Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

Some years ago, way back when W was the president (lower case p intentional), shortly after 9/11 (don't even get me started on that subject. I mean it.), there was a contest announced on NPR. Actually, I don't really remember if it was on NPR. But since it's almost all I listen to, I'm figuring. I also don't remember if it was a joke or not. I'm thinking now that it must have been, but my recollection is that it wasn't, which is just mind-blowing. Whatever it was, despite the fact that I never do these sorts of things, I entered.

The contest was for a motto for the then-newly-formed Department of Homeland Security, a title that I abhor, by the way. I'm still shaking my head years later that we have a branch of the government that uses the word "homeland" to refer to our country. Did any of these people ever read a history book? I'm quite certain that none of the people who thought this up are Jewish. Or maybe they know all about the allusions, and are just fascist wannabes (or worse). It still makes me bristle.

In any case, they were having a contest for the new agency's motto. You know, to engrave in stone over the entrance of the building in DC, to plaster on the literature (maybe on the back of the dig-a-hole-in-the-ground pamphlet that we're bound to see revived one of these days), to put on the official seal to be made into patches for the arm of the uniform of all those highly efficient security screeners at airports. Like this one at the entrance to the US Supreme Court, which reads "Equal Justice Under Law" (cough cough)


Or like this one, which reads "Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds"

Okay, so it's not Washington D.C. And it's not even the USPS motto. But it's engraved and grand and motto-ish and all. You get the idea.

Just so you don't sit in nailbiting suspense, I'll tell you the winner. The Department of Homeland Security's motto is:Preserving Our Freedoms, Protecting America. Riveting.

Or... it might beVigilance. Service. Integrity. Depends who you ask. Also riveting

My idea was so much more to the point. I wrote in and suggested the following:

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

I still think it shoulda won. It's clear. It's to the point. It's honest. I don't know what's the matter with these people. Stodgy, all of 'em. Men.

It's okay. I'm over it. They're gonna listen to me one of these days.

As you might have imagined, there actually is a reason that this contest-that-was-never-really-a-contest entered my head on this day, catapulting me into sweet reminiscence about the role of fear in American culture. I bet you didn't imagine that the reason would involve a bathroom stall. Neither did I. But there it is.

Today, I was in the bathroom at the local Stop 'n Shop (just so you can make an accurate entry in your log of where I stop to go to the bathroom....you're welcome), which I've got to say is damn clean for a grocery store bathroom. Some of 'em are downright horrendous. And they are kind enough to have one of those fold-down diaper changing tables that I was very grateful to have back in the day. You know, the ones with the handy little slot for the custom tissue paper covers to protect the little butt from the grossness of the plastic surface--the slot that never, and I mean never, has anything in it. Have you ever seen one that has covers in there? Why do they keep making a slot?

Oops. Sorry. Veered off there. But while I'm off on this side road, has anyone else ever noticed that the sliding locks on many bathroom stall doors are made by a company called "Hiney Hiders" (and engraved as such)? Can you believe there's a company with that name?

Hey! Engravings! I am keeping with the theme!


Screeeeeeech! Okay. Back on track.

So there I was, glancing over at the diapering platform, and among all of its warnings and reminders (damn lawyers), I see the following graphic (and I mean graphic):



Stars and impact zone and everything. Don't you think that's just a little bit over the top? Wouldn't it be sufficient to have it say "Never Leave Baby Unattended"? Or "Falls can Occur: Never Leave Baby Unattended"? Or even just a picture of a baby teetering?

I ask you, what mother out there can tolerate, even for a second, the mental picture of a fall direct onto a tiled floor, much less one which involves the head as the first point of contact, without wincing? I know, that's the point. Scare 'em into being careful. Scare the HELL out of 'em into being careful. I don't even have a baby anymore, and the picture is still bothering me hours later.

I mean, if we're going to do this, maybe we should have similar signs on all other products. How about a little baby drawing like this that is colored blue on all items that might cause choking? How about a little baby drawing with a pool of blood underneath it attached to all bicycle car seats? You think I'm going over the edge here, taking a perfectly good warning to its ridiculous extreme. And I am, but isn't this all a little absurd?

Unfortunately, promoting parental anxiety (not all that different from fear, mind you) seems to be a theme. In browsing the app store for the Iphone in recent days, I find that the hot new apps are tools that you can use to monitor and record exactly how long and at exactly what time your baby nurses, how many peas she ate (because you are counting, aren't you?), her level of Vitamin D exposure (i.e. outside playtime), and endless other record-keeping options clearly designed by people who know a whole lot more about coding and software than they do about babies and parenting. One of them was even listed as one of the Top 10 Apps for Parents by Time Magazine in their recent article. Oy.

I've worked with babies, young children, and families for more than thirty years, and there has not been a moment when I have thought that scaring the hell out of them or sending their anxiety into the stratosphere was the way to ensure good parenting and child safety.

But hey, that's just me.

The United States of Reactivity

Just goes to show you how much I know about the country in which I was born and raised, and in which I have always lived (despite that stint in Hawaii, during which time visitors would always refer to their lives "back in the states"). I thought that the motto of the United States was E Pluribus Unum ("Out of many, one"). Silly me. I don't know what I was thinking. How could that be the motto of the United States if it doesn't have God in it? (smacking myself on the side of the head) No. The motto of the United States is--you guessed it--In God We Trust.

If there's one good thing that has come from doing this blog every day (and I'd like to think there is more than one), it has got to be that I've looked up a lot of things in the course of trying to write. In my research on this one, I discovered that I wasn't quite as stupid as I thought. The original motto of the United States, established in 1776, was E Pluribus Unum (ha!). It was changed in 1886, and wasn't on paper money until...get this...1957 (and on all denominations only since 1966). A lot of God got added to all kinds of stuff (like the pledge of allegiance) in the 50's. It was that kind of time.

You might say it's that kind of time again. But you'd be wrong. It's a different kind of time.

So with that in mind, I am proposing a new motto for the United States of America, one that more clearly illuminates the guiding principle that Americans live by and by which our government runs. Here's my idea. I'm thinking we should change it from

The United States of America: In God We Trust ..... to:
The United States of America: Closing the Barn Door after the Horse is Out.

Whaddya think? Good, huh?

I know. We're going to need new money that reflects our true values. Don't worry your pretty little head about it. I'm one step ahead of you. Just for you, a sneak preview (click on it and you'll see it closer up*):

Ya see, it has seemed to me, for years now (and if I pay attention, it seems to me pretty much every day) that that's really our belief, our modus operandi, our way of life.

Today, I heard on the radio that there has been a new law enacted in Massachusetts that requires drivers to slow down when there is an accident or a car that has been stopped by police (i.e. for speeding) in the breakdown lane. This is what our legislators have been working on. This law came about because, in the last year, three state troopers were killed when drivers plowed into them or their vehicles while they were in the breakdown lane. Of course, there is no denying that this is a terrible thing to have happened. But we need a new law to tell us to slow down? Who is the genius in the legislature that thinks that these three accidents would not have happened if only there had been a law on the books telling them to slow down when there was a State Trooper car pulled off to the side? Give me a break. Wouldn't it make more sense to put more energy into ticketing the hundreds (thousands?) of Massachusetts drivers who drive disrespectfully in general, who ignore basic existing traffic laws and speed limits, and who demonstrate on a daily basis that they feel that the laws don't apply to them? Every day, on the highway that I take to work, countless people drive in the breakdown lane, to try to get around the congested areas. This is clearly illegal, as when there is a police car nearby, some of them invariably get ticketed. If a much larger percentage of them got ticketed, that might help, no? Sure seems like it would help more than this law might--and this is the sort of place where such a tragic accident could easily occur.

Better yet, how about forgetting about ticketing altogether, and implement a curriculum and a parent education program that teaches children about being respectful of others and being aware of the people, space, and goings-on around them? The other night, I was at an event at my daughter's school, and there was a show in the gymnasium. All the kids were sitting on the floor to watch, and a group of us parents were also sitting on the floor behind the packed mass of children. Now Phoebe goes to a good school with patient teachers, attentiveness to social and emotional development, and with a reputation for kind students and more-aware-than-average parents. At the show in the gym, my hands were stepped on, my legs were kicked, I was bumped into, at least 20 times as kids maneuvered to get to where their friends were seated on the floor. And what I experienced wasn't an eighth of what I saw kids going through, being stepped on and pushed aside and having to adjust their personal space to accommodate a child who just decided that he or she had to sit in a particular spot (where there clearly was no available floor space). I didn't hear a single "Excuse me", even when parents were the ones being stepped on. In 5-7 years, all of these children will be driving. Isn't this where it starts? Teaching our children, at more impressionable ages, that being aware and considerate of those around you--including eye contact (heaven forbid) isn't only a "courtesy" but is a necessary part of civilized community? Isn't it possible that such an education program--or better yet, an increased parental commitment to demand such behavior out of our children--might have more of a long term effect on those state trooper accidents than passing a law that imposes a $100 fine? Oh. Right. I forgot. We don't do long term effects.

And it goes on.

There's a shoe bomber on an airplane. After that, we all have to take off our shoes when we go through security. Forgive me, but you'd think that we'd figure out that that trick has already been tried (and foiled, by the way), and that next time it might be something new that (gasp) we haven't thought of. But no. Take off your shoes.

There is some sort of incident with a liquid explosive on airplanes. After that, we can't take a bottle of water on a plane anymore, and we have to take only little tiny containers of toiletries, and not many of those at that (and did anyone else notice that they started charging for luggage at the same time, so it's not like you can put the other toiletries in your suitcase and just carry on a few things...everything's gotta fit in that ziploc bag....and did ziploc underwrite this effort? Hmm, I say. Hmm).

There's a huge government bailout of corporations and when huge bonuses are paid to employees of those corporations, we take up precious legislators time and energy crafting a bill to tax the recipients (as opposed to paying attention to restricting such things in the bailout process, that is).

And one of my favorites...the still ongoing security inspections of the trunks of every single car that enters Terminal B parking at Logan Airport in Boston, which is where the 9/11 hijackers' car was parked. Don't get me wrong. It could be a perfectly reasonable idea. But it's ONLY in Terminal B parking. Not in Central Parking. Not in Terminal E parking. Only in B. And the logic here is...?

We simply do not believe in preventive action. We do not believe in proactivity. We believe in waiting for things to happen and then changing what we do to try to make sure it doesn't happen again. And maybe it doesn't. But something ELSE does...why is that so hard to get? Then we can stop doing the something else, at least until a third thing happens.

I sound judgmental. Damn right. I don't get it.

*The latin inscriptions around the barn are: Pervenio Laxus, which means "React Later", and Parum Quoque Tardus, which means "Too Little Too Late".