Anne Romney Hasn't Worked A Day in Her Life

[Warren Dew]

1. your comment re-being a small business owner yourself don't make sense in the context of leave that is subsidized particularly to spare a burden on small business owners. People are going to come and go from jobs, whether or not they have children, and that will have an impact on the people who hired them, who may have had different plans.

The difficulty is in keeping the job open for the original person for three months. That means you can't hire a permanent replacement. If you hire a professional contract temp, it often costs twice as much; if you try to hire someone for only three months, you're often stuck with a less experienced and less capable worker.

If the company has 30,000 employees, it's not such a big deal to find someone to fill in for three months, or to hire a new full time person and find somewhere else to use them after the three months, or just to have other employees pick up the slack for three months. If the company has only 3 employees, those kinds of adjustments are difficult or impossible. That's why it's a particularly difficult imposition on small business.

The issue of temporary replacements is a big one.

I wonder if there are other ways to address the issue. For instance, because of our particular health concerns, J worked from home for an extended period after Sprog was born. I was still the one watching the kid during the day, and there were a couple times a week J needed to go the the office or the site, but having him there made both our lives easier during that early period (i.e.-- I could run up to the laundry room without having to plan ahead, or if we ran out of supplies it was easy to get out to the store and so forth.) Since J was doing night-feedings, working from home gave him a little flexibility to catch up on sleep. And when it came to the times I did work from home myself (like my union exam, which was pretty damn time-consuming, or a build contract for some masks) we could trade off time with each other. It was hard, but it was possible.

My point is, maybe there are ways to handle family leave that wouldn't necessarily require losing a worker completely for an extended chunk of time. Particularly since telecommuting is becoming more established as a general practice.

Obviously, there are some jobs you just can't telecommute to. But are there other ways to approach that problem creatively?

My point was just to answer your question about why mandated maternity leave is more burdensome for small businesses than for big businesses, not to weigh in on whether or how maternity leave should be mandated.

I think there may be ways to approach the issue creatively in individual cases, when the specific employer and specific employee know the specifics of the situation. I don't think they can realistically be mandated by law, because each specific situation is different. As your family has found, most employers are willing to work these things out, and those that aren't may not be worth working for anyway.

The purpose of a three month maternity leave requirement is to ensure that the mother can focus entirely on the infant for what's believed to be the critical first few months of life, if she chooses to do so. I think that if one accepts the need for that - and I mostly do accept it - then permitting the mother to telecommute basically defeats the purpose of maternity leave, because she'll be thinking about work when she "should" be focusing on the infant.

From a legal standpoint, I think federal law is a pretty good compromise in this area: three months of maternity leave is required, but it can be unpaid, and the requirement does not apply to businesses with fewer than 50 employees.

2. Government subsidizes all sorts of things that not every citizen endorses. I don't have a car and I don't drive. There are so many subsidies that are going to American car culture, from manufacturing, to gas subsidies to infrastructure to tax rebates for car buyers, that I pay for but don't use personally. Hey. you all chose to have cars, and to drive them places. Why should I have to pay for it?

You shouldn't. That's why transportation infrastructure is generally paid for out of gasoline taxes, which you don't pay if you don't use a car.

The bailouts of Chrysler and GM, in contrast, used general funds and are considered unjustified by most. Why should taxpayers who bought a Volkwagen or Toyota or Ford have to subsidize the Chryslers and Chevys?

Children may be different in that there may be overall societal value, even to the childless, in avoiding a demographic collapse. If so, though, that's different from the government subsidies you mention, which can't be justified on that basis.

It's also to be pointed out that one major expense of raising children - thirteen years of education - is subsidized, although in a very inefficient way.

As for the subsidies-- I certainly didn't expect to hear support from you on that count. But I really appreciate the consistency of your views.

Still, I'm curious about this comment particularly:

Children may be different in that there may be overall societal value, even to the childless, in avoiding a demographic collapse. If so, though, that's different from the government subsidies you mention, which can't be justified on that basis.

Why can't they be justified on that basis?

Because they don't provide overall societal value. As you pointed out, not everyone uses transportation infrastructure for automobiles; subsidies there help only automobile users, not everyone in society. You could argue that everyone can at least take advantage of that infrastructure if they want to, but the GM and Chrysler bailouts don't even meet that bar - they helped only a tiny fraction of the population, and no one else was able to benefit from them.

And is the only value of children to the childless an avoidance of demographic collapse? What about issues of publicly-beneficial design, engineering, care and other services, and so on and so forth, provided by each new generation to the betterment of all?

I don't understand your question. Perhaps you can start by explaining how "issues of publicly-beneficial design, engineering, care and other services, and so on and so forth, provided by each new generation to the betterment of all" differs from "avoidance of demographic collapse"?

[hadespussercats]

colubridae, Coito and I are managing our discussion just fine without your commentary.

As a point of fact, there were insulting comments delivered from both parties. But we're grown-ups, and managed to sort our way through them without resorting to champions or seconds.

Why don't you comment on something that has anything to do with the subject of stay-at-home parents? Otherwise, you've made your point, and, while I certainly can't force you to bug off, I wish you would.

I think colubridae was responding to Ronja. I'm pretty sure that discussion would have ended at that point unless Ronja chose to continue it with a further response.

The last paragraph, which explicitly discusses my conversation with Coito, in the larger context of proper modding (which concerns me, as a moderator) is what I'm responding to.

Though you're right, his comment does seem to be directed primarily at Ronja.

In the interest of following the spirit of your comment (your closing line in particular) let's leave it at that.

[hadespussercats]

1. your comment re-being a small business owner yourself don't make sense in the context of leave that is subsidized particularly to spare a burden on small business owners. People are going to come and go from jobs, whether or not they have children, and that will have an impact on the people who hired them, who may have had different plans.

The difficulty is in keeping the job open for the original person for three months. That means you can't hire a permanent replacement. If you hire a professional contract temp, it often costs twice as much; if you try to hire someone for only three months, you're often stuck with a less experienced and less capable worker.

If the company has 30,000 employees, it's not such a big deal to find someone to fill in for three months, or to hire a new full time person and find somewhere else to use them after the three months, or just to have other employees pick up the slack for three months. If the company has only 3 employees, those kinds of adjustments are difficult or impossible. That's why it's a particularly difficult imposition on small business.

The issue of temporary replacements is a big one.

I wonder if there are other ways to address the issue. For instance, because of our particular health concerns, J worked from home for an extended period after Sprog was born. I was still the one watching the kid during the day, and there were a couple times a week J needed to go the the office or the site, but having him there made both our lives easier during that early period (i.e.-- I could run up to the laundry room without having to plan ahead, or if we ran out of supplies it was easy to get out to the store and so forth.) Since J was doing night-feedings, working from home gave him a little flexibility to catch up on sleep. And when it came to the times I did work from home myself (like my union exam, which was pretty damn time-consuming, or a build contract for some masks) we could trade off time with each other. It was hard, but it was possible.

My point is, maybe there are ways to handle family leave that wouldn't necessarily require losing a worker completely for an extended chunk of time. Particularly since telecommuting is becoming more established as a general practice.

Obviously, there are some jobs you just can't telecommute to. But are there other ways to approach that problem creatively?

My point was just to answer your question about why mandated maternity leave is more burdensome for small businesses than for big businesses, not to weigh in on whether or how maternity leave should be mandated.

Fair enough. I wasn't directing that question to you alone-- I figured other readers might chime in with their thoughts, even if they weren't addressed directly.

I think there may be ways to approach the issue creatively in individual cases, when the specific employer and specific employee know the specifics of the situation. I don't think they can realistically be mandated by law, because each specific situation is different. As your family has found, most employers are willing to work these things out, and those that aren't may not be worth working for anyway.

I'm not so sanguine about most employers. And even if an employer isn't "worth working for" in one sense, if said employer is the only option for a paycheck, people do what they have to do.

I'm trying to think of workable options for people who don't have access to the opportunities my husband and I have.

The purpose of a three month maternity leave requirement is to ensure that the mother can focus entirely on the infant for what's believed to be the critical first few months of life, if she chooses to do so. I think that if one accepts the need for that - and I mostly do accept it - then permitting the mother to telecommute basically defeats the purpose of maternity leave, because she'll be thinking about work when she "should" be focusing on the infant.

Well, telecommuting, as opposed to not being able to be with the infant at all, might be preferable, if not ideal. Particularly if a parent can't take three months without pay.

But I also don't see that first few months of life as being solely about the maternal relationship-- though that certainly is critical, especially for establishing a strong breastfeeding relationship (even more so if the woman plans to return to work and pump-- avoiding supply issues and nipple confusion and all that takes practice, and time.) And where the woman is recovering from a particularly difficult birth, with surgery and so forth, obviously she'd need at least a few weeks (bare minimum-- I won't get into gory details here, and since you have kids I'm sure you know what I'm getting at, but there are all sorts of reasons a woman might need more than a month to be comfortable putting on business clothes and sitting in an office. Or what-have-you.)

But I do think that time is important for fathers, too-- bonding, learning how to care for an infant, learning to cope with new stresses and lack of sleep.

We can do without that, individually and as a society. But I don't think we should.

My understanding is that over the course of human history it's only relatively recently that couples have started families without an extended network of family and close friends to help. Maybe one person can do that early mothering all alone, but I don't think we're built for it. I don't think it's a mistake that we hear more and more accounts of women with post-partum depression (and men, too.) I think that level of new stress, that level of sleep deprivation, coupled with wild hormone fluctuations on the mother's part (which certainly affect her partner), are a powderkeg for mental illness and other troubles-- particularly when a young parent is isolated and has no one to share the burden.

My particular circumstances demanded we address these risk factors. But they affect so many people-- even those who never experienced depression before having kids. I feel lucky, to have had the experience we've had as a young family. I wish there were a way to make that sort of outcome less a product of luck for the general populace.

From a legal standpoint, I think federal law is a pretty good compromise in this area: three months of maternity leave is required, but it can be unpaid, and the requirement does not apply to businesses with fewer than 50 employees.

But many people can't afford to take three months off without pay. And what about fathers? Adoptive parents?

2. Government subsidizes all sorts of things that not every citizen endorses. I don't have a car and I don't drive. There are so many subsidies that are going to American car culture, from manufacturing, to gas subsidies to infrastructure to tax rebates for car buyers, that I pay for but don't use personally. Hey. you all chose to have cars, and to drive them places. Why should I have to pay for it?

You shouldn't. That's why transportation infrastructure is generally paid for out of gasoline taxes, which you don't pay if you don't use a car.

The bailouts of Chrysler and GM, in contrast, used general funds and are considered unjustified by most. Why should taxpayers who bought a Volkwagen or Toyota or Ford have to subsidize the Chryslers and Chevys?

Children may be different in that there may be overall societal value, even to the childless, in avoiding a demographic collapse. If so, though, that's different from the government subsidies you mention, which can't be justified on that basis.

It's also to be pointed out that one major expense of raising children - thirteen years of education - is subsidized, although in a very inefficient way.

As for the subsidies-- I certainly didn't expect to hear support from you on that count. But I really appreciate the consistency of your views.

Still, I'm curious about this comment particularly:

Children may be different in that there may be overall societal value, even to the childless, in avoiding a demographic collapse. If so, though, that's different from the government subsidies you mention, which can't be justified on that basis.

Why can't they be justified on that basis?

Because they don't provide overall societal value. As you pointed out, not everyone uses transportation infrastructure for automobiles; subsidies there help only automobile users, not everyone in society. You could argue that everyone can at least take advantage of that infrastructure if they want to, but the GM and Chrysler bailouts don't even meet that bar - they helped only a tiny fraction of the population, and no one else was able to benefit from them.

And is the only value of children to the childless an avoidance of demographic collapse? What about issues of publicly-beneficial design, engineering, care and other services, and so on and so forth, provided by each new generation to the betterment of all?

I don't understand your question. Perhaps you can start by explaining how "issues of publicly-beneficial design, engineering, care and other services, and so on and so forth, provided by each new generation to the betterment of all" differs from "avoidance of demographic collapse"?

"Demographic collapse" describes a cataclysmic fall in population. I thought you were discussing the problems that might ensue should there be many more aged and elderly than there were young people to replace them, or what might happen if our birthrate fell to zero.

In other words, I thought you were discussing the decline of a civilization through sheer loss of numbers.

My comments about the design, innovations, care and services provided by new generations were meant to point out that even the childless benefit from other people's kids, are cared for by them, defended by them, etc., etc.

And I should point out that there's a flip side that should be considered as well-- that if a new generation grows up illiterate, innumerate, and mean, everyone suffers-- not just the people who bore them.

[Warren Dew]

Answering this part first because it's quick.

"Demographic collapse" describes a cataclysmic fall in population. I thought you were discussing the problems that might ensue should there be many more aged and elderly than there were young people to replace them, or what might happen if our birthrate fell to zero.

In other words, I thought you were discussing the decline of a civilization through sheer loss of numbers.

I was. This is what is happening in the west, where birth rates are below replacement - far below replacement, in western Europe. If this isn't corrected or compensated for in some way, today's adults, including the childless ones, are going to have a very difficult time in old age, because there won't be enough people to keep civilization running at today's levels.

My comments about the design, innovations, care and services provided by new generations were meant to point out that even the childless benefit from other people's kids, are cared for by them, defended by them, etc., etc.

I think this is just the other side of the same coin. Those benefits are benefits that the childless will not see in the case of demographic collapse, because there won't be enough people in the new generation.

And I should point out that there's a flip side that should be considered as well-- that if a new generation grows up illiterate, innumerate, and mean, everyone suffers-- not just the people who bore them.

I agree. This is why subsidization of children is different from things like bailing out GM, and why I support, for example, a guaranteed taxpayer funded education. I actually would support substantially more than that; my problem with how child subsidies work in the U.S. isn't with the fact that there are child subsidies so much as with the fact that the subsidies are set up to encourage child rearing in illiterate, innumerate households, and discourage children in highly educated households.

[colubridae]

colubridae, Coito and I are managing our discussion just fine without your commentary.

As a point of fact, there were insulting comments delivered from both parties. But we're grown-ups, and managed to sort our way through them without resorting to champions or seconds.

Why don't you comment on something that has anything to do with the subject of stay-at-home parents? Otherwise, you've made your point, and, while I certainly can't force you to bug off, I wish you would.

Fuck me pink and blue….

look again. ronja specifically asked me what my view of your/coito interaction was. Even though I specifically told her my beef was not with you or coito.
I made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that my beef was with her not with you.

Now I get admonished for doing exactly what a 'mod' asked me to do.

Why have you not eqaully condemned her?
You were quite happy and made no comment when she jumped in ‘against’ coito with her ‘creepy’ criticism.

What canting hypocrisy!
Why don’t you tell her to bug off?


Why not suggest that the thread be split?


Once again my beef is with ronja’s unsuitability as a mod. Not your exchange with coito.
Though I object to you wishing that I would ‘bug off’.

Are you telling me that it’s not allowed to join an interaction. That’s precisely what you did earlier in the thread. Precisely what Warren, Mai and a dozen others did.
Precisley what ronja did
If you don’t like what I post, rebut it. Otherwise stop telling me how and where I should post. It’s as objectionable as ronja’s insults to coito.

Who the fuck do you think you are a ‘mod’?



Ps the thread is not about stay-at-home-parents. It’s about unjust/just accusations thrown at Anne Romney. That’s just way threads meander.[/pedant]

[Coito ergo sum]

But going back to your idea about Soc. Sec. only being paid out to those who paid in-- what does that mean for SAH spouses? Do you think they paid in?

I never said it was only paid out to those who paid in. It's paid out to people who didn't pay in all the time. However, when the program was set up, spouses were considered units, and it was not only normal but the overwhelming practice for women not to work outside the home. So, the system was set up in light of one breadwinner, one homemaker. The concept is that the benefits would be for both. That is part of the reason I said SS needs to be overhauled. it is a system created in a culture that no longer exists.

My question was re- YOUR views about how non-wage-earning people should be handled regarding social security.

This was your question, "But going back to your idea about Soc. Sec. only being paid out to those who paid in-- what does that mean for SAH spouses? Do you think they paid in?"

I told you my views already -- I think social security needs to be overhauled into more of an old age pension situation that doesn't require people to have paid in, but rather pays out retirement benefits on a needs based system, paid out of the general fund.

[Coito ergo sum]

Again, I don't have time to do a point-by-point. BUT--

1. your comment re-being a small business owner yourself don't make sense in the context of leave that is subsidized particularly to spare a burden on small business owners. People are going to come and go from jobs, whether or not they have children, and that will have an impact on the people who hired them, who may have had different plans.

Sure, if you're suggesting the government is going to reimburse me and other small business owners for the costs associated with this paid leave, and pay the employee's salaries, then that would be quite helpful.

However, employees coming and going is a different burden than holding a job open. Holding a job open for 3 or 6 months means that someone else has to be brought into the job for a temporary period of time. Then we have to let that person go after 3 to 6 months because someone else wanted to have a child.

I don't see how gov't subsidized family leave affects that substantially.

2. Government subsidizes all sorts of things that not every citizen endorses. I don't have a car and I don't drive. There are so many subsidies that are going to American car culture, from manufacturing, to gas subsidies to infrastructure to tax rebates for car buyers, that I pay for but don't use personally. Hey. you all chose to have cars, and to drive them places. Why should I have to pay for it?

Why indeed? No argument here. You have a valid objection.

This is just one example among many I could cite.

So why not fund good parenting? Why not hold that as a value important enough to society at large that we all share the burden (to some small extent) of making it happen?

That depends on whether having more children is a value one adopts as a good value. Many folks -- many liberal folks included -- think having more kids is not in the interest of the world economy, food availability, reducing poverty, and the environment.

I also don't think that because the government funds or subsidizes things one may feel are less admirable, that it makes sense to fund another thing.

After all, whether we have kids ourselves or no, we will be dependent on the children born today when we are old, should we live so long. Don't we all have an interest in those children growing up well?

Richard Vernon: You think about this: when you get old, these kids - when *I* get old - they're going to be running the country.
Carl: Yeah.
Richard Vernon: Now this is the thought that wakes me up in the middle of the night. That when I get older, these kids are going to take care of me.
Carl: I wouldn't count on it.
Share this quote

:

[Coito ergo sum]

colubridae, Coito and I are managing our discussion just fine without your commentary.

As a point of fact, there were insulting comments delivered from both parties. But we're grown-ups, and managed to sort our way through them without resorting to champions or seconds.

Why don't you comment on something that has anything to do with the subject of stay-at-home parents? Otherwise, you've made your point, and, while I certainly can't force you to bug off, I wish you would.

I think colubridae was responding to Ronja.

In his assessment, I find him to be pretty much right on.

I will note that after I was attacked by Ronja, and then warned for my response to Ronja, I exited the thread for about a week. During that time, nobody commented on the actual substance of the OP. There were some side-discussions about other things, but nobody, including Ronja (who commented that she really wanted to participate, but for my participation) picked up the discussion.

You are correct that we are able to manage our discussions ourselves, of course. But, I don't think colubridae did anything wrong by responding to Ronja's question.

[hadespussercats]

colubridae, Coito and I are managing our discussion just fine without your commentary.

As a point of fact, there were insulting comments delivered from both parties. But we're grown-ups, and managed to sort our way through them without resorting to champions or seconds.

Why don't you comment on something that has anything to do with the subject of stay-at-home parents? Otherwise, you've made your point, and, while I certainly can't force you to bug off, I wish you would.

I think colubridae was responding to Ronja.

In his assessment, I find him to be pretty much right on.

I will note that after I was attacked by Ronja, and then warned for my response to Ronja, I exited the thread for about a week. During that time, nobody commented on the actual substance of the OP. There were some side-discussions about other things, but nobody, including Ronja (who commented that she really wanted to participate, but for my participation) picked up the discussion.

You are correct that we are able to manage our discussions ourselves, of course. But, I don't think colubridae did anything wrong by responding to Ronja's question.

Regarding the intent of my comment to colubridae, please note the sentiment expressed in bold.

As for the rest of your comment, please note my response to Warren.

[colubridae]

while I certainly can't force you to bug off, I wish you would.

Regarding the intent of my comment to colubridae, please note the sentiment expressed in bold.

1 This is a forum thread, anyone is as entitled as anyone else to post here. That includes me.

2 Ronja actually started the side issue, not me.

3 I remind you, you made absolutely no objection to ronja’s intervention, because it reflected negatively on coito’s posts. Your hypocrisy in complaining when he gets positive encouragement is …... Pardon me if I throw up at your cynicism.
You’ve pointedly ignored the fact in your complaint that I was doing what ronja asked! Why have you not complained about ronja’s intervention.

4 If you don’t want people to ‘join in’ but you want the discussion in public then that’s simply revolting exhibitionism. I would suggest you and coito get a room.

5 I’m watching this thread purely for entertainment value. I enjoy seeing coito hand people their heads/assses on a plate with mayo and a side order of fries.

6 Once again, in case you’ve missed the point. I posted in objection to ronja’s slimy, disgusting slur on coito. It is perfectly justifiable and acceptable for me to ‘return fire’. Just as you have the right to ‘demand’ that I bug off, I have the equal right to post and/or piss on your sentiment (bolded, underlined or italicised).

7 AFAIC you owe me an apology, just as ronja owes coito an apology.

8 The best part for last…. You’ve completely and utterly missed the blindingly obvious argument that would totally lay waste to coito’s arguments. My congratulations.

[kiki5711]

I’m watching this thread purely for entertainment value. I enjoy seeing coito hand people their heads/assses on a plate with mayo and a side order of fries.

which is a plate of bullshit and makes everyone throw up after reading it.

[Hermit]

Everyone?

[Coito ergo sum]

while I certainly can't force you to bug off, I wish you would.

Regarding the intent of my comment to colubridae, please note the sentiment expressed in bold.

1 This is a forum thread, anyone is as entitled as anyone else to post here. That includes me.

2 Ronja actually started the side issue, not me.

3 I remind you, you made absolutely no objection to ronja’s intervention, because it reflected negatively on coito’s posts. Your hypocrisy in complaining when he gets positive encouragement is …... Pardon me if I throw up at your cynicism.
You’ve pointedly ignored the fact in your complaint that I was doing what ronja asked! Why have you not complained about ronja’s intervention.

Regarding 1, 2, and 3, I agree, except to the extent of calling it "hypocrisy." I don't go that far with it. But, I did find it interesting that Ronja was allowed to make a clearly personal attack (albeit obliquely worded) and was allowed to get away with it under the rubric of her attacking my "manner of posting" not me directly. I.e. she didn't call me a "creep" she said that my many posts on this thread were "creepy." I strongly suspect that a similarly worded chastisement against Ronja would likely be considered a personal attack, or at least would be considered "not playing nice" and would get a cautionary blurb.

4 If you don’t want people to ‘join in’ but you want the discussion in public then that’s simply revolting exhibitionism. I would suggest you and coito get a room.

I have no argument with you here. I think it would be a great idea for me and Hades to be locked in a room for a few hours. There is only the small matters of our respective significant others perhaps having some concerns, and a good 1200 miles or so to traverse. Excellent concept, thought.

5 I’m watching this thread purely for entertainment value. I enjoy seeing coito hand people their heads/assses on a plate with mayo and a side order of fries.

6 Once again, in case you’ve missed the point. I posted in objection to ronja’s slimy, disgusting slur on coito. It is perfectly justifiable and acceptable for me to ‘return fire’. Just as you have the right to ‘demand’ that I bug off, I have the equal right to post and/or piss on your sentiment (bolded, underlined or italicised).

7 AFAIC you owe me an apology, just as ronja owes coito an apology.

8 The best part for last…. You’ve completely and utterly missed the blindingly obvious argument that would totally lay waste to coito’s arguments. My congratulations.

Number 6: returning fire tends to get warnings and cautions. It seems endemic to message boards in general. I think almost none of the moderators would purposefully apply rules inconsistently, but there are just some natural, human tendencies that from time to time can't be avoided. In general, the moderation here is fantastic. In cases like Ronja's post, not so much. Oh, well, "Screws fall out all the time, the world is an imperfect place." - J. Bender.

Number 7: I hate to do this, but I would say that if I were in your shoes on this one, I agree, and I certainly think Ronja ought to apologize too.

Number 8: What the deuce?!?

[Tyrannical]

Anne Romney, award winning athlete?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 6646.story

Romney, who rode horses as a girl, began riding seriously as an adult after being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998. "I was losing most of the function of my right side," she testified at her deposition on June 3, 2010. "And I decided I needed to go back and do what I loved before I couldn't do it anymore."

She soon fell in love with dressage, a fussy Olympic sport that is also called "horse ballet." In dressage, a horse moves in delicate, dance-like steps to music as the rider, formally clad in top hat and tails, imperceptibly guides the animal.

Despite her relatively late start, Romney, 63, won silver and gold medals in 2005 and 2006 at the highest level of competition from the U.S. Dressage Federation. She rode Baron, a gelding she has described as "my best friend, my wonderful companion, my best boy." She credits Jan Ebeling, who emigrated to the U.S. from Germany, with vaulting her into the top tier of amateur dressage.