or did "normal" just. . .
I mean, we had a good start toward normal. My wife, my daughter Cheryl, and our grandkids Meri, 9, and Logan, 6, were at the dinner table. Nice. Normal. Then Logan finished eating - that only requires a bite or two or three - and came around to the laptop that was on the table.
Isn't this where "normal" should come in? Was it so very long ago that this would have prompted a question - "A laptop what??" But normal went and moved on me. Now everyone knows what we're referring to as a "laptop". Who doesn't? I mean, gee, Grandpa! Get with it!
The next thing that struck me as not normal was a bowling game on said laptop. The bowling ball had eyes, and those things on the end of the bowling alley looked like people instead of bowling pins. Well, they used to be people. Now they're zombies, the stars of the Zombie Bowl-a-Thon. I kid you not. Sometimes the bowling ball shoots down the lane loaded with bees from a hive, and the zombies do their best to dodge not just the ball but also the bees. Other times it's Disco Zombies - the bowling ball with the eyes zings toward dancing Zombies. Again, I kid you not.
I don't know what we'd have called more abnormal - that Logan went on playing his game like this was all in the course of things, or the look on Grandpa's face while watching all of this. The latter was a source of great amusement.
Normal? I don't even own a cell phone. You know, those things you carry around in a suitcase? The phone's roughly the size of Cincinnati, so you get a crane to lift it up to your ear, and if you tilt your head just right. . .Ah - you mean I could fit one in my shirt pocket? And it can get me on the Web? (OK, all normal people my age, all together now: "WHAT Web!?") No one's even surprised by the power of those devices. We all remember when the kind of computing power in a very ordinary cell phone now would have taken up several floors of a sizable building. (Geez, Papa! For REAL?!)
Actually, I am gradually moving toward getting cell service (help? someone? Verizon? Sprint? AT&T is not a candidate.) But, no texting. (Texting? What - oh, whatEVERRR!!!) And I really have little problem with the idea of kids on the Web - supervised!!! But, I do have concerns.
I'm reading, not for the first time, Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. Will a kid who's only used to Web summaries ever manage that gem?
In Faulkner's The Bear there's a sentence that runs, in my edition, to nine pages. When I first read that sentence, I noticed pages and paragraphs sliding by before I noticed that there were no periods, no question marks or exclamation marks. Would a Web addict, used to having thought cut into bite-sized pieces for easy digestion, even know what that was about?
Heaven help the Webophile who tries to tackle any stream-of-consciousness material by Joyce or Faulkner. No chance.
I'm all for kids on computers. Meri and Logan know more about this technology than I did when I was in my 30s, and Vanessa and Jasper, also grandkids, can run circles around me. They're older, you know - 13 and 11.
But am I the only one who thinks that "normal" must have taken a hard, skidding turn somewhere. . .back. . .there?
Monday, August 30, 2010
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Tony and Albert, how could you?
Today is the day Glenn Beck and his followers have their rally in Washington. I'm fine with that. The First Amendment, if it applies to any, must apply to all.
I do have a random observation or two. I noticed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that Tony LaRussa and Albert Pujols will be among the attendees. The article quotes LaRussa as saying that he accepted the invitation only upon being assured that this would not be a thinly disguised political event. Yes, the naivete was flowing thick.
Maybe LaRussa didn't catch the bias here because he shares that bias. LaRussa is a rare breed: a vegetarian Republican who chooses to live in Northern California. He is an intelligent, sophisticated individual and, normally, not afraid to engage in critical, independent thought. I am just wondering what kind of assurances would convince him that an event featuring Glenn Beck and Sarah "I quit" Palin would not be political.
Maybe they can pull that off. I'll be interested to see. Not interested enough to pay attention while it's happening, though.
I was amused to hear Mr. Beck's spokesperson say that Beck had no idea - not a clue - that this was the date that Dr. King gave his address. Yeah, I believe that. And pigs are flying right outside my window. You got a permit for that spot, on this date, and you want to tell us it was all coincidence??? Pulll-eeeeze. . .
Many have discovered a truth: if you are going to lie, lie big, bold, loud and often. Sooner or later, some folks will start to believe it. Lincoln said "You can't fool all of the people all of the time," but modern propagandists - Limbaugh, Human Events, anybody on Fox News - have realized that you don't need to fool all of the people all of the time. You only need to fool 51% on occasion.
So you want people to think that Obama wasn't born in the United States? Speak that lie often enough and loudly enough, and some will buy it. Never mind that birth certificate and newspaper announcement the day after. (Birthers. Geez. Can you see me rolling my eyes?)
So you want people to think that Obama is Muslim? One answer is "His religious affiliation is and has been openly Christian. Submit your proof." My preferred answer: "So what if he is? We have a new test for eligibility for office now?" (and, by the way, refer to answer 1.) Another lie - told often and loud, and therefore gaining traction.
And this event won't be political? We'll wait and see. Beck has said that he'll deliver his address from a few steps lower than the spot where Dr. King spoke 47 years ago. That's at least one appropriate concession.
One other observation: Mr. Beck calls this rally "Restoring Honor." I never lost mine. Sorry about Mr. Beck's. I think it'll take more than one rally to restore his.
Rarely has such a mellifluous voice as Mr. Beck's delivered as much BS as his does.
I do have a random observation or two. I noticed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that Tony LaRussa and Albert Pujols will be among the attendees. The article quotes LaRussa as saying that he accepted the invitation only upon being assured that this would not be a thinly disguised political event. Yes, the naivete was flowing thick.
Maybe LaRussa didn't catch the bias here because he shares that bias. LaRussa is a rare breed: a vegetarian Republican who chooses to live in Northern California. He is an intelligent, sophisticated individual and, normally, not afraid to engage in critical, independent thought. I am just wondering what kind of assurances would convince him that an event featuring Glenn Beck and Sarah "I quit" Palin would not be political.
Maybe they can pull that off. I'll be interested to see. Not interested enough to pay attention while it's happening, though.
I was amused to hear Mr. Beck's spokesperson say that Beck had no idea - not a clue - that this was the date that Dr. King gave his address. Yeah, I believe that. And pigs are flying right outside my window. You got a permit for that spot, on this date, and you want to tell us it was all coincidence??? Pulll-eeeeze. . .
Many have discovered a truth: if you are going to lie, lie big, bold, loud and often. Sooner or later, some folks will start to believe it. Lincoln said "You can't fool all of the people all of the time," but modern propagandists - Limbaugh, Human Events, anybody on Fox News - have realized that you don't need to fool all of the people all of the time. You only need to fool 51% on occasion.
So you want people to think that Obama wasn't born in the United States? Speak that lie often enough and loudly enough, and some will buy it. Never mind that birth certificate and newspaper announcement the day after. (Birthers. Geez. Can you see me rolling my eyes?)
So you want people to think that Obama is Muslim? One answer is "His religious affiliation is and has been openly Christian. Submit your proof." My preferred answer: "So what if he is? We have a new test for eligibility for office now?" (and, by the way, refer to answer 1.) Another lie - told often and loud, and therefore gaining traction.
And this event won't be political? We'll wait and see. Beck has said that he'll deliver his address from a few steps lower than the spot where Dr. King spoke 47 years ago. That's at least one appropriate concession.
One other observation: Mr. Beck calls this rally "Restoring Honor." I never lost mine. Sorry about Mr. Beck's. I think it'll take more than one rally to restore his.
Rarely has such a mellifluous voice as Mr. Beck's delivered as much BS as his does.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
For My Granddaughters
Yes, you - Jada, Jessilynn, Kylie, Megan, Meri, Olivia, Vanessa (alphabetical order). You know who you are. Others may listen in. And, of course, you may chime in with praise of my great wisdom.
I have noticed that one of my granddaughters has given up on boys. She's 13. That's probably best. For now. And, since we are Catholic, convents are an option.
But - you'll probably say ix-nay on the convent thing. If your mothers had done that you wouldn't be here. So, maybe some things you should know.
Don't be surprised when you find that boys are incredibly immature and self-centered. Don't give up on them just because of that. Some grow out of it. Some don't. For boys at your age, it's impossible to tell which are which. Sometimes the great 14-year-old guy grows into the stubbornly selfish macho-acting-although-he-hasn't done-a-thing-to-earn it 18 year-old - you know, the gangsta wannabe. (Girls do exactly the same thing - at slightly different ages - but this note isn't about your relations with the girls.) So, don't be in any rush.
Mentally, emotionally, physically the guys are a little slower to mature than you are. If you're 13, don't expect any 13-year-old boy to be at the same level you're at. The difficulty - the ones who ARE at the same level of maturity as you are 15 or 16 - and those ones should not even be looking at a 13-year-old. This all does even out in the end - but it's kinda tough to deal with now, I know.
When CAN you tell when the guy gets over that "It's all about me stage"? Some never do, but by the early 20s the totally self-centered are pretty much set in their ways. Don't expect much change after that. If someone must have everything they want - can't take no" for an answer - can't discipline themselves - by the time they're 22, they won't be any less of a spoiled brat at 25, or at 35, or at 45.
See what I mean about not rushing? Have fun now - learn to relate now, but nothing serious before college. A lot - I mean a LOT - of college grads who have had lasting marriages met their partners in college. Don't let anybody put you in more of a hurry than you have to be or want to be.
And that boy that dumped you? Here's an exercise for you. Go outside on a 90+ degree day. Run a half-mile. Watch a drop of sweat run off your nose into the dust.
Any boy that would ditch a bundle of perfection that is my granddaughter isn't worth that drop of sweat in the mud.
I love you all dearly, and I am incredibly eager to see what great things you do with your lives.
I have noticed that one of my granddaughters has given up on boys. She's 13. That's probably best. For now. And, since we are Catholic, convents are an option.
But - you'll probably say ix-nay on the convent thing. If your mothers had done that you wouldn't be here. So, maybe some things you should know.
Don't be surprised when you find that boys are incredibly immature and self-centered. Don't give up on them just because of that. Some grow out of it. Some don't. For boys at your age, it's impossible to tell which are which. Sometimes the great 14-year-old guy grows into the stubbornly selfish macho-acting-although-he-hasn't done-a-thing-to-earn it 18 year-old - you know, the gangsta wannabe. (Girls do exactly the same thing - at slightly different ages - but this note isn't about your relations with the girls.) So, don't be in any rush.
Mentally, emotionally, physically the guys are a little slower to mature than you are. If you're 13, don't expect any 13-year-old boy to be at the same level you're at. The difficulty - the ones who ARE at the same level of maturity as you are 15 or 16 - and those ones should not even be looking at a 13-year-old. This all does even out in the end - but it's kinda tough to deal with now, I know.
When CAN you tell when the guy gets over that "It's all about me stage"? Some never do, but by the early 20s the totally self-centered are pretty much set in their ways. Don't expect much change after that. If someone must have everything they want - can't take no" for an answer - can't discipline themselves - by the time they're 22, they won't be any less of a spoiled brat at 25, or at 35, or at 45.
See what I mean about not rushing? Have fun now - learn to relate now, but nothing serious before college. A lot - I mean a LOT - of college grads who have had lasting marriages met their partners in college. Don't let anybody put you in more of a hurry than you have to be or want to be.
And that boy that dumped you? Here's an exercise for you. Go outside on a 90+ degree day. Run a half-mile. Watch a drop of sweat run off your nose into the dust.
Any boy that would ditch a bundle of perfection that is my granddaughter isn't worth that drop of sweat in the mud.
I love you all dearly, and I am incredibly eager to see what great things you do with your lives.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
The Clown of the Family
I have used this space in the past to discuss some aspects of addiction and alcoholism, and I do so again tonight. It's a subject I know a lot more about than I ever wanted to know.
There is a certain - irony? - here. I have long since stopped treating my struggles with alcohol as a deep, dark secret. I have written about it here; I have spoken about it in church youth retreats (hear this message if you hear no other: THE ONLY DRINK YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN CONTROL IS THE FIRST ONE YOU EVER TAKE. After that, all bets are off, unless you have an addict/alcoholic in your immediate family line. In that case, the bets are in, and the betting line is not in your favor.) I have given a safety training meeting at work on the subject, using my own experience as a backdrop.
If you hear a second message, hear this one: YOU CAN STOP! Genetics is not fate. At my low point I was living out of the back of a station wagon outside Ligonier, Pennsylvania. My family was back on Joliet. My last drink was December 7, 1985. I stopped and got my life back. You can, too.
Every time I have made presentations, or written something, my fondest hope is that everyone will say, "Had nothing to do with me. You bored me to tears." But, instead, every time, without fail, there has been someone who said, in one way or another, that what I had said or written has reached them. And I am very happy to know it. One of the things we learn in AA is that one of the important keys to us staying sober is helping someone else to do likewise. I and my family went through a lot. If I kept this among the secrets of my life, if I didn't try to help others in some way, our suffering would have been meaningless. (Suffering gains meaning by helping someone else? Wow - we're getting all philosophical here.) So, thanks for responding. Please know that you continue to be in my heart and in my prayer. And, as they used to say on TV, "Keep those cards and letters (and e-mails, and posting comments, and conversations) coming in, folks!" If I have said something that reached you - if you think that what I have to say is worthwhile at all - I'd love to know it.
In a previous posting I discussed the effect that addiction has on the families of the addict. We talked about the codependent and the addict, and how difficult it can be, once this family is in therapy, to determine who is in which role. This determination is made the more difficult by the frequent trading of roles between these two (usually the parents). We also discussed one of the types of children that come from such a family - the uber-conscientious, hyper-responsible people-pleasing overachiever. This person, usually but not always a firstborn, puts on the Supergirl mask so that outsiders would not guess about the family situation.
The second personality that often emerges from these situations is The Clown. The Clown has a great sense of humor, and is always ready to put on a show. He's always good for a laugh or a joke. This makes The Clown wonderfully popular, and The Clown seems to use humor to make his peace with life.
The Clown uses that sense of humor for something else, actually. This shows up when this family is in therapy. The discussion is getting intense and emotional. The family and the therapist are just about to confront something honestly (another key to recovery and healing is being honest with yourself) - right at that intense moment, The Clown decides to put on his show. The Clown's purpose is to distract the others from the subject at hand. The Clown has no intention of letting anyone know what this family's dynamic is.
It can be interesting to examine the interplay between the personality types. Often, Superkid is the firstborn. At some point, she will leave, usually at her earliest opportunity. Who, then, is going to care for everything at home? As often as not The Clown moves into that role.
It's easy to oversimplify this. There are Superkids and Clowns from families that are not touched by addiction. Just because you know such children, this does not mean there is addiction in the home. It just means that their personalities have formed this way. Children from addictive homes tend to have these traits on steroids - very intensely. But you don't want to get into amateur diagnostics. The human personality is a splendidly complex thing, to be loved and appreciated as a complex thing.
There's another personality type that often comes from these homes - The Lost Child - but that's for another day.
Thanks for hanging out for a few. I'd love your thoughts!
There is a certain - irony? - here. I have long since stopped treating my struggles with alcohol as a deep, dark secret. I have written about it here; I have spoken about it in church youth retreats (hear this message if you hear no other: THE ONLY DRINK YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN CONTROL IS THE FIRST ONE YOU EVER TAKE. After that, all bets are off, unless you have an addict/alcoholic in your immediate family line. In that case, the bets are in, and the betting line is not in your favor.) I have given a safety training meeting at work on the subject, using my own experience as a backdrop.
If you hear a second message, hear this one: YOU CAN STOP! Genetics is not fate. At my low point I was living out of the back of a station wagon outside Ligonier, Pennsylvania. My family was back on Joliet. My last drink was December 7, 1985. I stopped and got my life back. You can, too.
Every time I have made presentations, or written something, my fondest hope is that everyone will say, "Had nothing to do with me. You bored me to tears." But, instead, every time, without fail, there has been someone who said, in one way or another, that what I had said or written has reached them. And I am very happy to know it. One of the things we learn in AA is that one of the important keys to us staying sober is helping someone else to do likewise. I and my family went through a lot. If I kept this among the secrets of my life, if I didn't try to help others in some way, our suffering would have been meaningless. (Suffering gains meaning by helping someone else? Wow - we're getting all philosophical here.) So, thanks for responding. Please know that you continue to be in my heart and in my prayer. And, as they used to say on TV, "Keep those cards and letters (and e-mails, and posting comments, and conversations) coming in, folks!" If I have said something that reached you - if you think that what I have to say is worthwhile at all - I'd love to know it.
In a previous posting I discussed the effect that addiction has on the families of the addict. We talked about the codependent and the addict, and how difficult it can be, once this family is in therapy, to determine who is in which role. This determination is made the more difficult by the frequent trading of roles between these two (usually the parents). We also discussed one of the types of children that come from such a family - the uber-conscientious, hyper-responsible people-pleasing overachiever. This person, usually but not always a firstborn, puts on the Supergirl mask so that outsiders would not guess about the family situation.
The second personality that often emerges from these situations is The Clown. The Clown has a great sense of humor, and is always ready to put on a show. He's always good for a laugh or a joke. This makes The Clown wonderfully popular, and The Clown seems to use humor to make his peace with life.
The Clown uses that sense of humor for something else, actually. This shows up when this family is in therapy. The discussion is getting intense and emotional. The family and the therapist are just about to confront something honestly (another key to recovery and healing is being honest with yourself) - right at that intense moment, The Clown decides to put on his show. The Clown's purpose is to distract the others from the subject at hand. The Clown has no intention of letting anyone know what this family's dynamic is.
It can be interesting to examine the interplay between the personality types. Often, Superkid is the firstborn. At some point, she will leave, usually at her earliest opportunity. Who, then, is going to care for everything at home? As often as not The Clown moves into that role.
It's easy to oversimplify this. There are Superkids and Clowns from families that are not touched by addiction. Just because you know such children, this does not mean there is addiction in the home. It just means that their personalities have formed this way. Children from addictive homes tend to have these traits on steroids - very intensely. But you don't want to get into amateur diagnostics. The human personality is a splendidly complex thing, to be loved and appreciated as a complex thing.
There's another personality type that often comes from these homes - The Lost Child - but that's for another day.
Thanks for hanging out for a few. I'd love your thoughts!
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Humane to Humanity
As you may have noticed (or maybe you didn't notice), I took a bit of a hiatus. As they said in Poltergeist (slight paraphrase): "He's baaa-aack." I do have a few topics in mind, but I have been thinking about how to approach them with the sensitivity the topics call for. Racism is an example - did you seriously think it's dead and gone? Someone may need to help me out with this, but is DWB still an offense that will get you pulled over? But, as I said, I'm still sifting my thoughts on this. I'm not sure anyone - and I stress ANYONE - can claim innocence on this, least of all me.
Someone, in response to some earlier comments of mine, posted an article from Human Events on Facebook. Their comment: "For those who don't know what's happening in Arizona." I guess that was me. I'm not giving away anything you couldn't tell, but here's my bias: if your source is Human Events, you have no source. In this instance, Human Events simply published the Arizona law as passed and signed, showing modifications. I guess the part we were supposed to see was where it said that the officers are to pay no attention whatever to the race of the person being investigated.
Please - this isn't comedy. It really says that. So, if an Arizona law enforcer pulls over an Anglo, and this person does not have their drivers license, I am eager to see said Anglo taken in for investigation of immigration status. Oh, you don't think so? I don't either. I think said Anglo would get a ticket for driving without a license, and would have a court date. And that's it and that's all.
If the person pulled over was Hispanic - same offense, just forgot their driver's license - and spoke with an accent, that's when the full-fledged "papers please" process starts. There is, you see, "reasonable suspicion."
And, if it turns out that the Anglo is a citizen of another country who has overstayed her visa, and that the Hispanic is a U.S. citizen whose family has been there since long before Caucasian eyes saw the place - "Gee, sorry for the inconvenience."
So, I saw the part about race not being a consideration. You believe that? There's a bridge I want to sell you.
In today's Quad City Times there's an article about deportations of people who have been here, sometimes for years, often involving separation of families. Someone responded to another earlier comment of mine by pointing out that there is a petition process for such a situation. The reality on the ground: That petition process may take years. The family may be separated by deportation while in mid-process. Once the deportation has occurred the petition may become a dead letter.
My position is, I realize, subject to distortion. I see the ongoing flood across the border as a significant problem, and I would have little problem with the building of the fence. (I do, however, take issue with those who would want to find the money to build the fence, but can't see their way to extending unemployment benefits.)
But, for someone who has been here 20 years, who have families, whose other family members are U.S. citizens, isn't there some more humane way to deal with their status?
I would hope and pray so.
Someone, in response to some earlier comments of mine, posted an article from Human Events on Facebook. Their comment: "For those who don't know what's happening in Arizona." I guess that was me. I'm not giving away anything you couldn't tell, but here's my bias: if your source is Human Events, you have no source. In this instance, Human Events simply published the Arizona law as passed and signed, showing modifications. I guess the part we were supposed to see was where it said that the officers are to pay no attention whatever to the race of the person being investigated.
Please - this isn't comedy. It really says that. So, if an Arizona law enforcer pulls over an Anglo, and this person does not have their drivers license, I am eager to see said Anglo taken in for investigation of immigration status. Oh, you don't think so? I don't either. I think said Anglo would get a ticket for driving without a license, and would have a court date. And that's it and that's all.
If the person pulled over was Hispanic - same offense, just forgot their driver's license - and spoke with an accent, that's when the full-fledged "papers please" process starts. There is, you see, "reasonable suspicion."
And, if it turns out that the Anglo is a citizen of another country who has overstayed her visa, and that the Hispanic is a U.S. citizen whose family has been there since long before Caucasian eyes saw the place - "Gee, sorry for the inconvenience."
So, I saw the part about race not being a consideration. You believe that? There's a bridge I want to sell you.
In today's Quad City Times there's an article about deportations of people who have been here, sometimes for years, often involving separation of families. Someone responded to another earlier comment of mine by pointing out that there is a petition process for such a situation. The reality on the ground: That petition process may take years. The family may be separated by deportation while in mid-process. Once the deportation has occurred the petition may become a dead letter.
My position is, I realize, subject to distortion. I see the ongoing flood across the border as a significant problem, and I would have little problem with the building of the fence. (I do, however, take issue with those who would want to find the money to build the fence, but can't see their way to extending unemployment benefits.)
But, for someone who has been here 20 years, who have families, whose other family members are U.S. citizens, isn't there some more humane way to deal with their status?
I would hope and pray so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)