Another thread in the tapestry of life

My 93 year old Mother-in-Law passed away on Thursaday morning. It was a 17 year struggle with alzheimer's that ended like we always knew it would, actually, like we knew it must. It was strange that it took so long because we met other families along the way whose loved ones were afflicted with alzheimers and they came to an end much quicker.

In some ways my Mother-in-law was luckier than most in that almost the first thing she lost was any sense of awareness that anything was actually was wrong. The event that led to the end of her independent living was one evening when I was on the phone with her and she started coughing. I asked if she had a cold and she said "No, there's just so much smoke in the house that I can't breathe." She had been cooking bacon in a pan and let it set on fire but had no idea that the fire was unusual. Losing that awareness, we think, kept her from suffering.

The next five days or so will be tied up in the minutae of funerals and family visits. No grips. No whining. No complaining. It's all a part of the tapestry of life.

See you later.

hizzhoner

Juxtaposition

Three things going on in my life right now that are pulling me in wildly different directons:

My son is getting married.

I'm running for public office.

My Mother-in-law is dying.

That's three distinct events...all of the landmark in their own right and all three are happening at the same time. How can you "compartmentalize" three events so emotionnally dissimilar? Also, is it normal to even think about "compartmentalizing" those events?

There is a technique for dealing with all of this...it's called "living". That's all I can really do. Take each day as it comes, do what has to be done and move onto the next thing.

My wife is in a similar position...only her "third rail" is a high-pressure, responsibility-packed job. I'm quite worried about her because the emotions are running very, very high. A big part of my efforts for the next few weeks will be to be supportive of her....to help her get through these days as easily as possible.

I thought about complaining about not being able to experience the stand-alone emotions of joy for my son's wedding but I suppose the joy of the wedding will keep me from experiencing the stand-alone grief over my mother-in-law. Maybe the juxtaposition tempers everything....

Maybe it needs to be tempered.

Random thoughts on this and that

With family obligations making life interesting I haven't been able to post as much as I want to, or, for that matter, to take the time to develop a few of the themes that I've become fond of. I should have some time to do this later this week if all goes well.

In the meantime I'll post on some major events that may be coming to a climax this week nationally:

Immigration Reform

This issue sort of exploded on the public scene before anybody was ready for it. Apparently Rep Jim Sensenbrenner's draconian bill provided the powderkeg and Rep Tancredo lit the fuse by calling illegal immigrants as a "scourge on the country". This may come to a head faster than anybody figured.

Censure hearings

By somewhat of a surprise the Judiciary Committee has decided to hold hearings on Feingold's Censure Resolution on Friday. The Senate Democrats should have signed on to the resolution before but now that Bush has released his "signing letter" to the Patriot Act, claiming that he doesn't have ot obey the provisions of the law requiring Congressional oversight if he doesn't feel like it they should be signing on en masse. Friday should be interesting...........

1. More later

Bush just doesn't stop...

News is breaking as I type about Bush's "signing statement" that accompanied the renewed Patriot Act. Here's how it's reported by the Boston Globe

WASHINGTON -- When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers.
The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.
Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it ''a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people." But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

What enrages me about this?

Well, to begin with the Patriot Act was almost not renewed except for the fact that Republican and Democratic Senators cut a deal, an "understanding", if you will, about the provisions of the bill. Obviously, the White House didn't share with the Senators it's intention to ignore the reporting provisions contained within the bill.

Next, there's that whole "F--k you! aspect of Bush's statement. Can you imagine for even a second what would have happened to ANY Democratic President who told Congress he would obey the law only if he/she felt like it?

I am stunned that he has the Congress in his pocket and chooses to ignore them anyway. I am also stunned that REPUBLICAN Senators aren't leading a revolt to CENSURE or support a House of Representatives led effort to IMPEACH HIM. Why Republican Senators? Because they have been slighted more than anybody. For the first time in decades, the Republicans have control of the Senate and they are being belittled, bypassed and ignored by their own President.

Congress must realize that they are fast becoming irrelevant.....and act quickly.

A view from Overseas...

Wow! So this is how they see the Democratic Party from Overseas...

this from the Observer


http://www.observer.com/printpage.asp?iid=12576&ic=News+Story+2

But Democratic Congressional leaders are treating the G.O.P.’s ability to dictate the terms of debate as a virtual law of nature. It is arguably the whole point of political leadership to make volatile forces swing in your direction, and harness them to a coherent stand. By contrast, Mr. Michael said, the reigning mentality among Democratic leaders is that “if we take a stand, we risk defeat. That’s a chicken-shit refusal to have a real debate …. The Democratic establishment and the press establishment won’t let that debate happen.”

Message to Democratic leadership:

Bend over

Grap your ears with both hands

and PULL YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS.

Maybe the grassroots...or netroots can wake them up.

hizzhoner.

No guts, no blue chips.....

Digby put up a great post on the Democratic Party's objections to Feingold's Censure Resolution. You can read it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/digby/the-dems-are-missing-the-_b_17475.html

Buried in there was the germ of an idea. A strategy if you will. Try this on for size:

Bush is wildly unpopular because he has made so many bone-headed moves that even his base is furious with him. The Republican strategy is to RUN AWAY FROM BUSH as fast as they can...

but....

If the Feingold Censure resolution gets debated in the Senate, either in committee or on the floor, the Republicans HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO RALLY AROUND BUSH...

Thus, the Republicans bind unto themselves all the incompetence of the Bush Administration just in time for the '06 elections.....
Risky?
Maybe but High risk yields high reward.

Or as my old, reprobate father used to say, "No guts, no blue chips!"

Backbone

Face it.

Russ Feingold has a backbone and he's not afraid to use it.

And last night, our local party showed that it had one also by passing a resolution in support of our Senator Feingold.

I'm being called "radical" by friends these days because I support Feingold and a lot of other "crazy, liberal causes." It's funny because I've haven't considered myself to be an activist or radical since my college days (there was a lot going on in '66, 67 and 68 wasn't there?) so the label "radical" was sort of unsettling to me.

I've had to ask myself, since when did the exercise of your citizens rights and responsibilities become "radical"? Maybe it happened at the same time that it became unacceptable to have a backbone.

Here is the resolution:

WHEREAS President George W. Bush has approved domestic wiretaps on American citizens without seeking a legally required court order, and

WHEREAS he has misled the public prior to public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program by indicating that his administration was relying on court orders to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States, and

WHEREAS Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a resolution to censure this unlawful action by the President,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the membership of the Wood County Democratic Party supports the Senate Feingold Resolution, and urges all Wisconsin Democratic elected representatives to do likewise.

That's backbone.....