A Resurgence of Oldies

45 records


Three days after stopping at this tiny Kern County crossroads on our way north, we find ourselves overnighting in the same motel on our way south.  It’s all about convenience; this place is about halfway.

It would be hard to do much driving on the interstate highway system without experiencing a ubiquitous piece of Americana:  The truck stop.  Large or small, they’re all pretty much the same.  There are the showers, the convenience store, the video games and the restaurant.

Characteristic of the truck stop restaurant is uniformly bad food, good coffee and questionable taste in piped-in music.  In regard to the latter, it seems that every truck stop we visit is playing an endless loop of recorded “oldies.”  So whether we stop at Wheeler Ridge on the Grapevine, Coachella in the desert, Santa Nella in Merced County or here in Buttonwillow, we can guarantee that we will be regaled by the hits of the 1950s and 1960s.

The Platters.  Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons.  Dion. The Chiffons.  From doo-wop to The Beatles and The Beach Boys.  At one truck stop we will hear The Shirelles performing “Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow”; at the next truck stop two hours down the road, they will be doing “Soldier Boy.”  In the rest room, it will be Rosie and the Originals on “Angel Baby”; at the coffee station, The Silhouettes will be kip-kip-kipping and boom-boom-booming their way through “Get a Job.”

Could it be that the aging baby boomer crowd, of which I am most assuredly a member, has taken up a nostalgic fondness for the kitschy pop music of days gone by?  I hadn’t heard of such a movement, so I initially wrote off this phenomenon to cheap canned music track loops, the truck stop equivalent of the strained mush we call “elevator music.”

So, hanging out with my niece and nephews (ages 16 to 21), I was shocked to find them singing along to the same crap I was hearing at the truck stops along the interstate!

Here I was thinking that those of my generation were harking back to the halcyon days of our youths, when my 16 year old niece walks into the room belting out the lyrics to “Runaround Sue.”  When the three of them started putting You Tube music videos up on their big screen TV, I didn’t know whether to laugh or to cry at “Mr. Lonely.”  And when they put on Bobby Vinton singing “My Melody of Love,” you could have knocked me over with a feather.  I recommended The Duprees’ cover of “You Belong to Me,” which they dutifully brought up on the screen.  What I didn’t tell them is that, long after their lead singer had died, I used to follow the rest of the crew around to their gigs all over New Jersey.  I’m not sure I’m quite ready to confess all the sins of my misspent youth to them.

Could it be that the younger generation is discovering the music that we once “made out” to?  My niece started singing “Put Your Head on My Shoulder,” and my eyes turned misty.  She’d discovered Paul Anka!

i’d better not tell her about “Diana.”  Because then I might have to fess up about a certain girl who, despite my best efforts, I never could seem to get, and a certain 45 rpm record that I would play over and over. . .

I won’t tell if you won’t, okay?


National Donut Day



So we end our day in Buttonwillow, a tiny crossroads off the interstate highway, about halfway between our home in the desert and our family in northern California. Six hours of driving down, six more hours to go in the morning.

This lengthy trip follows a full day of working. Not just any workday, mind you. National Donut Day.

You may think I am kidding, but I assure you I am not. I know this because Dunkin’ Donuts sent me an email reminding me.

Last night, I thought briefly about bringing in donuts to work for my staff.  To honor the day properly, you understand.  Ultimately, however, I decided against it. Along with four of my staff, I am participating in the company’s Biggest Loser weight loss challenge.  Now, is it just me, or would you agree that donuts do not quite fit in with this theme?

My hope was that no one at work would know that it was National Donut Day.

Well, fat chance of that! (Ooo, bad pun.). They knew alright.  And then they started whining about how they wanted donuts.  I reminded them about our weight loss challenge, but they remained undeterred.

Capitulating (caving in, like the sucker that I am), I headed to our little local donut shop.  I certainly wasn’t about to drive hours to Dunkin’ Donuts in Phoenix.

Arriving at the donut shop, I quickly learned that EVERYONE knew about National Donut Day.  Everyone except the owners, that is.  They had made no preparations and the place was just about cleaned out.

My conversation with one of the owners went something like this:

“I need a dozen.  Do you have any Boston creme?”

“No, sorry, all out.”

“Do you have any chocolate cake donuts?”

“Sorry, all out.”

“How about blueberry?”

“All out.”

“You don’t have much, do you?”

“A lot of people came in this morning. They bought two, three dozen donuts.  We didn’t know it’s National Donut Day.”

“Don’t you go on the Internet?”

(sheepish grin)  “Our son just told us.”

Well, isn’t that just ducky!  Now what am I supposed to tell my sugar-craving staff?  I looked around and decided to make the best of it.  What was left were maple bars, coconut donuts and plain glazed donuts.

The owners agreed to fill some of the maple bars for me, two with creme and three with jelly.  Then I added some of the coconut and glazed donuts to the box.

Feeling pretty pleased with the results under the circumstances, I asked to be rung up.  The total for 9 donuts?  Thirteen dollars!

I blanched.  I only had ten dollars in my wallet!  Sighing, I took out my credit card.

“Cash only!” yelled the owner, pointing to the sign I had overlooked.

The glazed and coconut donuts came out of the box. For ten dollars, I could get the filled maple bars, with some pieces of broken donuts thrown in as a measure of good will.

So there would only be five donuts (plus some broken pieces) for eight people.  Well, the maple bars were pretty big; maybe they would share.  Sorry, guys.

Well, share they did and it all worked out perfectly.  And I am happy to report that I did not touch a single donut. After all, I recently found out what donuts are fried in commercially.  You don’t want to know.

Thanks, Smart ‘n Final.  A little bit of knowledge goes a long way.  And maybe, thanks to you, I might actually lose some weight.

2013 Silicon Valley Scrabble Tournament

Scrabble board


At the risk of boring you to tears or putting you to sleep (no snoring, please), here is a description of how it went for me at the annual Silicon Valley Showdown Scrabble Tournament in the Bay Area over Memorial Day weekend.


Round 1:  Started out with a big loss to Marcia Wade, 334-395.  My opponent started out with LOANED, setting me up for a 69 pt bingo with STOGIES before she bingoed right back with DEVIATED 78 pt.  My first play was the only bingo I was able to get off all game, while Marcia laid down the very clever TINKLIER for 63 pt.  I drew the Q (but was only able to play ROQUE 30 pt), while my opponent drew the Z, X, J, K and both blanks.  Starting the tournament with a spread of -61 served as a quick reminder that this is Campbell, where the competition is all higher rated than I am and where I am forever in the hole.

Round 2:  Felt a little better with a small win against Lynn Gunn, 374-355.  I had only one bingo all game (LIONIZED 70 pt), but my opponent had none.  I should have done better, considering I drew the bag with the Q, J, K, X and Z.  I was just grateful for the win.

Round 3:  Big loss to Joan Mocine, 283-373, a 90-point spread.  I did not have a single bingo all game (accounting for my low score), while Joan did a great job with CORNERS 68 pt and TOWERED 89 pt.  I should have known better than to set her up for that last one.  I had played LAC, then extended it to LACTATE leaving the word one square shy of the triple line.  I held a D and planned to take advantage of that triple on my next turn.  Unfortunately for me, Joan had a D as well and was able to bingo with it.  I need to learn to play more defensively.  Hope doesn’t go very far in Scrabble.

Round 4:  I shocked myself by winning against Barbara Van Allen, 413-376 despite having a boneheaded play challenged off the board.  This was my first time playing Barbara, who I have known for several years as codirector (with her husband, Larry Rand) of our wonderful tournaments in Phoenix each February.  I was first and started right out with a bingo, VEERING for 80 pt.  Seven turns later, I wracked my brain forever over EIOLTSS in an effort to remember the anagram of TOILES + S.  Of course, I checked later, and there isn’t one!  The best I could come up with was the aforementioned boneheaded play, SISTOLE*, which Barbara promptly sent back to my rack.  She then pulled ahead of me with TALENTS 70 pt.  I lucked out with being able to lay down ROADIES 74 pt near the end of the game for the win.  Barbara is such a gracious and kind opponent, which I very much appreciated.  I hope we have the opportunity to play again.

Round 5:  Donna and I grabbed some lunch (a veggie sandwich for me and Der Wienerschnitzel for her) and ate it back at the hotel room.  I was grateful to come back from lunch even at 2-2.  The feeling was short-lived, however, as I returned to a pair of big time losses.  The first was against Gretchen Cowan, 310-424.  I had not a single bingo and only two plays exceeding 30 pt.  Meanwhile, Gretchen bingoed with TENDERS 66 pt and NASTIER 77 pt.  As you can see, my opponent did a great job.  Even though she had to exchange twice and I challenged off her play of IVIER* (she said she was thinking of IVIED), she drew the bag and coolly stuck with the Q when she played out.  I deserved to lose this one!

Round 6:  I followed up being trounced by Gretchen by being taken to school by Linda Sterling 272-378.  Seriously, it’s embarrassing scoring fewer than 300 points in multiple games at a tournament!  It is obvious that I have a long way to go.  Linda had just one bingo with RESIZED 78 pt, while I had none.  My only decent play was a word I learned recently, FIAR.  My opponent didn’t know it and lost a turn when she challenged.  Did I mention that I hate Us and Vs?

Round 7:  My first big win, 434-291 against Maggie Morley.  She was unable to bingo, while I cleared my rack just once with TAWNIES 65 pt, an easy TISANE seven.  However, my best play of the game was a non-bingo, JIHADS 63 pt (through the I, double on the H and triple word score).  After fighting with vowels and miscellaneous dreck the previous two games, this time I drew the bag.

Round 8:  Last game of the day was against Scott Smith, the lowest rated player in the tournament and one of the few seeded lower than myself.  Scott is a perfect gentleman and I am so pleased to have made his acquaintance.  I expected the game to be an easy win for me and was surprised to find it hard-fought.  (“There are no free games,” another player told me later.)  I won 377-388, but could just have easily have lost.  I bingoed with SINGLET 77 pt and Scott immediately came back with UPLOADED 72 pt.  Other than the bingoes, each of us had three plays exceeding 30 pt.  Nearly at the end, when the difference between our scores was only 14 pt, I played EELIER on the triple for 29 pt.  Scott didn’t know the word and felt he had to challenge it due to the score being so close at the end of the game.  He lost the challenge and I was able to make a dinky out play for the win.


Round 9:  I came into Day 2 even at 4-4, but with a dismal spread of -151.  So I was pleased to win the first game of the day with Zana Anderson, 442-327.  Zana, who has played opposite me on several occasions, was unfortunately stuck with difficult tiles all game and was unable to bingo.  However, she was able to play QI, tripling the Q in both directions for 64 pt.  I was able to lay down two bingoes.  The first was FLEDGING 74 pt, using the blank for the F.  Zana challenged and lost her turn; she told me that she thought the word was FLEDGLING.  I explained that the former is the act of the baby bird being pushed out of the nest by the mother, while the latter describes the baby bird itself.  I also pointed out that I could have played PLEDGING, but knew that this had no chance of drawing a challenge.  My second bingo was my second highest scoring play of the tournament and my first 100+ pt play.  Thanks to the second blank, I got off BRANCHED on the triple for 104 pt.  Two turns later, I challenged off my opponent’s play of YANKEE*, which I explained to her I had recently attempted to play on the Internet unsuccessfully.  The following turn, my opponent, still trying to rid herself of the Y, played YIKE*.  I was pretty sure this word required an S, but not sure enough to challenge off the 40 pt play.  Of course, when I checked later, I found that it is not acceptable.  I need to learn to trust my instincts and to stop questioning myself constantly.

Round 10:  I was paired with Jeannie J. Wilson, against whom I have never won a game.  She trounced me well and truly twice at Campbell last year.  This year was no different, as I lost 305-459.  My opponent started out bingoing with CANDORS 74 pt, following it up five turns later with STEADIER 82 pt.  I had one bingo with PRESSING 64 pt.  Although I had the advantage of drawing the Q and the Z, my opponent drew both blanks.  I knew I would lose this game from the start, but I had hoped that it wouldn’t be by more than 100 points.  When your opponent is good, she’s good!

Round 11:  Next I was paired with Peter Dolgenes, and I prepared to lose again.  Not only does Peter have a reputation as a tough opponent, but he has trounced me before.  This hard fought game turned out to be a squeaker, with me winning by four points, 399-395!  What makes this result really surprising is that I had nary a bingo, while my esteemed opponent laid down RESENTS for 81.  My three top plays all had even-numbered scores, 30 pt, 40 pt and 50 pt.  Peter had two 30+ pt plays besides his bingo.  I did not deserve to win this game.  There, I said it.  You will agree once you hear about the idiocy that I let fly.  I challenged my opponent’s bingo.  I know, I know, who challenges RESENTS?  I told you I was an idiot.  This was a case of what my friend Lewis Martinez calls “unrecognitis.”  Here I was thinking about whether “re-sent” has a gerund form that takes an S.  Duuuhhh!  And just to top it off, my opponent logically requested a recount due to the close score.  It turned out that I had misscored one word and lost two points.  This game was living proof that God takes care of idiots and looney-toonies.

Round 12:  For the last game before lunch, I won against Polly Moyer 391-365.  This was the second consecutive game that I should have lost.  Polly drew the J, the X and the Z; I drew the Q.  We evened up by each drawing one of the blanks and each playing one bingo, DATELINE 68 pt for me, ENTRIES 69 pt for her.  But Polly had two high-scoring non-bingoes, 45 pt and 48 pt, as well as a 30 pt play.  I had two 30+ pt plays and nothing above 40 pt.  Incredibly, it seems that most of my spread was earned from a measly 16 pt play when my opponent exchanged tiles!  Some games make no sense at all.

Round 13:  I went off to lunch rather pleased with myself at 7-5.  I nearly didn’t make it back in time.  Donna went off to a leisurely lunch at Olive Garden while I ate a sandwich in our hotel room and took a nap.  Well, you can guess what happened.  Play resumed at 2:30 and I awoke with a start at exactly 2:30.  I flew out to the lobby, where the director was hanging over the second floor railing calling me.  “We started!”  Indeed, when I reached the playing room, my opponent was waiting patiently while everyone else was already engrossed in their games.  Fortunately for me, he hadn’t yet started my clock.  My opponent was Lewis Singh, who proceeded to get back at me for being late by wiping the floor with me.  In my worst game of the tournament, I lost by 165 points with a score of 273-438.  Lewis bingoed with DENIERS 83 pt and ENDORSE 80 pt, while I foolishly foundered about in vowel hell instead of exchanging.  As you may imagine, this was a game I’d rather forget.

Round 14:  Next I was paired with John Aitken of Cabo San Lucas, Mexico.  In a close game, he played one bingo, ODONATE 60 pt and I played none, although I scored 50 pt for PLEX.  I had one low-scoring play after another, then challenged off John’s play of YOMS* toward the end of the game.  This was not the first time I’ve played an opponent who did not know that YOM does not take an S.  I may not know a lot of bingoes yet, but I know my Jewish words!  The game came down to 17 points, with John winning 339-322.

Round 15:  My next opponent was Jim Barker, against whom I have had several good games in the past.  I fondly remember playing SUNBIRD against him on a triple at January Reno several years ago; it was a baldfaced guess on my part and I lucked out when he challenged the word and lost.  Here in Campbell, Jim was the only one of my opponents to go over time.  We each had one bingo, DEPRAVE 67 pt for him and SENDERS 79 pt for me.  We each had two other words over 30 pt.  With an evenly matched game through turn 8, I lucked out in successfully challenging Jim’s attempt at MILI*, and then having him exchange tiles two turns later.  Final score:  380-308.

Round 16:  Last game of the day was against Peggy Grant, whom I had never played before.  I introduced myself and it turned out that she came out to California for our little tournament all the way across the country from South Carolina.  I remarked that her name sounded familiar, then suddenly the light went off.  My opponent was the famous director of the annual GRITS tournament!  On turn 3, Peggy bingoed with the lovely word CUTTINGS 70 pt.  I did a double take when I realized that she had placed the C at A5, right between two triple-word scores, and I had ADEEHRS in my rack.  Holy cow, I can play SEARCHED!  That is, on the triple-triple for 176 pt.  This was my highest scoring play of the tournament, my only triple-triple and just an all- around stupendous stroke of luck.  Peggy was shocked, never thinking that I’d be able to triple-triple off a C, of all things.  She later admitted that she was unable to recover from this play.  Although the triple-triple was very early in the game, neither of us was able to come up with another bingo.  I ended up winning with a score of 460-369.  Even so, my cumulative spread remained a deplorable -179.  But what a way to end the day!

This left me a little bit ahead at 9-7 heading into the final three games on Monday morning.  I was thrilled, realizing that I had moved up quite a few places.  After starting as 21st seed, I estimate that I had risen to about tenth place in my division.  Now, if only I could win those last few games before I went home.  I knew I’d likely be paired against some of the top players in the division, but I felt confident, as I have historically done very well in the last few games on the last day of the tournament.


At the breakfast buffet, I had time for a big bowl of oatmeal with cinnamon and raisins, along with a slice of a delicious egg and cheese concoction that may have been a quiche or a frittata.  Even better, Donna, whom I had left sleeping back in our hotel room, surprised me by joining me midway through my breakfast.  When I finally shuffled upstairs to the playing room, imagine my shock when, perusing the standings posted on the wall in the hallway, I discovered that I was now in fifth place!  This meant that, not only could I be in contention for a money prize, but that I was likely to win an additional performance prize.

Round 17:  I walked into the playing room floating on air — at least until I checked the pairings and saw that I would be playing Joan Mocine again, to whom I had lost by 90 points in Round 3.  I thought things would be different this time, as I was on a roll and have won against Joan in the past.  Let’s just say that I had another think coming.  Joan laid down two bingoes, FAERIES 73 pt and BANDITS 79 pt, to my one (DEEPENS 85 pt).  Playing on a tight board, I made an extensive series of very low scoring plays (12 pt, 9 pt, 8 pt, 8 pt… you get the picture) and we ended up being so closed down that neither of us could play out.  I ended up losing 345-429.

Round 18:  I then found myself in the ignominious position of battling with Paula Catanese, who is rated 300 points higher than myself.  So I was pleased that I was able to keep up with her, even though I ended up losing — by one lousy point!  Grrrrr!  I was able to play two bingoes, ROADIES 64 pt and MANNERLY 61 pt, to Paula’s one.  But that one was SURVIVER for 89 points, played on a triple.  Knowing that the word is spelled with an O, not an E, I challenged.  Unfortunately for me, that spelling is good.  At the end, Paula played LEFTIST 22 pt, but my outplay was a paltry GAIN for 13 pt.  With the score so close, we recounted.  I gained 2 pt in the recount, but Paula gained one, enough for us to avoid a tie.

Round 19:  Having kissed goodbye all hope of winning a money prize, I hoped to win the last game of the tournament so that the entire day would not be a loss.  But when I saw that I was paired with Marcia Wade again, I knew that I was sunk.  She remarked that we played the first game of the tournament and the last one.  I replied that she won our first game and that I was going to let her do so again.  I was a man of my word.  We each had a single bingo, NECROUS 78 pt for me and HORNETS 80 pt for Marcia.  But she also had five 30+ pt plays, while I had just one.  The game ended 340-416, leaving me at 9-10 for the tournament with a spread of -340.

I finished in 15th place, raising my rating from 997 to 1029.  All in all, it was a most enjoyable tournament.  But I really wish I hadn’t choked so badly on the last day of the competition.

Onward to the National Scrabble Championship in Las Vegas, about six weeks hence.



Tokyo Tales



We drove ten hours to the Bay Area last weekend so that I could compete in the annual Silicon Valley Showdown Scrabble tournament.  Last year was the first time I had attended this particular event, but this year something is different:  My nephew has graduated from the University of California (UCLA), has found a job in the computer industry and has returned home to Palo Alto.  I had not seen Elliot in more than two years, so I made a point to set up dinner plans with him.

Elliot loves all things Japanese.  He studied the language in high school and college and is knowledgeable about Japanese popular culture.  He is very much into manga and Japanese animation generally.  So it is no surprise that while I was pushing tiles around the board and generally losing to some incredibly good Scrabble players, Elliot was attending FanimeCon at the Convention Center in San José.

When we sat down to dinner, my nephew regaled us with stories of his recent trip to Japan with his father and his sister.  Ostensibly, they were dropping off my niece at a college in Tokyo and helping her get settled in.  Shayna, who is also an avowed Japanophile, was planning on spending a year or two attending a graphic arts program (she ended up returning to her college on the east coast of the U.S. after just a few months).  While Elliot was in Tokyo with his dad, they had a chance to be tourists and generally take a good look around the city.

I’d like to share what I consider to be two of the more interesting stories that my nephew related about his trip.

Elliot and his father consulted a map of the city, got on the subway and headed over to take a look at the Tokyo office of his employer.  By the address, they knew that the building was located in one of the most lovely, residential areas of the city, Akasaka.  So they were a bit surprised when they arrived and realized that the office is located in a skyscraper in the grimy nightclub district of Roppongi.  When they looked for the entrance, they noticed that it was indicated by a sign on the opposite side of the street.  It turns out that the entrance takes one through a tunnel that crosses under the street to the office building.  The apparent reason for this quirk is to avoid the undesirable Roppongi address.  Akasaka is just north of Roppongi, the two districts bordering on each other.  The border runs down the middle of the street.  Placing the company entrance on the opposite side of the street earned it the much preferred, if misleading, Akasaka address.

The other story involves the shocking openness with which sex is hawked on the streets in certain Tokyo districts.  My nephew claims that the Japanese themselves rarely participate in this marketing activity, but that Nigerian immigrants have taken up the business in earnest.  He and his dad were quite surprised when they were accosted on the street by a man with a flyer who asked them in English whether they wanted “to see some titties.”  After declining, they burst into laughter the moment they ducked around a corner.

Although I plead ignorance as to how this type of activity is conducted in this country, I imagine it must be a bit more subtle.  Then again, I picture Richard Dreyfuss in the 1970s movie The Goodbye Girl standing with his flyers in front of a Times Square strip club yelling about “Erotic acts!  Exotic acts!”

Sadly, I fear that some sorts of language are pancultural, if not universal.


Unemployment, Community and the Future of the Family


I have been thinking about unemployment insurance a lot lately.  With the questionable future of my current work location, some of my coworkers who have never had occasion to receive unemployment benefits are contemplating what would be a first for them.

In the short term, I think unemployment insurance constitutes sound economic logic.  Capitalism assumes that most people will work for a living and use their income to support themselves.  This cycle of earning and spending is what makes our economic system go ‘round.  The social contract posits that when a break in this cycle occurs because an individual becomes unemployed due to no fault of her/his own, she or he is entitled to dip into common weal for a brief period of time during which efforts to become re-employed occur.  In other words, the taxes of those who are working help to support those who, temporarily, are not.

The idea is that those who are laid off due to economic factors beyond their control (bankruptcy of the employer or a recession, for example) should not be punished.  On the contrary, they should be rewarded for their past labors while they find their way toward resuming their roles as productive members of society and contributors to the economy.

Implicit in this provision of the social contract is that the unemployed person will return to the work force as soon as possible.  This implied condition is made explicit by state unemployment laws that limit benefits to a prescribed number of months.

Remaining unemployed rather resuming work at the earliest opportunity is discouraged by a twofold maneuver.  First, unemployment benefits are calculated on a schedule that assures that individuals receive a relatively small percentage of the income earned while working.  Hopefully, the receipt of unemployment benefits will provide the out of work with a modicum of support for their families (on an austerity budget, to be sure) sufficient to prevent hunger and homelessness.  Second, unemployment benefits end after a specified amount of time.  This provision is designed to light a fire under the unemployed, creating a sense of urgency fueled by the prospect of destitution should benefits end before re-employment is secured.

Where this neat little system falls apart, of course, is when this threat morphs from theory into reality.  Recent statistics suggest that the unemployment rate in the United States is falling, an indicator of increasing economic health.  As with any financial measure, however, the accuracy of one’s numbers depends on how you count.  The apparent decrease in the unemployment rate is, at least in part, a product of fewer individuals receiving unemployment benefits.  It is well known that a reduction in the unemployment rolls does not necessarily mean that more people are gainfully employed.  It may well reflect the thousands of people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits, thus falling off the charts even though they are still out of work.  These are our neighbors who fly under the radar, neither employed nor on unemployment benefits, and thus nonexistent as far as our tunnel vision economic figures are concerned.  The long-term unemployed become invisible.

Let’s spend a moment thinking about what happens to those who find themselves in this predicament — out of benefit weeks and still out of a job.  Out of luck.  As a society, we are simply abandoning these people, leaving them to their own devices.  After all, they need to be punished because they failed to follow the rules by finding work within the prescribed period of time. 

But what if their failure to find work is no fault of their own, just as the reason that they became unemployed in the first place was no fault of their own?  What if a person has diligently sought employment to no avail?  This can happen for any number of reasons.  In this age of microchips, there is the ever-present threat of technological obsolescence (otherwise known as “I’ve been replaced by a robot.”)  I can appreciate this one, having personally performed two different types of jobs that have virtually gone out of existence in this country.

Perhaps the plant has moved out of state or overseas, where operating costs are so much lower.  Perhaps there is no similar work available in the unemployed person’s geographic area.  Perhaps he or she is not at liberty to move due to family commitments or health challenges.  As it is, we have become a very mobile society, rolling stones who miss out on yesteryear’s advantage of strong community roots.  We acknowledge this as far as not denying unemployment benefits to those who decline to move hundreds of miles away to the nearest available job.  But then we shrug it off when the benefit period runs out.  If you really want to work, move far away from your support system and work!  If not, starve.  Let the support system to which you are so attached take care of you.

Whoa, stop right there.  When a person loses her job, we don’t throw her on the mercy of her family.  We recognize this person as a valued member of society who has fallen on hard times, and we provide her with some measure of support.  After a time, however, we say “okay, we’ve done enough, now it’s your family’s turn.”  What is wrong with this picture?

There are those who long for the good old days when members of extended families took care of each other.  No unemployment benefits needed, or as Archie and Edith Bunker cheekily sang every week during the opening of TV’s All in the Family, “didn’t need no welfare state (everybody pulled his weight).”  If one member of the family was unable to earn a paycheck, that individual could contribute in other ways, including child care, elder care and household maintenance.  Then, of course, there was also a thriving underground economy (in our inner cities, there still is — and not all of it has to do with selling drugs, either).  People grew gardens and raised chickens, both for their own consumption and to help feed their neighbors.  Payment was not always in cash; barter thrived.  Although Craig’s List and the TV show Barter Kings suggest that we may be returning to this model, it is still a drop in the economic bucket.

You see, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum:  The extended family who we expect to support the long-term unemployed has ceased to exist, at least among the middle class (leaving people out on the street and scavenging in dumpsters).  As if the post-World War II transition from the extended family model to the nuclear family were not bad enough, the cancer of family breakdown has now advanced to the point where even the nuclear family has crumbled into dust.  Fathers have become marginalized as single mothers raise their children and young adults choose to remain single for longer and longer periods of time.  There is no longer any shame or stigma attached to “personal choices” from abortion to childlessness to refusal to provide financial and emotional support to aging parents.  Meanwhile, the middle class, who have failed miserably in their attempt to glorify the nuclear family, continue to look down their noses at the poor who are forced by economic circumstances to crowd many people into small dwellings, whether urban apartments or rural cottages.

But I am hopeful.  Perhaps the vagaries of the economy and the evanescence of unemployment benefits will have the unintended effect of encouraging the resurgence of the extended family.  Perhaps the day will come when it will again become common for grandparents, uncles, cousins and friends to share a residence, each one contributing his or her special talents to the communal well-being of the family unit.  Perhaps contiguous family units (in old-fashioned lingo, these were called “neighbors”) will again check on each other’s welfare and engage in random acts of sharing.  Perhaps we will shake off our jaded ways and decide that community is still important.  Perhaps we will once again decide that we need each other, that we are indeed our brothers’ keepers.

As John Donne wrote more than four hundred years ago:

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.