No, it’s the low, slow churning of civic discontent, fomenting thanks to the decades-long trend toward educational mediocrity and resulting in a grass-roots movement that will — with any luck at all — restore our nation’s status as a well-educated and virtuous people.

You could call it “Occupy Parental Authority Over Indoctrination and Educational Malpractice Being Perpetrated by the Liberal Educational Establishment.” In fact, that has a nice ring to it.

As with the Occupy movement, the goals of this revolution are varied. (Unlike the Occupy movement, this uprising seeks more freedom, not government serfdom, but I digress.)

Some folks in this movement are protesting the left-wing socialist propaganda that passes in our public school classrooms for history, social studies, economics and literature curricula.

Others are focused on protecting their children’s innocence and instilling their moral and religious values by resisting the so-called comprehensive sexuality agenda and its full-on mandate to normalize homosexuality and transgenderism, regardless of the religious beliefs of public school students.

A few really radical parents actually are protesting — by way of engaging with their local school boards — the watered-down math and science programs that result in abysmal test scores and uneducated graduates.

Sheesh. Talk about nerve!

Yet rather than camp out in city parks for months of pointless demonstrations, the people behind these new, local uprisings are taking constructive action, school by school, city by city, and even in the halls of their state capitols.

Just a few weeks ago in New Hampshire, the legislature put in place (by overriding a gubernatorial veto) a law that lets parents provide alternative curricula to material being presented in their children’s classrooms that such parents find offensive or contrary to their moral or religious beliefs.

Now, the New Hampshire legislature is attempting to create a school choice alternative — including for private schools — by initiating an education credit against the business profits tax. The goal of this law is to “allow maximum freedom to parents and independent schools to respond to and, without governmental control, provide for the educational needs of children, and this act shall be liberally construed to achieve that purpose.”

It’s almost as if the New Hampshire legislature respects the authority of parents to make decisions about the education of their minor children. Weird, right?

In New York City, an organization called the NYC Parents’ Choice Coalition is gathering petition signatures in favor of abstinence-centered sex education rather than the graphic and offensive comprehensive sexuality program launched in the fall. While the coalition says it shares the programmatic goals of reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, parents want the emphasis on abstinence and not the program’s Planned Parenthood-approved agenda.

The language of the parents’ petition reveals just how radical they are: “We, and many other parents, would prefer an alternative program which focuses on abstinence as the healthiest choice and encourages children to wait at least until they are adults before becoming sexually active. We will be opting our children out of all sex education classes until an alternative evidence-based program in line with common sense and our personal beliefs is allowed under the mandate.”

And in Tampa, Fla., civic groups are organizing to demand that Hillsborough County Schools deny CAIR — the Council on American Islamic Relations — or other groups with ties to terrorism access to children through classroom presentations. Though CAIR is a federally designated Hamas entity, apparently that doesn’t keep it from offering presentations to schoolchildren under the banner of multiculturalism and diversity.

As it happens, this is National School Choice Week in America, and parents are speaking out for alternatives to the public education system that restore common sense and educational excellence in their children’s classrooms.

This is one time when parents rightly ought to raise their voices and make themselves heard.

The text said only, “You won’t believe this,” and included a link to a video that my 14-year-old freshman, Amy, wanted me to see.

The video that prompted her concern was an episode of “Teens React,” a YouTube series from Fine Brothers Productions, the award-winning creators of the Web-based “Kids React” series.

The premise of the “React” videos is to show young viewers a clip of news or entertainment while videotaping their reactions to what they see. Then, producers conduct short interviews to dig deeper about the viewers’ opinions.

Amy promised that there was a column in this particular episode, and she knows we columnists take help where we can find it, so I clicked to see what caused her such a visceral response.

The video was “Teens React to Rick Perry’s Strong,” Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s December Internet advertisement in which he decried the waning faith of our nation, warned about an encroaching gay agenda and said he wants to be president, in part, to end Barack Obama’s “war on religion.”

For those who follow politics, the content of Mr. Perry’s video was unsurprising. He is a conservative Christian, and the views he articulated were consistent with those of roughly half the nation who identify as conservatives, as well.

Yet to the teens reacting to his ad, Mr. Perry was positively villainous.

That the youths in the “Teens React” video were overwhelmingly liberal probably should go without saying. (In the end, they unanimously opposed Mr. Perry and said his advertisement should have been taken off YouTube because it was likely to be perceived as offensive.)

What’s more troubling was the teens’ reaction to the very idea of religion itself and its place in society. The notion that people of faith might feel our nation’s religious heritage is under attack struck the teens as absurd, at best.

Yet this is likely a reflection of the “religionless” theology of our youngest generation. Youths think it’s cool to have faith – even to be strongly Christian – but somehow “religion” now defines for them what is wrong.

Last week, a video epitomizing this view took YouTube by storm. Titled, “Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus,” the spoken-word poem by Jefferson Bethke has been viewed more than 13 million times since it was posted on Jan. 10. Here is a sample:

What if I told you Jesus came to abolish religion?

What if I told you voting Republican really wasn’t His mission?

What if I told you Republican doesn’t automatically mean Christian?

And just because you call some people blind doesn’t automatically give you vision.

I mean if religion is so great, why has it started so many wars?

Why does it build huge churches, but fails to feed the poor?

Tells single moms God doesn’t love them if they’ve ever had a divorce?

But in the Old Testament, God actually calls religious people whores. …

See the problem with religion, is it never gets to the core.

It’s just behavior modification, like a long list of chores.

Like let’s dress up the outside, make look nice and neat,

But it’s funny that’s what they used to do to mummies while the corpse rots underneath.

Mr. Bethke’s simplistic theology resonates with America’s young people, themselves largely uneducated in biblical scholarship or history, so that the links provided on the artist’s website to so-called supporting evidence for his claims probably strike them as credible.

They’re not.

It should concern all Americans – faithful or not – that our nation’s young people are growing dismissive of religion as a framework for both morality and faithful expression.

Like Amy, I shudder to think what comes next.

It’s come to this: Last week, the New Hampshire legislature overturned a gubernatorial veto of a bill that will allow parents to object to material being taught in school and further empowers them to find and pay for suitable, educationally acceptable alternatives to the curricula being foisted on their children.

New Hampshire’s H.B. 542 is unusual for several reasons, not the least of which is its concision. The law itself is only 198 words, and that includes the heading, “In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven.”

It also carries a fiscal impact of zero. I said it was unusual.

What makes it most extraordinary, though, is that it gives greater, not less, authority to parents of school children. Suffice to say, this has not been the trend for quite some time.

Despite its brevity, H.B. 542 packs a punch for parents. Here’s what it says (since paraphrasing it would use more words than simply quoting):

“Require school districts to adopt a policy allowing an exception to specific course material based on a parent’s or legal guardian’s determination that the material is objectionable. Such policy shall include a provision requiring the parent or legal guardian to notify the school principal or designee in writing of the specific material to which they object and a provision requiring an alternative agreed upon by the school district and the parent, at the parent’s expense, sufficient to enable the child to meet state requirements for education in the particular subject area.”

To protect the privacy of students, the law also requires that the names of parents or guardians seeking this option be kept confidential.

Not surprisingly, leftists have pounced on the “first-term Tea Party” majority in the New Hampshire legislature by calling them, and the parents whose rights they seek to protect, idiots, because … well, because that’s the go-to conclusion when anyone dares to question the wisdom or motives of public educators.

In his objections to the bill, Democratic Gov. John Lynch also fed the liberal condescension that parents would use this law to undermine the teaching of subjects such as reading and algebra.

“For example, under this bill, parents could object to a teacher’s plan to teach the history of France or the history of the civil or women’s rights movements,” Mr. Lynch is reported to have said.

“The intrinsic value of education is exposing students to new ideas and critical thinking,” he said. “This legislation encourages teachers to go the lowest common denominator in selecting material, in order to avoid ‘objections’ and the disruption it may cause their classrooms.”

Does Mr. Lynch really believe this law will be invoked to force teachers to use phonics rather than whole reading in the Granite State’s elementary schools?

That’s unlikely, and liberals like Mr. Lynch know it.

Rather, it’s intended to provide options to parents like Dennis and Aimee Taylor, whose outspoken objection to course material for Bedford High School’s personal finance course brought this issue to light in the first place.

Curriculum for that class included Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, a leftist screed that decries capitalism and refers to Jesus Christ as a “wine-guzzling vagrant and precocious socialist.” It’s this sort of indoctrination parents are worried about, not algebra.

That is, unless New Hampshire educators also teach so-called “social justice math,” in which case, the best alternative may be home-schooling.

All across America, parents and lawmakers are realizing they may actually have the power to take control of the “skool aid” curriculum that now passes for education in our public schools.

Heck, Utah has even gone so far as to mandate that their schools teach students that the United States is, in fact, a democratically elected constitutional republic, and not just your garden-variety democracy.

What next, Utah? Phonics?

Thinking.

That’s right, thinking. But not just thinking: smart thinking.

Imagine what might happen if we stop parenting by thoughtlessly developing habits over time and instead institute fundamental changes in the way we approach our roles as parents. Suppose we all thought more about what we’re doing and used the knowledge we gain in our thinking to do things better.

In a new book by Art Markman titled Smart Thinking: Three Essential Keys to Solve Problems, Innovate, and Get Things Done, this renowned college professor and researcher says human beings are “habit creation machines,” and this propensity may be hindering our ability to solve problems, live more creatively, and be productive.

Habits aren’t necessarily bad. We’re meant to develop habits – most of them good – to allow us to act in our daily lives without continually having to stop and think about how to do every little thing.

But Mr. Markman, the Annabel Irion Worsham centennial professor of psychology and marketing at the University of Texas at Austin, says many of our habits are “self limiting” – they do us more harm than good.

In parenting, those poor habits could have serious consequences.

On the one hand, habit informs our ability to fold laundry, pack school lunches, and execute our morning routines. But we also develop bad habits in parenting that prove we’re not really thinking things through.

“For example, we know mealtimes are so important for our families,” Mr. Markman says. “Research shows us that eating together as a family is the time when we create opportunities to learn about each person and to foster communication.

“But over time, due to lessons or sports practices or other activities, we develop habits about mealtime and before you know it, everyone eats on their own and this is an opportunity lost. It becomes a habit, but it’s not smart.”

In the same way, Mr. Markman says, thoughtlessness about children’s media consumption also creates habits that have consequences.

“Media is a profound source of knowledge for our children. Parents have less and less control over the information that is coming in, and this information really matters.

“Even though it’s a pain to regulate and manage the sources of information through which our children get information, we have to do it because the knowledge they gain has a huge influence on their behavior,” he says.

As with all areas in life, the key to changing our parenting habits is simply to step back, assess our routines and take the time to think about what we’re doing.

There is nothing simple about this. “Habit change is difficult because the whole point of habits is that they allow us to do things mindlessly,” Mr. Markman says. “But in parenting, as in all things, we need to be mindful.”

Mr. Markman says the more we understand about how the brain works, the smarter we can be as parents.

“The more you know about smart thinking, the smarter you can be and you’ll also be able to help your children to think smarter, without them even knowing,” he says.

There is a difference between smart thinking and intelligence, and Mr. Markman isn’t advocating the hypercompetitive attitude that has turned learning into a contact sport. Rather, he encourages parents to be more mindful in all the ways we act with and for our children.

“There is great value in spending some time understanding the impact of doing things mindlessly,” Mr. Markman says. “This is true in all walks of life. Most of us think for a living, but we aren’t doing it effectively.”

Huh. Thinking about parenting and acting mindfully to rear smarter children. Can such a radical notion really catch on?

But my favorite trends to watch are in an arena that probably shouldn’t be trendy at all: parenting.

For 2012, the mommy blogosphere offers a host of probable developments among the hippest of the so-called “breeders” (calling parents “breeders” is a trend that hip parents don’t like, by the way). For example, in the new year, it’s cool to raise “eco kids” — children of the “green” generation who will grow up with an innate understanding of sustainability.

Among baby-boomer parents, the trend is to worry — first, about whether they’re attentive enough to their children, then about whether their obsessive attention to their children is causing their kids to be anxious.

For older parents, the trend will be to refill the nest with college grads who can’t find jobs. No one ever said all trends were good.

Another trend among older parents will be to worry about becoming a burden to their kids. (Oddly, I can’t find evidence of a trend where children worry about burdening their folks. Must be a generational thing.)

Of course, parenting trends aren’t new. Breast versus bottle feeding, spanking versus time out, day care versus home care, family bed versus “go back to your room” — all reflect the fads and fashions of “best practices” in parenting.

Still, my gut tells me the essential job of parenting should not be subject to cultural whim. Unfortunately, that essential job — to instill the values and virtues that mold personal character — seems to have gone the way of the dodo.

Concern for children’s self-esteem and a weird preoccupation with their materialistic and media-driven desires has spawned a culture in which developing children’s excellent character seems low on the list of parental priorities.

We need only look at surveys of teen ethics to see the results: There’s widespread and entrenched unethical and immoral behavior on the part of American youths that includes lying, cheating, stealing and bullying. This lack of morality and personal character in our children’s generation isn’t only ravaging their hearts and souls; it’s tearing our nation down.

It’s time to buck the trend toward trendy parenting and focus instead on the values that will rescue our children and the country they will inherit. How? By directing attention on the five traits that will restore America, one great kid at a time.

• Respect — Let’s ditch the notion that kids need to act disrespectfully and talk back to adults as part of the process of “individuation.” Instead, here’s a radical fad: Speaking and behaving respectfully toward others is the sign you’re growing up.

• Obedience — The parenting trend that encouraged moms and dads to seek cooperation from kids rather than expect obedience from them has led to a serious lack of parental authority. Kids who don’t learn to obey their parents don’t obey teachers, coaches, babysitters, or dare I say, the law.

• Accountability — We’ve somehow disassociated behavior with personal character, so that kids don’t believe their “choices” mean anything about them. Time to reconnect these ideas and instead teach children that their actions speak for the character of their hearts.

• Moderation — Our children’s generation is media-saturated and increasingly physically unfit. It’s time to reverse the trend among kids that now has them spending close to eight hours a day engaged with media. Moms and dads, end the overprotective parenting fad and send those kids outside to play.

• Ambition — Our cultural fixation on equality of outcomes for all children has sapped the natural ambition to be the best. Our children’s generation must be freed to excel. Only the desire for excellence — in character as well as personal pursuits — will rekindle our American spirit.

Now, at 3:35 in the morning, a wave of warmth rolls over me like an incoming tide and wakes me from my proverbial “long winter’s nap.”

Hot flash? Maybe. Let’s not go there. Sleepy as I am, I roll back the blankets and head to the kitchen for a drink of water.

Everything in the kitchen is just as I left it four hours ago, but in the wee hours, it’s a peaceful space, not the busy, bustling place it is when all the lights are on.

I take my water and wander from room to room. Yesterday’s paper is strewn over a coffee table. One of the children must have been reading it since the sections are disassembled. There are pillows on the floor, along with the dog’s chew toy and someone’s shoes. It’s not a mess, but it’s lived in.

In the dining room, I stand in the window and look out over the snow-covered street. The air outside is completely still, allowing tufts of snow to sit unmarred on the branches of the barren maple trees. It’s dangerously cold out there – the low is supposed to be something like 2 degrees – and I’m amazed that a night so brutal is also so beautiful.

Thinking about the temperature outside prompts me to go to Jimmy’s room and make sure he hasn’t kicked off his blanket. There’s no night light in his room – he’s a “total darkness” sleeper and the soundest and easiest sleeper of all my children.

Sure enough, he’s sprawled across the bed, with half the blanket sliding toward the floor.

There’s just enough light coming from the window to see his eyelids flutter back and forth, following the pattern of his unconscious thoughts as they speed through the deepest recesses of his mind.

There’s something in this moment, profound in its silence, when all my son’s dreams and hopes and wishes seem to reach out and grab my heart. His life is so incomplete, so unformed; it holds such promise and purpose yet to be discovered.

On this night – this “Silent Night” – I realize my thoughts and prayers for my son must be the very kinds of thoughts and prayers that every mother has for her boy.

Mothers of kings and soldiers, of presidents and scientists and artists and laborers, from age to age, wander their houses in the stillness of a winter night and sit at the side of the bed.

We all think about the men our sons could become, should become.

So must Mary have sat by a sleeping Jesus, listening to him softly inhale and exhale, watching his eyes dance from side to side as images flashed across his perfect mind.

Did she wonder about his dreams? Did she pray they would come to pass?

Did she pray he would be the man he was created to be?

Did she dare ask God to make him great? Or to let him change the world?

I realize in this moment that all these years I’ve been praying that God would grant for Jimmy his deepest desires and my best hopes for the life he has yet to live.

But I wonder if instead, Mary prayed that God would grant for her son not her best hopes, but God’s.

Perhaps she did.

Perhaps on those silent nights when she watched her son in peaceful slumber, she understood that even a mother’s heart can’t hold the infinite potential that exists only in the thoughts of God.

Editor’s note: A version of this column originally was printed on Dec. 25, 2005.

In theory, anyway.

According to HGTV.com, the new show “My House, Your Money” “reveals what really goes on behind closed doors as prospective homebuyers turn to their extended family members for financial help in order to land their dream home. … What could possibly go wrong when the grown-up kids want a beautiful home to live in and the parents want a safe place to invest their money?”

What could go wrong, indeed? With more young adults asking their parents and grandparents for help in financing a home, this program has a promising future. Tales of financial family feuds often last a lifetime. I can foresee spinoffs and celebrity specials.

Of course, the biggest issue confronting the homebuyers in this series is the fact that the family members holding the purse strings want a say in how their money is spent. To illustrate the point, a commercial for the show follows a couple falling in love with a property, then cuts to an older family member who says, “There is no way I am putting my money into that house.”

Cut to reality.

In Michigan, this very principle is manifesting itself more and more frequently and in ways that are growing increasingly frustrating, or even corrupt. Michigan is a state where the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has succeeded in forcing unionization on everyday citizens who happen to receive public funds for various reasons.

A while back, I wrote about the despicable scheme begun under former Gov. Jennifer Granholm (reversed by Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration) to declare that home-based child-care providers whose clients receive subsidies for child care are de facto state employees, and therefore required to belong to a union. Dues were collected automatically by the state on behalf of the union, because that’s just the way we do things here in the Mitten, where we love our unions.

Now, political news outlet Michigan Capitol Confidential reveals that SEIU has collected some $28 million over the past five years by forcing unionization on caretakers of disabled citizens who receive state subsidies, even if the caretakers are the parents of the disabled!

That’s right. If you are the parent of a disabled person who receives benefits in Michigan to offset your noninstitutional home care, you’re officially a state employee and thus must be a member of SEIU.

What do you get for that membership? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Just the pleasure of donating part of your child’s much-needed assistance to the union’s coffers. As for SEIU, it may use those funds in virtually any way it likes, including for political lobbying and campaigning.

Siphoning funds from unsuspecting citizens is a problem, but to be clear, the crucial issue isn’t the money. It’s the independence lost when we sublimate our liberty to anyone who may then assert the right to tell us how to live our lives. These are the “strings” that are always – always! – attached to money that is given and not earned.

Expect much more of the same. As assistance programs grow, so will the burgeoning bureaucracies to tell us how best to live. (To wit: Here’s your general assistance check, here’s a cup, there’s the bathroom.) And why not, we might say? Those of us paying taxes ought to have a sense that our tax dollars aren’t being wasted on programs that don’t work and people who won’t make the most of our money.

Except, as forced unionization scams demonstrate time and again, every dime a government redistributes is tied up with a string. The loss of freedom that comes with growing government in our lives is incremental at first, and perhaps confined only to a relative few, but it eventually will creep into all our lives as the price we pay for the care we expect from the state.

The state giveth, but so too the state will taketh away your freedom – just like that rich grandma who offers to finance your house.

Last week, the local Fox affiliate for which she works aired a story during its 9 p.m. newscast about a trend this year among shopping-mall Santas to sensitively size up the economic status of the parents of children visiting them, and respond appropriately to what they perceive to be unrealistic expectations about the Christmas gifts for which they are asked.

Sometimes they look to Mom or Dad’s head-shaking messages; other times, they’re hazarding a guess that an iPad is out of reach for many parents.

Footage for the package included a few store Santas explaining their strategies and expounding on their self-proclaimed duty to set reasonable expectations about Christmas. It was a charming piece that reminds you how endearing those shopping-mall Santas can be.

After the story, which ran near the end of the hourlong newscast, Ms. Robinson weighed in with her opinion, as news anchors often do to wrap up segments. Turning to co-anchor Bob Sirott, Ms. Robinson said, “Stop trying to convince your kids that Santa is Santa. That’s why they have these high expectations. They know you can’t afford it, so what do they do? Just ask some man in a red suit. There is no Santa.”

Well, ho ho ho.

Within minutes, comments flooded the Facebook fan page for myFoxChicago.com. Calls and emails also came in fast and furious to the station, most accusing Ms. Robinson of first-degree Grinchiness.

Those who took issue with the newswoman felt she should have been more concerned about preserving the innocence of the children who might be in the viewing audience. Comparatively few pointed out that children who believe in Santa ought not be watching the 9 p.m. news in the first place. Go figure.

The next night, Ms. Robinson took to the airwaves to apologize, saying she should have used the station’s customary warning that the next story to be aired might not be suitable for young children. She also said she was wrong to say aloud that there isn’t any … well … you know.

People who criticized Ms. Robinson were appropriately concerned about preserving childhood innocence, a major issue in a culture where childhood seems to last until about age 7. After that, you get skinny jeans, a Facebook page and a cellphone, and it’s off to the races.

But are parents really concerned about protecting innocence?

Many parents are under the misapprehension that disturbing news stories about crime, violence, natural disasters or terrorism will go over the heads of their children. That’s not true, but it does give Mom and Dad permission to watch what they want even when the children are around.

Melissa Henson of the Parents Television Council says, “The nine o’clock news, where the motto is generally ‘If it bleeds, it leads,’ is not exactly child-friendly entertainment to begin with, and their innocence would be far more likely to suffer from stories about rapes, kidnappings, murders, etc., than a newscaster talking about whether or not Santa exists.

“It is so important to protect a child’s innocence, but it involves far more than keeping up their illusions about Santa Claus,” she said.

More than 70 percent of America’s children have televisions in their bedrooms, put there by someone (presumably not Santa) who is less worried than is warranted about what children might be watching. The 9 p.m. news is tame compared with the content many children view today.

But mention that Santa isn’t real? Shhhhh.

As for the wee ones who may have heard Ms. Robinson’s indiscreet remark, every parent knows how to respond to that: “Don’t worry, honey, you can’t believe everything you hear on the news.”

In a survey of 2,463 adults conducted last month, only a third of respondents reported having more to be thankful for than they had a few years ago. Forty-five percent said they have about as much to be thankful for, while thankfully, only 18 percent said they have fewer reasons to give thanks.

Five percent weren’t sure.

The survey seems to indicate that, overall, feelings of gratitude in our nation have waned compared with how we felt in the recent past.

On the other hand, according to the respondents, we’re not entirely without reasons to be thankful:

* 85 percent are thankful for the health of their families, and the same percentage are grateful for family relationships.

* 74 percent count technology as a blessing because it helps them stay in touch with family and friends.

* Despite languishing unemployment and underemployment rates, 63 percent are thankful for their economic circumstances and 61 percent are grateful for their work situations.

* More than half of us – 56 percent – are thankful that it’s safe to walk the streets (although Harris may not have asked about walking near a Wal-Mart on Black Friday).

* We’re split on the issue of civility. Thirty-six percent are thankful for the way we treat one another, while 40 percent are not. Nineteen percent aren’t sure about that one.

The Harris website offers tables to help visualize the results of the survey, and as pollsters are wont to do, the data are packaged and repackaged according to variables such as gender, educational attainment, region of the country in which respondents live and “generation.”

Not surprisingly, there are gaps in gratitude between “echo boomers” ages 18 to 34, and “matures,” 66 and older. It appears the longer you live, the more you feel thankful for just about everything.

Yet the question, “Do you have more or less for which to be thankful?” suggests an evaluation based on where we are compared with our idea of an optimum life.

Wouldn’t a better question be, “Do you live gratefully?”

Living gratefully suggests it’s possible to be thankful even when the circumstances that typically conjure our gratitude simply aren’t there.

We all know folks who are suffering and sorrowful. Whether because of the loss of a job or a home, or the painful progression of the first round of holidays without loved ones, there is plenty of grief to go around.

Yet the New Testament tells us, “In everything, give thanks.” (1 Thessalonians 5:18)

Everything. Not just in good times or when things turn out OK or when you have a close call but you swerve just enough to avoid a date with disaster.

In everything. In all circumstances, give thanks.

That’s a tall order. We usually fill it with the compassion and care we experience in the aftermath of heartbreak. When life leaves us hurt or harrowed, we always can point to someone or something to remind us that the dawn comes even on our darkest days.

Then again, giving thanks in everything calls us to be thankful for life itself, which invariably is filled with love and laughter, sadness and sacrifice.

We ought not ask ourselves if we have more or less to be thankful for. It’s the same year in, year out, from beginning to end: We’re meant to be thankful for life, marked by every kind of human experience, and devised for gratitude to the One who created us.

In everything – every breath and thought and moment spent in animated existence – we can choose to live gratefully, not for more or less, or better or worse off, but just because life is.

There’s the “glass is half full” variety, such as this one from parents.com: “Census Report: Over half of working mothers get paid leave.” It came complete with a stock photo of a woman in a business suit sitting at her desk, holding a baby on her lap.

Then there’s the “glass is half empty” style, such as the story from the Associated Press, headlined: “Paid-leave benefits lagging for working moms in U.S.”

The statistics in both stories are the same and indicate that from 2006 through 2008, more American working mothers than ever – 51 percent – received some sort of paid time off following the birth of their first child. The number of women who used some combination of paid maternity leave, sick time or vacation time to stay home with a newborn rose from 42 percent in the years between 1996 and 2000.

The report, “Maternity Leave and Employment Patterns of First-time Mothers, 1961-2008,” highlights several trends, including:

• Most women now work during pregnancy. Sixty-six percent of first-time moms worked while expecting, compared to 44 percent 50 years ago.

• The vast majority of women who worked while pregnant – 82 percent – did so until within a month of delivery.

• Forty-two percent of women received unpaid maternity leave.

• Twenty-two percent of first-time moms quit their jobs – 16 percent while they were pregnant and another 6 percent within 12 weeks after their child’s birth.

• Eight out of 10 mothers who worked during their pregnancy returned to work within a year of their child’s birth to the same employer, most returning to a job at the same pay, skill level and hours worked per week. About 20 percent of working moms switched employers upon returning to work.

As you might imagine, the Census Bureau is able to carve up the data on working first-time moms into bite-size chunks, both obvious and obscure. Women are categorized by age, educational attainment, length of employment, whether they worked full- or part-time, and especially, whether their paid leave was specifically a maternity benefit or whether they hoarded vacation days and went to work with the flu to accumulate enough time to stay home for six weeks or more when the baby came.

Insight must be in the details, as only our Census Bureau could find a reason to produce the table, “Women Working at Monthly Intervals After First Birth by Year of First Birth: 1961-1965 to 2005-2007.”

It seems this report includes every salient factoid about the employment patterns of working first-time moms. What it does not include are the words “father” and “husband.” My document search tool came up blank on both of those terms, and only found the word “marriage” in the footnotes of the report, citing the titles of other research works.

The response in both the optimistic and pessimistic news stories to this latest census report is to clamor for a national mandate to require paid maternity leave, so that at the very least, the U.S. would no longer be lumped in with Swaziland and Papua New Guinea among the few nations that don’t compel employers to provide such a benefit.

But the politically incorrect reality is that the economic burdens for new mothers is not due to the lack of a duty on employers, but the fact that more than 40 percent of children in America are born to unwed moms who also are the ones least likely to receive paid maternity leave.

By every available measure, the traditional family structure of husband, wife and children still offers the greatest economic security to mothers and babies. And there isn’t a paid maternity law on the books that can replace what isn’t in that census report.