Dear Arizona.....

I'm angry and I'm hurt. I haven't felt like this since California's Prop. 187. But that's not really my point.

Let me tell you a not-so-well kept secret about being Mexican-American in the United States. What is the FIRST thing we look at when a baby is born? Why, the color of the skin, of course. People say things like, "oh, she's so pretty and light," or "he's handsome, but a bit dark, no?" Why do we care about these things? One could cite the history of colonialism, racism by the Spanish, mestizaje etc. but really it all boils down to this: the color of your skin determines how the world will interact with you. If you are dark, people will make certain assumptions about you and treat you a certain way. If you are light, you will look more Anglo and people will perceive and treat you differently.

Often within one famly, as with my mother's, you get a range of skin tones from very fair (and freckled in my mom's case), to very dark. Simply by a genetic code, I (and my children) ended up on the light side of the spectrum. As my mother noted the other day, my Tio Vildo would be flagged by immigration (and has been), but my red-haired, freckled mother never has, and likely never will be. Simply because of the shade of her skin. Yet they are both children of Humberto and Rafa Rios and both Mexican. Unfair, don't you think? I'll get to why I think this is significant, Arizona, in just a minute.

I understand some of the sources of your frustration, Arizona. The rancher that was killed on his ranch recently was very likely killed by drug smugglers. Tighter enforcement of the borders in California has led illegal border crossers to undertake the more treacherous and deadly route across the desert into Arizona. The booming economy in the Phoenix area drew a huge population of tile-layers, drywallers and other day laborers. Now the economy is no longer booming, but many of the problems of rapid growth in the immigrant population (schools, roads, housing) remain. I can see that you are frustrated, Arizona, that the federal government appears unable to confront the very real issue of how to deal with illegal immigration.

Passing this new law, however, Arizona is not the solution. Police officers absolutely should be able to question the immigration status of someone who has committed a crime. If they have committed a robbery, assault, smuggled drugs, driven a car while drunk, then absolutely their immigration status should be ascertained. If it is determined that they are here illegally, then absolutely they should be deported and forced to serve their jail time in Mexico. I don't want criminals from other countries sitting in our jails at taxpayer expense when they could be shipped off to their home countries.

However, you have to realize, Arizona, how dangerous your new law could be in the hands of a less than ethical police officer. If the color of one's skin can be a reason for questioning someone's immigration status, then the corroborating reason could be something as simple as a dark-skinned person driving a car that looks too nice late at night. So my Tio Vildo, or many of my other relatives, all legal citizens, could be stopped for driving while brown, while at the same time, my mother and I would not. Does this mean that my darker-skinned cousins would need to carry identification papers all the time? I certainly wouldn't need to. What about people who come from families that have been in this country for generations, yet still have dark skin and look very "Mexican"? Is it fair that these people, as "American" as apple pie, yet very brown to the eye would have their citizenship questioned? Can you see, Arizona, how I would find this whole idea of having SKIN COLOR be a reason for questioning someone's immigration status, so patently unfair and unjust? Is it a crime to be brown in Arizona?

I never thought I would be THAT mom, but....

I hid some vegetables in my kid's food.

A few years ago, this book by Jessica Seinfeld came out to much hoopla (appearances on Oprah, Today show etc.). In it, Ms. Seinfeld explained how she made purees of vegetables, hid them in her kids' food and they were none the wiser! At the time, I rushed out and bought it, tried a few recipes and they were TERRIBLE! Then, as fate would have it, my child LOVED broccoli, cauliflower etc. so I was convinced of my moral superiority. Hiding vegetables was a horrible thing to do! You must be honest with your children and teach them to eat as you eat! My kid LOVES vegetables! What's wrong with yours??

and then Mario came along. He brought my hubris to a screeching halt.

He doesn't eat. I made spaghetti carbonara the other day, and he picked out the pancetta, drained the sauce and ate exactly four noodles. He eats fruit, I'll grant him that, but really his repetoire of foods shrinks by the month. I kept my vow that I would NOT make a separate meal for him (pizza, french fries and strawberries would be HIS request) and I dutifully put a plate of food in front of him every night. He picks at it, then runs to the fridge to get a wedge of laughing cow cheese, some crackers and some fruit. Apparently this is called his "french" phrase, only we're not french. It's so frustrating!

So I returned to the Seinfeld book. I felt really, really guilty about it. Last night on the way home from work, I bought a bag of baby spinach and some fancy looking carrots at Trader Joe's. I made the recipe for brownies (with the aforementioned vegetables "hidden" in them), and as it turns out....the kids LOVE the brownies. So far no one has asked if there is spinach in them. Right now I am steaming a batch of cauliflower that I am going to try and add to some scrambled eggs and then maybe a baked potato later on.

I feel HUGELY guilty about this. Like somehow I have failed as a mom. To top it off, they are CHEF'S kids! They should be eating kalamata olives, prepping artichoke hearts and eating vegetables from our garden.

Except they are not.

This summer I'm going to try and plant more veggies. I'm going to continue to present dinner and if Mario doesn't eat it, he has to fetch his own. I'm going to continue to hide vegetables. and I suppose I'm going to continue to feel guilty about it. Somehow I don't think my mom stressed about this so much.

it's the end of the quarter

The end of the third quarter signals a few things to your average high school teacher.

1. We're in the home stretch to the end of the school year. This is thrilling (we get to sleep in! no more grading!), but also a bit sad. We've spent the whole year getting to know our students and in just a few short months, it will all be over. Each class has its own personality. Some are smart-alecks, some are lethargic (particularly after lunch), some are over-achievers (why aren't you in honors?) and others should receive a group-rate discount on Ritalin or Adderal. Students who got on my very last nerve in September are suddenly far less irritating. Some kids have gotten their acts together (ah, maturity!) and still others have backslid into what will likely be a one-way trip to continuation school. While I do long for the relaxation and full time SAHM status for 10 weeks, I will also mourn the loss of community with entire classes and with individual students. Right now I know which students can be teased and which are very sensitive. Come August/September, I will have to tread carefully as I get to know each student and class and assess their temperment. It's exciting of course (I can try out this lesson and see how it works this year!), but it's also daunting.

2. Fourth quarter also signals, unfortunately, the arrival of CSTs and high stakes testing. We get one week of regular instruction when we get back from spring break to cram in the last of the materials on the pacing (racing?) chart and then it's two weeks of nearly daily testing. Though the kids get tired of what appear to be endless testing, we are instructed by administration to cajole our students to at least TRY to do well on their exams (which have absolutely no bearing on their final grade) and pray that they bring enough distractions to keep them from disturbing others for the entire testing period. For this brief period, in my classes at least, they are urged (begged?), to bring a book, newspaper, iPod, WHATEVER to keep them occupied. For several days, we have two hours with a particular group of testing, then ANOTHER two hours with the same students for regular instruction. Yes, that's four hours with the same group of students. It's these days that I most fully appreciate our elementary school compatriots, since after those four hours, even the most likable group of students becomes too much.

3. Lastly, 4th quarter for history teachers means that we get to teach, more or less, what we want. Since we have to teach four quarters worth of standards in 3 quarters (to get the kids ready for those all important exams), it's in the 4th quarter that we get to do projects, activities and other lessons that we just don't have time for in the rest of the school year. It's liberating, but also somewhat confusing. Much like a prisoner who has become so accustomed to the regular routine of the incarcerated life that he is unable to function in unfettered freedom of the outside world, the history teacher who gets to teach without district mandated exams and common assessments is often confused and hesitant. You mean I get to teach about the rest of the world in world history now? Not just Europe? I can teach about Africa? Really? Even Latin America and Asia? Cooooool! But wait! There aren't any common assesments???? What will we do in our PLC meetings???