The boy ripped a page out of a library book last night.

Visions of reform school were passing through my head.

I did my best Mike Brady sit down with him, trying to teach him that Job One is respecting other people and their belongings.

Mom chimed in that the librarians would be sad that a page was ripped out of their book. His response?

"Let's just drop off the book in that slot." (the after-hours slot we often use)

We have a long way to go.

- posted by Michael @ 6:39 PM

 
I'm a big believer that kids should be outside as often as possible. Except when it's too cold for Dad.

So we are spending a lot of time in the sun right now, sometimes stacking two and three playgrounds one after the other.

You would THINK this would make the boy sleepy around nap time, but it actually seems to be energizing him, and just leaving me sleepier than usual.

Poor Larry King. Must be rough having toddlers in your 70s.

P.S. Go find a zoo. Friends got us to the zoo this week. What fun!

- posted by Michael @ 1:08 AM

 
One more serious post (for the fun stuff, read the shorter items below).

Rebel Dad rightly challenged me recently for suggesting I might walk away from the at home dad battlefield. In fact, what I was trying to get at in the post he correctly summarized is that I used to want to spread the word about my own story, but now I just don't care to. I am having trouble articulating why. I guess I would just say that I'm now at peace with my situation--in fact, I am letting up on the paid work a bit to savor every possible moment with my son before I wake up one day and he's in first grade (he's only three but man that flew by!).

But I am NOT abandoning the policy battles that at home parents face. IN FACT, I am getting ready to wade into them in a more serious way than this blog.

I have co-founded a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, and one of the issues this "think tank" is going to educate lawmakers and the public about is the importance of protecting the ability of parents to stay home with their kids. This project will promote at home fatherhood, and advocate--at a minimum--that government be neutral in how it treats different child-rearing arrangements. (Currently, government punishes at home parents and subsidizes commercial day care centers--see below for more on that.)

This project is not expected to launch until around July, and it may be a lonely project, since my views are so quirky on these issues (to exaggerate only a little, generally speaking, liberals want both parents working outside the home and government raising the kids, and conservatives want moms at home with the kids--there are not many people taking my view that parents should try to spend as much time as possible raising their own kids, and that dads can do it as well as moms can).

But I am also ready to unveil this group's first project, which is a project designed to reduce violent crime. Our premise is simple, and based on extensive research: longer prison sentences for criminals make innocent Americans safer. Prison cells save lives. You can check out our anti-crime web site, which will officially launch next week, at ThrowAwayTheKey.org.

So that's one reason this blog gets so little TLC--if I am going to be at my computer and NOT making money, I am trying to work on these other projects.

I would love to hear what you think.

- posted by Michael @ 1:04 AM

 
OK. Rebel Dad dings me here for my post criticizing a U.S. Senate effort to spend an extra $6 billion of our money on working-class families who put their kids in commercial day care, but to DENY that money to parents who choose any other method of raising their kids, including having a parent stay home, or a grandparent, relative, neighbor, etc.

You only get the money, if the U.S. Senate has its way, if you let the commercial day care centers raise your kid.

Why on Earth are we supposed to applaud that?

Let's be clear: this means that working class families who sacrifice to have their own family raise their child will pay higher taxes to subsidize other families that have commercial day care help raise their kids. Nothing to cheer in that.

This is a bold and blatant attempt to drive parents of young children into the work force and away from their kids. The law could EASILY be drafted to provide the incentive to all parents who meet the economic requirements, without forcing a certain kind of child care arrangement.

And one more thing. Rebel D. suggests that "Dumping more money into that system -- especially one that requires 'workfare' -- can't help but serve as a net benefit for kids." But let's see what has happened to university tuition since the Feds began subsidizing college tuition: tuition rates have risen far faster than the inflation rate, because schools know the feds are kicking in. So we can expect this new subsidy to lead to higher day care rates for everyone who does not get the subsidy, since day care centers will raise their rates to profit from the subsidy. (If the govt. says they'll give you $5 every time you buy a widget, widget prices will quickly rise by nearly $5.)

I am not asking for government policies to FAVOR at home parenting--that battle has already been lost--but the minority of families where kids are still raised all day by their parents at least deserve government NEUTRALITY on this question. As it stands now, government tax and spending policies punish at home parenthood and subsidize handing off the kids to certain kinds of hired help that happen to have trade groups and lobbyists.

- posted by Michael @ 12:30 AM

 
HOW FREAKY IS THIS? I just posted that question about the bird, and ALREADY a Columbia University student--a woman--has emailed me the answer. Apparently they do both at once (I am seeking clarification that it comes from the same exit location).

I need to check my web site visitor logs. Either that is a freak coincidence that one of my few readers happened to visit right as I posted, or else this site may be getting THOUSANDS of hits every hour!

OK--I obviously need sleep.

And yes, I have also asked her why she is visiting an at home dad site on Saturday night. If I were in NY right now, not in the DC suburbs with a sleeping child upstairs, I would be getting a slice of pizza. But I am flattered even if she just typed in the wrong address and got here by accident.

UPDATE: The Columbia woman came through: check this out. I'll share it with the boy in the morning.

- posted by Michael @ 11:53 PM

 
Twice this week, the boy has loudly commented about men's beards. As one friend pointed out, as long as he is commenting on men's beards, we should be fine. But it's still jarring. Yesterday it was "Look--I'm waving to his beard!" (The guy DID look like Abe Lincoln, but still.)

A month or two ago, he got the "everybody is different and ain't that great" speech after commenting about a woman utility worker who came to our door: "Why does she sound like a man?" he asked. (Her voice was much lower than mine.)

Wasn't there a funny Jim Carrey movie in which he says everything that comes into his mind? A parent must have written that screenplay.

In other news, he asked an incisive question on Thursday, and I have now asked two Ph.D.'s, and neither they nor I know the answer. That's about 60 years of total schooling, but the 3 year-old has us stumped.

"How do birds pee?"

Any ideas?


- posted by Michael @ 11:38 PM

 
The boy's latest two confused phrases that he likes to say and that amuse us no end:

"Mild or to go?"

He spends too much time at taco restaurants, and has merged the two questions.

"No harm, no say."

No harm, no foul? No woman no cry (a la Bob Marley)? Not sure about this one. But he says it once a day.

- posted by Michael @ 8:37 PM

 
Talked to a nanny yesterday. She works 10.5 hours per day, 5 days per week, with 2 kids (2 and 1 years old), and makes $550 per week before taxes. She is unhappy--too many hours for the money. I told her I do not know the going rates to know if she could do better.

This is near Washington, DC.

Any thoughts?

- posted by Michael @ 6:57 PM

 
The Christian Science Monitor on Friday has a story about the new study concerning TV and young children, and it quotes good ol' full time father himself. I come off like a Puritan, but hey, there's worse things, no?!

(Note: I was quoted accurately. If I sound like a jerk, it's all my fault.)

- posted by Michael @ 6:49 PM

 
I've often been teased for keeping my kid away from the boob tube for his first 2.5 years (I caved in hard around that time, for self-serving reasons, but that's another story), but this latest study--if confirmed in future studies--will vindicate me completely:

Attention Deficit Linked to TV Viewing
Risk to Children Increases With Number of Hours Watched, Study Finds

Very young children who watch television face an increased risk of attention deficit problems by school age, a study has found, suggesting that TV might overstimulate and permanently "rewire" the developing brain.

For every hour of television watched daily, two groups of children -- ages 1 and 3 -- faced a 10 percent increased risk of having attention problems at age 7.

The findings bolster previous research showing that television can shorten attention spans and support recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics that children younger than 2 should not watch television.

"The truth is there are lots of reasons for children not to watch television. Other studies have shown it to be associated with obesity and aggressiveness," said lead author Dimitri A. Christakis, a researcher at Children's Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle.

About 36 percent of the 1-year-olds watched no TV, while 37 percent watched one to two hours daily and had a 10 percent to 20 percent increased risk of attention problems. Fourteen percent watched three to four hours daily and had a 30 percent to 40 percent increased risk compared with children who watched no TV. The remainder watched at least five hours daily.

Among 3-year-olds, only 7 percent watched no TV, 44 percent watched one to two hours daily, 27 percent watched three to four hours daily, almost 11 percent watched five to six hours daily, and about 10 percent watched seven or more hours daily.

In a Pediatrics editorial, educational psychologist Jane M. Healy said the study "is important and long overdue" but needs to be followed up to better explain the mechanisms that may be involved.

Christakis said unrealistically fast-paced images typical of most TV programming may alter normal brain development.

"The newborn brain develops very rapidly during the first two to three years of life. It's really being wired" during that time, Christakis said.

Overstimulation during this critical period "can create habits of the mind that are ultimately deleterious," Christakis said. If this theory holds true, the brain changes likely are permanent, but children with attention problems can be taught to compensate, he said.

END OF EXCERPT.

I guess all I will say is when something seems too good to be true, it usually is. Plopping the little guy in front of the tube makes it SO much easier to get through a day, there just HAD to be something wrong with it, no?

But don't expect this to end the debate. Children's TV is a HUGE, HUGE profit center for very powerful interests. Expect them to fund counter-studies ASAP.

- posted by Michael @ 9:01 AM

 
Here's a quote from U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) about her amendment to spend an extra $6 billion in taxpayers' money on low income families, provided they put their kids in commercial day care centers:

"Without good child care, a parent is left with only two choices: to leave a child in unsafe and often unsupervised situations or not to work, both of which are lose-lose situations."

Put aside the stunning assertion that raising one's own kids is a lose-lose situation.

There's one other problem. Her amendment (as I understand it, and I will continue to seek firm confirmation) only applies if the parents use commercial day care. If an actual parent, grandparent, or relative is used to raise a child, for example, the money is forfeited, and given instead to a different family who will agree to use commercial day care.

Now there's 21st century feminism in a nutshell.

Low income families that have a parent raise their own kids will now have their taxes subsidize other low income families who choose to use commercial day care. (Of course, right now, as you read this, low income families with an at home parent already subsidize upper-income families who use comemrcial day care!)

- posted by Michael @ 9:16 AM