Vote Smarts!

Before we get started, in the interest of full disclosure, let me say that Pluto isn’t a planet.

There are, of course, two distinct camps on this subject, and I wanted to make sure I let you know right off the bat which camp I’m in. I could go on to explain why I hold such an opinion, which involves Pluto’s size, especially relative to the other planets, the eccentricities of its orbit, and its proximity to the Kuiper Belt, but that would be a needless digression.

Because whichever side of that argument you’re on, last week was a great week for space geeks.

Yeah, I’m talking about New Horizons and its close encounter with the object that I grew up calling the ninth planet.

It’s a big deal whenever our space program does something impressive like send a probe to study another planet, but with Pluto…this is different.

Why is the New Horizons mission so amazing?

Because, Pluto was discovered less than a century ago, yet we know it has an orbit that will take 250 years to travel around the Sun once. If you stop and think about that for a second, an obvious question comes to mind: How do we even know that? How do we know its orbit if we haven’t even known of its existence long enough to observe one full orbital trip?

The answer is math, because the answer is always math.

(I’m not going to even begin to describe the math involved, because I know I’m not smart enough to do it justice. Ask your local rocket scientist. If you don’t know any rocket scientists, let me know, I’ll put you in touch with mine.)

How do we know they’re right?

How’s this for an answer: Ten years ago, some more really smart scientists figured out where Pluto would be a decade in the future, using that same math. Then, they figured out how to launch a satellite smaller than my car so it would leave Earth, path close enough to Jupiter that Jupiter’s gravity would actually serve as kind of a sling shot to make it speed up, and would arrive at just the right spot at just the right time so it would be able to take pictures of Pluto for the span of about one Earth day.

To put this in perspective, when New Horizons was launched, Pluto was still a planet. If they had gotten any of these calculations wrong, from the speed and path of Pluto, to the speed of the satellite leaving the Earth, to the speed it would pick up from Jupiter, New Horizons would have missed Pluto entirely. Or if the engineers had forgotten to solder a wire, or shield a sensitive piece of equipment, the onboard systems would have failed at some crucial moment and it would have gone dead and NASA would be seeing nothing but the Blue Screen of Death. Instead:

So, to sum up, a group of American scientists shot a camera at Pluto, knowing it would be in just the right spot a decade later, because that’s what math and science allows us to do. Meanwhile, our lawmakers are still trying to decide if Global Warming is a thing. (Spoiler Alert: It is,) Some of them want Creationism taught in high school science class, because Adam and Eve totally hung out with triceratops. And presidents have won debates (and elections) by pretending to be total idiots.

This is driving me crazy!

We seem to have this idea, in this country, that our politicians need to have qualities like, “relatable,” “in-touch with Main Street America,” “approachable,” and of course, have “family values.” (I’m not sure what that last refers to. Resale value, maybe?)

There are a few pretty famous examples in recent years. President Obama is regularly criticized as being too elitist, or of lecturing to people, or of being condescending. At one point during the last presidential election, he was referred to as “a snob” for suggesting that everyone should be able to go to college.

Here in Massachusetts, the Senate race between Scott Brown and Elizabeth Warren was full of the same kind of criticism, with Brown accusing Warren of having “is an elitist attitude there in the way she is communicating to us as citizens and telling us how do things, who should be taxed, who should not be taxed." He never hesitated to remind audiences that she was an academic, referring to her constantly as “Professor Warren,” and accused her of having a “way she is approaching things in terms of knowing better than others, how to do things.”

The nerve of some people! How dare she know things, or have an education!

And then there were the criticisms against John Kerry and Al Gore during their presidential runs, both of whom were criticized for not being relatable enough.

When did coming off as an Average Joe become more important for the people leading our nation than being smart and having good ideas?

There is a streak of anti-intellectualism that runs deep through our political system, which seems to favor those who either pretend to be under-educated, or are actually genuinely stupid. In some cases, both. Take, for instance, this nugget from the 2004 election.

That was in response to Kerry explaining that Bush was partial owner of a timber company for tax benefits. And yes, he did own a timber company, and he totally knew it.

Now, allow me to point out that both those guys went to Yale. One came off as intelligent, one as just a regular guy. Which one got elected?

Meanwhile, NASA’s budget is slashed and science is being openly attacked for making awesome (and occasionally depressing) discoveries, while our nation and indeed whole world is facing crises from climate change, emerging disease, and re-emerging diseases. 

And while some would have you think that this is a division between science-minded atheists and religious believers, we have the Pope speaking out about human-driven climate change, so that’s pretty clearly a false dichotomy.

No, our politicians are fighting science because they personally either don’t believe in it, which is worrisome enough, or they believe it but don’t want you to believe it, which might be worse.

So instead of intelligent, rational debate, we end up with ideologies that dictate positions without taking into account things like facts, or research, or the scientific method. Instead of politician asking us to think critically, we have morons telling how they’re going to “shoot from the hip,” “tell it like it is,” and “shoot straight with y’all.”

They are, of course, doing no such thing. And we all know that they’re lying to us. And when they prove to be totally incompetent, we complain about it, but conveniently ignore the fact that we voted them into office in the first place. But the fact that we allow them to do this, to act like morons and treat us like morons, just demonstrates our own complicity in this dance. Every day, we listen to the jabbering of complete and total idiots reciting their opinion, informed only by strict ideological guidelines (capitalism=always good, or oil drilling= always bad), and act like they are saying something worthwhile. They’re not saying anything!

I'm just gonna leave this here.

Perhaps people just don't want to believe that anyone can be smarter than them, that they have all the answers, that they are right, everyone else is wrong, and suck it! Well, I hate to break this to you, but someone out there is smarter than you. And somebody has better ideas than you, no matter how good your ideas are. And if you take the stance that you're always right, at some point, you will be wrong.
But that's not how the choice is presented to us. Partially, this is the media, playing on our need for clear narratives (Us vs. Them), and partially this is politicians, using clever short-hand to speak opinions that they know their constituents share without saying them aloud ("states rights," for example, doesn't sound racist and bigoted at all, does it?). But mostly, it's our own fault, for allowing this kind of go-nowhere, accomplish-nothing politicizing to go on in the first place! The world doesn't fall neatly into 2 categories; we are not conservative and liberal, or whatever. Rather, we are a nation uniquely built on a framework of argument. We are built on two contradictory principles: Liberty and Equality. In a nation of absolute Liberty, no one would be equal, because some people would be actively prevented from achieving, and ultimately exploited, and would have no recourse against those who basically wanted to do whatever they wanted. But in a fully equal society, liberty is taken away, and no one is allowed to achieve based on their own hard work and perseverance. The Constitution was framed to give us the means to have debates on where within the spectrum of Liberty and Equality we as a people choose to fall at a certain time, recognizing that where we choose to fall will shift over time.

Debates between two sides, as opposed to two immutably ideals; that was the intention of this country. 

Now, we have the opposite: gridlock without compromise, and leaders choosing to be ignorant of the damage they are doing to our country by their own stupidity and stubbornness.

We can do better than this. We have to do better than this! I want political leaders who are smarter than me! There, I said it. If you’re going to run my country, you damn well better be able to think for yourself and make informed decisions!

I want a candidate who (for example) believes human activity is causing massive and dangerous changes to the environment, who believes that life on this planet evolved from single-cell organisms and we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, who believes in medicine, vaccinations, the heliocentric model of the solar system, quantum mechanics (but who doesn’t misuse quantum jargon to justify pseudoscience), who is willing to try new things, based on rigorous, evidence-based research, and who is willing to try something else if new research comes along.  I don’t care if they think Pluto’s a planet. A little disagreement is a good thing.

We can all do this, we can all vote for someone smarter than us.

(Caveat: Being incredibly smart does not automatically exclude the possibility of being incredibly stupid. People are complex creatures, and we are often capable of being both at the same time.)

But I still believe that if we all do this, if we all stand up and demand better of our politicians, if we insist that they not pander to the lowest common denominator or treat us like we’re stupid, we can turn things around. Those guys that did the math to fire a rocket and pass within a few thousand kilometers of Pluto? Those are the guys I want working on our budget.

Elections are coming up. Local, state, national, presidential. For all of these, I say, vote!

But don’t vote your ideology.

Instead, Vote Smarts!

Really, we’ve got nothing to lose.

What the Hell is Corned Beef, And Why Am I Eating It?

Happy St. Patrick’s Day, everyone! 

‘Tis a day to honor Ireland’s most venerated and holy saint by wearing green and drinking to excess.  ‘Cause that’s just how we roll.

Slainte!

And by “we,” I mean Irish-Americans.  Or, rather, Americans, really of any descent. Strangely, this is a tradition that doesn’t have much traction in other countries, like, say, Ireland, where they insist on honoring this saint’s day by, y’know, going to church.

Yes, St. Patrick’s Day, as we know it, is as American as apple pie.  (Maybe more.  I have no idea how American apple pie really is.)  The holiday as we know it in this country was created as a way to express pride in Irish heritage, particularly at times when Irish immigrant minorities in cities were not feeling the love from Anglo-Americans.  (You may not know this, but the Irish and British have not traditionally demonstrated much mutual respect toward each other.  To say the least.)

Today, St. Patrick’s Day has been embraced by Americans of Irish descent, or dubious Irish descent, and is accepted and even enjoyed by Americans of any ancestry.  Which is why so many people across our country, myself included, will be sitting down to a dinner of corned beef and cabbage.

So what the hell is corned beef, anyway?

Well, the first thing that corned beef is NOT is a traditional Irish food.

Ireland has traditionally produced a good amount of beef, including corned beef, which is something of a staple in British cuisine, but the cows, the land they grazed on, and the meat they produced has, until the last century, been owned largely by English land-owners, the meat being exported to Britain, and too expensive for the majority of Irish to afford.

No, corned beef entered the Irish culinary scene only after huge numbers of poor Irish fled Ireland and landed on the East Coast of the United States.

Corned beef, you see, is made from beef brisket, a fairly tough cut of beef, deemed by most as inferior and therefore cheap.  The trick with brisket is in the preparation. One method involved either brining or salting the beef, often with different spices, similar to pickling spices.  Now, “corn” is not what you think it is.  The word “corn” doesn’t refer to what we call corn (which is actually maize) but rather refers to seeds, and was often used interchangeably with the word “grain.”  Because of the seeds present in the pickling or brining of the beef, it was referred to as “corned.”  Thus, corned beef.  Preparing it in this way, followed by a long cooking time, usually boiled, because what the hell else did poor Irish immigrants have to cook it in besides water, makes the meat much more delicious than it would have been.

Corned beef is, therefore, not Irish food, but rather immigrant food.  This is likewise why it shows up in the cuisine of other immigrants who came in large numbers to American cities in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, and why corned beef and its smoked cousin pastrami are staples of any good Jewish deli.  Add in potatoes and cabbage, also both cheap foods that you can make a lot out of, and you have the history of poor immigrants and their struggle for both survival and identity in a foreign land that largely hated them, all right there in one pot.  Because they usually didn’t have more than one pot.

What these early Irish immigrants did was no different than what other immigrant groups, like Italians or Mexicans, have also done, which is to take a fairly minor person or event, and conflate their importance to that of a national figure, and in doing so help create a unified cultural identity.  By making a big deal out of this one guy, they eventually got non-Irish and non-Catholics on board with legitimizing this part of their culture.  It’s kind of what Americans have always done.

It doesn’t matter that St. Patrick wasn't Irish, Columbus might not have been Italian, or Cinco de Mayo is not Mexico’s Independence Day.  These are moments of culture unity, that help us, as a nation, remember that this nation was founded by immigrants, for immigrants.  And we need to celebrate that immigrant past even as we find a way to embrace the new cultures coming into our country every day.

So here's to the Irish!  Now sit back, relax, have some corned beef, and drink a beer.  (But please, don’t drink the green beer.)

And have a very happy Evacuation Day!

The Ballad of the Ballot Questions

Tomorrow is election day, because we like pretending at the whole democracy thing still works.

Here in Massachusetts, as usual, there are a bunch of b.s. ballot questions that need addressing.  There are also people running for elected positions, but that is good and decent and exactly as it should be.  Whatever my feels toward them, that's not what I want to discuss here.

"Vote Lincoln!  Because Habeas Corpus is overrated, anyway!"

Ballot questions, on the other hand, are our misguided experiments with actual democracy, as though to quietly remind us of why we don’t get to have democracy.  Because we can’t handle the democracy.

I don’t like ballot questions.  I have heard argued on many occasions that ballot questions are in fact a more true expression of democracy, like the New England tradition of a town meeting.

Anyone of you ever been to a town meeting?  I have.

If that’s democracy, I don’t want no part of it.  (Yes, grammar police, it’s a double negative.  I’m using it in its form as an idiomatic expression.)

(What’s an idiomatic expression?  Look it up.)

Town meetings are a train wreck, a shit storm, and a sharknado, all rolled into one, but with a one old guy harping on about parliamentary procedure, which no one has any idea about anyway.

Ballot questions aren’t quite that bad.  In fact, they seem like such a good idea.  They allow us, the registered voters, to directly vote on whether or not we support a specific measure, or to change the current law.  It allows us to let our own voices be heard, without having to rely on the inconvenience of our elected representatives trying to interpret our opinions.

And that’s where they go wrong.

I don’t WANT to bypass my elected representatives.   We live in a Republic, which is a form of representative democracy.  We elect people, those people debate and vote on our behalf, so we don’t have to.  Sure, I can have opinions about how these representatives should vote, and I can even express those opinions, but at the end of the day, let them do the voting, because I’ve got shit to do!

The intent of the founders (speaking here of John Adams, who single-handedly wrote the Massachusetts constitution, and whose ideas heavily influenced the James Madison and the Constitutional Convention) was for a bicameral legislature, meaning our laws would be decided by two separate but co-equal camels.  (It’s true, I checked Snopes.)  Being as no camels were available, people were elected as representatives in their stead.  He cleverly split the legislature in two to help assure that no one’s singular opinion of a law or idea would be given disproportional weight, since both houses of would need to vote upon it, plus present it to the governor.

 It can be a painful process, watching sides snipe at each other over petty partisan ideas, but this process, ultimately, leads to the best possible laws, as well as ways of addressing unintended consequences of laws that, in retrospect, turn out to not be the best.

Ballot questions try to bypass all of this, which usually means they couldn’t pass the legislative process in the first place (or some law did pass, but some guy didn’t like it, so he wants to repeal it).  It is, ultimately, a waste of time, money, effort, and the elective process.  The only upside is that, in cases where one question in getting a lot of publicity (Hello, Question 3!), it might increase voter turnout.  The potential downside is that people who turn out for one question might not understand the issues and consequences of the other questions on the ballot.  The only thing worse than direct voting is direct, uninformed voting.

But we have 4 questions this year, and, because no one ever asked me my opinion, I will give it to you.  I don’t actually care if you agree or not.  You have, I hope, your own opinions, and perhaps we all could come together to discuss these opinions in a rational, civilized, and intelligent matter, calling upon facts and logic to dictate the outcome.  I mean, we won't.  But we could.

Question 1:  The Repeal of the Automatic Gas Tax To Inflation Indexing

Against.  Against the repeal, that is.

People are shouting out against the law previously passed that would cause the gas tax to increase in line with the rate of inflation, in order to make sure that the actual, inflation-adjusted revenue from the gas tax stays the same, to allow it to do its job of paying for our vehicular infrastructure.  And they usually do it by shouting, “No taxation without representation.”

Now, you just pissed me off twice.

“No taxation without representation” has a specific and important historical meaning from the birth of our country, as one of the founding ideas of the Revolutionary War.  It came from a time when the English Parliament passed numerous taxes on the American colonies as a way of paying for the recent war with France (which, by the way, they don’t call the French and Indian War).  The colonists were a little ticked off because they had no representatives in Parliament to at least argue their side.  It wasn’t even an option.

Every single town, every single county, every single person residing in this state that is of voting age has had the opportunity to vote for a representative.  Did your candidate lose?  That’s not “taxation without representation,” that’s the fundamental principle behind a Republic, which you may recognize is the form of government we came up with BECAUSE we had “taxation without representation.”

So knock it off.  The government, which IS your representative, collects taxes to provide YOU services.  If you don’t like it, vote for a different representative.  If they lose, tough luck.  The majority is still represented.

As for automatic tax increases tied to inflation?  Seems pretty reasonable.  Sure, it is true that you could expect the legislature to review the rate of inflation every year, look at the potential shortfall between the current tax rate and what will be needed to maintain our roads and bridges, and adjust the tax rate accordingly, which would mean a considerable amount of debate, a couple of politicians trying to play politics with such a vital issue in order to make a name for themselves, and a vote in both houses plus the signature of the governor.

Because that would be way more efficient.  And either the tax increase would pass, which would be the same outcome as the law already calls for, or it wouldn’t, because people are stupid, and a bridge would fall down.  Seems totally reasonable.

Sarcasm aside, I support the gas tax, support increases to the gas tax, and support giving the legislature a freakin' break in having to go through all the hullabaloo to pass the freakin' increases when they are necessary.

Question 2:  Expansion of Bottle Deposits.

For. 

Very, very, very much for.

There’s no real controversy here except the manufactured kind.  We already have bottle deposits for such things as soda bottles and beer bottles.  But, for some reason, not water bottles.  It's worked well enough, encouraged recycling, encouraged less littering, and how many boy scouts and girl scouts have done bottle drive fundraisers that rely on such deposits?  So, just apply it to water bottles.

No brainer.  Go, support it.

But the real issue here is this:

Stop drinking bottled water!

Let me explain, in simplest terms.  This is the chemical structure of a plastic water bottle:

Actually called polyethylene terephthalate.

Plastic bottles are made of polymers, complex strings of molecules that are designed, through the miracle of chemistry, to last practically FOREVER!

We are taking a substance create by science to persist in our environment indefinitely and we’re using it to drink water out of once, then throwing it away.  This is INSANE!

Buy a water bottle (the reusable kind), and fill it with tap water.  You can filter the water, if you feel you must.  This is also way cheaper than paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $16 per gallon for bottled water, which is really just someone else’s tap water stuck into a single use plastic bottle, which, as I said, never really goes away after you’re done using it.

For that reason alone, if you do use bottle water, you deserve to pay more for it.

(Sidebar:  From this moment on, anyone who doesn’t believe in anthropogenic climate change doesn’t get to use plastic.  Or cell phones.  Or anything else made by science.  Agreed?)

Question 3:  Repeal of Casino Gambling.

Against.  

Perfect example of my rant from above.  This has been explored, studied, voted on, and re-voted on so many times, just let the damn thing be!

Oh, traffic will be a nightmare!  Crime will go up!  Just look at how awful things are in Connecticut!

I checked the crime rates in Connecticut over the past fifty years, and crime has been steadily decreasing since the late eighties and early nineties, better known as the time when the casinos opened.

Might there be unexpected consequences for the communities where the casinos are being built?  Maybe.  Is gambling the best kind of industry for economic growth?  No, but it is better than no industry.  Will it employ people and provide tax revenue to the state?  Yep, and yep.  Should we repeal this law, which passed both houses of the legislature and was signed by the governor before it has even actually taken affect (since not one single resort casino, as specified in the law, has even begun construction yet)?

No!  Let the law do its job, and let the legislature do their job.  This ballot question, for all the press it’s been getting, is ridiculous.

Question 4:  In Which Employers Are Required to Grant Their Employees Sick Time.

For. 

Because, you know, I’m not an asshole.

Am I saying that anyone who votes to allow employers to not provide sick time to employees because they don’t want to is an asshole?

Yes.  Yes, I am.

That said, if you’re going to vote NO on 4, at least do it because you think the legislature should be the body to debate, decide and pass this law.  Not because you’re an asshole.  Which you probably are.

So, in closing, please vote.  As a corollary, please know what you’re voting on, and why.  And if someone disagrees with you, try to find out what he or she bases his or her decision on, and try to under the perspective of others.  It probably won’t change your mind, and you won’t change their minds, but what have you got to lose, besides misinformation and partisan attack ads?  

Father to Son: On Being a Dad

I just checked my last blog entry and found I posted it in…January?  Really?

How time flies.  I suppose all my loyal and constant blog readers (Hi, Mom!) are wondering what I’ve been up to.  Well, say hello to my little friend.

Little Man Reed, just chillin'.

There’s a moment, or even several moments, in the process of having a child, when you feel like you are changed forever.  Be it when you look at the pregnancy test, and realize what it is saying.  Or when you go to the hospital for the first time.  When you sit in the darkened ultrasound room and see the tiny beating heart; you feel changed.  Maybe you are, and maybe you aren’t, but that’s how it feels.  And the second time changes you no less because you’ve done it before; I became a different person at that moment.  I was a Dad.  Again.

And this time, we learned, we were having a boy.

My wife tried, in vain, to get me to express a preference before we found out.  Would I rather have a boy?  Someone to carry on the Reed name?  Another girl?  Because the first one is pretty fantastic!  I had no preference.  Nature doesn’t really care what I want, so what did it matter?  The tiny beating heart was all I needed to see.

But seeing as we were blessed with a son, I started thinking, quite naturally, about what I would try to teach him, especially about things that matter.  And I started to think that someday, he might have a family of his own.  Someday, he might have kids of his own.  I started to think about what I knew about being a dad going into all this, and I started to think what I, through words, but mostly through example, might teach him about being a good husband, and a good father.  About being a Dad.

And what I came up with, scientifically tested, and boiled down to its most basic component, was this:

If you want to be a good dad, spend more time with your kids.  Not just because it’s fun and exciting and the most rewarding thing you’ll ever do in your life.  But also because it makes you a better person.

I sometimes think back on all my daughter has accomplished in the past 6 years: she learned to roll over, sit up, walk, run, jump, talk, eat using utensils (sometimes), tell jokes, be sarcastic, learned the names of all the planets, can explain that Pluto used to be a planet and now it isn’t, and can even express why she disagrees with that decision.

What have I managed to accomplish in the same time period?

I learned how to change diapers, and make beer.  Not bad, but hardly on the same level of accomplishments.

Being a dad has been, in short, amazing.

It has also been frustrating at times, albeit it more and more rarely with each passing year.  But I wonder, will the frustrations start again with our new baby?  Will I once again run up against gender stereotypes that typify mothers as having an inherent “mothering instinct,” while dads just bumble along and try not to kill anyone? 

Almost certainly.

This is a pretty typical understanding of how “fatherhood” works.  “A mother knows,” whereas a dad shouldn’t be left alone with a baby for too long.  He might not know what to do if something goes wrong.

Those who express this stereotype might have some ammunition to back it up, and this seems to be borne out within my own upbringing.  My father was not well known for changing diapers (in much the same way that fish are not well known for flying airplanes), so much as he was known for taking me up in bucket trucks, 40 or so feet above the ground.  And while I thought that was pretty awesome at the time, parenting should not be objectively judged by what some little kid thinks is awesome.

So, mothers know best.  I guess, deep inside, we already knew that.  And science has backed this up.

Researchers using functional MRIs have documented neural changes in the brains of mothers.  Other studies have found changes in certain hormone levels during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding contribute to a chemically-identifiable bonding between mother and infant.  At a biological level, science has been telling us, mothers have an instinct that fathers do not.  With fathers, parenting must be learned (and, by extension, taught, somehow, usually by the mother).

SCIENCE!!

But not so fast!  A more recent study took the shocking step of looking for similar patterns in fathers.  (Shocking!)  And not just any old “dad” off the street, but rather, the study looked at hormone levels and MRI imaging in fathers who took an active role in parenting and caring for an infant.  It even looked at same-sex couples (where, presumably, there was no one immediately present to “teach” this whole parenting thing, like we guys are supposed to need).

The results were clear and, well, shocking!  Parenting itself rewires the human brain.  Certain hormone levels were altered in the fathers in the study, while MRIs also found neural pathways in their brains were altered, all in patterns similar to the changes that have been found in mothers during pregnancy and childbirth. 

So, guys, you’re good!  Every baffled look, every clearly irresponsible decision (“What does he need a car seat for?  I’m not going to get in an accident!”), is now totally backed up by science as just part of your infallible paternal instinct!  My father knew exactly what he was doing!  He was helping me conquer my fear of heights!  By giving me one!

Not so fast.  Go back and read my description of the research study again.  They found these results in fathers who took an ACTIVE role in parenting.  In other words, this isn’t something you get just for being there, like a frequent flyer card.  This is something that develops in you through constant exposure, immersion, in the reality of parenting.

Now, I try not to make many Mad Men references, mostly because when other people do, I have no idea what they’re talking about, but picture this, the Old Normal:

Picture the successful professional, or the aspiring professional, or the hardworking man working his fingers to the bone to put food on the table.  His wife is at home, taking care of the kids, changing diapers, kissing boo-boos, cleaning the house, cooking breakfast, lunch, dinner, tucking the kids into bed.  And the kids, what do they see?  Mom, taking care of them, and Dad, coming home usually right around dinner time, some nights not until after bed time.  He would read the evening paper, a glass of bourbon in his hand if he happened to be Don Draper (he drinks, right?  Like I said, I never watched it), or munching on a handful of peanuts if he was my own father.  The kids would kiss him goodnight, and off to bed.  And the weekend would come, and Dad would take them on some grand, and sometimes vaguely dangerous, adventures.  Or, you know, just mowing the lawn:

"Don't worry, Dad.  I got this."

 

When it came to parenting, Mom was the Parent, Dad was the Provider.  Inside their brains, entirely different things are happening, and the one cannot even begin to comprehend the other.

Flash-forward to the New Normal (or what we’re slowly building toward making normal):  Mom and Dad change diapers, cook meals, clean the house (my wife might argue with me about this one, but I stand by my work), cook, kiss boo-boos.  And inside the brains, similar neural pathways are at work, because these very activities have the ability to alter the chemistry and functionality of our brains.  Science is showing us more and more that brains are not permanently wired one way or the other, but can change.  And that we can actually choose how that rewiring will occur.  We can choose to be active dads, or absent dads, and our brains will follow suit, seemingly reinforcing that decision as just being who we are.  But really, the decision is ours.  It always has been.

This is what I want to pass on to my son.  That his brain will be formed and reformed throughout his life, and he gets to choose, by his own active participation, how the rewiring will occur.  And the same goes for all of us.  

So dads, be a good father.  It will, literally, make you a better person.  A dad.