About a month ago, I finally had a chance to view a film I’d been wanting to see since its release earlier this year – Of Gods and Men. The story is about a group of French monks whose monastery is located in the Atlas Mountains of Algeria. It’s set in the 1990′s during a bloody civil war that was being waged between what many believed to be an illegitimate government and various Islamist insurgency groups. I found the film to be a very honest and fair presentation of religion and faith, albeit from an ”outside-in” (observer’s)  perspective. Nevertheless, this approach was actually beneficial because it allowed me to engage the story in a unique, very personal way - from the ”inside-out”  (participant’s) perspective of the monks.

As a Christian who has served for many years in various types of ministries, I was able to project myself into the midst of the story. I understood some of what the monks must have experienced as they grappled with the tension between what one believes and how one subsequently lives. Like the monks, we are often faced with the challenge of striking a balance between what we know about God – through experience; and what we believe to be true about Him – through faith. In a letter written to Jewish Christians in the first century, it says: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Bible: Book of Hebrews, chapter 11, verse 1 – English Standard Version).

In the film, we watch as the monks – men dedicated to the lifelong pursuit of holiness, show their humanity by openly questioning the limits and boundaries of their control over their own lives – struggling to understand in a very tangible way what it means to have free will and yet be subject to God. Are the things we hope for (desire) what God actually wants for us? The monks ask this question of themselves because they know that the assurance promised in the Book of Hebrews comes only when our hopes match what God has in store for us. The monks realize that their projections of what might occur are very limited, but they struggle nonetheless to break free of their own reason. Intellectually, they know that God sees all and will keep them “in his hands”. Nevertheless, they look around the room at one another and wonder if they are actually willing to stake their lives on that belief.

While I enjoyed the scenes where they wrestled with issues of faith, I was particularly moved by how they stepped back from the brink of what would have been a hasty decision, made under duress, and chose instead to “push deeper” into God on an individual level. They could have considered their monastic life and overall “closeness” to God and concluded that they already had all they needed to make an informed decision. That they didn’t do so is a compelling testimony about God and the true nature of mankind.

In case you haven’t seen the film, I won’t give the ending away. Suffice to say that when they each went back and sought guidance and inspiration from God, they returned in a spirit of unity and peace that sent a chill up my spine and brought me to tears. I was inspired, not by great deeds and heroism, but by watching a group of people find true peace and contentment in simply ”letting go”. Talk about a counter-cultural message!

View from the deck of our cabana

I’m writing today from beautiful Tulum, Mexico – about 130 km south of Cancun along Mexico’s Caribbean coast. We decided to vacation here because it’s one of the remaining “unspoiled” coastal regions of Mexico that has a few amenities (like running water and electricity!). Something happened here the other day that got me to thinking about preconceived notions (PN’s) or stereotypes and how easily they can influence our lives.

PN #1: The highly-publicized “drug wars” in Mexico have made it a place U.S. tourists should avoid at all costs. Virtually everyone I talked to about our vacation asked “is it safe?” and several wondered aloud if it was prudent to bring the family here. REALITY: Mexico is a large country with many diverse regions and subcultures; and most of the drug-related violence is confined to specific cities and regions that can be avoided. Having said that, the various roads we traveled had separate state and federal checkpoints where the police and soldiers were heavily armed. The people we talked with resented these checkpoints as another form of government intrusion into their lives – particularly in a region where illegal drugs and arms are not prevalent and most people’s livelihoods are dependent upon tourism.

PN #2: Crime is rampant in Mexico. Most Americans probably believe this is due to widespread poverty and people’s need to do anything to survive. A corollary to this is that Mexicans are always looking to “rip-off” unsuspecting Americans. REALITY: In the larger cities there are gangs, violence, and criminal enterprises; but the same is true in the U.S. Like at home, most people are hard-working and honest. Vendors regularly joke about special prices for those who speak Spanish; but it’s simply that – a joke. On the other hand, it is a culture where “bargaining” on the price of goods and services (other than food) is expected and in that regard, language is not usually a barrier.

PN #3: There are all kinds of “crawling things” to watch out for in tropical Mexico and one can’t afford to be squeamish. REALITY: That’s right! We’ve already seen flying cockroaches, large spiders, and small geckos in our cabana. The good news is that it’s made our girls particularly diligent about checking their bedding and securing the mosquito nets before going to bed.

PN #4: In an economically-challenged country like Mexico, all tourism is good because it brings needed money and jobs. REALITY: Virtually everyone we spoke to had significant misgivings about the large-scale expansion of tourism in this region. Tulum and the surrounding area focus on three things: cultural history (i.e. Mayan ruins), ecological beauty (including miles of mostly undeveloped beaches), and a relaxed pace of life. At one time, Cancun was like Tulum – only to become highly developed and replaced by Playa del Carmen further down the road. Playa was once “the place”, but as the result of rampant development, has lost its cachet. High-end tourists looking for a resort experience now come to the Riviera Maya – further down the coast from Playa. In this environment, Tulum has carved out its own unique niche – one the people here would like to maintain.

If you’re still with me, I’d like to close with a brief story. Wednesday afternoon, I pulled out my wallet to pay for something at our hotel and was shocked to find that my VISA card was missing. In a panic, I looked all over our cabana, in every pocket of the clothing I’d worn, and in my luggage and backpack – NOTHING! I remembered that the last time I used my card was the previous evening when we had gone into town to get some cash and eat. Since the card was nowhere to be found onsite, I figured that I must have left it in the ATM machine at the bank. I threw on some clothes and rushed to town, hoping to make it before the bank closed at 5 pm. To my absolute amazement, someone had found my credit card and turned it in to the bank. During yesterday’s trip to Chichen-Itza I was recounting the incident to our driver and he wasn’t at all surprised. He told me that the people of this state (Quintana Roo – he was born here) are known throughout Mexico for their generosity and kindness to everyone. In his opinion, it would be unthinkable for a local person to make off with the card and attempt to use it. Thank God he was right. So much for preconceived notions…

This cultural milieu is not limited to moral or ethical issues. It extends into the realm of public policy. In that regard, San Francisco is a bastion of the “I Know What’s Best for You” attitude. The list of special interest groups who direct public policy from behind the scenes is endless. One recent example can be found in my area of the city.

In the densely populated, 49 square mile limits of San Francisco, real estate agents learned long ago to identify as many distinct neighborhoods as possible. The latest Wikipedia article on this topic lists 113 unique neighborhoods in San Francisco. Now imagine “anything goes” in each of these areas and then consider what it must be like to govern and develop public policy in such an environment. I live in Crocker Amazon, which ranks right up there with some of the most neglected neighborhoods in the city. I say this because as a “working class” community, we don’t receive the attention or services extended to those areas that are more economically depressed. Here’s a map showing the “heart” of our community, with the red dot marking one of the busiest intersections.

As you can see from the map, the community was designed to funnel most northbound and westbound traffic through the intersection of Naples and Geneva Streets. It is also the access point for the one bus line that services this part of the community. Here’s a photo of what the intersection used to look like – facing towards my neighborhood. Note that there were two traffic lanes and one right turn lane on the outbound side and two inbound traffic lanes.

Under the old configuration, traffic flowed reasonably well, as outbound vehicles had access to turn right, left, or to cross the intersection. The inbound side could accomodate two vehicles at a time and provided easy access for the bus (entering from the right).

Several months ago, unbeknownst to much of the community, the Pavement to Parks Alliance (PPA) began building what it called the “Naples Green” in the wide median on the south side of this intersection. As typically occurs in San Francisco, it can be assumed that “community input” was reserved for like-minded civic organizations and others who had sufficient political clout to potentially derail the project. One thing is certain, individual residents of the neighborhood like me were never consulted. Here’s a photo of what the intersection looks like today.

To be sure, the new “parklet” is a visual improvement over what used to exist. However, it has had a horrendous impact on traffic. The outbound side has been reduced to one traffic lane and one right turn lane and the inbound side now has only one wide lane. The outbound side routinely backs up one block and it can take 2-3 times as long to make one’s way through the intersection. Cars frequently block the inbound corner (parking or waiting to enter the gas station), thus delaying the bus’ entry into the neighborhood.

According to PPA’s website, ”Naples Green was designed to provide neighborhood beautification, new green space, traffic calming improvements and a safe and enjoyable environment for residents to host and accommodate neighborhood events and activities” [emphasis added]. I don’t know about you, but I can’t imagine people wanting to host an event in the midst of idling cars, exhaust fumes, and all the traffic noise; particularly when there is a huge park and playground only two blocks away.

Of course, in San Francisco, the opinion of people like me doesn’t really count. Why? Because if I oppose such a “noble and worthy” project, I must be an intolerant, carbon-guzzling, anti-ecology, pave-over-the-world person whose opinion is irrelevant. That’s why there are others “in the know” who can decide what is best for me and for our city. Nevertheless, I don’t understand why I’m not comforted by the thought that someone else is making decisions for me. Would you be?

]]> http://carlosjimenez-sf.com/2011/05/26/i-know-whats-best-for-you/feed/ 0 Carlos Naples-Geneva Map naples_before naples3 http://carlosjimenez-sf.com/2011/01/17/communication-and-connection-2/ http://carlosjimenez-sf.com/2011/01/17/communication-and-connection-2/#comments Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:54:15 +0000 Carlos http://carlosjimenez-sf.com/?p=950 Continue reading →]]> One of the best aspects of having a personal blog site is the ability to search your archives, see what you’ve written in the past, and reflect on how your perspectives or other social/cultural trends may have changed.

Back in July 2009, I wrote a post entitled “Communication and Connection“. One of the cultural trends I described was the emergence of texting as the dominant form of personal communication. Because I have significant exposure to people in their 20′s and 30′s, am the father of a teenage daughter, and a self-confessed “techophile” - I have plenty of  opportunities to observe the latest communication trends firsthand. Reflecting on what I wrote in mid-2009, I find that people now consider telephone calls an intrusion into their ever-diminishing private space. The widespread implementaion of Caller ID allows us to ignore phone calls from people we don’t want to talk to or to let calls go into voice mail if we’re “busy”. How about contacting people via email with the expectation of a relatively rapid response?…Fuggedaboutit!

The level of “immediacy” that permeates our lives and the resultant deluge of emails and voice messages overwhelms all but the most logistically-skilled amongst us. Many people I know have tens and some, even hundreds, of unanswered emails and voice mails in their queues and no means of systematically dealing with them. Today, it’s common for phone calls to go unanswered and for responses to email and voice mail to be deferred for several days – assuming one receives a response at all. There are also smartphone apps on the market that allow people to fake a Caller ID in the hope that the person one is calling will actually answer the phone. Under these circumstances, is it any wonder that people have resorted to the most immediate form of communication (texting) when it comes to issues that are of personal importance? I certainly see this in my teenage daughter who rarely “calls” anyone these days. She’s not interested in call quality but in durability and “feel”. Her phones are considered “worn out” when the keyboard slider stops functioning smoothly and the keys lose their tactile response due to heavy use.

Mainstream business communication trends are no different; it’s just that they’re slightly behind the times. In my experience, few people answer business calls anymore, they prefer email – which they can deal with “on their own time”. The problem with this approach is that clear and concise writing, a prerequisite for effective communication via email, is fast becoming a lost art. In an age where Twitter and texting, with their own version of shorthand, are the dominant mediums for personal communication, writing skills take a back seat.

Please don’t misinterpret my comments and observations. I’m not some old guy pining for a return to the “good old days”. I love new technology and the myriad communication tools now available to us. I simply believe that because we utilize a written language, with written traditions, reading and writing are skills that we must endeavor to maintain as a society.

Enough pontificating for one day? Thanks for stopping by.

Let’s say we’re misinformed about the real issues or angry because our side didn’t prevail. How are we to respond? One way would be to dismiss whatever facts we might have and fall back on demagoguery. We could simply blurt out the terms socialism and socialized medicine and repeat them mantra-like across all forms of media and amongst everyone we know. We’d make sure to accentuate our point by trotting out a few rumors and myths and by overemphasizing random – albeit tragic, stories from countries that have nationalized health care systems. We’d also make sure to invoke the most revered and overused catchword  in our society today – FREEDOM. On one side of the issue, people would rave about the government taking away their freedom by controlling how they access health care. On the other side, they would rant about how freedom within the existing health care system applies only to those with good jobs (defined as a job that has health care benefits) and ample financial resources.

Don’t like that approach? How about an alternative form of demagoguery like scapegoating? Under this approach, we could blame the current state of health care in this country on uninsured people like the poor; whose misguided life choices result in fragile health, too many children, and an inability to land good jobs (as defined above). Immigrants? Fuggeddabouddit! They only come to this country to take advantage of us – particularly our health care system. Of course, many of those who espouse this position have no problem going over to the local Home Depot or other sites where day laborers congregate to hire help for yard work and other domestic chores. Still others would blame the system for its greed and self-interest. The system as they define it usually includes money-grubbing doctors who are already too rich, hospitals and other health care providers that charge exhorbitant prices, drug companies who care only about their bottom line, and medical equipment suppliers who are always pushing to implement costly new technology as part of our diagnosis and treatment.

I could go on, but you get the point. The real problem with health care reform and the other pressing social issues of our time lies within us. Many of us want to continue believing in the myth that left to their own devices and free from government interference, corporations and smaller businesses will naturally act in the public interest. If the recent meltdown of the financial sector hasn’t awakened us to the dangers of this position – it’s likely that nothing will. Many others want to continue believing in an opposing myth – that centralized (government) control of key service sectors (health care, finance, etc.) can result in equity for all. To them I would offer this quote from Daniel Ellsberg’s book Secrets, describing his early days in the corridors of power and an attitude that still prevails today: “Once I was inside the government, my awareness of how easily and pervasively Congress, the public, and journalists were fooled and misled contributed to a lack of respect for them and their potential contribution to better policy. That in turn made it easier to accept, to participate in, to keep quiet about the practices of secrecy and deception that fooled them further and kept them ignorant of the real issues that were occupying and dividing [those of us who were responsible for making policy]. Their resulting ignorance made it all the more obvious that they must leave these problems to us.” [emphasis added]

Someplace in all of this we clearly need to strike a balance between taking care of our own and caring for others. That’s easier said than done, but I’ m planning to come back around to that topic in a later post.       

In the past two months, the priority of my obsessions has been confirmed as I’ve mostly had time to read (something I can do early morning and after dark) and play a little golf. You may wonder how one can “play a little golf” considering the amount of time it takes to complete a round (4 1/2 – 5 hours). As I’ve written in the past, I mostly play at Gleneagles, a nine-hole course that’s about five minutes from my home. Because I’m usually in my office (at home) by 6 am and like to take a break around midday, I sometimes use my break to run up and play nine holes before returning to work in the afternoon. I know it’s a charmed life, but someone has to live it!

In confirmation of my primary obsession, I’ve read the following books over the past few months: The Damned United (about my club – Leeds United; also saw the film); The Corporal was a Pitcher (given to me by a friend); Nurtureshock – New Thinking about Children; The Black Ice by Michael Connelly (as with all authors I enjoy, I intend to make my way through all 23 of his books); Where Men Win Glory – The Odyssey of Pat Tillman by Jon Krakauer; The Water Giver by Joan Ryan (formerly of the S.F. Examiner & Chronicle); and most recently, When the Game was Ours by Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, with Jackie McMullan (the book was nicely summarized in a recent HBO documentary). If you know something of my life, you may have noted the absence of the Bible or any books on spirituality. That’s intentional. In my role as part-time pastoral staff and leader in our church, I consider that type of reading/study to be a form of spiritual discipline – albeit, one that I enjoy immensely. It’s simply that I like to make the distinction between reading that’s essential and that which is a diversion. Interestingly enough, my high-level consumption of popular culture (mostly through books and movies) helps me to more effectively present spiritual concepts and issues to a wider audience.

Enough for now. I may circle back and share a few thoughts and insights on some of the books above. As always, thanks for stopping by.

I just finished re-reading Mark Frost’s book – The Match. Speaking of hyperbole, the book is subtitled, “The Day the Game of Golf Changed Forever”. While I would highly recommend it to anyone who plays golf even semi-seriously, it’s probably not a book anyone else would understand. It tells the story of an informal team match played in 1956 between two legends of professional golf (Ben Hogan & Byron Nelson) and the two top amateurs of the day (Ken Venturi and Harvie Ward). It has a Bay Area angle because both Venturi and Ward lived in San Francisco at the time and the match took place at a famous course on the Monterey Peninsula, where local golfers often go for day trips. The course was Cypress Point, considered by most to be the “Sistine Chapel” of golf – the ultimate expression of golf architect Alister MacKenzie’s work.

The 16th and 17th holes at Cypress Point

Nelson in his prime

At home in his den

I like good writing as much as anybody, so instead of me trying to paraphrase what Mark Frost wrote about Byron, I’d like to present it to you in his own words. Regarding Byron’s death, he wrote: “His turned out to be not just another obituary for a half-forgotten figure from a distant age long since passed. Because he’d touched so many lives for so many years, and remained so true to the basic principles by which he lived,  Byron had remained timeless, standing outside of any particular memory or era. He’d stepped away from the glare of his sport’s spotlight at thirty-four, and contributed far more of a lasting value to the world around him [from his perspective]…in the six decades that followed than he had during his thirteen years between the ropes [playing professional golf].”

At his funeral, he was eulogized by one of the men whom he had mentored and played against in the famous 1956 match – Ken Venturi. Speaking of Byron, Venturi said: “Some people come into our lives and quietly go away. Others stay for a while and leave footprints in our hearts and we’re never the same because of it. He gave me strength in times of weakness. He gave courage in times of fear. And he gave love in times of doubt. You could always turn to Byron when you were in need, he was always there, and he gave you the best he had.

That’s the kind of finishing well that inspires me as I move closer and closer to the “winter” of my life, where being and influence take predominance over doing.

Those of you who periodically follow this blog are probably aware that I’m a videophile. I love feature films and documentaries and on occasion, have been a faithful follower of selected television shows and series. The common denominator among the things I watch is that they must engage my mind and/or emotions. In other words, I don’t normally watch something simply to pass the time or as an ”escape”. As a father of two females (Shana: 12 and Rachel: soon-to-be 14), I’ve seen all the major ”girl” movies and most of the popular kids movies of the past 10-12 years. In recent times, however; with Rachel’s emergence as a young woman, I’ve also learned to understand and negotiate my way through all things “chick”. This obviously includes “chick flicks“, which I am often compelled to watch because our family is democratic about managing its Netflix queue. Here’s a link to an article from 2008 in the New York Times about this genre.

The other evening, we watched a movie that was obviously selected by Rachel & Barbara (my wife) - Julie & Julia. Unbeknownst to me, it was written and directed by one of the acknowledged queens of the “chick flick” genre, Nora Ephron. Had I known this, I wouldn’t have been such a reluctant participant because I’ve really enjoyed several of her films, including Silkwood (w/Meryl Streep and Cher), When Harry Met Sally, and Sleepless in Seattle. Guys, go ahead and cringe if you must! I prefer to think of it as making me a much more “rounded” person ;-).

As it turns out, Sleepless in Seattle has become one of Rachel’s favorite films. We’ve watched it countless times together, reciting bits of memorized dialogue - much as I did with my father and the film The Magnificent Seven (Calvera the bandit, after telling a brief story: “I merely wanted to show you what little religion people now have.” Sotereo the innkeeper, in response: “That I can see for myself”. Calvera jumps up, slapping Sotero twice across the face and growls: “Don’t see!”).

Like her father, Rachel has become quite the connoisseur of media – particularly books and film.

Personally, I found the movie to be delightful and was particularly impressed with Meryl Streep’s portrayal of Julia Child - that is, the image of Julia Child most of us had from watching her on TV over the years. Afterwards, I reflected on the movie and did a little bit of research on Julia. By most accounts, she possessed two characteristics that I believe are essential to achieving excellence. First of all, she was absolutely fearless. This doesn’t mean she didn’t have any fears or failures – she had plenty. It simply means that she never allowed them to dictate the course of her life. This struggle to “overcome” engendered a strong sense of determination, which in turn, allowed her to persevere through adversity and setbacks. The second characteristic that caught my attention was her adaptability or flexibility. Time and time again, she was forced to adapt to changing circumstances, to roadblocks she encountered, and to resistance or discrimination on the part of others. Invariably, she managed to find a way through or around.

I found the portrayal of Julia Child to be inspiring – as did my daughter, Rachel. In that regard, the movie conformed to one of the fundamental tenets of a modern-day “chick flick”: it portrayed a strong woman, who was in many respects ordinary, but who was able to accomplish extraordinary things in life. That’s something you don’t need to be a “chick” to appreciate.

My humble explorations on the topic of forgiveness have brought me to one foundational conclusion: true forgiveness requires us to go “beyond” ourselves – beyond our own feelings and often beyond what we believe is reasonable or possible. As a Christian, I look to the Bible for inspiration in such matters. In preparing for my recent talk, I was led to the gospel of Matthew, Chapter 18, verses 21-35; what is commonly known as the “Parable of the Unforgiving Debtor“. In verse 21, Peter - one of Jesus’ most committed followers, asks about the extent of forgiveness. He throws out a proposal that he believes is totally magnanimous: “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?” He’s obviously trying to impress Jesus with his generosity, as evidenced in the scope of his potential forgiveness. In considering Peter’s proposal, it should be noted that the prevailing Jewish tradition was to extend forgiveness to someone three times. It’s believed that this practice evolved from the first two chapters of the Old Testament book of Amos – where the following refrain is repeated eight times: “the people of ________ have sinned again and again, and I will not let them go unpunished!” Because this refrain alluded to two consecutive instances of sin before God would respond with punishment, the people believed that forgiving three times was safely within God’s standard.

Jesus’ response blows Peter completely out of the water: “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.” Clearly this is not an issue of finite numbers, of keeping count; it describes a level of forgiveness that seems unfathomable to us. It certainly was to Peter, who in what we would describe today as a “Homer Simpson” moment, probably responded with his day’s equivalent of “Doh!” Jesus, seeing Peter’s bewilderment, responds by essentially saying: let Me give you an example of what I’m talking about…

The story (parable) Jesus proceeds to tell Peter acknowledges the reality of our lives as human beings. Namely, that asking people to forgive their enemies or those who have significantly wounded or hurt them in the past is much too difficult a first step. Instead, we should first consider (reflect upon) the level and amount of forgiveness we have received from God and from those around us (family, friends, community) over the years. Truth be told, all of us have been making regular “withdrawals” from the bank of forgiveness since before we can remember. This is why Jesus begins the story by talking about the magnitude of the king’s forgiveness for the man who owed him millions (literally everything).

The real-life example of Nelson Mandela reinforces this principle. Mandela entered prison an “angry” man, focused on taking vengeance upon his captors and overthrowing the Apartheid regime by violent means, if necessary. Over time, he learned that he, his white jailers, and the white government officials actually had much in common as human beings – particularly regarding their fear-based responses to political uncertainty and cultural differences. Once he learned to look beyond himself, he began to study his “enemies”; learning how they behaved, why they acted as they did, and ultimately, how to communicate with them. This shift in “moral” stance on the part of Mandela and the political movement he led eventually cast apartheid in a light that the global community could no longer tolerate. The beginning of the end was South Africa’s subsequent political and economic alienation from the rest of the world. Without that power, the few could no longer rule over the many.

Returning to the movie, what struck me the most was its portrayal of Mandela’s dogged insistence that true development and reconciliation in South Africa could only take place within the context of forgiveness and acceptance. In assuming the presidency, he called black South Africans to a higher standard. He clearly foresaw that replacing white oppression for black oppression and simply shifting fear from one group of people to another was no solution. I thought the most moving scene in the film was when the national rugby team visited Robben Island where Mandela had been imprisoned for so many years. Upon entering what used to be Mandela’s cell, the team captain wondered aloud how a man who had been oppressed for so long in that place could so willingly forgive his captors and those who had empowered them. I believe the answer, consistent with what is described in the book Amish Grace, is that for Nelson Mandela forgiveness was a lifestyle – not something that was ”called up” by force of personal will only when needed.   

As you may have surmised, the movie touched me at a level that went way beyond the critics’ “expert” observations. Perhaps some of them felt the way I did but were loathe to express such personal opinions in a review. Who knows?

Finally, if you’d like to examine another take on the relationship between forgiveness and reconciliation, check this out this link.

I was thinking about all of this as my “other daughter” Rachel works her way through the high school application process. I’ve written quite a bit about Shana, but like so many siblings of special needs children, Rachel seems to get overlooked – at least in my writing. On the other hand, I’m finding out that there’s nothing more embarrassing than the parent of a teenager! As any parent of a “mixed” family (special needs and normally-developing children) will attest, the challenge is not merely dealing with special needs – but how to keep your other children from feeling marginalized. Rachel’s first choice for high school is St. Ignatius (SI), a private, college-prep school here in the city. I can hear the questions already…yes, it’s expensive – but we decided to apply and then if she’s accepted, confront the financial challenges of private school tuition.

Applicants to SI are allowed to designate two people for letters of recommendation.  The school then contacts those individuals privately to solicit the letters. So often, we as parents are not the best judge of ”who” are children are – particularly as they get older and spend more time outside the home. As such, the opinions of others we trust can often validate or refute what we believe to be true about our children. With that in mind and because I rarely write about Rachel – I’d like to share an abridged version of a recommendation letter that was written on her behalf.