Not a Tiger Mom

I am not a tiger mom. In fact, I sometimes think I an the opposite of a tiger mom.

Don't get me wrong. I want my children to succeed. I want them exposed to important learning experiences.

But, I don't force them to take lessons (except for TRex's swimming class, but that is to help him learn to swim cause he loves water and I don't want him to drown and we are hoping it will help him get over some of his fears). 

I don't sit in front of my kids with flashcards and I didn't make them learn to read as babies.

Frankly, I get annoyed that after seven hours in school each day my 5 year old has half hour of homework every night.  He's in kindergarten!

I think kids should be allowed to be kids. And I think school is important. I think homework is important. I think fostering the attitude that schoolwork is important is important (this is why I do not let TRex know I'm annoyed by his homework!)

I know there are other kids out there who are being groomed to excel in every way possible to be the uber kid so that by the time my kids are in junior high, the uber kids will make the team and beat my kids at everything. I know these uber kids will have better chances at ivy league schools and a more stable future. I saw their parents at an open house when kindergarten began. The desperation in their faces was palpable as they asked about starting a Mandarin club so the kids could learn more than Spanish. I know my kids will have tough competition.

Yet, I can't be a tiger mom.

I want childhood be to full of wonder and adventure. I want my kids' imaginations to bloom and grow. I want them to know the joy of a lazy day. Inspiration is born of a mind left to wander and experience. I don't see how regiment and 100% discipline allows the spirit to grow.

So, yes, I'm not a tiger mom.

This I Believe

My friend over at One Chunky Momma wrote a post about what she believes. She inspired me to write a similar post. It was not easy. I could easily spew what I do not believe, but what I do believe is so much harder to verbalize.  That's probably why politicians always say no and berate the other side, rather than finding solutions. Taking an affirmative position is hard work. (Yes, honey, that last part was for you!)

---

I believe in the here and now. I believe this is it. Since I don't believe I will be saved, I live each day being responsible for myself and my actions, knowing that I have to be accountable to me and to those that I love.

That has been one of the hardest things I've faced in having a child with a life-threatening illness. I rely upon the doctors, nurses, and therapists to save her life. I rely upon my husband and myself to find the correct doctors. And I rely upon my family, friends, and community to get me through the tough days. While I don't believe prayers are being listened to by someone up above, I can feel the love when people are caring for us and that helps me through.

More than anything, I believe in the power of people. A group of people bound together for a common goal can accomplish almost anything. People working together created the great nations of our world. People working together made modern medicine possible and all of the lives saved. People working together create all of the new innovations, technologies, and theories that propel our lives.

You may be thinking to yourself that some inventions were the result of one person's thought. But I believe that every person who had a great idea was given inspiration from those before them. Even more important, each person who has ever done anything great, has been supported and loved, cared for and nurtured, by someone else.  Even those unfortunate souls who have suffered their entire lives without the love they deserve, have been put in the position they are in because of the people surrounding them.

Each of us are made up of the circumstances we find ourselves in and how we react. Each moment of each day bends and molds our being. Every person with whom we interact changes who we are and who will be.  If we each harnessed the power we have within to better our world, we could accomplish great things.

By smiling to the stranger on the street, we may give that person a reason to smile. By volunteering our time to help others, we give those people the opportunity to get strong again. By holding another person's hand as they grieve or sit at a bedside, we give them strength to continue when all they want to do is fade away.  These things may be simple, but if we all took the time to remember others, our entire society would be better.

I believe in love given freely and shared widely. A person who has been loved, can show love to someone else. Love makes us immortal.

---

Several years ago, NPR hosted a series of essays written by everyday people and celebrities, where each explained their beliefs. It was a remake of series done in the 1950s or 60s.  And it is by far one of my favorite series EVER. I have a book collecting many of the essays somewhere in my house. I've read them all. I love knowing what others believe and how they came to that point. Penn Jillette wrote an essay about what he believed. It resonated with me more than anything I had ever heard or read before. I even sent it to my mother to tell her what I believe.

After writing this post, I read it again to see if what I wrote was anything close to that earlier essay. I don't think I'm nearly as eloquent, but I don't think my beliefs have changed.

What do you believe?

Happiness

I kissed them both again as I do every night and I thought to myself "this is what it is all about." The love for my children, for my husband, my family, makes everything worthwhile.

How can anyone say having children made me less happy?

I read an article earlier this week that talked about how much more unhappy people are when they have children. Apparently, some researcher looked at stress levels in women with children and compared those to stress levels in women without children and determined women with children are more stressed and less happy overall. I am totally going off of the top of my head here. It may have been some other factor they were comparing. I read it a couple of days ago and didn't think much of it really.

Or so I thought.

Yet, here it is, 11:30 on Wednesday night. I'm on my way to bed and I'm thinking how flawed that study must have been.  How could anyone suggest that being a parent isn't worth it? Perhaps that wasn't the point of the study or even the article that I read, but that is what stuck with me.

Being a parent is totally worth it. Is my life more stressed than before I had children? Most definitely! Am I more tired? Yes. Do I have less money? Decidedly so. Has my privacy gone out the window? Usually.

But I don't think any of that is bad. I am stressed, tired, broke, and constantly surrounded because I have someone to care for, to love, to nurture.  I have two small, helpless babies who need me. Taking care of them has made me a better person. It has made me care more, love more, see more, feel more, and be more.

Clearly, if I did not have children, I would have more money. I would likely have more time to do things like go out, get a massage, take vacations, and basically pamper myself. And I would likely be less stressed. But what is the point in that?

I've always been a person who loves to give. I can't even hold on to gifts until the proper day to give them because I enjoy the act of giving so much. Being a parent is giving the best gift ever--the gift of life. I am responsible for helping two extraordinary individuals find out who they will be and I get to teach them the wonder in this world, the magic in life. How awesome is that!

I don't think parenthood is for everyone. I'm sure some people are happier without having to change diapers and being able to sleep through the night rather than chasing after a toddler running through the house with finger paint still wet and dripping. I'm sure people have plenty of good reasons why not being a parent is correct for them. And I say bravo to you for making your own decision.  But for me, the hugs, the kisses, the stories, the smiles, the laughter, and the everything that make up my children outweigh any possible negatives. I can't believe someone would suggest I would be happier without my children.


PS
After writing this post, I found the article: Does having children make you happy?

Too Much

I had an interesting conversation today regarding signing with a child.

Let me say this straight out: I believe teaching the Dancing Queen American Sign Language was one of the very best decisions I have ever made. Purchasing the Signing Time Videos was one of the best purchases ever. Hands down, no question, our lives all got easier when DQ learned to sign. We saw the lightbulb go off in her head the very first time we popped in "It's Baby Signing Time". (We had tried signing with her before the video, but for her, music was the key.  Not surprising from my music-centered kid.)  At 18 months, she went from being a frustrated toddler (even though she wasn't toddling yet) to being able to communicate her wants and needs to us in an intelligible manner. The change was remarkable.

At 2 years old, she was evaluated by her speech therapist with the verbal ability of a nine month old, but she could sign and was communicating.  At that time, when we were struggling to keep DQ alive, we were just happy she could tell us what was happening and what she wanted or needed. 

And in the last year, DQ's vocabulary exploded. She went from basically non-verbal to completely verbal almost over night. Her growth was remarkable. I attribute most of that to the signing. Even though DQ wasn't verbal, we still treated as if she was. We taught her manners. We talked to her as we would any child her age. Instead of only verbal though, we used signs as well. For instance, if DQ were to belch, she was instructed to say "excuse me" and sign it. Well, she couldn't verbalize, but she could sign. Signing was never done as an alternative to verbal speech, but as an additional tool that worked.  As of DQ's last speech evaluation two months ago, she was verbally speaking over age level. It is a remarkable achievement that I think was aided by signing.

Today, I was part of a discussion in which a speech therapist told a worried mom that it would be wrong for her to teach her non-verbal child sign language because it would prevent the absolute earliest possible verbal speech. I can't argue with that. I don't have any idea if DQ would have verbalized earlier if she hadn't signed, but I do take issue with the idea that the goal should be to have the absolute earliest verbal speech.

At what cost to the family and the child should anyone suggest that obtaining the earliest verbal speech possible is the only goal? I know in my family, DQ wasn't about to start verbalizing any time soon. Changing therapy techniques may have worked, but not as quickly as signing. DQ needed her hearing fixed to be able to take that next step. Beyond that, she had to figure out how to work her mouth. She simply didn't do that well (for speech or eating or drinking!) If we had waited for only verbal speech, DQ would have been frustrated and screaming more for much longer. That would have added strain to our family at a time when we were beyond stressed because she was facing so many other life-threatening issues.

Isn't it too much when a therapist/doctor/specialist takes their own specialist interest and makes it the only goal? I find it completely irresponsible for a speech therapist to tell a worried mother of a non-verbal child that signing was a bad choice without taking into consideration the full picture. What are your thoughts?

Should I Go to Law School?

I am often asked questions simply because I am a lawyer. The most common question is: "My daughter or son, my neighbor's nephew, my boss's girlfriend's daughter is applying to law school. What advice should I give them?"  Of course, this question can be started even more ways than I provided. I've even had a check out lady at the grocery store ask me what I did for a living and immediately upon finding out, ask me for her daughter, a sophomore in college, but who is destined to be a lawyer.  Occasionally, I will even have a real person who is thinking of law school talk to me.

My answer is the same for whomever asks:  Think really, really hard about your decision. There is no going back. Student loans are non-dischargeable. If they don't want to be a lawyer, they shouldn't go to law school. Law school itself is hard work, long hours of preparation, and grueling classes if it is done correctly. You can skate by, but you won't be prepared and you'll be wasting money and annoying classmates who take it all seriously. But, long hours in law school are quickly passed up by even longer hours working as a lawyer. Even if you've worked 36 hours straight, you will still be expected to shower, slap on a smile and go mingle with hundreds of other attorneys to properly network.  You will owe the equivalent of a mortgage in student loans and most attorneys don't make enough to cover two mortgages. That means you will have your education, but where will you sleep? Perhaps in your office because you'll feel like you live there anyway with the hours you will put in.

Okay, this is my sarcastic version of the advice I provide, but it is all true. I make sure people know most lawyers don't make tons of money. That student loans are equivalent of a mortgage for a house that you will never ever be able to sell, burn down, or lose to a hurricane. There is no insurance plan if you suddenly can't use your law degree.  The hours suck. I emphasize thinking about it really hard, following around a real lawyer doing real work, working in a law office as a messenger or copy person to see what the culture is like. I always make sure people know that I love being a lawyer. If I had to do it all again, I probably would. But, I didn't have a clue what I was getting myself into. I am lucky that I love what I do (even if I don't like the hours).

One of the biggest myths propagated by law schools is that a JD opens up lots of career opportunities and you don't have to be a lawyer. Of course, many people who went to law school do not work as lawyers. And yes, you can take a myraid of career paths with a JD.  BUT, why would you? If you are not going to be a lawyer, don't go to law school. Go to school for what you want to do. Don't know what you want to do, get a real job for a while and figure it out.

Of course many people will tell you that their JD made it so the could start in another field. But think about it. Those people are not going to tell you they wasted $120K on a career they didn't want or couldn't do.  The fact is many law school graduates don't like being a lawyer. They don't like the hours. They don't like research. They're no good at it, so it is not fun. They don't like negotiating with jerks on the other aside. They never found their niche in the law that fits their style. Or that niche area was so concentrated, they couldn't get a foothold in. There are many niches in the law that any competent attorney should find a love, but sadly, some people don't find their niche and go elsewhere. If people thought more about what they want out of life before going to law school and thought about what their strengths are, then they would know if it is the correct decision.

One last thing needs to be said here. I've broached it twice earlier, but did you see it?  There are two types of people who most definitely should not go to law school: those who plan to only skate by and those who are not capable of being a lawyer. Unfortunately, those people still go to law school and the schools do nothing to weed them out.  There are people who are extremely smart and talented who just don't do well in law school. They can't get it.  Those are people I felt should have flunked out after the first semester so they could find their true calling. And those people stuck out like a sore thumb! Instead, they didn't flunk, but were at the bottom of the class.  Despite working really hard and trying, they never did any better and they were kept in school. As the years went by, the confidence they once had because they were smart and talented was lost due to being the bottom of the class. They did graduate from law school, but could never pass the bar. While I don't pretend to think the bar exam is a good measure of your worth as a lawyer, I do know people who I thought should have failed first year who could never pass the bar exam. I blame the law schools. They had to know these people couldn't cut it. Instead of forcing them out early before they were loaded with debt, before they had this degree people expected them to use, the schools made them wait to face this music at a much different phase of their lives.  It's not right and it is a serious consideration for anyone who thinks that law school is the place to be.  What if you can't cut it? How will you know? And are you prepared to cut loose without anyone telling you to do so? I only know one person who did that. He was smart. Dropped out in the middle of the first semester and went to med school instead. I hope it worked out for him.

Finally, the last type of person who should never go to law school:  the skaters. Since people can make it through law school trying real hard and failing, the people who don't try, can still skate on by. While they may be able to be lawyers, they turn into skaters in real practice, which makes more work for the rest of us. Always trying to take the easy way out seems like the fast track to ethical problems if you ask me. As lawyers, we are bound by an ethical code. The quickest way to an unintentional violation is not knowing what you are doing and taking the easy way out instead of doing the work.  Not doing the work, trying to skate by, getting ethical violations, those are the things that give lawyers a bad name. I'd rather those people put their laziness elsewhere.

Not Rebels, Revolutionaries

Why are the protesters in the Middle East and North Africa constantly referred to as rebels? I don't get it. The rest of the world is apparently supporting these people in their fights against dictators. (Seriously, didn't the U.S. and other countries start bombing Libya over the weekend to protect the "rebels" from Qaddafi?) I have heard the regimes in power called illegitimate. Why then are the people fighting these illegitimate dictators called rebels? Shouldn't they be called revolutionaries?

The term rebel makes me picture someone who is going against the rules, but not in a good way. It seems to lessen the import of what is going on, especially where lives are being lost.

I understand that it is uncertain whether a true revolution in leadership will occur in some of these countries because it remains to be seen whether the regimes will be ousted. I further understand that these "rebels" may not end up in power if the current regimes are ousted. Finally, I understand that even if new leaders are elected, the governments may act in the same manner.

However, I don't think there can be any question that no matter what happens, this is a time of change. These people, coming together, fighting their oppressive dictators are taking part in a revolution. They are changing the very fabric of their existence. Even if these particular people are not successful, I don't think the world will ever look at the Middle East and North Africa the same again.

Isn't that a revolution? Don't the people effecting this revolution deserve to be called something more than rebels? Aren't they revolutionaries?

Opinions

I have a lot of opinions. Opinions about politics, about government, about the law, about healthcare, ethics, morality, duty, and so much more. These are the things I thought I would write about when I started this blog. The problem I have is how to state my opinions and not run counter to my professional life. It's not to say that I represent clients who are diametrically opposed to my personal opinions and beliefs, but I never know who the next client may be and I don't want to take a position that could hinder that relationship or my representation of that potential client. That leaves me in a bind.

It is safe to say that I tend to have liberal views. I don't like political parties though. I think allegiance to a political party rather than a core set of beliefs is causing our country to only care about elections instead of governing and care about popularity rather than what is right. Somehow politics is no longer about compromise, but about giving prizes to the people with the most money spent on the topic at hand and lambasting the people who didn't put enough money on the table. It's not right. Any of it!

Unfortunately, I don't have answers. But, I can say this. I believe in taxes. I don't believe in wasteful government. I don't believe in earmarks that skip the majority vote process. I do believe in providing the country a strong military. I do believe in providing our men and women who fight for us with the proper equipment. I don't believe we should continue to concentrate all of our resources based upon terrorism, but based upon our national interests. Really, terrorism is not new and is not going to be stamped out through killing and violence. I do believe in free speech. I do believe in the power of the people. I don't believe corporations are people. I do believe we now live in an oligarchy dressed up as a democracy. I don't believe that is right.

I am scared by what I see in the news. I am scared that unions are being destroyed so that corporations can make more money. I am scared that making money is more important than saving lives. I am scared that education is being sacrificed to cut deficits, but taxation is not considered because the ultra-rich are willing to pay millions in lobbying rather than pay taxes to cover education.

I believe we are better off living in a society and by doing so are responsible for each other. I don't like it when people do nothing and get a check because I work hard. But I don't believe all people are like that. No child deserves to go hungry. No mother should have to chose between seeing their children grow and putting food on the table for them. We will only continue to lose our grip on power in this world if all our children are not given the chance to succeed, if they are all not fed, and if they are all not provided healthcare. I don't understand why our priority is on lowering taxes and not on future generations. Without the children, none of this matters.

Smokers Need Not Apply

Just read that a local hospital is refusing to hire smokers and is requiring nicotine tests before hiring. In the interest of seeing whether this is a new or a trend, I searched the web.  Apparently, hospitals are refusing to hire smokers all over.  The theory is to promote a healthy atmosphere and to save on healthcare costs.

Perhaps its the pessimist in me, but I wonder if this is an across the board decision or only going to work against the lower level employees? Are hospitals truly willing to forgo hiring the hot shot surgeon or specialist to head up a lucrative department simply because she or he smokes? Perhaps I'm jaded, but I've seen a ton of doctors who smoke and I've also seen hospitals only care about the bottom line. I don't believe any hospital would choose not to hire the hot shot doc.

Long Term Gain v. Short Term Pain

I had several conversations with TRex this weekend regarding long term gain from short term pain.  It got me to thinking about our government.  I really think if our government thought more like a parent and less like a child, we would be better off.  Let me explain.

TRex is 4.  In October, he came to us requesting to play sports.  He didn't care what sport, he just wanted to start playing sports because his cousins played soccer, hockey, and baseball.  The difference of course is that the Car Guy loves sports and has always played them, so he got his boys involved in sports from a very young age.  The Mad Scientist could care less about sports and with as busy as we are with the Dancing Queen's many, many doctors appointments and therapy sessions, adding extracurricular activities for TRex was not a priority in our home.  Anyway, I digress.

TRex wanted to play sports, so we signed him up for swimming lessons and soccer.  Swimming lessons seemed obvious because TRex has always loved the water and we want him to continue to love it.  We want him to be safe.  Soccer was the only "sport" we could find lessons that fit our schedule during the winter.

Of course, TRex is 4, so when said lessons started, he didn't want to do it.  Swimming scared him . . . A LOT.  The teachers make him do scary things (another aside, TRex is pretty much scared of everything these days).  The swimming teachers have the audacity to make him try to jump into the pool.  They take him out of his comfort zone.  TRex doesn't like this, yet taking TRex out of his comfort zone is exactly what I want for him. I don't want him to be scared of life.  I want him to face his fears in a controlled setting, where I know he will overcome them and, hopefully, gain some self-assurance.  After all, being a parent is about making the tough decisions for our kids, making them endure short-term pain for the greater good in the long run.

This weekend, TRex was especially adamant in not wanting to attend swimming lessons.  It had been a really hard week for him with his family separated due to the Dancing Queen's hospitalization.  And in his mind, he never believes that the Dancing Queen will come home when she is hospitalized.  So, Saturday comes, Ma and Papa were going to bring TRex to swimming, then soccer.  TRex fought me about swimming.  They were going to make him get on the driving board and jump into the pool.  That was too scary.  He couldn't do it without Mommy in the pool.  So, all through the morning, I explained to him that I couldn't be in the pool with him and that he had to face his fear because it would be better in the long run.  I told him that sometimes we have to do things we don't like to do or are scary because they will help us be better people and help us grow up.  I also told him that if he got scared, all he had to do was remember that Mommy was always with him; remember that the kisses and hugs I gave him couldn't be washed off and were still there even in the pool.  It worked because he knows I am there for him and will not let him down.  He enjoyed swimming (and soccer, but that is not an issue because they don't make him jump into water well above TRex's head).

Now you are wondering what does this have to do with the government.  Easy.  Too often, our government officials make decisions based upon their fear of the short term pain.  They act like children and don't want to do things that will hurt today, ignorant of the damage such shortsightedness will have on the future.  Instead, our government should be acting like parents, looking at long term goals and how to reach them.  If we constantly give into our fears of jumping into the pool, we will never learn to swim.  Likewise, if we are constantly afraid of the short-term consequences of fixing government, then we will never have a solution.  Continuously cutting money to education or cutting funding of health care for everyone might save money today, but how is it going to help our future?  I don't see how we can expect to maintain our status in the world if our children are not properly educated and unhealthy.  Expecting people to pay for it all themselves is unrealistic and only adds to the damage being done.  Why do we live in a society if we don't want to work together?  I don't have the answers, but we need to figure something out quickly. And if the government thought more like a responsible parent, rather than a child, we would probably be better off.