Here is some of the feedback from our segment on the book "The Meaning of Wife."

I am a lesbian wife. My female partner works full time and I do everything else in our household in addition to being a full time doctoral student, and it works well for both of us. The truth is everyone wants a wife! B.K.

I am amazed to hear that these young women let other people define them. I am 70 years old, I married and had my children very young....A woman has to define herself, in any situation at any age. This does not mean by hostility to other people in her life.

I very strongly feel that children need parenting 24/7 in the early years, and by giving them enough early we set them and ourselves free for the rest of their and our lives. Parent is not a life definition – unless one wants it to be.

There’s room for every definition of wife and mother and parenting. B.F

Posted by leboheme at 03:37 PM

Today we asked listeners to contribute stories they felt worth telling. Here are a few sent by email.

--
I used to live on Bedford Ave in Williamsburg...

A brand new ultra-huge laundromat/cleaners opened on Bedford Ave. It's
a hispanic owned and operated laundromat. When I went in to pick up my
drycleaning, I looked up at the wall which was covered with taped-up
one dollar bills (common in new places). At the top was a one dollar
bill with "KILL WHITIE" scrawled over George Washington's face.

As I looked around I realized every customer was white.

To be fair, when I asked the person at the counter "Are you kidding
with that bill?" He looked up at it, apologized and immediately took it
down.

I never returned.

--
We love differentiating ourselves for good and bad. Here's a site my
partner and I love...

http://overheardinnewyork.com/

--
being up to my ears overhearing comments and my own, the most refreshing that made me burst out laughing was from a six year-old scampering over some rocks interrupting his mother talking about what else, "is Elvis Presley dead?"

a british friend living in NYC commented how everyone says, "only in new york" to just about everything. oh look, a squirrel pooping in the park. only in new york!

My evil bosses won't let me use the phone to call in, so here's my current story -- handy both for cocktail parties and for drawing unwanted eavesdroppers into a novel web of delusion:

"Anyway, my brother's neighbor is that Lincoln Karim guy. You know, the cameraman that Paula Zahn had arrested... So, he was showing my brother some footage last night of Pale Male and Lola returning to their nest with those little orange squares of fabric 'The Gates' volunteers hand out in the Park. Isn't that wild? I guess they're lining the nest with 'em."

So, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

--
Two "gates" volunteers were talking about upcoming NY elections......"Yeah, Bloomberg and Spritzer" would be terrific for New York" I didn't correct "Spritzer" cause I was giggling so much.

Posted by leboheme at 04:13 PM

What are the stories you tell your friends and family about life where your live? Email us and then call in tomorrow to share your stories from your block, neighborhood, or city.

Posted by leboheme at 04:38 PM

If after yesterday's installment in our Social Security series (Mathematics, Part 1), you're still confused about how your social security benefits are calculated, we received this email from a 31-year claims representative who kindly explains it all in detail:

When figuring a retirement benefit, 35 years of earnings are used. People who have 35 years of earnings get the highest benefit payments. If you don't have 35 years of earnings, and many people do not - for a variety of reasons- out of work, out of country, out for raising children, self employed and not paying in (even though they should have been,) working off the books (a very common one) we still divide by 35, to determine your average, so if you only have 28 years, as an example, you have 7 zeroes in the computation which brings down your average. If you only had 10 years of earnings in the U.S. (which is the minimum number of years needed to qualify for "something", that "something is determined by still divided by 35, which makes it a relatively low benefit payment. ...

What amount of earnings do we average? For the most part we do not average your actual earnings, we average your earnings up to the social security maximum. Now today the maximum taxed earnings is $90,000.00 but that is really besides the point- mainly because so few individuals earn $90000.00, and the maximum has only been going up dramatically in the last years to bring in more revenue, but in years past, and for the overwhelming majority of Americans, the Social Security maximum was low or lower.

One last point: Social Security is for everyone- everyone you see on the street, on the subway, in an airport, at the beauty parlor, at the gym, at the auto garage - just look around you every day in every place and say to yourself- this is who social security is for - not the wall street guy, not the talking heads on TV, not the people just like you with as much education as you - but everyone who works or is married to someone who works and when changes are made to Social Security, they affect everyone, for good or for bad.

Posted by leboheme at 04:31 PM

President Bush can't seem to escape his past. As he was leaving for Europe new audio tapes were released with the President discussing his past drug use. Douglas Wead, a longtime Bush family friend, secretly recorded the conversations with George Bush as he was gearing up to run for President.

Our extended entry contains the transcripts of the tapes heard on ABC news.
And send us your thoughts on this subject, do you think the President was right to lie about his past to protect children from following his example?
Email us.

GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, Doug, but it's not -- it doesn't matter,

Daddy, President Bush tried marijuana, I think I will?

BUSH: Al Gore -- (as Gore) I tried it. It wasn't a part of my

life. He doesn't give a damn, you know.

WEAD: You promised you would not appoint gays to office.

BUSH: No. What I said was, I wouldn't fire gays. I'm not going

to discriminate against people.

Posted by leboheme at 11:38 AM

Today's installment in our Social Security series was about the language used in discussing the issue. Linguist Geoffrey Nunberg joined Brian to discuss the words "insurance," "reform," "trust fund" and "privatization" among others.

To start the segment off, Brian spoke briefly with Pierre Epstein, the son of Abraham Epstein, who was the first person to use the words "Social Security" publicly in the United States. Mr. Epstein happened to call into an earlier segment on the origins of the program and Brian invited him back today to explain more fully the role his father played in popularizing the name. He's just finished a book on his father's role in the creation of Social Security in the United States and here's a selection from an email he sent us:

Abraham Epstein was asked by the SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD in 1941 what he meant when he first used the words, and the exchange of letters is revealing. SOCIAL SECURITY published them in a 1992 article titled, "How we got our name."
"I insisted on the term," Abraham Epstein wrote, "because by that time I had a clear conception of the differences which lay between the concept of social insurance as worked out by Bismarck in Germany and the conception of social protection as elaborated in England. I definitely did not want 'social insurance' because this would give it the German twist of actuarial insurance...I did not want 'economic' security because what I hoped for was... that type of security that would promote the welfare of society as a whole. No improvement in the conditions of labor can come except as the security of the people as a whole is advanced."
The key point in his idea, I believe, is that SOCIAL SECURITY is a means of protection for American society as a whole, not just for the individual.

Posted by leboheme at 03:51 PM

In the end, the only opinion of The Gates that matters is your own. Nevertheless, if you missed this morning's opinion-fest on the meaning of all that specially-woven saffron fabric, here are a few interesting takes on the meaning of it all.

Christo and jean-Claude have not made an art piece so much as he has created a performance art piece! The work is not the gates or the fabric, but in fact it is the people moving around the park.
-MD

Christo says that the work is "totally irrational, irresponsible,
useless, with no justification, with no reason to exist except that we
like it." We should take him at his word, and conclude that 'The Gates' is
not art.
-LT

Aside from The Gates, what do you think is the meaning of Jackson Pollock's work? What about those Robert Ryeman painting (enormous blank white
canvasses) that were on view at the Pace gallery a few months ago? It is the case that, in a very general way, all contemporary art involves the viewer's participation (interpretation)
-BM

Tell us what you think!

It is wierd that Christo and Jeanne-Claude claim their work is non-political, since by its very nature, public art is political. At a time when it costs $20.00 to get into the MOMA any piece of public art has a political message.
-MK

But aesthetically I do not like the choice of color. First of all, since when is “saffron” orange? And second, the cumulative effect of the orange is to make the park appear like one large construction site. I would have loved almost any other color—bright green, for example.
-MS

I am Japanese and grew up in Osaka. The Gates exhibits reminds me of Fushimi Inari shrine, which I often visited when I was kid. Fushimi inari has hundreds of orange torii's.
-IS

No message does not mean no meaning!! It's meaning for the observer is derived from the experience of it...just as in life, the meaning is derived from the living of it. Thus, art equates with life.
-IH

Posted by leboheme at 03:33 PM

Some of us made it to Central Park this weekend to see the unfurling of The Gates. Some of us feared the crowds and decided to wait one week, which may be a mistake as praises for Jean-Claude and Christo seem to be streaming in from all ends ensuring more crowds.

Tomorrow on the show we talk to Adam Sternbergh, Senior Editor at New York Magazine about the effort put into making The Gates a realty.

Have you made it to Central Park to see this project? Tell us what you think about the Big Apple going orange.

Posted by leboheme at 04:14 PM

Responding to today's interview with Jane Mayer on the practice of extraordinary rendition, MH in the East Village writes:

What exactly is the semantic origin of the term "extraordinary rendition"? On the face of it, one might imagine a rapturous piano sonata, but the actual meaning re: torture/interrogation is so obscure.

It got us to thinking about some other recent government and punditocracy-issued coinages:

Homeland Security: a stock certificate or bond issued by any of the former "bantustans" of Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Transkei or Venda

nuclear option: actually dropping the bomb, rather than making sure the Dems can't stymie Scalia

grandfathered in: to be left with one's social security benefits intact

clawback: to get old-fashioned bathtub "claws" installed in your tub, rather than having to "mortgage" your social security benefits (in the words of Paul Krugman)

What's your faux neologism? Tell us!

Posted by leboheme at 03:10 PM

This (PDF) is the report containing the sentences referenced by our guest Terry Jones of Monty Python fame on an underlying reason for the war in Iraq, plainly stated by some of those who brought us the war.

Posted by leboheme at 09:34 AM

The Chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation, in conversation with Brian.

Click here to hear the interview.

Posted by leboheme at 08:59 PM

I doubt that any woman looks forward happily to having an abortion. I'm sure that's true. But many women who have abortions have them with relief. When I had my early-term abortion at the age of 48, I was profoundly relieved that abortion was safe and legal. There was no way that I was going to have a baby at my age, and it would certainly have been more detrimental for my physical health, not to mention my mental health and life for nine months to bear a child and give it up for adoption. So Jim Wallis's position has no effect on women in my circumstances. Wallis still seems to think that women's ability to make moral decisions for themselves is somehow less than society's desire to make those decisions for women or that women, once they become pregnant, have given over their moral agency to their fetuses. I still believe that born women, with histories and lives, have moral agency that supersedes that of a potential life that can't exist outside the woman's body. If that makes me an extremist, I guess I am an extremist.S.R.

Jim Wallis' religousity limits the perspectives and range of view
points we can use to discuss issues affecting America. Conceding the
discussion to a religious viewpoint gives greater fuel to the right and
strengthens the control institutionalized religion has on America. R.B.

The woman who phoned in at 11:30 hit the nail on the head - There is no evidence of "religion" in the Bush administration and obviously they use religion only as a tool to gain more power and "rule" the world through their corrupt and evil ways - I can't imagine that there are many Americans that can really fall for that - They drop in the word God and faith along with terrorism and 9-11 and weapons of Mass Destruction - Its just a marketing campaign with strategically placed words that have alternative meanings behind them. Gaining control under the guise of the "religious" and spreading their "democracy" - using religion as a marketing tool. I hope the nation wakes up because our constitution is at risk. J. in Manhattan

Posted by leboheme at 03:34 PM

standardized testing makes standardized children. The underlying premise of this test is to standardize potential workers so that the are more easily managed.
-TF

Thank heavens they didn't test me for job readiness 35 years ago -- I
would have flunked cold. I had a pretty bad attitude, didn't get on well with co-workers, had mediocre performance skills...By the time I retired, I was a highly vallued employee of my company, holding down a one-woman position of great prestige and responsibility.
-ED

Last I looked at my calendar, it was 2005. Why does anyone need to know how to spell in this computer age?
-RC

Read Susan Saulny's New York Times article on job readiness testing.

Anything to add?

Posted by leboheme at 04:01 PM

Yesterday’s State of the Union was noted for its emphasis on the President’s plans for social security, but on today’s show we focused on the evolution of the speech in its treatment of foreign policy. Judging from the word counts of the speech, the president spoke more about “freedom” and “democracy” and less about “Iraq” this year than he did in 2003 (in the run up to the war). “Democracy” got 1 mention in 2003 versus 8 in yesterday’s speech; “Freedom” got 20 mentions yesterday versus five in the pre-Iraq war speech. Perhaps even more important, there were three mentions of “weapons” this time around, versus 27 in 2003.

To highlight this point, we played extended excerpts of both SOTU’s on the show. What does this change in emphasis mean? Click on to see the texts of both speeches and mail us your thoughts.

Excerpt from the 2003 State of the Union Speech

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.
Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.
Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.
Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.
With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. (Applause.)
And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. (Applause.) And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. (Applause.)
The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.
We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)

A section of the 2005 State of the Union speech devoted to Iraq

Our generational commitment to the advance of freedom, especially in the Middle East, is now being tested and honored in Iraq. That country is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there. Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.) And the victory of freedom in Iraq will strengthen a new ally in the war on terror, inspire democratic reformers from Damascus to Tehran, bring more hope and progress to a troubled region, and thereby lift a terrible threat from the lives of our children and grandchildren.
We will succeed because the Iraqi people value their own liberty -- as they showed the world last Sunday. (Applause.) Across Iraq, often at great risk, millions of citizens went to the polls and elected 275 men and women to represent them in a new Transitional National Assembly. A young woman in Baghdad told of waking to the sound of mortar fire on election day, and wondering if it might be too dangerous to vote. She said, "Hearing those explosions, it occurred to me -- the insurgents are weak, they are afraid of democracy, they are losing. So I got my husband, and I got my parents, and we all came out and voted together."
Americans recognize that spirit of liberty, because we share it. In any nation, casting your vote is an act of civic responsibility; for millions of Iraqis, it was also an act of personal courage, and they have earned the respect of us all. (Applause.)
One of Iraq's leading democracy and human rights advocates is Safia Taleb al-Suhail. She says of her country, "We were occupied for 35 years by Saddam Hussein. That was the real occupation. Thank you to the American people who paid the cost, but most of all, to the soldiers." Eleven years ago, Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country -- and we are honored that she is with us tonight. (Applause.)
The terrorists and insurgents are violently opposed to democracy, and will continue to attack it. Yet, the terrorists' most powerful myth is being destroyed. The whole world is seeing that the car bombers and assassins are not only fighting coalition forces, they are trying to destroy the hopes of Iraqis, expressed in free elections. And the whole world now knows that a small group of extremists will not overturn the will of the Iraqi people. (Applause.)
We will succeed in Iraq because Iraqis are determined to fight for their own freedom, and to write their own history. As Prime Minister Allawi said in his speech to Congress last September, "Ordinary Iraqis are anxious to shoulder all the security burdens of our country as quickly as possible." That is the natural desire of an independent nation, and it is also the stated mission of our coalition in Iraq. The new political situation in Iraq opens a new phase of our work in that country.

Posted by leboheme at 02:41 PM