Monday, November 02, 2009
1 Hacker originally meant “one who makes furniture with an ax.” Perhaps because of the blunt nature of that approach, the word came to mean someone who takes pleasure in an unconventional solution to a technical obstacle.
2 Computer hacking was born in the late 1950s, when members of MIT’s Tech Model Railroad Club, obsessed with electric switching, began preparing punch cards to control an IBM 704 mainframe.
3 One of the club’s early programs: code that illuminated lights on the mainframe’s console, making it look like a ball was zipping from left to right, then right to left with the flip of a switch. Voilà: computer Ping-Pong!
See "things" 4-20.
Friday, October 02, 2009
1 The average American eats 61 pounds of refined sugar each year, including 25 pounds of candy. Halloween accounts for at least two pounds of that.
2 Trick: Sugar may give you wrinkles via a process called glycation, in which excess blood sugar binds to collagen in the skin, making it less elastic.
3 Or treat: Cutting back on sugar may help your skin retain its flexibility. So actually, no treats.
See "things" 4-20.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Freud formalized the Oedipus Complex after treating a patient whom he called Rat Man, so nicknamed because thoughts of a rat preoccupied the patient. Whenever strong sexual cravings visited him, Rat Man conjured up an idea that a jar with a live rat was being strapped to his naked behind. The rat would use its teeth to tunnel through to his….
Perhaps Rat Man couldn't say it.
"Anus?" Sigmund Freud may have had to suggest.
"Yes. Thank you," Rat Man might have gasped in reply. We do know, anyway, that "anus" was the word upon which he settled.
In addition to longings (and fears) about a jarred rat, Rat Man hoped (and hoped not) that his thoughts determined peoples' fates. There was a third layer of anxieties and desires about unpaid debts and a fourth, too, and this is the one that formed Rat Man's psychoanalytic legacy. Rat Man told Sigmund Freud that he had wanted to kill his father. He told him that, again and again, he had imagined taking the jarred rat and strapping it to his father's backside whence the rat, once released, could tunnel through to his father's….
"Anus?" Freud may have again had to suggest to his verbally reticent and all a-quiver patient.
Anyway, somehow from the epiphany of such a clinical moment, Freud formulated the Oedipus Complex. All boys, Freud said after one year of analyzing Rat Man and two more years of thinking about him, want to kill their fathers and have sex with their mothers in the same way that Oedipus of Greek myth did and Rat Man of turn-of-the-century Vienna aspired.
That Freud had found no evidence at all that Rat Man wanted to have sex with his mother didn't figure into Freud's calculus. All that Freud factored into his ideas about Oedipus were two items from Rat Man's history. First, when Rat Man was six years old his father caught him masturbating and beat him in punishment. Rat Man was filled during that beating with murderous rage. The second item: Rat Man's account of his first sexual dalliance. At the moment of climax, Rat Man had thought, "But this is wonderful! For this one could murder ones father!"
"And one could, couldn't one?" Freud apparently thought.
Freud's own father was Jacob Freud, a wool merchant of no particular talent. After he went bankrupt, he moved the family from Moravia to Vienna, where he rented a series of increasingly dismal apartments in what had been Vienna's Jewish ghetto. Jacob may have been involved in a counterfeit scheme. Regardless, he was disappointing as a provider and protector, or so Freud remembered.
Freud's mother, Amalia, on the other hand, was a paramount protector, a lioness, and one of the great loves of Freud's life. She was beautiful, for starters, and willful, and she favored Freud (her firstborn son) over all of his siblings. Amalia was Jacob's third wife, about the same age as Jacob's sons from his first marriage. Writers have, for years, imagined the lust that Freud's grown brothers must have felt for their bodacious stepmother and the lust that little Sigmund, emulating the big boys, must have felt for the woman who pinched and pampered him so.
"For this one could murder one's father!"
Fathers Day is one year younger than the Oedipus Complex. Nine-nine years into its celebration, perhaps its time to wonder whether the Oedipus Complex is a universal male tendency that Freud identified or merely the abiding bathtub ring of Freud's own psyche. After all, the original Oedipus myth is about a young man who only inadvertently killed his father and bedded his mother. Never aware that he was abandoned by birth parents (King Laius and Queen Jacosta of Thebes), he loved and honored as parents King Polybus and Queen Periboea of Corinth, for they had raised him lovingly and instructed him so well that, as an adult, he and he alone could solve the Riddle of the Sphinx.
For the next ninety-nine Fathers Days, perhaps we could talk about a Polybus Complex when we talk about fathers and their sons. Actually, the conversation needn't exclude daughters. We could define the Polybus Complex as describing the immense love and occasionally ambivalent feelings that even the best fathers have for their children and the immense love and occasionally ambivalent feelings that even the best children have for their fathers. The Polybus Complex would be about fealty, forgiveness and the willingness of imperfect people to move on together in life.
Isn't that what we've been celebrating all of these Fathers Days, anyway?
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
1 The first celluloid roll film was developed in 1887 by Hannibal Goodwin, an Episcopalian minister from Newark, New Jersey.
2 In 1891 Thomas Edison’s company demonstrated the Kinetograph, the first motion picture camera, but never got around to creating a projector for playback.
3 Instead, the company acquired manufacturing rights to a machine called the Vitascope. One of the conditions of the deal was that Edison be credited as the inventor.
See "things" 4-20.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
More than a third of women seeking help in hospital emergency rooms report that they have been abused by intimate partners. So say the results of a survey by the Allegheny University of the Health Sciences. Interviewing almost 3500 women, researchers identified something that puts women at especially high risk of domestic violence: raising young children.
Anyone who’s been a parent can tell you that young children are only really perfect when they’re asleep—and that if there’s a short-fused temper in a house, the normal antics of wide-awake children might ignite an explosion. So learning that women with young children are in the high risk group for domestic violence doesn’t surprise me.
But it does concern me. Here we are, the year in the midst of an epidemic of school violence, pointing our fingers accusingly at TV screens as we try to track the epidemic’s cause. And here I am, wondering: When dad is hurting mom are the high-spirited children awake? Listening? Watching? What’s going on in the kitchen between mom and dad is probably way more interesting than what’s happening on TV. Do the children know? And if they do know, how many of them now accept violence against women as an ordinary part of everyday life?
I’m willing to bet that TV, computer games, and teasing all play a role in the school violence epidemic. But did you know that almost all of the children killed in the school murders last academic year were girls—and that all of the killers were boys?
- Norwalk, Calif.: A boy killed his 16-year-old estranged girlfriend.
- Jonesboro, Arkansas: Four girls died when a 13-year-old, with help from his cousin, set out to kill all of the girls who had ever broken up with him. That was his threat just the day before.
- Pearl Mississippi: Two girls died. According to a friend of the murderer’s, he had talked about killing one because she wouldn’t go out with him anymore.
By the way, the Allegheny University study reported another interesting finding: Women trying to end an intimate relationship are seven times more likely to be hurt by their partners. Last school year, of the eleven students murdered, ten were girls. And of the seven murderers, four were boys who seem to have been hunting specific girls; the rest of the dead may have been what military generals euphemistically call "collateral damage."
Do we know whether these four boys had witnessed violence between their parents? No. While we can safely assume that some of last year’s school murders were about romantic rejection, we can’t safely assume that any of the boys had learned violence at home.
But it does make one wonder about children in general.
Studies since the early 80’s have statistically tied witnessing family violence to violent behavior in boys. Interestingly, they have also tied witnessing family violence to "sitting duck" behavior in girls. According to the American Bar Association, witnessing family violence places children of both sexes at high risk of lifelong problems—the boys as offenders and the girls as victims.
“Home Schooling” I guess you could call it. But at the same time, many kids from violent homes do grow up to have healthy relationships. Why? How?
There are lots of good opinions from psychologists working with children of violence. One whose name I have long forgotten said something like: “If kids in these families are to keep from going crazy, someone in their lives—it doesn’t have to be a parent—has to be crazy about them.” It’s a simplistic analysis that ignores all sorts of factors, yes. But I love it. It suggests a course of action. And I, anyway, am grasping for ways to help.
Many children who witness violence are threatened by the abuser not to tell anyone, and they don’t. So if we want to help, we’ll have to let all the children in our lives know that we’re crazy about them. We’ll have to get crazy and stay crazy.
Children of violence often act out in ways that make them difficult to love. So, long-term, getting and staying crazy about every kid in town is not going to be easy. I hope we don’t just cut a wide swath of well-intentioned promises without any real follow-through. I hope we don’t ride roughshod in delicate situations.
And as much as we want to help, we will probably find that sometimes we can’t. Things conspire; fate wins. And when it does, we will be unbearably sad.
But if nothing else our lives and maybe the life of someone else will have been enriched by the happy lunacy of our actions.
And that, perhaps, will be something.
This was broadcast in 1999 as part of Vermont Public Radio's Commentary series.
family violence, sitting duck syndrome, cycle of violence, domestic violence
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Ben no longer does rugs. He still likes big noises, though—much more than I like them. He likes bangs and explosions. He loathes predictability. He wants to make sudden, full-body motions and to hunt big game and fish big fish.
I, on the other hand, detest big noises and love predictability. I want to type small words on a small computer. I don’t even eat meat much less hunt. If I were to fish, I would use plastic bait. So, at age 7, Ben no longer makes perfect sense to me. Quite literally he sometimes seems to be from Mars while I am from Venus. Already.
Ben does make sense to his father, also from Mars. Trouble is, his father is gone a lot of nights and weekends. Then it’s just me and two kids—the quiet, sensible girl and the loud boy. There’s no way around it; that’s how I react on some level, even though I try not to. On good days we laugh about it together.
Ben’s plight in our mother-dominated house has gotten me to thinking about boys in general. An increasing number of mothers are single moms. Do their boys grow up feeling from the get-go like Martians on Venus? If so, how many become toughs and miscreants, just in ego-defense?
Try as I might I can’t find scholarly answers to those questions. I have found studies showing that helping boys feel less alienated can keep them out of jail. The Cornell Consortium for Longitudinal Studies goes so far as to say that the earlier we help boys feel less alienated, the better—and that the best “boy-saving” programs link overwhelmed parents and children to community resources and supports.
Last Spring I was feeling both overwhelmed and shy on support. Ben was feeling boyish—you know, impulsive, impish, wonderful to watch but difficult to keep up with. And then he wanted to go fishing. He was crazy with desire.
See? I said “crazy.” What does that tell you about the intensity of his urge and the rigidity of my perceptions?
Out of blue sky, a community support appeared. The local gun club was sponsoring a fishing derby for kids. I don’t think I have to help you imagine what my let-me-be-alone-with-my-computer, knee-jerk reaction is to ideas like “gun clubs.” But at that point I was desperate to help Ben feel good about being a boy—and I liked the idea that someone from the gun club might bait our hook.
We showed up with a line and reel, my plastic worms, and some live worms of Ben’s. I quickly learned that fish don’t eat plastic but that they do love the rich smell of a freshly impaled member of the genus Lumbricus.
Ben—whose genetic material, after all, is 50% mine—had some trouble learning that fishing is not the same as hitting “enter” on a computer keyboard. There’s a lot of disappointed waiting involved. In fact, while kids right and left hauled in trout, Ben had to wait to catch one of the last fish of the day. A man I only know as “Mike from the Gun Club" showed Ben how to kill the fish and clean it. Mike did both the killing and cleaning with respect for the fish and with respect for Ben. And Ben noticed. In those very few minutes my boy saw in Mike that it’s OK to do guy things and that manliness can also be gentleness.
As we left I watched for a moment while one of the gun club volunteers worked patiently on fly fishing technique with one of our school’s young toughs. Mind you, that volunteer was a pretty big guy.
By the way, have you ever seen fly fishing? I hadn’t. It’s fantastically beautiful to watch the line whip and weave. As I watched the big volunteer and his tiny new pal practice their fly fishing I retired a few of my prejudices about fishing—and about gun clubs (though not about guns). I thought, “Thank goodness for men like that big guy and Mike. I even thought, “Long live the Putney Gun Club.”
This was broadcast in 2000 as part of the Vermont Public Radio "Commentary" series.
boys, mothers, single mothers, fishing, Venus and Mars, community supports, family
Monday, March 09, 2009
Où serions-nous, en tout cas, sans technologie de rayons X, Nystatin, le téléphone informatisé le système échangeant, le Snugli, le médicament luttant contre leucémie 6-mercaptopurine, Kevlar, les poupées de Barbie, Actar 911 (le mannequin CPR) et les sacs en papier chargés-plats? Chaque année, les centaines de milliers de femmes demandent et reçoivent un brevet. Pendant la période de vingt ans 1977-1996, environ 83% des brevets décernés aux femmes étaient pour les brevets utilitaires, 16.5% pour les brevets de design, et 0.5% pour les brevets d'équipement.
Les appelons les "mères d'invention." La décade après la décade quelques inventions créé par les femmes a aidé des autres femmes sur leur voyage vers l'émancipation. Par exemple, le Costume d'Émancipation de flanelle a été inventé par Susan Taylor Converse. Elle a reçu un brevet le 3 août 1875. Les femmes qui ont porté le Costume n'ont pas eu besoin de porter un corset. Par conséquent, ils ne se sont pas évanouis comme leurs "soeurs." D'autre part, quelques inventions créé par les femmes ont été utilisées par plus d'hommes que les femmes. Le Kevlar de Stephanie Kwolek est un exemple. Kevlar est une fibre. Par le poids c'est cinq fois plus fortes que l'acier. C'est la composante protectrice primaire dans les gilets pare-balles.
Certain des femmes qui ont inventé ont été l'équivalent femelle du geek mâle solitaire. Mais certains ont été des succès de ce monde. L'actrice de film Hedy Lamar a travaillé avec un partenaire pour développer un "Système de Communications Secret" utilisé par les forces armées pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale pour transmettre le code. L'actrice Julia Newmar a joué la Femme de Chat dans le film. Mais elle a aussi inventé le collant ultra-absolu, ultra-douillet.
Une des créations que j'aime le mieux est la "Maison qui se nettoie," conçu en 1915 par Frances Gabe. Chaque pièce avait sur son plafond un artifice qui a lavé et a séché les contenus de la pièce. (Tous les murs, les plafonds, les étages et les meubles dans la maison étaient imperméables.) Il n'y avait aucun tapis. Tous les étages étaient slanted. "Au fond" des étages étaient des trous. L'eau vidée dans ces trous et a été emportée par les pipes.
Un inventeur que j'admire particulièrement est Ada Lovelace. En 1843 elle a écrit un papier scientifique qui s'est attendu au développement de logiciel, intelligence artificielle, et musique informatique. Elle a aussi créé une méthode pour utiliser des cartes perforées pour calculer des nombres Bernoulli. Cela l'a faite, essentiellement, le premier programmeur informatique. En 1980, dans son honneur le Ministère de la défense américain a appelé sa langue informatique "Ada."
C'est tout. Ayez un magnifique Spécial Journée de la femme.
Ada Lovelace, Hedy Lamar, Julia Newmar, Kevlar, Spécial Journée de la femme, Système de Communications Secret
Monday, March 02, 2009
According to researchers at New York University, that family mystery will never be solved. That’s because the worst thing you can do to a memory is recall it. In fact, remembering is a “practice makes imperfect” kind of thing.
It was standard rat research: Phase I. Rats. A short tone followed by an electric shock. Rats learn that tone means shock.
Phase II: Same rats. Next day. Short tone. Rats still show fear even though they’re not shocked. Short-term learning has become long-term memory.
Phase III: Same rats. Same tone. Again no shock. This time inject rats’ brains with a drug that blocks protein synthesis. Do it at the very moment that they look fearful.
I know. Poor rats. But why the protein-blocking drug?
It’s an axiom of brain biology that memory is encoded indelibly when the chemical bonds between the nerve cells holding it are protein-enriched. The scientists wanted to test that axiom. Are the bonds really indelible? Are the memories? If protein bonds were indelible the drug that blocks protein synthesis would have no effect—because no new protein would be needed. If protein bonds need to be re-made each time a memory is recalled, injecting the drug would interfere with the memory.
Which brings us to Phase IV. Same rats. Same tone. Again no shock. But this time, no fear behavior. Interfering with protein production at the moment of a memory’s recall erases the fearful memory. Which, according to the scientists, means:
First, the physical circuitry of a memory changes when a protein is replaced. Memory is no more than circuitry. Change the circuitry, you change the memory. Second, at the very moment of recall, any long-term memory is lacking its protein-enriched bond. It is extremely labile. Any sort of present sensory input could get wrapped up in the memory.
Now what does all this mean to us bigger rats?
Every time you tell the story of your Uncle Ed’s Thanksgiving tumble, the memory itself is changed—and you are open to suggestions from others. Whatever your Aunt Ruth says can get seamlessly recorded in your brain as part of what you think is pristine memory.
Does this rat research shed any light on the argument about true and false accusations? Obviously. Families that have long debated the truth of certain accusations should realize that the more they try to remember what happened the farther they may be from knowing. And the more they talk about the mystery together the muddier things may become.
What about the supposed epidemic of false memories? Sorry. No illumination. This new research says that the worst thing you can do to a memory is to recall it. But the true and false memory debate was mostly about memories that allegedly lie dormant until they are recalled years later for the very first time.
In fact, studies show that about half of such supposedly “iffy” memories can be independently verified.
Truth or lies? Lots of people would like simple answers. But in old family mysteries, it’s actually getting tougher to tell.
This was originally a Vermont Public Radio commentary.
memory, remembering, brain research, laboratoroy rats, long-term memory, short-term memory, protein bonds, recovered memory, truth, lies
Back near the turn of the century, women responded to Freud’s warning by beginning a multi-generational, transcontinental tsunami of faked vaginal orgasms. Or so the lore tells us. But who cares anymore? Any supposed physiological differences between vaginal and clitoral orgasms were debunked in the 60’s by Masters & Johnson.
No one fakes it anymore. Right? Not. Sexual surveys conducted since 2000 place the incidence of fakery at between 51% and 73% for women (and slightly higher for Democrats than Republicans). At last, however, technology has caught up with the liars. Indeed, recent advances may have made faking orgasms both nearly impossible and completely irrelevant.
Item: As of September 2005, faking orgasms became much harder to get away with for people having sex in magnetic resonance imaging tubes. Neuroscientists from the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in Philadelphia declared ready for prime time their lie detection technology. Using functional MRIs that display changes in oxygen levels in a subject’s cerebral cortex, the scientists are almost always able to detect when test subjects lie about the identity of cards they are dealt. Now imagine this: A sexually as-yet unsatisfied woman relaxes near her spent lover in the MRI tube. Only moments before, hoping to fool him about the quality of his performance, she sang loudly, in soprano registers, of her pleasure. Now imagine that her lover asks, “Wow. So it was good for you, too?” Imagine that she answers, “Wonderful!” rather than, “Actually, no.” Were her lover to chance a look at the MRI screen, he would notice tell-tale elevated oxygen levels in the picture of her anterior cingulated gyrus and left prefrontal cortex. The gig, as they say, would be up.
Item: Another recent lie catching breakthrough is a P300-detecting electroencephalograph (or EEG) developed at the Brain Fingerprinting Lab in Seattle, Washington. The presence of the brainwave called P300 on this EEG’s readout denotes that a test subject is familiar with the details she has been asked to recall. Theoretically, therefore, the absence of P300 in the brainwave of an as-yet sexually unsatisfied woman would be telling. Immediately post-coitus, her lover might ask, “So, was it good for you, too?” But even a quick glance at her EEG would tell him that she has insufficient data with which to answer the question. That would be a disappointing performance review for him -- no matter how theatrically she may have tried to hide the truth.
Item: Faking orgasms is now unnecessary, as may be sex. An Orgasmatron has been developed by an anesthesiologist at the Piedmont Institute of Pain Management in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. It’s a box of electrodes that is implanted under the skin of either a man’s or a woman’s buttocks and that stimulates nerves in the spine. Triggered by remote control, the device lets lovers proceed from A to Z without dallying at B, L, or W.
Barbarella, watch out.
”What do women want?” Sigmund Freud famously asked shortly after he had announced that what women shouldn’t want is any stimulation of the bundle of nerve endings that actually produces orgasm. Freud readily acknowledged that he was not well-informed enough to answer the question he had posed. Now, 150 years after his birth, we still can’t answer the question in any but the most superficial ways. However, functional MRIs, the P300-Reading EEG and the Orgasmatron may be about to change all that. True, they probably won’t ever tell us what women really and truly want in their hearts of hearts. But they may give both men and women what they need: No way to lie, and no excuse to, either.
brain science, neurology, Sigmund Freud, hysteria, orgasm, lying, EEG, fMRI, R300, Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality
Friday, February 27, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
No. It's botched love.
According to the authors of a longitudinal study conducted at the University of Maryland in Baltimore, homicide is the leading cause of death in pregnant women. The study's authors reviewed 651 autopsy charts from the District of Columbia Chief Medical Examiner’s Office for cases from 1988 until 1996. They found that homicide accounted for nearly 43% of deaths among pregnant women.
The younger the woman the greater the risk.
Who's doing the killing? The study doesn't give clues. But when the Journal of the American Medical Association published the study, it ran an accompanying editorial that called non-lethal violence in pregnancy common. It cited other studies indicating that when any woman is murdered, 8 times out of 10 it is by her intimate partner. JAMA encouraged gynecologists and obstetricians to routinely screen pregnant couples for homicide potential.
Now, what is significant here other than the cold, scary facts?
When doctors worry about the leading causes of death in pregnancy, they should worry about more than just biological causes. Ditto, perhaps, for worry about the causes of birth defects. Because not only are 43% of deaths in pregnancy murders, 25% of pregnant women are physically abused while pregnant. (That last statistic is from the American College of Obstetrics.) With violence rates that high, it's hard to imagine that every birth defect is evidence of bad genetic luck.
Which leads me to ask, not entirely facetiously, whether being pro-life and pro-choice are one and the same.
It all has to do with the “life is sacred” point of view. You see, the violence and murder in pregnancy statistics make atrociously clear that sometimes a woman doesn't hear, "Great, Hon!" in response to "Sweetheart, guess what?" Think what you will about abortion. But especially for very young women, the only way to save a life -- her own life -- may be to make decisions quickly, privately, self-protectively, and in the nick of time.
This was originally a Vermont Public Radio commentary.
abortion, homicide, murder, pregnancy, pro-life, pro-choice
Saturday, February 14, 2009
According to a University of California, Berkeley study in the February issue of Political Psychology, when people learn about research findings that run counter to their own political beliefs, they doubt the conclusions. (That's to be expected.) What surprised the UC researchers is that people—particularly politically conservative people—often also question the researcher's objectivity. In the study, survey participants with conservative beliefs tended to attribute scientific data resulting in liberal findings to a researcher's liberalism. At the same time, they were less likely to conclude that conservative findings were due to a researcher's conservatism.
So that could explain why the Republican Congress was so slow to act on Global Warming, and why they got so explosively red in the face when they were accused of nattering on pig-headedly about the whole thing. It could also explain why Bush's White House self-righteously muzzled scientists in general on many issues, and smiled when they did so. And it also may shed light on a more recent hairy tussle between The Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Attorney General of Connecticut. From the Abstract of "Science, Politics, and Values: The Politicization of Professional Practice Guidelines" in Journal of the American Medical Association (Feb 11, vol. 301, #6):
"The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) issued updated clinical practice guidelines in 2006 for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease.1 Within days, the Connecticut attorney general launched an investigation, alleging IDSA had violated state antitrust law by recommending against the use of long-term antibiotics to treat 'chronic Lyme disease (CLD),' a label applied by advocates to a variety of nonspecific symptoms for which frequently no evidence suggests the etiologic agent of Lyme disease is responsible. The IDSA was forced to settle the claim to avoid exorbitant litigation costs, even though the society's guidelines were based on sound science. The case exemplifies the politicization of health policy, with elected officials advocating for health policies against the weight of scientific evidence. [Emphasis mine.]
Unlike Bush, Obama "gets" global warming. He also gets the need to put scientists in charge of the national debates on health, energy, and technology policy. But will Republican Senators and Representatives reflexively gridlock progress if and when scientists like our new Nobel-laureate Energy Secretary, with full transparency, lead the nation in ways that run counter to conservative political beliefs? Should we expect conservatives to assume that the nation's most eminent scientists are unscientific?
cognitive dissonance, conservatives, global warming, liberals, political psychology, politics, psychology
Friday, February 06, 2009
Jeanette is a miniature beagle, bred, I'm told, to ride in the saddlebags of horses on the hunt. Her "saddlebag equivalent," she thinks, is the front passenger seat of my Subaru.
For 12 years now, whenever my kids and I have driven away without her, her brain has seized with compulsion to join the hunt. Jeanette has chewed through her crate and a fancy French door in her efforts to reach us. She digs under fences. She wriggles out of leads.
On a hot day one summer back in her third year, I didn't put Jeanette in her crate when we all left for the town pool. I knew she'd chew through it anyway, so I left her outside. When she looked like she wanted to follow, I sternly said "No," put pedal to metal, and tried to outrun her with my car. Long after I thought we'd left her behind, we all felt a big bump.
“What was that?” the kids asked when I slowed the car to a stop.
With my eyes glued on the rear-view mirror, where I could see a small tri-color mass lying in the middle of the road, I blurted out, "I killed the dog". Well, not quite. I almost killed the dog. But with my pre-emptive announcement I did throw the children into a frenzy.
When I loaded Jeanette into my wayback, she was jerking her head, voiceless, an accusing jitter in her eyes. The children were not at all able to follow my suggestions that they not look and that they please quiet down and think wonderful thoughts to give Jeanette some peace. Kora, our 7-year-old friend, saved my sanity by suggesting that we all say, "Good girl, Jeanette." Ben, my 6-year-old, sobbed the phrase like a mantra. Katie, my 10-year-old, wailed it angrily. The vet’s office down the road was closed. I raced into town, through a senseless traffic jam, and on, frantically searching for someone who could help.
And as I drove, I heard Kora tell Jeanette that her white light was getting brighter. And then Jeanette started to whimper. Softly. Then loudly. The dog that I thought had seconds to live had some animation by the time we reached a vet. Soon enough she was home from a week-long stay in an ICU. By Week Two she had full control of the left side of her body and was gaining some control of the right.
Everything happens for a reason, right? Well, no—but I am relieved to paraphrase Samuel Clemens. "The reports of Jeanette's death were greatly exaggerated." And I learned a lesson, for which I am deeply grateful. As a parent, I am the leader of a small pack--the children (Katie and Ben), and Jeanette, our dog. Jeanette has taught me that a difficult pack member only gets more difficult if the leader gives up and fails to follow through on reasonable restrictions. Jeanette was, for the rest of that summer, quite literally my constant and well-deserved burden. (I had to carry her around in a baby sling). Things turned out that way because I had failed to contain her the way she needed to be contained. But because I learned my lesson well enough, my sometimes difficult children—now in their mid and late teens--will never suffer the consequences of my failing to say "No", mean "No", and enforce "No” ... no matter how strongly they rebel.
Because Jeanette escapes crates, fences, and leads, more than one friend has suggested that I rename her "Houdini." I won't. I may actually rename her "Consequences," though. "Consequences"--as in "We reap exactly what we, in our equivocations, sew". In flights of fancy I stand on my back porch each night, gratefully calling my "Consequences" home.
This was originally part of the Vermont Public Radio "Commentary" series.
family, pets, beagle, children
Monday, February 02, 2009
1 Fade to black: On February 17, television stations will broadcast only digital signals, ending the run of the TV system used in the United States for the past 55 years.
2 The digital television signal can transmit pictures composed of up to 1,080 lines. That’s a long way from the first TV, demonstrated by John Logie Baird in 1926. It used just 30 lines to create a coarse image.
3 Baird’s television looked like a peep-show device, held together with scrap wood, darning needles, string, and sealing wax. His invention was partly mechanical, relying on a spinning metal disk with a spiral of holes to chop up images for transmission.