My youngest son recently got married. Yes, that in itself is cause for giving thanks (and no, and I am not just being a smartass here). During the wedding as the Psalm was read, a wave of gratitude washed over me as I heard, "and may you live to see your children's children," because I already have. Well, at least nine of them anyway.
And then yesterday I was struck by another, much more selfish wave of gratitude that connected with a thought that briefly passed though my mind during the wedding. That thought was about the tragedy that some parents are forced to endure when young life is struck down. Although we usually think the Psalmist means to say, may you live long enough to see grandchildren, there is another little twist in there. Your son or daughter must live long enough to produce that grandchild. During the wedding we remembered in prayer my son's young cousin who died some years ago in a tragic auto accident. I saw his mother at the airport as we were leaving for a second half of vacation, but I know her grief never leaves.
Yesterday I was reminded again of this whole train of thoughts when I learned that Kevin McHale's daughter, Sasha McHale, died at the age of 23. That is not supposed to happen.
So I was thrilled to see all of my sons at their brother's wedding. And I am thankful every single day that I have gotten to see my children's children -- including my grandpugs. The grandpugs may not be on exactly the same level as the human grandchildren in my heart (sorry), but who knows? Maybe the grandpugs will have a human brother or sister some day. (not pushing anything here -- just carrying through with a theme)
From the heart of a most grateful Nana
Monday, November 26, 2012
Monday, November 12, 2012
For Those in Mourning
In 1994 Ann Richards lost the Texas gubernatorial race. I took it hard. It was personal. I felt as though the world were coming to an end, and I would be folding the tent, packing my gear and leaving the governor's mansion myself. But Texas survived. I did, too. So did Ann, at least until 2006. She made a lot of money, was on TV a lot -- even "King of the Hill."
A lot of people don't think the same way I do. For example, my mother. She thinks oral sex is a sin. She told me that soon after I was married (the first time) back in 1974. It was not a long discussion. I figured there was little point because I knew the Bible well enough to be pretty certain there was no authoritative text on the subject. I also knew there was no point arguing with her on the subject. So my reasoning goes like this. God is good. God made sex. Oral sex is pretty darn good. (if you don't know -- ask around). I don't see the sin here. End of discussion.
Some people don't think their hair should be cut. It is a religious belief, sincerely held. For others, it is their beard that should not be cut. I do not have any such belief. I like my hair short. But I do not have a problem with anyone wanting to grow his or her hair as long as it will go, be it on the top of the head or on the chin.
Prayer is a vital part of many people's lives. Some do it on their knees, some while standing, and others just sitting. Some people use written prayers, others chant, and some people make it up as they go along (that is not meant to sound disrespectful -- just by way of contrast). Some people have special places they go to pray. Some people have special things that accompany their prayers, such as a shawl or beads. Some people pray in a certain direction or at certain times of the day, such as morning and evening. Some pray five times a day, at specified times. Abraham Lincoln pointed out in his second inaugural address that both sides were praying to the same God and reading from the same Bible. And yet, they were at war and asking God for victory.
Our country has survived massive upheavals. We are great because of our strengths and the willingness of everyone to play his or her part. Anger and fear are natural reactions to great disappointment. Been there and done that -- more than once actually. (Try being a divorced, single mom with a crazy ex nearby .... ) However, the Psalmist says weeping endures for the night, and joy cometh in the morning.
So the real question is whether We the People are ready to get to work and do what is required to solve our problems? Are we ready to make the tough choices about the very real and very difficult issues we face and not just spout platitudes? Sacrifices will be necessary, not by some, but by all.
When it is my ox being gored, how good is that? I say it is fine. Put the yoke on me. I'm ready to go to work. I may not be as strong as I once was, but I'm still good for a round or two. And I won't quit until the next man or woman is ready to step in for me. No grandstanding. Send in pizza and keep talking until we get a deal. Lock the doors and nobody leaves. Who is with me?
A lot of people don't think the same way I do. For example, my mother. She thinks oral sex is a sin. She told me that soon after I was married (the first time) back in 1974. It was not a long discussion. I figured there was little point because I knew the Bible well enough to be pretty certain there was no authoritative text on the subject. I also knew there was no point arguing with her on the subject. So my reasoning goes like this. God is good. God made sex. Oral sex is pretty darn good. (if you don't know -- ask around). I don't see the sin here. End of discussion.
Some people don't think their hair should be cut. It is a religious belief, sincerely held. For others, it is their beard that should not be cut. I do not have any such belief. I like my hair short. But I do not have a problem with anyone wanting to grow his or her hair as long as it will go, be it on the top of the head or on the chin.
Prayer is a vital part of many people's lives. Some do it on their knees, some while standing, and others just sitting. Some people use written prayers, others chant, and some people make it up as they go along (that is not meant to sound disrespectful -- just by way of contrast). Some people have special places they go to pray. Some people have special things that accompany their prayers, such as a shawl or beads. Some people pray in a certain direction or at certain times of the day, such as morning and evening. Some pray five times a day, at specified times. Abraham Lincoln pointed out in his second inaugural address that both sides were praying to the same God and reading from the same Bible. And yet, they were at war and asking God for victory.
Our country has survived massive upheavals. We are great because of our strengths and the willingness of everyone to play his or her part. Anger and fear are natural reactions to great disappointment. Been there and done that -- more than once actually. (Try being a divorced, single mom with a crazy ex nearby .... ) However, the Psalmist says weeping endures for the night, and joy cometh in the morning.
So the real question is whether We the People are ready to get to work and do what is required to solve our problems? Are we ready to make the tough choices about the very real and very difficult issues we face and not just spout platitudes? Sacrifices will be necessary, not by some, but by all.
When it is my ox being gored, how good is that? I say it is fine. Put the yoke on me. I'm ready to go to work. I may not be as strong as I once was, but I'm still good for a round or two. And I won't quit until the next man or woman is ready to step in for me. No grandstanding. Send in pizza and keep talking until we get a deal. Lock the doors and nobody leaves. Who is with me?
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Going for the Guinness
Eleven days ago my niece got married. Beautiful affair. Crowded church, standing room only, cute flower girl and ring bearer. Blushing bride - well, maybe not blushing, but gorgeous. Great band. Lots of friends and family I had not seen in ages. And although my eyes got misty, I managed to keep the tears from spilling over and my makeup didn't streak.
On the down side, as soon as we got to the reception from the church, I had to excuse myself to the restroom. Where I stayed for a significant part of the evening.
It was a lovely ladies room.
Since then I've spent lots and lots of time in my own very lovely ladies room. In fact I am going for the Guinness Book of Records for consecutive days with my problem. Yes, I've called the doctor. Yes, I've gone to see the doctor. I'm on heavy duty antibiotics. I even missed a day and a half of work last week. And I never, ever miss work because of sickness. (unless you count eye surgery last year and I couldn't see but that's not really sick, that's I was just worthless.)
So, here I am, just patiently waiting. What have I learned? I have tried to carry on -- somewhat. I can't go at the regular pace. As i have been waiting, I also started remembering the whole reason for my blog: Gratitude and focusing on the things I appreciate. In no particular order, some of the thoughts that have crossed my mind:
I am not taking chemotherapy treatments as are some people I know. For that I am very grateful. And for those who are, you are in my heart.
I do not have to take any tests any more. (unless I fall down and hit my head and do something crazy like take real classes instead of those i am taking on ITunes University)
I have friends that are very devoted to me and I love them dearly. They go more than the extra mile for me. When I am at my worst they take care of me, making sure I fill out the proper form and comply with company policy. And get the ice to put on my hand. (don't ask.)
Sometimes people disappoint us. The choice is to stay stuck and wallow in that disappointment or move on. I'm moving on and trusting the positive influence I tried to be and the love I was sending will -- in the end -- outweigh whatever else has happened or is happening, over which I have no control.
The aging process is no fun, as a participant or as an observer. Seeing someone you love go downhill can be depressing. Hell, it's also downright draining to be in the caregiver role. But it's also an opportunity to celebrate the memory of the person in her or her prime. And then we shouldn't run from the prospect of aging but embrace it and the wisdom it brings. I'd we are truly wise, we will heed the cautions that will make the process happen a little more easily.
Wonderful, that is my life. What is a little time spent in the ladies room?
r
On the down side, as soon as we got to the reception from the church, I had to excuse myself to the restroom. Where I stayed for a significant part of the evening.
It was a lovely ladies room.
Since then I've spent lots and lots of time in my own very lovely ladies room. In fact I am going for the Guinness Book of Records for consecutive days with my problem. Yes, I've called the doctor. Yes, I've gone to see the doctor. I'm on heavy duty antibiotics. I even missed a day and a half of work last week. And I never, ever miss work because of sickness. (unless you count eye surgery last year and I couldn't see but that's not really sick, that's I was just worthless.)
So, here I am, just patiently waiting. What have I learned? I have tried to carry on -- somewhat. I can't go at the regular pace. As i have been waiting, I also started remembering the whole reason for my blog: Gratitude and focusing on the things I appreciate. In no particular order, some of the thoughts that have crossed my mind:
I am not taking chemotherapy treatments as are some people I know. For that I am very grateful. And for those who are, you are in my heart.
I do not have to take any tests any more. (unless I fall down and hit my head and do something crazy like take real classes instead of those i am taking on ITunes University)
I have friends that are very devoted to me and I love them dearly. They go more than the extra mile for me. When I am at my worst they take care of me, making sure I fill out the proper form and comply with company policy. And get the ice to put on my hand. (don't ask.)
Sometimes people disappoint us. The choice is to stay stuck and wallow in that disappointment or move on. I'm moving on and trusting the positive influence I tried to be and the love I was sending will -- in the end -- outweigh whatever else has happened or is happening, over which I have no control.
The aging process is no fun, as a participant or as an observer. Seeing someone you love go downhill can be depressing. Hell, it's also downright draining to be in the caregiver role. But it's also an opportunity to celebrate the memory of the person in her or her prime. And then we shouldn't run from the prospect of aging but embrace it and the wisdom it brings. I'd we are truly wise, we will heed the cautions that will make the process happen a little more easily.
Wonderful, that is my life. What is a little time spent in the ladies room?
r
Thursday, March 22, 2012
A Capital Offense
A discussion thread recently started to which I was drawn in. I am not sure exactly how the whole thing started, like so many discussions on the internet. I think the subject may have gotten started with some stories in the media earlier in the week focusing on hate crimes against homosexuals. As the discussion progressed I pointed out that in some jurisdictions the law protected other categories, not just homosexuals.
Originally my comments came from the legal training I received, but as my mind began to turn things over, the subject began to turn personal. More on that in a moment. I want to talk about history first. The first that I recall hearing the term "hate crime" is in connection with the murder of James Byrd in June 1998. The violence of his murder shocked the conscience of many. The facts are so gruesome I am tempted to recount them, just as a reminder to people of what a hate crime really is. Instead, I will simply say that Mr. Byrd was beheaded. Here is a link to a September 2011 story that recounts the facts as it profiled Lawrence Brewer shortly before his execution. http://www.kens5.com/news/130314468.html
In a bill signing ceremony on May 11, 2001, not long after becoming Governor, Rick Perry said:
As the Governor of our diverse state, in all matters it is my desire to seek common ground for the common good. In the end, we are all Texans and we must be united as we walk together into the future. That’s why today I have signed House Bill 587 into law. Texas has always been a tough-on-crime state. With my signature today, Texas now has stronger criminal penalties against crime motivated by hate.
I was at the dinner when the Human Rights Campaign honored the family of James Byrd for their work with the Texas legislature to include gays in the classes of persons protected by the Texas hate crimes law. And I can't remember for certain, but I believe it was the same dinner (it may have been a different year), that Matthew Shepherd's mother was honored for her work to raise awareness about crimes committed against gays. Coincidentally, Matthew Shepherd's death was only a few months after James Byrd's.
In our society we have a long history of deciding to draw lines about crimes, including classes of persons or definitions because of certain preferences. For examples, in Texas it is a capital offense to intentionally or knowingly cause the death of a police officer. And, of course, there is a definition of "intentionally" and "knowingly" in the Texas Penal Code along with the other culpable mental states of "recklessly" and "criminally negligent." Another class of persons that Texas has determined to protect by calling the crime a capital offense is children under the age of ten. Additionally, if multiple murders are committed during the same criminal act (which can involve a series of events), that can be deemed a capital offense.
For a poor law student back in the early '80s, trying to sort all of this out in her little brain was difficult. But as my esteemed criminal law professor told us, "We are in the business of drawing lines." I will never forget a wonderful back and forth in classic Socratic style in which Professor Blakely quizzed one of my fellow scholars about the "lines" drawn for statutory rape, particularly whether the victim is 16 or is only 13. Student's classic response: "If she is 16, he is guilty. If she is 13, he is very, very guilty."
Now, bringing this back to the personal, I began to think early this morning about my grandchildren. I wondered how I would feel if one of them were targeted, the victim of a hate crime. Purists will say that any crime is a hate crime, and creating a two-tiered system of justice is bad. I completely understand the argument. But we do not live in a pure society. We live in one in which gay-bashing still occurs. Lesbians are raped because men think it will "cure" them. People are in hospitals or morgues solely because of the color of their skin or the name on their birth certificates. That is the reality of today's world. I am trying to change it with love, but it is still filled with hate.
If my beloved grandchild is assaulted or killed because of his ethnicity, because he is Asian, and the prosecutor believes the hate crime will be the stronger case to pursue -- I am a pragmatist, and I will support that decision. If one of my beloved grandchildren is gay and is assaulted or killed because he or she is gay, and the prosecutor believes the hate crime will be the stronger case to pursue, again, I will support that decision. Under this Nana's Law, harming one of her grandchildren is a Capital Offense.
Do I believe in the dealth penalty? No. The Higher Power takes care of any death penalty.
Do I believe in life without parole? You betcha.
Originally my comments came from the legal training I received, but as my mind began to turn things over, the subject began to turn personal. More on that in a moment. I want to talk about history first. The first that I recall hearing the term "hate crime" is in connection with the murder of James Byrd in June 1998. The violence of his murder shocked the conscience of many. The facts are so gruesome I am tempted to recount them, just as a reminder to people of what a hate crime really is. Instead, I will simply say that Mr. Byrd was beheaded. Here is a link to a September 2011 story that recounts the facts as it profiled Lawrence Brewer shortly before his execution. http://www.kens5.com/news/130314468.html
In a bill signing ceremony on May 11, 2001, not long after becoming Governor, Rick Perry said:
As the Governor of our diverse state, in all matters it is my desire to seek common ground for the common good. In the end, we are all Texans and we must be united as we walk together into the future. That’s why today I have signed House Bill 587 into law. Texas has always been a tough-on-crime state. With my signature today, Texas now has stronger criminal penalties against crime motivated by hate.
I was at the dinner when the Human Rights Campaign honored the family of James Byrd for their work with the Texas legislature to include gays in the classes of persons protected by the Texas hate crimes law. And I can't remember for certain, but I believe it was the same dinner (it may have been a different year), that Matthew Shepherd's mother was honored for her work to raise awareness about crimes committed against gays. Coincidentally, Matthew Shepherd's death was only a few months after James Byrd's.
In our society we have a long history of deciding to draw lines about crimes, including classes of persons or definitions because of certain preferences. For examples, in Texas it is a capital offense to intentionally or knowingly cause the death of a police officer. And, of course, there is a definition of "intentionally" and "knowingly" in the Texas Penal Code along with the other culpable mental states of "recklessly" and "criminally negligent." Another class of persons that Texas has determined to protect by calling the crime a capital offense is children under the age of ten. Additionally, if multiple murders are committed during the same criminal act (which can involve a series of events), that can be deemed a capital offense.
For a poor law student back in the early '80s, trying to sort all of this out in her little brain was difficult. But as my esteemed criminal law professor told us, "We are in the business of drawing lines." I will never forget a wonderful back and forth in classic Socratic style in which Professor Blakely quizzed one of my fellow scholars about the "lines" drawn for statutory rape, particularly whether the victim is 16 or is only 13. Student's classic response: "If she is 16, he is guilty. If she is 13, he is very, very guilty."
Now, bringing this back to the personal, I began to think early this morning about my grandchildren. I wondered how I would feel if one of them were targeted, the victim of a hate crime. Purists will say that any crime is a hate crime, and creating a two-tiered system of justice is bad. I completely understand the argument. But we do not live in a pure society. We live in one in which gay-bashing still occurs. Lesbians are raped because men think it will "cure" them. People are in hospitals or morgues solely because of the color of their skin or the name on their birth certificates. That is the reality of today's world. I am trying to change it with love, but it is still filled with hate.
If my beloved grandchild is assaulted or killed because of his ethnicity, because he is Asian, and the prosecutor believes the hate crime will be the stronger case to pursue -- I am a pragmatist, and I will support that decision. If one of my beloved grandchildren is gay and is assaulted or killed because he or she is gay, and the prosecutor believes the hate crime will be the stronger case to pursue, again, I will support that decision. Under this Nana's Law, harming one of her grandchildren is a Capital Offense.
Do I believe in the dealth penalty? No. The Higher Power takes care of any death penalty.
Do I believe in life without parole? You betcha.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
It Takes Two to Tango
I'll say this right up front: I respect people's right to privacy. I also respect people's right to say what's on their mind. (Obviously or I wouldn't be blogging.) However, I prefer that we have a civil discourse. So it has disturbed me greatly to hear the recent diatribe from one particularly loud member of the media, echoed by others who think he has a point.
To be more specific, a young law student recently testified before some members of Congress about the need for contraceptives. She had not been permitted to speak before the actual committee in the House of Representatives who conducted the formal hearing on the subject -- because they did not see the need to call any women to testify. (I have heard the argument about religious liberty, but my discussion today is about contraceptives. I have a point on the intersection of religious liberty and contraceptives, too. But that's for another day.) The point this young woman was trying to make is that some people need to take contraceptives for medical reasons. Their lives are at stake, sometimes for medical conditions unrelated to pregnancy. Of course, there are other women whose lives are at stake if they become pregnant because they cannot carry a baby to term, deliver it, and still survive the delivery.
I do not intend to question anyone's theology or morality on this point. My belief is that contraceptives are available for women and should remain accessible at a reasonable cost. Because most of them require a prescription, health insurance gets into the picture. For me, this becomes sort of like wearing a seat belt. If the seat belt is available, it should be worn for protection. We may have a specific time that we are supposed to die, but I really should not tempt fate by not buckling up when I am in a motor vehicle. It's simply too dangerous. I think of contraceptives in the same manner. If a woman wants to become pregnant, that is one choice for her to make. On the other hand, it is irresponsible not to take advantage of reasonably available, reasonably accessible contraceptives. (My belief -- I'm not questioning anyone who differs.)
But that's the catch. What if the contraceptives are no longer reasonably available or reasonably accessible? If there is no insurance coverage, what is a woman to do? It is impossible to purchase over the counter birth control pills or shots. And don't even talk to me about condoms. They may be acceptable for preventing the transmission of certain STD's, but that have at least a 17% failure rate, if not greater, when it comes to preventing pregnancy.
But that brings me to the bottom line, and hence the title, of this little rant. All of the opinion pieces I've read and heard have only been directed toward women. My experience indicates it takes both a woman AND a man in that sexual act, but everyone has only been in a hissy fit over the woman's part. It is only the woman who has been called a slut. It is only the woman who has been told to keep an aspirin between her knees.
Why is it that it is still okay in this 21st century for a young man to "sow his wild oats" and a young woman is called a slut for simply pointing out the dangers of becoming pregnant if there is sexual activity? There is no mention of more than one partner, nor how soon before marriage, nor whether it is even before marriage that sexual activity is occurring. It is only assumed in the mind of [some segments of] society at large that it was a law student testifying, and therefore, it's somehow immoral.
Is it hypocritical to apply a double standard to the young men? Should the older men go clean their own houses?
To bring the entire thought full circle, words like slut or whore have no place in civil discourse. Your point will not be heard by me if you do use such words. I endeavor not to use mean, disrespectful terms, even when referring to someone with whom I disagree. Is that too much to ask?
To be more specific, a young law student recently testified before some members of Congress about the need for contraceptives. She had not been permitted to speak before the actual committee in the House of Representatives who conducted the formal hearing on the subject -- because they did not see the need to call any women to testify. (I have heard the argument about religious liberty, but my discussion today is about contraceptives. I have a point on the intersection of religious liberty and contraceptives, too. But that's for another day.) The point this young woman was trying to make is that some people need to take contraceptives for medical reasons. Their lives are at stake, sometimes for medical conditions unrelated to pregnancy. Of course, there are other women whose lives are at stake if they become pregnant because they cannot carry a baby to term, deliver it, and still survive the delivery.
I do not intend to question anyone's theology or morality on this point. My belief is that contraceptives are available for women and should remain accessible at a reasonable cost. Because most of them require a prescription, health insurance gets into the picture. For me, this becomes sort of like wearing a seat belt. If the seat belt is available, it should be worn for protection. We may have a specific time that we are supposed to die, but I really should not tempt fate by not buckling up when I am in a motor vehicle. It's simply too dangerous. I think of contraceptives in the same manner. If a woman wants to become pregnant, that is one choice for her to make. On the other hand, it is irresponsible not to take advantage of reasonably available, reasonably accessible contraceptives. (My belief -- I'm not questioning anyone who differs.)
But that's the catch. What if the contraceptives are no longer reasonably available or reasonably accessible? If there is no insurance coverage, what is a woman to do? It is impossible to purchase over the counter birth control pills or shots. And don't even talk to me about condoms. They may be acceptable for preventing the transmission of certain STD's, but that have at least a 17% failure rate, if not greater, when it comes to preventing pregnancy.
But that brings me to the bottom line, and hence the title, of this little rant. All of the opinion pieces I've read and heard have only been directed toward women. My experience indicates it takes both a woman AND a man in that sexual act, but everyone has only been in a hissy fit over the woman's part. It is only the woman who has been called a slut. It is only the woman who has been told to keep an aspirin between her knees.
Why is it that it is still okay in this 21st century for a young man to "sow his wild oats" and a young woman is called a slut for simply pointing out the dangers of becoming pregnant if there is sexual activity? There is no mention of more than one partner, nor how soon before marriage, nor whether it is even before marriage that sexual activity is occurring. It is only assumed in the mind of [some segments of] society at large that it was a law student testifying, and therefore, it's somehow immoral.
Is it hypocritical to apply a double standard to the young men? Should the older men go clean their own houses?
To bring the entire thought full circle, words like slut or whore have no place in civil discourse. Your point will not be heard by me if you do use such words. I endeavor not to use mean, disrespectful terms, even when referring to someone with whom I disagree. Is that too much to ask?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)