Squishy: Has Civilization and Technology made Modern Humans too Soft

Hi all.  Been a while since I’ve put anything up.  Interestingly, I have two drafts from within the last couple few months just waiting for me to add to them and publish.  Yet, whatever sparked my need to start them, the ideas or the passion has waned enough that they will continue to stay in a holding pattern until I can put the words down that relate to you my thoughts and ideas on those subjects.

Anyhow, today I’m going to be brief, and I must admit that the opinion and thoughts I am about to present are probably not truly new in any sense, but they are new to me; at least in such a clear manner where before they were just one of the hundreds of thoughts I have that go a thousand different directions at a million miles an hour that regularly wander in and out of my thought processes at any given moment.

So, today, a friend of mine has put up a couple few posts on Facebook, as is his wont to do, and which invariably create a minor bit of chaos if not downright anarchy as keyboard strokes can create. And it just got me to thinking about how quickly so many people respond to even the slightest word or hint of an idea that they dislike in such a way that you would believe they are in fear for their lives and their mortal souls shall be ripped from their bodies because some idea or opinion which they have is not held in as high esteem as they do.

People respond to positive and negative things in different ways.

Positive stories only get a huge reaction if it challenges someone’s long held beliefs or is about someone they personally know or have a vested interest in.

Negative stories bring outrage and despair and sadness and a whole plethora of other feelings.  Further, you will have those whom you have just challenged some long held and thus near and dear belief and therefore will fight you tooth and fingernail at their keyboard to drown out all that is about to shatter their ego.

Most of what we humans know is learned.  Through formal education, through overt and covert indoctrination and through experience.  Prejudice/bias and superiority/inferiority are learned behaviors.  So it stands to reason that by not focusing on certain differences of others when it is necessary to talk about, discuss or describing someone or some group it is important to do that describing in ways that don’t require descriptors based on color, gender or other differences as your first means of describing them, and especially important when raising our children to not look at others based upon differences that have no bearing on who a person is in their character and behavior towards others.

So, one would think and hope, that in a group of adults who should be rational, if passionate, discussion based on facts while reigning in their emotion so as to be able to talk about the issues we face that make the world a shitty place and figure out ways to make it a much less shitty place for our future selves and our posterity.

So then, why is it when people attempt to have a discussion over a difficult topic and there is a difference of opinion one or both parties are deemed to have been offended and are over-reacting?  Have people become so thin skinned and fragile from centuries of “civilization” that mere words flung about are nigh as dangerous as the axes and spears of the Neanderthal?

Being passionate about your opinion is a beautiful thing but one’s whole being should not be so bound up in the things they believe and opinions they hold that they feel they are in mortal danger from opposing opinions and facts that do not align with the beliefs they hold in such high regard.

So, I conclude that until such time as more people than not believe in the Human race as a whole and not just have certain distinctions or traits that comprise the subsets of humanity as being better, worse or somehow not even fully human, we are going to have far too many people offended over the merest of slights.  But not just offended that they have hurt feelings, no they will be offended to such an extent that they will make their disgust or feelings of being disrespected, dismisses or disregarded with not just their own words but with a physically defensive reaction that will make their belief heard and hurt those whose have disagreed with them.

As always your thoughts, opinions, comments and such are appreciated.  

Vicarious Laurels: Achieving our aspirations through our offspring

Today’s blog topic stems from a discussion during the car ride convo (that took place a couple weeks ago now, but is still relevant).   Please note the following during this:  I will be speaking in generalities as our relationships with one or both of our parents vary from individual to individual even among siblings; and any similarities between your experiences and the ones to follow are purely coincidental.

As little ones our first role models about pretty much everything come from Mom and Dad (or whomever the caregivers were that assumed those roles in your early life).  It is more than likely that the the initial foundation (regardless of whether it was a rock solid one or built of shifting sand upon a fault line) for our actions and reactions as we grew older and more mature can be traced directly back to how one or both of our parents acted and reacted (role-modeled) for us.  

I am not using the term role-model in the sense that you have reflected upon the positives and negatives of a person (or several people) and chosen to try and emulate them in style, presentation, achievement, or what have you.  These were conscious choices.  No, this is the more basic role-modeling of adopting and adapting to the world around by how you see the primary caregiver(s) do it during the concrete (Black & White) thinking stage, and as we begin to move into the abstract thinking stage inhow we perceive the overt and the covert messages of what our “role model” thinks of us as well as the implied and expressed expectations they have for us.  

I have a large and wonderful family filled with many amazing people.  A few are challenging, to me, because of life choices or certain views and those relationships can be tenuous because of it.  Some of those people are family not by my choice (marriages and such), some are family because I did make a choice (friends and intimate relationships).  I say this to help you understand that I am not discounting the love and support of all the people who have had some hand in making me who and what I am today by any of what I have to say from here on.  I am grateful for all that they are and all that they do in being a part of my life.

I basically grew up an only child.  I had an older brother who lived with the family when I was very young, but as I became more mobile and therefore more difficult to keep an eye on since I didn’t remain in one place, my brother was placed in various facilities to care for him.  I have no recollections of the time when he lived under the same roof as I.

The special needs and very apparent physical disabilities of my brother was something my father took as an affront by God to him.  It has been, until within these last few years, a nigh on impossible task for him to talk about my brother, let alone want to see him.  While I was subconsciously hyper aware of this, and consciously grew to see it, I was not aware just how fundamentally it affected me until later in life.

My dad was not one to hold his temper or his tongue.  He expressed anger very well, and he told you exactly what he thought of you.  Tact and constructive criticism weren’t things he used.  Yet, I looked up to him.  I regarded him as my role-model, both from that young child mind and later as someone whom I did want to emulate.  Consciously I knew there were certain things he did/had done, that I hoped not to take up the torch for, but...  Yeah, you know what I mean, that, however, comes later.

I could fly into a rage at the drop of hat.  I spoke my mind even if it wasn’t in my better interests to do so.  Being a bit of a loner and an outsider, I didn’t mind the fallout too much, except for the probable corporal punishment that might be due.  Sadly, you learn that when you do start wanting to have and keep friends, being bluntly honest is a great asset to a point, but you have to become better with the words that help and less adept at the ones that wound.  As for rage; well, when you begin to scare even yourself at your level of unbridled anger...it is time to do something new.  Especially when the something you were doing now was to just swallow all of the difficult and scary emotions which only led to even uglier outbursts.

Don’t get me wrong he taught me a lot of good things, as well.  Just not how to deal with emotions or to believe in myself.

As I noted above my brother was physically incapable of doing anything for himself.  Which also meant that whatever aspirations, hopes, and expectations my dad had for his eldest child were not going to be fulfilled.  So, along comes the new son, and all those expectations for the eldest now fell upon the youngest, along with whatever expectations were had for me.

For the most part I was a pretty good kid.  I did  well in school (until my parents divorced, and I quit taking school as seriously).  Yet, if I didn’t do as well as dad, and later my step dad too, thought I should have, I was berated, belittled and punished (not disciplined though I’m sure that was the intent) for my failure.  While I wasn’t a jock in any sense of the word, the scene in The Breakfast Club where Andrew (Emilio Estevez) is talking about his dad giving him a “pep” talk is reminiscent (but then so were John and Brian’s family descriptions in their own way).

I struggled to live up to those expectations.  I felt no matter how well I did do, it wasn’t enough.  I pushed myself hard and still didn’t seem like it was enough. I wasn’t enough.  Every choice I made, every thing I achieved, weren’t enough.

The day I came to realize all that was a day of a near re-birth.  So, not having this extra weight becomes a catalyst to think.  And thinking leads to me writing this.

Our parents have shaped, and for some twisted us into what we are and who we became.  Being a dad myself, I get it.  I get that we have high hopes and dreams for them.  I get that we want them to be The King or Queen of the World.   Yet, while we do all these things and it is from love (hopefully) that we push them for success in the things they do, ultimately we have to be proud of who and what they become even if it means they didn’t become a doctor or lawyer or a CEO or the President of the United States.  

Attempting to live vicariously through them for whatever our reasons can be the worst thing we can do when it is our dreams we are attempting to fulfill and not the things that they themselves are dreaming of.  When Ethan Hawke’s character in Dead Poet Society tries to tell his parents what his dream is and they shut him down unequivocally, he cannot see himself in that future and ends up making a most terrible choice.  While I’m not suggesting that this is going to be the outcome, suppressing our kids dreams because of our own pride is a horrible crime in its own way even if it isn’t something that can get you put in jail.

It is hard to not want your child or children to go on and attain certain things that you did, and even harder for us as parents to want them to attain things we didn’t, when they are in certain time/age limited events (high school, college, athletics, academics, etc).  But it is best that we are not disappointed in them if they don’t achieve those things because it was OUR dream for them, and not their own, nor if they do achieve that goal, should we steal the glory and honor that is theirs because it was that glory and honor we sought and didn’t achieve when it was our chance to do so.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that you shouldn’t do what you believe is an appropriate amount of pushing your child to achieve their best.  It has to be THEIR best though.  Not what you were able to accomplish.  Not what you had hoped you could achieve when you were that age or in those groups or events that they are now participating in.  

Thanks for perusing.  I hope it sparked some interest.  Comments and debate are as always welcomed.

Til next time...

Taking Aim: a discussion on guns and rights.

I will gladly discuss this.  I will happily debate the points brought up.  Please try to be civil.  Please use facts when and where possible; as that is what it takes to change my mind.

I was raised around guns.  I was taught to respect what they could do if misused or used for any purpose other than what each one was designed for.  That continued to be ingrained in me through Boy Scouts, the military, as a civilian police officer, and as a trained and licensed concealed pistol carrier.

The sole design purpose of a firearm is to destroy the life of whatever it is used upon.  I will neither deny nor argue that fact.  It has an implied intimidation factor to those who know that it is a weapon of destructive capability, but that is not what it is designed for.  Its purpose is to kill.  Whether it is to hunt and place food on a table, to defend oneself or other innocent persons (loved ones or strangers), or defend ones way of life from an enemy who wishes to rob that from you and your country, it is meant to be used to kill.  Does it have other legitimate uses?  Sure.  The entire sport shooting industry shows us that is true.  Collecting these works of art and mechanical ingenuity seems a popular hobby. So, yes, they have some various uses beyond their lethal purpose, but these are secondary to their design.  However, that can pretty much be said of every other tool man has made, that is has secondary and tertiary uses beyond their original designed purpose; be it one that is used for cooking, building, traveling, etc.; and each has the ability to be misused or intentionally used for a nefarious purpose other than what it was designed and manufactured for that can inflict serious harm or cause the death of one to several persons.

A while back, I contacted my three federal Congressional representatives (Congressman and both Senators) in regards to my opinion on a matter that was of national interest and that they could take action on.  What is not of import here; I am telling you this because, I have been inundated by email from one of the political parties asking for my signature on petitions and for monetary donations to “Help End Gun Violence.”  Ending the criminal use and tragic misuse of firearms is something I can wholeheartedly get behind.  While I don’t expect a reduction to zero of such things, I can hope for significant downward trends.  That isn’t being unrealistic.  But then you read the petition, or the plea for money and it isn’t about reducing violence, but about draconian methods of restricting legal access to firearms and bans on weapons for their cosmetic appearance.  

Then to read the opinion piece of a retired United States Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, I wonder what makes a man who pledged his life to upholding and defending the Constitution, to turn his back upon it.  Think about it for a moment.  In the entirety of our nation’s existence under the Constitution, we had the debate and ratification of however many proposed to the 10 we know as the Bill of Rights, which includes that darn 2nd Amendment.  Since then there have been 23 more proposed amendments, with only 17 of those being adopted.  Of those 17, only ONE restricted the rights of the people (prohibition of alcohol) and that was later repealed by another amendment.  Of the fifteen left, six of those encompasses the expansion of or more specifically defining the rights the people, and the other nine dealt with government operations.  Thirty three proposed and twenty seven adopted amendments in well over 225 years.  Damned if those founding leaders of our nation weren’t pretty damn good at laying an amazing groundwork for a nation.  And with only one where the Rights of the individual were revoked.  Which led to a black market, and a rise in crimes, both violent and non-violent, and was deemed such a disaster it was repealed.  So, repealing the 2nd Amendment, is to my layman’s opinion a horrible step backwards as it removes an individual right, with no promise of security or comparable expansion of liberty in another direction.  I paraphrase Benjamin Franklin in saying that those who willingly give up a right for a temporary safety end up with neither liberty nor safety.

The idea of the free citizens of a nation being armed has been debated since ancient times.  Socrates and Aristotle both pondered on it at length.  Some of those arguments were for and some against.  But this very idea, of what a full and free citizen had, not by decree or privilege but by right is pretty much as old as civilization itself.  These discussions included debate upon a warrior/protector class that would be armed while the rest of the citizens would not be.  The argument being that since the warrior/protector did not farm or craft goods they would be reliant upon the rulers for their welfare.  So being, they could be swayed to oppress the people they protect and extort goods and services for the protection that they had sworn to provide.  

Does this sound familiar?  The rich, the tyrannical, the oppressive, using the professional caste of warriors/protectors to protect their interests while keeping those who do not have wealth and property and power in a subservient and down-trodden state.  Again and again, throughout history we see examples of a disarmed group, even if that disarming had been initially for benevolent security and care taking purposes, subjected to various means of control that deprive them of rights and liberties, privileges and the ability for advancement within the society.

The militia is by definition the free citizens of a political entity keeping arms for the purpose of defense of the nation and community, first and secondly for defense of self, family and under certain circumstances and situations, property.  This was an important issue for the people of England when they made the king sign the Magna Carta and, it was an important enough issue that a significant portion of the Constitutional debates, and the subsequent first 10 amendments of that Constitution contained an amendment making the ownership of arms so the people could be raised as militia should the need arise.  Not just if the new government became repressive or tyrannical, but for defense of the country from foreign invasion, domestic unrest, and the like, as well as the community being able to raise muster the militia to deal with lawless behavior that affected the whole.  A standing army (a profession of armed warriors) was considered a necessary evil on the frontiers and was pretty much anathema within the states proper.  And policing in the modern sense of that profession was still some time off in the future.  So these civic duties were a responsibility that came with the rights and privileges of of being a full and free citizen.

An armed free citizenry is the bane of many nefarious things, to include the criminal who is attempting to intimidate those whom they perceive to have power over, to the despot who tries to reign the citizens with an iron fist and no rule of law beyond their own whim.

You may try to say that modern citizens would be slaughtered should they have to face the modern military, and that the necessity of self defense against criminals is moot because we have professional police forces.  Technically, you are correct on the first and partially correct on the second assumption.

However, our military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution.  They have an obligation to disobey any order that would put their duty as a soldier in conflict with the legal and moral duties as a citizen.  Thus, should a member or members of the civilian government attempt to rule in such a way, or should some admirals and generals attempt a coup d’état, their subordinates should refuse to obey and by right attempt to place those who would try those things under arrest and then bear witness against them.  Granted, this is a heavy burden to place upon the lowest ranking members of our military, especially since they just completed a training which instilled upon them to follow orders.   But one of the strengths of the US military has been that its members are not drones.  Should leaders fail or fall, subordinates step in and step up and continue a mission, unlike so many other armies, that once a leader is removed, those subordinate to that level of leader usually lose the direction and drive to complete the order as they also do not have the information and details of the operation to complete let alone continue it.  So, I believe that for the majority of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, they have the ability to make choices and weigh options on the legality of orders and whether it is Constitutional or not; at least to some extent.

The militia then has the responsibilities that are first and foremost to help protect and defend the country and the community should the need arise; and secondly to defend one’s own life, the lives of innocent persons to include their loved ones but also any stranger or bystander, and if the criteria are met in those places where it is allowed, defense of property.  Why?  Due to the fact that it IS their nation, their way of life, their home, their family.  I am not speaking in terms of preventative offense (except in the effect that a target that potentially has the ability to fight back on equal terms is an offensive deterrent) but in true defense of self and those we most wish to keep safe from harm.  While the quote is misattributed to Adimiral Yamamoto (and possibly not even a factual quote of any figure in history), we have the idea (paraphrased here) that to invade the United States would be folly for every citizen would be armed and resist.  

Granted our nation is comparatively large (4th in land mass and 3rd in population <as of July 2016>).  So an invasion force to be able to completely take over would require materiel and manpower that couldn’t be sustained long enough to accomplish such.  But those same size statistics make it nigh impossible for the other professional “warrior/protector” class that we have today...the police officer.   It would pretty much require that half of us are police to begin to have the ability to have an officer be able to be on scene of a violent act at the exact moment that it becomes necessary for one to be needed.  Even then, as the police, there is no guarantee that one will be there right as you need one, because in those types of situations they try to respond with a show of force and not in an individual capacity.  Further, the police have no duty to protect the individual person.  The community at large, and public property, yes; but not the individuals who comprise the community.  

Going back to Sir Robert Peel, the British Home Secretary and considered the father of the modern police force (London’s Metropolitan Police Officers are called Bobby’s in homage to him); we find that he considered the police role as an adjunct to what the neighborhood, community, city residents should already be providing; a watchful eye, interruption and deterrence of potential criminal activity, witnesses who would provide details to aid investigators, and defenders of their own until help could arrive.  The police are of the public and the public are the police is a belief he espoused.

Policing for all of the advancements it has made in catching criminals, does so almost exclusively after the fact of the crime being committed.  Rarely, is it ever stopped in progress, and more rarely stopped before it starts.  The latter, because we can’t read minds and predict future events, and because deterrents only deter those who see them as too much of an obstacle; while the former is because we don’t have a cop on every corner, nor would we want it that way.  The state should always be the last reason one decides to live in peace and harmony, or at least in a non-assholish tolerance, with those around them, not the driving factor of such.

Our second amendment begins “A well-regulated militia...”. The right of the people to keep and bear arms may indeed be an inalienable right, but like any right it comes with responsibility, and guess who makes the rules for what a well-regulated militia?  Anyone?  Bueller?  That’s right, the government.  The federal government has the least say in the matter, because while we appreciate a strong centralized federal government, the states individually and collectively want to ensure that their autonomy is neither curbed nor circumscribed by the federal government any more than is allowed by the Constitution.  

Oh, so that means if you are or were a member of the National Guard, you were (are) in the militia?  Um, no.  Well, sort of.  As a citizen you are part of the militia.  Whether you choose to participate in this civic duty is pretty much the same as the other two...you should but you don’t have to.  That’s what helps establish the freedom of the citizens; the ability to choose to participate.  As for the National Guard: well, before World War I, yes, kinda.  Prior to that time, the National Guard belonged to the states.  Governors controlled them exclusively.  And due to this, tho they are a military force, they weren’t part of a standing force (read today as active duty).  Thus the Posse Comitatus Act didn’t apply when they were called to serve for an extended period.  While the Guard still nominally retains this Governor call out and doesn’t violate Posse Comitatus, when called upon by the governor, they are technically a federal force, because they can be called to an active status by the federal government without the consent of the governor in the state in which the National Guard unit is posted.

Militia are the free citizens of a free country who have all the rights and privileges of such a citizen available to them, and is a civic duty in the realm of jury duty and voting.  While a responsible citizen should participate in all of those duties, it is not a requirement, nor does it mean that they are an irresponsible citizen, just not as fully involved as they could be.  Our society accepts that not everyone likes all of the liberties they are afforded.  It is ok to choose to not keep or bear arms, to choose to defend oneself or not, to participate as a fully informed and active citizen or to participate in ignorance and the blind faith to a party, cause or issue at the expense of all other ideas and issues or to not participate at all knowledgeably or ignorantly.  

The government has both a right and a duty to regulate the militia.  Which means that firearms laws can be put into place.  There must be due process of the law and fair and equitable hearings with right of appeal for those denied their rights to keep and bear arms.  The laws and regulations must apply to all equally.  The state (and to a much more limited extent) has a responsibility to place controls on who has the ability to purchase, own, and bear the arms which are deemed safe and legal to sell to the individual in their capacity as a free citizen and member of the militia, so that they will be ready for muster should it ever need to be raised.

And while I have so far focused solely upon the 2nd Amendment and my understanding of it specifically and the Constitution in general as topics of discussion, this issue is much more complex than just who has the right to have guns and for what purposes.  This issue has many other facets, some of which I have discussed in some of my previous blogs.

Civility in discussion, debate to find and adopt a consensus to the problems we face so that it benefits the most people with the least restrictions and impositions upon them.  In finding ways to include others into the everyday and not marginalize, harass, harry, intimidate and bully.  Speaking up and speaking out about wrongs in society.  Advocating for those who can’t advocate for themselves.  Finding and implementing meaningful rites of passage from childhood into adulthood that emphasize the rights and responsibilities that come with those rights when one becomes a full free member of society.  We may idealize individuality and individual perseverance/resourcefulness/ingenuity, but these ideals aren’t meant to satisfy selfish desires, but to better not only ourselves but those around us - our family, our friends, our community, our country.  We do these things to build upon what was given us.

Finally, I want to share an opinion that is mine alone and only based upon what I see and read.  I am of the firm belief that any and all minority communities should not only fully endorse the second amendment but embrace it as the secondary line of defense (free speech and public assembly and redress of grievances to the government being the first) against the oppression and repression that can be exhibited and sadly, but all too often does exist within the majority population.  We again can look throughout history, and not even have to go too far back, to see that the blindness of justice and the ideals of equal opportunity are not distributed equally across socio-cultural differences, economic differences, gender and sexuality differences, religious belief or non-belief or any other thing that the narrow minded and bigoted will use to feel superior to others, instead of reveling in our commonality of struggle to live this life to its fullest, enjoy our liberties without trampling upon others in our pursuit of the happiness we all strive to obtain within ourselves and for this whom we care about.

50 Years In; Some Observations and Thoughts

Those who know me even a little bit have probably heard me say that I am going to live to be 105.  Which, so long as I have a decent quality of life...I accept this challenge I have set for myself.  Barring injury or illness, either of natural, accidental or nefarious causes, it is a possibility.  How exciting, right!?!?

However, as I have recently turned 50, the Big Five Oh (not to be confused with the Hawaii Five Oh),the figurative top of the hill, I must also face the more real probability that I am closer to the day of my demise than I am to that of my arrival to this world.  That is a sobering thought.

Due to my several and various careers, I have learned that humor, even the dark and gallows type, helps many gets us over and past dismal thoughts and dark times.  Thus, I shall try to be less gloomy and more light hearted in my prose.

———————-

While you my readers may be unaware, there has been a significant period of time that has elapsed since I started writing this little essay.  I wasn’t totally sure as to where I wanted to go with this,and, of course, the real world of living interfered with my individual life, no matter how significant I may or may not see myself in this world.

I think I shall start with that thought first.  Unless we have some sort of super power or god-like ability, no matter what our station in life, regardless of title or position, it is a truth of life that the things we hope for, plan for, desire are buffeted by the winds of life as it is occurring.  The best laid plans..., a literary phrase of some renown, yet it is only as we go through the process of living that we truly begin to understand it’s significance.  

To truly live life and not just exist, it becomes necessary to learn that we must roll with the punches, “adapt, improvise, & overcome,” and alter, delay or change our plans, without actually giving up those plans, without denying our dreams.

——

I have come to believe that as much as technology has enabled the whole of humanity to learn so much about ourselves and the universe in which we live, in the so called First World, it has led to some of the most egregious incidents of Stoo-pid in the history of mankind.  Not just in the small and annoying ways that affect me personally, like some kid who has no clue how to make change appropriately, let alone enough basic math to figure out what to do once they have rung something up and I come up with the coinage to just get smaller bills in exchange for my larger denomination cash tender.  No, I am talking about the instant infamy and perverse glorification that come with acts of atrocity.  

It is sad, deplorable even, that some people are driven to the extremes of taking their own life or on the other end of the spectrum maiming, wounding, and killing others because not only do they feel as if no one hears them, but can’t even escape to the relative safety of home without their on-line persona being harassed, bullied, demeaned, abased and abused.  

What is the happy medium?  I don’t know; but I’m pretty sure it requires human compassion and civility.  Wait!  What?  Look, I get it; I have become jaded towards most people.  I can be seriously snarky and sarcastic.  However, I am also personally aware, from both the perspective of the one who has needed those things and the one to show those things, that they can truly turn a horrible day into a better one; change an outlook on life and/or self.  So stand up for someone; intervene, interject, interact.  Ultimately, you are helping yourself in as much as you are helping someone else.

———

Speaking of civility.  Where has it gone in politics and civic debate?  I grant that the ideas to try and improve the condition of society or mitigate/eradicate the ills that afflict is generally come from the extremes.  Once the idea has been molded into something workable, it should then be shaped and tempered by debate and eventual consensus as to what is best for all while not trampling upon the liberties of any subgroup or destroying the rights of individuals.  

Governance is the price we pay in liberty to have a rule of law.  Rights may indeed be absolute (though what a complete list of what are inalienable human rights is still up for debate, as is how those rights are applied to that which is not human (animals) or is of human construct (corporations/businesses)); but inalienable doesn’t mean inviolable to you and yours while inapplicable to those with whom you disagree with or dislike.  Your rights end when they take or deny another the same rights.  Yes, you read that correctly.  Your right to do as you damn well please ceases to exist when it infringes upon the right(s) of another.  It is this interaction of competing rights and infringements thereof that require a) rule of law and b) civil discourse.  

——-

I know that I have oh so much more to pontificate and ponder “aloud,” but I think I have taken up enough time of yours and consumed enough of mine that for the moment I shall sign off.

I look forward to comments, concerns, and such, should you so choose.

(Adult) Children, its time to have that Talk with your Parents

The role of parent/child is pretty straight forward.  One is the mentor and role model, the teacher, counselor, disciplinarian and other such roles, and the other is the sponge that absorbs all those lessons, both those deliberately taught and those that may not have been meant for the mind of the child; and then it is hoped for that the child learns and applies those lessons to grow and become as stable and productive member of society as their physical, emotional, mental and spiritual abilities allow them to be.  

Eventually, the child becomes an adult themselves (at least chronologically) and may soon take on the parent role themselves, continuing a cycle of generations and ages.  All is well and right.

However, there comes a time when the parent has lived a long life and their physical and mental selves are no longer quite what they were.  Suddenly, the child has taken on the role of caregiver and advocate and protector of the person/people who did those things for them so many years ago.  This topsy-turvy turn of events is not ever really prepared for.  Like becoming a parent for the first time, you sort of know that life has changed, and maybe you have read the books and listened to the experts and taken the advice, but there really is no preparation for that moment when you have to make decisions and face choices that just aren’t fair.

In the last few years, I have increasingly had to take on more and more in helping my parents out, and have become far more involved in their private lives as it refers to health and a few other subjects than I ever really cared to know (TMI - sprung from learning things about your parents that no person should ever want or care to know, even if it is for health reasons).  Recently, however, it became even more daunting when I had to make decisions for and about one of them because they were not able to do so.  A task made more difficult, because all the talk of planning and the supposed steps taken to ensure such a thing were possible,  never did get accomplished.  That no matter how much unwanted a task it may be, accomplishing it is thwarted by a failure on the part of the parent to follow through on the stuff they swore they would do, or had done.  Even made me believe it was done by having me sign papers and give me instructions on where those papers would be.  

A form that myself and another had signed to be the authorized folks to make decisions should this person not be able to do so we’re led to believe that it was completed.  It wasn’t.  Not was it where it was supposed to be.  Other documents that were supposed to be in the same place weren’t.  Other preparations that were alleged to have been made, hadn’t been.

My point, you ask?  Well, I have a couple.  First, this shit sucks.  Both my parents need to be healthy and happy until I die at 105 years of age.  Seriously though, not a job I wish on anyone.  I have seen the toll it takes on others and experiencing it now...I think I’d prefer a full round with Mike Tyson in his prime.  I may not feel as beaten up and spent.

Second, and this is the meat of this blog, don’t put off getting affairs in order.  The moment that paperwork is needed by a hospital or decisions have to be made and no one can prove, legally (that means with papers), that they have the power and authority to make such decisions for another, can happen in an instant.  As uncomfortable of a subject it may be, talk to your parents; parents talk to your adult children and make your wishes known verbally, now.  Even if you use a generic standard form or you pay an attorney get the Living Will, Do Not Resuscitate, Medical And Durable Power of Attorney and any other paperwork y’all find necessary to have in case such time arrives where it is needed.  Discuss what treatments you want and don’t want and how long to provide those treatments if the prognosis worsens or has no reasonable chance of improving.  Get other paperwork together that will be wanted/needed in such an event and put it together in one place that is accessible to those who will need it and let them know where that is and how to access it.  Review that stuff once a year or every couple years to ensure it accurately reflects your wishes and those who may have accepted such a responsibility still want it and that you still want them to have it.  

I get it; not a fun topic and definitely not something that one generally wants to talk about.  But it is important.