decisions

Freaky Fortnight: Credit where it's due

tony — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:12:37 -0700

by Phil Stott

So last Friday saw one of the best things I've read about parenting recently come to a close: Slate's Freaky Fortnight feature. The basic premise of the feature was that a Slate editor, Michael Agger, would switch roles with his wife, Susan Burton, for two weeks. In short, she would do his job while he stayed home in Brooklyn and took care of the kids. Both then blogged about the experience, and also put regular updates on Twitter.

Of the two, it's perhaps not surprising that I enjoyed Agger's posts more-mostly because I found them informative in many ways on the whole question of being a Dad who works. Over the course of the two weeks, he covered a whole range of issues, but I was hooked when he began his first post with the following quote: "My oldest son is 4, so it's a little early to tell how much fatherhood has changed me, but I have noticed two things. I stopped moping. (There's not enough time.) And I really, really love the office." It's hard not to get hooked, I suppose, when someone is willing to be so honest about their experiences-and doubly so when the words he's writing put my own thoughts into words.

Actually, that's what I most enjoyed about the two weeks of blog postings: the fact that both writers-but Agger in particular-seemed to keep putting my thoughts on the parenting thing into words. As a writer, I'll put my hand up and say that it's kind of humiliating to be beaten to so many punches, but I've always believed that the best thing to do when you find someone who does something better than you is to pass it on to others. (Plus, I'm consoling myself with the thought that because they only had a two-week assignment-and a fairly intense experience to base their writing on-they're mining a rich vein that gets harder to sustain the longer you write about it.)

Anyway, in that spirit, here are a couple of my favorite observations from Agger's posts over the two weeks. Each of them struck me as having distilled a basic truth about the art of being a Dad in this day and age.

When considering how his priorities have changed since becoming a parent, Agger commented on how his attitude towards work has shifted. Gone are the concerns over fulfillment, or ladder climbing. Instead, he comments that "now the job thing has simplified: gotta feed the family." As someone who only began looking for a regular 9 to 5 job when my wife got pregnant, I can well understand the truth in that statement. (And, on an inter-generational, universal sort of note, my own father also claims that he went to work every day with the attitude that he could quit any time he liked: something that lasted until my brother was born. At that point, he says, "I realized that it wasn't only me who would suffer if I lost a job.")

As the experiment wore on, Agger came to realize that he didn't really know his youngest child. Not in terms of personality, but in the rhythms of his days, the simple things you miss out on when you spend between 8 and 12 hours a day outside of the home. Thus, when he took his kids to a park, he found himself over-parenting to compensation, prompting the following observation: The "stay-at-home thing requires a different pace. I had to remind myself that I did not have to pay attention to Will all the time. I would have to slow down and be less of a spaz." What mostly-weekends-through-necessity Dad can't resonate with that?

For brutal honesty (and because I felt more than a pang of guilty recognition), I also love the following quote: "I do my share of dealing with the kids in the morning, but I don't have that internal monitor that Susan has. The kids aren't always on my mind. They are always on Susan's mind."

And, just because I've read reams of advice on being a writer-none of which is much use when it comes to facing a blank screen-I loved the following quote: "Giving parenting advice is a lot like giving writing advice. You can say a lot of things that sound very intelligent and thoughtful, but when it comes down to the actual act, it's mostly intuition and the inescapable fact of who you are." In fact, I like that so much that I may just write it down and keep it somewhere.

Apologies to both Slate and Michael Agger for basically stealing your work for this post, but as I said before, I'm a big believer in giving credit where it's due. (Burton is also due a whole bunch, but my appreciation for her has to be limited to silent applause given her lack of dad-ness!) And, just to prove that I'm not some mere plagiarist, here's the link one more time. Click it-I promise you'll find something you like.

(Image: Slate.com)

Staying positive in the job hunt

Philmundo — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:57:43 -0700

by Phil Stott

So I've been keeping an eye on the bill working its way through the House (well...it's stalled at the time of writing) to extend unemployment benefit payments to people in States where the unemployment rate is above 8.5 percent. Unprecedented times calling for unprecedented measures, the bill would give long-term unemployed people in my home state of New York benefits for up to 99 weeks, according to the New York Times-provided they became unemployed no later than October 27, 2008. In order for that to happen, however, the bill needs to overcome Republican objections.

While I'm tempted to just fire off a missive about the divisiveness in the political arena in this country, that's not the intention I sat down with. What really motivated me to sit down and write this is the fact that such legislation is needed at all-in short, that there are people out there who, despite their best efforts, have been unable to find employment for almost two years.

I know only too well how disheartening it can be going from day to day with no prospect of a job in sight; when I first arrived in the U.S. in the fall of 2006, I was on a visa that didn't allow me to work-a situation that didn't change until April of 2007. For the first six months of my life in this country, then, I was essentially a kept man, sitting at home all day with little more than daytime TV and the internet for company. I don't know if my visa situation made the ordeal better or worse than attempting to look for a job in a recession, because I don't know what's more hopeless-putting in a ton of effort with only a marginal chance of it paying off (there are currently over 6 unemployed people for every vacancy out there), or not even seeing the point of putting that effort in because you have no idea when-or even if-the government is going to get around to clearing you for work.

What the experience-and the search for employment that followed it when my papers did come through-taught me were a few strategies for survival (as well as a couple of things to avoid) which I'd like to pass on now.

Do: Make lists of things you need to get done, and check them off as you do them. Having tangible evidence that you've achieved something is a great way to keep you sane and prevent you from spending another day staring at a computer or TV screen doing nothing.

Do: Try and establish a routine. Whether it's a couple of hours of dedicated job-searching in the morning or a run in the afternoon, having designated activities to structure your day around can prevent you from focusing on how slowly the time's passing.

Don't: Be afraid to enjoy yourself. Sure, being unemployed sucks. And it sucks a whole lot more if you have a family to try to support. But that doesn't mean your every waking minute should be a nightmare. Even simple (and free) things like taking the kids to the park can be a great boost for your state of mind.

Don't: Give in to the internet's dark side. Sure, there's a ton of "interesting" stuff out there (some of it less than family- or marriage-friendly), but it's important to maintain a sense of perspective. I developed something of an online poker habit during the winter I was sequestered-spending hours just sitting essentially involved in a mindless activity-and I wasn't even playing for cash! And, for all the hours I spent doing it, not once did I get up from the computer feeling good about myself. General rule of thumb: if it's not something you'd do on a computer in an office environment (or if the wife is around), don't do it when you're alone. As the saying goes: character is who you are when no one is looking.

Do: Get out and socialize. Having arrived in this country knowing only my wife, I found the social aspect the hardest to come by. In short order, though, I managed to find a soccer team (which eventually led to some coaching work when my visa papers came through) and a couple of guys who were occasionally available to hang out for a couple of hours during the week. That human contact made a big difference to my mental health. For the same reason, consider volunteering wherever possible-even if it's only helping a neighbor get groceries.

The bottom line is that it's important to stay connected and in a positive frame of mind-for yourself and your family as much as for the sake of your job hunt. And remember: it can all change at any moment. If you are looking-and especially if you've been looking for a while-keep faith. And good luck.

The Disciple Debate

Philmundo — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:27:50 -0700

by Phil Stott

There's something of a debate developing among two of the more venerable news sources in this country over the issue of using time outs to punish a child-and it has the potential to get very confusing for parents.

Specifically, The New York Times published a piece a little while back suggesting that "conditional parenting"-holding back affection when a child misbehaves, or lavishing praise when they do something right-could lead to children feeling like they have to please their parents at every turn, and result in them growing into bitter and insecure adults. Then, this week, a blogger at Newsweek fired back, claiming that Times writer Alfie Kohn "overstated the science he had to support his argument," and suggested that an equally compelling case could be made to support conditional parenting.

See what I mean about confusing?

As someone who has been using a form of conditional parenting (time outs) since my daughter was old enough to understand the concept, my initial reaction on reading the Times piece was to knock up a few hundred words about how guilty I felt and throw it on Savvy Daddy as a conversation starter. A couple of things stopped me, though. First, upon re-reading the article, I realized that Kohn hadn't suggested any kind of an alternative, which meant that he was essentially asking parents like me to throw out the one effective disciplinary tool we have and to replace it with...nothing. And, second, the way the piece was presented reminded me of so many of those articles that find their way into the media only to be instantly contradicted by yet another "scientific study". (See the red wine is/isn't good for you debate for an example)

The third thing that put me off is that my parents essentially did the same thing to my four siblings and me when we were growing up, and yet none of us harbor any kind of resentment towards them. The reason? Because they made it very clear-and often-that they loved us. So when we were punished, we realized they weren't "withholding affection"-they were mad because we'd let them down. That's a crucial difference.

To me, the concept of "unconditional acceptance" is nonsense in the first place-even with your own child. Everyone has limits as to what they consider acceptable behavior to be, and if you make those explicit only to have them breached, you're perfectly entitled to express dissatisfaction or not display affection. The flip side-saying you'll accept someone (and their behavior) without precondition-only serves to legitimize every thing they choose to do, and leaves you with no leverage for attempting to adjust that behavior. And where does one draw the line? When my child hits me? Does explaining that I don't like to be hit, or that it hurts me, cross the line into withdrawal of affection?

Perhaps the most instructive thing in either of the two articles comes at the end of the Newsweek blog, where the writer describes an experiment where a researcher measured Chinese and American kids' scores on a test and-regardless of the child's performance-told each of the kids' moms that their child had done poorly. By and large, the Chinese moms lectured their children (lovingly) and stressed the importance of improving, while the American moms-likely browbeaten by years of being told not to discipline too harshly-talked to their kids about trivial stuff like what to have for dinner, or how their day had been. The results on re-test: "the Chinese kids improved at twice the rate of the Americans." The moral: children need to know when they've done wrong, or performed poorly because they haven't tried hard enough. Without that, how can they develop a sense of right and wrong, or a work ethic? And without those, how do we expect them to function as adults?

All things considered, I'll take the short-term pain of having my children dislike me in the moment as long as I feel that it's working towards the long-term goal of turning out well-rounded, responsible adults. For that reason, my naughty chair is staying exactly where it is.

A Question of Accent

Philmundo — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 11:37:36 -0700

by Phil Stott

Is it superficial to want to move because I don't like the accent where I live now? Or, more specifically, because I don't want my children to grow up with Long Island accents?

Up until recently, this question isn't one I'd entertained in any meaningful way. My wife and I have had conversations where she's confessed that she'd like to raise our kids in Scotland (my home country), so they'll grow up with "cute" accents. That argument's never had a lot of sway with me, though; the thing about accents is that their beauty (or cuteness) is entirely in the ear of the beholder. When you've heard as many Scottish tongues as I have (and the insane amount of variation on the accent-it literally changes every 30 miles as you go around the country), the "cuteness" of it soon wears off. Plus, if you then live anywhere else, you have to have "the conversation" at least once a week with a complete stranger who's taken aback by your accent-and who usually starts said conversation by asking if you're from Ireland or Australia.

Another reason that I haven't thought much of the question, I suppose, is that Maeve has only recently begun stringing basic sentences together, and she's always just sounded more or less like a baby to me, with no discernible accent. Along with that, I'd always sort of assumed that she'd adopt a sort of amalgam of my wife's Wisconsin twang, some of my pronunciations (I've already got her locked in on "to-mah-to") and the local variation, resulting in something "American" but not overly regional.

Over the last few weeks, though, I've begun to notice a disturbing trend. There are signs-just occasional words here and there-that she's becoming a fully-fledged Long Islander.* Just this morning as I was getting out of the car to board my commuter train into the city, she pointed out of the window and said "many cars." Only, that wasn't quite it. What she actually said sounded more like "many caw-ers." My initial reaction was to assume that she'd choked halfway through, so I asked her to say it again only to be met once again with "many caw-ers." I'm still shuddering now as I think about it. How far away can the moment be where she points to my mug and correctly identifies "Daddy's caw-fee," or the "cute daw-gee" at the neighbor's house?

Now, obviously growing up somewhere with a bad accent isn't the end of world. After all, I grew up in a town which boasts one of the worst accents in Scotland, yet I display very few signs of it-largely thanks to my parents insisting that I didn't lapse into it as I was growing up. And I do realize how elitist and snobbish all this sounds, but there's proof out there that bad accents can hurt your hiring and promotion chances. Who'd want to handicap their kid like that if they could possibly avoid it?

Anyway, I do take some comfort from the fact that I'm not alone in all this. In addition to all the other incomers with kids I've talked to here, I also know a couple of native Long Islanders who despair at the thought of their children growing up mangling their vowels, and becoming the person you can hear all over the Island bellowing "oh MY Gawd" into their cellphones.

I'm also aware that it's not just Long Island: I met a guy a few weeks ago who confided that he left Texas and moved to Colorado in the 1980s in large part because his now-adult daughter would count by saying "one...two...three...four...faaiive." So what do you think? Is this just too superficial for words, or do I have a point here? And-perhaps more to the point-if I do decide to move, where else should I avoid for terrible accents?

*Disclaimer: there are a lot of things that I like about Long Island-especially the scenery the further East you go-but believe me when I tell you that The Daily Show's Samantha Bee didn't have to work too hard to find the guys in the bar in this clip.

Social Networking and Kids

Philmundo — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:58:23 -0700

by Phil Stott

How many reports of people over-exposing themselves on social networking sites and then coming to regret it do we need to hear before we start thinking before posting or tweeting? Take the recent case of Washington Redskins linebacker Robert Henson venting his rage at "dim-wit" fans who booed their team as an example. Here's a guy who doesn't even make the starting line-up in the team, and yet he somehow feels like he's earned the right to attack the team's fans via Twitter when they show their displeasure with the Redskins' performance. As with all things social network-ish, he started out expressing his feelings to a few followers only to see his comments (52 tweets in all) passed around the internet like wildfire.

Now, I don't much care about how the Redskins play, or the fate of Robert Henson, but what does interest me is how he seemed to forget-or more likely just didn't care-about airing his thoughts in a public format in the way he did. I know that, if I were to lose it like that and make similar comments either about my employer or our customers in such a public forum, I'd probably be embarking on a search for a new job in the not-too-distant future. Because I'm well aware of how powerful viral networking can be, I stay well away from discussing anything of the sort online (at least in a way that can be traced back to me!).

Unfortunately, for those with kids that are old enough to be tech-savvy, it's not enough to look after how you're representing yourself digitally; you need to be aware of what your kids are up to online as well. I know one guy (an ex-cop) who regularly logs into his teenage daughter's Facebook page to see what she and her friends have been up to, or are planning (she has no idea he knows the password). I'm not recommending that anyone go that far, but it certainly doesn't hurt to sit down with your kids, lay some ground rules, and make sure they're aware of the bigger picture when using social networking sites. Here, then, are three things every kid should know:

1)    If you don't want the "wrong" people to find out, don't put it on Twitter

It's difficult to imagine that Henson didn't know that his comments could spread like wildfire across the Twittersphere. But if a more-or-less grown adult can make that kind of mistake, a tween or teen can too. So if they've got something negative (or embarrassing) they need to say about a teacher, classmate or acquaintance, tell them to do it the old-fashioned way: face-to-face. That way, the possibility of viral spreading is all but eliminated; all you have to worry about is someone recording you!

2)    People aren't always who they say they are online

Case in point: Lori Drew, better known as the Missouri mom who is accused of taking part in a bullying campaign on MySpace that drove a 13 year old girl to commit suicide. Having been acquitted of all charges of computer hacking (see the full story in the link above), it seems that there's little police can do to try and bring her to justice, as there's no statute in Missouri against cyber-bullying. While that case is an extreme one, it's also one that starkly underlines the dangers of kids being suckered into believing that the people they're talking to online are who they claim to be. Good rule of thumb: If you don't talk to them in real life, don't talk to them online.

3)    Close your networks

Sure, there's a certain thrill to putting your thoughts and personality out there in cyberspace for all to see. Not restricting profiles on social networks to only people you know and trust, however, greatly increases the chance of all of the previous things going wrong: people misrepresenting themselves, and you, cyber-stalking, bullying, the works. In fact, as parents, it may be worth making this-and the agreement that you get to check in on their accounts every once in a while-part of any bargain with a kid who wants to get involved in social networking.

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

Au Natural, Baby

Philmundo — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:27:03 -0700

by Phil Stott

It's a beautiful summer's day, at last. We've got one of those inflatable wading pools set up for Maeve, with a few inches of water in it. She's splashing around happily, naked as the day she was born, and my wife and I are sitting on lawn chairs, cold lemonades in hand, supervising the whole affair. After a while, a few of the neighbor children appear; word has spread about the "pool party." Their parents follow close behind, bringing yet more refreshments and lawn chairs, and pretty soon the whole affair turns into a neighborhood event, eventually topped off with a communal barbecue.

Sounds pretty idyllic, right? It was, until I went to work the next day and stumbled on a New York Times piece that made me aware of the strength of feeling that exists over the whole issue of children being allowed to roam naked. Not that I'd heard any comments at the "party," but it struck me in hindsight that, despite there being other kids there her age, Maeve was the only one who'd been allowed to go au natural by her parents.

Reading through the Times piece, it struck me that the issue surely can't have figured too much in the concerns of my own parents; Scotland boasts the kind of climate where exposing your skin to the elements-even in summer-is much more likely to provoke a bad case of goose-pimples than sunstroke. Regardless, I have clear memories-aided by documentary evidence that shall never make its way anywhere near this or any other website, if I have my way-that my brother, sisters and I were permitted to spend as much time without clothes as we wanted as kids. With my wife's family having been of a similar persuasion, the "issue" never even crossed our minds.

I'm inclined to think that the "controversy" over the subject is something that is drummed up only because the words "naked" and "children" when seen together can seem faintly shocking. Indeed, in searching for the Times piece, those were the words I typed into my browser as search terms (along with "NY Times"). Seeing the search I'd done (which yielded the result I was looking for and-thanks to the safe search feature-nothing untoward), my wife remarked that anyone seeing the computer screen "might get the wrong impression." If that isn't a sign of the times we're living in, I don't know what is.

Along with the Times article, my search yielded the perfect antidote: an article extolling the benefits of naked time for babies. Among the reasons: time to air out body parts that are ordinarily trapped by diapers, and time for them to discover their own bodies-both of which seem pretty important to me.

As for the issue of how other adults react, it so happens that my two cents were rather neatly summed up by a psychologist cited in the Times article: "If someone has an overly strong reaction to seeing young children running around naked, it tells us about their own hang-ups, their own inner conflicts." Not that we'll be letting Maeve run around the mall naked, but in the vicinity of our own house, I really don't see a problem. If someone else does, well, all I can do is refer them to the above quote.

And as for the one legitimate question raised by the piece: "When Do They Need a Fig Leaf?" Unlike the need to ingest vegetables, this is one issue that I'm prepared to actually let Maeve have the final word on: whenever she feels like she needs to start covering up.

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

To leash or not to leash?

Philmundo — Fri, 15 May 2009 07:35:36 -0700

by Phill Stott

As Maeve gets ever older and ever more mobile, my wife and I are finding that keeping track of her movements just isn't as simple as it used to be. Within the house it's enough of a problem, but it really becomes an issue when we're out and about. As a willful, independent child, she likes being able to roam-something I'm happy to do in wide open spaces, but not when there are lots of people or traffic around. For that reason-and because Maeve falls more out of love with her stroller the older and more independent she gets-I recently purchased a child harness. Little did I guess the range of opinions on the subject.

As someone who hails from Europe, I grew up with the concept of children being tethered to their parents, and it's still a very common sight across the continent today. Polling a random selection of friends and colleagues in the U.S., however, I'm finding much more of a mixed reaction to the idea-and, as might be expected, even more extreme reactions in cyberspace. As such, I've heard a lot of opinions and criticisms on the subject of late, and thought I'd take the opportunity to summarize-and answer-some of them below.

For: The safety aspect.

Whether it's keeping track of Maeve in a store, or preventing her from running into traffic on the street, having my hand on a set of reins to keep her from getting too far away just seems like a good idea. Mostly because the alternative-not using them and possibly coming to regret it-seems awful.

Against: It just looks bad

I've heard several variations on this, from people who have witnessed parents using the leash inappropriately (yanking their kids around) to others that compare the sight of a child in a harness to a dog. I have no answer for that. The idea of it looking bad never occurred to me, or anyone I knew growing up where child-reins were common, so I can only assume it's a cultural thing.

For: It's no different to using a stroller

I'd love to provide a link to the piece where I read this, but I can't find it. Basically, though, the theory goes like this: you strap your child into a car seat for their own safety. You strap them into a stroller for their own safety. You even strap them into high chairs-both for their own safety and to make your life easier at feeding-time. So what's the big deal about using a little restraint for safety when allowing a toddler to walk around in public places?

Against: Kids should have freedom to roam

Granted, in an ideal world they would. In a wide open space where you can keep an eye on them? Definitely. But in Manhattan? Or a crowded mall? If the answer to those is no, but taking your child there is unavoidable, then restraint of some kind is the only option-whether they'd be less miserable strapped in a stroller or on foot with a harness depends on the child.

Against: You can hold their hand instead

Sure. But they can also slip out of your grasp, which takes away the safety component. And if we're talking "right to roam" for a toddler, a firm grip of the wrist is way more restrictive than a harness, which a parent can at least let go slack and follow. And, from a selfish point of view, try being six feet tall (OK, five-eleven) and walking around holding a toddler's hand for 15 minutes. It's just not comfortable, can't possibly be good for your back and, the taller the parent, the worse it gets.

For me, the issue basically comes down to two things: the desire to keep my child safe when we're out and about vs the reaction of strangers, and I'm pretty sure I know which side of that debate I'm on. Of course, maybe there's some piece of research or compelling reason that I've missed-I'm not so attached to the harness that I'm not willing to listen to reason. Feel free to approach the next Scottish guy you see in the greater NY area with a kid on a leash if you have any feedback you think I should hear. Failing that, post it below.

Kids and cell phones

Toby — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:31:34 -0700

This is a piece I found in the Boston Globe Magazine this morning and loved. Enjoy the read!

No Cell for You
She's 11. She can wait.

By Thomas O'Rourke | March 29, 2009

Our 11-year-old daughter enjoys researching her favorite cellphone styles and colors on the Internet. She actually believes (incorrectly) that she will soon be the proud owner of a pink Razr phone, which according to Overstock.com, is more than just a communications device. It's a statement about who you are.

Here's a statement about who she is.

She's a kid with no job and no ability to pay a phone bill. She's also a safe, hovered-over kid, with no emergencies to communicate. My reluctance to support this purchase is not just about the money, though I am cheap. Nor is it just about my annoyance at having my own phone. It has more to do with the trouble kids can get into with texting, surfing the Internet, taking and sharing photos, and generally walking through life with a phone permanently affixed to their ears.

It's not necessary and can only lead to requests for more. It's a slippery slope that follows the logic immortalized in Laura Joffe Numeroff's classic children's book If You Give a Moose a Muffin.

Here's my version. Give a girl a cellphone, she'll lose it and want an iPhone. Give her the iPhone, she'll want a matching iMac. Give her the iMac, she'll want a Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren ($495,000).

This also holds true for other requests, such as: If you tell your daughter she can pierce her ears when she's 12, she'll talk you down to 11. When the ears get pierced at 11, younger sis will bargain for 10. The 11-year-old will want to pierce other body parts, get a tattoo, wear Apple Bottom jeans and the boots with the fur, and have the whole bar looking at her. Soon, she'll be dancing around a pole at a gentleman's club. It's just a bad idea.

So no, my dear, you will not be getting a cellphone soon. But I'd be happy to read you If You Give a Pig a Pancake. And if you are ever in an emergency, just ask to borrow the cellphone of anyone around you. Everyone has one. As you frequently remind me, you are the only person on the planet who doesn't.