The text from my friend Tracey asked simply: “Is Doug in Boston?”  For the past two years, my husband has run the country’s oldest, greatest marathon – but not today.  I texted back a simple ‘no’.  When she responded, “Good year to miss”, I asked why and then quickly thought to check Google News.  I heard from several family members and friends over the course of the next two hours, wondering if the husband was running.  Again, he wasn’t.  So when I subsequently contemplated how best to approach this latest horrific incident with the girls when I saw them at school, I was grateful I didn’t have to start with, “Your dad’s okay but there was a bombing at the Boston Marathon.”

I’m sad.  Aren’t we all?  And now to hear one of the dead was an 8-year-old boy – how do we handle this newest tragedy?  It’s Monday so I’ll talk about motherhood because many of these big, bad events have happened since I’ve had children.  On my own, I can foam at the mouth and call my friends, cry, and ask questions.  In regard to Phoenix, Aurora, and Newtown, we can righteously fight for more effective gun regulations.  But 9/11 and now today in Boston leave me searching for a meaningful approach with the girls.  How can I best assure them that this country remains a mostly safe and worthy place to live?  That life itself should not be approached tepidly simply because there are a few bad guys out there?

What I really wanted to say to my daughters was “I don’t want to talk about it” and “It’ll never happen to you” – but the former is unacceptable and the latter I can’t say with certainty.  We knew someone who died in the South Tower on 9/11.  The husband wasn’t in Boston today simply because he missed qualifying by a minute or two.  Am I scared?  No, but that didn’t stop me from crying while watching the news.  Every time something like this happens, I do think, It’s official. We’ve broken the world and now I have to tell the girls. But I can’t do that because deep down, I don’t believe it’s true.  In the words of my beloved Pink:

“Just a second, we’re not broken, just bent.”

And in terms of our dinnertime conversation this evening, I had to use the words of Mister Rogers.  Perhaps you saw this on Facebook after Aurora or Newtown.  It’s appropriate for today:

“When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, ‘Look for the helpers.  You will always find people who are helping.’  To this day, especially in time of disaster, I remember my mother’s words and I am comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers – so many caring people in this world.”

We’re with you Boston.  We care.

I had little love for the “Mad Men” season opener; it was bound to happen.  For years, I didn’t care much that these people were mostly dreadful – selfish, greedy, gluttonous.  They embodied nearly all the seven deadly sins, but their approach was so stylish and compelling, the husband and I returned week after week to Don, Betty, Roger, Pete, Peggy, and Joan.  Last Sunday, however, they lost me.  In a series of vignettes not connected in any obvious way, the arcs of their characters appear to have hit permanent plateaus.  Betty remains chubby, detached, and obliviously cruel.  Don is still a sullen cheater, allergic to happiness.  Peggy has become Don.  Roger takes up space, and Pete – well, Pete is Pete.  There’s not a cheerful one in the bunch.

We’re halfway through Netflix’s “House of Cards”.  Kevin Spacey portrays Majority Whip Frances Underwood in a D.C. environment so contemptuous, if it’s anything like the real deal, we all should kill ourselves right now.

Look this way and that – on television, in the movies, at the grocery store, the dog park, Starbucks – and you’ll find cynicism as quickly as you’ll find joy – no, faster.  This is nothing new.  It’s easier to criticize than compliment.  I’m as guilty as the next person, but it wasn’t always this way.  My glass is still half full but just and I know why.  We feed off each other; our inner curmudgeons win the battle for our souls more often than not.  On any given day, I’m going to have ten conversations and six of them will be negative.  We’ll complain about Washington, the weather, traffic, our WiFi connection, the job, the boss, school issues, children who don’t make their beds, Washington, wrinkles, parking at Trader Joe’s, bills, aches, pains, more bills, allergies, our ‘inbox’, spam, dust bunnies, acne, Washington, the spouse, the house, the car, red lights, coffee that’s too weak, coffee that’s too strong, leaf blowers, Washington, and the printer (because printers rarely work).  Then we’ll complain about those who complain all the time.

Believe me, there are real issues about which we should be upset.  But everything else has a bright side, if we’re interested in considering it.  Sure, sometimes it’s more entertaining to be Eeyore than Pollyanna, but it can often wear us down, too.  I’m sick of being weary.

The husband and I went out the other night and returned home to dirty pots and pans that the girls had failed to clean up after dinner.  I was ready with my anger and disappointment until the husband showed me this letter from Miss T:

Silver linings abound.

(The following is an interview with an imaginary Republican congressman, Rick Offenbach, from Wisconsin.)

Daily Cup:

After Newtown, after the murder of 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary, the tide turned in favor of more gun control legislation.  The thinking, from Democratic leaders and even some Republicans was, “Surely we can do something.”  Now, almost four months after twenty 6- and 7-year-old children were gunned down in their classroom, new legislation to reduce gun violence is not only disappearing, but existing laws will possibly be weakened.  Republicans in congress insist they will filibuster any attempt to infringe on 2^nd Amendment rights.  Dead children be damned.  You were one of the most outspoken among them until…

Rep. Rick Offenbach:

Until my 12-year-old son was shot and killed at a baseball game.

Daily Cup:

I’m sorry for your loss.  What happened?

Rep. Rick Offenbach:

His team was struggling so the coach was trying out different things.  He pulled the starting shortstop and replaced him with my son.  The other kid’s older brother, Nate, was…disabled.  He used to play baseball himself but was hit in the head by a line drive while pitching a few years back.  Suffered a TBI (traumatic brain injury).  Couldn’t make much sense of life.  When he saw his little brother sitting on the bench, I guess he got mad, thought he could do something about it.  Showed up at a Saturday game last month and started shooting.

Daily Cup:

He killed the coach also.

Offenbach:

And an umpire.  Then he killed himself.  They always do, don’t they?

Daily Cup:

He used a Glock?

Offenbach:

With 30 rounds.  Two other people were injured.

Daily Cup:

And so you think now some new gun laws might make a difference?

Offenbach:

I do.

Daily Cup:

Why were you so against them before?  Politico reported that the only gun you’ve ever owned was a hunting rifle.  New gun laws wouldn’t have affected you.

Offenbach:

I don’t like the government infringing on my rights.

Daily Cup:

No one does.  But protections and regulations aren’t for punitive purposes.  They’re to keep us safer.  They don’t work all the time but –

Offenbach:

– I understand that now.  That’s why I support them.

Daily Cup:

Because your son might be alive today –

Offenbach:

Maybe, yes — IF the shooter had to go through even a basic background check, but anyone can waltz into a gun show and walk out with a weapon.  He drove to one a hundred miles away, bought himself a Glock.  IF he hadn’t had so many bullets.  He was a terrible shot.  Out of the 30 rounds, there were only five victims.

Daily Cup:

But you’ve heard all the arguments the NRA makes, and successfully.  You know what you’re up against.  After Newtown, ninety percent of the country was behind new, extensive background check legislation and now we’re nowhere.  We are spineless, shameful, and prosaic.  Republican politicians, and a few Democrats, are more afraid of losing money and votes than they are of losing a loved one.  Statistics from other states and other countries with stricter gun laws point to an effective means in keeping more people alive/less people dead due to gun violence.  Forgive me for being insensitive, but you only flip-flopped because your son was killed.

At this point in the interview, Offenbach shut down.  We sat in silence for several minutes until I saw his shoulders drop.  He let out a long sigh.

Offenbach:

He was my only child.  My wife is staying with her mother because she can’t look at me.  She’s a part of that ninety percent.  Thought I should support new gun laws.

Daily Cup:

It seems to me that the GOP leadership is incapable of empathy.  They sympathized with the Newtown families but it’s not the same thing AT ALL, particularly if it only lasts five minutes.  Because they lack the imagination to put themselves in another’s shoes, and the courage to say no to the gun lobby, we are no further in addressing gun violence in this country.  What would you say to the comparisons being made between you and Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who only came out in support of gay marriage after learning his own son was gay?

Offenbach:

I’d say personal experience is a powerful motivator.

Daily Cup:

But President Obama, the greater majority of the Democratic leadership and the citizens of this country are not motivated by personal experience.  We’re motivated by empathy.  Most of us have not been victims of gun violence. Most of us don’t have homosexual children.  Most of us here in California are perfectly capable of driving and talking on the phone at the same time, but when presented with statistics that showed we’d be safer as a whole if we switched exclusively to hands-free, collectively we accepted new rules.  How can we convince the GOP to be leaders in sensible new gun legislation – not because of tragic personal experience – but through empathy?

Offenbach:

I’m not sure.  Most of my colleagues have expressed sorrow for my loss while avoiding eye contact with me.  I had a friend diagnosed with pancreatic cancer a few years back and I made excuses constantly why I couldn’t see him.  Heck, I couldn’t even call him because I was afraid that by acknowledging what he was going through, by being with him…like it was contagious or something.  So I suppose you’re right.  We’re afraid to be empathetic.  If they look me in the eye, they’ll have to feel some of what I feel, including the guilt of all the money we’ve taken from the gun lobby.

Daily Cup:

In 1980, California mother Candy Lightner buried her 13-year-old daughter who’d been killed by a drunk driver.  She started MADD and the estimated 30,000 drunk driving deaths that year have been reduced nearly in half, twenty-five years later.  Change takes time.  New gun control legislation – NOT punitive measures taken upon gun owners – won’t erase gun violence but it can certainly reduce it, more and more as time goes by.  The next Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, or James Holmes may not have been born yet.  But in eighteen years, or twenty, if he goes to buy a gun and can’t, or can but not a large magazine, less people will die, including maybe someone’s son out playing baseball.  Does that sound about right to you?

Offenbach:

It does.  My colleagues have to look me in the eye when they tell me there’s nothing we can do.  I predict several of them won’t be able to, enough that we can tip the congressional balance in favor of sensible legislation, starting with universal background checks.

Daily Cup:

I hope you’re right.  Thank you for talking with me.

Offenbach:

Of course.

Read these articles:

Republicans Still Not Ready for Gun Control, Plotting Filibuster Instead by Joe Coscarelli

Don’t Know Much About Gun Laws by Joel Benenson and Katie Connolly

Armed Correlations by Adam Gopnik

The Second Amendment is All For Gun Control by Adam Winkler

Congress is back this week from their break (because they work so hard and effectively) and will address new gun control legislation.  At this point, the gun lobby is winning in ways they could only imagine in their dreams.  If only they could imagine losing a loved one to gun violence.  Call Congress.  Here’s how.

Some thoughts on current events that have nothing to do with motherhood:

The Pope: we’ll see.  He’s a Jesuit, which, according to my late father who attended Fordham, is the only order of priests worth belonging to.  Francis cares deeply about the poor and pays hotels bills on time and in person – great.  But it’s safe to say he won’t inspire radical changes within the doctrine of the Catholic Church, the changes essential for continued survival if it’s to recover from scandal and then remain relevant.  Until priests can marry and women can be ordained, I’ll continue to support my husband’s Anglican ways.  I realize permanent change happens slowly but it requires leaning into the direction of that change as a baby step.  Pope Francis exhibits no such leaning tendencies.  Too bad.  It feels like a missed opportunity – though I don’t think the conclave ever even saw an opportunity in front of them, or were aware of its necessity.  Therein lies the problem.

It came as no surprise to hear a judge struck down New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s big soda initiative.  As Justice Milton A. Tingling of Manhattan said, it was “arbitrary and capricious”.  You could be denied a big soda at a restaurant but walk down the street to the corner grocery and get all the Coke you wanted.  But that isn’t the point Sarah Palin, you childish idiot.  (Which perhaps makes me sound like a childish idiot for calling her names, but still…)  Bloomberg didn’t put the soda ban in place to demonstrate his power and illuminate big government.  He tried to draw attention to the fact that millions of New Yorkers (and Americans in general) are overweight, out of shape, and dying while costing the country billions in medical care.  Shame on him.  Let’s make sure that Big Food continues to support our need to kill ourselves, one Big Grab bag of Doritos and Big Gulp at a time.

Motherhood – it’s complicated but of this, I am sure: you pay now or you pay later.  Over the course of a weekend, any weekend (but specifically this last), my children hate me for brief periods of time.  I’ve asked them to pick up dog poop, clean their closets, hand over their cellphones at mealtime.  Occasionally, I don’t let them do the thing they want until they’ve done the thing they abhor.  They think I’m mean and sometimes, I am.  But I’m not doing them any favors by handling everything for them or conversely, letting them make a decision that isn’t theirs yet to make.  In other words, I’m still the boss (as is the husband, occasionally), which is how they’ll learn to be the boss of themselves one day.

Spring has sprung in Los Angeles and with it, the smells of night-blooming jasmine, orange blossoms, and my childhood.  No other time of year takes me back quite as much – to being nine- and ten-years-old, hiking around the hills of Encino and getting ready for the Miss Softball America season.  Life was uncomplicated, I was happy, and my parents were alive.  I miss my mom.  Just sayin’.

(The opinions stated here are strictly my own – and they are opinions.  Keep this in mind because I will refrain henceforth from using the phrase ‘in my opinion’.)

Last week, I wrote about an article in a student newspaper that dealt with a girl’s first time having sex, written by the girl herself.  It was posted on the website of a private all-girls school, grades seventh through twelfth, here in Los Angeles.  The vast majority of comments I received – either on Facebook, via email, and in conversation – were in support of my reaction and subsequent post.  Two people from whom I heard disagreed with me.  One was a friend.  The other was from an anonymous email address on Daily Cup of Jo, though the person then referred to herself as ‘Violet’.  (I can only assume it was someone from the student newspaper itself, as ‘Violet’ is part of the publication’s name.)  Both took issue with me on basically the same points, so I’ll address them simultaneously, but specifically reference the comment, since it’s public on my blog.

(And by the way, the article was taken down shortly after my post, through a series of events of which Daily Cup was tangentially associated.)

Violet: In your second paragraph, you state that a private school that prides itself on creating leaders has no business publishing an article about sex.  The two things aren’t related.  The school’s ability to produce well-rounded, intelligent women who are leaders in their community does not hinge on one article published by the school’s newspaper. In fact, the student-driven content and editorial policy of the newspaper, which allows students to make independent decisions, encourages girls to develop as leaders. The school newspaper, while it is distributed to visitors and parents, is by the students and for the students. There’s no way that it can provide an accurate depiction of student life by censoring articles that honestly and openly address the reality of teenage sexuality. You do worry, legitimately, that explicit sexual content is inappropriate for the school’s younger students. But this article was in no way explicitly vulgar, and nobody is being forced to read it.  However you may feel about the piece, it was thoughtful and honest.

What I actually said was: “The subject matter of the piece – the true story of the author’s ‘first time’, i.e. losing her virginity – is so wildly inappropriate for a 7^th-12^th grade institution which prides itself on ‘preparing young women for leadership and contribution’, that I can honestly use the word ‘unbelievable’ in describing my reaction.”  This school is an excellent one and DOES produce women who later become leaders, by exactly the methods Violet writes about – making decisions on their own, producing a student newspaper.  Still, surely there is a faculty moderator who oversees their work, yes?  And helps guide them in their decisions?  And I don’t have an issue with teenage sexuality being discussed.  It was thoughtfully examined in two previous articles on the same landing page of the paper.  My issue, actually more my curiosity since I have no dog in this fight – my girls don’t attend the school – was with this specific article.  It wasn’t thoughtful.  It was basically, “I went to a wedding with my grandparents, I drank wine, I hooked up with an older guy, I went home with him and drank some beers after lying to my parents about having a sleepover with a friend, and then lost my virginity.  He used a condom.  It wasn’t a big deal.”  Edifying it was not.

I then went on to write: “As a private institution for minor children, there is no First Amendment issue at stake.  Holy moly!”

Violet then commented: There is clearly a First Amendment issue at stake. A number of laws have been passed by the state of California protecting both public and private high school newspapers. While you may personally disagree with the article, to forcibly sensor the paper when the article is not plainly inappropriate (i.e., no foul language is used) is arguably illegal. Please view this link for more information about rights in student journalism.

To which I’ll respond: holy moly, is that true?!  Unfortunately, Violet failed to provide the link.  Any constitutional scholars out there?  Let’s assume she’s correct (she probably is): OMG!  I find it nearly impossible to believe that any student can write anything they want, providing they don’t use bad words, in a publication associated with a school.  But regardless, just because something is legal doesn’t make it a good idea.  I abhor censorship and I have told my daughters on numerous occasions what an awesome country we live in because of the freedom to say or write whatever the hell we want.  That doesn’t mean I want them to read it all before it’s age appropriate.  If something appears in their school’s student newspaper, they might assume, and rightly so, that it’s appropriate for them, regardless of whether or not they’re only twelve and in seventh grade.  And to be really annoying, let’s talk about illegal: underage drinking, sex with a minor…

Violet: Most importantly, the entire premise of your article relies on the unstated stigma associated with extra-marital sex.

Absolutely not true.  By stigma, we mean shame.  I’m not implying that at all.  Let’s talk about sex for a minute.  It’s a big deal, especially the first time.  Post the onset of menses, it can get a girl pregnant.  Fortunately, contraception continues to be an evolving, open subject and condoms are no longer hidden in the corner of every drugstore.  The man in the story used a condom.  Good for him.  But some facts: according to a CDC study published in 2011, the proportion of pregnancies in the U.S. that were unintended was highest among teens younger than age fifteen, at 98%.  According to the Guttmacher Institute, 49% of the 6.7 million pregnancies in the United States each year are unintended.  Three in ten of these pregnancies result in abortions.  In other words, contraception is great but not all women are using it successfully, 100% of the time.  Shame?  A stigma?  No, no.  I’m talking about the emotional and physical aspects of sex.  To speak of it flippantly, as I believe this girl did, is to treat it casually.  I don’t think there’s anything casual about a teenage girl having sex.  I have three daughters.  Count ‘em – one, two, three.  I come from a long line of fertile Irish women.  Five minutes after having Bun Bun, I walked by my husband while ovulating and got pregnant with Miss T.  (They’re fifteen months apart.)  So when Violet says – Your unstated assumptions reinforces the social stigma against confident female sexuality that is, sadly, far too prevalent in our culture. Especially as a mother of young girls, it is vital that you reconsider the way that you approach sex, and evaluate your views of adolescents – my response is: How the hell does she know how I approach sex with my daughters?  (I don’t write about every damn thing in my personal life.)  More to the point, they are MY daughters.  (They’re Doug’s too, but this is my blog.)  I don’t subscribe to the notion that after a certain age – say fourteen or fifteen – parents of teenagers are left powerless.  According to my siblings and friends who’ve gone before me, this is the age when they need their parents more than ever, whether the kids know it or not.  I work hard and deliberately connecting and communicating with my girls, even when they think they’d be better off alone.  I don’t nag, but neither do I settle for silence.  I was a teenage girl once myself, with a mother who did not, in fact, talk to me about sex – so I know about stigma and secrets and lack of confidence in sexuality.  Got it.  Been there.  Not going to make the same mistakes.

In 1975, the FCC established a policy know as the Family Viewing Hour.  In it, the major networks agreed to only show family-friendly programs from 8-9pm.  The sex and violence would come later.  Why?  There are specifics, but generally, it was to give parents a break and families an opportunity to watch television together, confidently.  The policy was overturned by a circuit court judge in 1977 and declared null and void, for obvious reasons (let’s talk censorship).  Regardless, the family hour continued into the 1990s because it was a good idea and fed into the concept of ‘it takes a village’.  Now, of course, television is a free-for-all and caregivers everywhere learn about parent-controls and program ratings.  (If it’s rated M for vulgar language, nudity, and violence, chances are your five-year-old should skip it.)  I mention this because my friend who emailed me reported that the girl’s article prompted a daughter at the school to discuss it (the article) with her mother.  That’s good.  Conversations with our teenagers about sex are important.  But look around.  There’s no shortage of opportunities to engage our kids in honest discussions about everything once taboo.  Drive down the street and look at some billboards.  Magazine covers.  The internet.  Most parents are doing their very best controlling the conversation when the kids are young, and participating in the conversation when the kids are older.  But geez, can we get a break?  At the very least, from our school’s student newspaper?  If I had to address every controversial thing my girls see, they’d never get to school on time, much less be fed a healthy dinner.  I can’t police it all, which is why I trust my daughters’ school to do some of that for me.  Sure, not every girl read that article at the school, but I can tell you plenty of them did.  Did all of them approach their parents to discuss?  Probably not.

I’m almost done.  A few more things.  Violet wrote: Finally, I would urge you not to be so immediately disgusted with this article. As an adult, in a position of power, your comments on the writing style of a teenager who has placed their reputation on the line are unfounded and inappropriate. She’s right.  I wrote: “On the other side of this girl’s poorly written ‘first time’/ cherry-popped article…” and that was snarky.  Not only would I apologize to the girl for being insensitive, I would ask if she’d spoken to anyone to work out any possible feelings she might have about the aftermath of the night in question, the ensuing article, and the reactions to it.  Hopefully, someone has.

And now, I’m going to be brutally honest and upset some people.

I can’t help but think this girl’s article somehow speaks to cowardice among certain adults.  It was brought to my attention, I suppose as a way of showing me how much sexual activity is actually out there among teenagers, that boys at another middle school/high school had a party whose title was “Blow Job Week” (Semantically, I’m not sure why it wasn’t called “Blow Job Party”.)  Apparently, different colored lipsticks were handed out for evidence later on.  Where the hell were the grown-ups?!  Why don’t we demand better behavior from our kids?!  Why isn’t it okay to have higher expectations for our teenagers?  Because we’ll be considered the un-cool parents?  Because we don’t want our children to be upset with us?  Because we want to demonstrate just how liberal we are, and comfortable with our sexuality?  There were four comments after this girl’s article, all anonymous, all questioning the content of the piece.  “Violet” is essentially anonymous.  We’re afraid, aren’t we, but of what?  Being the adults in situations that benefit from us having lived our lives?  From having been teenagers ourselves?  What’s wrong with a little wisdom?  A little adult guidance?  And about such an important subject, for crying out loud.

I’m done.  Let me have it.