Blog Blast for Education - October 2008

This BlogBlast post will be a rant on two of the most dreaded words (to me) in the English language: "parental involvement."

We hear about parental involvement everywhere these days, but my frustration with the words have to do with how they seem to mean something different to everyone who utters them.

Parental involvement, to me, should mean that the parents care about their child getting a quality education. Parental involvement should mean that the parent provides a proper environment at home for reinforcing learning in the school. Parental involvement should mean taking an active interest in what's happening at their child's school, and when possible, participating.

Unfortunately, it seems some teachers, principals, and others think it means a variety of other things.

Parental involvement can mean that you buddy up to the staff while your children are still in diapers, and donate as much time and money as possible to help such staff overlook things like neighborhood boundaries. Parental involvement can mean that parents do the art projects for their kindergarten student. Parental involvement can mean not questioning any activity, fundraiser, or methodology and simply nodding your head in agreement. Parental involvement can mean seeing how many neighbors, friends, family members, and co-workers you can get to buy wrapping paper and cookie dough so that your child can get the prize they want for selling an obscene amount of unnecessary cookie dough (that ends up in the workplace freezer to waste space for a seemingly endless amount of months).

I recently wrote a very long email to the National PTA about their own involvement - or lack thereof - in creating a stronger sense of community between teachers and parents.

There's so much blame these days - it's the parents' fault, it's the kids, it's the administration, NCLB, the teachers - and I'm sure this post could come across as a rant against school personnel.

It's really not meant to be. It's a rant about how we are doing a disservice if we don't learn how to work together on this thing.

Everyone's made mistakes, everyone's to blame, everyone needs to come together now.

The National PTA blew me off, and this does not make me happy.

The PTA is supposed to be an organization whose main purpose is to bring all interested parties together to do what we all can do to provide a quality education for our children.

The PTA is still stuck in the '50's. It believes that there should be a parent available at 8:30 in the morning for PTA meetings. It believes that the best way to fundraise is to make private organizations richer off of our children, while we should be happy with a cut of the profits.

It does not recognize that over 70% of parents work. Not only that, but our income is less than that of our counterparts from twenty years ago. We simply do not have the funds to donate every month in the specific ways that they prefer. We do not have all day to bake for a bake sale, or endless hours to make copies for the teachers. We do not have all night to teach our children how to do their homework. We do not always know how to handle our children when they refuse to do their homework, or don't show up to class. We need help. We need support. Instead, we're simply asked to give more time and more money.

I realize that everyone is overworked these days, but I don't think that schools, for the most part, appreciate that the same applies to the parents, too.

Having said all that, we do want to do our part. We just can't always do it in the ways that our PTA wants.

We can ask our teachers for what their direct needs are for the classroom. I have no qualms about picking up another box of kleenex or crayons while I'm at the grocery store. I can afford that, and it's something that will have a direct, positive impact on my child's classroom.

We can support fundraisers where the funds go directly to the school. DonorsChoose.org is an excellent website for that purpose. However, there are also home-grown fundraisers that can be done without making national organizations (like Scholastic) richer. We can hold jog-a-thons and read-a-thons, where our children benefit from the exercise and reading and the school gets all the proceeds.

My older daughter's school held a carnival where the kids ran the entire event with the help of staff. They had carnival games and food. The kids worked in shifts, and the whole family had fun. The only thing I would recommend for this next year would be to raise the prices. They could've charged more than the twenty-five cents per ticket.

My youngest daughter's school also approaches local businesses to support their local school. At the "rock concert" they hosted for their Arts programs, a local restaurant donated 50% of the profits to the school. A number of the local businesses provided prizes for the raffle. All of the teachers came and participated to make it a true school community event.

Education should be a community activity. From local professionals sharing their expertise on Career Days to parents and teachers working together to figure out how they can all work together to provide all the best opportunities for the children to succeed, and ensuring that every child believes they can do it. We - as a community, as a country - cannot afford to lose another child.

Got a BlogBlast for Education post? I can't wait to read it!!

Random

Not unlike most bloggers these days, things have been busy, but it's all good. We've had a few school events, including Sylvia's music concert and multi-cultural night at Riley's school. We had a family get-together that included bday wishes for my sister, my nephew, my daughters, and my mother. Work has been really busy, but I've gotten lots of thanks for it so that's nice!

Plus, I'm supposed to be writing an article for another website, reviewing a book, and prepping my own post for the BlogBlast for Education. Oh, yeah, and raising those two kids!

Riley and her teach at Multi-Cultural Night:

Of course, Sylvia could not be left out of the action that night:

Worldly Riley:

This is Riley's last week as a seven-year-old. She says she's looking forward to being an even number again.

So I'll keep this short and sweet. I hope you're all having a good week - and scheduling your posts for the Blog Blast!

Mid-Week Wrap-Up

Okay, I need to lighten it up around here!

Last week was actually really good - I just couldn't find my camera cord to download the pics.

Last Tuesday was the PTA meeting at Riley's school, and you'll never believe it, but...I didn't hate it!!

I was appalled at one point when we were going over the figures of what we'd earned at our Book Fair, and I learned that Scholastics gives you a choice of either holding your profits as credit, or giving the school 50% of their cut of the profit in cash. We ended up making over three grand, and because we didn't want to see that cut to $1500, the decision was made to take it in Scholastics credit. Even after the librarian bought everything she could store, we still have over a grand of credit at Scholastics.

I find it appalling that they would hold the schools hostage like that. Luckily, the president of the PTA did, too. She has the same sorts of problems with the PTA organization that I do. They're not dynamic enough, not responsive enough to our current times and dilemmas. More to come on this, most likely in the BlogBlast for Education. It's just days away now. I hope you're planning to participate!

Okay, so the PTA meeting was good - even better, they had child care available so the girls had fun, too. And Riley is happy I'm finally participating at her school. A really good thing I didn't hate it. But I did lose the vote on when to have their next meeting. They're holding it on Election Day, can you believe it? It's not like you can TiVo election results!! So I'll be missing that one.

On Friday, we went to their arts fundraiser concert, which was a lot of fun. The kids played rock bands outside on the field, and the families all watched from blankets, having picnics. (Note to self: must borrow picnic blanket from the folks next year.) Again, Riley was so glad we went, and Sylvia had fun, too.

On Saturday, we went for a mini, early bday celebration for Riley, miniature golfing with my parents.
I mean, really, how cute is she?


Sylvia took it pretty seriously:



First, we had lunch where we were partially served by the waitress' two sons. One of them was a freshman in high school, and one was in middle school, and they were both so sweet, and very good at their jobs! We talked to the waitress about them, and she talked about how they don't get educated in being around adults at school. Excellent point! Another reason I'm glad my girls get the opportunity to go with me to work sometimes, and they do know how to behave around adults.

That skill especially came in handy when we went Saturday night to the No on 8 campaign party. They ended up being the only kids there, but that was all right. Our hosts LOVE kids. They spent some time with us, and then they were set up watching movies. They had such a great time, they didn't want to leave. Mommy was tired!

On Sunday, we got the Halloween costumes. No pics yet of those...I am happy to report that they will not be trick-or-treating this year. This is something that I've never really liked about Halloween, so I'm glad we seem to be past it. Sylvia didn't want to, and Riley said if Sylvia's not going, then neither is she. Hooray!! But we will be busy. Not only is Halloween Sylvia's birthday (and, according to her, everyone celebrates her bday ;), but Sylvia will be cheering at a high school game, plus they have their first school dance. I think I've found a community party to take Riley to while Sylvia's at her dance.

I may go quiet for a while. This weekend, we're going down to my sister's so I'm not sure how much time I'll have to catch up on my reading. But I'll do my best!

And I really need to stop with the long posts, don't I?

Blog Action Day 08 - Poverty

I'm no economic expert, nor am I as actively involved as I used to be, and would like to be. The theme that emanates from my own personal experience with or about poverty have is that of choices, or more aptly, the lack thereof.

When I first graduated high school, the television pilot I'd done in the spring had been picked up for a season, so college was left for "later someday." And while that series did not last, I was paid more money than a 17-yr-old should be and it lasted me well beyond the cancellation of that tv series. I also did part-time jobs here and there to get me by, and got enough gigs that I could easily call my life my own.

It wasn't until I got involved with X that things began to change. Even then, it took another few years for it to really sink in. It wasn't really until I was a mother that it all got complicated.

Yes, I made the choice to have a child even though I didn't have a stable income at the time. My money worries stemmed from making the "choice" to stay with my ex at the time.

But that choice was complicated. It was mired in all this other stuff - namely, fear of single motherhood, more than anything else - that I believed it was the best case scenario.

And then we made the choice to have another child. And I went from drinking brand name sodas to store-brand labels (among other changes, of course). I would mentally add the dollar amounts of every grocery item that I put in my cart before allowing myself to be thoroughly humiliated at check-out for not having enough cash. Even then, it didn't always work out.

I think our time in Pittsburgh was probably the worst of it. I was a stay-at-home mom with no car, no money, and I literally stayed home. All the time. A free internet connection from NetZero (or something like that) was my only contact to the outside world. That, and long-distance calls. I know I sound dramatic, but it's really how it was.

I tried going back to school then. I remember counting the change to make sure I had enough to take the bus there and back. I remember seeing someone with a Starbucks coffee, and longing for it. I wasn't really into Starbucks then, but just the thought of being able to walk in one and hand over two dollars...I nearly cried for not having that.

I remember going off one day in our English class on Walt Whitman and how he glorified motherhood. How Whitman didn't seem to appreciate the hard work that came with that beautiful moment of a mother holding her infant. How could he understand the crying, and the croup, and the desperate need of a vaporizer, and spending nights in a steaming shower to try and ease the sound? How could he understand not having enough money for a decent winter coat, so I'd keep two girls inside all day while we all were going silently mad? I ended up having to drop out of school because we couldn't afford the child care.

I wrote a paper on the concept of "zero." It's probably the most depressing thing I've ever written. It was about all the things I didn't or never would have. The one that still hurts a little is that I had zero baby showers.

It was during that time that I was listening to Sidney Poitier talk about poverty (in reference to A Raisin in the Sun), and talk about how it's always right there. That when you're poor, it never leaves your mind. There are always painful reminders of what you don't have, what you can't do. And that's exactly how I felt when I didn't have two dollars to buy a cup of coffee. I didn't have two dollars for anything.

I found us a way out of Pittsburgh, and then the marriage broke up, and I ended up living with my parents, with an overdrawn checking account, no car, and applying for food stamps.

And it was while I was clawing my way back to a semblance of a life that I really started to understand how few choices were available to those without the means, without support systems.

Even with my lack of degree, I was able to get myself a job. However, I realized pretty quickly that the salary of a secretary was simply not enough to support two children. Maybe outside of L.A., but outside of L.A., I didn't have the support (both emotionally and, to a degree, financially) of my parents. I knew my acting days were over, and that the only chance I had to give us a better life was for me to get my college degree. It wasn't even a choice anymore.

If it weren't for my parents, I never would've been able to finish my degree. If it weren't for student loans, I never would've been able to afford to finish my degree. If it weren't for my job, I never would've been able to afford the gas to get to school. If it weren't for my degree, I know I never would've been promoted to a point where keeping a roof over our heads isn't nearly as hard and insecure as it was 6 months ago. It's all connected.

Yes, I made mistakes in life, but there has to be a point where those mistakes are surmountable. My feeling was, if I work every day, if I make sure my children are well cared for, getting the education they need, if I do my part, then that should be enough. But sometimes, it just isn't.

I like thinking of myself as an independent, self-sufficient woman. And for the most part, I am. But I know in my heart there's no way I would've made it without the support my parents gave me along the way. And I know I'm lucky to have that support. And I've accepted it gratefully, with little shame, because I knew I was living up to my end of the bargain, too.

I don't understand how people corrupt the welfare system, I really don't. When I applied for food stamps, I had to jump through a number of hoops. I needed tons of documentation. I wouldn't even begin to get how people take advantage of the system. And I don't consider myself entirely stupid, either. I'm sure some people do, but having been through it, I don't see how that many people get away with it.

I know that even the poorest of people in America have it better than the poverty in Mexico, for instance. However, there's a community of poverty there that, while it sounds sick and depraved, I somewhat envy. Here, there's so much money being thrown around everywhere that it's difficult not to start to wonder where our share is, you know? Here, there's such a stigma attached to being on food stamps or (in L.A.) not having a car that it's difficult not to feel inferior, less than.

When I interned for The Bridge Program, I was truly humbled by how well I had it, in comparison. The first night, there was a celebration of sorts because one of the homeless shelters was finally free of their bed bugs. There was one extraordinary woman there, a victim of domestic abuse, who soon moved into her own Section 8 housing, is now in the process of getting her degree, and hopes to become a lawyer. When I met her, she was living in a shelter, and the programs there, along with The Bridge Program, enabled her to get the support she needed so that she can keep her daughter in school and, one day, maybe even have her choice of neighborhoods.

This will sound trite in comparison, but I was seething the other night, as I watched the latest episode of Brothers & Sisters. Sally Field was going off on Rachel Griffiths' character, a single working mother of two, for not being compassionate enough to another family member. As Griffiths' character tried to explain how truly miserable she is at her job, Field asked why she didn't quit. Griffiths explained that she's a single mother that can't afford to be out of job. And Field responded, "then it's your choice to work there." It was all I could do not to wake my sleeping daughters by screaming at the tv, "Choice?!? What choice?!? She HAS to work, she HAS to support her kids, she doesn't have the LUXURY of a choice right now!!"

People forget that sometimes, life circumstances narrow the choices considerably. I think there's a distinct difference between choice and excuse, and that the words get intertwined in ways they shouldn't be. Yes, a choice can lead to a circumstance that you later regret. But if you're willing to put your tail between your legs, if you're willing to say, "okay, I want to correct that now," there ought to be ways that someone can do so. You shouldn't just be stuck with, "well, you made your choice, now live with it." Particularly when children, who made no such choice, are involved.

And apparently, most governments agree with me right now. Too many people that didn't make the choice were getting hurt by the failure of the banks to let it just stand. While I think that every CEO should be fired, and some other top management too probably, it's not right to let everyone's money go down the drain like that. There are still many of us that didn't take loans we couldn't afford, that didn't approve those bad loans, that are watching our 401(k)s and other investments potentially disappear if nothing was done. As evidenced by these last couple of weeks, sometimes, we have to step in or all of us get hurt.

There are many levels of poverty, some of which I can't even begin to comprehend. I'm sure there will be many posts this Blog Action Day that spell things out more clearly (and more succinctly) than I have here. But I wanted to participate because I do believe that it's a serious issue that is constantly with us - in one form or another. And I think we all should at least take a step back and ask, just how many choices do they have? How many choices do I have? And be grateful, and yes, take ownership, of our choices, or lack thereof, along the way.

Socialism, Obama...my two cents

My post yesterday started up quite a conversation in the comments on whether or not Obama is a socialist.

First off, I'd like to thank FreedomFirst and Mama Smurf for speaking their views on the issues, and not on the personal (and mostly unfounded) attacks on Obama. I'm pleased that you knew you could be open and honest here, all the while knowing I'm an Obama supporter.

You both agreed that you think Obama's a socialist. I have a few things to say in response to that.

First off, this is exactly the kind of debate I love having about politics because I believe that the balance theory applies. We need people on both sides of the fence to continue fighting for what they believe in order to (hopefully) find a balance between capitalism and socialism. A lifelong Republican near and dear to my heart and I used to have these sort of debates a lot - about what should or shouldn't be the government's responsibility. That's interesting. That's debatable, even. And that debate, I believe, should go on throughout America's existence because, depending on our times, our greatest challenges, our strength, the balance will shift. Because of those dynamics, it will never be a constant answer. We will never find one harmonious balance, but the goal should be to get as close to it as possible, be wary of the changes that throws things out of balance, and adjust accordingly.

Having loud voices on both sides of this debate makes that possible.

Most of us are probably more centrist than those that disagree with us would probably believe.

I surprise conservatives - and they surprise me - pleasantly when we find those issues where we completely agree. And our humanity should allow us to explore the whole person, and not just one part.

Having said that, however, I've placed my feet firmly in the left camp because, more often than not, their views align closer (particularly on those issues most important to me) than the right. So I play my part accordingly.

Some people (not all - and certainly not any Obama detractor that is taking the time to read this) don't give me credit for that. They think that I just take everything I hear and see from any left-leaning liberal rag and espouse it as fact. That's just not true. Democrats do things that annoy me all the time. I'm just not as public about it - it's sort of like a family feud. I prefer to whisper to those closest to me, rather than shout it to the world.

I appreciate any time any "conservative," "Republican" - whatever label you want to slap on someone opposite of me - takes the time to explain to me their views. And doesn't resort to name-calling. I've had some really fantastic discussions that way. Sure, I spout off about those that scream Obama's an "Arab" or claims they don't know who Barack Obama is (hello?!? Where have you been the last year?), but when it comes to one-on-one, I try to take into account the whole person - not just one label.

Somewhere in my drafts there's a post about labeling. I may have to finish that one someday.

Sorry - digressed there for a moment.

I do, however, feel the need to explain more about Obama's "socialist" programs and views. Or, at least, how I understand them and why I support them.

Bush - as even you conservatives know - is not a fiscal conservative. Bush is lucky the Republican party still exists for all the ways he's skewered it. Even most Republicans I know, even those that supported Iraq, think he's done a shoddy job, and none of them would call him a fiscal conservative. He spent money like - well, like he could afford a 56 trillion dollar deficit.

So I can certainly respect and appreciate anyone's fear that Obama's proposed spending won't help matters. But even most economics agree that McCain's won't help either. We're going to have to spend some money. It's unavoidable.

What the question should be about is how we're going to spend it, and what we will spend it on.

McCain has given me no reassurance that he will spend it any wiser than Bush has. His health care plan scares the crap out of me. And people way smarter than me have confirmed I have reason to be scared.

The way that I understand it, he'll tax our health insurance, but give us a $5,000 tax credit. Well, when health insurance costs average $12,000, that means the remaining $7,000 will be taxed. It reminds me of the useless vouchers in the NCLB program: if my neighborhood school fails, then they'll give me a $4,000 voucher for a private school - where the average annual tuition is $12,000. Doesn't help. Given that education and medical costs are two of the top three reasons for bankruptcy (with divorce being the third), these create very big problems for the average American family (where the median income is now less than $50,000).

And as much as McCain likes to say that Obama will somehow federalize health care, it's just not true. Did McCain see any of the debates between Obama and Clinton? This was their main difference, and they exhausted it over 18 debates! Clinton wanted universal health care (as did Edwards). Obama did not. Clinton called him out time and time again for not supporting universal health care. All Obama wants to do is simply offer the federal health care option to all Americans. No one will be forced or mandated to take it.

Now, some people will think of health care and education as entitlement programs. Whether you think of that term as a bad or a good thing, I believe that our government does have a responsibility to keep American citizens healthy and offer the best education possible. As many healthy, educated Americans we can have, the greater our country can be. Educated children grow up to be smart, creative, productive members of society that can create jobs and new industries for our future. That's a good thing. Less people able to work due to health problems is not a good thing, either. While I don't think they're necessarily drains on our system or anything like that, I believe that healthier Americans are more productive, which in turn leads to a stronger America.

I think Obama has better plans to help us with that. Plain and simple.

The war: I don't believe that because McCain was a prisoner of war means he can lead one. If you recall, he brought up two failures as a leader in the last debate. He couldn't get anyone to listen to him when it came to Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae, and he certainly didn't help matters when it came to the bailout program. I don't see him as an effective leader in these very serious times. (Not to mention, I found it quite condescending that he said most of us probably hadn't heard of Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae until two weeks ago. He's assuming we don't pay attention.)

I also believe Obama can practice diplomacy better than McCain. McCain, again, just doesn't seem to be very effective in his communication. Beyond the condescension, he also seems to get irritated very easily. I've seen Obama debate numerous times now, and his ability to keep his calm - yet still able to communicate - is incredibly impressive to me. While I'm sick of hearing them go back and forth (as I heard Clinton and Obama go back and forth) on whether or not Obama should be willing to talk to foreign leaders without pre-conditions, I do agree that Obama should leave that option on the table.

I do believe that these are scary times. I do believe that we are vulnerable to attacks from a large number of groups and countries even. I do not think we have the resources right now to fight more wars than we're already fighting.

I also believe that Obama, if he cannot absolutely stop the fighting in Iraq, will at least get rid of the Blackwaters of Iraq and devote more of our resources to our actual troops! I also believe that we should be heading out very very soon. While he may have gotten the figures wrong, according to FactCheck, Obama was right that the Iraqi government has a surplus. And we have a 56 trillion dollar deficit. I find something fundamentally wrong with that. McCain has not convinced me that he will be as vigilant, or as effective.

Simply put, I don't find McCain to be an effective leader at all. He lost on the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae bill, his campaign finance reform is a joke (as evidenced by all the PACs out there), he already lost a chance at the presidency 8 years ago...there's nothing in his 30-year political career that tells me he's a leader, let alone the leader of the free world.

I respect his service, of course. But I don't respect the major turn-around he's done from the man he was four years ago. Heck, I even quoted him four years ago! And then he started getting ready to run, and his positions on Iraq, on terror, on Bush, on social conservatism (as evidenced by his VP pick), heck even on lobbyists (anyone remember that story on that lobbyist?), they all switched. And while I respect his service, I don't believe in him.

I don't believe that he can make all the changes he says he's going to make, regardless of the bailout, as he stated in the last debate. Totally unrealistic.

I appreciated that Obama at least prioritized, but the fact is, no one can say for sure what will change because no one quite knows what the situation will be four months from now. I hope that Obama says that on Wed.

Do I know absolutely in my heart that Obama will be the president I want him to be? Of course not. But he's given me enough evidence in this past year that says he's worth that leap of faith.

No, neither of them are perfect. Neither of them are completely truthful (and that does get on my nerves - but again, I only speak about it "in the family"), but let's face it: what kind of person would want this job? Particularly in these times.

I know, I completely strayed off my point about 'socialism.' I guess what I'm trying to say is, if that makes me a socialist, then so be it.

*edited to add* I deleted an anonymous comment earlier not just because they decided to post anonymously, but also because they made assumptions about how I've come to my conclusions which are just not accurate. I was accused of buying into the "change" mantra. That's not the case. And to make it clear to everyone, my own personal bias towards Obama has to do with the fact that he was raised by a single mother, and gets single motherhood. So my personal bias towards him versus McCain (and I do recognize the fact that my personal bias influences my political beliefs) is something very very personal to me. I've been lucky to find a community here of single mothers who help me through it, but I really really love the concept of having a president who understands me as a person. I've stated my other reasons here, and I just hope that people will think twice before assuming why anyone supports one candidate over another. I appreciate learning about why people choose one candidate and what personal experiences influence and affect that decision, but I think we all need to stay away from assuming we know until we've been so informed.

If Barack Obama loses...

If Obama loses, I would much rather he lose because people believe in less regulation than because they think Obama "pals around" with a terrorist.

If Obama loses, I would much rather he lose because people don't believe that he has a better plan to end our occupation in Iraq than because they think Obama doesn't care about the troops.

If Obama loses, I would much rather he lose because they fundamentally disagree with the idea of universal health care than because they are uncomfortable with a leader that is not white.

If Obama loses, I would much rather he lose because people believe in the trickle-down economic theory, not because they fear they'll raise his taxes.

If Obama loses, I hope he loses fair and square, without questions about chads or electronic machines.

If Obama loses, I hope that McCain lives a long, long time.

No Men

I've said before that I won't talk about dating - and it's not like there's been much to talk about there, but I've decided that there won't be dating in my future for quite a while.

This is a decision that was sort of made for me, so it's kind of like saying "I quit" after your boss said "you're fired," but I'm still taking ownership of this. And I'll tell you why.

For the past 5 years, I've tried to remain on the "look-out." While I've always said that I won't get married again (because no man is worth that sort of legal commitment), I've put myself out there, and it's just never worked out. Sometimes it's been my decision, and other times, not. There's been no one that I've really truly cared about that has come close to breaking my heart, so it's not that.

It's this: I've been missing my life. In feeling sorry for myself for being alone, in wondering whether or not I should or shouldn't tell "him" how I feel, in bemoaning spending yet another national holiday without a date...I've been missing what I do have.

I have some truly amazing friends. I have some great family. I have my newest community here of all my bloggy friends. I've reconnected with old friends thru Facebook.

And, most importantly, I have these two girls.

One of them is pretty darn close to adolescence. She is already experiencing some changes in her body. And her mind and her heart. One of them will be a child just a trifle longer. And no one on earth comes close to making me feel what I feel with them.

Oh, I still truly believe - know, actually - that I'm a better mother to them when I'm a better person. And that's another place where I've been missing the mark.

I still have so much to sort out about me. I want to gain more patience. I want to read more. I want to enjoy my own company more than I do. I want to get over my fear of sitting in a restaurant by myself.

I may have been alone for the past 5 years, but too much of it has been spent being lonely. And I've done that enough to know now that it's the same as any other emotion - it comes and goes. It has a peak, and then a valley where it's nearly non-existent. I want to stretch those valleys out by accepting the reality of being alone. By choosing to be alone.

Last holiday season was rough for me. I had a breakdown of sorts. I hated the fact that it was my 5th holiday season with no one to kiss on New Year's (not counting all those holidays where I was still married, but still somehow ended up spending them alone). I skipped New Year's last year.

This year, I will not be the Scrooge of the family. Or the office. I will revel in what there is to enjoy. I will not be wishing that there was someone else there. I will enjoy who is there.

So it may not have started off as my choice, but that doesn't mean that I can't embrace it, right?