The 100th

Its been 54 days since I last blogged, probably my longest hiatus in the some three years I've kept a blog between the various services (blogger, wordpress, blogspirit, blurty). I have no real good reason for that hiatus. Not that this is my 100th post on this blog and I just couldn't think of something worthwhile (and of course, the 100th post ends up being a casual, I'm still alive and have not forgotten that I have a blog, blog post). Not that I was so incredibly busy that I just never had the time (although since Thanksgiving things have been a bit hectic - more on that later). Wasn't sick, out of the country, or anything else that could reasonably explain a long absence.

Nope. None of those. Just was somewhat lazy in my approach to blogging, and thus, nothing ever got posted.

Anyway, the last month or so has involved many trips for Jackie and I. Down to her parents and then up to mine for Thanksgiving celebrations. Back to Fort Wayne the following weekend to do Christmas shopping and both of our first experiences with attending a ballet (The Nutcracker). The following weekend up to my Uncle Don's for an extended family get together. This past weekend (or the Thursday / Friday) was the trip down to Fort Wayne and then up to Lansing for our various Christmas celebrations with family. Each was of course fun...and the time with family we spend each year around this time is a solid reminder of the many blessings we have in our life. But it cumulatively takes it tolls and makes one (or at least me) worn down by the end of the season. We still have another trip this week...back down to Fort Wayne for a New Year's Eve party at a friend's house. But the end is finally in sight, and the normalcy of January is beckoning.

I know this is all tedious, if not boring, stuff. And while I do mean to blog more regularly, I've learned not to make that promise. But its a good outlet, if nothing else, and that's something we all need to have some manner. So, nothing fancy for the 100th blog post for DRS; no exciting news, no groundbreaking promises. Just hoping that its not another 54 days (or even 4 days) until my next blog post. Between some recent medical diagnosis (sleep related), all the holiday travels and the opportunities that creates for reflection, and the continuing quest to become that better version (more learned and more fit), I'm sure I could find something to write.

4 Races for a Political Junkie

The few elections last night brought out the politics junkie in me again, and I became extremely interested to observe the results, and listen to the various ways that commentators, media, and politicians attempted to spin the results. The GOP won gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, allowing the Republican party to spin those results as a referendum on the Democrats and President Obama (I thought the mid term elections were usually reserved for that kind of talk). The Democrats won the 23rd Congressional District in New York against a non-Republican conservative independent (as the Republican party was not conservative enough for him), and such district will have a Democrat representing it in Congress for the first time since Reconstruction. A Democrat also won the 10th district in California by a sizable margin.

Thus, two Republicans won state races, that is, races for positions relating to state governance, not national governance. Two Democrats won races relating to national governance. In part to this, I have trouble finding that this represents a significant shift in the American electorate in the last year. I'm not saying that such a shift hasn't taken place or doesn't exist (whole other topic of discussion and analysis), just that these races provide little, if any, evidence to that effect.

The Democrat candidate in Virginia barely qualifies as a Democrat, at least as to the coalition that came out in droves last November to support Obama. That coalition, minorities, young voters, and probably more important, progressives, voted solidly for Democrats for the first time in a while. Creigh Deeds, the Democrat candidate, was not a candidate that would attract this coalition to come out and vote. He was moderate, even possibly leaning more to the right than the left, and would not energize that progressive base of the party. In addition, since 1973, Virginia has voted for the non-presidential party in every gubernatorial election. In New Jersey, the incumbent Democrat, Corzine, was most likely shackled by his Democratic party and ties to Obama than questions of corruption and his ties to Wall Street as a former Goldman Sachs executive.

Oh, and there were also local, state issues in this regard. I think this has been mightily overlooked. The idea that the majority of voters are going to decide the leader of their state based on national issues seems an oversimplification, and a mild insult to many voters. I'm sure that there are voters who used their vote to either support or oppose the national politics of the Democratic party and President Obama. But I would wager that the majority used their vote based on their state issues. As an example, in Indiana last year, the state voted for a Democratic candidate for President for the first time in over 40 years. The State also solidly re-elected a incumbent Republican governor. In the area surrounding Indianapolis, the vote went 2 to 1 for Obama against McCain and 2 to 1 in favor of Mitch Daniels, the governor.

Voters will separate state and local issues from national issues when going to the booth. To suggest that voters are only voting in response to national issues when deciding state and local elections, elections that have no relation to national governance, only to state governance, is to belittle the intelligence of voters and ignore realities existing in those state/local elections. Because lest we forget, the Democrats just picked up more of a majority in the national governance category by adding seats in the House.

And even more importantly, we're talking about 4 races. There's 50 governors, 435 Representatives, 100 Senators; that's 585 races already that doesn't include State Senators and Reps as well as local ones. I'm not that we can draw any reasonable conclusions from a sample size of 4 elections.

Fall Traditions

I enjoy creating new traditions with Jackie. Over the past few years, I think we have tried to create some that we can look forward to each year, and look forward to continuing them whenever we have kids. Last year in December, we took a Christmas shopping trip...we leave town for a weekend, hammer out most if not all of our Christmas shopping, take in a couple very nice dinners, and try to catch a holiday show of some sort. We have already made plans to do that again this year, and while it is several weeks away or so, I am looking forward to it.

But that's very new. We have done some "Fall" traditions ever since we got married. At some point around the first of October, we head out to a pumpkin patch/corn maze/orchard, etc., and enjoy some of the festivities, and hand select our own pumpkins to carve. We have always picked out three, one for each of us and then a small one for our dog (be it Toby or Ellie this year) that Jackie paints. Later, right before it gets to Halloween, we carve the pumpkins. Earlier this month, we headed to Kercher's Apple Orchard down in Goshen, picked some apples right of the tree (so delicious!), took a hay ride (why do kids find this so exciting?), picked up some fresh apple cider, and picked our pumpkins (including Jackie selecting a whopping 26 pounder).

Its interesting to see how the carving has progressed over the years of this tradition. Initially, I put as little work into it as possible, not so much because I didn't like doing it, but because I have very little artistic ability, and the simpler the better. The first year, 2005, I carved a D for my first name. Year 2, 2006, it was three letters, SJC, in honor of our alma mater, Saint Joe. Year 3, 2007, the first year in the house, it was a block S, our last name. Jackie has always picked out some more challenging things, from a face, a dog face, a ghost, she enjoys the challenge.

Last year, I finally branched out from the letters and carved the Obama campaign logo (as Jackie didn't want to put any political signs in our yard). It was still pretty simple, and it turned out fairly well. So that little success sparks unbecoming confidence, and this year decided to throw caution to the wind and attempt to carve the MSU Spartan helmet logo. Jackie decided to go with a crescent moon and stars. Last night, after dinner, we grabbed the pumpkins, cleaned them out, and started carving. A fun night in our little household, and continues a tradition that we started together that I have grown very fond of....

The end results....

This past weekend Jackie and I headed up to Lansing to visit with my parents and my sister's family. Originally it was billed as a "fall" weekend thing, where we would watch some MSU football, and then maybe head outside for a fire. We did end up watching the football, and thankfully MSU won (with Purdue pulling a huge upset against Ohio State) making for a good day on the football front. We never did end up outside, not that the day wouldn't have been good for it, but we all just got cozy inside and decided to hang out there.

We got to share some good food with the family, including being able to see my grandmother, which is always nice. Got to play with my nephew Gavin, who at 18 months, is at such a fun age, and its such an interesting dynamic to watch him grow up in the times we don't see him, and witness how quickly he matures in those gaps. Before heading back yesterday my parents made us breakfast and we talked. Also marking the weekend for me, in addition to the time spent with family, was the number of good conversations. Talking about life, politics, work, whatever...the conversations were good, not necessarily all in agreement, but good discussions with people you love and you know love you back - I think that makes the discussing easier at times.

Much of this is pretty mundane, but I was thankful for the weekend. As difficult as going out of town for a weekend can be at times, and how it seems to throw us for a loop for a couple days when we get back, it was a nice break, a nice separation from the usual routine. It's a good reminder, at least for me, to be thankful for those opportunities and enjoy them when they come along.

Book Thoughts: The Places in Between

Finished reading The Places in Between by Rory Stewart last night. The book chronicles Stewart's quest to walk across Afghanistan, from Herat to Kabul, following the path of the ancient King Babur. Stewart begins his journey shortly after the removal of the Taliban, in January of 2002, and literally walks every step of the way for the next 18 months. He cuts across rivers and ice, mountains and snow, and has various encounters with local villages and new Afghan military, with varying degrees of hospitality. The book is a very easy read; the sections are short and manageable for quick reading in various settings, and the author's style is revealing of the environment and the people he encounters. Good read for anyone interested in learning just a little more about the people, land, and culture of Afghanistan.

I had two primary short reflections that I wrote while reading this book....

First

Its simply amazing to see how ancient some of the villages and buildings are that Stewart comes across. I think its easy to forget the amount of human history that exists that we are unaware of due to the limits of education. As someone who enjoys history, it was also disappointing (although that may be too strong of a word) to see how little concern there was for preserving that history. One example is a minaret that juts into the sky in the middle of mountains in one of the most inaccessible areas on earth. There is little information at all about who put it there, what its purpose was, how it was constructed, and so on. It was also apparent that there was little concern over preserving the area. It was being excavated by locals and others for the sole purpose of selling the antiquities for profit. Thus, there will be even less evidence to ascertain the history of that structure, as well as the region.

Its interesting to note this fact beside the obvious sense of history the people Stewart encounters have. But that history does not possess the concept of nationhood, as our history does. The history if familial, and local. Many of the people he encounters have never been a day's walk beyond their village in their life. Seeing an old building, because of the known history of the place, has no ties to them. Afghanistan appears to have gone back and forth among Arab and Asian settlers and warriors, from Persian/Iranian control to that of Genghis Khan and later even some Hindu and Buddhist groups. Because of this, I think, modern generations have little to identify their history with, besides simply their family and their village. There is no overarching historical theme to attach to, like there seems to be in the West. But I think due to the nomadic past, the terrain of the area, and the ever changing historical residents, its difficult to feel attachment to monuments, the way some may feel towards Stonehenge or the Pyramids.

Its also serves as a reminder of the wealth of human history that we will never know about, and never can. The more history one becomes aware of, the more one observes the sheer volume of history that he will never know. That knowledge serves to produce humility rather than arrogance, and that is a needed thing.

Second

The author's journey is entirely and solely possible due to the hospitality of those he meets on his way. For certain, there are plenty of individuals he meets that are suspicious (he is a Westerner just several months after September 11, 2001) and refuse such service, or even threaten violence. But the majority of people, even if they were initially reluctant to provide food and shelter for a night, ended up doing so. It's remarkable...a total stranger, walking on foot, dirty, unshaven, smelly, gets such kindness. The locals nerves had to be well served - a man looking like a drifter, a total stranger, and you provide not only food, but shelter for a night.

It makes me wonder if such a journey would be possible in the United States. Could a man, who looked dirty, scruffy, smelled bad, and so on, could he travel on foot relying solely on the kindness of strangers. I could see people giving food, but I have a hard time imagining providing shelter...letting someone sleep in your home that you don't know at all. I know I would have difficulty with that.

How many of us, instead of inviting that person in, serving that person, caring for that person, would instead scoff, turn that person away, let our fear (be it a reasonable fear?) rule rather than compassion? How many of us would generously reach out and offer food and shelter to a man walking across the country?

Routines, Pt. II

This morning's worship service at church made me think back to the last post regarding routines. Our church service has a normal routine, and it always follows the order printed on the bulletin/program. Everything was done that is usually done, meaning message, prayers being lifted, benediction, singing of opening, closing hymns, opening prayers, offerings, and so on; but it was done completely out of order. At first it was interesting to see how people reacted, first, mostly with laughter, but then, admittedly, I think people had to pay a little more attention than normal to make sure they knew what was going on, and thus, could participate in the service. The little shakeup in the routine made people more aware than what they may have normally been, and as a result, they may have focused a bit more.

So thinking back to that earlier post, how can such shaking up in the daily routine make us focus more on little things in our lives to become more participatory?

Routines

" On and on, time goes on, never stops, Just goes on."

Feels like the theme of things lately. I think frequently about how, without the benefit of a measuring stick, like being in school, time just flies, days to weeks, weeks to months, and so on. I notice it more often than not whenever I think about posting something to this here blog, as I have the measuring stick (the time since the last post), but get curious as to where that time went, because I can't really qualify it. What was I doing? Did I do anything meaningful? Am I just going through the motions?

While there are always subtle differences within a routine work week day, generally the days are the same. Rise around the same time, follow the same routine in the morning getting around - what's on the TV, the order of showering, brushing teeth, then hair, then shaving. It's always the same, never a deviation. Its the same routine with Ellie - she knows my routine well enough that she always goes under the bed to hide once I start putting my tie on - so I leave the bedroom, wait for her to follow, eventually close the door when she does, and take her out on more time before leaving. Its the same exact route into work each day.

Once at the office, it always starts the same - opening email and calendar and see what's on tap; will quickly check twitter and facebook for updates since I am rarely on in the evenings; then schedule the day - writing down when certain tasks will be worked on, what and when phone calls will be made, and so forth. Then its up to the fridge to grab something to drink, and then the work begins. Then those tasks are completed and phone calls from clients are handled as they come. Not every day follows this routine for sure, days with lengthy meetings with clients or hearings in court are obvious wrinkles, but generally, this is what happens.

Then its a pretty common routine headed home. Same route, and once in, usually head downstairs to say hi to Jackie and Ellie before changing and starting dinner. Then dinner, dishes, and most likely a combination of reading and watching TV, sports, news, etc. Again, when I have evening events, like meetings at Church or at the library, things get different. But generally, the routine is always fairly consistent.

As regimented as this all is, I find it important not to get weighed down. While there is a certain security in having such a predictable routine, there is also the strong possibility of becoming trapped by it, by using it as a crutch, to avoid other and better opportunities. So, my question at the moment is, is it enough to try and remain cognizant of this danger, (or at least what I consider a danger) or should I be striving to mix it up on a small basis each day, so as to not get too comfortable in the routine, and be ready for those "opportunities" (whatever they are, not sure how to quantify or define that either) whenever they may arise?

Maybe a crazy thing to be reflecting or worrying about I suppose, but its really about attempting to avoid the pitfall of complacency, which I do believe is worthwhile.

Book Thoughts: Enrique's Journey

Finished reading Enrique's Journey by Sonia Nazario over my lunch break today. I found the book to be a very insightful read. The general premise of the book is pretty simple - it details the decisions of members of one family to leave their native Honduras for the United States. Specifically, it tells the story of one mother who leaves when her youngest son is 5, and that son's subsequent decision to leave for the United States as a teenager to find his mom. While the mother sent money back home, and talked on the phone, the boy, Enrique, wished to see his mother and so he left.

The book details the harrowing journey Enrique must face to reach his mom. The violence he encounters once into Mexico, dealing both with gangs and the police. The inherent danger that is faced by riding on tops of trains to travel the entire length of Mexico. The multiple failed attempts, the multiple injuries incurred, and the eventual success of his journey. Along the way the author, Nazario, provides many other stories from other children traveling on tops of trains to reach their parents in the United States, as well as stories of various groups that seek to assist these children in their journeys. Nazario also provides stories about what happens to the families left back home, the children, babies, wives, husbands, mothers, aunts, etc. She paints a vivid picture of the situations these people face, and how it underlies their decisions to pursue such a dangerous, and emotionally painful, journey.

The book is consistently powerful regarding everything that surrounds these events because nothing is sugar coated. The difficulty of the journey, the physical injuries that occur, the raw emotion that the journeys invoke on every side, the struggles by family left behind and by those who felt they had to leave, and the struggle for reconciliation to occur among all those involved. A great book, deeply insightful, and while it may not change anyone's politics regarding immigration, I definitely think its an eye opening read on the subject, dispelling a lot of myths, and will lead to great empathy and understanding among those involved in the immigration debate.

The Shouting Mr. Wilson

Last night President Obama addressed both houses of Congress, and due to the actions of Rep. Joe Wilson from South Carolina, most of the discussion today is about his outburst rather than the actual content of the proposed legislation. Not to be too cynical, but it seems like the Republicans are pretty good at doing everything imaginable to distract from real discussion. I wonder what they are afraid of?

Anyway, Rep. Wilson's outburst was to yell that the President was lying when he said that the plan would not cover illegal aliens.

I reference Section 246 of the proposed text of the bill in the House.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

So, the text of the bill states no federal monies for individuals who are not lawfully present, President Obama says his plan will not fund health insurance for illegal aliens, and Rep. Wilson says Obama is lying. It seems to me that either Wilson is the one lying, or he is just ignorant. Neither is reassuring.

I understand the argument that some will make that if someone shows up in the emergency room it is currently against the law for a hospital to deny emergency treatment. Thus, illegal aliens would then get treatment, and somehow those costs will be paid for. Right now, its through all the collective premiums we pay to our private insurers. Through the proposed plan, its through the premiums paid for the public option insurees. Doesn't seem to me to be a substantive difference.

In any event, do people really want that law changed to absolutely make certain that no illegal aliens get treatment at a hospital that the rest of us pay for. This either leads to some form of national ID card (which can be faked just like a social security number/card or driver's license), or some other form of national identification. Of course, because of the risk of fake IDs, hospitals will have to have a prolonged check in routine for emergency room patients. Imagine, are the people that are so upset about these possibilities willing to have their own treatment and care delayed because they have to prove they are a proper citizen of the United States? I doubt this is the case.

It seems to me that Rep. Wilson should do a better job of reading legislation that is proposed before making a fool of themselves on national television. It seems Republicans, for the long term health of their party, would be better served by some intellectual honesty and less fear mongering. And it seems that we would all do better if we thought things through before jumping to conclusions.

Never buy from the man who's selling you fear.

CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

A Lesson to be Learned

This is really an extension, or a continuation of the last post, but I felt it was getting long and it would be nice to have these two thoughts stand alone.

I've only been through the first half of "Boom," but there were two thoughts that really stuck out to me. The first I believe was by Nora Ephron, and the idea was something along the lines of "As long as we characterize family issues as women's issues, nothing will ever change." Ephron is speaking from the feminist perspective, but I think, because I believe this to be true, that its very important for men. Our society, for all the progresses made in attempting to achieve gender equality, still has a ways to go. I think part of that is in our language and perception. When one hears the words housekeeping, cooking, child rearing; I bet the majority think of a women. Women have traditionally fulfilled these roles in our society, so to some extent, its only naturally. The problem though is that language, and the corresponding perceptions, allow many to fail to take responsibility. How many men fail to do anything in the home because its the "women's domain." Similarly, how many women won't let a man do anything in the house because they'd "just do it wrong."

Maybe it seems harmless, but I think it allows people to take themselves off the hook for any responsibility and not feel guilty about it. If a boy/man gets a girl/women pregnant, he can easily walk away thinking its not his responsibility. After all, child rearing is a women's issue, not a family issue. So the man feels no responsibility. I'm not suggesting that changing our language to reflect issues of home life and child rearing as a family issue will cure everything. Obviously not. But I do think that being more aware and conscious of these issues as being the responsibility of the family to address, rather than just a women's issue, could possibly make a difference in our society's attitudes. Maybe it will create the sense of responsibility in some men that they would not have otherwise. Maybe it will allow for a more balanced and ope viewpoint on the roles within a relationship. Anyway, its something that stuck out and I think carries much truth.

The other thought is directly related to politics. I am unsure if it comes from Brokaw himself or someone he interviews, but the gist of the thought is: The failure and downfall of the Left following the 60s was due to the fact that they were incapable of viewing anyone and any idea that disagreed with them with anything but hate. This became particularly evident in the Left's attitudes towards those who fought in Vietnam. I tend to look at as there are three distinct political groups in the country (an over-simplication, I know). There are those that are on the Right and will always be on the Right. There are those on the Left and will always be on the Left. And there are those in the middle, that kind of go back and forth, they tend to dislike extremes, and react to the political spectrum accordingly. In the 60s, the fringe, the extremes of the Left became the vocal part of the party. It was impossible to associate the Left with anything but the violent and extreme behavior shown by those fringe groups. Because of this, many believe the Left is still hurting and hasn't recovered, as many people in that middle group were turned off by the extreme behavior.

My own naive political observation wonders if the Right is not currently trending down the same path and failing to learn the lesson the Left suffered. For the most part, the most visible and vocal part of the Right is the fringe elements. That part is incapable of viewing anyone on the Left, and any idea on the Left with anything but hate. I believe part of the reason for the large victory by the Left in the last election is that the aforementioned middle group, similar to the group that was turned off by the extreme Left in the 1960s, was turned off by the extreme Right.

My curiousity is: if the Left is still in a bit of disarray, as they are nowhere near as united as the Right was in the 1960s to oppose the fractured and extreme Left, and the Right is now headed on a path where they are alienating people due to the vocal nature of their fringe and extreme segments, does that leave room for a third party to emerge; does the Left magically come together and end their own divide; or do we proceed as a nation we two deeply fractured parties and a middle group in the country with the inability to strongly identify with either.