Juggling Life

Answer: 20

When do your adolescent children become excellent company and people you would be delighted to spend time with even if you were not related to them?

My informal survey (just my family and friends) says that happens right around age 20. 

I have never been a person that hated the teen years--there's really no aspect of parenting I haven't enjoyed, but I will acknowledge that most people (ourselves included) between the ages of 12 and 20 tend to be irritatingly sure that they know most everything about life while older people are alarmingly obtuse about so very many things.

Danger Boy got home for spring break past my bedtime on Friday night. Saturday morning I got a great big bear hug--if your little boy makes your heart melt when he hugs you around the knees, your big boy will do exactly the same when he envelops you from a height of 6 feet plus.

I went for my Saturday walk, then a nail appointment and came back to DB and a couple of long-time friends (we're talking preschool and 12U water polo) hanging out and listening to music.

You guys, the intelligent conversation in the room was to-die for. Also? Much laughter. There was also the hijacking of my Facebook for some anti-Democrat propaganda, but it was all in good fun.

Hard to believe that the same duo that once duct-taped Social Butterfly and a friend to bar stools can intelligently debate federal economic policy, but I heard it with my own ears.

Want to know something else cool? 

The little boy I read poetry to, the one that was generally the best writer--certainly the most imaginative and prolific in elementary school--the one that once asked for a book of poetry as a Christmas gift--is rocking a poetry class in college this semester. Not just taking it, but loving it.

Happy sigh. 

It's a bummer that making this trip happen means he will spend virtually his entire 20th birthday on an airplane or in an airport, but it sure is good to have him home.

 

 

 

 

Reading = ?

Last Thursday I talked about my observations regarding reading stamina and enjoyment and the disparity between the lower socioeconomic and higher socioeconomic status schools. (low SES and high SES). As always, I have thoughts and ideas.

One of my thoughts (and I give you that this is a total generalization) is that most students in a high SES were first exposed to reading at a very young age and through being read to by a parent. So, in addition to all the things we know are important in “making” readers—early and continuous exposure to print, seeing reading modeled and that type of thing, being read to was first and foremost a pleasurable experience.

I know that in our house I started reading to my kids from almost the day they were born. I’m probably a bit extreme, but I even read my own books out loud to them when they were newborns—that way I could be snuggling them and still get to read my book. Later, we had story time several times a day and story time was always snuggle time. When I look back on their childhoods many of my fondest and most frequent memories with my children have to do with cuddling up and reading. So for my kids there is no doubt that their earliest connection to books and reading was filled with love and warmth.

Contrast that experience to the experience of (generalizing again) a child from a low SES. Frequently kindergarten is the first time they encounter books and reading in any substantial way. With the way kindergarten is done today that means that reading equals work. Reading is mandatory and for the most part pressure-filled—especially for those students to whom it does not come easily. Reading is not pleasure, reading is hard.

So just from a standpoint of what we could do TODAY, with no extra funding, to close the achievement gap, what about taking the pressure off in kindergarten? Don’t ask kids to learn how to read. Just read to them (get community volunteers to increase the amount of one-on-one reading time), give them books to take home, have plenty of play time, some cooking time and call it a day. Make their first introduction to reading and school in general be pleasurable and warm.

For those kids who are itching to get moving on the whole reading thing—they will catch on. They just will. A year of no-pressure and good times is not going to put anyone behind, but it might allow time for some kids to catch up.

Thoughts?

It's Called Thoughtful Thursday For A Reason . . . Jenn's "No on 8" Post

Like Tootsie I've got a lot to say on this issue, so here goes.

A big ballot issue in California this November (you know, besides electing a new President) is Proposition 8. If Prop 8 passes, it will make same-sex marriage (which the courts recently ruled could not be prohibited under our constitution) illegal in California. So (stay with me here because it's a little counterintuitive), yes on 8 is no on gay marriage, no on 8 is yes on gay marriage.

I've made no secret of being a liberal (a label I do not consider pejorative) so the way I'll vote is no surprise. Here's why I think you should also vote No on 8.

I don't see how it is right to tell other people how to live their lives--as long as how they live is not hurting us or their kids. By that I mean things like committing crimes, abusing children--quantifiable harm.

I confess to being befuddled as to why (in most cases) those that don't want government in our fiscal lives want them all over our private lives.

I STRONGLY believe in the separation of church and state. I certainly don't think I should tell you, as a religious person, what your beliefs should be. By the same token, I don't believe a religious person should be able to tell a secular society what it's beliefs and laws should be.

If religion begins to dictate government we will end up living in a de-facto theocracy. What does that look like? A lot like most countries in the Middle East. And that? Scares the hell out of me.

Speaking of the Middle East--why are fundamentalist Muslims committing acts of terrorism against western democracies? Because they don't like our educated women, our music, our short skirts; in short, they don't like OUR FREEDOM to make our own choices about the way we live. They don't like that we don't believe in the same things they do and they want to force us to live by their values. Hmmm, what is that sounding like?

If your religion doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, that's fine by me. You're allowed to believe what you like. When you talk to your kids about these issues you are free tell them what your family and your church believe. I've been sharing my beliefs and views with my kids even when they didn't correspond to what the law of the state was. THAT'S HOW THINGS WORK IN THIS WONDERFUL COUNTRY (present total mess it currently is not withstanding) WE CALL THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Thank God (or whomever or whatever else you'd like to) for that.

My final argument? I'd like you to meet my good friend Jason and his husband, Giancarlo, and their kids. Please, pay him a visit. I think you'll understand why I can't say that he is not worthy of having the same CIVIC rights and responsibilities than I do as a citizen of the state of California.

A Matter of Faith

Last Wednesday I attended the funeral of a woman I'd known for 18 years. I'm not sure how I feel about a reporter attending the funeral, but the journalist did capture it very well. I guess you don't really realize how intrusive the media is until it hits close to home. That's a topic for another day though.

I've blogged, in a joking way, about my experiences with religion. Today I'm going to be serious.

I am not a churchgoer. I wasn't raised in any religion. I did go to vacation bible school with friends and occasional church or temple services. I've tried a couple of different churches as an adult. It's just not for me. When it comes down to it, I have to describe myself as a secular humanist. I strongly believe in the golden rule. I'm very disturbed by all the evil that has been perpetrated in this world in the name of religion. Religion as "the opiate of the masses" makes a lot of sense to me.

And yet . . .

Sometimes I really envy people who are strong and secure in their religious faith. The best blogging example I have is Angie at KEEP BELIEVING. She and I are polar opposites in so many ways; still, I have no doubt that if we ever have the opportunity to sit down together with a drink we will talk all night. I know Angie draws her strength from her faith and I see what a huge, positive difference it makes for her in her life.

Becky (whose funeral I attended) and her family are devout Catholics. Her husband, Jim, is in the midst of what has to be one of the most painful things that could ever happen to a man. Were he rendered speechless, helpless, hopeless, and immobile by what has transpired, no one would question it. He has not been rendered any of these things. Instead he displays a strength, fortitude, and forgiveness that is amazing to behold.

I know he stands tall in the face of tragedy because he has his faith. He believes in God's plan; he accepts not knowing what that plan is. I know faith helps Angie cope with uncertainties in her life with grace and humor. I admire what these people have.

Yet, this thing they have is called "faith." Dictionary.com's second definition is  "belief that is not based on proof." Faith requires a leap.

I am not a leaper. My thought processes are concrete. I don't gamble; if the odds are not in my favor I'm unlikely to give it a shot. I believe what I see. This way of being has worked for me so far. I've been a happy person my whole life operating this way. Secular humanism suits me.

And yet . . . 

I am happy for those that have their faith. I can see what a positive influence it is in their lives. I can see the good that comes out of it on a personal level even while I am skeptical of much of what transpires in the name of faith on a global level.

I am so happy that I live in a time and place that allows me to live with a value system that works for me, while others can live with the one that works for them.