Point taken. I might have gotten a little carried away connecting the dots between your thoughts on the Obama’s and your attitude toward working parents in general. Of course my job is not nearly as demanding or time-consuming as that of a United States Senator. And I agree with many of your points. I have refused travel requests from my employer, and cost myself a promotion or two, because I don’t want to be away from my kids when they are so small.

However, I will stand by one point – I still won’t judge how the Obama’s raise their kids or the choices they’ve made because I don’t know anything about how they handle their parental role. While their situation may not be what you or I want for our families, maybe it works for them, and their kids.

If you have to pay someone to raise your kids, then don’t have kids.

It’s as if people who employ nannies view kids as some sort of adorable accessory to be pimped out when the need arises.

I’m not saying that two working parents can’t be good parents. There is too much evidence to the contrary.

The Obamas aren’t your typical two career family however. As a senator, perhaps the most popular senator in the country, the demands on his time have to be staggering. The trips abroad to sharpen up his foreign policy credentials, the fundraisers on behalf of less popular candidates, media engagements, writing books, all of this on top of his responsibilities as a senator. Granted I’m speculating here, but I wouldn’t think that this is a case where daddy misses an occassional soccer game, but a case where daddy is gone for weeks on end and only home sporadically after that.

As a big shot executive, which I’m presuming based on her salary, Mrs. O is probably putting in 60-80 hour weeks. That doesn’t leave much time to help with the homework.

What I’m inferring from all of this is that nannies are doing a good deal of the child rearing at the Obama house. This I do have a problem with. A successful professional can delegate a good amount of their responsibilities, a good parent shouldn’t. It’s certainly possible to balance parenthood with careers, but when the pendulum swings too far towards the job, the kids lose.

I read a biography recently on Teddy Kennedy that told of how he was shuffled around to boarding schools and otherwise ignored as a child while his father worked to make his older sons kings and his mother spent long vacations in Europe. It was really sad.

Granted I’m speculating here. Maybe Michelle Obamas duties aren’t as demanding, as I presume although I don’t see anyway that the senator can do what he is doing and not miss out on a good deal of his daughters’ lives.

So I wasn’t addressing your situation or that of the millions of other working parents, and I apologize if I gave the wrong impression.

Thanks for commenting,
Dan

As a working mom with a demanding work schedule myself, I take exception to your implication that because of their professional success, their children are therefore less important to them than their careers or that they don’t spend enough time with their daughters.

Family dynamics are unique,and often surprising. What works for one family may not work for another, but that doesn’t mean one scenario is inherently better or more desirable than the other. I am of the belief that outsiders looking in should not presume to know what goes on under another family’s roof, even using outward appearances as your clues.

Working parents who are committed to their children can and do raise happy, secure, confident, well-balanced children with whom they share the closest of all bonds. I guess my point is, children of successful parents don’t automatically suffer as a result, and children of parents who are home more often don’t necessarily have an advantage. It’s what each family chooses to make of the time together, and invest into the relationship, that makes the difference.

MB, my daughter is a Friday night waitress at a very popular downtown bar. Her take last week was a little less than 20% of what she ususally gets. True. However, there were other factors at play besides the ban: (1) Downtown basically blocked off for the Route 66 Fest, and (2) A problem with the weather. So, she’s going to give the ban some time to even out before calls it because of the ban.

BFS, thank you for throwing out such an interesting question.

Thanks for commenting,
Dan

I agree … a state-wide ban is coming … but in the meantime, you could sock a lot of money away by making yourself available to the smokers in Springfield.

I don’t smoke … but in “what if” games, I’m a real opportunist.

I did see that letter, now that you mention it. And I agree, she probably had that letter written weeks before the ban went into effect. Not that I doubt that her tips are down after the first couple of days.

Smokers like to claim that they should have the right to choose to smoke in restaurants. But if this waitress is correct and her loyal smoking customers have defected, doesn’t that just prove that their habit isn’t a choice? That in fact they are physically and emotionally unable to enjoy a meal without lighting up.

Thanks for commenting,
Dan

Did you see the letter to the editor in the S J-R by a waitress who said her tips were down as a result of the no-smoking ban? Did you also notice that it was a mere two days after the ban was enacted? And, only speculation here, that it was probably penned the day after the ban was enacted?

How’s that for scientific research for you? All she needed was 1-2 days to be the judge and jury to the no-smoking experiment.

I will concede that there are some very smart smokers in the world. But their percentages compared to their dumber brethren have to be real loooowwww.