My mother is dying.
For some reason, writing that makes me feel like the opening line of "The Stranger" "Mother died today." There's a certain stark reality. An acknowledgement and acceptance of the inevitabilies of life.
My mother is dying, and I am going about my normal routine.
I am also preparing to go to where she is (some 900 miles away) and dispose of or take or sort out for other family members many of her possessions that remain.
Mother has been in assisted living for the last two years.
That means she has been living in a room the size of most motel rooms. The closet is perhaps larger. She has her own furniture. Her own knick-knacks, her own things around her.
But not now.
Mother has had a stroke. She is now in a "skilled nursing facility" They check on her every two hours, making certain she is still alive. All of her medications have been discontinued, except for those which will keep her relaxed, make her feel comfortable, ease her passing.
Hospice services have been called in. She will not be alone.
Life reduced to plus or minus. Meaning reduced to items and the memories attached thereto.
It is inevitable. Death always is. Mother had 95 years, most of them good. I joke that her warrenty has expired and there are no more replacement parts. That may seem slightly sick, but it's quite, quite true. How many people live 95 years?
When she turned 90, I called her "A chronological over-achiever." She was pleased. She said she had not been considered an over-achiever before. Mother was/is modest. She never bragged of her own accomplishments. She was quiet, a follower, not a leader.
I'm not ready to write about her yet. I do not know if I will ever be ready.
Until tomorrow, since somewhere around Spring of last year, I have written her a letter every Sunday. I don't know when my last letter reached her, or if she ever knew. She talkded about my letters the last time I saw her (two weeks ago)She didn't know who I was, in person, but she told me her daughter, Robin wrote to her every week.
No more relplacement parts. It's time for her to go.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Brains?...What brains?...Who needs brains??
Story on-line today. An NFL official who was supposed to be the side-judge in today's Saints game has been removed after his Facebook postings reveal that he is a big Saint's fan.
I am astounded that people are constantly shocked and suprised that things they post of Facebook are found, read and acted upon by employers, friends, former friends, former spouses, etc.
This past week, the story was that a woman got a "potential friend" link form Facebook that showed he husband in a pose as the new groom with another woman. Facebook thought she might like to be friends with the woman since they were both friends with her husband. He has plead guilty to bigamy, the second wife's marriage has been annulled, and the first wife is filing for divorce.
It's not merely teenagers who post without thinking of consequences.
We just might have to re-institute the old, 50's creed of "If you don't want your mother to see/know/comment on it..."
I believe we tend to think of Facebook as ephemeral, a posting being something of a moment's occurance, a brief, fleeting thought or feeling. It's NOT. Even though you and your friends and family may have made a hundred or more posts since that ONE, it's not gone, and if it could hurt or embarrass you, it won't ever, ever be forgotten.
It should make biographers in 20 or so years very, very happy that everyone posted their innermost drivel on Facebook. No more wondering if the writer invented the anecdote to show the person's development. No, the subject will have created and memorialized the anecdote himself.
No antidote for the anecdote. My brain is already spinning with malicious thoughts.
And I have posted this, to remain forever.
My excuse?
I'm old, I'm boring, I've never accomplished anything of significance (nor will I) and no one is ever going to care what I did or said on the Internet. But if you have dreams, if you have desire, if you have ambitions, (basically, if you're under 40) BEWARE!
I am astounded that people are constantly shocked and suprised that things they post of Facebook are found, read and acted upon by employers, friends, former friends, former spouses, etc.
This past week, the story was that a woman got a "potential friend" link form Facebook that showed he husband in a pose as the new groom with another woman. Facebook thought she might like to be friends with the woman since they were both friends with her husband. He has plead guilty to bigamy, the second wife's marriage has been annulled, and the first wife is filing for divorce.
It's not merely teenagers who post without thinking of consequences.
We just might have to re-institute the old, 50's creed of "If you don't want your mother to see/know/comment on it..."
I believe we tend to think of Facebook as ephemeral, a posting being something of a moment's occurance, a brief, fleeting thought or feeling. It's NOT. Even though you and your friends and family may have made a hundred or more posts since that ONE, it's not gone, and if it could hurt or embarrass you, it won't ever, ever be forgotten.
It should make biographers in 20 or so years very, very happy that everyone posted their innermost drivel on Facebook. No more wondering if the writer invented the anecdote to show the person's development. No, the subject will have created and memorialized the anecdote himself.
No antidote for the anecdote. My brain is already spinning with malicious thoughts.
And I have posted this, to remain forever.
My excuse?
I'm old, I'm boring, I've never accomplished anything of significance (nor will I) and no one is ever going to care what I did or said on the Internet. But if you have dreams, if you have desire, if you have ambitions, (basically, if you're under 40) BEWARE!
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
NEW! IMPROVED!! UNUSEABLE!!!
NEW! IMPROVED!! UNUSEABLE!!
Some idiot decided to "improve" our blogging and posting. I went in to review a prior blog post I had made. I came to a new format that so far I have been unable to fathom. WHERE ARE MY PRIOR POSTS!? (and why doesen's my keyboard have and intero-bang?)
I DON'T LIKE IT! However, there is NO place to post feed-back to the blog-masters.
Our masters are all-powerful. We are merely here to provide worship to their idols.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Celebrating Sara
My friend Sara called me yeaterday afternoon to come over for a drink. She had gotten back from her annual appointment with her onocologist. Good news!
She's STILL cancer-free.
Twenty years ago, she had breast cancer. Ten years ago, she had ovarian cancer. Two cancers, both caught early, both treated agressively, and she's STILL cancer-free!!
Believe me, THAT is something to celebrate.
What does it mean to me?
I only met Sara seven years ago. It means that if she haden't been smart enough to know there was something going on, if she hadn't been smart enough to go in, get diagnosed, and follow the doctors' orders regarding treatment, I wouldn't have a best friend to cook with, to drink with, to laugh with.
Sara and I celebrated last night. I'm still a bit queasy this morning, but it is well worth it!
Late March, early April next year, I want to get drunk and celebrate Sara again!
She's STILL cancer-free.
Twenty years ago, she had breast cancer. Ten years ago, she had ovarian cancer. Two cancers, both caught early, both treated agressively, and she's STILL cancer-free!!
Believe me, THAT is something to celebrate.
What does it mean to me?
I only met Sara seven years ago. It means that if she haden't been smart enough to know there was something going on, if she hadn't been smart enough to go in, get diagnosed, and follow the doctors' orders regarding treatment, I wouldn't have a best friend to cook with, to drink with, to laugh with.
Sara and I celebrated last night. I'm still a bit queasy this morning, but it is well worth it!
Late March, early April next year, I want to get drunk and celebrate Sara again!
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
You are What you Write
"Lives of famous men remind us
As we history's pages turn
That we oftimes leave behind us
Letters that we ought to burn"
I don't know who wrote the above doggerel, I remember reading it and memorizing it when I was in grade school. I suspect it was written in the late 19th or early 20th century.
But I got to thinking about it as I read of people who get into trouble for postings on Facebook. Then there was ex-Congressman Weiner and his infamous tweets.
It used to be that what you wrote was (generally) between you and the person you wrote it to. True, if either of you became famous, and if either of you had saved the correspondence, it could well show up on the best-seller list someday.
But the mass of us (those who 'lead lives of quiet desperation') did not have to worry about our private correspondence becoming public.
Today, we have the Internet. Someone has the ability to capture every keystroke you have ever posted. Your e-mail, your tweets, your texts, your Facebook postings.
100 years from now, you too could be featured in "What were they thinking? -- The postings of the early 21st century" Those will be the totally off-the-wall items that you write.
Some student of gerontology will mine the postings of those of us who grew up without the Internet to see how we adjusted to new technology. Another sociologist will do a thesis on the uninhibited postings of those who never experienced social filters on their lives.
Paper and pen fade in time, deteriorate to illegibility, break down to dust.
But the Internet (we are told) endures forever.
As we history's pages turn
That we oftimes leave behind us
Letters that we ought to burn"
I don't know who wrote the above doggerel, I remember reading it and memorizing it when I was in grade school. I suspect it was written in the late 19th or early 20th century.
But I got to thinking about it as I read of people who get into trouble for postings on Facebook. Then there was ex-Congressman Weiner and his infamous tweets.
It used to be that what you wrote was (generally) between you and the person you wrote it to. True, if either of you became famous, and if either of you had saved the correspondence, it could well show up on the best-seller list someday.
But the mass of us (those who 'lead lives of quiet desperation') did not have to worry about our private correspondence becoming public.
Today, we have the Internet. Someone has the ability to capture every keystroke you have ever posted. Your e-mail, your tweets, your texts, your Facebook postings.
100 years from now, you too could be featured in "What were they thinking? -- The postings of the early 21st century" Those will be the totally off-the-wall items that you write.
Some student of gerontology will mine the postings of those of us who grew up without the Internet to see how we adjusted to new technology. Another sociologist will do a thesis on the uninhibited postings of those who never experienced social filters on their lives.
Paper and pen fade in time, deteriorate to illegibility, break down to dust.
But the Internet (we are told) endures forever.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Are State Lotteries a Swindle?
I'm not talking about the astronomical odds of winning. I'm talking about the basis used to justify State lotteries.
I remember before California voted to allow a state lottery. "The profits will go to education." The long-starved schools of California would get money from the state Lottery. Programs that had been cut would be resurrected. Field trips, bands, clubs would once again be available. It was an exciting promise.
The reality? The State legislature cut the education budget since, "They're getting money from the Lottery" Schools are just as financially starved (if not more so) than they were before the lottery was initiated.
I moved to New Mexico. Here, the lottery proceeds are not given to the schools. Instead, there are "Lottery Scholarships" If a student graduates from a New Mexico high school and attends a State supported higher education program, so long as they maintain an acceptable grade-point average, the state pays their tuition from the Lottery proceeds.
Better system?
Not yet.
The State legislature cuts funding to higher education, forcing the colleges to raise tuition. Last week, it was announced that if the tuition continues to increase at the current rate, in less than five years, the Lottery funds will not be sufficient to pay the tuition of all of the qualifying students.
Lotteries were promoted as providing suppplemental funding for schools. Instead, state lawmakers have found a way to justify cutting the amounts schools receive because they also receive "lottery money"
I don't know if this is happening in other states. I suspect that it is.
If so, we were all scammed by the lottery promoters. We were also scammed by our state legislators, and by ourselves. We thought that the lotteries would give the schools "something for nothing" Instead, the legislators are using the availability of lottery money to "keep taxes low" while our children suffer.
I remember before California voted to allow a state lottery. "The profits will go to education." The long-starved schools of California would get money from the state Lottery. Programs that had been cut would be resurrected. Field trips, bands, clubs would once again be available. It was an exciting promise.
The reality? The State legislature cut the education budget since, "They're getting money from the Lottery" Schools are just as financially starved (if not more so) than they were before the lottery was initiated.
I moved to New Mexico. Here, the lottery proceeds are not given to the schools. Instead, there are "Lottery Scholarships" If a student graduates from a New Mexico high school and attends a State supported higher education program, so long as they maintain an acceptable grade-point average, the state pays their tuition from the Lottery proceeds.
Better system?
Not yet.
The State legislature cuts funding to higher education, forcing the colleges to raise tuition. Last week, it was announced that if the tuition continues to increase at the current rate, in less than five years, the Lottery funds will not be sufficient to pay the tuition of all of the qualifying students.
Lotteries were promoted as providing suppplemental funding for schools. Instead, state lawmakers have found a way to justify cutting the amounts schools receive because they also receive "lottery money"
I don't know if this is happening in other states. I suspect that it is.
If so, we were all scammed by the lottery promoters. We were also scammed by our state legislators, and by ourselves. We thought that the lotteries would give the schools "something for nothing" Instead, the legislators are using the availability of lottery money to "keep taxes low" while our children suffer.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Secure Our Borders
In the on-going discussion of immigration policy, there has been a call to "secure our borders" What, exactly does this mean?
My home is secure. No one can peaceably enter without my consent. I am secure because I have walls and locks (and an alarm system)
So, is that what is meant by a "secure" border? Secure, because no one can enter without the consent of the country? Just how would the US go about securing our borders?
The most common concept appears to be a fence, running the length of the border with sensors and cameras and such to prevent anyone from entering without consent.
There are historic models that can be examined for efficacy. Hadrian’s Wall was built to secure the Romans from the marauding Scots. The Great Wall of China was built to secure the empire from the outside armies. In the 20th Century, the Berlin Wall was built, not to secure East Berlin but to prevent the citizens of East Berlin from emigrating to the West.
All three of these "Border Security" events failed in their purpose.
Why would one here be any better?
The Berlin wall appears to be the closest approximation to what is needed here. Are we willing to pay for a barrier of this magnitude? Are we eager to create "Dead zones" of land mines along our Southern border? Who will we hire, train and ORDER to shoot to kill people attempting to cross into our territory?
What do you REALLY mean by "Border Security" and what are you willing to pay?
It seems a bit disingenuous to call for a delay in discussing an over-haul of immigration until we "secure our borders" when we are not willing to either expend the necessary monies to build a barrier or to engage in the security behavior that would make such a barrier secure.
Let me re-phrase that last remark: Are we absolutely willing to post soldiers with “Shoot to kill” orders along our borders?
My home is secure. No one can peaceably enter without my consent. I am secure because I have walls and locks (and an alarm system)
So, is that what is meant by a "secure" border? Secure, because no one can enter without the consent of the country? Just how would the US go about securing our borders?
The most common concept appears to be a fence, running the length of the border with sensors and cameras and such to prevent anyone from entering without consent.
There are historic models that can be examined for efficacy. Hadrian’s Wall was built to secure the Romans from the marauding Scots. The Great Wall of China was built to secure the empire from the outside armies. In the 20th Century, the Berlin Wall was built, not to secure East Berlin but to prevent the citizens of East Berlin from emigrating to the West.
All three of these "Border Security" events failed in their purpose.
Why would one here be any better?
The Berlin wall appears to be the closest approximation to what is needed here. Are we willing to pay for a barrier of this magnitude? Are we eager to create "Dead zones" of land mines along our Southern border? Who will we hire, train and ORDER to shoot to kill people attempting to cross into our territory?
What do you REALLY mean by "Border Security" and what are you willing to pay?
It seems a bit disingenuous to call for a delay in discussing an over-haul of immigration until we "secure our borders" when we are not willing to either expend the necessary monies to build a barrier or to engage in the security behavior that would make such a barrier secure.
Let me re-phrase that last remark: Are we absolutely willing to post soldiers with “Shoot to kill” orders along our borders?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
