Whitney Johnson writes a BLOG at WhitneyJohnson.com
Here Dare to Dream web site is Here.
Westboro family steps back and reconsiders its priorities
By Rushmie Kalke TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
WESTBORO— A little over two years ago, life for the Johnson family was similar to that of many two-parent working families: Crazy schedules, tough commutes, stolen moments with each other and the kids, and always feeling that there wasn’t enough time for anything.
Whitney and Roger Johnson, both 44, of Westboro, decided that they needed to take control and improve the quality of their lives. So they quit their jobs, sold their 6,500-square-foot home in Southboro, downsized to an apartment in Westboro and made a conscious choice to get off the fast track.
A national movement called Take Back Your Time is trying to challenge the overstressed, overworked, and frenetic existence of many Americans. While not aware of this effort when they made their decision, the Johnsons represent the ultimate of those trying to escape the rat race. Next Tuesday has been named Take Back Your Time Day, designed to draw attention to the importance of individuals and families carving out time for enjoyment. The day is a project of the Center for Religion, Ethics and Social Policy at Cornell University.
After a 15-year career on Wall Street, Mrs. Johnson decided that commuting to New York City and traveling to Latin America as a media and telecom investment analyst for Merrill Lynch left little time for her family. The couple and their two children, David, 10, and Miranda, 5, moved to Southboro in 2001, when Mr. Johnson became a professor at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, but she kept her job in the city. Mr. Johnson said he was working close to 50 hours a week, and his wife, 80 to 90 hours.
Two and half years ago, Mr. Johnson stepped down from his job, and 18 months ago Mrs. Johnson decided to join him.
“Last year we said, ‘Let’s try other things and recalibrate our lives,’ ” she said.
It wasn’t without fear or other people saying they were crazy. Some of Mrs. Johnson’s work peers said to her, “Are you sure? You know you won’t be able to come back.”
Many women face the difficult choice of leaving work to spend more time with their family, but Mr. Johnson said that is even harder for men to do.
“There are a lot of people who say ‘That’s great,’ but there are a lot of people who just don’t get it,” he said. “There’s a social challenge that exists when you get rid of the prestige of your career … And that is exacerbated for me because I’m a guy. It’s not the norm, so you have to have self-assurance and not care what people think.”
The risk-reward has been worth it, Mrs. Johnson said. The family is more connected, especially being in smaller living quarters, where every decision is carefully negotiated.
“When I yell at the kids, I know that is because I am around them enough to discipline them,” Mrs. Johnson said. “As you spend time together, you are more connected and you can access your feelings.”
The walls of the apartment are covered with framed pieces of art, and on this night the table is set for dinner. While Mrs. Johnson sits on the velvety brown couch in the living room, Mr. Johnson cooks dinner, and David and Miranda work on homework or play with Golden, the family lizard.
“My mom is allergic to dog and cat hair,” explains Miranda.
Monday evenings are family nights and each day there are special rituals such as homework sessions, attending the children’s extracurricular activities and talking about each member’s best and worst moment of the day.
While the kids are at school, Mr. and Mrs. Johnson work on entrepreneurial endeavors, such as investing in start-up companies, writing television pilots, and volunteering at their kids’ school. Mrs. Johnson’s labor of love is setting up Dare to Dream, a support network for women. She is going to California for a speaking engagement and has written a children’s book on the theme of fulfilling dreams.
Appropriately, the couple is actively involved with their church community, as it was their faith that made them examine their time more closely. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, they sought to observe Sunday as a day of rest while they were working.
They saw benefits to safeguarding a day for worship and family, and it became a precursor to leaving their jobs, Mrs. Johnson said.
The family is living off savings that they say will allow them to live income-free for another three to four years, and have a 401(k) retirement plan that they won’t touch until it’s time.
“We know we are incredibly fortunate,” Mrs. Johnson said. “Of course you are a little bit scared. But there is a confidence of having worked on Wall Street. If I could do that, then we can figure this out.”
More than ever, Americans are facing unprecedented demands on their time, causing stress and dissatisfaction, according to http://www.timeday.org. The Web site says that mandatory overtime is at near-record levels; on average, Americans work nearly nine full weeks (350 hours) longer per year than Western European workers; and working Americans average a little over two weeks of vacation per year, while Europeans average five to six weeks.
While the meaning of success has changed for Mrs. Johnson, she said that she would be disingenuous in saying that she didn’t want all the accolades of her former life while she was working to achieve them.
“Our society is very reward orientated,” she said.
The Johnson said their kids have benefited from having their parents around more, but they will have to learn how to balance the pressures of life for themselves.
“They’ll have to find out what they are comfortable with,” Mr. Johnson said. “There’ll be pressure on them as there was on us.”
Jenny Hatch

My friend Joe sent me these pictures from Iraq today: He titled the email “Military Cut Backs”





Jenny Hatch

A Surmountable Hill
Mrs. Clinton seems less inevitable after this week.

“At the Democratic forum in Carson City, Nev., on Tuesday, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Mrs. Clinton if Mr. Obama should renounce Mr. Geffen’s remarks. She answered, “I want to run a positive campaign” and referred to “the politics of personal destruction.” Every time she gets in a spot, she pulls that one out.

And for good reason: It has always worked. It works because it confuses people. Is this the boys beating up the girl? Are they sticking her pigtails in the ink well? Is Geffen mean? If Obama is nice, shouldn’t he make sure everyone is nice?

It’s not so much a diversion as a non sequitur. Mrs. Clinton is like the little girl who steals the boy next door’s candy and hits him on the head with a hammer. He runs, “Mommy, she stole my Snickers and hit me on the head!” She turns to the mother, hammer in hand, and gestures at the boy. “This . . . is the politics of personal destruction.”

As I say, it’s always worked in the past. The question is, will it work in the future? One senses one thing that is new.

In the Nevada forum Mrs. Clinton had a hard act to follow when she came on after Sen. Chris Dodd, who spoke with energy and concentration, and whose look is striking, sort of Old American Ethnic in a Brooks Brothers suit. He’s like a cardinal with his thick white hair and furious eyebrows. He hit the crowd’s erogenous zones on Iraq, and took a hard shot at Mrs. Clinton: “Why is it so hard to say you’re sorry?”

Mrs. Clinton came out after him, and amid the Geffen flap, so it’s not surprising that she was a little off her game. She spoke the way she speaks–“renew the promise of America . . . give people the services and support they need . . . hardworking families”–but the flat voice seemed flatter, more grating. She seemed diminished by the fact that the event hadn’t been built around her, didn’t star her, wasn’t arranged by her. There were other people there, other candidates on the stage, and she looked like she was in a contest for a change.

Usually Mrs. Clinton is a tough little tank, but on Tuesday she seemed less large, less formidable. If only for a moment, less inevitable.”

Thanks for your insights Peggy, only I wish someone in National Politics would have the guts to go after the Clinton Murder Machine. Talk about politics of personal distruction. These people are so far worse than liars, adulterers, and cheats… but you were right about Geffen, we all still need to watch his back…
Jenny Hatch

This email came yesterday from Mark Alexander:
Fellow Patriots,
On Wednesday, we launched an important petition to “Stop Albert Gore
and Reject the UN’s Global Warming Treaty.” Gore is re-energizing the
movement advocating Kyoto compliance — the biggest UN power-grab in
history.
I urge you to sign this petition now, please. We already have over
30,000 electronic signatures. We want to deliver 100,000 signatures to
the Senate by the time Al Gore reaches the podium at this Sunday’s
Academy Awards.
It takes only 20 seconds to sign online, link to:
http://PatriotPetitions.US/StopGore
To sign by e-mail, send a blank e-mail to:

Thank you!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US
Please take a minute to go sign the petition.
I have received the Patriot Post in my email for several years now and can promise that if you want a great round up of the news as well as some hysterical analysis of current events this is the place to get it.
Jenny Hatch

I love the way Mr. Hewitt thinks:
On The Attentions Of The MSM

“HH: David, when we went to break, you’d asked me about the Mormon thing. Before I do that, I want to go back to the issue about Romney’s evolution on life [issues]. You’ve covered Hillary, and you’ve covered Governor Romney. So my question is who’s changed more on the issue: Romney on life, or Hillary on the war, and in what period of time?

DB: Well, it’s a fair question, and I’m not here defending Hillary. As a matter of fact, I’ve bashed Hillary about a fair amount myself. She has, I think, changed positions on the war, and changing positions on something I don’t think is necessarily a bad thing. And I think that the…that when someone changes positions, like we were saying before, I think that the question for a voter becomes, you know, if the candidate is changing towards where you stand on the issue, the question becomes is this just something that they’re saying and not really believing? How do I know that there’s an integrity behind that, a sincerity behind that? And I think that’s the question that some people are asking about Mitt Romney.

HH: And so when you see…do you see the mainstream media, of which your are a corollary. The Phoenix is almost MSM, but it’s avowedly lefty in most of its positions.

DB: So close.

HH: So close.

DB: We’re so close to mainstream.

HH: Could be so far, but so close. So do you think the mainstream media has covered Hillary’s flip-flop on the war in anywhere near the detail or with the intensity that they have covered the alleged change of position by Romney, although it’s been awfully consistent for many years?

DB: No, I…I think that they have covered Hillary’s difficulty with the war position. I mean certainly, in her early campaigning, I mean, I certainly wrote about her difficulty with the Democratic audiences that she was meeting with in New Hampshire, and I saw that others were, too. I think that she is being held to that same…

HH: Okay, we might…let me ask you about this. Do you think that the intensity of scrutiny on Obama has been the same as the intensity of scrutiny on Romney?

DB: No.

HH: Why not?

DB: Not yet.

HH: Why not?

DB: Well, I think that that’s a fair question.

HH: Well, it’s because the media’s overwhelmingly liberal, isn’t it?

DB: No, I don’t think that…

HH: Oh, David, don’t ruin your credibility. You don’t have to defend them.

DB: No, I don’t think…I think that you will see a great deal of scrutiny of Obama. I think that it has not happened yet. I think that some of it may have to do with…I mean, I think there’s a lot of things. I think you haven’t seen the kind of scrutiny of Giuliani yet that you will see.

HH: But Giuliani was in front of the New York media for eight years. That’s the toughest local beat in the world. Romney’s had you guys all over him, so the one who is least investigated and closest to the presidency is Barack Obama. And therefore, doesn’t that mean that the media ought to be drilling down on him? Because you know, Romney’s been vetted for a long time.

DB: I agree that Obama should be vetted, absolutely, and he should go through the wringer, and he will be. I think that he absolutely will be.

HH: But why not, again, since we already know most…everything you know about Giuliani has been in the newspapers a hundred times, we’ve got Youtube videos, ditto with Romney, McCain’s covered to death, Hillary’s got like a 24/7 watch on her and anything she says. Why does Obama get a free pass? I suggest if you’ve got to limit all the alternatives, there’s got to be a reason, is that the media’s in love with him, and they want him to be president.

DB: Well, I don’t think that’s the case, but we’ll see. If over the next several months there continues to be nothing investigative written about Obama, then we can assess it from there. I think that the media’s just getting started in assessing Obama. He’s very new to them, and they’re just getting started looking into him.

HH: But David, that’s…I’ve got to answer your question. We’ll keep coming back. I’m not stiffing you. But that just defies explanation when you’ve got this very interesting guy. We don’t know what he did in the legislature, we don’t know what his positions were, which by the way, were pretty run of the mill hard left in the Daley machine.

DB: I actually think that because I have to some degree looked into him, and I think a lot of that stuff has been looked into by the local press there, and by some of the Washington press, but I think that the trouble Obama’s likely to run into is that he is not as progressive on the issues as a lot of the early activist Democrats…

HH: Got a for instance for me?

DB: …assume.

HH: Got a for instance?

DB: Yeah, he’s pro-death penalty, there’s one.

HH: Oh, that is always…anything else?

DB: There’s plenty. There’s plenty of issues on business, on corporations, on…I’m not saying whether I agree with him or disagree with him on those issues, but there are a lot of issues where I’m telling you where I’ve seen him talking to audiences that suddenly find that…

HH: Okay, we’ll come right back.”

Hee hee hee.
Jenny Hatch