I lost a friend last month. His name was Ryan Gregory Smith, and I had known him for 20 years. We were in marching band together; he played trumpet, and I played clarinet. When we were seniors, I became a drum major (field conductor), and Ryan was our trumpet soloist. We started dating that fall.

Ryan was the ideal high school boyfriend. First, he was beautiful. Six feet tall, slim with great cheekbones and broad shoulders, blond hair that always fell just right and pretty blue eyes. And he was smart. We were in AP classes together, and he did very well in school. He was also funny. He’d throw away one-liners that you wouldn’t get until later. Best of all, he treated me like a treasure. He was a great kisser, but we never went further than that, so things never got difficult or complicated.

We had our graduation party together with four other dear friends, and we spent the whole summer between high school and college, hanging out at my parents’ house, having a blast. It was one of the best times of my life.
Ryan went off to college in Illinois, while I headed to IU in southern Indiana. Then he moved to Cleveland, Ohio. We didn’t see each other much, but we e-mailed and talked on the phone now and then. When he came home to Indy, we always got together for lunch or something.

The last time I saw Ryan was at his brother Matt’s funeral. Matt had committed suicide at age 27. Ryan was devastated. I spoke to him on the phone once, and we exchanged several e-mails in the ensuing months. Then, in August, I learned that he’d been hospitalized with stomach cancer. It was going to be okay, though. And then it wasn’t. He died on August 28th at the age of 36.

Over the past few weeks, I have re-connected with dozens of people over the loss of our friend. I am trying to make sure I make more time for all of my friends now. It’s too bad we have to lose someone to realize how much we value the people around us.

Ryan was a wonderful man. I hope lots of people remember that. I will.

She’s a mother of five. She’s a hockey mom. She’s the mother of a special needs child.  Mothers everywhere are supposed to rally around this woman who “really represents” mothers and women (Rebecca Hagelin, 9/2/2008).

If she’s so worried about the sexists, maybe Sarah Palin should stop playing the mom card every chance she gets. After all, no male candidate, to my knowledge, has ever touted his parenting skills as a qualification for office the way Governor Palin has.

And the whole “isn’t-she-a-fabulous-mother?” thing honks me off anyway because actually, no, I don’t think she’s a very good mom at all, thanks.

Here’s a woman who chooses to have children, and not just one or two, but five. Fine. That’s her choice. But who’s raising these children she was so happy to give birth to? Not her, at least not much, and even less if she gets the VP job. I’m glad she’s got a husband who seems like a good father, and they’re wealthy enough to hire nannies or caregivers or whatever, but that whole idea just bothers me. Why have five kids so other people can raise them? Why have a gaggle of wee ones if your real ambition was to be governor and/or vice president of the U.S. and/or president of the United States? Most ambitious women I know have the good sense to know that just one child requires a lot more time than their chosen pursuit will allow. They choose not to have children or at least suspend or put off their career until the kids are older and more self-sufficient.

Granted, many women in the world cannot stop working when they have children due to economic necessity. God bless them. But obviously, Governor Palin’s not in that category.

Other women love their careers and really want to have children too. Can you do both? Sure. But you HAVE to compromise. Usually, it’s the career that gives. In my own case, I went to a part-time teaching position when my son was born. I love teaching, plus we needed some income in addition to my husband’s. But we have not wavered in our dedication to our kids, and I will not take a full-time position again until our youngest is in first grade.

A governorship cannot give. A vice-presidency absolutely will not give. There will be no compromise. Sarah Palin will see even less of her children than she already does as governor of Alaska. That’s tough enough.

Add to the mix - she has an INFANT, and that infant has special needs. She also has a pregnant teenage daughter. Yeah, I know we’re not supposed to talk about it, but the governor’s the one who put her family in the spotlight. If they think the last few weeks with the media have been rough, they are in for a cold awakening in a Republican January. Oh, and if they do win the election, Governor Palin will be uprooting the whole gang and shipping them to Washington D.C. unless the teenage daughter does marry her baby-daddy and chooses to stay behind in Alaska. Not sure how much support Mom could give her anyway since she’ll be quite busy in the White House. (Let’s hope not.)

So enough with the Sarah Palin, Supermom garbage. If she’s a Supermom, I’m the Virgin Mary.

Like most other moms I know, I’ve been insanely busy this summer. I had this pipe dream back in May that, once school was out, things would quiet down;  as it turns out, the end of school had just the opposite effect. The kids have been doing t-ball, tumbling and swimming lessons.  We’ve had multiple birthday parties, cookouts, and family get-togethers. Next week is my daughter’s birthday, and a few days later we leave for a family vacation to Florida. We’ll get back on a Monday night. Wednesday morning, my son goes back to school. Oi!

Needless to say, I haven’t had nearly as much time to write as I imagined I would.  And now that reality’s finally set in, I don’t anticipate being able to blog again for a while. So here’s my summer blog entry, a summary of all the stuff that’s annoyed me, thrilled me, surprised me or otherwise settled into my brain for one reason or another.

·         The economy is lousy. And it’s disgusting how conservatives are either sticking their fingers in their ears and humming loudly whenever anyone says the economy sucks or they’re telling everyone who’s not wealthy to shut up and stop whining. Such a sympathetic, helpful bunch.

·         Jesse Jackson is undermining the party whose principles he has supposedly supported his entire life. I understand that he’s jealous; for the first time in its 225-year history, the U.S. is close to electing a black president, and it’s not Rev. Jackson. For heaven’s sake, we’re finally considering, seriously considering, a candidate who’s not an old white guy. People like Rev. Jackson should be ecstatic. Even if Obama’s not perfect (which he’s not), we should support him wholeheartedly, especially when the alternative is More-of-the-Same-with-Jon-McCain.

·         Indiana Jones 4 is not as bad as it could have been nor is it as good as it should have been.

·         Wall-E is amazing. My kids have seen it 3 times. Beautiful animation, a storyline that can be read on multiple levels, two main characters that are not human, but more humane than many people I know. Incredible.

·         The Dark Knight is too upsetting for me. I love Batman. In fact, he’s the only superhero I have ever had any affinity for. He’s not an alien or a genetic mutation or a victim of a science experiment gone wrong. He’s a good guy using his wealth and brains to eradicate evil in ways that regular law enforcement cannot. I love the idea. But Heath Ledger was a favorite of mine, and seeing him in the previews was really hard. I don’t think I can watch the movie. I don’t want to pay $8 and then have to leave.

·         Brendan Fraser is a busy man. First Journey to the Center of the Earth, now The Mummy 3. He’s still hot too. Did you know he’s from Central Indiana?

·         Pierce Brosnan is so sexy. He and Colin Firth in the same movie (Momma Mia) are gonna be too much for me! Just watching Jon Stewart interview Brosnan the other night gave me hot flashes!

·         Summer television is generally crummy. There are some bright spots, though, all on cable. Thank heaven for Bravo – Kathy Griffin’s My Life on the D-List is awesome. And Project Runway’s back! Hallelujah! Tim Gunn, we could be best friends! Of course, Daily Show on Comedy Central and Countdown on MSNBC are good standbys. I can’t even remember what network TV looks like! Oh, wait a minute, yes, I do – 14 versions of Law and Order and 12 versions of CSI. Yuck.

·         The Olympics is a loss. I know it hasn’t even started yet, but the coverage won’t be on my TV. And it’s not just the whole China-human-rights-disasters thing. The Olympics is always a whole lotta hype for no good reason. I love sports. Just not any of those sports.

·         Rick Greenspan is gone. Amen. As an Indiana University alum, I cannot imagine why our athletic director lasted as long as he did. Greenspan, Miles Brand, Bobby Knight and Kelvin Sampson owe our basketball program, our students, our alumni, our fans and our state some major apologies. Somehow, though, I don’t see those coming any time soon.

·         Indianapolis is not the city I used to know. My hometown is being wracked by a violent crime wave that really worries me. Some grassroots movements are trying to do something about it. I hope they get it under control soon. Right now, I’m glad I don’t live there anymore, and I’m concerned about all my friends and family who still do.

So in between all the swim lessons, cookouts and firefly hunts, these are the things I’ve been thinking about this summer. Enjoy the last few weeks of break. Later…

Sunday was Easter, and as usual, it was a problematic holiday for me on several levels. First, there’s the fact that I’m Christian, and my husband is agnostic. He doesn’t object to our celebrating Easter, but he’s not all that keen on it either. He helps us color eggs, and he cleaned the whole house while I was at church so it would be nice for all our relatives who came in for dinner. But he’s not exactly enthusiastic about the whole thing.

Then there’s the stupid moving date issue. I’ve studied the process by which the date is set, and it still doesn’t make sense to me. This year, Easter was actually set before Passover! Jesus was in Jerusalem to celebrate Passover when He was arrested and crucified. How can we celebrate Easter almost a month before Passover starts?! Different Christian sects celebrate it on different days which is weird too, and by the way, it was snowing when we got ready to do our Easter egg hunt. Very festive and hopeful and spring-y. We hunted eggs inside.

Then there’s the problem of Christians being inspired at Easter to say very un-Christian things. I guess preachers realize that many people in their congregation on Easter Sunday won’t be back until Christmas, so they take the opportunity to rain down eight months’ worth of fire and brimstone on them. This year, my parents invited me and my son to attend their church for Easter service. I figured my six-year-old would have more fun there with his grandparents and aunt than going to our little Episcopal church with just me, so we went. The flowers were beautiful, everyone was friendly and the music was great. But when the pastor began speaking, I remembered why I had left this particular church. The minister spent a full 10 minutes explaining how anyone who wasn’t in church celebrating Easter that morning was going to Hell. He went into great detail about Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist and atheists spending eternity with the devil because in John 14:6, Jesus is quoted as saying, “No man goes unto the Father but through me.”

I have multiple issues with this whole idea. First, Jesus was a loving, tolerant, inclusive spirit. He said that God loved the world so much, He sent His only Son to save it. I’m sorry, but if God loves us so much, why would He set us up to go to Hell? I know a lot of wonderful Jews, Muslims, and Hindus. Why should they be damned just because they never heard of Christ or because they were misled by well-meaning parents, family and friends whose faith is just as strong as mine? And what about people like my husband who was physically abused in the name of God or those who were molested by pedophile Catholic priests? Many of them have had to reject the Christianity of their abusers just to maintain their own sanity. If my husband and non-Christian friends are going to Hell while I have to spend eternity in Heaven with a bunch of perverted priests and my husband’s abusively zealous stepmother, I think I’ll decline.

My second issue with this exclusive statement is that John wrote his gospel about 60 years after Christ’s death. John probably never knew Jesus personally, and he certainly did not have access to a video or audio recording of Jesus’ words. Many Bible scholars have questioned the authenticity of John’s history. As a student of literature, I have to go with them. John wasn’t at the Last Supper. Most of the people who were there were dead by the time John wrote his gospel. John is the only one of the gospel writers who records the conversation at the Last Supper. Isn’t it possible he got the quote wrong? Especially since it contradicts much of the teaching Jesus did prior?

Finally, I just can’t believe that a compassionate God would send only one messenger with His word. If He loves us as much as Jesus said He does, why would He send just one Savior and hope that word got around? Even today, with our global publishing companies, worldwide telecommunications networks and the Internet, millions of people never hear of Christ’s teaching. It’s not their fault. And think of the millions of people who lived before now. Jesus was one man living in and preaching in a tiny part of the world, reaching a tiny percentage of its population. So anyone didn’t get the memo goes to Hell? What a crock! I can’t believe in a God who loves people less than I do, and a God who would condemn good, but ignorant or damaged or deceived people cannot love His children as Jesus said He did. So do I reject God and Jesus or just John, a fallible human being who wrote decades after Christ’s death? Hmm…

Anyway, Easter’s over, and I have to say that the end of Easter is far better than the end of Christmas. When Christmas ends, it’s such a letdown, and all you have to look forward to is weeks and weeks of cold, dull, dark winter. When Easter ends, spring’s right around the corner. Plus Lent is over, and I can eat French fries again!

For many years now, it’s been trendy to blame television for all our woes. It makes our kids stupid. It makes our kids unimaginative. It makes our kids violent. It makes our kids materialistic. It makes our kids fat. I’ve read some interesting articles on the subject, mostly written by people who do not allow their children to watch television. Some of them don’t even have a television in their home. That’s their prerogative. But I’m done feeling like a bad mom because I do let my kids watch TV. I’m done being consumed by guilt every minute that my children spend in front of the small screen. I’m going to make an argument for reasonable TV watching. It may not be a trendy argument, but I think it’s a good one.

First, I disagree with people who argue that TV makes kids stupid. I was just brushing my teeth in the bathroom, and I heard my 2 ½-year-old in the other room speaking Spanish as she was watching Dora the Explorer. I was impressed. My toddler knows several words in a language I don’t know. Chances are, if she had not gotten to watch television, she would not have learned any Spanish until high school when our school district starts foreign language classes.

I’ve noticed that both my children have developed vocabulary they may not have been exposed to without television. My six-year-old son uses words like “rendez-vous,” “pedagogue” and “earnest.” Ask him where he heard them, and he’ll tell you it was from watching Disney movies on TV. Although my husband and I might have occasionally used these words, we don’t have the need to very often. Television exposes children to unusual situations, out-of-the-ordinary events that call for vocabulary we just don’t use in everyday speech.

Television gives children the opportunity to exercise math skills as well as reading. Most evenings, we’re too busy to have the TV on; however, if it’s on, we’re usually watching sports. My son’s practiced his math on baseball and football scores. He’s read the stats of Derek Jeter and Peyton Manning. He’s learned logic and strategy that he’ll be able to use to problem-solve.

Does television make children unimaginative? If it does, then maybe I should make my son watch more. Every year at parent conferences, his teachers’ only concern is that he tends to live in his own little imaginary world, peopled by Star Wars and Harry Potter characters, pirates and monsters that he gleans from movies, television and books. I hear anti-TV folks say that letting kids watch TV stifles their imaginations by stuffing their heads full of other peoples’ ideas. But if that’s the case, shouldn’t we beware of books too? I’m reading 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea to my son, and he’s running around the house battling giant squid and sharks, much the same way he battles Transformers and Spiderman villains. The difference between TV and books may be more clearly delineated for adults than for kids – children seem to absorb the creativity in the same way, no matter what the medium.

As for violence, sure, if you let your kids watch violent shows, I’m sure they would be affected. I would no sooner let my children watch The Sopranos than I would read The Godfather to them as a bedtime story. Television is no more violent than literature. And some literature is far worse than ANYTHING you’ll see on TV.

As for television turning kids into materialistic brats, I think we need to keep it in perspective. As an anti-materialist myself, all those commercials for toys and fast food and candy do worry me, but my children’s materialism has been shaped far more by their grandparents’ indulgence than by advertisements. I find it’s pretty easy to counteract the influences of TV commercials anyway; my kids are more interested in what I have to say than what the boob tube says. On those rare occasions that my children talk about something they saw on TV, I simply say, “Yes, dear, that’s nice” and keep on moving. Now that my son’s older, I’ve actually talked to him directly about the dangers of advertisements. “Don’t believe everything salespeople say,” I tell him. “Sometimes they don’t tell the whole truth.” He’s only six, but he’s got the concept already. The other day, we were at the store and he saw a toy that had been advertised on TV. He looked at it carefully, then turned to me and said, “That doesn’t look as cool in person.” Kids aren’t as gullible as we (and Madison Avenue) like to think they are.

Then there’s the new thing – television must be to blame for our kids being fat. The anti-TV folks are winning this battle. But here’s the thing – kids cannot be running around every minute of the day. They have to have downtime. And whether they’re reading a book or watching a TV show, they’re not burning 100 calories a minute. Sure, if you let your kid watch four hours of television a day, he’s probably going to be fatter than a kid who watches one hour or no TV at all. But the biggest kid in my school was also the biggest nerd. He was home-schooled to 7^th grade, read voraciously, and he was ranked second in our class because he couldn’t pass Gym. He told me once he wasn’t allowed to watch TV at home. Hmm…

As far as I’m concerned, television gives my kids some opportunities they can’t always get from books. My little girl can’t read yet, so Dora the Explorer and Blue’s Clues are wonderful tools for developing her vocabulary. Watching sports on television shows my son athletes in action in a way he could not get from reading about them or listening to a radio broadcast. Now when he plays baseball, he tries to imitate Derek Jeter’s movements. TV is just like anything else in a child’s life – parents have to exercise control and caution. You don’t want to let your kids eat 20 Twinkies a day or let them read the Marquis de Sade at age 10, but you have to feed them and you want them to read. You can let them watch TV in good conscience, as long as you’re monitoring what they watch and how much. Television can be, in the words of Dora, muy bueno!