Stay-at-home dadding: Turns out I'm a trendsetter

You wouldn't know it from Fitler Square, where I'm often the lone daddy in a sea of mommies and nannies, but it turns out that stay-at-home dadding is increasingly common:

Among fathers with a wife in the workforce, 32 percent were a regular source of care for their children under age 15, up from 26 percent in 2002, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today. Among these fathers with preschool-age children, one in five fathers was the primary caregiver, meaning their child spent more time in their care than any other type of arrangement.

I'm lucky, in that my career and skills make it possible for me to earn money while staying at home with my son. It's an economic no-brainer on one hand: Child care is frickin' expensive, and my staying home while writing subtracts that cost from our burdens while still letting me make enough money to pay the rent.

And I'm also lucky that I get to spend so much time around my son during his formative years. My dad was a hard worker: When I was young he was in college and worked full-time, and after he graduated he was on the road a lot; I got plenty of fathering, believe me, and everything he did was in the service of supporting his family. But I also know that I've had more of a chance to watch my son grow than he—or, really, all but a few men of his generation—ever did. There's a tradeoff: I'm not getting rich or skyrocketing to the top of my profession right now. Often, though, I wake up these days with my 3-year-old son climbing into bed with me and throwing his arms around my neck. It's a privilege to receive that and earn money, I realize. I might as well enjoy it.

A death blow for printed magazines

News from the United States Postal Service:

Unprecedented cuts by the cash-strapped U.S. Postal Service will slow first-class delivery next spring and, for the first time in 40 years, eliminate the chance for stamped letters to arrive the next day. 

The estimated $3 billion in reductions, to be announced in broader detail later Monday, are part of a wide-ranging effort by the Postal Service to quickly trim costs and avert bankruptcy. They could slow everything from check payments to Netflix's DVDs-by-mail, add costs to mail-order prescription drugs, and threaten the existence of newspapers and time-sensitive magazines delivered by postal carrier to far-flung suburban and rural communities.

According to the story, periodicals could take up to nine days to reach their destination through the mail. Which should pretty much destroy printed magazine subscriptions.

Maybe not all of them: If you subscribe to one of those Home and Garden magazines, it probably doesn't make much difference when you get them. But if you read something even a little time-sensitive—The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Time, etc.—you're running out of reasons to stick with print. Digital subscriptions will keep you up to date just fine.

Tim Tebow's ostentatious faith

National Review's Mario Loyola tries to get to the bottom of why Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow annoys people so much, and concludes: "People aren’t upset at Tebow’s God talk. They’re upset that he might actually believe it."

Meh. Tim Tebow doesn't bother me one way or another, though I admit to finding his success this season rather fascinating. (And I'm not really a football guy.) Nonetheless, when I see his ostentatious displays of faith on the field, I'm reminded of some old gospel verses: 

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Guy named Jesus supposedly said that. But I'm sure Tim Tebow knows better.

(Photo from Tebowing.com)

Buskers are not the problem at Washington Square Park in New York

In New York, the city is busting buskers for violating an obscure rule against "vending" near monuments:

The department’s rule, one of many put in place a year ago, was intended to control commerce in the busiest parks. Under the city’s definition, vending covers not only those peddling photographs and ankle bracelets, but also performers who solicit donations. 

The rule attracted little notice at first. But the enforcement in Washington Square Park in the past two months has generated summonses ranging from $250 to $1,000.

I've actually spent a little time in Washington Square Park, and if there's a "commerce" problem there, it really isn't the buskers: It's all the open-air drug dealing. There's nothing subtle about it. And there's something both misguided and embarrassing about a municipal government that would focus on cracking down on folk singers and mimes while leaving the dealers relatively undisturbed. Seems to me the latter pose the far greater threat to the quality of life in the park and neighborhood.

Siri is just a crappy doctor

My PhillyMag editor Erica Palan loves her new iPhone 4S, but she's not worried that Siri won't point her to the nearest abortion doctor:

When I asked Siri where I could get a Pap smear nearby, she didn’t understand. She was similarly confused when I asked her where I could get a mammogram, a colonoscopy and a prostate exam. Also, when I told her I had a broken hand, she asked for an email address instead of recommending hospitals or doctors. When I asked for advice for my bunion, she responded, “I don’t know what you mean by Bunyon. [sic]” After wondering who could fix my toothache, Siri asked me to provide a contact name. She’s not pro-life. She’s just not a very good medical professional. 

Siri doesn’t know how to correlate the names of specific medical procedures to nearby results. Ask Siri where the nearest Planned Parenthood is and she instantaneously provides addresses. She also suggested 16 gynecologists in my area. Ask her for an emergency dentist and she serves up search results within seconds.

The rich aren't so different from you and me, politically

When the party leanings of independents are taken into account, 57% of the nation's wealthiest adults associate themselves with the Republican Party, compared with 44% of the "99%." At the same time, Gallup polling finds little difference in the two groups' ideological views. Among the very wealthy, 39% say their political views are conservative, 41% call themselves moderate, and 20% liberal, similar to the percentages seen among all others.

via gallup.com

But even if their self-identifications are similar, that doesn't mean their priorities—and their ability to press for those priorities—is the same. Lots of people call themselves "fiscal conservative/social liberal" for example, but that means a lot of different things depending on who is doing the talking.

The problem with third parties

Philadelphia Daily News columnist John Baer gets Third Party Fever:

WANT AN alternative to a 43-precent-job-approval president and whoever the Republican "Gong Show" offers? Fed up with Obama but afraid of the right?
Well, there's a move afoot, kicked off by a billionaire biz guy, to nominate a centrist, bipartisan ticket through a national online convention.

It's scheduled for next June, run by something called Americans Elect and open to all registered voters.

Its pitch: Pick a president, not a party. It plays to national disgust with Washington gridlock, Democratic disappointment in Obama and GOP angst over the Republican field. And it isn't a bad idea.

It's not a great idea. It would be nice to break through the Washington gridlock on occasion, yes, but electing a third party president won't do much to end that. If you're really wanting to shake things up, you've got to start electing Americans Elect candidates to Congress.

That's arguably harder to do than fielding a candidate for presidency. To run for Congress, you've actually got to develop a local constituency, and to do that you probably need to have an agenda somewhat more detailed than "those guys suck"—voters need to know, generally, what you stand for and what you'll try to get accomplished in office. And if you actually get to Congress, there's no guarantee that your presence there won't further calcify the divisions.

But Congress, not the presidency, is where the gridlock is. Third party efforts suck because they focus on the unattainable goal of hitting a home run and capturing the presidency; it skips the hard work that would really be needed to field a consistently credible alternative party.