a year waiting on his brother to return with supplies. He was low on ammo and powder, had to live day to day like "Man vs. Wild - lol" and battled the elements, wild animals and constant threat of Indian attack or capture. Think of his toughness - not just physical - but struggling through lonliness, fear, uncertainty - but yet he did it. I shake my head at that kind of toughness and just wonder how he made it.
	VeggieMomster   tue mar 16 2010 at 4:30 pm         ·  I gotta say, no one without tenacity joins the military. And, regardless of his generation, some lazy ass kid has signed 4 years of his life to the government to be SHOCKED about what he found upon arriving at boot camp, or at war. Now, I haven't signed up, myself, because my pansy ass couldn't hack it, but my brother, who suffers PTSD from his service in Afghanistan is one bad ass MF, and is now a border patrol agent who often runs for *hours* to hunt down drug runners who flee on foot. I've gotten a little bit away from my point, but anyone who joins the military has more gumption than any regular citizen. But, depending on one's military job, many sit at computers now. Times change, so isn't it like comparing tangerines to oranges?
	Right_in_KY   tue mar 16 2010 at 4:33 pm         ·  Times do change - most certainly. And maybe the tasks of all military occupations aren't as physically demanding as others and in other eras - but our troops need to be prepared. Tangerines and oranges are different, but both are subject to being squeezed.
	shadowknight   tue mar 16 2010 at 7:51 pm         ·  Thank God for the Marines,
	Myfriendpain   tue mar 16 2010 at 10:27 pm         ·  The Army's new PT program has actually been in practice for about 3 or 4 years. It was designed by soldiers and for soldiers and intended for use on a daily basis. A person's body cannot keep up with the same hard exercises every day. Sooner or later the muscles will simply give up. The new program was intended to maximize the workout on select muscle groups and each exercise should only be used once or twice a week and never twice in a row. For example, Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays a unit may work on stamina and upper body cardio. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, abs and muscle mass building exercises may be implemented. Every unit has it's own PT schedule to suit their own needs. A Tank unit, for example would work harder on muscle building and strength training while a dismounted infantry unit would focus more on stamina and cardio... You get the point. As for the 5 mile runs that civilians think are a big deal, it's nothing. When I was an enlisted instructor at Knox, we would sometimes run ten or more miles in one session, which was FAR more than any trainee ever ran while I was there. Even those "motivational runs" were uncommon and are still implemented today. Any soldier will agree that their is no substitute for a good early morning run. They are great for building stamina and boosting the cardiovascular system. However, any doctor will tell you that there are not many exercises worse than running, especially on the paved roads found on most military installations. The problem with it is the constant high impact strain on the legs, knees and ankles. The new program concentrates more on low impact and resistance training so there are less injuries incurred in garrison and more soldiers are available to take the battlefield. Yes, the military is softer than it was 100 years ago, however that does not mean that it is any less prepared for combat. Back then, people marched for days to a battlefield only to be cannon fodder. The weapons were not nearly as accurate and the odds were against the soldier living after being wounded. Infections ran rampant and the importance of having a healthy immune system greatly affected survivability. Today, through the use of antibiotics and medical science, most soldiers who are wounded in the line of duty will live to fight another day. Few soldiers ever even march into combat due to the use of helicopters and armored personnel carriers. The zigzag run is far more effective because
	Myfriendpain   tue mar 16 2010 at 10:32 pm         ·  I got carried away. The rest of the entry shouhld read: ...The zigzag run is far more effective because it makes you harder to hit and the soldier will not be running for as long before finding cover. The straight line, long distance run is still important, but not in the same sense as it was then. I for one think it's about time someone took a better look into the broken system and improved it. For those who think the program is for softies, try it for 90 days and I promise you will be in great shape.
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 17 2010 at 7:53 am         ·  Right In Kentucky, I share your interest in those sorts of "survival stories." Absolutely fascinating. I'm reading "The Lost City of Z" right now and just amazed by the experiences of those in the Amazon -- most of them weren't alone, but being with people adds its own challenges. My friend pain -- first, let me say it amuses me that the person saying a five mile run is "nothing" has a name like "My friend pain." Hee. I assure you it would be a rather big something to me. But seriously, I really appreciate your perspective on this. It's nice to hear from someone with recent and relevant experience!
	truejager1   wed mar 17 2010 at 8:30 am         ·  As to the comment about the Viet Cong winning because of tenacity. That is not why they did not win. I was a history major in college and really U.S. history. I was also a soldier. Vietnam was lost because of two things. First, was the fact that you forced people to go over and fight a war they did not believe in. Second, you don't go into a place half assed. If you are going to go to war, dont call it a police action. There is a reason that the U.S. does not loose to often. We have an Army made up of volenteers. What better people to fight than one who is willing to put his life on the line.
	truejager1   wed mar 17 2010 at 8:39 am         ·  As for the toughness of the past vs. present? Take a look at how we raise children. No longer allowed to disipline our children because of CPS! We over indulge our children because we did not get every thing we wanted growing up! You can not compare those of yesterday to today. We have handcuffed parents and everyone in general. You wonder why teens are the way they are today. You can not be an 18-20 yr old and think that you can raise a child. I have a 2 yr old and I am 36. I have seen the world and what war is like. Lost many close friends to. My only hope is that I can raise my son as well as my father did with me and my four siblings. I agree there is disipline and abuse, but you can not tell me that time out works all the time. Sometimes foot to ass is needed. Back when I was still in school, principles to still give wacks as a form of punishment. Just my thoughts on the toughness of past vs. present.
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 17 2010 at 9:42 am         ·  Trujager, you raise some interesting issues about Vietnam. But I've vowed to speak up when people make statements like this about kids that I find wrong. It is absolutely not true that CPS keeps you from disciplining your kids. It keeps you from BEATING your kids, yes. But if a parent can't figure out a way short of beating (or even hitting) to discipline a child, then that's the parent's problem not CPS's.) When I was a kid, there was a hot headed teacher with a paddle that was always threatening people with it and making a big show of how much he valued discipline. His class was NOT more conducive to learning than the other classes -- it was less.
	truejager1   wed mar 17 2010 at 9:50 am         ·  I agree that CPS does serve a purpose. Beating a child is wrong. I grew up with a mother and a father that both would spank anyone of their 5 children for wrong doings. They raise 5 children that none had drug or alchol problems, no teen pregancies, and none that have done jail time. To be able to say that in the 80's and 90's is a feat in itself. I had a women say something to me for lightly tapping my son on his diaper in public because he was thowing fit and screaming. I am a big guy and could really hurt him, but he barely moved. I told her that 1. He is my son and I will disipline him as I see fit 2. I did not really hurt him. 3. He stopped his screaming in public. I dont think anyone has the right to tell us how to handle our children. While I agree that abuse is very wrong, there is a time when a child needs to be spanked. The point I was making is to compare soldiers of yesterday to today cant be done. The way we raise our children is different.
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 17 2010 at 10:09 am         ·  That's true. Our children are raised differently in any number of ways. I mean, if you go back -- not that long really -- children had to be responsible in ways they just don't know. They were picking cucumbers, or whatever, and if they missed a bunch that directly affected the family's ability to survive. Parents had to be a bit more demanding in that situation.
	Humbug   wed mar 17 2010 at 11:45 pm         ·  Back when i was in BCT in 2007 at Ft Leonard Wood, we didn't have the zig/zag running. There was bayonet training mostly useless due the fact there wasn't enough time spent on the subject. Same for Modern Army Combatives, four hours was not enough time to learn. Speaking of the bayonet the Corp pulled a charge in 2004 in Iraq, the British Army had a few incidents before they pulled out of the theatre also. We had five days of Basic Rifle Marksmanship, the Marines on the other hand had twenty days worth of B.R.M, combatives and easily five or more days of bayonet. Keep the standards high, lengthen BCT a professional volunteer force needs to be sharp. No "Stress cards" and no DSG saying 'please'. http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14911 http://www.blackfive.net/main/2004/05/friends.html http://defensetech.org/2010/01/29/bayonets-hit-the-mark/
	truejager1   thu mar 18 2010 at 8:31 am         ·  You say that parents had to be a bit more demanding in the past. I will agree, but why not today? We should not cheat our children of what made our country what it is! Granted our children dont have to work the fields to help the family or get a job at 13. But instead of giving them everything they want, make them work for it. I was not given my first car. I had to work, help maintain the cars that my family had, and I was involved with sports. My father did not feel he had to give me anything. I have never thought I was entitled to anything. I knew if I wanted something I had to work hard and sav! Just my thoughts.

Food allergies appear to be on the rise -- and no one knows for sure why. Time magazine reported last year that the number of hospitalizations for food-allergy issues had more than tripled from the late 90s to the late 00s. And few families remain untouched. If you are fortunate enough not to have a serious allergy in your family, the issue has probably been brought home to you in other ways -- by bans on certain foods at your child's day care to the challenge of finding snack foods to share with your child's soccer team or elementary school class which are suitable for a wide range of allergies. So entering the market is Ooh La La! Bakery, a bakery started by two local mothers with experience dealing with the issue. The bakery will be holding a open house next week, Saturday March 27th. See details at the link above. The website says that all products made by the bakery use local ingredients and are completely peanut and tree nut free. They can also accommodate other allergies, upon request. (I think a lot of local bakeries would actually be quite willing to do this, but the degree of confidence you feel about the follow-through may vary a bit.) Owners Anastasia Weis-Cullen and Stefanie Wheeler decided to open the bakery, according to their website, because of their own personal experiences with the food allergy issue. Wheeler's experience is similar to mine. According to the website, she grew frustrated in being able to find safe baked goods that she could feel truly confident about when offering them to her child's friends and classmates with allergies. Weis-Cullen's experience is more direct. She has two children with food allergies, one of them so severe that minor cross-contamination at a factory could cause a life-threatening reaction. She began baking almost everything herself to ensure her child's safety and it became a passion for her. The website says she is currently completing her Professional Baker's Diploma as part of Sullivan University. Thanks to improved labeling the whole issue has gotten much easier in recent years and the children I know with food allergies are remarkably nonchalant about saying no thanks to cupcakes, brownies or other class treats that they aren't sure about. (It's a reminder that children are highly adaptable.) Still, when you're having a birthday party or other event it's nice to be able to offer all the children the same item. As a side note, I had to throw in this observation. I hate it when people use statistics in an inaccurate way to belittle people's concerns, which is my perception of what is going on with some of the stats in the Time magazine link above. While the story on the whole seems reasonable, I think it's bogus to compare the number of deaths from food allergies to the number of deaths from lightening strikes. Sure.... lots of stuff can kill you. But everyone has an equal chance of being struck by lightning. Not everyone has an equal chance of dying because they failed to realize the difference between Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios. It is perfectly reasonable for the people in the latter category to feel anxious about their child's safety.

Photo from Ooh La La!'s website

ADD A COMMENT

	Beverly Bartlett   mon mar 15 2010 at 1:06 pm         ·  I think this is a really interesting theory.... I have been trying to avoid the antibacterial soap for years and find it far harder than you would think. It's ridiculous! People have been saying for years that it's a bad idea and they still keep cranking it out. Having said that, I think the food allergy issue has to be a bit more complicated. It seems like a lot of kids are diagnosed with serious food allergies when they're a year old or less -- it just seems unlikely to me that antibacterial handwashing soap is the cause of that. Although.... in the interest of full disclosure and to no one's surprise ... I am not a doctor and do not play one on t.v.!
	busy busy mommy   mon mar 15 2010 at 3:04 pm         ·  Much like Bev, I am not a doctor nor do I play one on TV... But I have to agree or at least lean toward what Bragi is saying based on my own personal experience... With my oldest daughter, I did everything by the book, sanitized every pacifier, gave her a bath every day, waited to feed her adult food until the 'appropriate' age... Guess what, said daughter is an asthmatic who is allergic to more things than I could type on here with dairy products being at the top of the list... With children number 2, 3 and 4 I decided to let things be a little less stringent... If a pacifier got washed it was because it fell in the dirt, they got real food as they came out of the womb (okay maybe a few weeks later), and I bathed them when they were actually dirty... Guess what, none of those kids are ever sick or have a single allergy (that I am aware of)... I also don't use antibacterial soap or sanitizer unless it is just all that is available... I am glad that these ladies have addressed the issue with food allergies and will likely try out their bakery in the near future...
	celtic gurrl   mon mar 15 2010 at 5:22 pm         ·  When I was pregnant with my first child I was in the UK and read a pregnancy magazine. I followed it's advice, which if it worked-great, if it didn't- no harm done. In it, they said that babies immune systems were not mature for at last a year and during that first year, not giving them eggs, can lower their chance of developing asthma and eczema (something that runs in my family)and that no peanuts or derivatives would reduce their chance of developing an allergy to them. If you are breastfeeding...avoid these same foods while breastfeeding. You have to be exposed to something and then you develop an allergy upon repeated exposure...you are not born with allergies. To date..my children are happy and healthy and have no food allergies.
	Beverly Bartlett   mon mar 15 2010 at 7:28 pm         ·  Not eating nuts while pregnant or breastfeeding seems like a good idea to me, based on the limited reading I've done. I don't think it's the whole issue -- so I certainly don't want women to feel like it's their "fault" because they had a snickers bar when they were pregnant. There are clearly a lot of factors involved. But... I don't see how it could hurt. Also, if nothing else, it builds your empathy for how hard it is to go through life trying to avoid some of these common foods. I can't tell you how many times I was in a restaurant where I couldn't get a salad that didn't have nuts! (I mean, I could just ask them to hold the nuts, but if you actually had a life-threatening allergy, I'm not sure you'd feel very secure about that option.)
	Sherry Deatrick   mon mar 15 2010 at 10:13 pm         ·  The cause is genetically modified soybeans. Plus, the antibacterial craze probably contributes because of the weakened immune system. I've done quite a bit of research on this issue and there's a direct correlation between the rise in GM soy and children's food allergies to legumes especially. I recommend this book: The Unhealthy Truth: How Our Food Is Making Us Sick -- And What We Can Do ... By Robyn O'Brien, Rachel Kranz -- for a detailed explanation of how this theory works
	KTT Laura   mon mar 15 2010 at 11:59 pm         ·  My husband was born with a food allergy, BORN with it. You say they can't be born with it? Yeah, they can, if it's genetic. It's two recessive genes that you generally get from both of your parents, much like your blue eyes or dimples. Lactose or gluten intolerance is from birth and is genetic. Anti-bacterial soap doesn't have anything to do with it and makes me laugh that someone would think that.
	Beverly Bartlett   tue mar 16 2010 at 9:19 am         ·  I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but I think most of the theories assume that there is a genetic component -- some people are more likely to get food allergies than others. But that certain things can "trigger" the genetic tendency or not.
	Hottie Lovelace   tue mar 16 2010 at 5:46 pm         ·  10 years ago, my baby would have been diagnosed with having colic, not as being lactose sensitive. I'm sure that due to genetic and environmental reasons, that the numbers are rising. But I also feel that some small portion of the rising numbers of kids with food allergies is due to the leaps and bounds made in medical diagnostics every year.
	Beverly Bartlett   wed mar 17 2010 at 7:47 am         ·  I think you're right Hottie -- again, it's not the whole picture. But I think some of these things just never got diagnosed before. Remember when they used to just refer to children as "sickly" -- that was the diagnosis. "Sickly." (I "remember" this from books. I'm not that old!)
	Hottie Lovelace   wed mar 17 2010 at 9:55 am         ·  God, I love to hear those words. Now, if I could just get a man to say it =)