Saying Good-bye, Saying Hello

Just about two weeks ago I made a major decision about my future. After spending three years in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where I followed my husband (and his start-up job), I decided that it was time to return home to California with the kids.

This means leaving my husband behind for an indefinite period of time, turning myself into a single mom for the duration, and finding out what a commuter marriage is like. The prospect is both frightening and strangely exhilarating.

For months I avoided making this decision, thinking that I could make it through one more year in New Mexico even though I really haven't found full-time work that I enjoy. I had also been giving into pressure from my teen-ager who feels ambivalent about leaving, now that he's made good friends here as well as back in California.

But I soon realized that I was letting fear drive my decision-making, choosing the comfort of my safety net here with my husband and family even as I felt constricted by those same bonds.

“What's wrong with you?” I asked myself. “If there women who can endure eighteen-month deployments of their husbands to Iraq and Afghanistan, surely you can survive in Palo Alto?”

So here I am, forty-five, an unemployed Comparative Literature Ph.D. about to broach the job market in Silicon Valley with my two kids in tow, and a determination to get my career back on track again after a three year hiatus.

The more time that passes since I reached this decision, the better I feel about it, especially since I know I can count on my husband to support me, to talk to me, to sense how I'm really feeling and respond accordingly.

It was a risk moving to Albuquerque three years ago, and in some ways, it's a risk going back to California on my own, but what better time to take risks than in middle age when the worst thing that can happen to you is getting stuck in your ways? I'd rather fall on my face taking a chance on my own than hunker down in my comfortable domesticity for twelve more months. And that more than anything is the reason I'm saying good-bye to the many good friends I've made here in the southwest and hello again to the friends I left behind me.

California Courts Overrule the Ban on Gay Marriage

California Courts Overrule the Ban on Gay Marriage – But are Americans Ready to Accept It?

Until yesterday gay marriage seemed to have fallen off the radar screen of hot button political topics, as the public and politicians increasingly looked to “civil unions” as a solution to the problem of offering homosexual men and women a way to legalize their unions without touching the sacred cow of heterosexual marriage.

But now the California Supreme Court has blown that strategy wide open by ruling that the state's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional and effectively treats “gay individuals and same-sex couples [as] in some respects second-class citizens” (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF).

In other words, the Court sees “civil unions” as akin to the “separate but equal” schools that segregationist states once offered black citizens; in both cases, the Court deemed these alleged “alternatives” equal only name only.

Suddenly, the idea that a state with 12% of the nation's population and an even larger proportion of its gay citizens could offer those citizens a legal recognition of their same-sex unions is not just a theoretical prospect; it could become a reality in as little as 30 days.

But while gay rights supporters rejoice, they also must face the sobering prospect that this ruling is not a definitive one, and the memories of the short-lived celebrations of gay marriages in San Francisco under Mayor Gavin Newsom in February 2004, could make many people reluctant to celebrate too soon. For conservatives are already gathering signatures for a ballot initiative that would amend the state constitution specifically to exclude same-sex couples from marriage rights.

At the same time, moderates who support civil unions as a first step towards gay marriage, may feel uneasy at this precipitate move by the California Supreme Court, fearing a backlash from social conservatives who not only oppose gay marriage, but also gay civil rights.

In the presidential race, the Democratic front runners, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, will have to walk a tight-rope between gay rights advocates, and those who either think civil unions are good enough or those on the socially conservative spectrum of the Democratic party who might bolt to the McCain camp if the candidates get too far ahead of mainstream public opinion on controversial social issues like gay marriage and abortion.

Certainly, gay marriage opponents have been quick to condemn the California Court's ruling in statements rife with words like “shock” and “outrage.” Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, told Alex Chadwick of NPR's Day to Day that this ruling made people like her “who think that marriage is the union of husband and wife exactly like bigots who opposed interracial marriage” and argued that they “will be treated like racists in the public square,” (May 16, 2008).

But if social conservatives are expressing anger, they may well find themselves swimming against a tide of public opinion that has turned away from their attitudes towards same-sex marriage in the intervening years since California voters passed a gay marriage ban in 2000.

The Pew Research Center finds that opposition to gay marriage has fallen 12% since February 2004, although it remained just over 50% in March of 2006. At the same time, 54% of Americans approve of a legal alternative to marriage for gay couples, and that support is rising, particularly among the young.

For many young people who go to school with growing numbers of their classmates who “come out” in high school or even middle school, the presence of gays in their everyday lives is increasingly perceived as “normal.” On college campuses, where gay couples are even more more common, fewer students are expressing the idea that their gay colleagues have any negative effect on their lives. One 2004 survey found that among those aged 15 to 25 “support for equal protections for gays, seems to cross partisan, ideological, and religious lines,” (http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/Attitudes%202.25.pdf).

Even among the majority of Americans over the age of 25, attitudes towards gays and towards same-sex marriage are also softening as the passage of legislation allowing gay marriage in Massachusetts and civil unions in a number of other states has definitely exploded the conservative canard that gay marriage poses a threat to heterosexual marriage, to young people, or to civil society in general.

Gays are marrying or forming legalized unions in record numbers, and the sky has not fallen. Rather, the public participation of gay couples in our society has made it clear that most of them are not very different at all from their heterosexual counterparts.

In fact, while conservatives like Maggie Gallagher argue that her organization simply wants to defend “marriage” and “religious liberty,” she, and others like her, who oppose gay marriage, never answer the question of how gay marriage injures heterosexual married couples or in any way infringes on their religious freedoms.

Certainly, many Americans do not like the idea of gay marriage, but that is not nearly the same thing as arguing that they are personally injured by its legalization. They are no less “married” in the eyes of the state or according their religious institutions than they were before, and they continue to exercise the same rights and benefits from their marriages as they did before the California Supreme Court ruling.

It may well be that the aftermath of this California court ruling provokes a much smaller and less intense backlash against gay rights than occurred in 2000 when hundreds of gay couples said their vows in San Francisco's city hall.

We may find that with the genie out of the bottle, so to speak, Americans are less fearful of same-sex unions as they live, work, and even worship with men and women who want the same rights as everybody else, the right to live with the person you love and to make that union legal in the eyes of the state and society.

If the California court ruling stands, and the November ballot initiative to write a state constitution ban on same-sex marriage fails, it is likely, as many conservatives fear, that some states will follow suit and that it will be increasingly difficult to maintain consistent legal arguments in favor of a ban on gay marriage. But perhaps, in any case, as more Americans actually see the results of legal gay unions in their communities, the battle over gay marriage may also turn out to be much ado over nothing.

Greening the Rust Belt

Greening the Rust Belt

In general the news coming out of the industrial cities of the Midwest is fairly grim these days: we have the houses selling for less than $1,000 in Cleveland and Detroit, gas prices are taking a huge toll on the auto industry, and consumer spending, the engine of economic prosperity, has taken a nose dive.

Yet there are signs of hope in the Midwestern rust belt, as many cities and small towns look towards alternative energy sources as a way to save money during the current economic downturn and also find new sources of economic development. For example, in a rural school district in the “thumb” area of Michigan with lots of wind, the Lakers School district has received biodiesel grants, energy smart incentives and most recently, a biomass grant. Three years ago the junior high principal received more than a quarter million dollars from the Michigan Public Service Commission to purchase wind turbines that now provide almost all the power for the elementary school and the superintendent's home.

This spring Lakers junior high school students will press oil from soybeans and sunflowers for bio-diesel and learn how to use the anaerobic processor, which breaks down biodegradable waste into methane that can be used for power. Many see this exposure to “green” technology as a way of giving a new generation important job skills and of stopping the “brain drain” of the young who continue to move out of states like Michigan in search of better economic opportunities, (Amy http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89369909)

As the federal government has failed to provide incentives for energy conservation, Midwestern cities and local communities are taking the initiative themselves to cut their energy use and reduce their contribution to greenhouse gases. Ann Arbor, Michigan, is replacing the bulbs in its street lamps with light-emitting diodes (LED's) to reduce its energy usage. In Chicago, 15 million square feet of rooftops are being overhauled and landscaped with gardens that can keep reduce temperatures by as much as 70 degrees. The first garden which was planted on top of City Hall cut the building's power bill by more than 10% in the first year. (See Jim Carlton's article, “Nine Cities, Nine Ideas, The Wall Street Journal, February 11, 2008 – http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120248655589254033-o_E8MSu_lUbSRP8Bp8Y_xHWoPVg_20090210.html?mod=rss_free).

These local initiatives represent more than just a way for cash-strapped cities and municipalities to save money.

Across the US more than 700 mayors have signed an agreement to follow the goals of the Kyoto Protocols, and their cumulative efforts are fueling grassroots demands that Congress and the Bush Administration get serious about reducing energy consumption and our national dependence on foreign oil.

Last November, governors of Western and Midwestern states followed suit by signing agreements to reduce carbon emissions and to create cap-and-trade systems to meet their targets.

Earlier this month attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia, plus representatives of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the cities of New York and Baltimore, and several environmental organizations filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency to force it to follow last year's Supreme Court ruling that that agency must decide whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, from motor vehicles, “States Sue EPA Over Global Warming,” AP, April 2, 2008. See http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iqGMrzmNKuHg8Hmz_YBFYQvY4J4AD8VPQO080.

So if you're feeling a little helpless on Earth Day as the headlines tell us the economy is tanking, gas prices are sky-rocketing, and many feel anxiety about the future of the US economy, it's reassuring to see what can happen on the local level, not just to reduce our energy consumption but to develop new technologies and new “green” industries that generate jobs at home.

Torture – Asking the Right Questions

Torture – Asking the Right Questions

Despite the evidence that our military and CIA interrogators have used torture against prisoners held in Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the American public seems to have put aside concerns about what these practices are doing to our reputation abroad and to our own sense of ourselves as a people who uphold the rule of law, including the Geneva Conventions.

Instead, we have a President who sees himself as the “Decider” and who believes his role as Commander-in-Chief gives him carte blanche to ignore the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution so long as he feels his actions are intended to “fight terrorism” and “to protect the American people.” Given that the moral debate over torture has reached this impasse, we should consider the whole question of torture from a different angle. Instead debating the immorality of using torture, what the American public and the American media should be asking is a simpler question: Does torture work?

Let us for the moment grant the Bush Administration the premise that it might need to use torture under some hypothetical circumstances. What logically follows is a series of questions: What kind of information can be extracted under these circumstances? To what degree is it credible information? And given that our practice of torture renders our own soldiers vulnerable to the same techniques if they are captured on the battlefield, and that it gravely damages our reputation in the world, is torture really worth it?

Sadly, because of the history of torture practices around the world for many centuries, we already know the answers to some of these questions. People under torture will say anything, anything, and especially anything they think their torturers want to hear.

As Ron Suskind notes in his book, “The One Percent Doctrine,” when the United States tortured Abu Zubaydah, an alleged key conspirator of Osama bin Laden, the CIA quickly discovered that their suspect suffered from a host of mental problems and was probably schizophrenic. This unbalanced man under torture began to suggest that everything was a terrorist target, sending our defenses towards the Statue of Liberty, the Brooklyn Bridge, and a number of large malls, in an enormous and ultimately futile expenditure of millions of tax-payer dollars to protect American landmarks that were never targets at all.

The only useful information Abu Zubaydah provided was the identity of the 9-11 central plotter, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who has himself has alleged that he was tortured in secret CIA prisons and has made so many extravagant claims in his Guantanamo Bay confession that many question his veracity as well.

For example, Paul Pillar, former national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005 and currently a professor of Security Studies at Georgetown University, maintains that Mohammed is a still “a very big fish,” even as he acknowledges that it is “extremely unlikely [he was] involved in all of the more than 30 plots listed” in a Pentagon transcript of his confession (“Sifting Through Mohammed's Confession to Plots,” All Things Considered, March 15, 2007.

Evidence of the damage to the United States' international reputation is unequivocal. Repressive governments like of Russia and China use the alleged threat of “terrorism” to justify the often brutal tactics the take against their own citizens.

Worse, resentment against US policies in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, especially the occupation of Iraq makes ordinary citizens less willing to help, even in the legitimate quest to fight terrorism.

Dr. Steven Krull testified before the House Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight on May 17, 2007 and noted that “Muslims share the worldwide view that the US does not live up to its own ideals of international law and democracy.” But anti-American feeling has also intensified in recent years. Dr. Krull pointed out that eight in ten people in the four Islamic countries he studied believe that the United States is intentionally seeking “to weaken and divide the Islamic world.” Because many Muslims see the United States such a great threat, they have begun “to suppress their moral doubts about al Qaeda.” The practical effect of this has “widespread support for attacks on US troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf, (http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/81.htm).

The United States is already perceived as a kind of “warlord” power in the Middle East, arrogant, hypocritical, and power hungry. Add to this perception, the reports and images of torture used against Muslims that have been disseminated through the news media in the Middle East, and you have a situation where US soldiers are rendered vulnerable even in situations where they are trying to help with reconstruction or just provide security in a situation of near anarchy like Iraq.

The worst effects of the practices of torture endorsed by the Bush Administration have, of course, been felt by the many innocent victims. Kahlid El-Masri, a German citizen, was picked up, flown to Afghanstan and tortured by the CIA and then released without charge after the Bush Administration realized it had the wrong man. Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer who was born in Syria, was apprehended when in was in transit between flights in New York. Through the euphemistic “extraordinary rendition” program he was sent to his native country where he was was brutally tortured and then released without charge. Arar told Jane Mayer in a New Yorker article that “he eventually confessed to anything his tormentors wanted him to say. 'You just give up,' he said. 'You become like an animal,'” (“Outsourcing Torture: The secret history of America's 'extraordinary rendition' program,” The New Yorker, February 14, 2005, http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/14/050214fa_fact6).

Dr. Steven Miles in a June 2006 Morning Edition interview about his book, Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity and the War on Terror, claims that "torture has never been confined to narrow channels,” and argues against its utility on the grounds that it “yields bad information,” (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5516533).

The book adds to the many documented accounts of people who have been sent to Syria, Jordan, Afghanistan or to secret CIA prisons where torture is freely practiced.

In one harrowing account Dr. Miles presents the case of a young taxi driver who, in yet another case of mistaken identity, was apprehended in Afghanistan by US soldiers and tortured to death over a series of days. The first autopsy found that Dilawar's death was a “homicide, caused by 'blunt force injuries to lower extremities'...later a coroner testified that Dilawar's legs were 'pulpified' and that the body looked as if it had been 'run over by a truck.'” Dilawar's family ultimately received three different death certificates as the Pentagon gradually changed its claim that he had died “of natural causes” to admitting that he had been seriously beaten. No one was charged with murder.

So when we think about the relative merits of torture, even from a practical standpoint, the evidence against its efficacy is overwhelming. Torture is unreliable, damaging to our national reputation abroad, and ultimately responsible for causing irreparable harm to many when our government fails time and time again to substantiate its suspicions of terrorism or even terrorist intent.

As American citizens, do we really want to go on deluding ourselves that we're living in an episode of 24? Or do we have the rational principles and the moral stomach to look at what our government has wrought by using torture in the name of “protecting” American citizens and utterly reject this madness? If we continue on this path will we have any standing at all in the court of world opinion for claiming that we are different from repressive governments around the world whose attitude towards torture is at least more honest, if just as brutal? And when will we come clean with our citizenry about what we are doing to people in the name of fighting terrorism?

We Don't Condone Torture, We Just Choreograph It

We Don't Condone Torture, We Just Choreograph It

In an April 11th interview with ABC News this past week, President Bush admitted that he knew his top national security advisers, including Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who chaired these meetings, discussed and approved details about how the CIA would interrogate so-called “high value” al Qaeda suspects. Bush told White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. "[Y]es, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved," (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/Story?id=4635175).

This interview was a follow-up to an ABC News report on April 8^th which alleged that, “a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding. The high-level discussions about these 'enhanced interrogation techniques' were so detailed, sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic,” (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=4583256&page=1).

You can call it “enhanced interrogation,” but I strongly suspect that if these same techniques were used against American citizens or soldiers by other governments, our leaders would be protesting loud and clear that they were being “tortured.”

Given the Bush Administration's credibility gap on its pre-war information, it is also disheartening to find out that these same “top advisors” like Condoleeza Rice have repeatedly testified to Congress under oath that the Bush Administration does not use or condone torture, even as she chaired meetings where the scripts for torture sessions were being prepared and then passed on to the CIA.

In our legal system, we hold people accountable for being accessories to crime just as much we those who actually commit the crime in question. If you drive a bank robber to the bank that person then holds up, you are subject to prosecution just as much as the person who robbed the bank.

Should we not then hold Secretary Rice and these other top advisors as both legally and morally culpable for their participation in torture practices that are specifically proscribed under our legal system?

It is time for the American people to decide what kind of nation we really are. How do we want the rest of the world to see us? Do we believe in the rule of law? And do we believe that our leaders should be held accountable for following the laws of our land?

Those who argue in favor of retaining torture for “pragmatic” reasons, even as a a hypothetical “last resort” to frighten potential terrorists, always turn to the “ticking bomb” example.

In this scenario, a terrorist has a device – explosive, maybe nuclear – that will kill thousands of people, and we can get the code to turn it off in time, if only we're willing and able to use torture. If this sounds like a bad Hollywood cliff-hanger, it should, because it only happens on TV.

What should shock us out of our complacency about this idea that we would only use torture in this kind of a worst-case scenario is that we now have solid evidence that torture has been used and approved by our leaders again and again, not only against “high value” Al Qaeda suspects, but also against innocent bystanders who have been “rendered” for torture to cooperating nations because they happened to pass through a U.S. airport or had a name similar to that of an alleged terrorists. None of these instances involved a “ticking bomb” or any imminent threat to U.S. citizens.

President Bush can call it “connecting the dots” as he did in his ABC interview, and claim that he is just protecting the American people, but the fact is that Bush and his advisors repeatedly have told the American people that they do not condone or practice torture, when they were not only authorizing torture but planning it out to the last detail.

It is time for Americans to reject the use of torture absolutely and unequivocally. We should demand that our leaders adhere to the definition of torture outlined under the Geneva Conventions, and we should demand the resignation of those top advisers who not only advocated torture but choreographed its application to those held in U.S. custody.

We can begin by calling for the resignation of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice who chaired these meetings and allegedly told the CIA to “go for it.”

You can see the Secretary's repeated testimony under oath as well as ABC news report allegations and a videotape of an unidentified victim experiencing waterboarding in a new film, “Condi Must GO!” (http://bravenewfilms.org/watch/19970507/35714?utm_source=rgemail ) along with a petition calling for the Secretary's immediate resignation.

Americans need to hold this administration accountable not only for its illegal use of torture but also for its hypocrisy in saying that it rejects torture even as it employs these abhorrent practices under another name.

The TV Turn Off – Is It Still Relevant?

The TV Turn Off – Is It Still Relevant?

Next Monday, April 21^st, kicks off the annual “Turn off Your TV” week not only across the U.S. but in countries throughout the world, and some parents may be celebrating because fewer and fewer kids are watching TV.

But if TV is losing eyeballs, personal computers, iPods, and cell phones are rapidly emerging in its place as the hot new entertainment devices, especially for kids.

In the meantime, manufacturers (of televisions, computers, and cell phones) and content providers (from the traditional networks to Internet giants like Google) are all competing furiously to make sure that the next generation stays plugged in.

So what is a parent to do if the TV goes off and the kids just migrate down the hall to the PC or keep on texting? After all, there is a lot of money betting on parental surrender to this brave new world of instant entertainment.

I realized just how desperate the networks are to hold onto their tech-saavy teen audience when I came across a recent commercial while exercising at the gym.

There were the teens telling their mom they'd have to work her into their busy schedules after hockey and ballet. Even the youngest said in her sweet little girl voice, “Mom, I think I can pencil you in between 3 and 3:30 p.m.” Then a frame later you see the happy family all united in front of the television watching Ice Age, courtesy of a high-tech recording device that let the family all get together when they finally found the time to spend together –to watch TV, of course.

After I managed to stop gaping in horror at this travesty of family life– I think my jaw really did drop-- I began to try to figure out which of the many offensive elements of this family drama I found the most revolting.

Was it the idea that a parent should be subordinate to a child's after-school activities (I mean who is paying for all these after school activities anyway)?

Was it the idea of depicting six-year-olds as having social calendars (what happened to the idea of “down time” or even just “playing”, preferably outside instead of in front of the TV)?

Or was it the idea that “family time” would ever be centered around a television set (instead of something that actually fosters communication like the dinner table)?

In fact, some companies are exploiting parental concerns about the lost of “family time” by promising them that technology can actually help kids and parents overcome their hectic schedules and find time to reconnect. Last fall Panasonic even launched a new advertising campaign – "Bring Back Family Time” purportedly to “explore and document how High Definition technologies can enrich the American lifestyle.”

As part of the program, up to 30 families will be awarded a $20,000 suite of high definition products including Plasma HDTVs, Blu-ray Players, HD Camcorders, Digital Still Cameras and other products and services that Panasonic wants to promote. You can have family time in this tech-dominated fantasy – you just have to pay for it!

Clearly the PC, the cell phone, and music devices like the iPod have become part of the fabric of American life, just like the TV before them. But this means parents need to think in new ways about how they help their kids manage this media saturation before they find that their kids really are plugged in 24/7 and largely doing so without anyone being aware of what they are watching or communicating.

For example, last September, Forrester Research found that those between the ages of 18 and 26 are are more likely to say that their cell phones or personal computers are more important media devices than the family television, and it's precisely because these devices let them access media and communicate privately without coming under the scrutiny of the parental eye that is usually focused on the TV. Kids under 18 are even more likely to follow this trend.

So this week of April 21^st, don't just think about turning off the family TV set. Instead, you might want to start a conversation about the following

• What device matters the most to your kids- is it the TV, the computer, the iPod, or their cell phones? Which one would they be most reluctant to give up? The answers might surprise you.

• Ask the kids to monitor how much time they spend on the computer, the cell phone, listening to music, and watching TV. Challenge them to limit the time they do these things on school nights and discuss a possible reward if their school work improves or grades go up as a result.

• Ask your kids what they think about “family time?” What do you all enjoy doing most together? Would they consider canceling the cable subscription and investing the monthly expense in something that would benefit the whole family (such as a trampoline, or a vacation, or new bikes)?

And when the week ends, don't just go back to old habits. Monitoring and limiting what your kids see on their television and computer screens isn't just about protecting them. It gives them the opportunity to keep their childhood free of the often corrosive media culture that seems to saturate every aspect of our daily lives. If they spend more time outside on their bikes, or inside talking to you at the dinner table, or even curled up beside you reading a book, that's precious time that you're giving them to just be themselves, not some advertiser's ideal of what a child or a family ought to be.

When Words Come Back to Haunt You

When Words Come Back to Haunt You

“Nico?” No answer. “Nico?” “Nico, can you hear me?” I repeat. Finally, he deigns to answer: “I'm taking Uncle Phillip's advice and ignoring you.”

I realize he's really upset that I've taken him out of school early to make it to a dentist appointment. I should have known the minute he seated himself in the back row of the mini-van as far from me as possible.

“But why is he talking about his uncle?” I wonder for about a second, and then I suddenly remember.

Words can back to haunt you in strange ways, and sometimes they are the very words you would never even give a second thought.

A few days earlier I had been reading a letter to my seventeen-year-old son, Alejandro, that I'd written to his father when we were both in college. In it I was complaining that my own mother had distracted me with so many task I nearly started a kitchen fire. “My brother, Phil, told me the solution was to go upstairs where I could pretend not to hear her,” I read aloud, laughing as I folded up the letter. Alejandro replied, “It sure explains a lot,” obviously thinking I'd turned into my own mother, at least as far as he was concerned. Clearly Nico had been listening in as well.

We continue driving in silence as I try to figure out how to distract Nico from his simmering fury.

When we reach the dentist, the hygienist asks Nico how he is, and he immediately launches into his grievances: “I was just here” he said. “My mother is bringing me back here for no reason whatsoever.”

Patiently I explain to Nico that he had indeed visited the dentist a few weeks ago when his brother had an appointment, but now it was his turn. “Could you tell him when he was here last?” I ask the young woman, and after she tells him it was six months ago, Nico grudgingly submits to having his teeth cleaned.

Then the dentist walks in and says, “Hi buddy, how are you?” Nico is happy to return his high five, but he isn't through complaining about me. “She,” he says accusingly, pointing at me, “interrupted my school work and made me leave early. She doesn't value my education.”

“Oh,” the dentist replies, clearly taken aback while I flushed red. “Well, my son likes school a lot too.”

“Where is this coming from?” I wonder as we return to the car, and then I realize that although the logic is completely twisted, the words are all mine. I do emphasize my negatives especially about climbing the roof or skateboarding without a helmet with a “no excuses whatsoever” finale, and as a professor, I'm sure the terms “value” and “education” come up fairly often in my conversation as well.

By now I am as mad at Nico as he is at me, so when we get in the car and he wants to hear “Skippin' Stones,” I say no as emphatically and turn on Ella Fitzgerald to soothe my nerves, knowing full well that this is one kind of music I like and Nico doesn't.

Nico realizes it's not time to push me so he stays quiet for about five minutes. Then he asks where we're going since he sees we're not on the direct route home.

“To pick up Tomas,” I answer. “Oh great, we're picking up Tomas,” Nico repeats happily, clearly all over his tantrum at the dentist and glad to have the chance to tell his tale of woe to his older brother.

As I stop outside the Lotta Burger and let Tomas in, I too let go of my lingering resentment. I dial up Flypsyde's “Skippin' Stones,” and Tomas starts to sing along, “Cause I'm skippin' town I'm skippin stones.” I join in on the next lines --“I'm skippin' town. I'm skippin' stones.”

I glance in the rear view mirror. Nico isn't even going to complain about my singing. He is listening too intently. “Probably trying to catch the 'inappropriate' words,” I think to myself and smile.