Saturday, November 27, 2010
Around Thanksgiving
Considering I got laid off in February, we got burglarized in early November, Joan and I have been sick since before Thanksgiving and especially after, and we've had all sorts of other family, health, and financial challenges, you'd think I'd be less than thankful this Thanksgiving season, but I am thankful: This time of year is one of the most meaningful for me because it's the one time we purposely pause to appreciate. For the time being, Joan and I have landed on our feet financially; we weren't home when the burglar broke through the front door, so we weren't hurt physically; the grandkids are doing great; and while not all is right with the world, we're muddling through, same as our nation and globe -- which is all I'm realistically expecting these days, since voters seem bound and determined to underregulate banks, Wall Street, fossil fuel use, insurance, health care, and so forth, and since we're bound and determined collectively to live up to the Judeo-Christian Bible command to "multiply and consume the Earth," which we're doing with a vengeance. (Not discussed among many folks I know of is what happens AFTER we've multiplied and consumed the Earth, but I guess the answer's becoming self-evident.) And so...I am thankful that I was allowed to work with fine people at two newspapers for nearly 20 years total and that several of us still look out for each other (thus the reason I have a temporary[?] job right now); I'm thankful to have been privilege to have served alongside stellar journalists and others, and all the opportunities the jobs afforded me; I'm thankful for supportive lifelong friends, who are basically family, including two who have extended the comfort of their home while I hold down that temp job; I'm thankful for tolerant family members and friends who never abandoned me despite my foibles and faults; I'm thankful that Joan discovered BBC America, Netflix, TiVo instructions, etc., so we can enjoy all sorts of different shows together; I'm thankful for modern innovations (as long as they don't junk up the environment); and I'm thankful for pets we've had, as they are family, too. Above all, I'm thankful in general: for the good times that have left me with good memories; the present, which allows me to enjoy still; and the future, which we can enjoy planning for while living for today.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Help me vote on these Calif. ballot propositions
Hey, folks, below is a discussion about some of the propositions on the California ballot. Help me decide some measures and candidates (other than the obvious political ones). Some of the props look well-intentioned but seem to have hidden, unintended(?) consequences (or are they purposely Trojan horses?). Below I'd like you to comment on brief analyses, keeping in mind I haven't had time to read up on or listen to EVERYTHING said by the League of Women Voters says and various newspapers/blogs; local NPR stations don't seem to have good TEXT versions of analyses or synopses of transcripts (many are audio only, not written pieces); and newspaper editorials or reports aren't well-grouped, too hit-and-miss in their structures, leave too much unanswered, are "analysis" in name only, and/or are hard to find -- their "voter guides" or "election guides" are hardly guides -- but let me know if you have found a few good websites that DO offer concise, balanced guides!). As to judgeships, boards of education, city councils and county commissions, etc., well, any guidance and directions to good websites would be greatly appreciated!
= = = = = =
Props:
19 -- Legalize marijuana -- LEANING TOWARD YES BUT IT'S A MESS -- I was going to vote yes, but as Mom and others point out, it's deeply flawed. Against it are both the Dem and GOP attorney general candidates, both Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman, even Dianne Feinstein -- in part because no test is required for truckers, school bus drivers, etc. if they get in a crash -- they can't get tested for "driving under the influence"; its accounting is also at risk; paying taxes inherently self-incriminates vs. federal law; grass could be sold in the office workplace along with cosmetics and school candy, if those are allowed for fundraisers; billions of $ in gov't contracts could be voided because the state couldn't guarantee a drug-free worksite and would be in violation of federal law; and the list goes on. However, as former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders and numerous others point out, we should accept the status quo -- that it is easier for kids to get MJ than beer, that precious law-enforcement resources are used to prosecute for small amounts of grass rather than collect taxes on it, that drug cartels thrive on the unregulated market, etc. So, even though it's flawed, it's a start, and I'm leaning toward yes, but my mom is voting no.
- - - - - -
20 -- Redistricting committee -- LEANING TOWARD YES BUT IT'S VERY FLAWED -- On the one hand, this takes redistricting out of the hands of the partisan legislature, which tends to gerrymander; on the other hand, it puts the control in the hands of 14 people (5 Dem, 5 GOP, 4 neither) who aren't chosen by the people, don't have to answer to anyone, could more easily be bought or influenced than 58 or more legislators, etc., and the prop in essence divides people by race and economics, theoretically. Julian Bond, the head of the Sierra Club, and the head of the California Black Chamber of Commerce are against it, as is the founding chairman of the Calif. Fair Political Practices Committee because it in effect codifies/condones Jim Crow segregation; but supporting it are the heads of the Calif. NAACP, Calif. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Calif. AARP, Calif. Common Cause and others. Those against it say this "pernicious" proposition "mandates that all districts be segregated according to 'similar living standards' and that districts include only people 'with similar work opportunities.'" I don't read it quite that way, but I haven't looked at the full text of the proposition yet to see if it actually says that; it does say, however, that in addition to not favoring incumbents over others nor favoring one party over the other, the committee will set boundaries in part based on "communities of interest" -- code word for economics and race? -- and will decide what the definition of that phrase means, but should include "a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation." Theoretically, this should give miniorities more power, but Julian Bond and others think not. Originally I was leaning toward yes, because we've seen what politicians can do and to send a message. (There's also a lot of pro and con about the prop's primary sponsor, GOP billionaire Charles Munger Jr., physicist and son of Berkshire Hathaway's vice chairman, vs. Demo billionaire George Soros, who is fighting it and supporting the contrary Prop 27, which would do away with the commission and the original Prop 11. A few years back, Prop 11 created the commission and many of the rules that Prop 20 would augment, but Prop 11 left the deciding in the hands of the legislature.) Prop 20 would put all the deciding in the hands of the 14-member commission forever and ever (well, until the consititution is again amended). Prop 27 does away with the commission and its rules and returns control
to the legislature. So if you vote yes on 20, you should vote no on 27 (or vice versa, although I suppose you could vote no on both, and everything would stay as is).
- - - - - - - -
21 -- $18 license fee to help state parks -- LEANING TOWARD YES, but will fund be overfunded?
Well-intentioned to clear up backlog of unfunded maintenance work? Or cynical voter manipulation to reintroduce "car tax" so funds can be freed up for other "wasteful" spending? See also Prop 26 re: requiring "fees" to be called "taxes" and thus trigger need for 2/3rd majority vote to pass.
- - - - - - -
22 -- Ban on state borrowing of certain earmarked funds -- LEANING TOWARD YES BUT TERRIBLY FLAWED (purposely?). Well-intentioned (seemingly): Prohibits state from borrowing or taking funds intended for transportation, redevelopment, local gov't -- Trojan horse for redevelopment agencies and their developer friends? Cripples state's ability to pay for bond debt? Would hamstring state finances? On the other hand, I hate how the state eats the local governments' lunch -- but currently law requires the state to repay within three years, with interest. Currently it's basically a revolving credit, so the local/earmarked coffers are paid back and then diminshed again.
- - - - - - -
23. Suspends AB32 implementation of greenhouse gas limits -- NO. This is that legendary slippery slope you've heard so much about: If not now, when? Meg and others say it would "only" suspend implementation until the state's unemployment rate stays at 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. We're at, what, 12 percent or more now -- it's not gonna come down anytime soon, and I think this will encourage more "green" jobs than kill other ones.
- - - - - -
24. Repeal law allowing businesses to lower tax liability -- LEANING TOWARD YES but will costs be passed along to the consumer, cost jobs, and not help schools?
- - - - -
25. Simple majority to pass state budget -- YES, but does it eliminate the right of voters to use referenda in some cases? Opponents say yes, proponents say no. Tax raises will still require two-thirds majority, despite what the foes say. Supporting the plan are the California head of the League of Women Voters, and state treasurer Bill Lockyear.
- - - - -
26. Requiring fees to be OK'd with two-thirds vote -- NO. Besides crippling municipalities and the state, it apparently would protect polluters: According to the LWV Calif. prexy and others, it was put on the ballot thanks to Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Phillip Morris. It redefines pollution fee payments for harm to the environment as a tax and thus a two-thirds vote.
- - - - - -
27. Contravenes Prop 20, Undoes old Prop 11, abolishes 14-member redistricting board -- LEANING TOWARD NO since I'm leaning toward YES on Prop 20 -- but maybe we can just wave a magic wand and the districts will magically draw themselves?
- - - - - - - -
San Bernardino County judges, school boards, water district, supervisors .... help!!!!
= = = = = =
Props:
19 -- Legalize marijuana -- LEANING TOWARD YES BUT IT'S A MESS -- I was going to vote yes, but as Mom and others point out, it's deeply flawed. Against it are both the Dem and GOP attorney general candidates, both Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman, even Dianne Feinstein -- in part because no test is required for truckers, school bus drivers, etc. if they get in a crash -- they can't get tested for "driving under the influence"; its accounting is also at risk; paying taxes inherently self-incriminates vs. federal law; grass could be sold in the office workplace along with cosmetics and school candy, if those are allowed for fundraisers; billions of $ in gov't contracts could be voided because the state couldn't guarantee a drug-free worksite and would be in violation of federal law; and the list goes on. However, as former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders and numerous others point out, we should accept the status quo -- that it is easier for kids to get MJ than beer, that precious law-enforcement resources are used to prosecute for small amounts of grass rather than collect taxes on it, that drug cartels thrive on the unregulated market, etc. So, even though it's flawed, it's a start, and I'm leaning toward yes, but my mom is voting no.
- - - - - -
20 -- Redistricting committee -- LEANING TOWARD YES BUT IT'S VERY FLAWED -- On the one hand, this takes redistricting out of the hands of the partisan legislature, which tends to gerrymander; on the other hand, it puts the control in the hands of 14 people (5 Dem, 5 GOP, 4 neither) who aren't chosen by the people, don't have to answer to anyone, could more easily be bought or influenced than 58 or more legislators, etc., and the prop in essence divides people by race and economics, theoretically. Julian Bond, the head of the Sierra Club, and the head of the California Black Chamber of Commerce are against it, as is the founding chairman of the Calif. Fair Political Practices Committee because it in effect codifies/condones Jim Crow segregation; but supporting it are the heads of the Calif. NAACP, Calif. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Calif. AARP, Calif. Common Cause and others. Those against it say this "pernicious" proposition "mandates that all districts be segregated according to 'similar living standards' and that districts include only people 'with similar work opportunities.'" I don't read it quite that way, but I haven't looked at the full text of the proposition yet to see if it actually says that; it does say, however, that in addition to not favoring incumbents over others nor favoring one party over the other, the committee will set boundaries in part based on "communities of interest" -- code word for economics and race? -- and will decide what the definition of that phrase means, but should include "a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation." Theoretically, this should give miniorities more power, but Julian Bond and others think not. Originally I was leaning toward yes, because we've seen what politicians can do and to send a message. (There's also a lot of pro and con about the prop's primary sponsor, GOP billionaire Charles Munger Jr., physicist and son of Berkshire Hathaway's vice chairman, vs. Demo billionaire George Soros, who is fighting it and supporting the contrary Prop 27, which would do away with the commission and the original Prop 11. A few years back, Prop 11 created the commission and many of the rules that Prop 20 would augment, but Prop 11 left the deciding in the hands of the legislature.) Prop 20 would put all the deciding in the hands of the 14-member commission forever and ever (well, until the consititution is again amended). Prop 27 does away with the commission and its rules and returns control
to the legislature. So if you vote yes on 20, you should vote no on 27 (or vice versa, although I suppose you could vote no on both, and everything would stay as is).
- - - - - - - -
21 -- $18 license fee to help state parks -- LEANING TOWARD YES, but will fund be overfunded?
Well-intentioned to clear up backlog of unfunded maintenance work? Or cynical voter manipulation to reintroduce "car tax" so funds can be freed up for other "wasteful" spending? See also Prop 26 re: requiring "fees" to be called "taxes" and thus trigger need for 2/3rd majority vote to pass.
- - - - - - -
22 -- Ban on state borrowing of certain earmarked funds -- LEANING TOWARD YES BUT TERRIBLY FLAWED (purposely?). Well-intentioned (seemingly): Prohibits state from borrowing or taking funds intended for transportation, redevelopment, local gov't -- Trojan horse for redevelopment agencies and their developer friends? Cripples state's ability to pay for bond debt? Would hamstring state finances? On the other hand, I hate how the state eats the local governments' lunch -- but currently law requires the state to repay within three years, with interest. Currently it's basically a revolving credit, so the local/earmarked coffers are paid back and then diminshed again.
- - - - - - -
23. Suspends AB32 implementation of greenhouse gas limits -- NO. This is that legendary slippery slope you've heard so much about: If not now, when? Meg and others say it would "only" suspend implementation until the state's unemployment rate stays at 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. We're at, what, 12 percent or more now -- it's not gonna come down anytime soon, and I think this will encourage more "green" jobs than kill other ones.
- - - - - -
24. Repeal law allowing businesses to lower tax liability -- LEANING TOWARD YES but will costs be passed along to the consumer, cost jobs, and not help schools?
- - - - -
25. Simple majority to pass state budget -- YES, but does it eliminate the right of voters to use referenda in some cases? Opponents say yes, proponents say no. Tax raises will still require two-thirds majority, despite what the foes say. Supporting the plan are the California head of the League of Women Voters, and state treasurer Bill Lockyear.
- - - - -
26. Requiring fees to be OK'd with two-thirds vote -- NO. Besides crippling municipalities and the state, it apparently would protect polluters: According to the LWV Calif. prexy and others, it was put on the ballot thanks to Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Phillip Morris. It redefines pollution fee payments for harm to the environment as a tax and thus a two-thirds vote.
- - - - - -
27. Contravenes Prop 20, Undoes old Prop 11, abolishes 14-member redistricting board -- LEANING TOWARD NO since I'm leaning toward YES on Prop 20 -- but maybe we can just wave a magic wand and the districts will magically draw themselves?
- - - - - - - -
San Bernardino County judges, school boards, water district, supervisors .... help!!!!
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Retirement and the world
Haiti's in ruins (even more than before), Pakistan is being swept away, Iran is testing nuclear reaction and global patience, and the U.S. economy is in shambles (which wouldn't be the case if the government had regulated and enforced better). Which leaves me back at work temporarily -- but isn't ALL work temporary? The idea that there IS such a thing as job security has ALWAYS been a relative term. And could I ever REALLY retire when so much havoc is going around? Wouldn't I feel guilty on a tropical island, knowing the rest of the world was falling apart? Well, yes. But then again, I've always believed in the adage: All things in moderation. So you pick away at helping humanity, then relaxing and enjoying life as best you can, then going back on the hustings to help humanity some more, and so on. So, no, I couldn't really ever fully retire, but neither can I be self-sacrificing to the degree I previously was. So: a balanced life, day by day.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Catching up
I'm sitting in the auditorium of Inglewood High School listening to its band concert (beginners, concert/advance orchestra and terrific jazz ensemble) after my sister Denise addressed the audience from the stage. What, you didn't know the IHS Arts Academy department chair "Miss Gardner" is my sister? Well, I've been staying this whole week at her home because my temp job near LAX is nearby, and it seemed sorta silly for her to introduce me as her "friend" when, heck, we grew up with each other. So out came "brother" :)
It's wonderfully odd and satisfying to see someone I've known all my life in the "outside" world now in her "element" as a teacher and leader (and running a video camera and getting the program handouts ready and checking the stage lights and... :). This is the third night in a row she's done this: Wed nite was drama, Thurs nite was dance and now Fri nite it's band -- each night she basically puts in a 12-hour day. And now she and the band director and the principal have made inspiring speeches about how budget cuts have impacted arts all over but this school has persevered. As I listen to a Sousa march played with gusto, a few tears come to my eyes.
It's a good cap to a long four weeks. After two busy months "off" as a "suddenly retired" person, I was kindly given an opportunity to fill in on a website for a solid two weeks and then immediately began a temp contract stint as a tech editor (did you know "architect" is a verb or that you can "mature" a project, or that analysis of the analysis by analysts was sent to the department of analysis to be analyzed?)
But as a result of being so busy, I've fallen behind in my blogging and Facebooking. Guess I'd better get crackin'.
- - - - - - - - - -
Gary North
Via BlackBerry
800-585-9368
562-437-0511
310-387-8739
It's wonderfully odd and satisfying to see someone I've known all my life in the "outside" world now in her "element" as a teacher and leader (and running a video camera and getting the program handouts ready and checking the stage lights and... :). This is the third night in a row she's done this: Wed nite was drama, Thurs nite was dance and now Fri nite it's band -- each night she basically puts in a 12-hour day. And now she and the band director and the principal have made inspiring speeches about how budget cuts have impacted arts all over but this school has persevered. As I listen to a Sousa march played with gusto, a few tears come to my eyes.
It's a good cap to a long four weeks. After two busy months "off" as a "suddenly retired" person, I was kindly given an opportunity to fill in on a website for a solid two weeks and then immediately began a temp contract stint as a tech editor (did you know "architect" is a verb or that you can "mature" a project, or that analysis of the analysis by analysts was sent to the department of analysis to be analyzed?)
But as a result of being so busy, I've fallen behind in my blogging and Facebooking. Guess I'd better get crackin'.
- - - - - - - - - -
Gary North
Via BlackBerry
800-585-9368
562-437-0511
310-387-8739
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Week ... 7??!!!! of Sudden “Retirement”
Whuhhh? What happened to weeks 4, 5 and 6?!!! Well, that’s how busy “not working” can be! Now in the midst of week 7 as a SUJ (Suddenly Unemployed Journalist*), I’ve had virtually NO “free” time: I finally got to L.A. a week ago Tuesday to finally see some former workmates for the first time since being laid off (fun, energizing brunch at Du-par’s, then a drink, then dinner with a family friend in “the biz,” then finally drinks with other former colleagues) – and that’s it. That’s been my only “free” time in seven weeks. The rest has been dealing with family matters (ok, including hanging out with the grandkids, going to Bryce’s soccer games, babysitting, etc), the unemployment department (still haven’t seen a check), dealing with insurance matters (my only moment of depression has been an hour and a half a week ago Wednesday when I realized I’d have to cough up $$$ to continue disability insurance – which I’m planning to drop – and discontinue other insurance coverage including long-term care), looking for work, rebuilding my own freelance businesses, updating the ol’ resume and personal websites, and ... ok, a confession: I don’t consider working on the garden or having dinner with my wife “free” time. Instead I consider that REAL time, the things I SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING all the time anyways. They don’t pay the bills, but they certainly puts things into perspective.
= = = = =
*(...yes, some would dispute that being “just” a copy editor at a newspaper is equivalent to being a REAL bona fide journalist, but I’ll leave that for another essay)
= = = = =
Luckily(?) I knew enough SUJs and others and knew enough about being a SUJ anyway that I realized early on it’s a good idea to have a regular routine, even though I could sleep in all day every day (which, admittedly, does save money). Recently, a family friend texted my wife’s cell phone early in the morning and expressed surprise when I responded for my spouse (since she was still asleep). I explained I had been up since 5:45 a.m. “Old habits die hard,” the friend texted back. Yes and no. Yes, it’s part habit (and part cat-thinks-sleeping-people/full-bladders-are-trampolines syndrome), but it’s also that sense of “getting going” and not lollygagging. So, even though workwise I don’t “have” to shave in the morning, I still do; I don’t “have” to get dressed, but I still do; I don’t “have” to brush my teeth... you get the idea. Frankly, though I hate to admit it, routine has been something of a godsend. Would I have “liked” to sleep in – no cat on belly, no answering the phone at 8 a.m. because Omaha Steaks REALLY wants to sell us some meat and someone else REALLY wants to sell us a new house loan? Yes. But there’s something about waking up early, before the sun has risen, and being greeted by chirping baby birds (drives Atreiu nuts, of course), and “getting going” – getting all those things done early on ... so I can go back to sleep for an hour. Like right now!
(Of course this all does raise the question of whether I’m truly “retired,” “semi-retired,” “on sabbatical,” or “just kidding myself.” ... Let me sleep on that one.)
= = = = =
*(...yes, some would dispute that being “just” a copy editor at a newspaper is equivalent to being a REAL bona fide journalist, but I’ll leave that for another essay)
= = = = =
Luckily(?) I knew enough SUJs and others and knew enough about being a SUJ anyway that I realized early on it’s a good idea to have a regular routine, even though I could sleep in all day every day (which, admittedly, does save money). Recently, a family friend texted my wife’s cell phone early in the morning and expressed surprise when I responded for my spouse (since she was still asleep). I explained I had been up since 5:45 a.m. “Old habits die hard,” the friend texted back. Yes and no. Yes, it’s part habit (and part cat-thinks-sleeping-people/full-bladders-are-trampolines syndrome), but it’s also that sense of “getting going” and not lollygagging. So, even though workwise I don’t “have” to shave in the morning, I still do; I don’t “have” to get dressed, but I still do; I don’t “have” to brush my teeth... you get the idea. Frankly, though I hate to admit it, routine has been something of a godsend. Would I have “liked” to sleep in – no cat on belly, no answering the phone at 8 a.m. because Omaha Steaks REALLY wants to sell us some meat and someone else REALLY wants to sell us a new house loan? Yes. But there’s something about waking up early, before the sun has risen, and being greeted by chirping baby birds (drives Atreiu nuts, of course), and “getting going” – getting all those things done early on ... so I can go back to sleep for an hour. Like right now!
(Of course this all does raise the question of whether I’m truly “retired,” “semi-retired,” “on sabbatical,” or “just kidding myself.” ... Let me sleep on that one.)
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Week 3 of Sudden "Retirement"
As a proud new member of the Suddenly Unemployed Journalist Diaspora (yes, copy editors are journalists, too -- check out the ol' still-being-updated resume...), I'm in good company during this wrenching, chaotic, calamitous, hopefully-not-catastrophic "paradigm shift" from "old journalism" to new business models ... if indeed a business can still be made of journalism -- which I hasten to say is happening, but in such a shamefully unplanned and mismanaged way that could have been SO avoided that I kick myself/ourselves for not having taking charge more quickly years ago at the union level and management level, but I had put my trust in the powers-that-be because, well, they were the powers-that-be, little thinking some nerdy teens and dweebs in college dorms would be the ones to instantly rule the world. Oh, well, watery bits and bytes under the bridge board. More on all that in a later post. But first an update.
Time has flown by so fast in my "new normal" state of life that I didn't even get a chance to document week 2 of my new circumstance, and here it is already the end of week 3! Mom was always afraid to retire because she feared becoming a couch potato, and of course when she finally DID retire, she got busier than ever -- I only WISH I had the time to just dawdle and unwind. But it's been nonstop family and job-"search" stuff. I've put "search" in quotes because I'm including brushing up the resume (let alone getting TO the resume), which has taken much longer than expected: listing jobs I had forgotten about, correcting dates, remembering duties ... even though the basic resume has been with me for years and has updated repeatedly during that time. Ah, what a difference it makes to finally have the temporary luxury of time to tweak without rushing or doing something on the fly. (Of course that includes "picking away" at home chores...) (I'm also getting accustomed to violating AP style rules while blogging, Facebooking, etc., and not feeling guilty about it ... well, not feeling TOO guilty. ... OK, I feel guilty...) I've also put "search" in quotes because I haven't really searched yet: I've been working on rebuilding my various businesses (Gibbin Communications / Gibbin Publications / Gibbin Services / Conflict Resolution Service / Bi Consultation Service) and wondering if I have the financial ability to do so before the tap runs dry vs. having to get a "real" job (i.e., regularly-scheduled paydays, benefits, etc.) Thank goodness (for now) the health care bill has been passed; November elections certainly will be a political test for it, but from personal and altruistic points of view, I'm feeling a sense of relief. How economically viable the new scheme is, well... we'll see.
Anyways, about my "new normal": Routine is finally settling in, in fits and starts, and I'm slowly seeing patters: waking up early (6 or 7), having cereal and maybe coffee, going through emails, touching up the resume on various Web sites, checking Facebook briefly, and now working through sending out thank-you's as a matter of closure and/or heads-up to various business associates. That's taken an inordinate amount of time. But after all this, I've decided that (much though I'm enjoying having "free time" -- which is neither free nor enough time), I'm no longer going to refer to myself as "retired" (I can't collect full pensions yet) nor even semi-retired, though that IS apt. The fact is that I'm rebuilding businesses and down the road looking for a "real" job if need be. And I'm finding that whereas my former recent life was more structured (I had a regular work schedule outside of the home) and semi-dependable (salary, medical insurance), this new life/business style will probably be much more fluid timewise, and much more integrated than just the work/home dichotomy. I previously liked that a long time ago, but that was when I was young, single, could live in a garret or basement (and indeed I did), but now... well, as long as all this pays the bills... I keep telling myself, ah, a new ADVENTURE... but only if the social security net below this highwire act holds up... and right now it's looking rather frayed. We shall all see. I'll try to explore that and the future of journalism in the next entry.
Time has flown by so fast in my "new normal" state of life that I didn't even get a chance to document week 2 of my new circumstance, and here it is already the end of week 3! Mom was always afraid to retire because she feared becoming a couch potato, and of course when she finally DID retire, she got busier than ever -- I only WISH I had the time to just dawdle and unwind. But it's been nonstop family and job-"search" stuff. I've put "search" in quotes because I'm including brushing up the resume (let alone getting TO the resume), which has taken much longer than expected: listing jobs I had forgotten about, correcting dates, remembering duties ... even though the basic resume has been with me for years and has updated repeatedly during that time. Ah, what a difference it makes to finally have the temporary luxury of time to tweak without rushing or doing something on the fly. (Of course that includes "picking away" at home chores...) (I'm also getting accustomed to violating AP style rules while blogging, Facebooking, etc., and not feeling guilty about it ... well, not feeling TOO guilty. ... OK, I feel guilty...) I've also put "search" in quotes because I haven't really searched yet: I've been working on rebuilding my various businesses (Gibbin Communications / Gibbin Publications / Gibbin Services / Conflict Resolution Service / Bi Consultation Service) and wondering if I have the financial ability to do so before the tap runs dry vs. having to get a "real" job (i.e., regularly-scheduled paydays, benefits, etc.) Thank goodness (for now) the health care bill has been passed; November elections certainly will be a political test for it, but from personal and altruistic points of view, I'm feeling a sense of relief. How economically viable the new scheme is, well... we'll see.
Anyways, about my "new normal": Routine is finally settling in, in fits and starts, and I'm slowly seeing patters: waking up early (6 or 7), having cereal and maybe coffee, going through emails, touching up the resume on various Web sites, checking Facebook briefly, and now working through sending out thank-you's as a matter of closure and/or heads-up to various business associates. That's taken an inordinate amount of time. But after all this, I've decided that (much though I'm enjoying having "free time" -- which is neither free nor enough time), I'm no longer going to refer to myself as "retired" (I can't collect full pensions yet) nor even semi-retired, though that IS apt. The fact is that I'm rebuilding businesses and down the road looking for a "real" job if need be. And I'm finding that whereas my former recent life was more structured (I had a regular work schedule outside of the home) and semi-dependable (salary, medical insurance), this new life/business style will probably be much more fluid timewise, and much more integrated than just the work/home dichotomy. I previously liked that a long time ago, but that was when I was young, single, could live in a garret or basement (and indeed I did), but now... well, as long as all this pays the bills... I keep telling myself, ah, a new ADVENTURE... but only if the social security net below this highwire act holds up... and right now it's looking rather frayed. We shall all see. I'll try to explore that and the future of journalism in the next entry.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Week 1 as a sudden "retiree"...
...(semi-retiree? premature retiree? involuntary retiree? can't-draw-a-pension-yet retiree?...): It has been a whirlwind of a week, and yet I feel as though I was just in the newsroom a few hours ago. (Or is that merely a sign of aging?) In any case, it's been a surreal experience and hasn't sunk in yet; I'm still in the yeah!-open-ended-vacation! mindset. I know: That won't last long. But it's a nice feeling for the moment. Lots to do around the home, more time to spend with the grandkids and others, more time (briefly) to volunteer before resurrecting my dormant businesses in earnest and/or looking for new work. On the issue of the old work: I want to reiterate something Lisa W. said about Variety being a good home for many years for many of us "journo" types. It paid a number of us better than we ever had been paid before on a regular basis, the benefits were anywhere from good to very good, it was a great "shelter/safe house" for a long time from the abuses we had received elsewhere, and the staff -- both management and co-workers -- were extremely supportive over the years when my family encountered tragedy after tragedy. So I am VERY thankful to have been given the opportunity to have worked there for nearly 12 years. Yes, it sucks to be laid off, yes there's anger and bitterness among some (many? but not myself) of those let go recently and before and those who survived, especially the way in which these things are usually handled and who is targeted, but we all knew something had to give in this very changed media world, so for myself I wasn't surprised by my own layoff. For decades, I was told about the impending "paradigm shift" and it never arrived ... until a few years ago, and we've all seen the toll it has taken on newspaper revenues, staffing, and coverage. That a number of us were ignored as Cassandras when we asked to be included more seriously in preparing our outlets for the future, and that powers-that-be in so many realms didn't plan for an orderly transition to new ways of doing business -- and didn't offer their staffs retraining in order to get there -- is a tragedy that will keep historians and other storytellers/writers busy for decades to come. All that said, I don't regret working at Variety one bit, I learned a lot about "brands" and "showbiz" and economics and moviemaking and so forth, and frankly, as I said, it was a great shelter, especially when my family was enduring what it endured. While there might be disagreement on what next steps Variety/Daily Variety (and other media outlets) "should" take, and the ways in which to take them, I only wish the best for it and my ex-colleagues there. It's up to the management, staff and readers to see to it that it doesn't become the leftover shell of a brand, and a "gold standard" in name only. I don't think the powers that be will let that happen, and I certainly HOPE they WON'T let that happen, if only because I still own stock in the parent corporation! But I also hope they won't let that happen for the simple reason that they should be altruistic and true to journalistic integrity and quality. It's too soon for me to pass judgment on the viability and advisability of the overall restructuring plan, but I hope it works, I'm glad they're not just throwing up their hands, and I wish them all well and the best of luck. As for me? Well, Monday is taking granddaughter to her tutor, last week was taking grandson to soccer practice, Joan is supposed to come home Wednesday from the Philippines, so we might get together with friends near the airport...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)