It's no secret that more kids have asthma than before. Here is an interesting study that may explain why. It shows that living close to a freeway increases a child's risk of developing permanent respiratory problems, including asthma.

This study may be yet another reason to support a no-idling policy at schools. All of the exhaust pouring out of cars on the pick up line probably isn't just bad for the environment; it's also probably harmful for kids' health.


Stumble It!

I was having lunch with a friend when the subject came up: Had I read Lisa Belkin's article, "The Trials of My Babysitter"?

All last week, virtually every working mom I know has been talking about this article. In it, Belkin admits that her then-five-year-old son had told her his babysitter "scared" him. Belkin felt she owed the sitter the benefit of the doubt and confronted her sitter, who then floored Belkin by saying, Well, you know kids lie.

Flash forward years later, Belkin finds out that this woman--whom Belkin had written letters of recommendation for nursing school--is on trial for assaulting two patients in her care. In her story, Belkin is very clear to say that she doesn't want this story to be a cautionary tale, a warning against leaving your children in the care of a nanny. She writes:

This is not a tale of evil nannies lurking around every corner, or a declaration that children are not safe with anyone other than their mothers. More universally, it is about trust, and the harsh reality that as well as you ever know anyone, you can know only what he or she allows you to see.

Clearly Belkin didn't want to fuel anymore of the anti-working mother sentiment. But her attempt to link this story to some bigger issue of trust wasn't convincing--at least not to anyone I spoke to.

After all, the circumstances that Belkin described only applied to the mother-nanny relationship. This is a woman who worked in her home and was privvy to all of her private family matters, yet she knew almost nothing about her sitter's personal life. The sitter also was her employee--working to serve her needs. They were never friends, and yet....she was caring for her child.

What other relationships have all of these traits?

I think Belkin's story resonates in part because so many mothers worry that they haven't recognized the red flags--or worse, they've actively ignored them because acting on them would create so many difficulties. I don't think we should blame working mothers and say that they don't care about their kids. But I do think we should be honest about the bind that working mothers often find themselves in--and see this dilemma as not some kind of private failing, but a societal problem.


Stumble It!

Like so many parents, I've been captivated by reports about the Missouri boy who was kidnapped and holed up in a creepy 40-something man's apartment for four years. The boy was literally scooped off the streets while riding his bike. Another boy, who was allegedly held by the same man, allegedly had been kidnapped while getting off his school bus.

This story plays into every parent's worst fear. If we allow our kids to be out of our sight, will they be vulnerable to some creepy stranger?

Lately, I've been cautiously allowing my 10-year-old more autonomy. She has gone to the movies with a friend. She's walked herself home from school a few times. But when a story like this is in the news, I question my judgment. Isn't it safer to keep her under close supervision?

I keep reminding myself, however, that these stranger abductions are quite rare. And my daughter, as a tween, craves and deserves some independence and responsibility. It's necessary for her maturation, too.


Stumble It!

For the last couple years, there has been a flood of "momoirs," memoirs about motherhood. So many, in fact, that it was even tagged part of a new publishing genre: mommy lit.

Well, now fathers are getting into the act.

Lately, I've been seeing a slew of daddy memoirs cross my desk from publishers. There was Bruce Stockler's I Stop At Red Lights. Then Neal Pollack's Alternadad, which just came out a few months ago. And I just finished reading Philip Lerman's Dadditude, which is due out in May.

Critics have dismissed mommy lit as nothing more than navel-gazing and whining by a bunch of overprivileged women. But what struck me immediately about daddy lit was the lack of real introspection and soul-searching by the authors.

All three writers attempt (with varying degrees of success) to be humorous and poke fun at their cluelessness about parenting. Unlike the best of the mommylit authors, none of these daddylit writers even attempt to put their own fumbling and stumbling into some kind of larger context. The biggest statements they make tend to be in the order of: "Ex rockers find fatherhood uncool." Or, "Older men really falter when it comes to raising toddlers." There is no deep thinking or questioning here; no glimpses of the dark side of parenting; and no profound insights into how men's identities are shaped and altered once they become fathers.

Hmmm.
Stumble It!

Whenever it was January, I'd start worrying about what I was going to plan for my oldest child's birthday party--at the end of March. I remember one year,when she was 4, I didn't start making calls into mid-January and discovered that the place I'd wanted was already booked until the summer.
The only time left was a week night at 7 pm.
Fortunately, at some point, I realized the birthday party pressure was just nuts.
I stopped fretting over party favors and gave out home-made CDs.
I stopped trying to make the biggest and the best, or be Martha Stewart. Birthday parties became small, low key affairs in our backyard.
And I noticed something interesting: My kids had a great time. Their friends still enjoyed themselves.
So I was relieved when I read about a new national group, launched by a bunch of fed-up moms in Minnesota, to combat the birthday craziness. The truth is, the splashy parties aren't really for the kids' benefit....so much as the parents' benefit. It's just one more sign of the competitive parenting culture.

Stumble It!

It's become one of those tired cliches to talk about how technology is making us work "24/7" and making family life more stressful. While technology has blurred the lines between work and family, so that we're working when we're supposedly just relaxing with family, and vice versa, I also think it's not said nearly as often how much easier technology is making family life.

When it comes to keeping track of family schedules, a PDA has been my lifeline...until I discovered something even better (and free): online calendars. Google, Yahoo, and Airset
are among the many offering free calendars which make it possible for all family members to update and review password-protected calendars. So so easy.




Stumble It!

It never ceases to amaze me how many misconceptions there still are about adoptive families. Today, The Brian Lehrer Show, a radio talk show on NY's public radio station, WNYC, devoted a segment to whether adoption is a last resort for desperate, infertile couples or a "first choice" for some. At a time when we see Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt splashed across the front pages, it's shocking to me that this question is still asked.

It isn't just celebrities who are adopting "by choice." I personally have a half dozen friends who, like me, have bio and adopted kids. Even the editor in chief of Adoptive Families magazine has bio and adopted kids!

About a third of the contributors to A Love Like No Other, the adoption anthology that I co-edited, have bio and adopted kids. You might say that isn't scientific. But a few years ago, I wrote a magazine article about families with bio and adopted kids and found research indicates that about 25% of all adoptive families today are made up of so-called "blended families," those with bio and adopted kids. And that didn't include all the single parent and gay couple adoptions.

The reasons people have for choosing adoption are varied: Some of them, like Brangelina, have humanitarian motives. I've also found in my research that some have had a bunch of boys (by birth) and just really want a girl. Still others were like me and my husband: we were having trouble conceiving and didn't want to get on the high tech, fertility mill.

Simply put: adoption has become more accepted as our world has become more tolerant and multicultural. (Or perhaps it is vice versa). When will people wake up to this new reality and put those tired stereotypes to rest?







Stumble It!

Last week, my 10-year-old came home from school very excited: She could win a TV! She could get a fistful of $20 bills!
While she was jumping around the kitchen, I pulled the notice from school out of her backpack, and I quickly figured out what she was talking about. It was another school fundraiser.
My kids attend an elementary school is in a comfortable suburban community, but like many public schools today, their school holds fundraisers frequently to supplement all sorts of educational-related goals. This one happens to be for the fifth grade class graduation programs.
Now it may well be that the state government is underfunding schools, leaving them no recourse but to fundraise. It also may be that parents in certain upwardly mobile communities have heightened expectations and want to finance little extras that should be funded with private dollars.
But what I really object to is when schools have these fundraisers through private companies--often big corporations, despite folksy names like Sally Foster---which turn our kids into little Willy Lomans. (Child magazine also ran a fascinating story on this in September 2005 issue, but unfortunately, it isn't online.) My daughter told me that her lunchtime was taken up by listening to a pitch from a representative from one of these companies (which sells the usual candy and treats). And this sales pitch stressed that the kids who were the highest sellers could spend 30 seconds inside a "hurricane" where they could grab prizes....like $20 bills and TV sets. The shill also suggested that these kids ask their teachers(!!!!) to buy stuff from them, as well as asking their parents to ask their coworkers.
In this case, only 40% of the purchase price will actually go to my children's school. The rest will go to a large business, probably owned by Barry Diller or some other corporation titan.
So I did what I recommend others do:
--I educated my daughter and did the math with her. I explained first that more than half of the money wouldn't go to her school (she was shocked) . Then I told her that the amount of money she'd need to soak from grandparents, us, and other relatives to win a TV would probably be in the hundreds of dollars....while the TV would be worth about $100.
--I wrote a check to my school, comfortable in the knowledge that the full amount would go to her school.
Stumble It!

I am not a science journalist, and I don't normally write about environmental issues. But arguably the biggest news story in recent weeks has been the record high temperatures we've been experiencing on the East Coast.
Like most people who find the 72 degree weather disturbing, I've been hoping that it would prompt journalists who know the science far better than me to write massive pieces about this huge news story. Instead, I've been seeing a lot of happy talk from weather reporters on TV (take a look at the New York Observer's scathing story on this) or reading upbeat newspaper stories about people taking advantage of the warm weather to frolick at the beach or garden in January.
Today, New York Times environmental journalist Andrew Revkin--whose work I've always admired--wrote a piece, wondering why the U.S. has been relatively apathetic about climate change compared to western Europe. The reason, he suggested, was that while European countries tend to experience the same weather, the U.S.--because it spans a continent--often has wide variations. So right now, while the East Coast is having balmy, summer-like weather, Colorado is dealing with extreme snowstorms (such extremes in weather, by the way, is also believed to be the result of climate change.)
Interesting, Andrew, but what about the media's continued reporting of this story as though there were still some significant doubt as to whether climate change exists?
Take a look at a New York Times metro story that also ran today. After the usual blather about how people are enjoying (or not enjoying) the warm weather, the story says this (I'm not naming the reporter because I don't blame him as much as his editor):

"Although global warming is a popular theory [my emphasis, not the reporter's] for the Northeast’s warm winter, the Weather Service cited a specific meteorological cause. “We have a mild air mass that we’re in right now, kind of tropical in nature,” said John Murray, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Upton, N.Y. “The cold air masses in Canada have stayed up there.”

By calling global warming a "popular theory" and quoting only one "expert" who disputes it, the story leaves the impression that climate change (the preferred term since the build up of fossil fuels is causing extreme temperatures at both ends of the spectrum) is in doubt.
That just isn't true.
Take a look at the Union of Concerned Scientists' web site.
Read their report released this week, which exposes the millions that Exxon has spent to fund "skeptics" and get their views into the news pages. Couldn't that be a more significant reason why the US has been slow to take action and grasp the seriousness of the problem we're facing?
Environmental reporters need to not only continue doing stories about climate change (and please someone do a story taking a hard look at the National Weather Service), but they also need to educate the editors and reporters in their newsrooms, so that these gee-whiz, ain't this warm- weather-nice stories get pushed out of news pages for good.
If you want to get a sense of how far ahead European media and politicians are in grasping the disastrous implications of climate change, read this or this.

Stumble It!