big picture

Having Kids vs. Overpopulation

Philmundo — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:50:23 -0700

by Phil Stott

I had the great fortune to be able to attend the World Business Forum at Radio City Music Hall recently, and to hear speakers like President Bill Clinton, George Lucas (yup, that one), management guru Gary Hamel, and Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman all giving their views on where they think we're headed in coming years.

While I could have listened to Clinton speak all day-and on any subject-the speaker who gave me most pause for thought was a guy called Jeffrey Sachs. Another economist-he advises President Obama, as it happens-he gave a speech titled "Economics for a Crowded Planet" that really struck a chord with me.

Part of the reason Sachs' speech stood for me was because he was one of the few presenters at the conference who seemed unable to find any sort of silver lining to the challenges we're facing as a society. He wasn't exactly predicting doom and disaster, but his core point was that we're all going to have to get used to getting by with a lot less in future-the reason being that there are an ever-increasing number of people on this planet, and all using more resources than ever before. And, given that we're already using more resources than the planet can sustain, something's going to have to change.

One of the key points in Sachs' speech was that the current rate of population growth on the planet is unsustainable. We've grown from around 6 billion at the turn of the millennium to an estimated 6.8 billion today, and current projections have us surpassing the 9 billion mark sometime in the 2050's. (By contrast, Wikipedia puts the global population in 1900 at a scant 1.65 billion.) What's most frightening about those figures is that Sachs estimates the planet can only sustain 8 billion-meaning we'll be at crisis point before most of our kids are in their 40s.

As parents, one of our most basic hopes is that our kids grow up to lead better lives-and in a better world-than we did. Now I'm not complaining; I've had a pretty good life thus far, and lived it in a reasonably stable and peaceful world. My real concern is that, with all the problems that a population crunch is likely to bring with it (forget wars over oil, fresh water could become a reason for conflict) the world my kids will inherit is likely to be much less stable, and much more crowded. And obviously, as someone who's brought one child into this world-and is awaiting the arrival of a second in February-I'm part of the problem.

Therein lies the root of a question that I just can't seem to get a handle on, no matter how hard I try. If, as Sachs claims, population needs to be capped at around 8 billion, how do we go about achieving that? The practical answer is to promote family planning around the world, but the much larger philosophical questions remain: In a world where controlling population is a must, is it possible to make a decision about who does and doesn't get to have kids, or how many they can have? If it is, how do we make that decision? And, knowing all of that, should we be having children at all.

That last question seems to me to be the key to everything. I was aware of the overpopulation debate before having a child, but I went ahead and did it anyway-and it's been the best thing I've ever done. For me-or anyone else in my position-to then turn around and tell someone else they can't enjoy the same rights would be a classic case of "do as I say, not as I do."

So there's the issue: as parents, we're directly responsible for contributing to the overcrowding of the planet. Sure, you might not be having 12 kids to help you eke out a living in an economic backwater, but numbers are numbers, and even your one or two offspring add up. How, then, do we reconcile that with the need to keep the planet liveable for the future generations we're so busy creating?

Longer School Day

Toby — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 04:15:22 -0700

More school: Obama would curtail summer vacation - From Yahoo News

By LIBBY QUAID, AP Education Writer Libby Quaid, Ap Education Writer – Sun Sep 27, 3:29 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Students beware: The summer vacation you just enjoyed could be sharply curtailed if President Barack Obama gets his way.

Obama says American kids spend too little time in school, putting them at a disadvantage with other students around the globe.

"Now, I know longer school days and school years are not wildly popular ideas," the president said earlier this year. "Not with Malia and Sasha, not in my family, and probably not in yours. But the challenges of a new century demand more time in the classroom."

The president, who has a sixth-grader and a third-grader, wants schools to add time to classes, to stay open late and to let kids in on weekends so they have a safe place to go.

"Our school calendar is based upon the agrarian economy and not too many of our kids are working the fields today," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.

Fifth-grader Nakany Camara is of two minds. She likes the four-week summer program at her school, Brookhaven Elementary School in Rockville, Md. Nakany enjoys seeing her friends there and thinks summer school helped boost her grades from two Cs to the honor roll.

But she doesn't want a longer school day. "I would walk straight out the door," she said.

Domonique Toombs felt the same way when she learned she would stay for an extra three hours each day in sixth grade at Boston's Clarence R. Edwards Middle School.

"I was like, `Wow, are you serious?'" she said. "That's three more hours I won't be able to chill with my friends after school."

Her school is part of a 3-year-old state initiative to add 300 hours of school time in nearly two dozen schools. Early results are positive. Even reluctant Domonique, who just started ninth grade, feels differently now. "I've learned a lot," she said.

Does Obama want every kid to do these things? School until dinnertime? Summer school? And what about the idea that kids today are overscheduled and need more time to play?

___

Obama and Duncan say kids in the United States need more school because kids in other nations have more school.

"Young people in other countries are going to school 25, 30 percent longer than our students here," Duncan told the AP. "I want to just level the playing field."

While it is true that kids in many other countries have more school days, it's not true they all spend more time in school.

Kids in the U.S. spend more hours in school (1,146 instructional hours per year) than do kids in the Asian countries that persistently outscore the U.S. on math and science tests — Singapore (903), Taiwan (1,050), Japan (1,005) and Hong Kong (1,013). That is despite the fact that Taiwan, Japan and Hong Kong have longer school years (190 to 201 days) than does the U.S. (180 days).

___

Regardless, there is a strong case for adding time to the school day.

Researcher Tom Loveless of the Brookings Institution looked at math scores in countries that added math instruction time. Scores rose significantly, especially in countries that added minutes to the day, rather than days to the year.

"Ten minutes sounds trivial to a school day, but don't forget, these math periods in the U.S. average 45 minutes," Loveless said. "Percentage-wise, that's a pretty healthy increase."

In the U.S., there are many examples of gains when time is added to the school day.

Charter schools are known for having longer school days or weeks or years. For example, kids in the KIPP network of 82 charter schools across the country go to school from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., more than three hours longer than the typical day. They go to school every other Saturday and for three weeks in the summer. KIPP eighth-grade classes exceed their school district averages on state tests.

In Massachusetts' expanded learning time initiative, early results indicate that kids in some schools do better on state tests than do kids at regular public schools. The extra time, which schools can add as hours or days, is for three things: core academics — kids struggling in English, for example, get an extra English class; more time for teachers; and enrichment time for kids.

Regular public schools are adding time, too, though it is optional and not usually part of the regular school day. Their calendar is pretty much set in stone. Most states set the minimum number of school days at 180 days, though a few require 175 to 179 days.

Several schools are going year-round by shortening summer vacation and lengthening other breaks.

Many schools are going beyond the traditional summer school model, in which schools give remedial help to kids who flunked or fell behind.

Summer is a crucial time for kids, especially poorer kids, because poverty is linked to problems that interfere with learning, such as hunger and less involvement by their parents.

That makes poor children almost totally dependent on their learning experience at school, said Karl Alexander, a sociology professor at Baltimore's Johns Hopkins University, home of the National Center for Summer Learning.

Disadvantaged kids, on the whole, make no progress in the summer, Alexander said. Some studies suggest they actually fall back. Wealthier kids have parents who read to them, have strong language skills and go to great lengths to give them learning opportunities such as computers, summer camp, vacations, music lessons, or playing on sports teams.

"If your parents are high school dropouts with low literacy levels and reading for pleasure is not hard-wired, it's hard to be a good role model for your children, even if you really want to be," Alexander said.

Extra time is not cheap. The Massachusetts program costs an extra $1,300 per student, or 12 percent to 15 percent more than regular per-student spending, said Jennifer Davis, a founder of the program. It received more than $17.5 million from the state Legislature last year.

The Montgomery County, Md., summer program, which includes Brookhaven, received $1.6 million in federal stimulus dollars to operate this year and next, but it runs for only 20 days.

Aside from improving academic performance, Education Secretary Duncan has a vision of schools as the heart of the community. Duncan, who was Chicago's schools chief, grew up studying alongside poor kids on the city's South Side as part of the tutoring program his mother still runs.

"Those hours from 3 o'clock to 7 o'clock are times of high anxiety for parents," Duncan said. "They want their children safe. Families are working one and two and three jobs now to make ends meet and to keep food on the table."

___

Associated Press writer Russell Contreras in Boston contributed to this report.

The Health Care Bill

Toby — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 05:56:28 -0700

Greetings Dads,
What is the deal with the healthcare bill? There is so much from both sides, I cannot digest it. http://tiny.cc/prAbe Any Dr., Nurse, Hospital admin, medical salesperson, etc that would like to share an opinion? Is it true those in Washington are rebuffing this plan for themselves to stay on their current plan? If it is so good for the people, why not for them? I do not want sides, I want information please.
This is one of the biggest votes in history and I want to make sure that we (and our politicians) have all the data. Again, please do not use this topic to post your political opinions, forget about Red and Blue states - we need to be UNITED! I, and other Dads, need to hear from those inside the Healthcare system so we can make the best decision for out families.
Thank you for your posts.
Cheers,
Toby

The health care question

Philmundo — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:38:32 -0700

by Phil Stott

I've been thinking a lot about the state of the health care industry in this country of late-probably not entirely surprising, given the amount of attention it's been getting in the media.

Aside from the media coverage of the now-defunct deadline set by President Obama for Congress to deliver a reform bill, there are a few things that have set me to pondering the question. First up is an ongoing wrangle my wife and I are having with our insurance company over coverage for Maeve; they're maintaining that she's entitled to fewer visits in her second year of life than our pediatrician says she needs. Not that there's anything wrong with her-we're talking general wellness and progress visits-but it's extremely galling to be told by an insurance company that they won't cover check-ups recommended by a medical professional.*

Now, maybe the insurance company is right. Maybe the pediatrician's office we visit is unusual in the number of check-ups they request. Maybe they're engaged in the kind of cost-gouging that have prompted articles such as this one of late. They certainly aren't shy about billing for things; following Maeve's most recent visit-not the one that caused the dispute-we were sent an itemized bill that included charges for things such as ear cleaning ($70 for the two minutes it took to scoop the wax out). As outraged as I was by the charge, the insurance company ponied up the money for it and everything else on the bill short of our co-pay. All told, the fee for the visit-which lasted no more than 30 minutes, with the actual portion with a doctor lasting more like 15-was in excess of $800. Nice work if you can get it.

Looking over the bill, my wife felt so bad about some of the fees that she suggested vetoing them next time around-despite being discouraged by Maeve's pediatrician from cleaning her ears ourselves, she's pretty sure we could handle it. The point, though, is that there's no incentive for us to do that; it won't lower our premiums at all. The insurance company covered it, and probably still made a profit, the doctor's office got paid, and Maeve has clean ears. Everybody wins, right? Well, everybody except the people actually paying for the health insurance-namely my wife's employer and us. We're watching the cost of our premiums go up every single year.

I can think of no other profession where I can go in to visit a professional and not only have absolutely no control over the costs that professional charges, but so little incentive to even care about controlling the costs. I get no reward from the insurance company for refusing treatment, even if I know I don't need it. And, as with the ear cleaning example above, I know of no other private enterprise where you can levy charges for performing work that no-one asked for or was asked to approve. If I took my car in for a $30 oil change and was handed a bill for $500 of work done without my approval, I'd be kind of steamed. But if I take my kid in for a check up and the doctor decides to clean her ears without asking and then bill for it, well, that's just the way health care works.

However, I also know the flip side of the coin: a hernia sustained in Britain saw me wait a full year for the operation to repair it, as it wasn't a priority. And, moan as I might, I'm glad Maeve was born in a U.S. hospital than in an NHS equivalent in the U.K.-even the beds are nicer here.

Blending the best of both systems together seems to me to be the way forward-eliminating waste without curbing the incentive for innovation and achievement, providing health care for all without overloading the system or destroying the budget. I'm convinced that there must be a solution somewhere, and I'd like to think that it could happen in my lifetime. I won't be holding my breath though.

*For the record, I can't understand why examples like this aren't the instant rebuttal to claims that univeral healthcare provision would mean that a government bureaucrat will stand between you and healthcare. But maybe that's because I can't understand why bureaucrats are any less likely to approve treatment than employees of a for-profit insurance company with a vested interest in not spending money on treatment.

Do words matter?

Toby — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:34:38 -0700

Greetings dads,
There is a local case here in MA that received National press - the arrest of Harvard professor Gates.
Here is a link to it that includes the police report: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/23/police-officer-obama-butt-arr...
I do not want to open a can of worms of who is correct; I would like to discuss the President's words. He said that the Cambridge police acted "stupidly."
Each day, my wife and I work to teach our children how to communicate, and we cannot stand them calling anyone stupid. Again, not taking sides for or against the President, the Professor, or the Police, should the President of the United States done a better job of choosing his words?
I look forward to your comments.
Cheers,
Toby

Why I love living close to family

Philmundo — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:26:51 -0700

by Phil Stott

In preparing for our upcoming summer vacation—a road trip to Wisconsin to visit my wife's family—I've come to realize once again the benefits of being near one's family as a parent. It's a subject I've touched on before here—after my last vacation to Scotland to see my family, as it happens—but the more I think about it, the more I think about, the more sense it makes, and the more questions I have about the long-term effects for society in our increasing tendency to live far from the areas where we were brought up.

In no particular order, then, here are my top four reasons for living close to family members when you have children:

1) Generational wisdom: Without a sense of community that goes back further than one generation, we risk losing a large part of the culture and values that brought us to where we are. While some of that's a good thing—with evidence of an increasingly open, more inclusive society all around us—that sense of belonging to a larger community is becoming lost. Why is that important? In my opinion, growing up knowing the people in your community allows you to see on a daily basis how your actions affect other people, an important lesson for any child to learn.

2) You can take vacations that really are vacations: Case in point: prior to Maeve arriving, my wife and I were seasoned travelers, doing everything from weekends in foreign cities to road trips across the South. Since Maeve's arrival, we've been on three vacations—every one of them to visit family. The upcoming vacation will make it four in a row. Not that we mind, being of the opinion that we want our children to grow up knowing their extended family, but it stands to reason that if we lived closer to one or the other half of our family, we wouldn't be using all our vacation time and budget to visit them, and could feasibly consider going somewhere new.

3) Getting a break is easier: Whether it's for date night or a doctor's appointment, having easy access to people that you trust to look after your kids—and you know you can call on in an emergency—is an enormous benefit.

4) Your kids grow up knowing their relatives: This point kind of goes back to the generational wisdom thing, but it’s about more than that as well. I know from personal experience that there are things you'll tell one relative when you're growing up that you wouldn't tell another—especially where parents are concerned. And, where you have more people directly related you, you automatically have more of a community that's likely to look out for your child's best interests—plus a little more tolerance of family quirks and foibles,

As a couple whose immediate families live 3,700 miles apart—with us around 1,000 miles of land from one and 2,700 of ocean from the other—I suspect that this is an issue I'm going to be wrangling with for some time, no matter what happens in our future. Should we never live near either side, I'll always wonder how much my kids are missing out on. Should we choose to live nearer to one or the other, however, there will always be questions over whether we should have done something different. Of course, the very fact that our society is so mobile is the only reason I met my wife in the first place, and therefore the only reason my child—and any future progeny—exist. Given that, I guess I just have to chalk it up to another of the unique constraints of being an international couple—along with mountains of visa-related paperwork and fees, having to re-sit a driving test at the age of 30, and honing my research skills to the point where I can find a free internet broadcast of almost any sporting event from around the world in less than 5 minutes!

Ask the Savvy Daddy Expert MD

tony — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:56:04 -0700

by Tony Chen

You may have seen that we here at Savvy Daddy have recently added a distinguished Panel of Experts. You can see their bios here, but basically these folks are profs, physicians, clinicians, and academics that are savvy gurus on topics relevant to us dads trying to raise great kids. These experts have been gracious enough to answer real questions from real dads - email me your questions (tony at savvydaddy dot com) and I'll be passing along the most relevant & compelling questions to them. Today, we are honored to present to you Dr. Russell Robertson, Chairman of Family & Community Medicine at the Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern University.

Dad Question: What's your take on the explosion of ADHD in America? Are we diagnosing this disease correctly? Why do you think most ADHD cases are boys?

Robertson: We had dinner with good friends recently. The husband had just retired from a high ranking position at a Fortune 500 company. He described his behavior as a young boy as one that would have surely labeled him as ADHD and likely in today's world, would have found him on prescription medications. Yet many of his "ADHD" behaviors made him highly productive and successful at multitasking. He routinely answered over 300 emails per day.

My concern is that the energy and vitality of young boys is wrongly and often assumed to be ADHD as opposed to behaviors that indicate a high degree of intelligence and curiosity. Teachers (I was an elementary school and junior high school teacher) are often frustrated in dealing with these children and often because their classrooms are an increasingly challenging environment made more so by children who are presumed to be easily distracted.

Instead, I would ask parents and teachers to re-direct rather than attempt to suppress these behaviors. These boys, and they are mostly boys, are high energy kids and need to be exercised physically and mentally. They are like racehorses. Sitting them in front of a computer screen to play games or in front of a TV, while temporarily distracting, is not good for them at all. Make sure your kids are well exercised. Playing with them at home is a great thing to do. Ride bikes, play basketball, run with them. This is great bonding time as well. Challenge their intellects by learning more about their interests and then help them to engage in focusing on completing tasks. Only children with the most disruptive behavior should be evaluated for medications and even then, I would look for mental health providers who have a reputation for being stingy with medications.

I would also recommend a book my wife found for me to read. It is called, "The War Against Boys" by Susanna Hoff Summers - a fabulous read!

Dad Question: What's your take on the growing trend of parents refusing to have their children vaccinated for fear of negative side-effects (e.g. autism)? There seems to be "solid scientific evidence" on both sides of the argument, or is there?

Robertson: By way of example, in the early 70's, the vaccine for pertussis was not as pure as it could have been and there were children who did have reactions, some that were severe. In the United Kingdom, a number of parents chose not to vaccinate their children for pertussis as a response. Subsequently, the number of children who died from pertussis easily outnumbered those who had been having reactions.

What is happening at the present is a truly dangerous trend that is endangering the lives of millions of children. Because the first vaccines for measles are not given until the age of 15 months, all children under this age are at risk of contracting measles from unvaccinated children. World wide, over 200,000 children died from measles in 2007 and as new cases continue to appear in the US, there will inevitably be preventable deaths.

While having a child with autism is a challenge beyond my imagining and understanding that the desire to locate a treatable cause is understood, after numerous studies, there is NO EVIDENCE that vaccines are a cause of autism. Further, it is irresponsbile to perseverate the notion that vaccines are a cause and to choose not to have your children vaccinated.

Dad Question: How did you keep your promises to your wife and kids about being at games, etc? How did you handle it if you had a work emergency to attend to?

Robertson: As a physician, I learned that I needed to take every opportunity to control my schedule. I also did a great deal of reading early in my years as a Dad about what I would call "unintentional narcissism:, i.e. the notion that my presence at work or with my patients was essential. If one is not careful, this is an easy trap into which one can fall, regardless of your profession.

In the final analysis and in almost every situation, work was the place where I was most replaceable, not home. There are no "do overs" with your wife and children. Time accelerates as your children grow and I did not want to be like many of my colleagues whose careers were successful, but their personal and family lives were in ruins.

I made an effort to schedule everything and then to stick to it. That way, when there truly was an emergency, it was understood and accommodated. I also worked very hard to make no promises that I was not able to keep.

The other thing to keep in mind is that prioritizing family over one's work should not be considered a sacrifice! This is your wife for all time and your children. How could you not value them above all else!

Have a question for Dr. Robertson? Send your questions to me via email (tony at savvydaddy dot com).

Meeting the step-dad

OregonDaddy — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:04:32 -0700

Hi all,
I had joined Savvy Daddy a few months ago during a turbulent time of divorce. The contacts I made through the site really helped me out in working through the whole divorce process.

I'm back in the Savvy Daddy saddle again (and will hopefully stay active here!) and looking for advice on meeting my kids step-dad for the first time next week.

I know it's something that will have to happen eventually, but in all reality, if I did not have kids with my ex-wife I would be fine with never seeing or talking to her ever again.

My child needs to the be the focus here. I get that. But I would appreciate any advice on how to best approach the situation, or hear about any situations all y'all may have been in that are similar. I'm not looking to be friends with the guy, just trying to sort out how to deal with the experience.

I want everyone to know I don't have anything against step-dads. This is not a post to bash them.

I'm just in that situation where my kids were old enough to see and have some understanding that mom didn't want to be married to dad anymore, and then a new guy was introduced into their lives only a few weeks after I moved out. While the divorce process took a few months from filing to signing, the ex-wife was married a month later.

As I mention above, I knew this time would come, but I'm not really looking forward to it.

Yeah, it still stings. :)

Thanks all!
OregonDaddy

Out on the deck

Toby — Sun, 31 May 2009 06:22:49 -0700

Greetings Dads,
Although we live in MA, our (my) grill is fired all four seasons. There is nothing like cooking outside and over flame! This is not a forum to discuss charcoal vs. gas, but we can have that debate another time; rather, let's compile a list over our favorite grill meals. As with all cooking / menu creation, it is easy to get into a rut - this will provide some new ideas for all.
I will get the ball rolling:

1. Chicken drumsticks
Prior to the grill, set in a baking dish, cover with beer and cook in the oven for 45 min a 350. This will pull out some of the fat.
Grill over med heat turning every 4 min. Depending on your kids' taste, BBQ sauce on or on the side (Dinosaur BBQ, and Stubbs are 2 of my favorites).

2. Chicken Breasts
Easy to cook and can be prepped ahead. Use a gallon size ziplock bag and cover with your favorite sauce.
Teriyaki or Salt & Pepper with olive oil & lemon juice, Asian sweet chili sauce are 3 of my stand bys.

3. Burgers
Weather you craft your own, use Buba Burgers, or those from the butcher counter, a burger will always please. Don't forget the cheese:
Munster, Provalone, or Humbolt Fog (for mom and dad).

4. Fish in Foil
Take a whole fillet and make a pouch with some aluminum foil. Add some salt & pepper, lemon, wine or beer, favorite herbs and seal tights.
Cook skin side down on high, there is not need to flip. Time will depend on the thickness and fat content of the fish: trout will cook faster that Mahi Mahi.

5. Grilled veggies
Peppers, asparagus, tomatoes, heads of romaine lettus - use your imagination and go crazy with that side or salad.

Looking forward to your suggestions.
Cheers,
Toby

Chef Dads

Savvy Soldier Daddys

Toby — Sun, 24 May 2009 15:08:36 -0700

Thank you to all the savvy soldier daddys out there. For those protecting us, stay safe!

Welcome home to those who have returned. Enjoy the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kerMm0HG1mk&feature=related Cheers, Toby