My girls have been pushing each other lately, putting each other down, smirking and rubbing in when they get to do something and the other does not, that sort of thing.

We've been working hard on the message that we need to work on saying NICE things, and on strengthening and supporting each other. These talks work for the very immediate term, but they ultimately slide back into angry voices, and cutdowns. The reminder of using nice words and manners for the interactions seems to be working overall, but the smirking and put-downs were still popping up.

Finally, the other day, I told them that I had a song to dedicate to all of them, as sisters, and I played "You Raise Me Up" for them and told them that it was because that's what I always wanted them to do for one another - to raise each other up. So now when they're getting snarky at each other, I just put on the song, and they all start working together, helping each other, praising each other...

It's magic. I love you Josh Groban!

There is something strange about being intimately involved in the world of memorials. They ALL become more personal, and the degrees of separation become fewer.

We thought about going to the Ryan's Ride for the kids during the Burlingame criterium in past years. This year, though, with our friends, the Tserns, knowing the Phua family, we definitely went down.



Megan and our girls all wore these "Riding in Memory Of" tags.

Makes me want to get more involved before I have personal family reason to be more involved.

I was optimistic about both Hillary and Obama. I thought both were good candidates, and both inspired many people across this country that we would have a different leadership in the U.S. in the next 4-8 years. However, I've learned now about the group PUMAs and the potential of their influence in this election.

These individuals, based in blogger-land, are so rabidly pro-HRC that they refuse to back Obama. Instead, what, to stick to the country because they didn't get their candidate this time?, they are turning their votes to McCain.

In the grand scheme of political positions, I DO.NOT.GET.THIS. I have compared Hillary an Obama position by position, and their platforms are so similar that I didn't see one as any great evil over the other. I DO see McCain's positions as incongruent with Hillary's, and anyone who states that they are voting for McCain due to POLITICS, are really just engaging in a popularity contest.

I LIKE Hillary! I voted for HIllary. I wanted President Hillary Clinton. However, from a political issues perspective, I cannot support the mindset of this group.

It's not about party unity. It's about the issues. If you CARE about the issues, and you supported Hillary based on her positions on those issues, your vote would turn to Obama, or you would abstain. You would NOT turn to McCain.

A member of ACOG speaks out against their position to push the AMA to delegalize homebirthing (bolded are some of my favorite statements):

Douglas H. Kirkpatrick, MD
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
PO Box 96920
Washington, DC 20090-2188

Dear Sir:

I am a practicing OB/ GYN in southern California and Fellow of ACOG and
recently was informed by midwife colleagues of your recommendation and
encouragement for the AMA to lobby Congress for a law banning out of hospital birth.

Funny, that I had to hear of this decision from outside sources and was never
approached by my college to see how I or my local colleagues felt about it. I
have grave concerns regarding my organization taking such a stand. I think we
are all agreed that ACOG has a statement regarding patients rights to
informed consent and informed refusal. Yet, it seems with every decision our
organization moves further away from that basic tenent. ACOG's little "guideline"
paper on VBAC in 2004 where the word "readily" was changed to "immediately" has
had the chilling effect of doing away with VBAC options at hundreds if not more
hospitals. Not due to patient safety, or the ideal of giving true informed
consent but really, let's be honest, to fear of litigation. I have seen how
patients have become counseled by obstetricians at facilities where VBAC has
been banned. They are clearly given a skewed view of the risks of VBAC but
rarely told of the risks of multiple surgeries. If you think this is untrue you
are, sadly, out of touch with real clinical medicine.

As to out of hospital birthing, please give me the courtesy of an
explanation as to the data you used and the process by which an organization which is
supposed to represent me came to this conclusion. Any statement saying that it
is as simple as patient safety and that one-size fits all hospital birth
under the "obstetric model" of practice should be applied to all patients is,
putting it nicely, not really in line with what best serves all our patients.
In many instances, hospitals are not safe, certainly not nurturing and have a
far worse track record for disasters than home birth. Even when emergency
help is nearby this is true. The focus of all of us in medicine should be on
reigning in trial lawyers and tort reform and lobbying Congress for that. The
best interest of the college members and the patients we serve would be for my
organization to spend its time and energy on something that has true benefit.
Removing choices from well-informed patients and caring doctors and midwives
is wholly un-American.

So please send me detailed information on how ACOG decided outlawing home
birth was a wise thing to do. You must have scientific data to take such a
drastic stand. Please make it available to me so that I may share it with
like-minded colleagues. I would also like to know the process by which this came to
pass. Who first raised this issue and why? What committee reviewed all the
data and did its due diligence in interviewing those of us with longstanding
experience in backing midwives who perform out of hospital births. There must be
a fine, non-confidential paper trail you can share with your members.
Specific names of committee member who voted for this would be enlightening and I am
requesting this information. I would like to know the background and
expertise regarding out of hospital birth for each member who had a hand in the
decision to go to the AMA.

We live in an odd era where once something is said or recommended by a
legitimate organization such as ACOG it has deep ramifications never intended such
as becoming fodder for trial lawyers trying to squeeze the lifeblood and
dignity out of your members. Or forcing women to travel hundreds of miles in
labor to find a supportive facility. Or even worse, to have them arrive in a
VBAC banned hospital and refuse surgery. Can this be the best we can do for our
patients? Rmember, your VBAC statement was meant to be only a recommendation
but quickly became the rule by which hospital administrators, risk managers
and anesthesia departments of smaller hospital banned this option for
thousands of women. An option, that in proper hands, was the safe and accepted
standard of care for 30 years. In fact, you still have an ACOG VBAC brochure that
recommends this option! For those of us working at smaller hospitals where
VBAC was banned due to lack of emergency help (anesthesia, OR crews, etc.)
there is a big question that has perplexed us that no administrator seems to be
willing or able to answer. That question is: "If a hospital cannot handle an
emergency c/section for VBACs, and most emergency are for fetal bradycardia,
hemorrhage (ie. abruption) or sholder dystocia not for ruptured uteri, then
how can they do obstetrics at all?" For they seem to still be able to have a
maternity ward without in house anesthesia. Will someday ACOG, in their great
wisdom but seeming disconnect from reality, make a "recommendation" that
little hospitals stop providing obstetric services? Will this better serve women
and their communities throughout America?

I am frightened and angered by what you have done in my name. Now I ask you
to defend your position in encouraging the AMA to lobby Congress for another
restriction on the freedom of choice that belongs to women and their
families. Those choices include midwifery and the right to have the most beautiful
and life changing event occur wherever best fits their desire. Midwives are
well trained and required to have obstetrical backup. They have very special
relationships with their patients and want the very best outcomes for them. They
do not need me or you to police them. We have a habit in out country over
the past 40 years of thinking we can legislate out stupidity. All that has done
is erode the individual freedoms that belong, by birthright, to each of us.
I would hope you trust your Fellows to know their specialty, their
colleagues, and what is best for the patient as an individual. These decisions do not
belong to politicians or faceless committees. You should have more faith in
your members to give balanced informed consent. Again, my recommendation to
you is to put all your considerable energy into changing our legal malpractice
system. Those of us actually practicing medicne and caring for patients know
this to be the greatest threat to the mission and responsibility we have
chosen to undertake.

I look forward to your response and possibly the beginning of a meaningful
dialogue.

Sincerely,
Stuart J. Fischbein, MD FACOG
Medical Advisor, Birth Action Coalition

Beautiful. I hope more like Dr. Fischbein come forward!

I was dropping my oldest daughter off at her first tennis lesson today at one of the local country clubs and I started to wonder how tennis became a "country club" sport. You look at the evolution of basketball - those who had less money played it well because they had access to courts in the parks, and balls were cheap. You look at the evolution of equine events - it's expensive to own horses, so it's done by those who have more money.

So how did tennis, a sport where course are available in the parks, and racquets cost around $20 to start with (now, I think the most basic racquet back when I worked in a sporting goods store and they were MORE expensive was about $40, still not a bank-breaking amount) and balls are cheap, become something offered in the country club venue?

My thought is it must come down to lessons. Tennis is a hard sport in which to learn finesse, aiming shots, understanding scoring, serving, volleying, etc etc, without instruction. My speculation is that's where the money comes in.