October's Blogging Boomer Carnival

   
     It's October, the month that includes Columbus Day, Canadian Thanksgiving, United Nations Day, and of course Halloween. My turn at the Blogging Boomer Carnival touches on some autumnal advice, but seems to focus mainly on health . . . of the mind, the spirit and the body. I hope these posts will open your eyes to some new perspectives, so page down and take a look.

     Laura Lee Carter over at Midlife Crisis Queen has decided to stick to her specialty: Midlife Psychology. Here's her take on the history of the idea of introverted versus extroverted, and what we all need to learn about relating to others.

     John Agno, a certified executive and business coach, observes on his SoBabyBoomer blog that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports 7 out of 10 Americans are not getting enough exercise. So what is the secret for how Boomers can get enough physical activity and actually enjoy doing it? He finds 7 "best practices" that are used by successful exercisers. They can help you identify what activities work best for you, and show you how to incorporate them into your daily life.

     Anne Maxfield at The Accidental Locavore has love and aging on her mind. Does affinage (the aging of cheese) make a good cheese great? Or is it the love the cheesemaker puts into it? And what are the bumps along the road? (And for one more bump, see below.)

     Katie Foster, our most peripatetic Baby Boomer, notes that since the beginning of time romantic journeys have been the beloved subject of novels, movies and stage. In Jordan Journey she takes us along on a trip with her and her husband as they wander through the desert and enjoy exotic dining, find spiritual awakening . . .  and experience romantic interludes that arise in unexpected places.

     Meanwhile, on the Survive and Thrive Boomer Guide, Rita R. Robison, consumer journalist, offers suggestions on how to get your yard ready for winter. Feeding your lawn, storing garden chemicals, draining hoses, and winterizing lawn mowers are among the suggestions.

     So finally, as Rita Robison suggests, the air is getting cooler, the nights are getting longer, and the year is winding down. Is it any wonder that October also includes (on Oct. 8) the birthday of R. L. Stein, author of the Goosebumps series along with other haunting books, as well as National Grouch Day on October 15, Frankenstein Friday on October 26, and one other holiday of note . . . last week, though you may have missed it, we celebrated National Moldy Cheese Day.

     Why, it's enough to make you think that there's a full moon afoot. Which there is . . . on October 29.

4 Reasons to Start Getting Social Security as Soon as You Can

     Most financial experts tell you to wait at least until full retirement age, and maybe longer, before signing up for Social Security. There's a good reason for this. Social Security is like an annuity, providing a guaranteed monthly payment for the rest of your life, no matter how long you live. It addresses the problem of:  What do I do if I run out of money? With Social Security, you never run out of money.

     For many of us – people born between 1943 and 1954 – our regular retirement is 66. We're eligible to start receiving Social Security as early as age 62. But if we do, we suffer a penalty. Anyone can also delay taking Social Security until age 70. Then you get a bonus.

     The penalty for taking Social Security early is a little over 7 percent a year, and the bonus for delaying is also slightly over 7 percent a year. So for example, if your normal retirement benefit at age 66 is calculated at the average of $1,236 a month, you'll only receive about 1,150 per month if you sign up at age 65, and barely $900 a month if you begin payments at 62. If you wait until 67, your benefit will grow to about $1,320 per month. And if you wait until age 70, your monthly benefit will balloon to more than $1,600 a month – for the rest of your life, even if you live to a hundred.

     For most people this is a good deal – a 7 percent increase each year, risk free. Compare that return to the risk-free rate on a bank CD or a U.S. Treasury bill of less than 1 percent.

     So why would anyone grab Social Security when it's first offered? I can see four good reasons.

     You need the money. Sure, you get a 7 percent return on Social Security if you postpone your benefit. But that only helps if you can afford to wait. It's kind of like putting money in a good, high-paying savings account. But if you need Social Security to cover your rent and buy groceries, then it makes sense to start benefits at age 62. You need it; you've earned it; and it's available.

     And by the way, you have plenty of company. The majority of people eligible for Social Security start drawing benefits before full retirement age.

     You're in poor health. A friend of mine just turned 60. He has diabetes. He's got high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and he's already had one heart attack. He realizes he probably will not survive to age 83, which is the life expectancy of the typical 60 year old male. (The average 60-year-old woman will make it to 85). So he intends to start Social Security as soon as he can, at age 62.

     Unfortunately, he's betting against his own longevity, but given his medical history, he's probably making the smart move. If, for whatever reason, you don't expect to live into your 80s and 90s, then it makes no sense to delay receiving your retirement benefits.

     You're a financial genius. You don't have to prove any "need" to collect Social Security, you don't even have to be retired. It is perfectly legal to start benefits at age 62, then just stash the money away in your own private investment account.

     For most people this doesn't make sense, because remember, you get a risk-free 7 percent return from the government, and you probably can't do that well by yourself. But if you're the next Warren Buffett, or have a sure-fire investment opportunity that will produce over 7 percent a year, there's a case for taking Social Security now, and investing it on your own instead of letting the government do it for you. Remember, though, you might have to pay income tax on that benefit if you're still working or if you have too much other income.

     If benefits change. Social Security is billed as a certain benefit, safely put away in a proverbial "lock box," safe and secure for our old age. But of course we all know this isn't true. Social Security was put in place by the politicians of the 20th century. Future benefits depend on the politicians of the 21st century.

     In recent years economists and politicians have begun to worry that we can't afford all the payments promised to future beneficiaries, especially as Baby Boomers retire. There's nothing, other than political pressure, to stop Congress from "bending the curve" toward lower benefits – or more likely, to tax away your benefit, especially if you're affluent enough to postpone your payout beyond normal retirement age. If in your judgment the political risk of a lower benefit outweighs that built-in "risk free" 7 percent return, then it may make sense to take the money while it's still available. But again, remember that benefits are subject to taxation if you're below full retirement age and still working.

     The decision of when to begin Social Security benefits always depends on your individual situation. I've posted two previous items which look at other aspects of the issue:  Should You Take Social Security Early? and The Best Time to Start Social Security. And you may have your own story which affects when you did, or when you will, sign up for Social Security.

     Meanwhile, the Social Security Administration helps us all out with a retirement planner, which includes a link to your own personal account, and also offers its own page When To Start Receiving Benefits. Go take a look. Then you be the judge.

A Dirty Little Secret

     I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the disadvantaged, the disenfranchised, the downtrodden -- a group of people that never gets rewarded or recognized for all their selfless hard work and unsung achievements. I'm talking, of course, about the dishwashers of the world.

     I don't mean, particularly, the group of guys who wash dishes in the restaurants and cafeterias across this great land of ours -- although I do feel a certain solidarity with these workers and bow my head to them as well. I'm talking about people much closer to home, people you may actually know: The person who does the dishes in your house.

     Why do I feel that these people do not get the respect they deserve? Why do I feel that they should finally get their fair share of the credit in the kitchen? Because I am one of them.

Before

 
     The plight of the dishwasher hit home for me last night. We had friends over for dinner, a married couple. The man brought the wine. Everyone thanked him and inspected the label and congratulated him for his good taste. The wife brought an hors d'ouevre -- crackers in a very fancy box with some kind of homemade dip with little green things in it. Everyone oohed and aahed over the hors d'oeuvre, and ceremoniously dipped in their crackers and smacked their lips at how good it all was.

     Then came the main meal, cooked by my lovely B. It was good . . . it was really good. I made all the appropriate comments about taste and texture; the two women discussed where the recipes came from, and how B had tweaked them to give them a special flavor. Everyone heaped compliments on the chef as they asked for seconds.

     But who brought all those clean dishes to the table? Where were the compliments for the person who slaved over the sink, filled and emptied the dishwasher, hand-washed the big pots that won't fit in the dishwasher, and carefully soaped and rinsed the wine glasses and special cups that B says are "too good" to go in the dishwasher?

     Nobody thanks the dishwasher. Nobody congratulates the dishwasher for producing sparkling glasses and clean plates. Nobody waxes enthusiastic about how the dishwasher loaded the dishwashing machine so all the dirty dishes would fit in and still get clean.

   It's a thankless job. You never get a compliment. But nobody hesitates to criticize, usually in a slightly scolding voice, if a tiny bit of tomato sauce is left on the edge of a plate, or the handle of a pot is still a little greasy, or the glasses are cloudy.

After

     I've been a dishwasher for over 40 years . . . for most of my life. I blame it on my father. When I was a little kid, my older sister did the dishes in our family. When she left for college, my father took over the job.

     When I then went off to college, and later marriage, I thought that dishwashing was an important job -- after all, in my family it was a responsibility taken on by the eldest child, and then by the alpha male. So I stepped up to the kitchen sink manfully, ready to shoulder this important and serious obligation.

     Little did I know at the time that dishwashing is the duty assigned to the person judged to have the fewest skills in the kitchen. The person who can't do anything else. The person who can't measure or mix or roast or bake. The person who doesn't even command the basic fundamentals to set the table.

     You know the dirty little secret: No meal can be put on the table without clean dishes. So who does the dishes in your house? Take a moment to thank your dishwasher. Go buy him or her a present or some flowers.

     And next time you're in a restaurant, by all means send your compliments to the chef. But send them to the dishwasher too!

Who Should Get to Vote?

     I had this thought the other day. It came to me almost as a joke, but still I wonder . . .

     I saw a story about a 92-year-old widow in one of the states where they're trying to put in voter i.d. laws. The woman has been voting for 70 years. She sold her car a few years ago because it was getting difficult for her to drive, and now she no longer has a driver's license. She isn't planning any international trips, so she doesn't have a passport. So under the new legal restriction, she would no longer be able to vote.

     The clear message: Obviously, this woman has every right to vote, and the new i.d. law would deny her that inalienable right.

     Okay, I get it. On the other hand . . . what the story really made me think was that while many 92-year-olds are still sharp as a tack, many others are suffering from Alzheimer's or other problems that cause them to lose their mental faculties. Besides, to be brutally honest, what do 92-year-olds care about the future of the country anyway? Okay, they might give a thought to their children and grandchildren, but most 92-year-olds themselves will be gone before the end of the next presidential term.

     It's a cold, hard fact that the aging process often robs us of our mental and physical capacities. And if some of the 90-somethings have lost their mental ability and social consciousness, does it really help the future of our country to count their votes?

     
     If our dottering 92-year-olds shouldn't vote because they're forgetful and possibly confused, then why should we want other incompetent people to vote? Don't they just mess things up for the rest of us?

     Should Bernie Madoff or Allen Stanford get to vote? Why? So they can vote in favor of political candidates who want to legalize theft and fraud? Is a good idea for crack whores and pimps to vote? Are we supposed to take their views seriously? What about  people who are mentally challenged? Do they understand the political process? Do they know how the economy works?

     What about high-school dropouts? Should we let people who for whatever reason are so short-sighted, so unable to control their own lives, that they kill their own future prospects have a voice in killing our future prospects?

     I know the idea of "one man, one vote" is sacrosanct in our democracy. But just maybe it's not such a great idea to let the ignorant, the uneducated and the incompetent help us decide the future of our country.

     Last year Newsweek did a survey, giving 1,000 Americans the American Citizenship Test, the exam taken by immigrants who want to become a citizen. After the results came in, Newsweek could only conclude: "The country's future is imperiled by our ignorance."

     Among the results: Some 27% of respondents did not know who is in charge of the executive branch of government. Really? Should these people be allowed to vote for president, when they don't even know what his job is? Almost 30% could not name Joe Biden as the current vice president. Over half could not say how long a senate term is! Is it really helpful to the country for these people to help decide who the next group of senators will be?

     Maybe we should only let people vote if they have graduated from high school, or have a GED. Or people who are recent immigrants (after all, they've passed the American Citizenship test!)

     Or maybe instead of voter i.d. laws, which discriminate against people who don't drive, we should administer a simple civics test to people who want to vote. After all, you have to pass a test to get a driver's license. It's not a hard test. Over 200 million Americans (about 90% of the adult population) have passed it and qualified as licensed drivers. Is voting any less a responsibility than driving a car? Maybe we should require voters to pass a test every five years or so, to make sure they continue to be of sound mind -- so if you're in your 90s and can answer a few basic questions, then you can still vote, even if you've sold your car.

     I proposed this idea to a friend the other day while we were driving over to the mall. She's a registered Democrat and a firm Obama supporter. I was kind of joking, but she took me seriously. She thought it was a good idea!

     "But you couldn't really suggest something like this for real," I said. "People have given their lives for universal suffrage. Plus, you'd probably be accused of being a racist; a lot of the people failing the test would be people of color."

     "I'm not so sure," she said. "You can't assume most of the people failing a voter registration test would be black."

     "Uh, no," I said. "But I'm pretty sure the black population has a higher high-school dropout rate than whites."

     "That doesn't matter," she replied. "A free public education is available to everyone, whether you're white or black, rich or poor, so it wouldn't it be discriminatory to require a high-school diploma to register to vote."

     "Well . . . maybe," I demurred, but I wasn't sure if I really believed that. Poor kids with little or no family support have a hard time getting through high school no matter how hard they try. But it did make me wonder: Who would benefit politically from a rule like this? Republicans or Democrats? I honestly don't know.

     We arrived at the mall, and so we left it there. Just a silly idea that we tossed around as kind of a thought game. Later, in a more serious moment, I thought:  First of all, elderly people who really are incapacitated probably don't go out to vote anyway, so why deny anyone their right? And maybe it's a better idea for us as a nation to get more serious about education. Treat our teachers better. Get more males to teach in the public schools. Make our urban schools as good as our suburban schools. And try harder to make sure everyone, or almost everyone, does get a high-school education, does develop some skills, and actually does feel like they have a stake in the future of America.

     And I wonder . . . if all this happened, maybe the candidates would stop producing ads that appeal to the lowest common denominator. Possibly the cable news channels would raise their level of discourse. Maybe the candidates would discuss real issues instead of speaking in sound bites and calling each other names.

Remember Her?

     She was born in Jamestown, in far western New York state, in 1911. Her father worked for the telephone company, so the family moved a lot, first around New York, then to Montana and Michigan. Her father died when she was four, and she moved back to upstate New York with her mother and younger brother.

Jamestown theatre named for her

     She was introduced to the theater by her grandfather, who brought her to vaudeville shows and encouraged her to take part in school plays. Later, her mother remarried. Her stepfather was a Shriner, and he arranged for her to appear in a couple of their local productions.

     When she was 14, she started going out with a local hood. Her parents tried to put a stop to that, and when they failed they sent her to New York City to study at the John Murray Anderson School for Dramatic Arts. She was a schoolmate of Bette Davis, but apparently she failed to impress her teachers. She later said, "All I learned in drama school was how to be frightened."

     She nevertheless scrounged a few jobs here and there, and found some success as a fashion model. But just as her career was starting to blossom, she fell ill with a mysterious rheumatic-type disease. She went home to convalesce; it was two years before she was finally healthy and energetic enough to return to New York.

     She went back to modeling. She took the name Diane Belmont and tried to work in the theater, for the Ziegfeld company and the Shubert brothers, but she was fired as quickly as she was hired.

As Diane Belmont

     In 1933 she moved to Hollywood and became a contract player for RKO pictures. She appeared in a movie with the Three Stooges and another with the Marx Brothers. She also appeared in several films with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, and then in the 1940s she went over to MGM where she found a career in a string of B movies. She became known as "Queen of the Bs."

     In 1940 while filming one of her B pictures, Too Many Girls, she met her husband, a band leader six years younger than she was. They hit it off immediately and got married the same year. Her husband was drafted into the army, but because of a knee injury was restricted to limited service. He stayed in Los Angeles and performed in USO shows for GIs returning from the Pacific.

     In 1942 she appeared opposite Henry Fonda in The Big Street, and the following year she starred in Dubarry Was a Lady, a film for which the natural brunette dyed her hair the flaming red that would become her trademark.

     In 1944, she filed for divorce, but she and her husband reconciled. A few years later, she was cast as the wacky wife in a radio comedy. The show was successful, and CBS asked her to develop the show for what was then the next new thing: television. She wanted to cast her real-life husband as her TV husband, but apparently CBS executives were not agreeable. Instead of appearing on TV, she went on the road to perform the act in live shows -- she played the zany housewife with no talent but plenty of ambition, who wanted to sing and act in her husband's shows.

     The comedy act became a hit with live audiences -- surely, you've guessed who she is by now -- and so CBS executives changed their minds and put I Love Lucy into their weekly lineup. The show debuted on TV in October 1951. It pioneered several new TV techniques, including performing and producing in front of a live audience. The comedy quickly rose to the top of the ratings where it remained for most of its run, up until 1957.

     Lucille Ball and her husband Desi Arnaz formed their own production company Desilu. They agreed to take a pay cut to help with the expenses of filming the show; in return they retained the rights to the film after it was aired. In 1951, no one thought about reruns. But I Love Lucy was syndicated to TV stations for years, with the proceeds going not to CBS, but to Desilu.

     The hectic schedule further strained the marriage, and in 1960 the couple again filed for divorce. This time it was for good, although Lucy and Desi remained friends for the rest of their lives. They had two children, Lucie in 1951, and Desi, Jr., in 1953. Ball's second pregnancy was written into the show -- but due to the standards of the time, they could not use the word "pregnancy"; it was said that she was "expecting" instead.

     After their divorce, Ball bought out her ex-husband's interest in Desilu, and she stepped up as the first woman to head a major Hollywood studio, which produced several movies and TV shows including Star Trek, The Untouchables, Mission Impossible and Ball's own follow-up series The Lucy Show and Here's Lucy. (Desilu was later sold to Gulf & Western, which became Paramount, and ironically the rights to the early shows ended up back in the hands of CBS.)

     In 1962 Lucille Ball married fellow comedian Gary Morton, who remained her husband until her death in 1989 at age 77.

     Lucille Ball has been heralded as one of the most successful stars in Hollywood, with two stars on Hollywood Blvd. -- one for her work in TV and one for motion pictures. She won numerous awards, including four Emmys, and appeared on the cover of TV Guide more than any other person. She was voted the greatest TV icon of all time, and later Time magazine named her one of the hundred most influential people of the 20th century.