Mother of the week

As you would expect, we’re learning more about Nadya Suleman (or Sulemon; it’s appeared both ways in the media), the woman who increased her brood to 14 with the birth of octuplets a while ago.

She’s started making the rounds of talk shows to explain why she felt compelled to keep having babies. Both her publicists & her relatives have made it clear that one of their options to support all those children (oldest being seven) is to receive payment for her story, although NBC has repeatedly said that they handed over no money for the exclusive interview with Ann Curry.

Still, it’s early days on that count, so expect to see news of deals, although from what she’s said so far it’s more of a “whaaaaa??” story than a Hallmark moment.

Suleman’s yearning for children was apparently so strong that even after her first birth via in vitro, she went through something that seems to have been further off the scale than just post-partum depression. I’m not even sure I can make sense out of this (from the Curry interview):

“I just longed for certain connections and attachments with another person that I -- I really lacked, I believe, growing up. I didn't feel as though, when I was a child, I had much control of my environment. I felt powerless. And that gave me a sense of predictability. I -- reflecting back on my childhood, I know it wasn't functional. It was pretty -- pretty dysfunctional, and whose isn't?”

(This must be annoying to her parents, with whom she & her children are living.)

But basically, what I think she’s saying is that she wanted to have a child, which would somehow fix her life. That doesn’t sound really good as a basis for having even one baby. But wouldn’t one of her physicians have questioned whether she should keep coming back for more?

The LA Times has uncovered records (based on a workman’s compensation claim) that indicate that both during and after pregnancy Suleman had extreme emotional swings—which probably isn’t out of place, given the hormonal surges. But saying she just wanted to die? Was this not a, you know, red flag?

Well, I’m guessing we’ll hear a lot more from & about Suleman, her family, her expectations & a whole lot of other stuff.

However, I’d like to hear about what her medical caregivers were thinking.

Flip your pointy-eared wig

Okay, from the ridiculous to the sublime. This is really animal abuse, but I’ll pass it on since it makes a change from the economic nuclear winter.

& the awwwww side of the animal kingdom, I bring you the kitten & the parakeet.

You'll thank me for it.

Wall Street roulette

Two new chapters were added to the economic catastrophe yesterday, not disconnected.

In the face of continuing news of fiscal excess amongst the banking & finance industries who’ve cried poor to the feds, President Obama laid down the “he who pays the piper calls the tune” law to any financial institution wanting a bailout from the government. To wit:

Henceforth top management of any firm getting taxpayer money will have to scrape by on a maximum of $500K per year. No other compensation except company stock, which they can’t cash out until all “loan” money has been repaid to the government.

Unfortunately, it’s not retroactive, so the top morons at AIG, Citigroup & their ilk are still free to soak up largesse with only the restraints of their boards, which so far have shown themselves to be as parsimonious as conventioneers on unlimited expense accounts.

Still, like the 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean, it’s a start.

But the sacrifices don’t stop at the executive floor: Wells Fargo, poor dears, postured for a while about continuing with plans for a 12-day junket for “top employees” at the Wynn & Encore hotels in Vegas. But finally, sullenly, they scuffed their A. Testoni shoes on the Aubusson carpets & scotched the trip.

“In light of the current environment, we have now decided to cancel this event,” Wells Fargo whined in a statement. They also snippily assured us that they never intended to use the government bailout funds for the jolly.

Uh, hello? Like the Gang of Three who insisted that they weren’t going to use taxpayer money to operate their corporate jets, they don’t seem to get the point that if you claim you’re so poor that you need your Uncle Sam to slip you an extra $35B, it doesn’t really matter which pocket you pull the immediate funds from to pay for your toys. It’s really all the same.

Morgan Stanley & Goldman Sachs have also either cancelled “rewards trips” or redirected conferences to their corporate conference rooms.

What I find fascinating is that all of these groups, having watched public outrage at AIG taking a corporate jolly days after stuffing bailout bucks into their coffers & seen John Thain have to reimburse Bank of America for his $1.2M office makeover at Merrill Lynch—but they didn’t think either anyone would notice them carrying on business as usual. Do they have some sort of cloaking device that they think obscures outrageous actions from public detection?

I think a psychiatric consult is in order.

Snow chaos!

Well, finally—an area that handles snow even worse than Seattle: the United Kingdom.

Yes, the entire country.

Britain got “the worst snow in 18 years” Monday & the country pretty much shut down. London, which one tends to think of as more cosmopolitan than the Pacific Northwest, ground to a halt. According to the Guardian, only a few buses kept up their runs, & ten of the 11 underground lines either stopped completely or provided intermittent service.

(Note the URL of that story, BTW: snow-brings-britain-travel-chaos. The Brits’ favorite term for any disruption in any aspect of life is “chaos”. Dunno if that’s because they really have dull lives & need to bring drama to them any way they can or because anything out of the ordinary really does seem chaotic to them.)

Naturally the airports have thrown up their hands. BA (who, as you’ll recall, totally screwed the pooch on the opening of Terminal 5 at Heathrow last March), warned that diversions of aircraft on Monday meant many planes would “not be in the right places for their departures on Tuesday.”

Um—you can’t, you know, fly them there?

Rail traffic has halted. The last time the UK got snow of this magnitude a British Rail flunkey explained that the trains weren’t moving because it was “the wrong type of snow”. No word yet what “type” of snow is on the rails this time, but the trains weren’t moving anyhow. Roads were also a mess.

I really hope the pubs were well-stocked, because with schools & businesses closed, there’s not much for anyone to do.

Security notice

For a slight diversion from the litany of the arrogance of bankers and automakers, let us now turn to airport security. The Scientific American assures us that there is no reassurance when it comes to this—all sense of commercial aviation security is illusory.

Embedded in the story is another one from the Atlantic, in which the reporter, guided by Bruce Schneier, tests TSA procedures and finds them…definitely wanting.

I have to say that I’ve certainly found the application of whatever rules and guidelines they’re allegedly following inconsistent. In San José, for the first and only time, I was instructed that lipstick and mascara were to go into that one-quart zip-lock bag. TSA drones at some airports freak out and make you take off a jacket-like overshirt; others don’t even seem to notice.

There have been a few times when I get through security and discover that I didn’t get all my little bottles of hand lotion into the baggie, but left one in my purse or a couple in my coat pockets. The past two times through, with a roll-on I carefully put all the liquid/lotion bottles in that baggie & then left it peeking out from the exterior pouch of the carry-on. Without a squawk from TSA.

So, no—I don’t feel any more secure when getting on an airplane than I did ten years ago, although by the time I’ve gone through that “screening”, been herded on board by the airline staff (usually because they’re 30 minutes late and want to make up the schedule on the backs of the passengers) and stuffed into a flight with a butt in every seat—by that time I’m mad enough that I don’t care about security.

Perhaps that’s what they intend after all.

Groundhog day

In case you’re too hung-over or suffering from the aftereffects of ingesting a surfeit of nachos while watching your team go down in flames, let me remind you that today is Groundhog Day.

At this writing, Punxsutawney Phil has not yet emerged from his winter slumber to predict the next six weeks’ weather, although smart money is on more winter, as reported (five years ago) by an investigative reporter in Slate.

(Evidently Phil’s not the only furry prognosticator; but he’s obviously got the best PR machine behind him.)

What the occasion has really contributed to civilization is that it’s the underlying basis for one of the best karmic movies ever made, starring Bill Murray. If you get a chance, watch it. I can’t get enough of it.

And babies make 14

Okay, I’ll join the swirling chatter about Nadya Sulemon, the Whittier, Calif., woman who gave birth last week to octuplets. The reason for me chipping in is that it seems she already has six children ages 2 to 7 years, like the additional eight also the product of fertility treatment (although not born in groups).

Now, it’s certainly not my concern that she’s a single mother living with her parents, or that she decided to go to medicine rather than a relationship to fulfill her dream of motherhood. In this country, if you’ve got the money you pretty much get whatever you want.

I do wonder how an unemployed psychiatric technician (whatever that is) can afford in vitro treatments whose costs can easily run into six figures—& apparently go through it seven times in nine years. Or what health insurance plan would cover these treatments—seven times. &, if so, what that does to the premiums everyone else in that plan has to pay.

But my real question is: what kind of medical practitioner would give Sulemon these treatments, knowing that she already had a sizeable brood? If her maternal instincts aren’t satiated by six kids, & she’s back for more, wouldn’t you start thinking about a psych consult?

How is this different from a plastic surgeon faced with a patient with body dysmorphic disorder looking for her 15th procedure in five years? That surgeon is obligated to try to discourage the patient from further alteration of her body until she’s seen a therapist of some sort.

Moreover, if Sulemon had gone the adoption route to fulfill her mothering dreams, there isn’t a reputable agency in the country that wouldn’t have investigated her background thoroughly & refused after the first three, or five, or six.

I get it that it’s not the physician’s job to be a social worker. But isn’t there some level of due diligence? & where was the insurer in all this? The babies were born at Kaiser Permanente—did they provide the services pro bono? If so, that’ll be a first.

I’m sure this discussion will continue for a long time. I’m just interested in seeing how long before we see this woman back in the headlines for either giving birth again or being hauled in by children’s services.

Oh—& of course we’re going to see at least two Movies of the Week (one on Lifetime), a book deal & many sponsorship opportunities.