I was back in the old digs the other day, getting some last-minute upkeep done on my car, when I was given an unexpected treat.
There is a small mom-and-pop restaurant in Gretna that I used to visit on a rather frequent basis when I was working for the local paper. It was a meeting place for the local Optimists Club every Thursday morning, and there was a young lady who served us that is one of those people you just never forget.
This young woman was the daughter of the restaurant owner, and if you spent more than five seconds around her and didn't come away feeling better about life, then there really wasn't any hope for you. She has such a warm, engaging personality, can talk to anybody about anything and can flirt in a friendly manner with the old farmers just as easily as she talks about whatever it is old ladies talk about.
Shortly before I moved from the community for that ill-fated gig in South Sioux City, this young lady had been diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She had just turned 21 only months earlier, and the prognosis didn't sound very good at the time. As I recall, she was being given months to live and the cancer had spread into her lymph nodes.
In the aftermath of what was happening in my personal life at the time, I had forgotten about this young lady. I would be reminded of her on occasion when I drove by the restaurant on my way to play poker at a local bar, but considering what her diagnosis was the last I had heard, I wondered if she was even alive at this point.
So you can imagine my surprise when I stopped in the other day for a late breakfast while waiting for my car to be finished to hear her giving instructions on an order to a cook in the back. I didn't see her, but the voice was unmistakable. "That CAN'T be her, can it?" I asked myself.
In the middle of my bacon and eggs, she strolled out of the back to talk with another customer, sitting across from him to see how he was doing and how business was going. She got up from that booth and turned in my direction, and it was like time had reversed back to before her diagnosis -- the same cheery face, bright smile and big dark eyes that showed no effects of what she had experienced over the past few years.
We hugged and caught up with each other's lives briefly. She was surprised and happy to hear I was getting back in the newspaper business, and was all smiles as she talked about how she was beating the cancer that had ravaged her body. She celebrated one year of remission last month, said almost all her hair was back (she had it pulled in a ponytail under a baseball cap) and she felt great.
Once I finished breakfast, I decided not to wait for the guy who was working on my car to pick me up. Although it was cold and breezy -- and I was wearing shorts -- it was the most uplifting walk I had taken in some time. Just knowing this young lady was still around and not only beating cancer, but doing it with the same spirit and attitude she has always exhibited, made the $250 bill I had waiting for me at the auto shop and all the challenges that lie ahead for me seem like nothing.
There have been numerous studies done on people who have been through the hell that this young lady has gone through, and a lot of the studies have shown that people who have upbeat, positive attitudes are more likely to get through physical battles such as this than those who paint the gloom-and-doom picture and look at things from a negative perspective.
I've been listening to and reading works from James Arthur Ray and Esther and Jerry Hicks lately, and their words of wisdom have been a key component in the change in attitude I've undergone during the past 12 months. One thing Ray repeats often in his book "Harmonic Wealth" is the phrase "Energy flows where attention goes" -- if you believe good things are going to happen in your life, they will. Conversely, if you believe bad things will happen, they certainly will.
I've experienced a number of events in recent months that would testify to this truth, from my relationship with my daughter to my success in playing poker. Even during my most recent situation where I lost my job, I took a proactive, positive approach to how I was going to deal with the situation. It would have been easy for me to sit at home, self-medicate myself with the woe-is-me attitude and blame others for my current status. Instead, I recognized that change was coming, positioned myself to respond to that change and am now looking forward to my first day in my new position in Ogallala.
We didn't talk much about how she handled her situation, but my guess is that she mentally attacked this in much the same way, and continues to do so today. Even when her insurance would no longer help pay for her treatment, she found part-time work with a reputable company that offered an insurance plan that would take care of her. She has a tremendous outlook on life and I have no doubt she is going to live a long, healthy and happy life -- mainly because of her attitude.
We all have issues to deal with in our life, be they personal, physical, financial, spiritual, emotional or professional. Many times we put the focus on what we don't want, but we can be most successful in these areas merely by focusing our efforts in the direction of getting what we DO want. Sometimes a simple change in focus is all it takes to turn things around.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Republicans, Democrats are the problem
When we go to the polls to vote for our leaders in public office, we usually go in with our minds made up that we have selected the right candidate for the job.
We've heard the speeches, suffered through the non-stop political ads, researched the candidates' facts and figures, and we ultimately hope that our selections have helped that candidate win the race for public office.
More often than not, those who go to the polls vote their party affiliation. Many of us consider ourselves Republicans or Democrats and vote accordingly. Some will step away from the party line on occasion and vote for a candidate on "the other side."
I've been registered as an independent for most of my life, which allowed me to vote my conscience without regard to political party. While most of my votes over the years have been for Republican candidates, I felt that I ultimately chose the individual I felt was the best person for the job, regardless of whether or not that individual was Republican or Democrat.
This time, though, I made a change in my voting patterns. Some would call it radical. Others might call it worthless. Still others wonder if people like me should be allowed inside a voting booth.
Tuesday morning, I walked into my voting precinct, signed my name in the register, took my ballots into the voting booth and, without a moment's hesitation, avoided voting for any Republican or Democrat in the federal and state multi-party elections.
Johanns or Kleeb for Senate? I voted for neither.
Terry or Esch in the House? Neither guy got my vote.
Obama or McCain for President? Please . . .
The fact of the matter is, there is a common thread in the tapestry that is what is wrong with America in 2008. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out, really. Hell, if THIS GUY can figure it out, certainly SOMEBODY would have picked up on it by now.
The common thread is that Republicans AND Democrats are screwing up our nation, spending our tax dollars uncontrollably and whoring themselves out to special interests like there's no tomorrow. And it's time BOTH parties be neutralized by a third party or independent representation that is not beholden to the whims of the powers that be within the Democrat and Republican parties.
But you're wasting your vote by not voting for a Republican or Democrat, some have told me.
Really? I'm the one wasting my vote here? Not voting for a Republican or Democrat is throwing a vote away?
Au contraire -- if I see the problem, I'm not about to contribute to the perpetuation of said problem with my votes. If there's a fire in my backyard and I have a garden hose and a hose connected to a gas pump to douse the fire with, which one do you suggest I use?
With all that ails this great nation right now, and with all the problems that have come before it, the only thing I've seen is the two parties spending every constructive minute bitching about what the other side is doing to create the problem. The Republicans are spending too much. The Democrats want to tax us into oblivion. And we're stuck in the middle waiting for SOMEBODY to do SOMETHING.
So I've actually DONE something about it -- by not voting for a Republican or Democrat.
Now I'm not delusional in thinking that my vote is going to bring about change. Unfortunately, there are about 100 million people in this country who continue to act like cattle headed to the slaughterhouse and continue to vote for Republican or Democrat candidates, thinking THIS group will be the one that turns it around.
Guess what? It's the same sad song, with a brand new verse. And four years from now, we're not going to be anywhere closer to a solution because one party is going to control things and we will reap that which we sow because of the decisions made yesterday. And just so you remember where you read it first -- the harvest is not going to be a bountiful one.
Maybe the decision I made today is one that will open the eyes of enough people to make them realize just where the problems lie. Once we see the end result of Tuesday's election, it will make people realize what I've already figured out -- the Republican and Democrat parties do not represent the wishes of the American people.
We've heard the speeches, suffered through the non-stop political ads, researched the candidates' facts and figures, and we ultimately hope that our selections have helped that candidate win the race for public office.
More often than not, those who go to the polls vote their party affiliation. Many of us consider ourselves Republicans or Democrats and vote accordingly. Some will step away from the party line on occasion and vote for a candidate on "the other side."
I've been registered as an independent for most of my life, which allowed me to vote my conscience without regard to political party. While most of my votes over the years have been for Republican candidates, I felt that I ultimately chose the individual I felt was the best person for the job, regardless of whether or not that individual was Republican or Democrat.
This time, though, I made a change in my voting patterns. Some would call it radical. Others might call it worthless. Still others wonder if people like me should be allowed inside a voting booth.
Tuesday morning, I walked into my voting precinct, signed my name in the register, took my ballots into the voting booth and, without a moment's hesitation, avoided voting for any Republican or Democrat in the federal and state multi-party elections.
Johanns or Kleeb for Senate? I voted for neither.
Terry or Esch in the House? Neither guy got my vote.
Obama or McCain for President? Please . . .
The fact of the matter is, there is a common thread in the tapestry that is what is wrong with America in 2008. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out, really. Hell, if THIS GUY can figure it out, certainly SOMEBODY would have picked up on it by now.
The common thread is that Republicans AND Democrats are screwing up our nation, spending our tax dollars uncontrollably and whoring themselves out to special interests like there's no tomorrow. And it's time BOTH parties be neutralized by a third party or independent representation that is not beholden to the whims of the powers that be within the Democrat and Republican parties.
But you're wasting your vote by not voting for a Republican or Democrat, some have told me.
Really? I'm the one wasting my vote here? Not voting for a Republican or Democrat is throwing a vote away?
Au contraire -- if I see the problem, I'm not about to contribute to the perpetuation of said problem with my votes. If there's a fire in my backyard and I have a garden hose and a hose connected to a gas pump to douse the fire with, which one do you suggest I use?
With all that ails this great nation right now, and with all the problems that have come before it, the only thing I've seen is the two parties spending every constructive minute bitching about what the other side is doing to create the problem. The Republicans are spending too much. The Democrats want to tax us into oblivion. And we're stuck in the middle waiting for SOMEBODY to do SOMETHING.
So I've actually DONE something about it -- by not voting for a Republican or Democrat.
Now I'm not delusional in thinking that my vote is going to bring about change. Unfortunately, there are about 100 million people in this country who continue to act like cattle headed to the slaughterhouse and continue to vote for Republican or Democrat candidates, thinking THIS group will be the one that turns it around.
Guess what? It's the same sad song, with a brand new verse. And four years from now, we're not going to be anywhere closer to a solution because one party is going to control things and we will reap that which we sow because of the decisions made yesterday. And just so you remember where you read it first -- the harvest is not going to be a bountiful one.
Maybe the decision I made today is one that will open the eyes of enough people to make them realize just where the problems lie. Once we see the end result of Tuesday's election, it will make people realize what I've already figured out -- the Republican and Democrat parties do not represent the wishes of the American people.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Nebraska's safe haven law needs work
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
This is from the poem "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus, and is part of an inscription on the interior of the pedestal on the Statue of Liberty in New York City.
A paraphrasing of it might as well be inscribed on top of the dome at the state capitol in my home state of Nebraska:
"Give me your teens, your preteens,
Your misguided children yearning to be free of you,
The wretched result of your incapability as a parent.
Send these, the homeless, angst-ridden to me,
I lift my flashlight beside the hospital door!"
Earlier this year, the Nebraska Legislature created its version of the "safe haven" law that other states have used to give parents who can't take care of their young children a chance to leave them somewhere so that the children can be turned over to social services without parents getting into trouble with the law.
The law has been discussed in previous years in Nebraska, but it took a series of incidents where several newborns were left for dead in Omaha by mothers who either didn't want the babies or were unable to care for them. The law was meant to give newborns and infants in this state a chance at being cared for and loved by adults who are capable of doing what their birth parents were unable, or unwilling, to do.
Since the law's introduction this summer, though, Nebraska has become more of a foster parenting drop-off point for people who are incapable of doing their job and taking care of their teenage children. Since the law came into play, 25 children have been left at hospitals in the state. The number of infants left behind: zero.
Most of the children that have been dropped off in the state have been from in-state adults (I hesitate to refer to them as "parents"), but lately it seems other states have residents who have heard about Nebraska's lack of restriction on leaving children at hospitals in the state. Children from Georgia, Michigan and Arizona have been dropped off at hospitals in the state since the law took effect in July.
The state legislature made a terrible error when writing this law. It may not have seemed like a glaring omission at the time, but not placing an age restriction on this law has opened the door for what I feel are some inexcusable acts by people who are not doing their jobs as parents.
When the law was written, I'm sure those involved couldn't have conceived of an adult leaving his or her 16-year-old son or daughter at a hospital and claim safe haven status. My guess is that they simply ASSUMED the law would be used only by those adults who were no longer ABLE to care for their young children.
Being a parent is no easy task. It's even more difficult when things like illness or unemployment make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to care for their children. In those cases, it's sometimes best for the child to be left with someone who will see to it that they are taken care of in a manner that will help the kids achieve some kind of good life that they would not have otherwise.
But when teenage children are being brought across state lines and left off at hospitals in Omaha, Lincoln or anywhere else in the state, I have a problem with that. In most cases, the problem is not that the adult CAN'T take care of the child -- it's that the parent no longer WANTS to do the job they are SUPPOSED to do.
Parenting is not an easy gig. I was unbelievably blessed with my daughter, who is now in college. We had some tough times those first few years -- we relied on government assistance for a couple of years, and it became more of a challenge when my wife and I separated. Our parents, friends and family helped out more often than we can count, but ultimately it was up to US as parents to make sure our daughter's needs were taken care of.
Most adults, though, don't want the responsibility of being a parent. They don't want to say "no" to their child when the child so desperately needs it. They don't want to discipline the child when the child obviously needs it. Many adults out there are more interested in being their child's buddy, rather than being their parent.
I'm not saying that parents shouldn't do buddy-type things with their kids. My daughter and I used to spend a lot of time at local arcades or putt-putt golf courses doing the kinds of things buddies do. But when it came down to being a parent, it was clear what hat I was wearing at the time, and that's a problem many of today's youth seem to have -- no parent willing to lay down the law when it needs to be laid down.
Later this month, the Nebraska Legislature is going to go into a rare special session to address this issue and place restrictions on the state's "safe haven" law. But the restriction being tossed around in the media is one that I feel is TOO restrictive.
The proposed change is going to limit drop-offs to children age 3 DAYS or younger, which is far too little time for parents to make a rational determination as to whether or not they can raise and properly care for a child. Granted, there are some cases (particularly among teenage mothers) where the sooner a newborn is turned over to social services, the better. Some teenage mothers are simply incapable of understanding what they need to do to properly raise a child and lack the kind of family support they would need to have around them to get that job done.
For others, though, it might take some time for them. They might think they can do it now, but may become overwhelmed by all the new challenges and feel they can't give the child what it needs. I think if such a situation were give a three-month window, it would still be good for both the unwanted children and the parents who recognize that what someone else can give their child is better than what they are capable of.
I'm happy to see the representatives of my state's governing system actually do the job entrusted to them (something we'd never see out of Washington D.C.), and I hope they go beyond the proposed three-day limit to one that is more consistent with the restrictions that most states currently have. It will not only give those who are new to the planet a fighting chance at a good life -- it will take away a sick and convenient avenue some of these rotten parents have for skirting their responsibilities and leaving their emotional train wrecks at our door for us to unscramble.
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
This is from the poem "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus, and is part of an inscription on the interior of the pedestal on the Statue of Liberty in New York City.
A paraphrasing of it might as well be inscribed on top of the dome at the state capitol in my home state of Nebraska:
"Give me your teens, your preteens,
Your misguided children yearning to be free of you,
The wretched result of your incapability as a parent.
Send these, the homeless, angst-ridden to me,
I lift my flashlight beside the hospital door!"
Earlier this year, the Nebraska Legislature created its version of the "safe haven" law that other states have used to give parents who can't take care of their young children a chance to leave them somewhere so that the children can be turned over to social services without parents getting into trouble with the law.
The law has been discussed in previous years in Nebraska, but it took a series of incidents where several newborns were left for dead in Omaha by mothers who either didn't want the babies or were unable to care for them. The law was meant to give newborns and infants in this state a chance at being cared for and loved by adults who are capable of doing what their birth parents were unable, or unwilling, to do.
Since the law's introduction this summer, though, Nebraska has become more of a foster parenting drop-off point for people who are incapable of doing their job and taking care of their teenage children. Since the law came into play, 25 children have been left at hospitals in the state. The number of infants left behind: zero.
Most of the children that have been dropped off in the state have been from in-state adults (I hesitate to refer to them as "parents"), but lately it seems other states have residents who have heard about Nebraska's lack of restriction on leaving children at hospitals in the state. Children from Georgia, Michigan and Arizona have been dropped off at hospitals in the state since the law took effect in July.
The state legislature made a terrible error when writing this law. It may not have seemed like a glaring omission at the time, but not placing an age restriction on this law has opened the door for what I feel are some inexcusable acts by people who are not doing their jobs as parents.
When the law was written, I'm sure those involved couldn't have conceived of an adult leaving his or her 16-year-old son or daughter at a hospital and claim safe haven status. My guess is that they simply ASSUMED the law would be used only by those adults who were no longer ABLE to care for their young children.
Being a parent is no easy task. It's even more difficult when things like illness or unemployment make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to care for their children. In those cases, it's sometimes best for the child to be left with someone who will see to it that they are taken care of in a manner that will help the kids achieve some kind of good life that they would not have otherwise.
But when teenage children are being brought across state lines and left off at hospitals in Omaha, Lincoln or anywhere else in the state, I have a problem with that. In most cases, the problem is not that the adult CAN'T take care of the child -- it's that the parent no longer WANTS to do the job they are SUPPOSED to do.
Parenting is not an easy gig. I was unbelievably blessed with my daughter, who is now in college. We had some tough times those first few years -- we relied on government assistance for a couple of years, and it became more of a challenge when my wife and I separated. Our parents, friends and family helped out more often than we can count, but ultimately it was up to US as parents to make sure our daughter's needs were taken care of.
Most adults, though, don't want the responsibility of being a parent. They don't want to say "no" to their child when the child so desperately needs it. They don't want to discipline the child when the child obviously needs it. Many adults out there are more interested in being their child's buddy, rather than being their parent.
I'm not saying that parents shouldn't do buddy-type things with their kids. My daughter and I used to spend a lot of time at local arcades or putt-putt golf courses doing the kinds of things buddies do. But when it came down to being a parent, it was clear what hat I was wearing at the time, and that's a problem many of today's youth seem to have -- no parent willing to lay down the law when it needs to be laid down.
Later this month, the Nebraska Legislature is going to go into a rare special session to address this issue and place restrictions on the state's "safe haven" law. But the restriction being tossed around in the media is one that I feel is TOO restrictive.
The proposed change is going to limit drop-offs to children age 3 DAYS or younger, which is far too little time for parents to make a rational determination as to whether or not they can raise and properly care for a child. Granted, there are some cases (particularly among teenage mothers) where the sooner a newborn is turned over to social services, the better. Some teenage mothers are simply incapable of understanding what they need to do to properly raise a child and lack the kind of family support they would need to have around them to get that job done.
For others, though, it might take some time for them. They might think they can do it now, but may become overwhelmed by all the new challenges and feel they can't give the child what it needs. I think if such a situation were give a three-month window, it would still be good for both the unwanted children and the parents who recognize that what someone else can give their child is better than what they are capable of.
I'm happy to see the representatives of my state's governing system actually do the job entrusted to them (something we'd never see out of Washington D.C.), and I hope they go beyond the proposed three-day limit to one that is more consistent with the restrictions that most states currently have. It will not only give those who are new to the planet a fighting chance at a good life -- it will take away a sick and convenient avenue some of these rotten parents have for skirting their responsibilities and leaving their emotional train wrecks at our door for us to unscramble.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
