I cried Tuesday morning. I still cried some Tuesday evening. Not a lot, but I still cried.
Owning pets is a wonderful thing. If I had my way I would have a puppy by my side right now. But it doesn't work that way. Still, there is some resemblance of contentment in my life with the kitty cats in the house.
The trouble is, there is one less kitty cat today. Claudia has left this life and in so doing, has taken a little bit of life out of me. Claudia was a great cat. Claudia was a wonderful cat. Claudia will be sorely missed and I am not ashamed to say that as the chemicals coursed through her tiny body ending her rather short life Tuesday morning , I was hurting. I didn't want to let that little girl go. She had all those qualities that any living creature would love to have.
Claudia showed up on the door step several years ago. She was a frail little thing who was just begging for attention. It didn't take long for her to work her way into the house. A trip to the vet revealed that she had been exposed, unfortunately, to feline leukemia. It didn't matter. She stayed. She was quickly assimilated into the household routine and gave so much more than she ever took.
Claudia had that panache that we learn to love in the underdog. Despite the exposure to feline leukemia and the smallness of her stature, she was a winner. She had the greatest personality of maybe any animal I have been associated with. She was a cat that loved people. In my adult life I have owned two dogs--Oscar (a German Shorthaired Pointer) and Coach (a Border Collie). I miss them both, terribly. Oscar was an athlete -- strong, rugged and durable. Coach was as adorable as they come. And, they each loved people--maybe too much. But Claudia, a cat who shouldn't act that way, loved people even more.
She knew no bounds in becoming the most active animal in the household. She was the youngster. Christine is the older, wiser cat and set in her ways. Its Christine's way or the highway. But, Christine took a wide path around the playful Claudia. Bobby, my bobtail cat, is a real he-man. He wants attention only when he wants it. Claudia goaded him each and every day into the chase. And when they were done she crowded in beside him wherever he decided to nap.
But then the feline leukemia reared its ugly head. Claudia became lethargic. A trip to the vet showed that her red blood cell count was down and her white blood cell count was virtually non-existent. A Columbus animal cancer center was a possibility even though radiological exams did not show any tumors. Finally, the vet suggested a round of antibiotics to see if an infection might be lurking in Claudia's frail little body. On Tuesday morning, attempts to kick-start the life back into little Claudia had come to an end.
After the terrible deed was done I came home. Lost and alone despite the presence of two other cats, none met me at the door. No cat crawled up into my lap for attention. No cat sat on her little perches scattered all over the house overlooking human activity--her way of being close to people. No cat crawled under my feet as I washed dishes.
Yes, I cried Tuesday morning. And I am not ashamed to say, I cried Tuesday night too.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Menu for a Last Meal
A look at a person's last meal has been a part of culture throughout history. Many early civilizations granted a last meal request for those sentenced to die and, artisitically, DaVinci recoreded Christ's last meal on canvas. In recent years the Texas Department of Criminal Justice posted a convict's last meal request on its website--a practice that no longer occurs.
Many people over time have been enthralled with what a convict, slated for execution, wanted for their last meal. Meal requests have ranged from the very basic to the extravagant. Pork chops, steak and chicken are obvious choices from the basic list. The extravagant has included 12 candy bars and some ice cream (Dobie Gillis Williams); two pints of Ben and Jerry's chocolate-chip ice cream (Timothy McVeigh); a single olive with a pit still in it (Victor Feguer); and two pepperoni and sausage pizzas, three servings of chocolate ice cream and 15 cans of Coke (William Bonin).
The thought of a last meal was highligted in a recent issue of Time (Oct. 29, 2007). The magazine interviewed a number of chefs to find out what would be on their list if they had to choose a last meal. The key to many of the selections was the ingesting of comfort food.
Nearly all of the chefs had comfort food on their list. Perhaps America's greatest chef, Mario Batali (my apologies to those who love Emeril), chose "a lot of food." Being a chef that deals in Italian food, he was heavy on the idea of pasta along with cooked and uncooked vegtables and seafood. Other chefs selected items included Krispy Kreme donuts, bread and wine, steak and lobster chowder, linguine with white clam sauce, salmon and tuna.
So, what would you choose as a last meal?
What a dilemma. Case in point! I agree that comfort food is the way to go. I am not sure I would want 15 candy bars. Certainly, pizza is a comfort food, but I think I could do better. I like seafood, but I am not a "fancy" seafood eater, preferring the more homestyle type fish dishes. Sweets aren't a high priority, either. Yes it must be comfort food. It must be food that you have grown up with and know not only as a meal but as a friend. It must be food that takes you back in time and reminds you of the good things in life; a victory celebration, a holiday extravaganza, or a birthday memory.
When I think of comfort food, I quickly think of my mother's cooking. I try, several times a year to recreate my mother's homemade chicken noodles. She had the knack and I don't. Yes my noodles are good; her's were great. She knew as she made them whether they were "good" or whether they were good. Notice the first good has quotation marks. When her homemade noodles were "good," they were actually "great."
One of my mother's best dishes was what I call Paprika Beef. She heisted the recipe from a pot and pan door-to-door salesman in the 1950's. Her agreement was she would buy the pots and pans if he would give her the recipe of the sample dinner he prepared in the commerically available pots and pans. He said "no." She said "No." A few days later the recipe was handed to her and I still have those pots and pans on my shelf and cook my redition of Paprika Beef in one of them several times each year.
Now we are talking comfort food.
Of course there are so many other comfort foods that I grew up with. Mom made great Beef Stew and a rather spicy Hot Dog Sauce. Dad and I shared many bowls of Wilted Lettuce. My grandmother made a wonderful dish she called Spanish Noodles. My aunts, Patty and Juanita, made the best Liver and Onions and Chicken Stew, respectively. And, YES, Liver and Onions is a Comfort Food (how else would you classify it?). My cousin's wife, Jo, made the best Potato Soup and Hot Rolls.
Making a decision would be difficult. Making a decision would be impossible. Making a decision might be more torturous than knowing it was your Last Meal.
Many people over time have been enthralled with what a convict, slated for execution, wanted for their last meal. Meal requests have ranged from the very basic to the extravagant. Pork chops, steak and chicken are obvious choices from the basic list. The extravagant has included 12 candy bars and some ice cream (Dobie Gillis Williams); two pints of Ben and Jerry's chocolate-chip ice cream (Timothy McVeigh); a single olive with a pit still in it (Victor Feguer); and two pepperoni and sausage pizzas, three servings of chocolate ice cream and 15 cans of Coke (William Bonin).
The thought of a last meal was highligted in a recent issue of Time (Oct. 29, 2007). The magazine interviewed a number of chefs to find out what would be on their list if they had to choose a last meal. The key to many of the selections was the ingesting of comfort food.
Nearly all of the chefs had comfort food on their list. Perhaps America's greatest chef, Mario Batali (my apologies to those who love Emeril), chose "a lot of food." Being a chef that deals in Italian food, he was heavy on the idea of pasta along with cooked and uncooked vegtables and seafood. Other chefs selected items included Krispy Kreme donuts, bread and wine, steak and lobster chowder, linguine with white clam sauce, salmon and tuna.
So, what would you choose as a last meal?
What a dilemma. Case in point! I agree that comfort food is the way to go. I am not sure I would want 15 candy bars. Certainly, pizza is a comfort food, but I think I could do better. I like seafood, but I am not a "fancy" seafood eater, preferring the more homestyle type fish dishes. Sweets aren't a high priority, either. Yes it must be comfort food. It must be food that you have grown up with and know not only as a meal but as a friend. It must be food that takes you back in time and reminds you of the good things in life; a victory celebration, a holiday extravaganza, or a birthday memory.
When I think of comfort food, I quickly think of my mother's cooking. I try, several times a year to recreate my mother's homemade chicken noodles. She had the knack and I don't. Yes my noodles are good; her's were great. She knew as she made them whether they were "good" or whether they were good. Notice the first good has quotation marks. When her homemade noodles were "good," they were actually "great."
One of my mother's best dishes was what I call Paprika Beef. She heisted the recipe from a pot and pan door-to-door salesman in the 1950's. Her agreement was she would buy the pots and pans if he would give her the recipe of the sample dinner he prepared in the commerically available pots and pans. He said "no." She said "No." A few days later the recipe was handed to her and I still have those pots and pans on my shelf and cook my redition of Paprika Beef in one of them several times each year.
Now we are talking comfort food.
Of course there are so many other comfort foods that I grew up with. Mom made great Beef Stew and a rather spicy Hot Dog Sauce. Dad and I shared many bowls of Wilted Lettuce. My grandmother made a wonderful dish she called Spanish Noodles. My aunts, Patty and Juanita, made the best Liver and Onions and Chicken Stew, respectively. And, YES, Liver and Onions is a Comfort Food (how else would you classify it?). My cousin's wife, Jo, made the best Potato Soup and Hot Rolls.
Making a decision would be difficult. Making a decision would be impossible. Making a decision might be more torturous than knowing it was your Last Meal.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Speaking English
I have long said that if you found yourself in "Merry Ol' England," you might have difficulty understanding the English language.
Now don't get me wrong, English is English. But, is English really English?
The wonderful people on the other side of the big pond have their way with the English language, and they should. After all, its their creation. They still have their own unique way of spelling words, using what we as American see as unnecessary letters such as "colour" for "color."
But the differences go much further than that. For instance, the British might say "anti-clockwise" for the good old American phrase "counter clockwise." Where we might say "good bye," the British might say "pip up."
Granted, that's just a small sampling of the differences between what I call "British English" and "American English." I suppose the differences would be startling and scary if you were an avid traveler, but seldom would the majority of our population be in a "tizzy" over the differences they could come in contact with.
On the other hand, I am and have always been disturbed with the use of language in the USA that violates one of the components that I believe has long made us a strong country. We have fought side-by-side taking on all-comers because we could understand what the guy next to us in the foxhole, on the sidewalk, at the next work cubicle, in Row 3 or on the bus said/asked.
We have long been a nation without a true national language, yet different races and different nationalities accepted English as the spoken word in the USA and were assimilated into our culture.
Today, however, that doesn't seem to be the case. Urban dialogue and foreign tongues are as common as good old American English. It is disturbing to walk through the downtown of a large city and feel like you as an American citizen are in a foreign country.
Not too long ago I made a phone call to a business and the automated answering machine said something like, "If you would like this phone call to proceed in English, please press one." Needless to say I was furious. I pressed one, did my business, and waited for the option that would allow me to comment. When the beep opened up the dialogue option to me I said, "I have been an English speaking resident for 57 years. Let those that don't speak English push number one."
Maybe I am old fashioned, but I always thought and grew up believing that when you live in a country and adopt it as your home, you learn to speak the language of that country. But, that doesn't seeem to be the case in the USA. We have Latinos singing the National Anthem in Spanish. We see directions for things we bought being printed in English and perhaps five or six other languages. We have signs posted in multiple languages
You can tell me to get a life; that this is the way of the modern culture; or that in the land of the free, these people have the right to speak their language of choice. I won't argue, but why must it be forced on me, a 57-year old ENGLISH speaking American citizen.
And then, the Urban dialects that come out of the inner city of America is just about as appalling. Case in point, even Bill Cosby has attacked members of his own race for speaking a "language" that freightens a vast portion of the population and is undefinable to most people.
I mention the the Urban dialects because I received an intersting e mail the other day. Since there is no reference to who should be credited for this creation, I apologize and ask forgiveness for publishing it here--but I think it makes clear the point I am trying to make.
********
TENJOOBERRYMUDS"... This is a hoot .... sad, because it is TRUE ..... but a hoot!!!! By the time you read through this YOU WILL UNDERSTAND "TENJOOBERRYMUDS"...In order to continue getting-by in America (our home land), we all need to learn the NEW English language!
Just Practice by reading the following conversation until you are able to understand the term "TENJOOBERRYMUDS".With a little patience, you'll be able to fit right in. Now, here goes...
The following is a telephone exchange between maybe you as a hotel guest and call room-service somewhere in the good old U S A today......
Room Service: "Morrin. Roon sirbees."
Guest: "Sorry, I thought I dialed room-service."
Room Service: "Rye . Roon sirbees...morrin! Joowish to oddor sunteen???"
Guest: "Uh..... Yes, I'd like to order bacon and eggs."
Room Service: "Ow July den?"
Guest: ".....What? ?"
Room Service: "Ow July den?!?... pryed, boyud, poochd?"
Guest: "Oh, the eggs! How do I like them? Sorry.. scrambled, please."
Room Service: "Ow July dee baykem? Crease?"
Guest: "Crisp will be fine."
Room Service: "Hokay. An Sahn toes?"
Guest: "What?"
Room Service: "An toes. July Sahn toes?"
Guest: "I... don't think so."
RoomService: "No? Judo wan sahn toes???"
Guest: "I feel really bad about this, but I don't know what 'judo wan sahn toes' means."
RoomService: "Toes! Toes!...Why Joo don Juan toes? Ow bow Anglish moppin we bodder?"
Guest: "Oh, English muffin!!! I've got it! You were saying 'toast'... Fine...Yes, an English muffin will be fine."
RoomService: "We bodder?"
Guest: "No, just put the bodder on the side."
RoomService: "Wad?!?" Guest: "I mean butter... just put the butter on the side."
RoomService: "Copy?"Guest: "Excuse me?"
RoomService: "Copy...tea..meel?"Guest: "Yes. Coffee, please... and that's everything." RoomService: "One Minnie. Scramah egg, crease baykem, Anglish moppin, we bodder on sigh and copy ... rye??"
Guest: "Whatever you say."
RoomService: "Tenjooberrymuds."
Guest: "You're welcome"
Remember I said "By the time you read through this YOU WILL UNDERSTAND 'TENJOOBERRYMUDS' ".....and you do, don't you?
Now don't get me wrong, English is English. But, is English really English?
The wonderful people on the other side of the big pond have their way with the English language, and they should. After all, its their creation. They still have their own unique way of spelling words, using what we as American see as unnecessary letters such as "colour" for "color."
But the differences go much further than that. For instance, the British might say "anti-clockwise" for the good old American phrase "counter clockwise." Where we might say "good bye," the British might say "pip up."
Granted, that's just a small sampling of the differences between what I call "British English" and "American English." I suppose the differences would be startling and scary if you were an avid traveler, but seldom would the majority of our population be in a "tizzy" over the differences they could come in contact with.
On the other hand, I am and have always been disturbed with the use of language in the USA that violates one of the components that I believe has long made us a strong country. We have fought side-by-side taking on all-comers because we could understand what the guy next to us in the foxhole, on the sidewalk, at the next work cubicle, in Row 3 or on the bus said/asked.
We have long been a nation without a true national language, yet different races and different nationalities accepted English as the spoken word in the USA and were assimilated into our culture.
Today, however, that doesn't seem to be the case. Urban dialogue and foreign tongues are as common as good old American English. It is disturbing to walk through the downtown of a large city and feel like you as an American citizen are in a foreign country.
Not too long ago I made a phone call to a business and the automated answering machine said something like, "If you would like this phone call to proceed in English, please press one." Needless to say I was furious. I pressed one, did my business, and waited for the option that would allow me to comment. When the beep opened up the dialogue option to me I said, "I have been an English speaking resident for 57 years. Let those that don't speak English push number one."
Maybe I am old fashioned, but I always thought and grew up believing that when you live in a country and adopt it as your home, you learn to speak the language of that country. But, that doesn't seeem to be the case in the USA. We have Latinos singing the National Anthem in Spanish. We see directions for things we bought being printed in English and perhaps five or six other languages. We have signs posted in multiple languages
You can tell me to get a life; that this is the way of the modern culture; or that in the land of the free, these people have the right to speak their language of choice. I won't argue, but why must it be forced on me, a 57-year old ENGLISH speaking American citizen.
And then, the Urban dialects that come out of the inner city of America is just about as appalling. Case in point, even Bill Cosby has attacked members of his own race for speaking a "language" that freightens a vast portion of the population and is undefinable to most people.
I mention the the Urban dialects because I received an intersting e mail the other day. Since there is no reference to who should be credited for this creation, I apologize and ask forgiveness for publishing it here--but I think it makes clear the point I am trying to make.
********
TENJOOBERRYMUDS"... This is a hoot .... sad, because it is TRUE ..... but a hoot!!!! By the time you read through this YOU WILL UNDERSTAND "TENJOOBERRYMUDS"...In order to continue getting-by in America (our home land), we all need to learn the NEW English language!
Just Practice by reading the following conversation until you are able to understand the term "TENJOOBERRYMUDS".With a little patience, you'll be able to fit right in. Now, here goes...
The following is a telephone exchange between maybe you as a hotel guest and call room-service somewhere in the good old U S A today......
Room Service: "Morrin. Roon sirbees."
Guest: "Sorry, I thought I dialed room-service."
Room Service: "Rye . Roon sirbees...morrin! Joowish to oddor sunteen???"
Guest: "Uh..... Yes, I'd like to order bacon and eggs."
Room Service: "Ow July den?"
Guest: ".....What? ?"
Room Service: "Ow July den?!?... pryed, boyud, poochd?"
Guest: "Oh, the eggs! How do I like them? Sorry.. scrambled, please."
Room Service: "Ow July dee baykem? Crease?"
Guest: "Crisp will be fine."
Room Service: "Hokay. An Sahn toes?"
Guest: "What?"
Room Service: "An toes. July Sahn toes?"
Guest: "I... don't think so."
RoomService: "No? Judo wan sahn toes???"
Guest: "I feel really bad about this, but I don't know what 'judo wan sahn toes' means."
RoomService: "Toes! Toes!...Why Joo don Juan toes? Ow bow Anglish moppin we bodder?"
Guest: "Oh, English muffin!!! I've got it! You were saying 'toast'... Fine...Yes, an English muffin will be fine."
RoomService: "We bodder?"
Guest: "No, just put the bodder on the side."
RoomService: "Wad?!?" Guest: "I mean butter... just put the butter on the side."
RoomService: "Copy?"Guest: "Excuse me?"
RoomService: "Copy...tea..meel?"Guest: "Yes. Coffee, please... and that's everything." RoomService: "One Minnie. Scramah egg, crease baykem, Anglish moppin, we bodder on sigh and copy ... rye??"
Guest: "Whatever you say."
RoomService: "Tenjooberrymuds."
Guest: "You're welcome"
Remember I said "By the time you read through this YOU WILL UNDERSTAND 'TENJOOBERRYMUDS' ".....and you do, don't you?
Friday, October 19, 2007
Government vs. Industry
Sitting through a high school debate recently allowed me to compare notes on how the issue of global warming should be addressed. Let me first say, to those of you who don't believe that global warming exists, please take your head out of the sand. Your indignation is disgusting. Your methodology of manipulating the system is failing our society and you are unwilling to admit it. In your opinion, its better to take the world down than to admit a mistake.
Pictures of sheets of ice plummeting to ocean level, the rapid loss of the icecap on the island of Greenland and the sadness associated with a polar bear drifting away to death on a tiny piece of ice is nothing short of appalling. The increase of world temperatures coupled with many devastating weather events leads to serious concern about the future. Yet, we seem to be making little or no progress in solving this problem.
The high school debate centered on government regulation vs. market mechanics. And the overriding question was "Which is better suited to help solve the global warming issue?"
An educated guess says the student vote favored the arguments presented by the side representing government regulation. I, for one, see no way the nation could ever depend on industry to take the necessary steps to begin the global warming reversal process. After all, it is industry, assisted obviously by the population which demands bigger and better and more energy powered devices, that has led us to our present dilemma.
Sure, industry will flaunt a few token ideas that will convince some that help is on the way. But, ultimately, the idea of profit making will filter back into the conversation. At that point, with even more profit to be made, it will be full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes, and to hell with global warming. Industry will sustain itself at the cost of every human being on the surface of the earth. It will squeeze every bit of loose change out of a poor man's pocket regardless of what that means in the big picture of our existence.
Profit making can be the equivalent of greed. Industry has, justifiably, always been concerned with making money. But, I yearn for that long-ago day when the industrial tycoon owned a business all to himself. While he certainly made a profit and lived much more comfortably than his employees, he also frequently gave back to society in a big way. Today, so many industries are publicly owned and there are numerous stockholders wanting to make money. And, making money is a natural desire of ownership, but certainly not the kind of behavior necessary to turn the global warming dilemma around.
On the other hand, government is equipped to deal with all sorts of dilemma. We as a species learned the necessity of government many centuries ago when we discovered that we could not live peacefully together. Some question whether we live peacefully together today, even with the existence of government. Still, as our nation views government, it is designed to allow for our existence in a fashion that is fair to all.
The high school debaters, to their credit, discussed the Environmental Protection Agency and its regulatory abilities to use government to fight the global warming problem. I have no problem with their arguments.
However, I want to put global warming on another level. I want a logical explanation why government is the route that needs to be followed to fight global warming rather than our profit-making industries.
The Preamble of the Constitution is a complex set of goals for our government. We have heard about "a more perfect government" the need to "establish justice," and the idea that government should "insure domestic tranquility" and "provide for the common defense." But I believe the other two goals of the Preamble are ideally designed to deal with global warming.
The Preamble ends with the final two goals, "...promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." It seems to me that the general welfare of our nation is threatened by global warming. And, it seems necessary for our government to act if we are going to pass on our system of government and the existence of our nation to future generations.
I am a firm believer that the US government is charged by the Constitution of the USA to deal in the best way possible with global warming. Yes, its going to cost money. Yes, our taxes will raise. And, yes, people will be upset. Case in point. There are no free rides in this world. We helped cause the problem and we will have to pay for it.
And, if we don't fix this problem of global warming, regardless what those with their head stuck in sand say, we are rapidly watching ourselves bring this world to an early demise.
Pictures of sheets of ice plummeting to ocean level, the rapid loss of the icecap on the island of Greenland and the sadness associated with a polar bear drifting away to death on a tiny piece of ice is nothing short of appalling. The increase of world temperatures coupled with many devastating weather events leads to serious concern about the future. Yet, we seem to be making little or no progress in solving this problem.
The high school debate centered on government regulation vs. market mechanics. And the overriding question was "Which is better suited to help solve the global warming issue?"
An educated guess says the student vote favored the arguments presented by the side representing government regulation. I, for one, see no way the nation could ever depend on industry to take the necessary steps to begin the global warming reversal process. After all, it is industry, assisted obviously by the population which demands bigger and better and more energy powered devices, that has led us to our present dilemma.
Sure, industry will flaunt a few token ideas that will convince some that help is on the way. But, ultimately, the idea of profit making will filter back into the conversation. At that point, with even more profit to be made, it will be full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes, and to hell with global warming. Industry will sustain itself at the cost of every human being on the surface of the earth. It will squeeze every bit of loose change out of a poor man's pocket regardless of what that means in the big picture of our existence.
Profit making can be the equivalent of greed. Industry has, justifiably, always been concerned with making money. But, I yearn for that long-ago day when the industrial tycoon owned a business all to himself. While he certainly made a profit and lived much more comfortably than his employees, he also frequently gave back to society in a big way. Today, so many industries are publicly owned and there are numerous stockholders wanting to make money. And, making money is a natural desire of ownership, but certainly not the kind of behavior necessary to turn the global warming dilemma around.
On the other hand, government is equipped to deal with all sorts of dilemma. We as a species learned the necessity of government many centuries ago when we discovered that we could not live peacefully together. Some question whether we live peacefully together today, even with the existence of government. Still, as our nation views government, it is designed to allow for our existence in a fashion that is fair to all.
The high school debaters, to their credit, discussed the Environmental Protection Agency and its regulatory abilities to use government to fight the global warming problem. I have no problem with their arguments.
However, I want to put global warming on another level. I want a logical explanation why government is the route that needs to be followed to fight global warming rather than our profit-making industries.
The Preamble of the Constitution is a complex set of goals for our government. We have heard about "a more perfect government" the need to "establish justice," and the idea that government should "insure domestic tranquility" and "provide for the common defense." But I believe the other two goals of the Preamble are ideally designed to deal with global warming.
The Preamble ends with the final two goals, "...promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." It seems to me that the general welfare of our nation is threatened by global warming. And, it seems necessary for our government to act if we are going to pass on our system of government and the existence of our nation to future generations.
I am a firm believer that the US government is charged by the Constitution of the USA to deal in the best way possible with global warming. Yes, its going to cost money. Yes, our taxes will raise. And, yes, people will be upset. Case in point. There are no free rides in this world. We helped cause the problem and we will have to pay for it.
And, if we don't fix this problem of global warming, regardless what those with their head stuck in sand say, we are rapidly watching ourselves bring this world to an early demise.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
A Principled Man!!
From January 1977 until January 1981, James Earl Carter served as President of the United States. Was Jimmy Carter a good president? You would be hard-pressed to find someone who would say he was. Was he a bad president? Personally, I don't believe so. Was he a misunderstood president? There is little doubt about that; he certainly was.
Jimmy Carter rode to the presidency on the tail of an animal known as "corruption." The USA had survived the audacity of Watergate and the Nixon presidency, when personal power and hatred became more important to the man in the White House than the Constitution of the nation. Then, Nixon's hand-picked successor issued a pardon to Nixon. I fully understand Gerald Ford's logic in issuing the pardon, but the country wanted more retribution handed down to the former president than a slap on the wrist.
Thus, in rides Jimmy Carter on his white stallion. He is considered a good Christian man. He is an engineer who attended the US Naval Academy and rose to the rank of lieutenant. And, most importantly as the 1970's were coming to an end, he was a Washington D.C. "outsider."
We frequently hear politicians running for national office label themselves as "outsiders." Take note! If they are really outsiders we should not elect them. Washington D.C. doesn't take well to outsiders. True outsiders lack the necessary connections that makes Washington D.C. work for them. True outsiders don't understand the inner workings of the government. And true outsiders aren't trusted by others in power who fear their way of doing things could be compromised.
So Jimmy Carter, an outsider, became president and his presidency is considered by most to be a failure--much of that failure is associated with the Iran Hostage Crisis and an energy crisis. Don't get me wrong. The nation survived and there were some positive accomplishments such as the Camp David Accords. But Jimmy Carter, the outsider from Plains, Ga., was destined to be a one-term president.
Recently Jimmy Carter was interviewed by Time in its "10 Questions" feature. Carter has become a world-renowned humanitarian in his post-presidential life. He founded the Carter Center in 1982 and that agency has spent the past two decades working to improve the quality of life for millions around the world. In 2002, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Additionally, Carter has served as an international observer of elections, has been a valued participant in Habitat for Humanity, and has been critical of the unseemly behavior of other presidents--most notably Bill Clinton and his pardon of Mark Rich and George W. Bush for his overall approach to the presidency.
The Bush White House, following the Carter rebuke, referred to the former president comments as irrelevant. That certainly isn't the way I perceive things. Case in point. Carter was principled enough to criticize presidents from both political parties. He did not show partisanship, but called it like he saw it. He chastised presidents whom he felt had crossed the line in abuse of power.
Would I want Jimmy Carter as president again. The answer is a resounding NO. His lack of inside knowledge of government power left him just as ineffective as an outside like Ross Perot would have been. But do I respect this man who has devoted his past-presidential days to the good of society and the world. I have often said that "Jimmy Carter was not a good president. But, I believe him to be the BEST ex-president we have ever had."
Jimmy Carter rode to the presidency on the tail of an animal known as "corruption." The USA had survived the audacity of Watergate and the Nixon presidency, when personal power and hatred became more important to the man in the White House than the Constitution of the nation. Then, Nixon's hand-picked successor issued a pardon to Nixon. I fully understand Gerald Ford's logic in issuing the pardon, but the country wanted more retribution handed down to the former president than a slap on the wrist.
Thus, in rides Jimmy Carter on his white stallion. He is considered a good Christian man. He is an engineer who attended the US Naval Academy and rose to the rank of lieutenant. And, most importantly as the 1970's were coming to an end, he was a Washington D.C. "outsider."
We frequently hear politicians running for national office label themselves as "outsiders." Take note! If they are really outsiders we should not elect them. Washington D.C. doesn't take well to outsiders. True outsiders lack the necessary connections that makes Washington D.C. work for them. True outsiders don't understand the inner workings of the government. And true outsiders aren't trusted by others in power who fear their way of doing things could be compromised.
So Jimmy Carter, an outsider, became president and his presidency is considered by most to be a failure--much of that failure is associated with the Iran Hostage Crisis and an energy crisis. Don't get me wrong. The nation survived and there were some positive accomplishments such as the Camp David Accords. But Jimmy Carter, the outsider from Plains, Ga., was destined to be a one-term president.
Recently Jimmy Carter was interviewed by Time in its "10 Questions" feature. Carter has become a world-renowned humanitarian in his post-presidential life. He founded the Carter Center in 1982 and that agency has spent the past two decades working to improve the quality of life for millions around the world. In 2002, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Additionally, Carter has served as an international observer of elections, has been a valued participant in Habitat for Humanity, and has been critical of the unseemly behavior of other presidents--most notably Bill Clinton and his pardon of Mark Rich and George W. Bush for his overall approach to the presidency.
The Bush White House, following the Carter rebuke, referred to the former president comments as irrelevant. That certainly isn't the way I perceive things. Case in point. Carter was principled enough to criticize presidents from both political parties. He did not show partisanship, but called it like he saw it. He chastised presidents whom he felt had crossed the line in abuse of power.
Would I want Jimmy Carter as president again. The answer is a resounding NO. His lack of inside knowledge of government power left him just as ineffective as an outside like Ross Perot would have been. But do I respect this man who has devoted his past-presidential days to the good of society and the world. I have often said that "Jimmy Carter was not a good president. But, I believe him to be the BEST ex-president we have ever had."
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The Wonders of Medicine!!!
During my daily visit to USA Today , an advertisement recently caught my eye. It was a simple question with an obviously complex answer. The headline on the advertisement read, "Are We Overmedicating Our Kids?"
The advertisement went on to point out that in 1983 the Center for Disease Control (CDC) called for children to receive 10 vaccinations before the age of six. Today the CDC mandates 36 vaccinations for our children.
The reasons for the change in numbers is rather obvious. Foremost among those reasons is the idea that medical advancements have made it possible for new vaccinations to be created to ward off deadly diseases that have wreaked havoc in the past. But, there have to be other reasons that might include the easy spread of diseases today that has evolved because our transportation systems have made the earth so much smaller.
The old motto, "an ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure" has always made sense. Why wouldn't you prevent something before it starts instead of allowing it to root and grow and create even more problems in the elimination process? But, have we gone too far? The advertisement goes on to point out that during that same time period, roughly 24 years, that we have upped the vaccination requirements we have had an enormous growth in such neurological disorders as autism and ADHD. Of course, that leads me to ask, "Are we overmedicating our kids?"
Autism is a creature unto itself and one that I truly do not understand. The complexity of that disorder makes me shutter. Might it be Aspergers, Rett's Syndrome or Kanner's Syndrome, the visual I get when I think of autism is not a pretty picture. Granted, I know that some autism victims are rather high-functioning and can deal with society as we have created it. Others, however, are in their own little world and, while I have no desire to visit that world, it is curiosity that makes me wonder, "What is going on inside their head?"
ADHD is another animal that bewilders me. Yes, I know it exists. But, does it exist in the huge numbers that seem to be reported? I don't think so. I have long dreaded the student generated phrase "I am ADHD," when that student simply didn't want to comply with a command or do an assignment. Knowing full well that prior to the expectation of that student, things were fine, I have long suspected that the ADHD label has frequently been used as an excuse.
But I also feel that using that label as an excuse is hereditary. It has long been my belief that many parents have sought out a label for their child because they couldn't/wouldn't deal with the behavior issues of their child. Fine and dandy. But, by securing an ADHD label for their child they put them in direct access to medication that can have some troubling outcomes and it conceivably creates an unrealistic excuse system that might follow that child through life.
Mood swings, confusion, high blood pressure are just some of the side effects of these ADHD medications, especially if they are abused. Perhaps the most commonly known is methylphenidate, better known by the brand name Ritalin. Also on the list is amphetamines such as Adderall and dexamphetamines such as Dextrostat or Dexedrine.
The advertisement went on to point out that in 1983 the Center for Disease Control (CDC) called for children to receive 10 vaccinations before the age of six. Today the CDC mandates 36 vaccinations for our children.
The reasons for the change in numbers is rather obvious. Foremost among those reasons is the idea that medical advancements have made it possible for new vaccinations to be created to ward off deadly diseases that have wreaked havoc in the past. But, there have to be other reasons that might include the easy spread of diseases today that has evolved because our transportation systems have made the earth so much smaller.
The old motto, "an ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure" has always made sense. Why wouldn't you prevent something before it starts instead of allowing it to root and grow and create even more problems in the elimination process? But, have we gone too far? The advertisement goes on to point out that during that same time period, roughly 24 years, that we have upped the vaccination requirements we have had an enormous growth in such neurological disorders as autism and ADHD. Of course, that leads me to ask, "Are we overmedicating our kids?"
Autism is a creature unto itself and one that I truly do not understand. The complexity of that disorder makes me shutter. Might it be Aspergers, Rett's Syndrome or Kanner's Syndrome, the visual I get when I think of autism is not a pretty picture. Granted, I know that some autism victims are rather high-functioning and can deal with society as we have created it. Others, however, are in their own little world and, while I have no desire to visit that world, it is curiosity that makes me wonder, "What is going on inside their head?"
ADHD is another animal that bewilders me. Yes, I know it exists. But, does it exist in the huge numbers that seem to be reported? I don't think so. I have long dreaded the student generated phrase "I am ADHD," when that student simply didn't want to comply with a command or do an assignment. Knowing full well that prior to the expectation of that student, things were fine, I have long suspected that the ADHD label has frequently been used as an excuse.
But I also feel that using that label as an excuse is hereditary. It has long been my belief that many parents have sought out a label for their child because they couldn't/wouldn't deal with the behavior issues of their child. Fine and dandy. But, by securing an ADHD label for their child they put them in direct access to medication that can have some troubling outcomes and it conceivably creates an unrealistic excuse system that might follow that child through life.
Mood swings, confusion, high blood pressure are just some of the side effects of these ADHD medications, especially if they are abused. Perhaps the most commonly known is methylphenidate, better known by the brand name Ritalin. Also on the list is amphetamines such as Adderall and dexamphetamines such as Dextrostat or Dexedrine.
The use of drugs has long scared me. Case in point. I am a product of a pregnancy when thalidomide was widely prescribed for pregnant mothers. Fortunately I wasn't one of the some 10,000 children that wound up with severe body deformities. Then, while in college, a research paper opened my eyes to that tragedy and set the stage for my reluctance to use medicine and my concern that the long-reaching side effects might be worse than the disease/ailment being treated.
Those two events have created in me an abhorrence to drugs. I seldom take them even when I am in pain. I would rather naturally work my way through it and not feel like I could be "overmedicating" myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
