There's no explaining how much I'm enjoying the observation of my boys as they begin to discover the joys and pains of "love". Now aside from Nick's blog and what Tim occasionally lets slip, I can't claim to be very well tuned into the trials and tribulations of their respective dating lives, but what little I can pick up warms me inside with fond memories of younger days long past. Even Chris, just rising to the eighth grade, has begun to notice those unfathomable creatures known as girls.
I used to hope they would confide in me and ask my advice, but that's a foolish notion. What could ol' Dad know about such things? They might be surprised.
Times do seem to have changed since I came of age in the 70's. My whole approach at the time was to try to date lots of different women without getting too involved too quickly with any single one. That happened for two basic reasons: First, most of my friends had similar attitudes, except perhaps those who had trouble finding a date. Second, my very first girlfriend broke my heart, and I didn't want to go through that kind of pain again.
So for awhile I was a sort of serial dater. These days a young reader might read into that statement an assumption that I was, umm, having "carnal knowledge" of each of my serial dates. That would not be accurate. In fact, there were a couple of cases where the girl I happened to be with on a first date "came on" way too strong, and I would simply end it then and there. Not to suggest I was pure as the driven snow in those days, but I at least had some standards and restraint (though as a parent today, I would look back and say I wasn't nearly restrained enough).
Is there any tidbit of advice I could give to my sons and their peers today about the whole pursuit of the perfect woman?
Just this:
First get it through your skull - there is no "soulmate", no perfect match, no woman who will "complete you", and no "happily ever after". If you are expecting a woman to take responsibility for your happiness, you're already doomed. No wonder we've got such a high divorce rate, because those are completely unrealistic ideals.
Compatibility is what you seek. It's the only thing that gives a relationship a chance. Take it from me, if you find great chemistry with a woman, that chemistry by itself does not a relationship sustain. Not that it isn't a good start, but there also must be shared values, beliefs and philosophies, and the two of you find yourselves "on the same page" when it comes to the important things - lifestyle, children, faith and religion, etc.
Don't be in a hurry to settle. Lots of people begin to view things as a version of musical chairs, fearing that if they wait too long to choose a mate, the music will stop and they'll be left standing alone with everyone else paired up. I've known far too many people like that personally, and their marriages are all disastrous. Be patient and wait not only for the right match, but wait until you've had enough life experience to know more about who you are and what you want from life. Then it will be easier to find a partner with whom you can share, while willing to help her realize what she's looking for as well.
Have fun! I think this is the most important message. I had a wonderful time with many of the girls I dated, and don't regret a moment (or maybe I regret a couple of moments, hmmm). Rather than obsessing over the Miss-amour-du-jour, whether she's right for you, how she really feels, is she cheating on you, and all that unnecessary angst, just have fun and enjoy her company. Focus dating on the one you are with at the moment, and make it your mission while together to find out as much about her as you possibly can. Find her funny stories, share experiences, stay positive, abandon all moodiness or manupulative emotion, and just have fun!
Oh yeah, and be sure to share your stories with Dad - he gets a big kick out of them!
Monday, June 27, 2005
Monday full of Hope
After a headache weekend, the new week started off on a hopeful foot. Again, I can't get in to any details whatsoever, but there have been positive events in my case that give hope.
It's frustrating on the other hand that the company I'm contracting through has reorganized once again, and lost my invoices adding up to a pretty significant amount. So to get paid, I basically have to recreate all the paperwork and rebill them, all because they decided they didn't need the clerical person that was handling billings from contractors like myself. So nobody took over the job function. It reminds me of why I quit them in the first place - the company is just incompetent. I hear they're planning to go public, and I for one will not be investing.
But what's really trying the hardest to break down my hopeful mood is the idiot Supreme Court. They just ruled that the Ten Commandments must be removed from courthouses across the country. What Constitutional principle do they cite? A non-existent one they like to call a "wall of separation between church and state". Not only is that nowhere in the constitution, but it was even taken out of context from an old letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
So has anybody ever taken even a basic class that studies Law? Does anybody remember where our legal system came from? That's right, the Judeo-Christian philosophy, which has at it's core the Ten Commandments! Has anybody else studied American history? Can any reasonable unedited reading of history find any desire by the founding fathers to remove all references to Christianity from public discourse? Absolutely the opposite.
The founders were for the opposite of what these judges are espousing - freedom of religion. The intended freedom was that the government could not take a single brand of Christianity, for example, Methodism, and then tell everyone, "You are now a Methodist, and 10% of your earnings will be deducted every week and given to the government-run American Methodist Church". They were overwhelmingly faithful Christians themselves, and clearly stated the primacy of God over this young nation.
Not to mention that the court just decided that Eminent Domain can be exercised by local governments for any purpose they deem proper. So now we no longer have any protection from our government taking our property at will for any purpose they dream up, as long as they do it under "Eminent Domain". It means that the government can walk up and evict you from your home simply because they or someone influencing (say, "bribing") them finds it desirable.
Do average people really support these rulings? How can anyone with half a brain argue that either of these rulings are appropriate? Small wonder the greatest battle of our time will be over who gets appointed to that court over the next 5-10 years.
Oops, looks like I got carried away again. Hope is still present despite stupid courts, corrupt politicians, incompetent companies, uneducated morons, evil drug dealers and child abusers, etc. As long as a few decent and intelligent people remain, there is hope.
It's frustrating on the other hand that the company I'm contracting through has reorganized once again, and lost my invoices adding up to a pretty significant amount. So to get paid, I basically have to recreate all the paperwork and rebill them, all because they decided they didn't need the clerical person that was handling billings from contractors like myself. So nobody took over the job function. It reminds me of why I quit them in the first place - the company is just incompetent. I hear they're planning to go public, and I for one will not be investing.
But what's really trying the hardest to break down my hopeful mood is the idiot Supreme Court. They just ruled that the Ten Commandments must be removed from courthouses across the country. What Constitutional principle do they cite? A non-existent one they like to call a "wall of separation between church and state". Not only is that nowhere in the constitution, but it was even taken out of context from an old letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
So has anybody ever taken even a basic class that studies Law? Does anybody remember where our legal system came from? That's right, the Judeo-Christian philosophy, which has at it's core the Ten Commandments! Has anybody else studied American history? Can any reasonable unedited reading of history find any desire by the founding fathers to remove all references to Christianity from public discourse? Absolutely the opposite.
The founders were for the opposite of what these judges are espousing - freedom of religion. The intended freedom was that the government could not take a single brand of Christianity, for example, Methodism, and then tell everyone, "You are now a Methodist, and 10% of your earnings will be deducted every week and given to the government-run American Methodist Church". They were overwhelmingly faithful Christians themselves, and clearly stated the primacy of God over this young nation.
Not to mention that the court just decided that Eminent Domain can be exercised by local governments for any purpose they deem proper. So now we no longer have any protection from our government taking our property at will for any purpose they dream up, as long as they do it under "Eminent Domain". It means that the government can walk up and evict you from your home simply because they or someone influencing (say, "bribing") them finds it desirable.
Do average people really support these rulings? How can anyone with half a brain argue that either of these rulings are appropriate? Small wonder the greatest battle of our time will be over who gets appointed to that court over the next 5-10 years.
Oops, looks like I got carried away again. Hope is still present despite stupid courts, corrupt politicians, incompetent companies, uneducated morons, evil drug dealers and child abusers, etc. As long as a few decent and intelligent people remain, there is hope.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Life is a Game of Telephone
Yes, that's it. I have figured it out. Life is basically just a gigantic game of telephone.
At least that's what we called the game when I was a kid. Did you ever play?
The game starts with person #1, who receives a message. They whisper the message to person #2. Person #2 whispers it to person #3, and so on, and so on, until it gets to the last person in the group. The bigger the group the more fun the game, because when all the whispering is over, the last person to get the message is asked to tell everyone what it was.
And of course, by the time it gets to the last person in the group, the message is nearly unrecognizable from the original. Therefore my discovery, that life is just a series of games of telephone.
Today I had an easy week, with only 2 days at my client and a couple of days free. Or I thought they would be free. Until I got back into the office and started receiving a flurry of emails and phone calls from different people in the company I'm working with. Everyone's in varying stages of concern, anger, panic, and lots of other emotions because of their perception of a new problem that popped up.
It was a problem, no question about it. And one that needs to be addressed quickly, for sure. But there's a great cyclone of activity around the emergence of this problem that demonstrates my telephone thesis wonderfully. It is a very manageable problem that can and will be resolved quickly. But almost everybody involved has a different perception about the problem, including who, what, where, when, and why.
Somebody thought somebody else was in charge of this thing. Another person believed that there was no problem at all, that this particular thing was working exactly as it should. The person responsible for fixing the problem had an emergency and can't fix it, which panicked two or three other people, who became chicken littles and ran around telling everyone "The sky is falling!". Everybody else is suddenly occupied in CYA and finger-pointing activities, because they're panicked that they will lose the game of musical chairs this great game of telephone has suggested. Last person to speak is left standing to take all the blame.
And guess who gets to calm everyone down, figure out exactly what the problem is, and see to it getting fixed. Me, of course. Partly because I foolishly thought I could get a couple of days free from the place and things could move along smoothly without me, just until Monday. When will I learn?
Sort of reminds me of the country right now. Kind of the same game of telephone, with one phone colored red and the other blue. Everybody's picked their favorite color and only listens to that phone, which of course conveys messages nearly opposite those of the opposing colored phone. By the time the listener gets the message on their blue or red phone, it's been filtered and interpreted and spun beyond recognition from the actual story. Want truth? Find somebody who's rejected both phones and is finding the truth on his own. But of course, nobody wants to hear what this wiser person has to say, because his message doesn't square with that of their red or blue phone.
I believe that today's beautiful sunny day could be called stormy and raining by, say, the blue telephone people, and everyone listening to the blue telephone would take it as gospel fact. They wouldn't even bother going outside to see for themselves; why if the blue telephone says it's raining, then it's raining. If someone with a red telephone says "It's not raining, it's sunny!", that person would be labeled an evil liar, because isn't everyone with a red telephone an evil liar? If someone with no telephone just looks outside and says "It's not raining, it's sunny!", well, that one's just a crackpot, never mind what he says.
I also believe that our education system is mostly about handing out the blue telephones to every student. "Don't try to figure things out for yourselves, just listen to the blue telephone because it's always right" is the message of our secondary schools and universities. "And if you see anybody with a red telephone, do everything in your power to destroy it before it destroys us!". Red telephones are banned, especially in the universities, and students too willing to brandish their red phones in public are subject to harrassment and possible expulsion.
Just check out today's biggest news stories, and if you're willing for just a moment to hang up your red or blue telephone and take a look outside (or inside your brain, if you have one), maybe, just maybe, you'll understand what I'm talking about.
At least that's what we called the game when I was a kid. Did you ever play?
The game starts with person #1, who receives a message. They whisper the message to person #2. Person #2 whispers it to person #3, and so on, and so on, until it gets to the last person in the group. The bigger the group the more fun the game, because when all the whispering is over, the last person to get the message is asked to tell everyone what it was.
And of course, by the time it gets to the last person in the group, the message is nearly unrecognizable from the original. Therefore my discovery, that life is just a series of games of telephone.
Today I had an easy week, with only 2 days at my client and a couple of days free. Or I thought they would be free. Until I got back into the office and started receiving a flurry of emails and phone calls from different people in the company I'm working with. Everyone's in varying stages of concern, anger, panic, and lots of other emotions because of their perception of a new problem that popped up.
It was a problem, no question about it. And one that needs to be addressed quickly, for sure. But there's a great cyclone of activity around the emergence of this problem that demonstrates my telephone thesis wonderfully. It is a very manageable problem that can and will be resolved quickly. But almost everybody involved has a different perception about the problem, including who, what, where, when, and why.
Somebody thought somebody else was in charge of this thing. Another person believed that there was no problem at all, that this particular thing was working exactly as it should. The person responsible for fixing the problem had an emergency and can't fix it, which panicked two or three other people, who became chicken littles and ran around telling everyone "The sky is falling!". Everybody else is suddenly occupied in CYA and finger-pointing activities, because they're panicked that they will lose the game of musical chairs this great game of telephone has suggested. Last person to speak is left standing to take all the blame.
And guess who gets to calm everyone down, figure out exactly what the problem is, and see to it getting fixed. Me, of course. Partly because I foolishly thought I could get a couple of days free from the place and things could move along smoothly without me, just until Monday. When will I learn?
Sort of reminds me of the country right now. Kind of the same game of telephone, with one phone colored red and the other blue. Everybody's picked their favorite color and only listens to that phone, which of course conveys messages nearly opposite those of the opposing colored phone. By the time the listener gets the message on their blue or red phone, it's been filtered and interpreted and spun beyond recognition from the actual story. Want truth? Find somebody who's rejected both phones and is finding the truth on his own. But of course, nobody wants to hear what this wiser person has to say, because his message doesn't square with that of their red or blue phone.
I believe that today's beautiful sunny day could be called stormy and raining by, say, the blue telephone people, and everyone listening to the blue telephone would take it as gospel fact. They wouldn't even bother going outside to see for themselves; why if the blue telephone says it's raining, then it's raining. If someone with a red telephone says "It's not raining, it's sunny!", that person would be labeled an evil liar, because isn't everyone with a red telephone an evil liar? If someone with no telephone just looks outside and says "It's not raining, it's sunny!", well, that one's just a crackpot, never mind what he says.
I also believe that our education system is mostly about handing out the blue telephones to every student. "Don't try to figure things out for yourselves, just listen to the blue telephone because it's always right" is the message of our secondary schools and universities. "And if you see anybody with a red telephone, do everything in your power to destroy it before it destroys us!". Red telephones are banned, especially in the universities, and students too willing to brandish their red phones in public are subject to harrassment and possible expulsion.
Just check out today's biggest news stories, and if you're willing for just a moment to hang up your red or blue telephone and take a look outside (or inside your brain, if you have one), maybe, just maybe, you'll understand what I'm talking about.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Story Time
It has been quite awhile since the post with the story of my vivid dream and the hint that there might be another story. Maybe today's a good day to tell that other story.
This is a much more recent story about another dream. It was very different from the first dream, which just involved me and my unique experience with issues of life, death, and whether there is anything on the other side. On the other hand, after writing that last sentence, maybe it is more similar than different.
Anyway, it's hard to believe all this happened over a year ago. It seems like yesterday. My mother had been battling illness for a year or more, spending most of the previous 6 months between hospitals and rehabilitation centers.
She had gathered just enough strength recently to decide with Dad that it was time to return home to northern Indiana from Florida. She was escorted to the plane in Florida by Dad and my sister and brother-in-law for the trip to Indianapolis, where I met her and took her home.
Seeing her in the Indy airport approaching in the wheelchair, I was suddenly struck by how frail and sickly she looked. Maybe I had been in denial, but it didn't really hit me just how much her health had declined until I saw her being wheeled out from the concourse.
Chris and I took her home and cared for her as best we could until Dad arrived by car. Even though she was terribly weak and required near-constant care, I knew Mom was happy to be home. Chris and I then returned to our home in southern Indiana, promising to return to visit whenever we could.
Mom was able to stay home with Dad's care for perhaps a couple of weeks, before she took a turn for the worse and had to be hospitalized. The pattern continued that had been building over the past several months; she got stabilized in the hospital and seemed to be gradually improving in strength, then sent to a rehabilitation center to get the physical therapy she needed to hopefully allow her to return home again.
I drove north to visit her again in the rehab center, which was a poorly run facility that neglected Mom terribly. If it hadn't been for Dad's regular presence and pressure on the staff to do their jobs, the poor treatment itself in that facility alone might have hastened her passing. Places like that should be shut down - but that's getting off the subject.
During that visit at the rehab center, I arrived to find my parents in the physical therapy room. Mom was trying mightily to walk with only the aid of one of those aluminum walkers. She was too weak. My heart broke as she began to cry and apologize to me for being unable to do her walking exercises. But I did my best to hide my emotions and tried to be positive and supportive, telling her she just needed a little more time to get stronger.
Returning home again, I privately began to prepare myself for what was beginning to look like a real possibility for the first time - losing my mother. But, I buried myself in work and tried to proceed with life as usual.
Then it was a lazy Sunday afternoon. We were home, and there wasn't anything special going on, so I indulged in a nap. And dreamed.
Of course, it is common to dream when napping, perhaps even more than during nightly sleep. But this afternoon brought a truly unique dream. If the dream was generated by my own sub-conscious brain, I am very impressed by my brain's prescience, wisdom and compassion.
The dream started with me walking into the Intensive Care ward at the Goshen Hospital. I've been there before, so I recognized the floor. I walked over to my mother's room there, which was the last room along the wall to the left of the nurse's station. In the Intensive Care ward, glass sliding doors are used to give the staff visibility to the patients in the ward, with curtains used when privacy is needed.
Looking in, I saw my mother in the bed, surrounded by my dad, sister, uncle (her brother), and her nurse. She didn't look good, and those around her bed were somber. The door was closed, and noone looked up to see me or let me in, which upset me.
Then my mother turned her head and recognized me from her hospital bed. She smiled, and began to sit up, slowly and painfully. Somehow she was able to rise from her bed and walk over to me at the sliding glass doors completely unnoticed by the family members and nurse still gathered around.
She reached for me, and grabbed my hands in both of hers, somehow through the closed glass door, pulling me closer. She adjusted her hold and I felt her warm hands grasp my forearms while I held hers. She spoke to me with a smile, and a rush of emotions welled up in me of a mix of love, sadness, lonelinesss, and hope.
Suddenly she release me and transformed into a little girl of maybe 9 or 10 years old. She had her suddenly long, dark brown hair tied back into a pony tail, and her freckles became more prominent across her nose. She began laughing and joyfully skipping around the hospital room.
I awoke then, and was immediately worried that I could not recall the words she spoke to me in the dream. But I took two things from the experience; first, that my mother would die soon, and second, that she would be much more than OK.
About two weeks later, I was at her bedside as she passed away in the last room along the left wall in Intensive Care, along with my father, sister, uncle, and nurse (the same nurse from my dream). My other sister was missing from the scene, as in the dream, because she and her husband were out of the country in Peru.
Understand that, at the time of my dream, my mother was not in Intensive Care, I had never met the nurse, had not seen my uncle in several years, and could not explain why my other sister was not present.
Scientific or psychological explanations for this particular dream are fine. Maybe someone could even convince me somehow that there's a good explanation for the accuracy of my dream, it doesn't matter. Whatever the source, it brought me a great deal of comfort during a very difficult time. I have confidence that for my mother at least, heaven is returning to herself as a small child, able to run and jump and skip without a care, and especially without pain. And for that, I am grateful.
This is a much more recent story about another dream. It was very different from the first dream, which just involved me and my unique experience with issues of life, death, and whether there is anything on the other side. On the other hand, after writing that last sentence, maybe it is more similar than different.
Anyway, it's hard to believe all this happened over a year ago. It seems like yesterday. My mother had been battling illness for a year or more, spending most of the previous 6 months between hospitals and rehabilitation centers.
She had gathered just enough strength recently to decide with Dad that it was time to return home to northern Indiana from Florida. She was escorted to the plane in Florida by Dad and my sister and brother-in-law for the trip to Indianapolis, where I met her and took her home.
Seeing her in the Indy airport approaching in the wheelchair, I was suddenly struck by how frail and sickly she looked. Maybe I had been in denial, but it didn't really hit me just how much her health had declined until I saw her being wheeled out from the concourse.
Chris and I took her home and cared for her as best we could until Dad arrived by car. Even though she was terribly weak and required near-constant care, I knew Mom was happy to be home. Chris and I then returned to our home in southern Indiana, promising to return to visit whenever we could.
Mom was able to stay home with Dad's care for perhaps a couple of weeks, before she took a turn for the worse and had to be hospitalized. The pattern continued that had been building over the past several months; she got stabilized in the hospital and seemed to be gradually improving in strength, then sent to a rehabilitation center to get the physical therapy she needed to hopefully allow her to return home again.
I drove north to visit her again in the rehab center, which was a poorly run facility that neglected Mom terribly. If it hadn't been for Dad's regular presence and pressure on the staff to do their jobs, the poor treatment itself in that facility alone might have hastened her passing. Places like that should be shut down - but that's getting off the subject.
During that visit at the rehab center, I arrived to find my parents in the physical therapy room. Mom was trying mightily to walk with only the aid of one of those aluminum walkers. She was too weak. My heart broke as she began to cry and apologize to me for being unable to do her walking exercises. But I did my best to hide my emotions and tried to be positive and supportive, telling her she just needed a little more time to get stronger.
Returning home again, I privately began to prepare myself for what was beginning to look like a real possibility for the first time - losing my mother. But, I buried myself in work and tried to proceed with life as usual.
Then it was a lazy Sunday afternoon. We were home, and there wasn't anything special going on, so I indulged in a nap. And dreamed.
Of course, it is common to dream when napping, perhaps even more than during nightly sleep. But this afternoon brought a truly unique dream. If the dream was generated by my own sub-conscious brain, I am very impressed by my brain's prescience, wisdom and compassion.
The dream started with me walking into the Intensive Care ward at the Goshen Hospital. I've been there before, so I recognized the floor. I walked over to my mother's room there, which was the last room along the wall to the left of the nurse's station. In the Intensive Care ward, glass sliding doors are used to give the staff visibility to the patients in the ward, with curtains used when privacy is needed.
Looking in, I saw my mother in the bed, surrounded by my dad, sister, uncle (her brother), and her nurse. She didn't look good, and those around her bed were somber. The door was closed, and noone looked up to see me or let me in, which upset me.
Then my mother turned her head and recognized me from her hospital bed. She smiled, and began to sit up, slowly and painfully. Somehow she was able to rise from her bed and walk over to me at the sliding glass doors completely unnoticed by the family members and nurse still gathered around.
She reached for me, and grabbed my hands in both of hers, somehow through the closed glass door, pulling me closer. She adjusted her hold and I felt her warm hands grasp my forearms while I held hers. She spoke to me with a smile, and a rush of emotions welled up in me of a mix of love, sadness, lonelinesss, and hope.
Suddenly she release me and transformed into a little girl of maybe 9 or 10 years old. She had her suddenly long, dark brown hair tied back into a pony tail, and her freckles became more prominent across her nose. She began laughing and joyfully skipping around the hospital room.
I awoke then, and was immediately worried that I could not recall the words she spoke to me in the dream. But I took two things from the experience; first, that my mother would die soon, and second, that she would be much more than OK.
About two weeks later, I was at her bedside as she passed away in the last room along the left wall in Intensive Care, along with my father, sister, uncle, and nurse (the same nurse from my dream). My other sister was missing from the scene, as in the dream, because she and her husband were out of the country in Peru.
Understand that, at the time of my dream, my mother was not in Intensive Care, I had never met the nurse, had not seen my uncle in several years, and could not explain why my other sister was not present.
Scientific or psychological explanations for this particular dream are fine. Maybe someone could even convince me somehow that there's a good explanation for the accuracy of my dream, it doesn't matter. Whatever the source, it brought me a great deal of comfort during a very difficult time. I have confidence that for my mother at least, heaven is returning to herself as a small child, able to run and jump and skip without a care, and especially without pain. And for that, I am grateful.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Here Come Da Judge
Remember Laugh-In? If you're too young, I understand it's running on some cable channels now. I never fully understood the joke ('Here come da judge'), but vaguely understood it to have something to do with prosecution of drug users.
So those who were in on that joke in the 60's now make up the "establishment" in the Democratic party. They still love peace, sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll. Maybe that partially helps explain the whole confusing senate machinations around voting to confirm or reject Bush's judicial nominations.
We could argue about what value there is in the filibuster rules themselves, which have been a senate tradition for so long. But anybody who's been out there claiming the other party is shredding the constitution, whether by threatening to eliminate filibusters or actually using them is lying. There's no other way to say it. Very simply, there is no constitutional right to filibuster. It's a longstanding senate tradition that allows the minority party the ability to block legislation they find egregious.
So to compound the whole constitutional lie, the Democrats went a step further with a whopper of a lie about the right to filibuster judicial nominations being part of the longstanding senate tradition while suggesting it was enshrined in the constitution. Whoa, time for a reality check.
First of all, the Republican leadership was not even suggesting removing the filibuster from normal legislative debate; just judicial nominees. And they correctly pointed out that judicial nominees have never before been filibustered until the Democrats began doing it when they lost the majority in the senate. And it's become clear to me that the reason Democrats were filibustering the Bush judges was not at all about qualifications and only peripherally about the judges' philosophy. It's simply a power play to make sure they deny Bush the ability to nominate any judges at the highest levels from the Appellate courts to the Supreme Court.
Then the other lie is buried inside a truth. Democrats like to point out that they've allowed approvals on the vast majority of nominations brought to the senate from the president. It's a meaningless statement that's purpose is to mislead - that large majority of confirmed judges were for minor court appointments that have little bearing on what sort of high court decisions we will see over the rest of our lifetimes.
So was Priscilla Owen an extremist right-wing activist nominee? Well, if your view of the world is so skewed as to call a track record of outstanding abilities to interpret and apply the law extremist, maybe so. But the reality in Priscilla Owen's case is that she's one of most experienced and qualified judges in the country. What disqualifies her from appointment in the eyes of Democrats is that she apparently has expressed views against partial-birth abortion and in favor of parental notification of abortions for minor children. And she appears to be a church-going Christian (gasp!). The other disqualification might be simply that she's from Texas.
Democrats say that the Republicans blocked lots of Bill Clinton's nominees, and that's true. However, the way they blocked them was with their votes, not with filibusters. And of course the majority party controls the chair of the judicial committee, and they can just simply hold back a nomination from review in committee. Would the Democrats like to try to suggest that no Reagan or Bush Sr. appointees got tabled in committee when it was chaired by a Dem?
So which party has been more successful at getting their own "extreme" judges appointed to the bench? I think we only need to look back at Robert Bork and Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. Bork is a brilliant jurist who happened to have a conservative constitutional viewpoint. His nomination got huge media play and so much spin that the casual observer may have thought his appointment to the supreme court was tantamount to a Nazi regime taking power. In stark contrast, Clinton's appointment of Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, a radical leftist ACLU lawyer, sailed through with little scrutiny and not a little cheerleading from the news media.
Honestly, which is more extreme? Believing that the US Constitution set the clear direction for our free republic and all laws must be held up to its standards, or believing that the Constitution doesn't matter and a judge's own feelings about what is just and right should drive their decisions? Need I state the obvious conclusion I've reached, that if we appoint a majority of judges with the second opinion, we will lose our republic to a tyrannical socialist-communist elite government? I believe we're already almost there.
The compromise deal reached by the gang of 14 so-called "moderates" that allowed Priscilla Owen to get to the floor for a vote probably hasn't actually solved the problem. There are plenty of indications that the deal has probably already fallen through:
Republicans are guilty too, just look at the messes with healthcare, trade and immigration that neither party is willing to tackle in a meaningful way. One might say with some credence that this judicial stuff is just a distraction from what's really important. However, at least one Supreme Court nominee is likely this year, and that nominee will represent what philosophy will dominate the court for the next generation. So it is true that both parties understand how critical this fight is to the future of the nation.
As do I.
So those who were in on that joke in the 60's now make up the "establishment" in the Democratic party. They still love peace, sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll. Maybe that partially helps explain the whole confusing senate machinations around voting to confirm or reject Bush's judicial nominations.
We could argue about what value there is in the filibuster rules themselves, which have been a senate tradition for so long. But anybody who's been out there claiming the other party is shredding the constitution, whether by threatening to eliminate filibusters or actually using them is lying. There's no other way to say it. Very simply, there is no constitutional right to filibuster. It's a longstanding senate tradition that allows the minority party the ability to block legislation they find egregious.
So to compound the whole constitutional lie, the Democrats went a step further with a whopper of a lie about the right to filibuster judicial nominations being part of the longstanding senate tradition while suggesting it was enshrined in the constitution. Whoa, time for a reality check.
First of all, the Republican leadership was not even suggesting removing the filibuster from normal legislative debate; just judicial nominees. And they correctly pointed out that judicial nominees have never before been filibustered until the Democrats began doing it when they lost the majority in the senate. And it's become clear to me that the reason Democrats were filibustering the Bush judges was not at all about qualifications and only peripherally about the judges' philosophy. It's simply a power play to make sure they deny Bush the ability to nominate any judges at the highest levels from the Appellate courts to the Supreme Court.
Then the other lie is buried inside a truth. Democrats like to point out that they've allowed approvals on the vast majority of nominations brought to the senate from the president. It's a meaningless statement that's purpose is to mislead - that large majority of confirmed judges were for minor court appointments that have little bearing on what sort of high court decisions we will see over the rest of our lifetimes.
So was Priscilla Owen an extremist right-wing activist nominee? Well, if your view of the world is so skewed as to call a track record of outstanding abilities to interpret and apply the law extremist, maybe so. But the reality in Priscilla Owen's case is that she's one of most experienced and qualified judges in the country. What disqualifies her from appointment in the eyes of Democrats is that she apparently has expressed views against partial-birth abortion and in favor of parental notification of abortions for minor children. And she appears to be a church-going Christian (gasp!). The other disqualification might be simply that she's from Texas.
Democrats say that the Republicans blocked lots of Bill Clinton's nominees, and that's true. However, the way they blocked them was with their votes, not with filibusters. And of course the majority party controls the chair of the judicial committee, and they can just simply hold back a nomination from review in committee. Would the Democrats like to try to suggest that no Reagan or Bush Sr. appointees got tabled in committee when it was chaired by a Dem?
So which party has been more successful at getting their own "extreme" judges appointed to the bench? I think we only need to look back at Robert Bork and Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. Bork is a brilliant jurist who happened to have a conservative constitutional viewpoint. His nomination got huge media play and so much spin that the casual observer may have thought his appointment to the supreme court was tantamount to a Nazi regime taking power. In stark contrast, Clinton's appointment of Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, a radical leftist ACLU lawyer, sailed through with little scrutiny and not a little cheerleading from the news media.
Honestly, which is more extreme? Believing that the US Constitution set the clear direction for our free republic and all laws must be held up to its standards, or believing that the Constitution doesn't matter and a judge's own feelings about what is just and right should drive their decisions? Need I state the obvious conclusion I've reached, that if we appoint a majority of judges with the second opinion, we will lose our republic to a tyrannical socialist-communist elite government? I believe we're already almost there.
The compromise deal reached by the gang of 14 so-called "moderates" that allowed Priscilla Owen to get to the floor for a vote probably hasn't actually solved the problem. There are plenty of indications that the deal has probably already fallen through:
- As soon as the deal was made Harry Reid stated that they will continue to filibuster. Apparently, the wording that says they reserve the right to filibuster only the "most extreme" nominees he's going to feel free to interpret once again as pretty much every judge Bush sends for advice and consent.
- They've already engaged the filibuster on Bolton, the UN nominee. So it's business as usual less than a week after the deal.
- Gleeful Democratic leaders gloated about their victory in the compromise, effectively hanging the 7 Republicans who signed onto the deal by painting them as stupid and naive losers. Reminds me of what they did to Bush Sr. on the tax increase deal - they made the deal, immediately reneged on their part of the bargain, and gleefully watched as their efforts enraged the republican base and cleared the way for the election of Bill Clinton.
Republicans are guilty too, just look at the messes with healthcare, trade and immigration that neither party is willing to tackle in a meaningful way. One might say with some credence that this judicial stuff is just a distraction from what's really important. However, at least one Supreme Court nominee is likely this year, and that nominee will represent what philosophy will dominate the court for the next generation. So it is true that both parties understand how critical this fight is to the future of the nation.
As do I.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Mainstream? You gotta be kidding!
We don't have any premium channels at home, and I rarely see them while on the road working. But last week was an exception. I was staying in a hotel room with HBO included on the TV. One evening while flipping through the channels, I stumbled on some sort of wierd talk show run by a smirking pile of doo-doo named Bill Maher.
He had three guests, which I soon learned were Al Franken, Gore Vidal, and a young woman I didn't know and never really caught her name. It only took me about 5 seconds to figure out that these guys were talking politics from an extreme left-wing approach. So I thought I'd hang in for awhile just to see what the goofball lefties were up to recently.
It wasn't pleasant. Before long, I wanted to twist Maher's chicken neck with my left hand while pummeling the never-changing smirk into a bloody clown grin with my right. He and his pals (the female excluded) weren't just going off on W, which I've gotten very used to from that crowd. But they were going after me. Personally. Apparently I represent everything they hate in America.
What do they hate about me? Well, just that I'm a nominal Republicans to begin with. But I am also a member of a "Red State", Christian, and haven't yet swallowed the whole mythology about Iraq being harmless and the war just about making Haliburton rich.
Apparently I, and people just like me, think poor people should starve and be denied any medical treatment. That gays should be rounded up and soundy beaten. That it's perfectly fine for corporate fat cats to keep getting richer while their companies walk away from employee pensions and healthcare commitments. That the air and water can be polluted until the planet no longer supports life as long as it helps the same corporate fat cats. That other fat cats in the investment community should be able to raid social security to line their own pockets. That I am a stupid and unsophisticated bumpkin that goes along with whatever W and his talk-radio cronies tell me. And finally, that I should immediately be packed up and sent over to fight in Iraq along with the Bush twins, because if enough of us are sent over there and get blown up by insurgents, Bill and his friends can finally take over and make things right.
They have never met me or anyone like me. They have no idea what I think about the topics and issues. They cannot begin to understand that I'm upset with W about many things he's doing, but supported him enthusiastically in the last election because the alternative was so obviously and horribly worse.
Maher did most of the talking, and the audience of what I can only assume to be a handpicked bunch of New Yorkers hooted, hollered, and applauded every invective from Bill and his cronies. Franken didn't say much, but mostly sat and tried to match Maher's smirk and making the occasional comment about Halliburton, as if just stating the name of that company was enough to inspire derision. Vidal said the least, leaning on his cane like Budda and making the occasional witty Bush put-down to the audience's noisy delight. I wondered if the unknown female was the token moderate in the group, as she said very little but said nothing approaching the inflammatory drivel being spewed by the jerks surrounding her.
Understand that I'm not crude or vulgar, so I refuse to put the above messages into their own nauseating parlance. But here was a lesson in what the group of people commonly referred to as "liberal elites" are really like.
What shocked and dismayed me was the statement Maher eventually made, that he and his buddies, as well as the Democratic party, represented the mainstream of America. That nobody with any brains could possibly oppose the right-minded ideals of their beloved party. Please. Since when is partial-birth abortion and abortions for 12-year-old girls without parental consent mainstream? Since when is removing any religious expression from the public and forcing churches to hire, marry, and place gays in leadership positions mainstream? When did socialism and communism become mainstream? When did it become mainstream to agitate against your own forces and support the enemy during wartime? Is mainstream thought in America now defined by PETA, MoveOn.org, the Gay/Lesbian Alliance, Jesse Jackson, and Howard Dean? What is mainstream about opening borders to everybody who wants to come across and bankrupt our country's social services?
It's even scarier because I discovered on Sunday from Howard Dean that the whole "mainstream" argument is now officially part of the official message of the Democratic party. Apparently the Democrat's new message for the masses is "We're mainstream, and the Republicans are extremists!" The reason that's scary is because the last people on earth I want defining what is "mainstream" are Bill Maher, Gore Vidal, Al Franken, and Howard Dean.
I now fully believe that these guys have an agenda based on fooling as many people as they can to regain power. Because how else could we end up governed by a group of anti-religious anti-capitalist anti-life anti-freedom elitist thugs, but that they succeed in so obscuring the truth about their agenda that people actually vote for them because they heard the Democrats "hold the same views as me"?
He had three guests, which I soon learned were Al Franken, Gore Vidal, and a young woman I didn't know and never really caught her name. It only took me about 5 seconds to figure out that these guys were talking politics from an extreme left-wing approach. So I thought I'd hang in for awhile just to see what the goofball lefties were up to recently.
It wasn't pleasant. Before long, I wanted to twist Maher's chicken neck with my left hand while pummeling the never-changing smirk into a bloody clown grin with my right. He and his pals (the female excluded) weren't just going off on W, which I've gotten very used to from that crowd. But they were going after me. Personally. Apparently I represent everything they hate in America.
What do they hate about me? Well, just that I'm a nominal Republicans to begin with. But I am also a member of a "Red State", Christian, and haven't yet swallowed the whole mythology about Iraq being harmless and the war just about making Haliburton rich.
Apparently I, and people just like me, think poor people should starve and be denied any medical treatment. That gays should be rounded up and soundy beaten. That it's perfectly fine for corporate fat cats to keep getting richer while their companies walk away from employee pensions and healthcare commitments. That the air and water can be polluted until the planet no longer supports life as long as it helps the same corporate fat cats. That other fat cats in the investment community should be able to raid social security to line their own pockets. That I am a stupid and unsophisticated bumpkin that goes along with whatever W and his talk-radio cronies tell me. And finally, that I should immediately be packed up and sent over to fight in Iraq along with the Bush twins, because if enough of us are sent over there and get blown up by insurgents, Bill and his friends can finally take over and make things right.
They have never met me or anyone like me. They have no idea what I think about the topics and issues. They cannot begin to understand that I'm upset with W about many things he's doing, but supported him enthusiastically in the last election because the alternative was so obviously and horribly worse.
Maher did most of the talking, and the audience of what I can only assume to be a handpicked bunch of New Yorkers hooted, hollered, and applauded every invective from Bill and his cronies. Franken didn't say much, but mostly sat and tried to match Maher's smirk and making the occasional comment about Halliburton, as if just stating the name of that company was enough to inspire derision. Vidal said the least, leaning on his cane like Budda and making the occasional witty Bush put-down to the audience's noisy delight. I wondered if the unknown female was the token moderate in the group, as she said very little but said nothing approaching the inflammatory drivel being spewed by the jerks surrounding her.
Understand that I'm not crude or vulgar, so I refuse to put the above messages into their own nauseating parlance. But here was a lesson in what the group of people commonly referred to as "liberal elites" are really like.
What shocked and dismayed me was the statement Maher eventually made, that he and his buddies, as well as the Democratic party, represented the mainstream of America. That nobody with any brains could possibly oppose the right-minded ideals of their beloved party. Please. Since when is partial-birth abortion and abortions for 12-year-old girls without parental consent mainstream? Since when is removing any religious expression from the public and forcing churches to hire, marry, and place gays in leadership positions mainstream? When did socialism and communism become mainstream? When did it become mainstream to agitate against your own forces and support the enemy during wartime? Is mainstream thought in America now defined by PETA, MoveOn.org, the Gay/Lesbian Alliance, Jesse Jackson, and Howard Dean? What is mainstream about opening borders to everybody who wants to come across and bankrupt our country's social services?
It's even scarier because I discovered on Sunday from Howard Dean that the whole "mainstream" argument is now officially part of the official message of the Democratic party. Apparently the Democrat's new message for the masses is "We're mainstream, and the Republicans are extremists!" The reason that's scary is because the last people on earth I want defining what is "mainstream" are Bill Maher, Gore Vidal, Al Franken, and Howard Dean.
I now fully believe that these guys have an agenda based on fooling as many people as they can to regain power. Because how else could we end up governed by a group of anti-religious anti-capitalist anti-life anti-freedom elitist thugs, but that they succeed in so obscuring the truth about their agenda that people actually vote for them because they heard the Democrats "hold the same views as me"?
Friday, May 13, 2005
Want to be President?
I've got the secret formula for anybody that wants to be president in 2008. It doesn't matter if you are Republican or Democrat, all you have to do is separate yourself from the idiots inhabiting Washington DC and simply express common-sense solutions to the problems no other politician is talking about.
Here's the very simple platform that will win you more voters than anybody, if you can just break through with the message.
Fix Illegal Immigration: Beef up border security and simply get the government to look at the documentation submitted by employees when they go to work for a company. See a fake social security card or green card, go get the illegal and deport him/her. Catch a company employing illegals "off the books" - hit them hard with huge fines. It really can work.
Fix Offshoring and Trade Deficit: First of all, push legislation that forces domestic companies to pay any employee they lay off to replace with a foreign worker or contracting firm a minimum 1 year's severance at full salary, plus pay their benefits for 18 months. Voila, no more jobs going overseas!
Then, get tough on trade policy. If China wants to import their goods, they have to have their own markets open to ours. If they keep blocking those efforts, impose tarriffs and hold up their products at the ports. Boom, our trade imbalance starts to rebalance.
Fix Healthcare: Push a realistic plan that helps save healthcare costs and makes it available to the uninsured for a reasonable cost. If you've read my healthcare-related stuff here, you already know what I think needs to be done.
Fix Social Security: This one is the proverbial third rail - touch it and die. However, there is a gathering storm there that has to be addressed somehow. I think the way to fix it is to attack it from multiple angles, including rewarding people for contributing more to IRA's and 401K's, incenting employers to offer more and better pension plans, opposing trends like the current famous United Airlines problem where companies are allowed to walk away from their pension plans, etc. Basically, there are lots of great opportunities to turn this third rail problem into a positive for a presidential candidate.
Be friendly to people of faith: Express opposition to the stupidity of the ACLU in their attempt to remove all expression of religion from society by supporting free and open expression of any religion anywhere, as long as the religion doesn't preach horrible stuff like murder, suicide, rape, robbery, etc. Profess a practical and level-headed point of view on the big moral issues of the day, like abortion and gay marriage. Couching the abortion issue in terms of making the goal that we should remove any reason for a woman to abort would not allow anybody to call you names without looking evil themselves. Use my argument about Gay Marriage, that it's discriminatory against other family units! Leave marriage to the churches and between a man and a woman, but let everybody else have whatever living arrangements they like as long as it's not illegal or contributes to some disease epidemic. (Oops, AIDS might be a problem there).
Those are the major things, I think. Any takers? I would support anybody willing to run on this platform, regardless with what party they associate. I just fear that our candidates are already bought and paid for, and I'm really scared that we're going to get Hillary in 2008. Heaven help us.
Here's the very simple platform that will win you more voters than anybody, if you can just break through with the message.
Fix Illegal Immigration: Beef up border security and simply get the government to look at the documentation submitted by employees when they go to work for a company. See a fake social security card or green card, go get the illegal and deport him/her. Catch a company employing illegals "off the books" - hit them hard with huge fines. It really can work.
Fix Offshoring and Trade Deficit: First of all, push legislation that forces domestic companies to pay any employee they lay off to replace with a foreign worker or contracting firm a minimum 1 year's severance at full salary, plus pay their benefits for 18 months. Voila, no more jobs going overseas!
Then, get tough on trade policy. If China wants to import their goods, they have to have their own markets open to ours. If they keep blocking those efforts, impose tarriffs and hold up their products at the ports. Boom, our trade imbalance starts to rebalance.
Fix Healthcare: Push a realistic plan that helps save healthcare costs and makes it available to the uninsured for a reasonable cost. If you've read my healthcare-related stuff here, you already know what I think needs to be done.
Fix Social Security: This one is the proverbial third rail - touch it and die. However, there is a gathering storm there that has to be addressed somehow. I think the way to fix it is to attack it from multiple angles, including rewarding people for contributing more to IRA's and 401K's, incenting employers to offer more and better pension plans, opposing trends like the current famous United Airlines problem where companies are allowed to walk away from their pension plans, etc. Basically, there are lots of great opportunities to turn this third rail problem into a positive for a presidential candidate.
Be friendly to people of faith: Express opposition to the stupidity of the ACLU in their attempt to remove all expression of religion from society by supporting free and open expression of any religion anywhere, as long as the religion doesn't preach horrible stuff like murder, suicide, rape, robbery, etc. Profess a practical and level-headed point of view on the big moral issues of the day, like abortion and gay marriage. Couching the abortion issue in terms of making the goal that we should remove any reason for a woman to abort would not allow anybody to call you names without looking evil themselves. Use my argument about Gay Marriage, that it's discriminatory against other family units! Leave marriage to the churches and between a man and a woman, but let everybody else have whatever living arrangements they like as long as it's not illegal or contributes to some disease epidemic. (Oops, AIDS might be a problem there).
Those are the major things, I think. Any takers? I would support anybody willing to run on this platform, regardless with what party they associate. I just fear that our candidates are already bought and paid for, and I'm really scared that we're going to get Hillary in 2008. Heaven help us.
Here Comes Summer
Tim's done next Thursday and Nick's done in about 2 weeks, and the summer is here. I'm expecting a good summer, and hope to have time to do more fun stuff outdoors with the kids.
I really want to drop some pounds and have a little more energy to do the things I like. Got to find that balance between working just hard enough to keep the income where I need it but leaving free time to play.
It's very good that both Nick & Tim have decent jobs this summer. It helps both from the perspective that they're taking responsibility for what they can do for their college financing and not choosing to lay around all summer expecting Mom & Dad to take care of everything.
I'm wrapping up the project up in the Chicago area, and so far don't know what my next assignment might be. On one hand, I don't mind it if I have a week or two lag between projects, but on the other I don't want to be idle for a month. It definitely is time to get the new Corporation organized and do some strategic planning. I'd like to get some other people working and providing revenue for the corporation very soon to take some of the pressure off of me to get out there and bill as many hours as possible. Gotta find that first commission salesperson to work the Web business first.
The feedback from this client has been very good, so I hope to get another letter to continue to build my reference base. It's also time to build my consulting website as soon as I get some time.
Sounds like a busy summer after all.
I really want to drop some pounds and have a little more energy to do the things I like. Got to find that balance between working just hard enough to keep the income where I need it but leaving free time to play.
It's very good that both Nick & Tim have decent jobs this summer. It helps both from the perspective that they're taking responsibility for what they can do for their college financing and not choosing to lay around all summer expecting Mom & Dad to take care of everything.
I'm wrapping up the project up in the Chicago area, and so far don't know what my next assignment might be. On one hand, I don't mind it if I have a week or two lag between projects, but on the other I don't want to be idle for a month. It definitely is time to get the new Corporation organized and do some strategic planning. I'd like to get some other people working and providing revenue for the corporation very soon to take some of the pressure off of me to get out there and bill as many hours as possible. Gotta find that first commission salesperson to work the Web business first.
The feedback from this client has been very good, so I hope to get another letter to continue to build my reference base. It's also time to build my consulting website as soon as I get some time.
Sounds like a busy summer after all.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Nothing New
Even though there isn't anything terribly earthshaking on my mind, blogger still beckons me to write something. So, how about a collection of random ideas?
The Pacers did a nice job fighting through to win the series against Boston, but then turned around and laid an egg in their first game of round 2 against Detroit. They looked tired and sluggish last night. But can they recover a-la Boston and still win the series? It seems doubtful.
I can't believe they are still arguing about the whole filibuster business in the Senate over confirmation of judges. I've tried to figure out why the Democrats are blocking Bush's judges, and although they claim it's because they are "radical", the reality is that they are the opposite. Perhaps the most egregious sin of any of them is if they're Christians. So there are two very simple conclusions; 1. They're paranoid about Bush's judges maybe overturning Roe v. Wade, and 2. They just want to block Bush from appointing any high-court judges in hopes that their own president can send in their own in a few years.
And both sides argue points that are basically correct but sound contradictory. When the Democrats say they are simply trying to protect an age-old practice that helps the minority wield influence in important matters, what they are leaving out is that the filibuster has never been used to block judicial nominees before. When the Republicans say there is no precedent for filibustering judicial nominees, what they are leaving out is that they blocked some of Clinton's judges by simply keeping them from getting out of committee.
Here's what I think. Go ahead and keep the filibuster. But make the Democrats use it if they object to a particular judge so vociferously. Give the filibustering senator the floor for as long as he/she wants, but make it clear that there will be no breaks. When the filibustering senator has to pee, gets tired, or loses voice, their time is over and the vote is next. No business will be brought to the Senate floor until the judge being presented is voted on.
Very simple. I have no clue why they don't just go ahead and turn over the floor to the filibusters until it runs its course.
I miss football. Arena football doesn't do it for me. I'm ready for the Colts, Notre Dame, even IU to get started again.
Congratulate me. I just became President of Cornerstone One, Inc. Now, if that company ever makes a name for itself, that might just mean something.
My high school class reunion (yes, it's #30) is this summer. I think I'll skip it this year. Once a decade is plenty.
The Pacers did a nice job fighting through to win the series against Boston, but then turned around and laid an egg in their first game of round 2 against Detroit. They looked tired and sluggish last night. But can they recover a-la Boston and still win the series? It seems doubtful.
I can't believe they are still arguing about the whole filibuster business in the Senate over confirmation of judges. I've tried to figure out why the Democrats are blocking Bush's judges, and although they claim it's because they are "radical", the reality is that they are the opposite. Perhaps the most egregious sin of any of them is if they're Christians. So there are two very simple conclusions; 1. They're paranoid about Bush's judges maybe overturning Roe v. Wade, and 2. They just want to block Bush from appointing any high-court judges in hopes that their own president can send in their own in a few years.
And both sides argue points that are basically correct but sound contradictory. When the Democrats say they are simply trying to protect an age-old practice that helps the minority wield influence in important matters, what they are leaving out is that the filibuster has never been used to block judicial nominees before. When the Republicans say there is no precedent for filibustering judicial nominees, what they are leaving out is that they blocked some of Clinton's judges by simply keeping them from getting out of committee.
Here's what I think. Go ahead and keep the filibuster. But make the Democrats use it if they object to a particular judge so vociferously. Give the filibustering senator the floor for as long as he/she wants, but make it clear that there will be no breaks. When the filibustering senator has to pee, gets tired, or loses voice, their time is over and the vote is next. No business will be brought to the Senate floor until the judge being presented is voted on.
Very simple. I have no clue why they don't just go ahead and turn over the floor to the filibusters until it runs its course.
I miss football. Arena football doesn't do it for me. I'm ready for the Colts, Notre Dame, even IU to get started again.
Congratulate me. I just became President of Cornerstone One, Inc. Now, if that company ever makes a name for itself, that might just mean something.
My high school class reunion (yes, it's #30) is this summer. I think I'll skip it this year. Once a decade is plenty.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Harmless Secrets
Went to the doc today for the first time in years because I've been ill with what seems like a cold for over a week and haven't had more than 4-5 hours of sleep since Sunday. I'm surprised I'm functioning as well as I am under the circumstances, and I worked 10-hour days right on through the illness. But the doctor visit was bad news. I've suspected what is now confirmed; I'm killing myself slowly with bad habits, and if I don't get serious about some changes the misery might only get worse. Time to say a tearful goodbye to my favorite bad habits.
Anyway, I don't have any real big outrages gnawing at me today, so I thought just for fun I would post some harmless secrets about myself. These are secrets that might make me look a little stupid but are otherwise harmless, and I'm at the stage where it doesn't matter much if people want to laugh at me. So here goes.
I actually like watching American Idol. Well, this year, anyway. Last year I thought there wasn't a single contestant who deserved to be there. But I really like this group. And the final two should be Bo and Carrie, with Carrie taking it all. Bo's unique and will be a star, and Carrie's awesome.
I actually enjoyed the Disco years in the 70's. I know people make fun of those times and the stupid looking clothing of the era, but I actually had a lot of fun back then. I even still enjoy hearing a Barry Manilow song now and then. But the one thing I never did like was the leisure suit - good riddance on that bad idea.
I thought I was a Democrat until I entered the working world. Dad was one, and virtually all my teachers and professors were, so the only Republican I ever knew growing up was my mother. And I just thought it was funny how mom & dad make sure to cancel out each others' votes every election day. Later, as a working stiff, I found out that Jimmy Carter was an absolute idiot, unbelievably naive and unable to effectively manage Iran, the energy crisis, and our country's crashing economy. He's the poster child for what happens when the Democrats control everything. So I became a Republican when I voted for Ronald Reagan. Worked out pretty well for me, and as far as I can tell for the rest of the country and the world as well. Now it seems like the Democrats have become the Socialist/Communist party and the Republicans have become just like the Democrats were in the 60's. Very sad.
I'm a converted Catholic, even though the rest of the male members of my extended family are pastors in the Brethren Church. What I've mostly learned is that different Christian sects are too hung up on their differences during a time when the entire religion is under attack from secular and Islamic interests. I've learned that Catholics and Brethren, for example, have far more theology in common than in conflict. There's also a lot of misunderstanding on both sides about what the others' beliefs really mean. Christians in general should stop arguing about who's going to heaven and hell and focus more on our common faith, or I foresee the real Christian faith and values being removed from our culture entirely.
I once took a long walk off a short pier. Yes, dumb ol' me during a lake vacation walked out to the lakefront early in the morning to enjoy the sunrise. I strolled out onto the pier and lost track of how far I had walked before stepping down ... to a nice cold dunking in the lake.
When I was, hmm, in college maybe (?), my parents discovered an unopened six-pack of beer hidden in the basement. They wondered for years where it came from, how long it had been there, etc. OK, time to come clean. I put it there. When I was still in High School or maybe just graduated, a friend had asked me to buy him a six pack of 3.2 beer when I was making a trip to Ohio. (At that time, 3.2 reduced-alcohol beer was available to kids between 18-21.) So I did, and when I got home, I hid the beer in the basement and called the friend to come and get it. Well, he never came over to get it, and I completely forgot it was there. So now you have it - the mystery of the six-pack solved.
In Jr. High, I raced a friend, Tim, back to the school entrance door at the end of our lunch period. I think I just edged him at the finish, but he would probably remember it the other way around. Anyway, the entry door had reinforced glass panels on either side, and I arrived at the one on the right at the end of a full sprint. Bracing myself on the frame with my hands, my momentum brought my right knee up into the glass, which promptly and spectacularly shattered. I was amazed first that I was able to shatter the reinforced glass - you know, the kind that you can see the honeycombed pattern of wire running through. But also I was amazed that it broke with seemingly very little force and my knee wasn't bruised or cut at all. Also amazed was the assistant principle who observed the whole thing. Then for the final amazing event, I received no punishment other than an admonishment to "slow down" next time.
In High School, the Assistant Principal (not the same as the Jr. High guy of course) pulled me out of an English class and walked me to the office. I was a little bit concerned, but mostly just curious about why they would want me in the office. It wasn't long before I found out the purpose of the trip - I was accused of destroying school property. The high school was getting old, and showing its age. It was overdue for some major renovation and remodeling, with old creaky stairs and banisters and drafty, dry-rotted windows. Anyway, someone had been trying to show off his strength by shaking loose the banister at the top of the third floor stairwell, which broke off and fell all the way to the first floor. And a rumor had gone back to the office that the perpetrator was me.
Well, I immediately understood what had happened. And even though I wasn't sure, I had a pretty good idea already of the identity of the actual culprit. It fit very well that he and his friends would consider it highly comical to hang the offense on a model student like myself, who had never come close to trouble in school (at least never been caught). But I just truthfully told the Assistant Principal his account was the first I had heard of the incident, and I not only was not responsible, but was nowhere near that stairwell at the time. He gave me a lecture anyway about destroying school property and endangering other students, but sent me back to class with some obvious disappointment that he had not extracted the confession he hoped for. Oh, and before school let out that day, I had confirmed that the person I suspected was indeed the one responsible. But of course, it's bad form in High School to report on someone, so I kept it to myself. Dad came home that evening and questioned me about it, as he received a call during the day. I appreciated very much that he completely accepted my response and did not show the slightest indication of anything but complete belief in my innocence.
There are plenty more harmless secrets, but I need to get some work done so that's it for today. I hope anyone stumbling on these stories found them somewhat entertaining, and permission is granted to have your laughs at my expense.
Anyway, I don't have any real big outrages gnawing at me today, so I thought just for fun I would post some harmless secrets about myself. These are secrets that might make me look a little stupid but are otherwise harmless, and I'm at the stage where it doesn't matter much if people want to laugh at me. So here goes.
I actually like watching American Idol. Well, this year, anyway. Last year I thought there wasn't a single contestant who deserved to be there. But I really like this group. And the final two should be Bo and Carrie, with Carrie taking it all. Bo's unique and will be a star, and Carrie's awesome.
I actually enjoyed the Disco years in the 70's. I know people make fun of those times and the stupid looking clothing of the era, but I actually had a lot of fun back then. I even still enjoy hearing a Barry Manilow song now and then. But the one thing I never did like was the leisure suit - good riddance on that bad idea.
I thought I was a Democrat until I entered the working world. Dad was one, and virtually all my teachers and professors were, so the only Republican I ever knew growing up was my mother. And I just thought it was funny how mom & dad make sure to cancel out each others' votes every election day. Later, as a working stiff, I found out that Jimmy Carter was an absolute idiot, unbelievably naive and unable to effectively manage Iran, the energy crisis, and our country's crashing economy. He's the poster child for what happens when the Democrats control everything. So I became a Republican when I voted for Ronald Reagan. Worked out pretty well for me, and as far as I can tell for the rest of the country and the world as well. Now it seems like the Democrats have become the Socialist/Communist party and the Republicans have become just like the Democrats were in the 60's. Very sad.
I'm a converted Catholic, even though the rest of the male members of my extended family are pastors in the Brethren Church. What I've mostly learned is that different Christian sects are too hung up on their differences during a time when the entire religion is under attack from secular and Islamic interests. I've learned that Catholics and Brethren, for example, have far more theology in common than in conflict. There's also a lot of misunderstanding on both sides about what the others' beliefs really mean. Christians in general should stop arguing about who's going to heaven and hell and focus more on our common faith, or I foresee the real Christian faith and values being removed from our culture entirely.
I once took a long walk off a short pier. Yes, dumb ol' me during a lake vacation walked out to the lakefront early in the morning to enjoy the sunrise. I strolled out onto the pier and lost track of how far I had walked before stepping down ... to a nice cold dunking in the lake.
When I was, hmm, in college maybe (?), my parents discovered an unopened six-pack of beer hidden in the basement. They wondered for years where it came from, how long it had been there, etc. OK, time to come clean. I put it there. When I was still in High School or maybe just graduated, a friend had asked me to buy him a six pack of 3.2 beer when I was making a trip to Ohio. (At that time, 3.2 reduced-alcohol beer was available to kids between 18-21.) So I did, and when I got home, I hid the beer in the basement and called the friend to come and get it. Well, he never came over to get it, and I completely forgot it was there. So now you have it - the mystery of the six-pack solved.
In Jr. High, I raced a friend, Tim, back to the school entrance door at the end of our lunch period. I think I just edged him at the finish, but he would probably remember it the other way around. Anyway, the entry door had reinforced glass panels on either side, and I arrived at the one on the right at the end of a full sprint. Bracing myself on the frame with my hands, my momentum brought my right knee up into the glass, which promptly and spectacularly shattered. I was amazed first that I was able to shatter the reinforced glass - you know, the kind that you can see the honeycombed pattern of wire running through. But also I was amazed that it broke with seemingly very little force and my knee wasn't bruised or cut at all. Also amazed was the assistant principle who observed the whole thing. Then for the final amazing event, I received no punishment other than an admonishment to "slow down" next time.
In High School, the Assistant Principal (not the same as the Jr. High guy of course) pulled me out of an English class and walked me to the office. I was a little bit concerned, but mostly just curious about why they would want me in the office. It wasn't long before I found out the purpose of the trip - I was accused of destroying school property. The high school was getting old, and showing its age. It was overdue for some major renovation and remodeling, with old creaky stairs and banisters and drafty, dry-rotted windows. Anyway, someone had been trying to show off his strength by shaking loose the banister at the top of the third floor stairwell, which broke off and fell all the way to the first floor. And a rumor had gone back to the office that the perpetrator was me.
Well, I immediately understood what had happened. And even though I wasn't sure, I had a pretty good idea already of the identity of the actual culprit. It fit very well that he and his friends would consider it highly comical to hang the offense on a model student like myself, who had never come close to trouble in school (at least never been caught). But I just truthfully told the Assistant Principal his account was the first I had heard of the incident, and I not only was not responsible, but was nowhere near that stairwell at the time. He gave me a lecture anyway about destroying school property and endangering other students, but sent me back to class with some obvious disappointment that he had not extracted the confession he hoped for. Oh, and before school let out that day, I had confirmed that the person I suspected was indeed the one responsible. But of course, it's bad form in High School to report on someone, so I kept it to myself. Dad came home that evening and questioned me about it, as he received a call during the day. I appreciated very much that he completely accepted my response and did not show the slightest indication of anything but complete belief in my innocence.
There are plenty more harmless secrets, but I need to get some work done so that's it for today. I hope anyone stumbling on these stories found them somewhat entertaining, and permission is granted to have your laughs at my expense.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
It's Harder when you can't Talk
So I'm discovering the downside of the CASA job. I can't discuss the case with anybody except those directly involved. And that includes posting anything about it on the blog.
All I can say is, how can people be so stupid? Sometimes I feel like shaking someone, yelling at him/her to wake up! Can't you see what you're doing is destroying yourself and everyone around you? What is your problem? Why can't you grow up and take responsibility?
OK, enough ranting. If I'm not careful I might violate my orders to keep everything private. And nothing I've said so far could be tied to any individual person or case.
On the other hand, this job is all about the kids. Boy do they need someone to look after their best interests, and I think CASA's a great idea for doing that.
I've now been asked more times than I can count why I'm a CASA. And most of the questioners seem unsatisfied with my answer. It's almost as if they can't understand doing something difficult as a volunteer even though you really don't have the time, just because you want to help. Does everyone these days only do things if they receive a direct reward or benefit? I wonder.
Burning the ol' candle at both ends lately, so of course I caught a cold. Can't talk at all. Oh yeah, that means there's no way I can sing at church tomorrow - better mention something.
All I can say is, how can people be so stupid? Sometimes I feel like shaking someone, yelling at him/her to wake up! Can't you see what you're doing is destroying yourself and everyone around you? What is your problem? Why can't you grow up and take responsibility?
OK, enough ranting. If I'm not careful I might violate my orders to keep everything private. And nothing I've said so far could be tied to any individual person or case.
On the other hand, this job is all about the kids. Boy do they need someone to look after their best interests, and I think CASA's a great idea for doing that.
I've now been asked more times than I can count why I'm a CASA. And most of the questioners seem unsatisfied with my answer. It's almost as if they can't understand doing something difficult as a volunteer even though you really don't have the time, just because you want to help. Does everyone these days only do things if they receive a direct reward or benefit? I wonder.
Burning the ol' candle at both ends lately, so of course I caught a cold. Can't talk at all. Oh yeah, that means there's no way I can sing at church tomorrow - better mention something.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Expectations
Has it always been like this, or is it a reflection of the current generation? I'm talking about expectations; those expectations we have of each other but are always disappointed. Is it any wonder that it's so hard to maintain friendships, relationships, and family unity?
What do we expect from a friend?
What do we expect from a friend?
- To be there for whatever comes along
- Non-judgemental
- Available at 2AM just to talk
- Pick up the check without keeping track of who's turn it is
- Puts you ahead of his/her own spouse, family, boy/girfriend - anybody
- Always up for whatever wild idea might pop into your head
- Always in control of him/herself so he/she can take care of you when you're not
- Total devotion
- Good cooking & housekeeping skills
- Non-judgemental
- No major mood swings - just happy & fun
- Always looks gorgeous, doesn't need makeup, and sheds the baby fat after each birth
- Likes sports as much as you do, and enjoys going to games, playing golf, or can hold her own with a basketball (but still can't beat you)
- Doesn't try to manipulate you with you-know-what
- Happy to take care of the tough and messy part of kids and leave you for the fun stuff
- Doesn't complain if you work too late or go out after work with your buddies
- Surprises you with little notes hidden in your briefcase, shows up at the airport when you return from a business trip, plans little romantic getaways without the kids now and then, keeps things interesting
- Takes care of paying the household bills, but is sure to leave you some cash to spend on your toys
- Unlimited earnings - at least 6 figures - that she gets to spend as she likes
- No more than 40 hours a week at work, and able to take a day off whenever she asks
- In addition to the yard work, he also has to do all the home repair, including plumbing and electricity, plus build furniture or something in a basement or garage workshop
- Watches little or no television - especially not sports, but if he does watch, it's a movie they both like
- Doesn't buy season tickets for sports teams, but does buy them for the symphony, opera, or ballet. And enjoys the concerts as much as she does.
- Treats her like a queen every day, worshipping at her feet. (And massaging them)
- Does at least half of the housecleaning chores, and cooks dinner half of the time. Is a great cook, but not quite as good as she.
- Pursues her favors regularly but doesn't complain when she doesn't feel like it. Even if it's been a month, or two, or ....
- Takes the kids off her hands whenever she needs a break, and doesn't hesitate to take care of the "dirty work". Takes care of the more difficult child discipline issues.
- Supports her in every family decision and never argues about finances, house rules for the children, schedules, and activities.
- Is always nice to her mother.
- Never goes out with friends after work, but happy to babysit whenever she wants a "girl's night out"
Saturday, April 16, 2005
David Lee
David Lee came into the world after Chrismas in 1962. He was the fourth child of Max, a schoolteacher, and Lori, a stay-at-home-mom. The family was struggling to get by on Max's meager teacher's salary, and David's parents feared he would strain the family beyond the breaking point.
But there was no breaking point, and David quickly integrated into the family. He was a busy, inquisitive, rambunctious child who as a toddler spent plenty of time in that glorified child cage dubbed "playpen". Because when he was outside of the playpen, there seemed to be no limit to the trouble he could get into.
A station wagon became a requirement for the family of six, including a third rear-facing seat the children referred to as the "way back". It was in this family vehicle that the first major vacation trip took place, a camping adventure with the used station wagon pulling a small pop-up camper. David's assigned seat was that "way back" seat, and the other siblings spent most of the trip arguing and negotiating whose turn it was to ride with him back there.
Despite his active nature, David was a chubby child. Most of the family believed that was primarily due to his need to keep up with his big brother in all things, including the volume of food consumption. David became so focused on food equity, he began to be called the "food sheriff" by his siblings. He closely monitored how many treats were consumed by his siblings, and was the family's self-appointed arbiter of fair distribution of treats.
Not an especially good student, David had some difficulty focusing in the classroom, a frequent topic for discussion in parent-teacher conferences at school. But he was adventurous, and showed a strong desire to try just about every activity. By high school, David participated in every available sport, played trumpet in the band, sang bass in choir and show choir, was active in scouting, his church youth group and choir, worked with his father on summer construction projects, and flipped burgers at McDonald's.
There was nothing that could deter David or get him down. He did everything with enthusiasm and joy, almost as if he was in a hurry to have as many experiences in as possible. And this enthusiasm did seem to pay off, as David was part of a State Championship with his High School football team, won an individual championship in a state weighlifting competition, was chosen MVP for Field Events on his Track team, and was elected the national Moderator for the church's denominational youth organization. He grew to 6'4" and about 285lbs in football shape, and was physically the strongest person I knew. He was for some time called "Destructo" because he had a knack for accidentally breaking things. Like a large bolt he broke when tightening it with a wrench, helping his father on a bridge repair project.
David went on to the church-affiliated Ashland College, where his parents and sisters also attended (and all but Lori graduated). In college, he played football and was selected as the student host for a visit by then-president Ronald Reagan and the First Lady. While in college, he continued his involvement in as many activities as possible, and enjoyed the entire experience.
At college he met Tracy, and told others before he'd even secured the first date that he knew she was the girl for him. He succeeded in that endeavor, and he and Tracy married before graduation. He gave up football to do construction and other work to keep his new family afloat as the two of them finished their coursework.
After college graduation, he and his bride moved in with Max and Lori briefly while they each began their job searches. It wasn't long before he landed a job as a manufacturer's sales rep for a nearby recreational vehicle manufacturer. As the entry-level "kid", he was given the least productive territory for the company; the NorthEast US.
David worked hard, bringing his usual enthusiasm to his job, and was soon the top salesman in his division. He was his usual friendly, enthusiastic, and honest self, and his customers learned they could count on him to take care of their needs. Once his orders were accounting for over half of the plant's production, other salepeople began complaining of the unfairness that David, the junior salesman, was allowed to keep the best territory for the company; which was, ahem, the NorthEast US.
David and Tracy started a family with their first daughter, Kara, and built a new home not far from Max and Lori. David and Max built the home together, using plans David had taken and modified from some home plans he liked. He continued to find activities to enjoy, from staying active in the church to joining a local gun club to shoot clays and targets.
His planning, scheming, and ideas turned to business. He partnered with Max to purchase a motor home that would be rented just enough each year to pay for it so the entire family could enjoy using it for vacation and camping trips. A plan he spearheaded with Max and big brother to purchase the remaining acreage in their housing development and launch a homebuilding company ended when the seller rejected the offer. Another plan with big brother to open an RV dealership continued as an ongoing discussion, at least until that fateful October day.
David's personality was outgoing, friendly, and fun-loving. He loved to laugh and was a good storyteller. He was open and friendly with everyone, and was never seen to be rude or dismissive of anyone. He had an easygoing faith, which he could share with others without being preachy or judgemental. He loved children, and they loved him back. When young children were around, David joined in their play. And despite his hulking presence and reputation for breaking things, he was gentle with the children even though they loved being lifted, tossed, spun, and carried around by their giant friend. (When his sister became engaged and married to another "David", everyone began referring to David Lee as "Little Dave". Guess which David was physically smaller.)
In the days and weeks leading up to that Halloween in 1989, David was very busy taking care of personal matters. Virtually all of his family and friends living away from his hometown received telephone calls from David those two or three days before Halloween. He called not to deliver any special information, but just to say hello and catch up. His elder brother received a call as well, and briefly pondered after it ended how is was very different from the typical call from little brother. The conversation was missing the usual exhuberant litany of the latest of David's plans, schemes, and ideas. Instead, it was just a conversation about life in general, how anyone could die at any time, and how he had just finished tying up all of his loose ends. He said, "I can die tomorrow, and my family will be in great shape". Then the conversation sort of ran out of steam, and there was an unprecedented silent lull, as if David was pondering whether to say something else. But he didn't, and the call ended with a tentative agreement to talk again over the weekend.
He had just finished paying off all his outstanding debts, bought a new life insurance policy and put a cancellation letter in the mail for the old one, completed the finishing touches on his new home, and generally taken care of every detail. He was happy, proud, and relaxed.
David was 26 on the evening before Halloween, when he was on his way home from work to have dinner with his parents, wife, and daughter. It was Max's birthday celebration. As the 6:00 dinnertime passed, those awaiting him at his home began to be concerned. Yes, David was known to often show up late, but never this late.
David had been driving home for dinner, running a little late and perhaps in a bit of a hurry. As he approached the intersection on the country road only a couple of miles from home, he must not have seen the other car speeding toward him from the crossroad to the left. Possibly the trees, still hanging on to their colorful fall foliage, blocked his view of the oncoming danger.
The Mexican immigrant driving the other car, who had stopped at the bar after work at a local factory and had a few too many, was on his way home as well. He was in more than a hurry, traveling an estimated 80mph in the 50mph zone. The stop sign at the cross-road didn't give him a second's pause, and he impacted the driver's door of David's car as it crossed his path through the intersection.
The phone rang at David's house. The waiting family was told that David had been in an accident, and had been transported to the local hospital. The family arrived to find he was already gone. He had probably been killed instantly in the crash from massive head trauma.
The community came out in force both to pay respects to the family during funeral home visitation, and in a standing-room-only crowd at his weekday funeral in his home church. A sudden storm dropped sleet and rain during his graveside memorial, then cleared and the sun peeked through the clouds as the mourners walked to their cars. It seemed as though God himself was weeping, then comforting everyone left behind with a glimpse of the sun's rays. His employer, co-workers, and clients sent huge bouquets. People from all over sent heartfelt cards and letters. A scholarship fund was created in his name. And since that letter did not reach the life insurance company until after the accident, his family collected on that policy, in addition to the newly purchased policy and his employer's policy.
Most of his co-workers were not church-going sorts. But those who know say that a half-dozen of them not only became enthusiastic Christians, but went beyond to become pastors, missionaries, and serve in other major roles for their churches. All influenced significantly by their friend and co-worker, not through words so much as example.
A few months after the accident, David's son, David Lee, was born. Today, everyone who knew his father remarks on how closely young David Lee resembles his father at the same age.
My little brother has been gone many years now, but I still think of him often. It sounds crazy, and probably is, but sometimes when I'm driving somewhere in my car I'll feel like he's close by. I turn off the radio and have a conversation with him, just like we used to during his brief adult years. And I could almost swear that I hear him talking to me. Crazy or not, such conversations bring me peace.
I don't worry about him, because I'm sure he's quite well and was just recently reunited with his mother. But I do still miss his friendship, his enthusiasm for life, his positive attitude, and his constant ideas, plans and schemes. My life's goal is to try to be just a little more like him in being accepting of others despite their flaws, always finding the positives in difficult situations, and staying optimistic and enthusiastic in everything I do.
But there was no breaking point, and David quickly integrated into the family. He was a busy, inquisitive, rambunctious child who as a toddler spent plenty of time in that glorified child cage dubbed "playpen". Because when he was outside of the playpen, there seemed to be no limit to the trouble he could get into.
A station wagon became a requirement for the family of six, including a third rear-facing seat the children referred to as the "way back". It was in this family vehicle that the first major vacation trip took place, a camping adventure with the used station wagon pulling a small pop-up camper. David's assigned seat was that "way back" seat, and the other siblings spent most of the trip arguing and negotiating whose turn it was to ride with him back there.
Despite his active nature, David was a chubby child. Most of the family believed that was primarily due to his need to keep up with his big brother in all things, including the volume of food consumption. David became so focused on food equity, he began to be called the "food sheriff" by his siblings. He closely monitored how many treats were consumed by his siblings, and was the family's self-appointed arbiter of fair distribution of treats.
Not an especially good student, David had some difficulty focusing in the classroom, a frequent topic for discussion in parent-teacher conferences at school. But he was adventurous, and showed a strong desire to try just about every activity. By high school, David participated in every available sport, played trumpet in the band, sang bass in choir and show choir, was active in scouting, his church youth group and choir, worked with his father on summer construction projects, and flipped burgers at McDonald's.
There was nothing that could deter David or get him down. He did everything with enthusiasm and joy, almost as if he was in a hurry to have as many experiences in as possible. And this enthusiasm did seem to pay off, as David was part of a State Championship with his High School football team, won an individual championship in a state weighlifting competition, was chosen MVP for Field Events on his Track team, and was elected the national Moderator for the church's denominational youth organization. He grew to 6'4" and about 285lbs in football shape, and was physically the strongest person I knew. He was for some time called "Destructo" because he had a knack for accidentally breaking things. Like a large bolt he broke when tightening it with a wrench, helping his father on a bridge repair project.
David went on to the church-affiliated Ashland College, where his parents and sisters also attended (and all but Lori graduated). In college, he played football and was selected as the student host for a visit by then-president Ronald Reagan and the First Lady. While in college, he continued his involvement in as many activities as possible, and enjoyed the entire experience.
At college he met Tracy, and told others before he'd even secured the first date that he knew she was the girl for him. He succeeded in that endeavor, and he and Tracy married before graduation. He gave up football to do construction and other work to keep his new family afloat as the two of them finished their coursework.
After college graduation, he and his bride moved in with Max and Lori briefly while they each began their job searches. It wasn't long before he landed a job as a manufacturer's sales rep for a nearby recreational vehicle manufacturer. As the entry-level "kid", he was given the least productive territory for the company; the NorthEast US.
David worked hard, bringing his usual enthusiasm to his job, and was soon the top salesman in his division. He was his usual friendly, enthusiastic, and honest self, and his customers learned they could count on him to take care of their needs. Once his orders were accounting for over half of the plant's production, other salepeople began complaining of the unfairness that David, the junior salesman, was allowed to keep the best territory for the company; which was, ahem, the NorthEast US.
David and Tracy started a family with their first daughter, Kara, and built a new home not far from Max and Lori. David and Max built the home together, using plans David had taken and modified from some home plans he liked. He continued to find activities to enjoy, from staying active in the church to joining a local gun club to shoot clays and targets.
His planning, scheming, and ideas turned to business. He partnered with Max to purchase a motor home that would be rented just enough each year to pay for it so the entire family could enjoy using it for vacation and camping trips. A plan he spearheaded with Max and big brother to purchase the remaining acreage in their housing development and launch a homebuilding company ended when the seller rejected the offer. Another plan with big brother to open an RV dealership continued as an ongoing discussion, at least until that fateful October day.
David's personality was outgoing, friendly, and fun-loving. He loved to laugh and was a good storyteller. He was open and friendly with everyone, and was never seen to be rude or dismissive of anyone. He had an easygoing faith, which he could share with others without being preachy or judgemental. He loved children, and they loved him back. When young children were around, David joined in their play. And despite his hulking presence and reputation for breaking things, he was gentle with the children even though they loved being lifted, tossed, spun, and carried around by their giant friend. (When his sister became engaged and married to another "David", everyone began referring to David Lee as "Little Dave". Guess which David was physically smaller.)
In the days and weeks leading up to that Halloween in 1989, David was very busy taking care of personal matters. Virtually all of his family and friends living away from his hometown received telephone calls from David those two or three days before Halloween. He called not to deliver any special information, but just to say hello and catch up. His elder brother received a call as well, and briefly pondered after it ended how is was very different from the typical call from little brother. The conversation was missing the usual exhuberant litany of the latest of David's plans, schemes, and ideas. Instead, it was just a conversation about life in general, how anyone could die at any time, and how he had just finished tying up all of his loose ends. He said, "I can die tomorrow, and my family will be in great shape". Then the conversation sort of ran out of steam, and there was an unprecedented silent lull, as if David was pondering whether to say something else. But he didn't, and the call ended with a tentative agreement to talk again over the weekend.
He had just finished paying off all his outstanding debts, bought a new life insurance policy and put a cancellation letter in the mail for the old one, completed the finishing touches on his new home, and generally taken care of every detail. He was happy, proud, and relaxed.
David was 26 on the evening before Halloween, when he was on his way home from work to have dinner with his parents, wife, and daughter. It was Max's birthday celebration. As the 6:00 dinnertime passed, those awaiting him at his home began to be concerned. Yes, David was known to often show up late, but never this late.
David had been driving home for dinner, running a little late and perhaps in a bit of a hurry. As he approached the intersection on the country road only a couple of miles from home, he must not have seen the other car speeding toward him from the crossroad to the left. Possibly the trees, still hanging on to their colorful fall foliage, blocked his view of the oncoming danger.
The Mexican immigrant driving the other car, who had stopped at the bar after work at a local factory and had a few too many, was on his way home as well. He was in more than a hurry, traveling an estimated 80mph in the 50mph zone. The stop sign at the cross-road didn't give him a second's pause, and he impacted the driver's door of David's car as it crossed his path through the intersection.
The phone rang at David's house. The waiting family was told that David had been in an accident, and had been transported to the local hospital. The family arrived to find he was already gone. He had probably been killed instantly in the crash from massive head trauma.
The community came out in force both to pay respects to the family during funeral home visitation, and in a standing-room-only crowd at his weekday funeral in his home church. A sudden storm dropped sleet and rain during his graveside memorial, then cleared and the sun peeked through the clouds as the mourners walked to their cars. It seemed as though God himself was weeping, then comforting everyone left behind with a glimpse of the sun's rays. His employer, co-workers, and clients sent huge bouquets. People from all over sent heartfelt cards and letters. A scholarship fund was created in his name. And since that letter did not reach the life insurance company until after the accident, his family collected on that policy, in addition to the newly purchased policy and his employer's policy.
Most of his co-workers were not church-going sorts. But those who know say that a half-dozen of them not only became enthusiastic Christians, but went beyond to become pastors, missionaries, and serve in other major roles for their churches. All influenced significantly by their friend and co-worker, not through words so much as example.
A few months after the accident, David's son, David Lee, was born. Today, everyone who knew his father remarks on how closely young David Lee resembles his father at the same age.
My little brother has been gone many years now, but I still think of him often. It sounds crazy, and probably is, but sometimes when I'm driving somewhere in my car I'll feel like he's close by. I turn off the radio and have a conversation with him, just like we used to during his brief adult years. And I could almost swear that I hear him talking to me. Crazy or not, such conversations bring me peace.
I don't worry about him, because I'm sure he's quite well and was just recently reunited with his mother. But I do still miss his friendship, his enthusiasm for life, his positive attitude, and his constant ideas, plans and schemes. My life's goal is to try to be just a little more like him in being accepting of others despite their flaws, always finding the positives in difficult situations, and staying optimistic and enthusiastic in everything I do.
Monday, April 11, 2005
Stupid Surveys
1. Grab the book nearest to you, turn to page 18, and find line 4. Write down what it says: "We're $21 billion in size and we have been operating for a long time ..."
2. Stretch your left arm out as far as you can. What do you touch first? My whiteboard on the wall next to my desk
3. What is the last thing you watched on TV? Dune DVD (Sci-Fi Channel Version)
4. Without looking, guess what time it is: 8:30pm
6. With the exception of the computer, what can you hear? "Lucky One" by Amy Grant.
7. When did you last step outside? At 6:00 when I came back to the office.
8. What were you doing? coming back and walking in from the car?
9. Before you started this survey, what did you look at? a blog.
10. What are you wearing? SAS black shoes, khaki pants, blue checked shirt.
11. Did you dream last night? Always.
12. When did you last laugh? Hmm. I guess when I briefly saw a funny video on TV (AFV). Yesterday?
13. What is on the walls of the room you are in? Bulletin Board, Whiteboard, that's pretty much it. I know, I need to do better decorating my office. But that's for girls.
14. Seen anything weird lately? A small pickup truck upside-down in the ditch last weekend.
15. What do you think of this quiz? Waste of time. B@&#$&'s!
16. What is the last film you saw? in theatres, Robots in Florida I think. Disappointing.
17. If you became a multi-millionaire overnight, what are some things you would buy? New home absolutely first. Car, but nothing terribly flashy, just comfortable. Something just for fun - maybe an airplane?
18. Tell me something about you that I don't know: I've played "spin the bottle" with really hot ladies on a beach on the Baltic Sea. (Don't tell anybody, it's a secret)
19. If you could change one thing about the world, regardless of guilt or politics, what would you do? Appoint myself dictator of the world. Slap down the bad, raise up the good, and proclaim to everybody else the edict that they get along with each other from now on "or else!".
20. Do you like to dance? When I was young and buff. No way now.
21. George Bush... The President. Like some policies and dislike others. Better than either Gore or Kerry, but far from my ideal pres. Gets a bad rap from ignorant people.
22. Imagine your first child is a girl, what do you call her? Sarah.
23. Imagine your first child is a boy, what do you call him? Nicholas - already did that.
24. Would you ever consider living abroad? Maybe temporarily. Depends on the country. Most countries outside the US are awful, nasty, grubby places.
25. What do you want God to say to you when you reach the pearly gates? Ha Ha, got you good, didn't I?
2. Stretch your left arm out as far as you can. What do you touch first? My whiteboard on the wall next to my desk
3. What is the last thing you watched on TV? Dune DVD (Sci-Fi Channel Version)
4. Without looking, guess what time it is: 8:30pm
6. With the exception of the computer, what can you hear? "Lucky One" by Amy Grant.
7. When did you last step outside? At 6:00 when I came back to the office.
8. What were you doing? coming back and walking in from the car?
9. Before you started this survey, what did you look at? a blog.
10. What are you wearing? SAS black shoes, khaki pants, blue checked shirt.
11. Did you dream last night? Always.
12. When did you last laugh? Hmm. I guess when I briefly saw a funny video on TV (AFV). Yesterday?
13. What is on the walls of the room you are in? Bulletin Board, Whiteboard, that's pretty much it. I know, I need to do better decorating my office. But that's for girls.
14. Seen anything weird lately? A small pickup truck upside-down in the ditch last weekend.
15. What do you think of this quiz? Waste of time. B@&#$&'s!
16. What is the last film you saw? in theatres, Robots in Florida I think. Disappointing.
17. If you became a multi-millionaire overnight, what are some things you would buy? New home absolutely first. Car, but nothing terribly flashy, just comfortable. Something just for fun - maybe an airplane?
18. Tell me something about you that I don't know: I've played "spin the bottle" with really hot ladies on a beach on the Baltic Sea. (Don't tell anybody, it's a secret)
19. If you could change one thing about the world, regardless of guilt or politics, what would you do? Appoint myself dictator of the world. Slap down the bad, raise up the good, and proclaim to everybody else the edict that they get along with each other from now on "or else!".
20. Do you like to dance? When I was young and buff. No way now.
21. George Bush... The President. Like some policies and dislike others. Better than either Gore or Kerry, but far from my ideal pres. Gets a bad rap from ignorant people.
22. Imagine your first child is a girl, what do you call her? Sarah.
23. Imagine your first child is a boy, what do you call him? Nicholas - already did that.
24. Would you ever consider living abroad? Maybe temporarily. Depends on the country. Most countries outside the US are awful, nasty, grubby places.
25. What do you want God to say to you when you reach the pearly gates? Ha Ha, got you good, didn't I?
Tales from the Twilight Zone
When I took Chris to Florida for Spring Break a couple of weeks ago, part of our adventure was a day at Epcot (Disney). The entire day felt like deja vu, as I looked over faces in the crowd.
There must have been, hmm, at least a dozen faces in the crowd that looked eerily familiar. Not like I think I may have seen that person before, but like I should really know that person. But no amount of brain-racking could produce the memory of where I might have met each individual.
For example, there was a young teenage girl in line right in front of us at the Norway attraction, Maelstrom. As we made our way through the 20-minute wait, then shared the same boat, I kept racking my brain trying to figure out where I had seen her before. I came up empty. Her features, her walk, even her voice were so familiar I felt like I'd known her since she was a toddler. I briefly considered diplomatically asking her where she was from to try to get a clue, but decided against it because it might make her paranoid.
But she wasn't the only one that day that I saw and really thought, "I should know that person". One theory I've developed is that through all my travels I've seen thousands of people. And I'm one of those people who remembers faces, but I'm terrible with names. I've been in pretty much every major city in North America, in fact, the only US States I haven't visited are Alaska, Idaho, and Vermont. So, maybe since I've seen and met so many people all over the country over the years that I just can't remember everybody.
Then I consider another event that occurred in the Pittsburgh airport a few years ago. I was on the way somewhere, with a connection through Pittsburgh. Probably US Airways, since it's their hub. Anyway, when I walked up to my departure gate, I immediately noticed a woman there that looked very familiar. Not just "I've seen her before" familiar, but "I used to know her very well" familiar. Let me stress this point - I thought I knew her Very Well, as in Intimately, sometime in the past.
As I began trying to dredge up a memory of who she might be or how I knew her, I noticed she was looking back at me very intently. We spent the next 10 minutes playing a casual game of looking at each other but pretending not to, until she got up and strode directly over to where I was seated.
She began with, "I beg your pardon, but I just had the strongest feeling that I know you from somewhere". I responded that I had the same feeling. We discussed it for awhile, each trying to figure out where or when we may have met. But neither of us could figure it out. We tried out where we've each lived, where we went to College, even what sort of work we did, but nothing clicked. We both went on to our eventual destinations, and that was the end of it. But I still think back to that encounter from time to time and try again to figure out why we both would have such a strong feeling that we knew each other, when it seems impossible.
Like I said, welcome to the Twilight Zone. Between this sort of stuff, my unique other spooky experiences, and other prescient events, it's why Nick calls me "creepy" sometimes. But I don't think it's creepy at all, and there very well could be a very logical explanation for everything. I just haven't figured out what that explanation is just yet.
There must have been, hmm, at least a dozen faces in the crowd that looked eerily familiar. Not like I think I may have seen that person before, but like I should really know that person. But no amount of brain-racking could produce the memory of where I might have met each individual.
For example, there was a young teenage girl in line right in front of us at the Norway attraction, Maelstrom. As we made our way through the 20-minute wait, then shared the same boat, I kept racking my brain trying to figure out where I had seen her before. I came up empty. Her features, her walk, even her voice were so familiar I felt like I'd known her since she was a toddler. I briefly considered diplomatically asking her where she was from to try to get a clue, but decided against it because it might make her paranoid.
But she wasn't the only one that day that I saw and really thought, "I should know that person". One theory I've developed is that through all my travels I've seen thousands of people. And I'm one of those people who remembers faces, but I'm terrible with names. I've been in pretty much every major city in North America, in fact, the only US States I haven't visited are Alaska, Idaho, and Vermont. So, maybe since I've seen and met so many people all over the country over the years that I just can't remember everybody.
Then I consider another event that occurred in the Pittsburgh airport a few years ago. I was on the way somewhere, with a connection through Pittsburgh. Probably US Airways, since it's their hub. Anyway, when I walked up to my departure gate, I immediately noticed a woman there that looked very familiar. Not just "I've seen her before" familiar, but "I used to know her very well" familiar. Let me stress this point - I thought I knew her Very Well, as in Intimately, sometime in the past.
As I began trying to dredge up a memory of who she might be or how I knew her, I noticed she was looking back at me very intently. We spent the next 10 minutes playing a casual game of looking at each other but pretending not to, until she got up and strode directly over to where I was seated.
She began with, "I beg your pardon, but I just had the strongest feeling that I know you from somewhere". I responded that I had the same feeling. We discussed it for awhile, each trying to figure out where or when we may have met. But neither of us could figure it out. We tried out where we've each lived, where we went to College, even what sort of work we did, but nothing clicked. We both went on to our eventual destinations, and that was the end of it. But I still think back to that encounter from time to time and try again to figure out why we both would have such a strong feeling that we knew each other, when it seems impossible.
Like I said, welcome to the Twilight Zone. Between this sort of stuff, my unique other spooky experiences, and other prescient events, it's why Nick calls me "creepy" sometimes. But I don't think it's creepy at all, and there very well could be a very logical explanation for everything. I just haven't figured out what that explanation is just yet.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Conflict
Everywhere we go, there seem to be people fighting with each other. Conflict is a fact of life, whether on a national and international scale or between two individuals. I've been sort of studying conflict on my own recently, trying to understand the dynamics of what causes them to start, why they continue, and why they are so difficult to resolve.
The answer came from Tim this weekend, when I was having a serious talk with him about getting along with his mother. He made a very simple but profound statement, "I refuse to let her win".
That's it. It is so very simple. Conflict comes from pride and the human desire for control and dominance. Have you ever been in an argument with someone about something, and later after thinking about the issue more thoroughly figured out that the other person was right? Let me predict something: Rather than going back to that person and apologizing or at least admitting to them that they were right, you either refuse to discuss it further or continue to fight for your losing position. I've done it.
What's worse than being proven wrong, and having someone rub it in your face by saying, "I told you so"? Even then, don't we often rationalize that even though some unique circumstance made us wrong in that particular case, but our principle argument was still valid?
Or on the world stage, what's the biggest and most intractable conflict? I'd say the middle east conflicts, and by extension our terrorism problem, which can all be traced in some fashion to Israel. The extremes on the Palestinian side still hold the objective of pushing Israel into the sea. On the Israeli side, the opposite extreme wants to expel all of the Palestinians and once and for all claim the country of Israel as the promised land for the children of Israel.
Why can't they compromise and carve out a separate independent state for the Palestinians and live side by side in peace? Because too many on each side believe that such a solution means that the other side "won". Simple human pride mixed with a twisted theology driven by a minority of radical religious leaders. Even if the political leaders on both sides were successful in making such an agreement, would it end terrorism? No. The "true believers" will reject the treaty and probably step up their bombings in a desparate attempt to overturn things. They would probably assassinate the leaders responsible in the process. Remember Anwar Sadat?
Somewhere I heard once that the only way to end war is to win. Based on the history I've studied so far, it seems right. How many wars in the past have been resolved through the two warring parties sitting down and negotiating peace? Korea, maybe? I'm not sure that one worked out all that well. Does one or the other party always have to win, or can we be civilized enough to compromise and work things out? I'd say if one party in the conflict is somebody like Hitler, there is no alternative but to defeat him thoroughly. Or could it be said that all of our modern wars only occurred only because there was no alternative but absolute victory?
Whether between a parent and teen or two opposing political forces, can conflicts be resolved? Sometimes, but unfortunately most often, no. In each case, the best chance for reconciliation would seem to be the influence of an impartial and wise third party, who can arbitrate the dispute and help find a way for both sides to "win".
Personally, I've reached the stage of generally putting aside any personal pride to avoid conflict as much as possible. Maybe that's not such a productive approach either, but I'm honestly sick of fighting and watching others fight. It disgusts me that so many people abandon friendships and family members because of a stupid spat over something trivial. It's just no longer worth the effort. Sort of a passive-aggressive approach, I suppose, especially when I know I'm just walking away from conflict most of the time and making the one trying to start a fight with me angrier than before. I've learned to walk away from a fight (of course I'm not talking about a physical fight, but a verbal/emotional one). Because even if I win, I lose. Even if I'm right, there's no satisfaction to be gained in proving it at the expense of alienating the other person.
Makes me tired just thinking about it. Why can't we all just hear what others have to say, think about it carefully, then either agree or respectfully disagree and move on? Wouldn't the world be a much better place? Just like it takes two to tangle, it takes the same two to work it out.
Can I do so within my family? We'll see, but I'm not sure I pass the "wisdom" test. Who could do so for the middle east? Condi and GW? I suppose they're giving it their best shot, but we'll see.
The answer came from Tim this weekend, when I was having a serious talk with him about getting along with his mother. He made a very simple but profound statement, "I refuse to let her win".
That's it. It is so very simple. Conflict comes from pride and the human desire for control and dominance. Have you ever been in an argument with someone about something, and later after thinking about the issue more thoroughly figured out that the other person was right? Let me predict something: Rather than going back to that person and apologizing or at least admitting to them that they were right, you either refuse to discuss it further or continue to fight for your losing position. I've done it.
What's worse than being proven wrong, and having someone rub it in your face by saying, "I told you so"? Even then, don't we often rationalize that even though some unique circumstance made us wrong in that particular case, but our principle argument was still valid?
Or on the world stage, what's the biggest and most intractable conflict? I'd say the middle east conflicts, and by extension our terrorism problem, which can all be traced in some fashion to Israel. The extremes on the Palestinian side still hold the objective of pushing Israel into the sea. On the Israeli side, the opposite extreme wants to expel all of the Palestinians and once and for all claim the country of Israel as the promised land for the children of Israel.
Why can't they compromise and carve out a separate independent state for the Palestinians and live side by side in peace? Because too many on each side believe that such a solution means that the other side "won". Simple human pride mixed with a twisted theology driven by a minority of radical religious leaders. Even if the political leaders on both sides were successful in making such an agreement, would it end terrorism? No. The "true believers" will reject the treaty and probably step up their bombings in a desparate attempt to overturn things. They would probably assassinate the leaders responsible in the process. Remember Anwar Sadat?
Somewhere I heard once that the only way to end war is to win. Based on the history I've studied so far, it seems right. How many wars in the past have been resolved through the two warring parties sitting down and negotiating peace? Korea, maybe? I'm not sure that one worked out all that well. Does one or the other party always have to win, or can we be civilized enough to compromise and work things out? I'd say if one party in the conflict is somebody like Hitler, there is no alternative but to defeat him thoroughly. Or could it be said that all of our modern wars only occurred only because there was no alternative but absolute victory?
Whether between a parent and teen or two opposing political forces, can conflicts be resolved? Sometimes, but unfortunately most often, no. In each case, the best chance for reconciliation would seem to be the influence of an impartial and wise third party, who can arbitrate the dispute and help find a way for both sides to "win".
Personally, I've reached the stage of generally putting aside any personal pride to avoid conflict as much as possible. Maybe that's not such a productive approach either, but I'm honestly sick of fighting and watching others fight. It disgusts me that so many people abandon friendships and family members because of a stupid spat over something trivial. It's just no longer worth the effort. Sort of a passive-aggressive approach, I suppose, especially when I know I'm just walking away from conflict most of the time and making the one trying to start a fight with me angrier than before. I've learned to walk away from a fight (of course I'm not talking about a physical fight, but a verbal/emotional one). Because even if I win, I lose. Even if I'm right, there's no satisfaction to be gained in proving it at the expense of alienating the other person.
Makes me tired just thinking about it. Why can't we all just hear what others have to say, think about it carefully, then either agree or respectfully disagree and move on? Wouldn't the world be a much better place? Just like it takes two to tangle, it takes the same two to work it out.
Can I do so within my family? We'll see, but I'm not sure I pass the "wisdom" test. Who could do so for the middle east? Condi and GW? I suppose they're giving it their best shot, but we'll see.
Friday, April 08, 2005
HealthCare Revisited
Due to some interesting discussions lately, I'm inspired to post another healthcare thing. It kind of started with the statement,
"the American government's health care system is disgusting and vile. A country should take care of it's people better than that." - Penny from Canada
It's given me pause to think about the whole issue once again.
The key message above includes the assumption that it's the natural duty of a government to "take care of its people". It goes to the heart of what our country's all about, and the whole question of just what do we expect from our government. Canada's like most of Europe in that they are unabashed socialists. And of course, socialists believe the government's very reason for existence is to take care of its people. In general, the Americans that believe that are Democrats. For some, the government is just a benevolent entity that has unlimited resources to take care of its citizens. For others, it's the means of leveling out society so that nobody gets to be rich and nobody is allowed to be poor, because they believe in taking from those who have money and giving it to those who don't, whether they deserve it or not.
Aside from the politics, what about the American healthcare system? Is it the best in the world or "disgusting and vile"? Given the fact of my many years in HR consulting, which includes setting up Benefit Plans and Employee Enrollments for many companies, I think that gives me some license to pontificate on the subject.
American healthcare is the best in the world for those with the means to access it fully. Hands down. Anyone with unlimited resources or a great health insurance plan can get the best care on the planet. The problem exists for those who don't have either.
And it's not fair to say the government isn't trying to help. Penny in Canada may have never heard of Medicare or Medicaid, but everybody in America surely knows about these programs. Medicare covers our elderly, while Medicaid covers the poor and indigent. And as far as I have observed, both programs are addressing the needs of both groups, for the most part. Yes, you can start the prescription drug argument and be right, but our poor and elderly are overall well cared-for.
So who's falling through the cracks? Basically everyone else who's not rich but not poor, under 65, and not covered by an employer-sponsored health plan. The number of people in this category is increasing dramatically, and I'm one of them.
The average lower-to-middle-class family that isn't covered by an employer is effectively shut out of health coverage.
Here's why:
1. They can't afford COBRA. COBRA's required by law, and must be offered to employees who leave their company for up to 18 months. By then, they should be eligible for benefits with their new employer, even with pre-existing conditions. Sounds like a good idea, right? Yes, in fact it initially worked very well. But it doesn't work anymore because the premiums have effectively shut most working people out. My specific example - when I left my employer, the COBRA rate for covering my family was about $1,000 per month. How many people on average incomes can afford that? Actual costs for covering a typical family hover right around that range - the company I'm currently consulting with has a self-insured medical program with a rider for catastrophic costs, which they're budgeting very close to that $1,000 per month for every employee who signs up for the plan. Next year it could easily rise to $1,200.
2. Pre-Existing Conditions. Have a bit of asthma? A little overweight? Blood pressure a little above average? Ever had surgery for anything? Sorry, you're too high a risk for private insurers. They won't insure you at any price.
3. Choice. At current premium costs, even if they could access insurance and scrape together enough to keep current, it's such a high cost that people choose to roll the dice and go without.
But does this mean those people are denied care if they need it? Perhaps if they're too far behind on payments to their physician, he may turn them away unless they catch up on their unpaid bills. But generally, if someone requires emergency treatment for a life-threatening illness or injury, they will receive it. They also will be held liable for all of the related bills from Doctors, Hospitals, Medicines, Equipment, Ambulance Services, etc.
So what happens to the uninsured if they have a catastrophic illness or injury? They go bankrupt. Then at least the patient will qualify for Medicaid. Guess what that means. Right, the differerence gets passed on to everyone else in higher premiums. Medicare's already in the red, and Medicaid is bankrupting most states right now. And employer premiums continue to rise between 10 and 30 percent annually.
Sounds bad? It is bad. But what can be done?
Some say the government should step in and make sure everyone is covered. Institute socialized medicine. Eliminate evil private insurers that won't insure anyone but the healthiest and arbitrarily deny or delay needed treatments and surgeries. Expand Medicare to cover every citizen. It's Bill & Hillary's national health plan. Opponents say it will stifle innovation, lead to rationed care, and decimate the quality of care. Which is true, but to what degree is difficult to predict.
My ideas, which I outlined in an earlier blog, are these:
Let employers continue to purchase insurance privately as they do now; in fact, make sure they are incented to do so. Because the more people are insured through private plans, the less burden on the public plans.
Open government-sponsored clinics for the uninsured that charge whatever the patient is able to pay. In rural areas, the government could provide subsidies to help defray the costs.
Expand health savings accounts that let people put aside pre-tax dollars to use for medical expenses as they see fit. It's a great program already that should be expanded, but it's not the only solution.
Tort reform, of course. There still needs to be legal redress for true malpractice, but the junk lawsuits are ruining it for those who have legitimate claims.
Create a federally-sponsored insurance program for everyone that isn't already covered through a private plan with premiums indexed to income. I'd replace Medicaid with this sort of program. It would essentially be a gigantic group open to everyone in the country who needs coverage, but nobody gets it for free. There would be a premium directly tied to the individual family's income. If it's only $10 per month for a family in extreme poverty, so be it. Maybe it's up to $1,000 a month for those who can afford it but got turned down by the private insurers. And there can be different plan options, with lower or higher premiums based on the level of deductible or type of coverage elected, just like private plans offer today.
It's still socialized medicine? Yes, but it's socialized medicine with choice. People could still choose to remain uninsured, but they're rolling the dice on possible bankruptcy if they are hit with a catastrophic illness or injury down the road. And although I can't run numbers on what it would cost, I have to believe the total cost would be less than the current system.
Unfortunately, I can't make it happen, and there aren't any politicians who want to stay in office with the courage to champion the idea. Too many lobbyists paying them too much money will make sure the status quo stays in place.
"the American government's health care system is disgusting and vile. A country should take care of it's people better than that." - Penny from Canada
It's given me pause to think about the whole issue once again.
The key message above includes the assumption that it's the natural duty of a government to "take care of its people". It goes to the heart of what our country's all about, and the whole question of just what do we expect from our government. Canada's like most of Europe in that they are unabashed socialists. And of course, socialists believe the government's very reason for existence is to take care of its people. In general, the Americans that believe that are Democrats. For some, the government is just a benevolent entity that has unlimited resources to take care of its citizens. For others, it's the means of leveling out society so that nobody gets to be rich and nobody is allowed to be poor, because they believe in taking from those who have money and giving it to those who don't, whether they deserve it or not.
Aside from the politics, what about the American healthcare system? Is it the best in the world or "disgusting and vile"? Given the fact of my many years in HR consulting, which includes setting up Benefit Plans and Employee Enrollments for many companies, I think that gives me some license to pontificate on the subject.
American healthcare is the best in the world for those with the means to access it fully. Hands down. Anyone with unlimited resources or a great health insurance plan can get the best care on the planet. The problem exists for those who don't have either.
And it's not fair to say the government isn't trying to help. Penny in Canada may have never heard of Medicare or Medicaid, but everybody in America surely knows about these programs. Medicare covers our elderly, while Medicaid covers the poor and indigent. And as far as I have observed, both programs are addressing the needs of both groups, for the most part. Yes, you can start the prescription drug argument and be right, but our poor and elderly are overall well cared-for.
So who's falling through the cracks? Basically everyone else who's not rich but not poor, under 65, and not covered by an employer-sponsored health plan. The number of people in this category is increasing dramatically, and I'm one of them.
The average lower-to-middle-class family that isn't covered by an employer is effectively shut out of health coverage.
Here's why:
1. They can't afford COBRA. COBRA's required by law, and must be offered to employees who leave their company for up to 18 months. By then, they should be eligible for benefits with their new employer, even with pre-existing conditions. Sounds like a good idea, right? Yes, in fact it initially worked very well. But it doesn't work anymore because the premiums have effectively shut most working people out. My specific example - when I left my employer, the COBRA rate for covering my family was about $1,000 per month. How many people on average incomes can afford that? Actual costs for covering a typical family hover right around that range - the company I'm currently consulting with has a self-insured medical program with a rider for catastrophic costs, which they're budgeting very close to that $1,000 per month for every employee who signs up for the plan. Next year it could easily rise to $1,200.
2. Pre-Existing Conditions. Have a bit of asthma? A little overweight? Blood pressure a little above average? Ever had surgery for anything? Sorry, you're too high a risk for private insurers. They won't insure you at any price.
3. Choice. At current premium costs, even if they could access insurance and scrape together enough to keep current, it's such a high cost that people choose to roll the dice and go without.
But does this mean those people are denied care if they need it? Perhaps if they're too far behind on payments to their physician, he may turn them away unless they catch up on their unpaid bills. But generally, if someone requires emergency treatment for a life-threatening illness or injury, they will receive it. They also will be held liable for all of the related bills from Doctors, Hospitals, Medicines, Equipment, Ambulance Services, etc.
So what happens to the uninsured if they have a catastrophic illness or injury? They go bankrupt. Then at least the patient will qualify for Medicaid. Guess what that means. Right, the differerence gets passed on to everyone else in higher premiums. Medicare's already in the red, and Medicaid is bankrupting most states right now. And employer premiums continue to rise between 10 and 30 percent annually.
Sounds bad? It is bad. But what can be done?
Some say the government should step in and make sure everyone is covered. Institute socialized medicine. Eliminate evil private insurers that won't insure anyone but the healthiest and arbitrarily deny or delay needed treatments and surgeries. Expand Medicare to cover every citizen. It's Bill & Hillary's national health plan. Opponents say it will stifle innovation, lead to rationed care, and decimate the quality of care. Which is true, but to what degree is difficult to predict.
My ideas, which I outlined in an earlier blog, are these:
Let employers continue to purchase insurance privately as they do now; in fact, make sure they are incented to do so. Because the more people are insured through private plans, the less burden on the public plans.
Open government-sponsored clinics for the uninsured that charge whatever the patient is able to pay. In rural areas, the government could provide subsidies to help defray the costs.
Expand health savings accounts that let people put aside pre-tax dollars to use for medical expenses as they see fit. It's a great program already that should be expanded, but it's not the only solution.
Tort reform, of course. There still needs to be legal redress for true malpractice, but the junk lawsuits are ruining it for those who have legitimate claims.
Create a federally-sponsored insurance program for everyone that isn't already covered through a private plan with premiums indexed to income. I'd replace Medicaid with this sort of program. It would essentially be a gigantic group open to everyone in the country who needs coverage, but nobody gets it for free. There would be a premium directly tied to the individual family's income. If it's only $10 per month for a family in extreme poverty, so be it. Maybe it's up to $1,000 a month for those who can afford it but got turned down by the private insurers. And there can be different plan options, with lower or higher premiums based on the level of deductible or type of coverage elected, just like private plans offer today.
It's still socialized medicine? Yes, but it's socialized medicine with choice. People could still choose to remain uninsured, but they're rolling the dice on possible bankruptcy if they are hit with a catastrophic illness or injury down the road. And although I can't run numbers on what it would cost, I have to believe the total cost would be less than the current system.
Unfortunately, I can't make it happen, and there aren't any politicians who want to stay in office with the courage to champion the idea. Too many lobbyists paying them too much money will make sure the status quo stays in place.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Too Busy
Why take time I don't have to update my blog? I can't seem to figure it out, but here I am.
My calendar is jammed well into May, and indications are it will continue through the summer. Great for the bank account, but it raises big questions about where I go from here from a business standpoint.
Do I officially put the web business on the back burner or get serious about finding somebody to work for me? My main contact at the computer repair shop I've been partnering with for that sort of stuff for my clients left, and I just discovered they're abandoning the partnership. Just as well, as I was beginning to discover that their services weren't of the highest quality. Basically my contact there was the best they had, and now that he's gone they would be a liability to me anyway. Unfortunately, that means I've got a computer at the office I have to get fixed on my own when I get back in town. Wish I could bribe Nick to come home & take care of it. I really don't have time for that stuff, but have to keep the customers happy.
If I don't work on building the other facets of my business, I'll get stuck out here on the road again, which is a major reason I left the old company to begin with. It's kind of an interesting dilemma; I enjoy the work, and most of the time sort of like traveling around the country and meeting the variety of people I encounter. On the other hand, when I travel too much, I get lonely and miserable and feel guilty about neglecting the boys. Well, I guess now it's pretty much down to only 1 boy I'll be neglecting, but he counts too.
If anybody knows a smart, internet-savvy person who is or has the potential to be a decent salesperson, please send him or her my way. I'm convinced the right person could earn big bucks, as I'm prepared to offer a generous commission plan.
I hear it's beautiful outside - must get out there before the sun sets to check it out.
My calendar is jammed well into May, and indications are it will continue through the summer. Great for the bank account, but it raises big questions about where I go from here from a business standpoint.
Do I officially put the web business on the back burner or get serious about finding somebody to work for me? My main contact at the computer repair shop I've been partnering with for that sort of stuff for my clients left, and I just discovered they're abandoning the partnership. Just as well, as I was beginning to discover that their services weren't of the highest quality. Basically my contact there was the best they had, and now that he's gone they would be a liability to me anyway. Unfortunately, that means I've got a computer at the office I have to get fixed on my own when I get back in town. Wish I could bribe Nick to come home & take care of it. I really don't have time for that stuff, but have to keep the customers happy.
If I don't work on building the other facets of my business, I'll get stuck out here on the road again, which is a major reason I left the old company to begin with. It's kind of an interesting dilemma; I enjoy the work, and most of the time sort of like traveling around the country and meeting the variety of people I encounter. On the other hand, when I travel too much, I get lonely and miserable and feel guilty about neglecting the boys. Well, I guess now it's pretty much down to only 1 boy I'll be neglecting, but he counts too.
If anybody knows a smart, internet-savvy person who is or has the potential to be a decent salesperson, please send him or her my way. I'm convinced the right person could earn big bucks, as I'm prepared to offer a generous commission plan.
I hear it's beautiful outside - must get out there before the sun sets to check it out.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
The Light at the end of the Tunnel
Today was the nicest day I've had in a very long time. Sometimes I don't realize how badly things have been going until they get better and I look back. Well, this is a day where, almost miraculously, things turned the corner, the light appeared at the end of the tunnel, or choose your own cliched analogy.
After an Autumn of hope but some stress over the slow business progress, the winter came. The stress of uncertainty over the success or failure of the business intensified, I began accepting out-of-town consulting assignments from my former employer, and my family were at each other's throats like never before.
High stress was due to constant bickering at home, the eldest off at college making it clear he had no desire to return home, even for a visit, the "great flood" from the upstairs bathroom, our inability to get Health Insurance at any price, the sullen, angry, and absolute rebelliousness of son #2, and my absolute inability to do anything about any of it.
But today was different. Everyone was in good spirits, nobody fought, and we were even able to have a little bit of fun this weekend as a family.
Why? The change in the weather was certainly a factor. After a dismal and dreary winter and spring, we finally got a day that was sunny, warm, and pleasant. But that can't be the only reason. We also were attending Masses to commemorate John Paul II, which seems to have effected everyone in some way. But that effect isn't easy to define, other than the signs from the rest of the family that show their respect and concern.
For my part, I got the call Saturday afternoon asking me to sing for the Saturday evening Mass at St. B's, which they wanted to make special in remembrance of the Pope. Initially, I just was mildly honored to be asked, but there was a very special atmosphere in that Mass that didn't really come from the presider, the musicians, or the congregation. In fact, there wasn't that much said about John Paul II at the Mass, but nonetheless the hushed and prayerful attitude of the very large turnout told its own story of the significance of the day.
Our a capella rendition of Ave Verum Corpus turned out to be a very good choice, I think. It was surpising to each of us that we were able to put the quintet together so quickly and pull off the moderately challenging piece as if we'd been rehearsing for weeks. Knowing it sounds kooky to most people, I have to feel like we had a little divine assistance with that performance.
As the end of that Mass approached, we were singing an hymn, and I suddenly found myself getting choked up. Even telling myself that there was no reason to be emotional, I still felt deeply in a way very similar to the emotions present at my brother's and mother's funerals.
Interesting that I didn't start out this blog with the intent of writing a tribute to the Pope, but somehow that's how it turned out. My conclusion is that I'm thankful for whatever helped restore harmony to my family, and I'm thankful for the opportunity to have Karol Wojtyla as probably the greatest Pope of the modern era.
Now I hope the family harmony continues.
After an Autumn of hope but some stress over the slow business progress, the winter came. The stress of uncertainty over the success or failure of the business intensified, I began accepting out-of-town consulting assignments from my former employer, and my family were at each other's throats like never before.
High stress was due to constant bickering at home, the eldest off at college making it clear he had no desire to return home, even for a visit, the "great flood" from the upstairs bathroom, our inability to get Health Insurance at any price, the sullen, angry, and absolute rebelliousness of son #2, and my absolute inability to do anything about any of it.
But today was different. Everyone was in good spirits, nobody fought, and we were even able to have a little bit of fun this weekend as a family.
Why? The change in the weather was certainly a factor. After a dismal and dreary winter and spring, we finally got a day that was sunny, warm, and pleasant. But that can't be the only reason. We also were attending Masses to commemorate John Paul II, which seems to have effected everyone in some way. But that effect isn't easy to define, other than the signs from the rest of the family that show their respect and concern.
For my part, I got the call Saturday afternoon asking me to sing for the Saturday evening Mass at St. B's, which they wanted to make special in remembrance of the Pope. Initially, I just was mildly honored to be asked, but there was a very special atmosphere in that Mass that didn't really come from the presider, the musicians, or the congregation. In fact, there wasn't that much said about John Paul II at the Mass, but nonetheless the hushed and prayerful attitude of the very large turnout told its own story of the significance of the day.
Our a capella rendition of Ave Verum Corpus turned out to be a very good choice, I think. It was surpising to each of us that we were able to put the quintet together so quickly and pull off the moderately challenging piece as if we'd been rehearsing for weeks. Knowing it sounds kooky to most people, I have to feel like we had a little divine assistance with that performance.
As the end of that Mass approached, we were singing an hymn, and I suddenly found myself getting choked up. Even telling myself that there was no reason to be emotional, I still felt deeply in a way very similar to the emotions present at my brother's and mother's funerals.
Interesting that I didn't start out this blog with the intent of writing a tribute to the Pope, but somehow that's how it turned out. My conclusion is that I'm thankful for whatever helped restore harmony to my family, and I'm thankful for the opportunity to have Karol Wojtyla as probably the greatest Pope of the modern era.
Now I hope the family harmony continues.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Who Wants to Live Like That?
"I wouldn't want to live like that".
The most common comment I hear from people who seem to support the tragic court orders withholding hydration and nutrition (food & water) from Terri Schiavo.
Is it really true what the media is reporting, that 70% of Americans think the government should butt out and let Terri die in peace? Is it really true that 70% of Americans think it's OK to starve someone to death if they are living a life most of us would find of low quality?
I've heard outrageous rhetoric from both sides of the issue. One side suggests the original cause of Terri's condition was brought on directly through abuse by her husband, and there are all sorts of evil motives behind his fight to keep her parents away and starve her to death. On the other side are claims that Terri feels no pain, is somehow happy to be in her final hours, and that a feeding tube represents some sort of artificial life support.
As I always try to do in every issue, I've bypassed all the hype and spin to get to the basic facts of the case. Only by thinking about what we know for sure can we make a reasoned decision about how we feel about whether we're killing Terri by starving her to death or merely letting her die by removing medical treatment.
The facts: Terri is profoundly brain-damaged, but does not require any special medical treatment to keep her alive. There are conflicting stories about whether she receives nutrition via feeding tube because she's incapable of ingesting food and water, or whether the feeding tube is merely for convenience of her caregivers, as feeding her normally would be similar to feeding an infant.
Also being argued is whether or how much Terri is able to feel, interact, understand, etc. There seem to be plenty of opinions ranging from those who say she is awake, aware, and even responds to others by smiling and grunting, to those who try to suggest she is "brain dead". Where is the line exactly drawn where anyone could be declared "brain dead"? I certainly don't know, but more importantly, who gets to decide?
So, the courts have ruled that Terri must die. The interpretation of the law as I understand it is that her husband, as her legal guardian, has the right to make that decision on her behalf. Her death is to occur by the simple removal of food and water until she dies of dehydration and/or malnutrition.
Is this where our society has arrived? Are we now prepared to starve people to death based on our own feelings about whether their quality of life matches our own standards? How does this case effect what might happen to our grandparents, our parents, ourselves?
The description of Terri's functional level I recently heard was that of about a 10-month-old infant. That certainly doesn't sound "brain dead" to me. How many Alzheimers patients are in nursing homes everywhere who could also be described as functioning at the level of a 10-month-old infant? Is their quality of life any better or worse? Should we starve them to death as well?
How many family members, whether spouses or children, might be tempted to use the Terri Schiavo precedent to kill their disabled loved one? How easy could it be to simply go tell the judge that "Dad told me not to let him live like that, so I am requesting that we remove his nutritional treatments so he can die in peace". After all, if Dad doesn't die soon, the nursing home is going to get all of his estate and his living children won't get their inheritance. Is that OK with everyone?
Thinking about Christopher Reeve. He really shouldn't have survived his accident, then nobody expected him to live nearly as long as he did. Without the unbelievably expensive yet innovative medical care, along with his own very strong desire to live, he proved that life finds a way. Wouldn't most people in his condition also say, "I wouldn't want to live like that"? Should Christopher Reeve been allowed to die by removing his respirator?
Where does it end? Should we just euthanize cancer patients, people with disabilities, Down's Syndrome, amputees, paraplegics, quadriplegics, schizophrenics, obsessive-compulsives, depressed people? What is "quality of life"? Who has it and who doesn't? Most of all, who gets to decide?
I think we've crossed a line that we may never again be able to re-cross. And I'm very frightened and depressed.
WAIT! I didn't mean I don't want to live like this. Please don't kill me!
The most common comment I hear from people who seem to support the tragic court orders withholding hydration and nutrition (food & water) from Terri Schiavo.
Is it really true what the media is reporting, that 70% of Americans think the government should butt out and let Terri die in peace? Is it really true that 70% of Americans think it's OK to starve someone to death if they are living a life most of us would find of low quality?
I've heard outrageous rhetoric from both sides of the issue. One side suggests the original cause of Terri's condition was brought on directly through abuse by her husband, and there are all sorts of evil motives behind his fight to keep her parents away and starve her to death. On the other side are claims that Terri feels no pain, is somehow happy to be in her final hours, and that a feeding tube represents some sort of artificial life support.
As I always try to do in every issue, I've bypassed all the hype and spin to get to the basic facts of the case. Only by thinking about what we know for sure can we make a reasoned decision about how we feel about whether we're killing Terri by starving her to death or merely letting her die by removing medical treatment.
The facts: Terri is profoundly brain-damaged, but does not require any special medical treatment to keep her alive. There are conflicting stories about whether she receives nutrition via feeding tube because she's incapable of ingesting food and water, or whether the feeding tube is merely for convenience of her caregivers, as feeding her normally would be similar to feeding an infant.
Also being argued is whether or how much Terri is able to feel, interact, understand, etc. There seem to be plenty of opinions ranging from those who say she is awake, aware, and even responds to others by smiling and grunting, to those who try to suggest she is "brain dead". Where is the line exactly drawn where anyone could be declared "brain dead"? I certainly don't know, but more importantly, who gets to decide?
So, the courts have ruled that Terri must die. The interpretation of the law as I understand it is that her husband, as her legal guardian, has the right to make that decision on her behalf. Her death is to occur by the simple removal of food and water until she dies of dehydration and/or malnutrition.
Is this where our society has arrived? Are we now prepared to starve people to death based on our own feelings about whether their quality of life matches our own standards? How does this case effect what might happen to our grandparents, our parents, ourselves?
The description of Terri's functional level I recently heard was that of about a 10-month-old infant. That certainly doesn't sound "brain dead" to me. How many Alzheimers patients are in nursing homes everywhere who could also be described as functioning at the level of a 10-month-old infant? Is their quality of life any better or worse? Should we starve them to death as well?
How many family members, whether spouses or children, might be tempted to use the Terri Schiavo precedent to kill their disabled loved one? How easy could it be to simply go tell the judge that "Dad told me not to let him live like that, so I am requesting that we remove his nutritional treatments so he can die in peace". After all, if Dad doesn't die soon, the nursing home is going to get all of his estate and his living children won't get their inheritance. Is that OK with everyone?
Thinking about Christopher Reeve. He really shouldn't have survived his accident, then nobody expected him to live nearly as long as he did. Without the unbelievably expensive yet innovative medical care, along with his own very strong desire to live, he proved that life finds a way. Wouldn't most people in his condition also say, "I wouldn't want to live like that"? Should Christopher Reeve been allowed to die by removing his respirator?
Where does it end? Should we just euthanize cancer patients, people with disabilities, Down's Syndrome, amputees, paraplegics, quadriplegics, schizophrenics, obsessive-compulsives, depressed people? What is "quality of life"? Who has it and who doesn't? Most of all, who gets to decide?
I think we've crossed a line that we may never again be able to re-cross. And I'm very frightened and depressed.
WAIT! I didn't mean I don't want to live like this. Please don't kill me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)