the reawakening

just a day. one day. that's all i needed to complete the challenge.

a year and half ago, i bought a book titled Do One Thing a Day That Scares You and i have done, to date, exactly two things. my second challenge was to live without social media for one day. i've done that before, but it was never on purpose. this time, it would be a conscious choice.

and, boy, conscious it was.

typically, i hopped on FB multiple times throughout the day for 5-10 minutes at a time. i'd be in between something and often scold myself for not just letting myself "be" for those moments, but it was an easy voice to shut off. so, on that first day, it was no surprise to have to stop myself multiple times from logging on. i realized how hopping on so many times affected my attention and how often i used this as an excuse to push off starting a project. this would then lead me to stay on social media longer than planned which would delay starting a project, if at all. then i'd beat myself up for letting another day slip by without getting to "that" (whatever "that" would be). at the end of that first day, i realized that i got SO.MUCH.DONE. i then decided to extend the challenge one more day. then, one more. then, one more, and now i'm at 4 weeks.

keeping myself off social media opened up a world i had forgotten about. it also made me realize how social media affected my mood, and living without it has allowed me to feel grief on a level i didn't think possible because i was present with every emotion. 

let me first say what social media i'm on. i have FB, instagram, and twitter accounts. FB was my only social media outlet for most of the last 10 years. i signed up with twitter over a year ago and quickly realized it made my blood boil faster than FB did, so i rarely went on it by choice. i signed up for an instagram account last year and have enjoyed that immensely as i use it for artistic reasons only. 

the internet is such an easy place to spread misinformation, and as much as i would like to lay misinformation at the feet of trump and his supporters, this issue belongs to everyone, even me. i have been called out more than once for sharing something on FB that was false. and, while i do try to take the time before sharing to do a quick search to see what other news sources are saying about a particular topic, things slip. having to research an article's authenticity takes time and that is scarce. lame excuse, but true.

so i went back to reading just the paper that gets delivered. i know i'm getting news that's at least 24 hours old, but i don't care. i'm reading from a legitimate source and i don't have to go research on-line to see if it's true. i trust the journalist at the Los Angeles Times to have already done that for me which is why they're the journalists and i am not. anyone can pretend to be a journalist on-line, and too many do. people also forget opinion is not fact. for this, we can thank trump and his supporters.

even though i'm reading the news from one main source, i still get enraged by whatever idiotic thing trump has done, thought, or said, but i then take that anger and release it by working on, and completing, a project, by playing with my children (imagine that!), by cooking, by going outside and watering my plants and smiling at the butterflies and birds. this is just a small example of what has changed and it has been amazing for my soul. by popping on FB multiple times throughout the day, i've been bombarding myself with all the horrible things that exist in this world. i was angry ALL the time. all.the.time. i felt like the end of the world was happening every day. i worried about the future. i couldn't believe how stupid our country had gotten. all this and more, every day, buzzing around in my brain. for 4 weeks now i have been free of this. do i still worry about the future? hell yes. but it's not all-consuming right now. i find myself more present than before in whatever i'm doing in the moment that i'm doing it.

i've been listening to music more and reading. reading! both for pleasure and academic. i've been writing. i rediscovered photography with my Canon A-1 film camera and, in those "in between" moments, i sit and stare at a wall or cuddle my kids. 

i have also been grieving. hard. i cleaned out closets and approached projects i had wanted to do since we moved 3 years ago and others that i've been wanting to get to for 15-20 years. going through decades of photos tossed me into a whirlwind of emotions. i found letters that my mom left me written by my grandfather and some by my good-for-nothing father. my mom had told me about these letters throughout my life, but i thought they got lost in either the multiple moves my mom made in lithuania or in a flood that she had some years ago. i never realized i had them for the last 10 years, and making this discovery crippled me emotionally for a while. i don't think i would've been able to feel so deeply if i had hopped on FB, nor do i think i would've been able to process my findings for as long as i needed. i'm not someone who hides her life or emotions, but what of it if i had posted about my find that day? people would have read it, commented on it (maybe), clicked "like" (maybe) and then my feed would've scrolled on, the sentiment buried. just like we bury our emotions with all these social media distractions throughout the day. is it any wonder depression has skyrocketed? we hide behind a screen curating our lives to be the best version we feel it should be. most of us hide the ugly, and for those of us who don't necessarily do that, creating a post about the ugly doesn't do justice to the emotion's reality and, so, you're still left kind of empty no matter how many "likes" or comments you get. it took a few days for me to process and accept finding what i thought was lost, and without FB as a distraction, i couldn't bury it all in my feed.

will i be off social media forever? no, probably not, but i went back to instagram about a week or two ago and discovered that i'm spending more time on it than before which made me realize that social media feeds my "all or nothing" personality. it's this "all or nothing" that has gotten me into so much trouble throughout my life. i'm afraid that i will struggle with any attempts to limit my time on social media. 

as a result, i repeatedly ask myself, do i miss facebook? and, honestly? not really, though i have missed communicating with a few people with whom i'd communicate on a daily basis. i've seen that the way the world is now, social media is how we communicate with people. is this good? i don't think so, but i don't know what the solution is. i feel the social media ball is rolling down a hill and there's no way to slow it down, much less stop it. i also don't know how high that hill is, but it's very obvious the more people we connect with, and to, on social media, the lonelier we, as a society, feel. i read somewhere recently that we humans need human interaction and touch in order to function normally. this is one of the reasons it is strongly encouraged to hug children as much as possible; it releases endorphins which helps with development. if we don't get "x" amount of touch per day, we can slip into depression. how much time do you spend behind a screen vs spending time with someone, getting/giving a hug, holding a hand, or giving/getting a kiss? i bet the former gets more time. i know for the last 10 years it did for me.

it's up to us to change what's not working in our lives. the internet and social media are addictive, and while i don't have an addictive personality, per se, i totally believe i was - am - addicted. my challenge now is to find a balance between being a part of this century and not losing myself. i didn't like being angry or upset all the time or, dare i say, finding myself jealous of friends' posts, but i did often come across useful information that i wouldn't otherwise see. i need to find that balance, and find a way to have more contact in-person and less contact via computer screen. i challenge you to do the same. 

Minorities and Illegals Hogging up Obamacare?

The 2016 election brought out so much ugliness that it's sometimes overwhelming to think about much less digest. There's been analysis, finger-pointing and name-calling, but none of it changes the past. It's important to look to the future which, I admit, is hard to do given the direction that the federal government wants to take us.

One of the issues the 2016 election brought to the surface is the rampant racism, hatred, and misogyny that pulses through America's veins. Sometimes these pulses are larger and stronger than other times, but they have never ceased; they are always there.

Republicans like to put topics like welfare and healthcare into clean little boxes with such labels like "privilege". I remember under Bush, Jr., Republicans began to use the word "privilege" when talking about welfare and how it should be reformed. To some degree, I actually agree with them on this topic, but it certainly is NOT, nor has it EVER been a "privilege." We all pay into the till that is welfare and, should we ever need to use it, it is our right to have that money, not a privilege to. People forget this. But, Republicans count on that. They are master manipulators and master marketers. The Democrats could learn a lesson or two from them when it comes to mass marketing an idea and selling it.

As a result of this ability to master manipulate, Republicans have expertly convinced white people that minorities and (illegal) immigrants have stolen rights from Americans. What they really mean is that minorities and immigrants have stolen rights from white Americans. On this note, enter Trump. He rode this wave all the way to the White House. Taking this fear of "the other," he and Republicans campaigned for Obamacare repeal arguing that not only is it too costly, but that it is "giving away" healthcare to all those who didn't deserve it. In other words, the federal government is giving away healthcare to minorities and immigrants, mainly the illegal ones, and that this should be stopped.

But....really? Is this true? Are the minorities and illegals hogging up Obamacare?

Los Angeles Times published this article about children and healthcare. Taking a map of rural US counties, they were broken down by which counties voted for Hillary and which ones voted for Trump, and how much of those counties' constituents depended on government-issued healthcare.

For example, Fayette County in West Virginia overwhelmingly voted for Trump, yet 53% of its children rely on Medicaid and CHIP (Children Health Insurance Program).

564,000 people in West Virginia are covered by Medicaid.

47% of West Virginia children with special healthcare needs are covered by Medicare.

Fayette County in West Virginia is also mainly white. [1]

Do you think the parents of Fayette County are somewhat concerned as congressional Republicans move to cut hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade from Medicaid? These parents voted for someone who degrades women, stole from other businesses (by not paying them for services), filed for bankruptcy multiple times, doesn't understand policy or how to govern, yet rode to the White House on a mountain of racist and hatred-filled sentiments. He has even surrounded himself with people whose agenda is to bring back a white America (whatever that means). The hatred and fear of "the other" is so deep among white people that they willingly gambled on their children's health. Please read that sentence again.

Here's what kids lose without coverage:

- fewer to no check-ups

- fewer to no immunizations

- more lost days of school

- more trips to the emergency room

- families must choose: food or healthcare

I'm no economist, but the above short-list of what children lose without insurance doesn't seem to invest in a child's future which then, looking long-term, doesn't invest in the future of America. A sick child doesn't go to school who then falls behind who then drop-outs who then becomes a burden on society because s/he has no developed skills. How is this a cycle people want?

Here's what a kid gains when insured:

- better health

- improved reading and test scores

- lowers risk of being a high school drop out

- increases future earnings

20 years ago, about 14% of children nation-wide lacked healthcare coverage. Today, that number is at 5%. How is this a bad thing? Yet, "Senate GOP legislation would slash more than a third of federal Medicaid funds over the next 20 years and nearly double the ranks of the uninsured by 2026." [2] I always thought the idea for a country was to move forward, not backward.

Going back to the map of the rural US counties for a sec. Out of 780 counties looked at nationwide, 622 had a majority of children on Medicaid.  Most of these children are white (whose parents voted for Trump, let's not forget), and these children, the future of America, are at risk of losing healthcare if Trump and Republicans get their way. Please read that sentence again.

Aren't Republicans the party of "family values?" Are children no longer a part of that equation?

"The funding cap in the Senate bill would increase only at the rate of inflation, leaving states with an increasingly larger share of the medical costs, which have typically increased faster than inflation. And because the same flow of federal Medicaid money covers care for children as well as for poor seniors and the disabled, deep cuts would probably force states to decide who is more deserving of medical care." [3]

States will have to decide whether children deserve medical care or whether poor seniors and the disabled deserve medical care. Please. Read that sentence again. Then let me know who of you is itching to run for State Assembly, State Senate, or Governor with that possibly on the horizon.

A country is only as good as its constituents. If the constituents won't have a heart for everyone, including those who look different from them, there is no healthcare out there that can save that heart.

Map of the counties. [4] More detail found in article cited above, but for additional information, including seeing the above map, please visit here. 

For more information on the subject please read The Atlantic's "How Kids Would Fare Under the American Health Care Act."

[1] Levey, Noam N. "Children's health at risk in Trump country." Los Angeles Times, 06 July 2017: A1. Print.

[2] Levey, Noam N. "Children's health at risk in Trump country." Los Angeles Times, 06 July 2017: A9. Print.

[3] Levey, Noam N. "Children's health at risk in Trump country." Los Angeles Times, 06 July 2017: A9. Print.
[4] Krishnakumar, Priya and Levey Noam. 2017 July 6. "Medicaid's vital role for children in Trump Country." www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-medicaid-children/ 

Losing Working Women

If I went back to tell my 18-year old Self that not only would I be married, have kids, *and* be a SAHM, that Self would laugh at me, slap me, tell me to shut up, and then go on about her day procrastinating. I was so career-driven back then. Er, OK, I was so in love with the idea of having a career but was too scared to chase the one thing I want(ed) more than anything. I find it's easier to just say I was career-driven. Especially since I couldn't figure out what I would actually settle into since I was interested in everything.

Flash forward many moons and here I am. A stay-at-home mom. What? Now, right before getting pregnant with #1, I landed a great job finally taking a real shot at my dreams. I quickly recognized a group of people I connected with and production companies I would've liked to have laterally moved into figuring that if we weren't having kids, I was going to dive into a 60-hour work week schedule with pleasure. But, 8 weeks later, #1 had different plans.

Getting ready for the baby, my husband and I had many conversations about whether I, being the one making less money, should be the one to stay home for the first few years or whether I should go back to work. After some research, and considering other reasons like the benefits of having a parent stay-at-home, we realized it wasn't cost-effective to have me go back to work. It was hard knowing I'd have to give up the budding steps I had started to take toward a career I wanted.

Usually having to wait a bit to read the paper, I immediately read the LA Times article Why are so many women dropping out? As predicted, I shared a similar story with the women in the article and agreed with the research found. There are several reasons women are dropping out of the work-force, but I'm going to focus on the lack of affordable child-care. It's not easy sacrificing an income, especially living in southern CA, but we would be handing over my income to a day-care or nanny while, at the same time, the children would be seeing very little of either parent. What's the benefit in that? Why have kids then?

I would've loved to send my children to a Montessori school. Depending on the length of time that care is needed, the prices range from $13,555-$18,145/year (2016-2017). A co-op I found in Santa Monica in 2014 would've been $8,400/year for 3 hours a day with the agreement to volunteer your time in the classroom and at one of the two or three fundraisers they held each year.

According to Child Care Aware of America, infant cost at a center in CA is on average $13,343 whereas public college tuition is $9,267. Make of that what you want. The average salary in CA is about $64,500 (2015 data). Nationally, it's $55,775. In 2012, day-care cost in CA was $12,068. In 2016, it was $13,343. In four years, that's at a 10.56% increase. Whose salary has gone up almost 11% in 4 years? Anyone? Bueller? (1)

We had children later in life and that's mainly because we felt we didn't want any, though I, personally, couldn't commit to that 100%. I knew I maybe didn't want kids, but there was always a "but" at the end of that followed by ellipses because I just didn't know how to finish that sentence. 

There's so much pressure to have kids from outside sources like TV and movies to the more interior sources like family and friends. Then, you find yourself expecting and everyone is overjoyed. Then you have the kid and realize all the support is gone. Maternity and paternity leave in the US are a joke. I can't help but wonder why there is so much pressure in the US to have a family when we have built a structure that does everything but support a family, especially a new one. I will refrain from getting into the hostility towards women of child-bearing age, but will mention that the lack of support affects fathers as well.

Women in Finland, e.g., start maternity leave seven weeks before the due date. They then get 16 weeks of paid leave and after a child turns 3, parents can partake in partial care leave where they split their time between work and child care until the kid is in 2nd grade. There is also 8 weeks of paternity leave.

Denmark gives 18 weeks maternity leave at full pay. The father gets two, consecutive weeks of paternity leave. (Though that's kind of wimpy, if you ask me. Dads are important!!)

Sweden gives 16 weeks at 80% pay on top of the 18 weeks given to mothers. That's a little over 8 months that baby stays with mom. Fathers get 90 days paid paternity leave.

Other countries to make the list of great maternity and paternity leave are Belgium, Iceland, Serbia, Norway, Hungary, Estonia, and Lithuania.

Of course, an argument can be made that these countries listed don't have the kind of economy that we have. Though, that could be debatable now, but I'm not an economist, so I won't go there. But, for a country like the US that pushes to have a family, we certainly don't invest in them. As a whole, we work long hours that take a toll on our mental and emotional health which then ripples into how we relate to our family members.

I'm not saying child-care should be free. And, as a parent, it's important to know that responsible, emotionally-stable people work with my children. As a result, it's easy to think that the more something costs, the chances are higher that there will be better care. And, while this is usually the case, I know from a family member who worked at a premier, top-notch day-care and pre-school on the Westside, that this is not always true. I, personally, observe interactions between teachers and students, and pay close attention to children's demeanor in the environment. This speaks more to me than any price-tag. But, I digress.

I feel that we've lost sight of things. We should have affordable child-care. People shouldn't have to feel like they're losing by having kids. There is so much you gain by having them, but it can be hard to keep sight of that if one has to quit a job and then live (welfare) check to (welfare) check as Mari Villaluna does (as mentioned in the LA Times article).

If a woman wants to work, she should. It shouldn't have to be an either/or choice.

(1) To see the average cost of child care in 2016 in your state, visit here.

Given A Life, But No Voice

I’m an animal lover, hands down. In 41 years, I have never gone longer than a few months without an animal in my life. One of the many things I hope to pass down to my own children is a love for animals. So far, I can tell the younger one already does, but the jury’s still out on the older one. I’m working on it.

With that being said, what I have a lot of trouble wrapping my head around is how we have strong laws against animal abuse but can’t yet seem to find a unified policy when it comes to child abuse and neglect. I remember a video of two guys abusing a kitten going viral with the world calling for their heads (and rightly so), but now another child was recently found dead at the hands of his abusive mother and not a peep anywhere except for the LA Times.

On the front page of the California section on Thursday, September 15, 2016, one of the headlines reads, “Dead boy, 11, weighed just 34 pounds.” My heart sank. Again.

Let’s break down the article a little bit.

“The records show that Yonatan’s risk of abuse at home had been marked as ‘high’ four times from 2009 to 2012 by a program intended to guide social workers’ level of intervention.” The article continues, “The boy’s family had been the subject of six prior reports to DCFS…”

So:

1. The child’s risk of abuse was rated “high” four times in 3 years. Nothing was done.

2. The boy’s family had a history of being reported. Nothing was done.

Michael Vick, former NFL player, was found guilty of illegal dog-fighting and jailed for his crimes. Many, if not most, of the dogs found new homes and were given a second lease on life. Where was Yonatan’s second lease?

Back to the article.

“…although allegations of physical abuse regarding Yonatan were reported to both DCFS and police, no police investigation was launched” and in December 2011, the boy was found in the bathroom suffering from hypothermia and “again deemed to be at high risk of abuse” but, again, nothing was done.

On March 15, 2012 (just 3 months after the hypothermia incident), Yonatan “came to school with a black eye,” so DCFS and the cops were called but “no cases were opened.” Four days later, when Yonatan was seen grabbing whatever and as much food he could get his hands on, DCFS was called, again, but no case was opened calling the allegation “unfounded.”

I once discovered an owner keeping his or her cat in his or her car during the day and night. I anonymously called it in and the cat was immediately rescued, no questions asked.

Yonatan died in a fetal position, in a closet on the floor and weighing just 34 pounds. He was 11 years old. Who was his advocate? Who was his superhero? Who was around to tell him his life mattered and he was important enough to fight for?

I don’t want to come across as arrogant and that I have all the answers. I don’t. I know that the DCFS is overworked. I can’t imagine all the cases with which they have to deal. My comments and observations are merely to punctuate the imbalance in our society when we have clear laws to protect an animal but not for a child. I’m reminded of the case of Viola Vanclief who was placed in the home of Kiana Barker and her boyfriend, both convicted criminals. Kiana beat Viola to death. She was two. [1] Do you know of any animals who would be put in the home of a convicted animal abuser? I sure don’t. 

       These stories and situations are hard to accept. We can do better because we should want to.

1. USC Annenberg Center for Health Journalism http://www.centerforhealthjournalism.org/2013/12/24/series-details-abuse-california-foster-care-system Accessed 15 Sept. 2016