Posted tagged ‘Time Magazine’

Bunking In With Mom And Dad

February 20, 2009

I love this article by Laura Koss-Feder at TIME Magazine.

Yes, I’m biased because I’m in the article and there is a family picture as well but still, it’s a really interesting look at families who are pulling together in a time where the economy is in the tank.

I only wish our part of the story, in bold below, would have said more about how much my in-laws helped us out, rather than us helping them. They have done so much for us and I felt that the story focused more on how we helped pay their rent and bills. There was so much more than just that.

But still, to be in TIME is quite an honor. Please try not to laugh at my photo below 🙂

UPDATE: The print issue is dated March 2 and should be in stores soon!!! Kate Winslet is on the cover, just FYI! Oh yeah…I’m on the COVER too!!! Top right hand corner next to the date March 2, 2009.

From TIME:

Credit: Mark Richards, TIME Magazine

Credit: Mark Richards, TIME Magazine

Jennifer Bliss was no fledgling lawyer when she moved back in with her parents. At 39, she had burned through her retirement funds after losing her law-firm job in July 2007. She gave the bank the keys to the home she was unable to sell in Grand Rapids, Mich., and last November, she packed up her two Great Danes and moved about 60 miles, to Lansing, to live with her mother and stepfather. “This has been awful,” says Bliss, who has sent out some 600 résumés nationwide looking for legal work or a managerial position in another field. “I went to law school to have a solid profession so that I wouldn’t wind up in a situation like this.”

The term boomerang children used to refer to young adults moving back in with their parents, but the recession is forcing people in their 30s and 40s and older–often with a spouse and kids in tow–to bunk in with the ‘rents until they regain their financial footing. Since the recession began in December 2007, the U.S. has lost 3.6 million jobs. An AARP survey released in May found that more than a third of retirees have had to help a child pay bills in the past year. And the number of multigenerational households has increased from 5 million in 2000 to 6.2 million in 2008, according to AARP. Cramped quarters, wounded pride and general anxiety about the global economic crisis do not the most pleasant living situation make. But there are ways to ease the transition.

Talk about expectations. And be sure to discuss one another’s needs up front, says Brian Carpenter, a psychology professor at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. Failure to do so can lead to a lot of friction. That’s what happened when Michael Gallagher, 40, moved in with his mother in Los Angeles in October 2007 after he was downsized from his job as an audio engineer. “When he came home to live, I was thinking ‘family,’ and he was thinking ‘roommate,'” says BJ Gallagher, 59, an author and a video producer. “I would feel bad when he wouldn’t say hello when he walked in the door.” At the same time, her son felt she was checking up on him and “lurking” around, she says. “We both ended up disappointed and annoyed until we discussed it and dealt with it.”

Donna Butts, executive director of Generations United, an intergenerational advocacy group based in Washington, says it’s a good idea to create an approximate timetable for achieving specific goals (à la “get a job,” “move out”).

Build in privacy. If possible, everyone should have at least some space of his or her own. For instance, when Michael Gallagher took over the part of his mother’s house that she had been using as an office, she moved her computer and video equipment into a much smaller room adjoining her bedroom. “We each needed our own space. There was no way around that,” BJ says of the rearranging she did to accommodate her son.

Share household expenses. Pay parents rent, or help with bills, and take over chores like mowing the lawn. “This way, everyone is helping in some way, and no one feels taken advantage of,” says Elizabeth Carll, a psychologist in Huntington, N.Y., who is an expert on dealing with stress. Bliss does all the cooking and cleaning. Michael Gallagher buys his own food, and beyond that, his mother says, he has “paid in trade” by persuading her to have the hip replacement she had needed for a while and by taking care of her postsurgery.

Grandparents rule. In late 2006, John Kreuzer, 30, and his wife moved from Portland, Ore., into his in-laws’ house in San Jose, Calif., because he got a p.r. job in Silicon Valley. They decided to keep staying there–with their two little kids–because Kreuzer’s father-in-law was laid off. As the job market got tighter, it just made sense for everyone to share living expenses in such a high-cost area, Kreuzer says.

Along the way, there have been differences of opinion when it comes to child-rearing. Kreuzer has explained to his children that they must abide by their grandparents’ rules, e.g., no roughhousing indoors. “My in-laws really help out with the kids while my wife and I are working,” he says. “I know that once we move out, my children will miss their time together with Grandma and Pop-Pop.” Once we move out? That brings up one last point.

Be realistic. The economy has to turn around someday, and in the meantime, rents are falling. In March, Kreuzer and his family are moving into a nearby town house with rent so cheap, he can continue to help his in-laws pay their monthly bills.

Michael Gallagher also found a killer deal on a rental. He moved out of his mom’s place in November, but she has yet to rearrange her stuff. “I’m not moving anything back just yet,” she says. “With this awful economy, he could boomerang right back in here.”

Time Magazine: Friday, February 20…Get It!!!

February 12, 2009

I finally got word that the TIME Magazine article featuring my family and I will be on newsstands Friday, February 20.

Not sure how long the article is, how much of it we’re in, or if they’re gonna use the photos they took. I’ll know when everyone else does!

As most of you know, the story is about how families have come together during tough economic times to help each other out.

For two years, my wife, two children and I lived together with my in laws. My father in law has been going through a difficult time since he was laid off and although we had hoped to move out after only a few short months, it just made more sense for us to continue living together. We all got along (pretty well) and my in laws got to see their grandchildren every day. I know they loved that 🙂

I hope it’s a good story. I hope that there’s nothing negative. Now I have to sweat it out until then to read it 🙂

We’re gonna have our fifteen minutes of fame! Much less time than the whole Casey/Caylee Anthony story, that’s for sure!

Pick up a copy if you want to read! I’ll post the story here when it comes out.

TIME Magazine in February?

January 30, 2009

Well, I may finally get my shot at fame and fortune! Well, more than likely it will be neither but still this could be a pretty cool event in my life.

I took a little time away from the Caylee/Casey Anthony case (as well as all the other topics that I cover in my spare time) to be interviewed a few months back by a reporter at TIME Magazine.

Well, it turns out the article is going to be published (fingers crossed) for the February 9 issue! Not 100% sure yet if it will be in print or just online but either way, I’m looking forward to it.

Without ruining the story, it’s about families who have come together to find ways to survive the downturn of the economy. As most of you know, my wife and our two children moved in with my in laws in November, 2006. We’ve lived together since then and it has been very beneficial to us all. Bills and rent are paid and the in laws get to see their grand kids every day. Nothing wrong with that.

We have a photo shoot scheduled for 9 a.m. (PT) tomorrow so that should be exciting. I’ll have to give an update when I find out confirmation on the issue date. I’ve been told February 9, but we’ll see…

Anyways…Hope you all have a great night! And make sure to check out TIME when our inclusion appears 🙂

Why Proposition 8 Passed in California…

November 7, 2008

There are a lot of people who continue to fight the outcome of the vote on this issue on Tuesday night in California. The question on half the state’s mind is this: Why did voters pass this proposition in quite possibly the most liberal state in the nation? John Cloud of TIME Magazine has written an interesting piece which discusses what happened over the final few weeks of the campaign to cause a shift in the vote.

From TIME:

Nov. 4 may have been a joyous day for liberals, but it wasn’t a great day for lesbians and gays. Three big states – Arizona, California and Florida – voted to change their constitutions to define marriage as a heterosexuals-only institution. The losses cut deep on the gay side. Arizona had rejected just such a constitutional amendment only two years ago. It had been the first and only state to have rebuffed a constitutional ban on marriage equality. In Florida, where the law requires constitutional amendments to win by 60%, a marriage amendment passed with disturbing ease, 62.1% to 37.9%.

And then there was California. Gay strategists working for marriage equality in this election cycle had focused most of their attention on that state. Losing there dims hopes that shimmered brightly just a few weeks ago – hopes that in an Obama America, straight people would be willing to let gay people have the basic right to equality in their personal relationships. It appears not.

The California vote was close but not razor-thin: as of 10 a.m. P.T., with 96.4% of precincts reporting, gays had lost 52.2% to 47.8%. Obama did not suffer the much-discussed “Bradley effect” this year, but it appears that gay people were afflicted by some version of it. As of late October, a Field Poll found that the pro-gay side was winning 49% to 44%, with 7% undecided. But gays could not quite make it to 49% on Election Day, meaning a few people may have been unwilling to tell pollsters that they intended to vote against equal marriage rights.

Gays are used to losing these constitutional amendment battles – as I said, Arizona was the only exception – but gay activists cannot claim they didn’t have the money to wage the California fight. According to an analysis of the most recent reports from the California secretary of state, the pro-equality side raised an astonishing $43.6 million, compared with just $29.8 million for those who succeeded in keeping gays from marrying. The money the gay side raised is surprising for two reasons: first, the cash-Hoover known as the Obama campaign was sucking down millions of dollars a day from the nation’s liberals. Many gays expected it to be difficult to raise money to fight Proposition 8 and its plan to outlaw same-sex marriage from Democrats eager to give to Obama and to the outside 527 groups supporting him. As recently as August, one of the nation’s top gay political givers told me that he expected the gay side to raise no more than $25 million.

A symbolic low point for the gay side came on Oct. 13, when the Sacramento Bee ran a remarkable story about Rick and Pam Patterson, a Mormon couple of modest means – he drives a 10-year-old Honda Civic, she raises their five boys – who had withdrawn $50,000 from their savings account and given it to the pro-8 campaign. “It was a decision we made very prayerfully,” Pam Patterson, 48, told the Bee’s Jennifer Garza. “Was it an easy decision? No. But it was a clear decision, one that had so much potential to benefit our children and their children.”

You could argue that marriage equality has little to do with children, but Patterson seemed to speak to Californians’ inchoate phobias about gays and kids. On the Friday before the Bee story appeared, a group of San Francisco first-graders was taken to city hall to see their lesbian teacher marry her partner. Apparently the field trip was a parent’s idea – not the teacher’s – but the optics of the event were terrible for the gay side. It seemed like so much indoctrination.

That news came around the same time the pro-amendment forces were running a devastating ad showing a self-satisfied San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom shouting wild-eyed at a rally that same-sex marriage was inevitable “whether you like it or not.” The announcer then said darkly, “It’s no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory.” Many fence sitters were turned off by Newsom’s arrogance; blogger Andrew Sullivan attributed mid-October polls against the gay side to the “Newsom effect.”

Gays came back in some polls, but they couldn’t pull out a win. Part of the reason is that Obama inspired unprecedented numbers of African Americans to vote. Polls show that black voters are more likely to attend church than whites and less likely to be comfortable with equality for gay people. According to CNN, African Americans voted against marriage equality by a wide margin, 69% to 31%. High turnout of African Americans in Florida probably help explain that state’s lopsided vote to ban same-sex weddings.

Scientists Close to Developing an Invisibility Cloak

August 12, 2008

Wow! Talk about your science fiction movie actually coming coming true! Scientists believe that they are a getting closer to developing materials that could rmake people and objects invisible.

From Time Magazine:

Researchers have demonstrated for the first time they were able to cloak three-dimensional objects using artificially engineered materials that redirect light around the objects.

The findings, by scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, led by Xiang Zhang, are to be released later this week in the journals Nature and Science.

The research was funded in part by the U.S. Army Research Office and the National Science Foundation’s Nano-Scale Science and Engineering Center.

Prior to this, scientists have only been able to cloak very thin two-dimensional objects. This would be a huge breakthrough in science and it would be interesting to see what this technology would be used for. Judging by the fact that the research has been funded by the US Army, I can only assume that this would be used to aid the military. Stealth technology anyone? Thoughts?