I cannot figure out who is giving financial advice to the Congress. Everyone knows, or at least they say they do, that the current United States financial crisis began with the issuing of sub-prime mortgages. I have written about that previously. Once those mortgages were bundled into securities by the securities fraud folks at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and sold to investment banks world-wide, the trap was sprung. Now, there is a lot of talk about how the credit market froze. They talk about it like it is unrelated. Why did that happen? It happened because all of those securities based on mortgages are bundled groups of mortgages. Some may be full value and some may be worth squat. Therein is the problem. Banks holding billions of dollars in purchases of those securities don’t know what they are worth. Worse yet, there currently seems to be no way to determine how much they are worth. Therefore, the banks don’t know whether they have money or not. Just like anyone else, they don’t lend money if they don’t know if they have any. And they certainly won’t lend to another bank holding a lot of those same securities. So, once again, we are back to mortgages and securities fraud.
In order to “stimulate” the economy, the Democratic congress has come up with a bill to spend almost $800 billion dollars on a lot of projects. No where in that bill is the mortgage crisis addressed. Thus, the title of this writing. They are trying to use an incredibly large program (nuclear weapon) to kill a pest (mortgage securities) which they should have just stepped on with their shoe (address the mortgage problem). Worst yet, they missed. If they took care of the uncertainty in the mortgage securities, banks would know how much money they have and the economy would begin to function normally again. Surely, it would take some time to recover but the base cause would be addressed. Making the next few generations bear the brunt of this by spending money we don’t have on things that should at least be discussed, not jammed through, is immoral. You don’t spend $800 billion dollars in slush funds without at least having some hearings on the content of the bill. This is Congress doing their best Bernie Madoff impression.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Electronic Medical Records
A lot of discussion has gone on recently by the proponents of electronic medical records, including the current administration. I have discussed them before but wanted to take another look, including the views of a user. The military has already implemented an electronic system which was originally called CHCS (Composite Health Care System). When it was first introduced, it provided some valuable services despite its user unfriendliness. It allowed students and physicians to access laboratory results and radiology results without having to trek down to each department and go through a log book to retrieve them. When I was first training in medicine, that is exactly what we had to do each morning and evening. From that stand point, CHCS was a boon to efficiency. Those same tests could be ordered in the system although there was a learning curve as the names of the tests were not very intuitive. There were a lot of problems with the system. For example, if a laboratory technician entered an order from a drop down menu under the incorrect physician’s name, the results of the test would be returned to that physician and that physician would be asked to electronically sign the order. There was no way to correct the mistake. Even the administrators of the system could not fix them. Physicians were constantly receiving results and signing orders on patients they had never met. Rather than quibble on the other inconsistencies and problems with that system, let us move on.
The next iteration of the system was originally CHCS II, but has subsequently been renamed AHLTA (Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application). The AHLTA system has many of the same advantages in that no matter where you go (in theory) your drug allergies, medications, past medical history, etc. are available to a new physician to whom you present for care. That is not entirely true as I have been deployed eight times in the past five years and have never had access to the AHLTA system on any deployment. While the AHLTA folks consistently crow about the advantages of the system, they never discuss what it is like to use it. Let’s look at some of the results:
The Navy has decided that in order to improve efficiency, they want the physicians to see seventy five per cent of the productivity of major Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). Part of the reason is to lower costs, and part of the reason is that they are having trouble keeping enough people in the Navy to serve the patient population. In the brick and mortar hospitals, the current requirement for a General Surgeon is to see forty five clinic patients a week (based on HMO productivity). If that is only seventy five percent of what an HMO doctor sees, why should that be a problem? First, the average physician in civilian practice averages four support personnel per physician. The civilian practices know that the only person in a surgery office that makes a dime for the practice is the surgeon. Therefore, people are hired to keep the surgeon from doing anything which is not billable. Record keeping, billing, coding, telephones, communication, cleaning, education, etc. are all handled by trained assistants, freeing up the surgeon to do surgery and outpatient care for which billing can be generated. In the Navy, there are four physicians for each support person. Those people are Civil Service and we all know how much incentive the Civil Service has to work hard: none. Therefore, Navy physicians type their own notes, write their own consults, fill out their own preoperative and post operative packages, make phones call, schedule procedures, etc. I forgot to mention above that those forty five patients have to be seen in only two clinic days a week. Broken down evenly, this means twenty two patients on one clinic day and twenty three on the other.
Meanwhile back at the AHLTA system: Even after the training required to use the system, it is so cumbersome that trying to find your way through it is very time consuming and frustrating. I know how bad it is for surgeons. I can’t imagine how bad it is for primary care physicians who see such a wide variety of diagnoses. There are templates which can be customized for a specialty, which can save time but any unusual case will take a lot time to do the note. Additionally, the system can not keep up with the amount of usage so it is slow and crashes regularly. I have found the average AHLTA note to take between ten and twenty minutes to do even with a template. Therefore, twenty two times fifteen minutes equals three hundred thirty minutes. That is five and one half hours a day entering notes into AHLTA. If a surgical appointment is 20 minutes long, that means four hundred and forty minutes, or seven hours and twenty minutes a day talking to and examining patients. So far, we are up to twelve hours and fifty minutes each clinic day. Why do patients go to see a surgeon? Because they might need an operation. Assuming that only half of the patients need surgery, that means eleven preoperative packages (preoperative orders, admission paperwork, consent forms, notice to parent command, history and physical examination, etc.) need to be completed in addition to the AHLTA note for those eleven patients. Just for argument, let’s say that they only take fifteen minutes each (not realistic). That is another three hours and forty five minutes a clinic day. Now we are up to fifteen hours and thirty five minutes each clinic day. That is assuming that the physician never goes to the rest room, eats, or takes a break from paperwork. Additionally, the physician needs to round and care for inpatients which requires going to the ward or intensive care unit. Does anyone wonder why people leave for increased salaries and lots of administrative support?
Another phenomenon of the electronic record in the military is that performance evaluations have become partly based on the amount of relative value units (RVUs) billed as interpreted by the coding of each visit by the system. Subsequently, the smart physicians have learned to “game” the system and turn every visit into a coding bonanza with their templates. The coding is not based on what you do, it is based on what you write. Therefore, the smart ones learn to produce templates that over code visits by entering extraneous and unnecessary data into the AHLTA system. If you do what is considered a normal work up on a patient, you will fall way behind the coding curve. Since everyone is now forced to play the competitive coding game for advancement, even more time is spent on the computer entering redundant and irrelevant information.
Another interesting thing about the AHLTA system which has not been improved is that information, once entered is almost impossible to remove. Errors and diagnoses follow the patient around like a bad tattoo.
I wonder about the wisdom of a central repository of private medical information. I can see not only hackers but the Orwellian use of that repository for behavior modification and other abuses. It will not be hard for advocates to argue that anyone with a risky hobby (e.g., surfing or skiing) or diet should pay more for insurance or might not be looked on as favorably for employment. The proponents will argue that the privacy of the system will be guaranteed but if it is available to any physician (as it has to be to provide medical safety), it will be available to nearly anyone eventually. I believe a better alternative is for the government to establish standards for the format of electronic medical records and have them stored locally at physician offices or hospital records facilities. If records are required in another location, a secure and verified request can be made for those records and they can be instantly electronically transmitted to the requesting location. That system would also allow tracking of who requested records and for what reason. That should reduce the incentive for anyone to pry unnecessarily and would increase privacy.
Proponents of the electronic medical record argue that they will reduce medical errors by having allergies and medications available. That is intuitively true. I wonder how many errors will be produced by the lack of time to talk to and examine patients caused by the increased requirement for computer time to input data. If you want to reduce errors and provide better care, get some support personnel for the physicians so they can spend time taking care of patients and have some “scribes” enter the data into computers.
The next iteration of the system was originally CHCS II, but has subsequently been renamed AHLTA (Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application). The AHLTA system has many of the same advantages in that no matter where you go (in theory) your drug allergies, medications, past medical history, etc. are available to a new physician to whom you present for care. That is not entirely true as I have been deployed eight times in the past five years and have never had access to the AHLTA system on any deployment. While the AHLTA folks consistently crow about the advantages of the system, they never discuss what it is like to use it. Let’s look at some of the results:
The Navy has decided that in order to improve efficiency, they want the physicians to see seventy five per cent of the productivity of major Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). Part of the reason is to lower costs, and part of the reason is that they are having trouble keeping enough people in the Navy to serve the patient population. In the brick and mortar hospitals, the current requirement for a General Surgeon is to see forty five clinic patients a week (based on HMO productivity). If that is only seventy five percent of what an HMO doctor sees, why should that be a problem? First, the average physician in civilian practice averages four support personnel per physician. The civilian practices know that the only person in a surgery office that makes a dime for the practice is the surgeon. Therefore, people are hired to keep the surgeon from doing anything which is not billable. Record keeping, billing, coding, telephones, communication, cleaning, education, etc. are all handled by trained assistants, freeing up the surgeon to do surgery and outpatient care for which billing can be generated. In the Navy, there are four physicians for each support person. Those people are Civil Service and we all know how much incentive the Civil Service has to work hard: none. Therefore, Navy physicians type their own notes, write their own consults, fill out their own preoperative and post operative packages, make phones call, schedule procedures, etc. I forgot to mention above that those forty five patients have to be seen in only two clinic days a week. Broken down evenly, this means twenty two patients on one clinic day and twenty three on the other.
Meanwhile back at the AHLTA system: Even after the training required to use the system, it is so cumbersome that trying to find your way through it is very time consuming and frustrating. I know how bad it is for surgeons. I can’t imagine how bad it is for primary care physicians who see such a wide variety of diagnoses. There are templates which can be customized for a specialty, which can save time but any unusual case will take a lot time to do the note. Additionally, the system can not keep up with the amount of usage so it is slow and crashes regularly. I have found the average AHLTA note to take between ten and twenty minutes to do even with a template. Therefore, twenty two times fifteen minutes equals three hundred thirty minutes. That is five and one half hours a day entering notes into AHLTA. If a surgical appointment is 20 minutes long, that means four hundred and forty minutes, or seven hours and twenty minutes a day talking to and examining patients. So far, we are up to twelve hours and fifty minutes each clinic day. Why do patients go to see a surgeon? Because they might need an operation. Assuming that only half of the patients need surgery, that means eleven preoperative packages (preoperative orders, admission paperwork, consent forms, notice to parent command, history and physical examination, etc.) need to be completed in addition to the AHLTA note for those eleven patients. Just for argument, let’s say that they only take fifteen minutes each (not realistic). That is another three hours and forty five minutes a clinic day. Now we are up to fifteen hours and thirty five minutes each clinic day. That is assuming that the physician never goes to the rest room, eats, or takes a break from paperwork. Additionally, the physician needs to round and care for inpatients which requires going to the ward or intensive care unit. Does anyone wonder why people leave for increased salaries and lots of administrative support?
Another phenomenon of the electronic record in the military is that performance evaluations have become partly based on the amount of relative value units (RVUs) billed as interpreted by the coding of each visit by the system. Subsequently, the smart physicians have learned to “game” the system and turn every visit into a coding bonanza with their templates. The coding is not based on what you do, it is based on what you write. Therefore, the smart ones learn to produce templates that over code visits by entering extraneous and unnecessary data into the AHLTA system. If you do what is considered a normal work up on a patient, you will fall way behind the coding curve. Since everyone is now forced to play the competitive coding game for advancement, even more time is spent on the computer entering redundant and irrelevant information.
Another interesting thing about the AHLTA system which has not been improved is that information, once entered is almost impossible to remove. Errors and diagnoses follow the patient around like a bad tattoo.
I wonder about the wisdom of a central repository of private medical information. I can see not only hackers but the Orwellian use of that repository for behavior modification and other abuses. It will not be hard for advocates to argue that anyone with a risky hobby (e.g., surfing or skiing) or diet should pay more for insurance or might not be looked on as favorably for employment. The proponents will argue that the privacy of the system will be guaranteed but if it is available to any physician (as it has to be to provide medical safety), it will be available to nearly anyone eventually. I believe a better alternative is for the government to establish standards for the format of electronic medical records and have them stored locally at physician offices or hospital records facilities. If records are required in another location, a secure and verified request can be made for those records and they can be instantly electronically transmitted to the requesting location. That system would also allow tracking of who requested records and for what reason. That should reduce the incentive for anyone to pry unnecessarily and would increase privacy.
Proponents of the electronic medical record argue that they will reduce medical errors by having allergies and medications available. That is intuitively true. I wonder how many errors will be produced by the lack of time to talk to and examine patients caused by the increased requirement for computer time to input data. If you want to reduce errors and provide better care, get some support personnel for the physicians so they can spend time taking care of patients and have some “scribes” enter the data into computers.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
How the Economy Doesn't Work and More Fabrications
A collection of thoughts about the last couple of weeks:
The "stimulus" bill now being considered in the Senate which passed in the House is being talked about non-stop by all the talking heads on television. As it continues to languish, someone described it as a rotting corpse. The longer is is exposed to the sunshine, the more it begins to stink.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi was just on television yesterday saying that "every month that the stimulus package is not passed, 500 million Americans will lose their jobs". I find that statistic interesting in that the population of the United States is just over 300 million people. How she can say something like that with a straight face means that she must have had a stroke or slow virus brain disease. It is not possible for what she said to be true and any middle schooler could tell you that it was not possible.
Spending by the government is a revolving door and does not stimulate the economy. You take taxes in, pay them out, and take them in again. It doesn't produce anything. It is money that is just being printed by the government and being covered by borrowing from foreign countries. In order for the economy to function, private industry must generate wealth and pay taxes into the government. The workers who are employed by those private industries must earn wages and pay taxes into the government. It is private industry that generates revenue, not the government. To think that the economic crisis will be resolved by just printing more money is idiotic and not very reassuring about the competence of those advocating that course. It has never worked in the past and is silly.
Another big lie is that this current wish list of a bill is a stimulus package at all. It is a laundry list of liberal wishes. Some of the ideas may have merit but they are not stimulative to the economy. As the people have seen more and more of this bill, public opinion has turned against it and rightly so. Fred Smith, CEO of Fedex was on television the other day and pointed out that the United States Tax Code is weighted substantially toward helping financial institutions and inhibiting the manufacturing sector. The Democrats constantly rail against manufacturers relocating facilities overseas yet never admit that their own tax policies are causing the movement. The obligation of any CEO of a corporation is to make a profit for the stockholders. If that CEO can find a more favorable environment to manufacture the companies products, he has an obligation to do so. Since the United States has the highest business taxes in the world, should it surprise anyone that businesses are going elsewhere? We have seen the same phenomenon within the United States with businesses relocating from the industrial north (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, etc.) to the Southeast where the weather is better and the local and state governments are more friendly to business and the tax structure is better for business. That very thing is what has happened to the automobile industry in Michigan where dumb business decisions and liberal policies have whacked the industry. Automobile manufacturers in South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas are doing fine.
If the Democrats wanted to stimulate the economy, they could have money in the people's pockets in two weeks: reduce payroll taxes. It would only require the stroke of a pen. There are things in the stimulus bill which cost tens of millions of dollars and produce only a dozen jobs. If you are you going to do that, just give me ten million dollars and say it is a job. I won't even tell on you. In every single instance in United States history, reducing the capital gains tax has resulted in increased revenue for the government. Additionally, every single time capital gains taxes are raised, government revenue decreases. Can anyone see what the right thing is to do? Duh.
The Obama people say giving a rebate check to the people is stimulative. Consider this when comparing the rebate check to tax relief: Would you be more likely to make a big purchase (car, washer, refrigerator, computer, etc.) with a single rebate check, or with more money every paycheck for the forseeable future? Anyone can see that tax relief makes more sense and will be more stimulative to the economy. To say otherwise is to show your partisanship and no knowledge of the economy.
The left, in order to pay back the big labor unions for their support in the elections, is trying to pass the goofy "card check" legislation which will take the right to secret ballots away from union elections. Perhaps we can establish a KGB and a Ministry of Propaganda as well. The secret ballot vote is a fundamental right of all Americans in all elections. How anyone can claim it is progress is demeaning to anyone that can think.
If only these guys would start looking out for the people and less about their own butts.
The "stimulus" bill now being considered in the Senate which passed in the House is being talked about non-stop by all the talking heads on television. As it continues to languish, someone described it as a rotting corpse. The longer is is exposed to the sunshine, the more it begins to stink.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi was just on television yesterday saying that "every month that the stimulus package is not passed, 500 million Americans will lose their jobs". I find that statistic interesting in that the population of the United States is just over 300 million people. How she can say something like that with a straight face means that she must have had a stroke or slow virus brain disease. It is not possible for what she said to be true and any middle schooler could tell you that it was not possible.
Spending by the government is a revolving door and does not stimulate the economy. You take taxes in, pay them out, and take them in again. It doesn't produce anything. It is money that is just being printed by the government and being covered by borrowing from foreign countries. In order for the economy to function, private industry must generate wealth and pay taxes into the government. The workers who are employed by those private industries must earn wages and pay taxes into the government. It is private industry that generates revenue, not the government. To think that the economic crisis will be resolved by just printing more money is idiotic and not very reassuring about the competence of those advocating that course. It has never worked in the past and is silly.
Another big lie is that this current wish list of a bill is a stimulus package at all. It is a laundry list of liberal wishes. Some of the ideas may have merit but they are not stimulative to the economy. As the people have seen more and more of this bill, public opinion has turned against it and rightly so. Fred Smith, CEO of Fedex was on television the other day and pointed out that the United States Tax Code is weighted substantially toward helping financial institutions and inhibiting the manufacturing sector. The Democrats constantly rail against manufacturers relocating facilities overseas yet never admit that their own tax policies are causing the movement. The obligation of any CEO of a corporation is to make a profit for the stockholders. If that CEO can find a more favorable environment to manufacture the companies products, he has an obligation to do so. Since the United States has the highest business taxes in the world, should it surprise anyone that businesses are going elsewhere? We have seen the same phenomenon within the United States with businesses relocating from the industrial north (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, etc.) to the Southeast where the weather is better and the local and state governments are more friendly to business and the tax structure is better for business. That very thing is what has happened to the automobile industry in Michigan where dumb business decisions and liberal policies have whacked the industry. Automobile manufacturers in South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas are doing fine.
If the Democrats wanted to stimulate the economy, they could have money in the people's pockets in two weeks: reduce payroll taxes. It would only require the stroke of a pen. There are things in the stimulus bill which cost tens of millions of dollars and produce only a dozen jobs. If you are you going to do that, just give me ten million dollars and say it is a job. I won't even tell on you. In every single instance in United States history, reducing the capital gains tax has resulted in increased revenue for the government. Additionally, every single time capital gains taxes are raised, government revenue decreases. Can anyone see what the right thing is to do? Duh.
The Obama people say giving a rebate check to the people is stimulative. Consider this when comparing the rebate check to tax relief: Would you be more likely to make a big purchase (car, washer, refrigerator, computer, etc.) with a single rebate check, or with more money every paycheck for the forseeable future? Anyone can see that tax relief makes more sense and will be more stimulative to the economy. To say otherwise is to show your partisanship and no knowledge of the economy.
The left, in order to pay back the big labor unions for their support in the elections, is trying to pass the goofy "card check" legislation which will take the right to secret ballots away from union elections. Perhaps we can establish a KGB and a Ministry of Propaganda as well. The secret ballot vote is a fundamental right of all Americans in all elections. How anyone can claim it is progress is demeaning to anyone that can think.
If only these guys would start looking out for the people and less about their own butts.
The Abuse of Power
In thinking of Rep. Charlie Rangel (cheating on his taxes), Gov. Bill Richardson (special favors for campaign contributions), Timothy Geitner (tax cheat), Sen. Tom Daschle (tax cheat), Rep. William Jefferson (bribes), Sen. Ted Stevens (bribes), Gov. Rod Blagojevich (pay for play), etc., it is apparent to me that what I wrote in an earlier entry about staying in politics too long being too corrupting is true. I can’t take credit for that being an original idea.
In Federalist 6, Alexander Hamilton wrote about situation leading to conflict between neighboring states and the motives of their leaders, “And there are others, not less numerous than either of the former, which take their origin entirely in private passions; in the attachments, enmities, interests, hopes, and fears, of leading individuals in the communities of which they are members. Men of this class, whether favourites of a king of a people, have in too many instances abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquility to personal advantage, or personal gratification.”
In both Geitner’s and Daschle’s cases, I believe President Obama was duped by those individuals. Geitner received compensation from the International Monetary Fund and was reimbursed for taxes he owed to the United States. Every fiscal quarter, he received notification of those taxes and reimbursement and had to sign an acknowledgment form. He cannot credibly claim that he did not know he owed those taxes. This is a man billed as a financial wizard. Even more damning is that when he was audited back through 2002, he paid past due taxes for 2002 and 2003 pointed out to him by the Internal Revenue Service. He did not pay the same taxes due for 2000 and 2001 despite the situation being identical. Once again, it is not credible for him to state he didn’t know he owed the taxes. He is a tax cheat and now runs the Internal Revenue Service.
Daschle received free use of a limousine and a driver for four years. He received them from a man who was also paying him $1,000,000 a year in salary. I believe he could have afforded a car. Daschle says he made an inadvertent mistake. If that is true, why did he find out in July he owed the taxes from his accountant but not pay them until two days before his confirmation hearing for Secretary of Health and Human Services were to begin. The taxes were about $148,000. A regular person would have criminal charges filed for an amount like that. Daschle additionally “advised” health care companies which he would have had to regulate in the cabinet post. He is a Washington insider, a knowing tax cheat, and was forced to withdraw his nomination despite his statements and the Obama administration’s comments to the contrary.
The biggest lie in Washington is that “I am resigning because I desire to deal with personal issues and spend more time with my family”. That is Washington code for “I just got caught”.
In Federalist 6, Alexander Hamilton wrote about situation leading to conflict between neighboring states and the motives of their leaders, “And there are others, not less numerous than either of the former, which take their origin entirely in private passions; in the attachments, enmities, interests, hopes, and fears, of leading individuals in the communities of which they are members. Men of this class, whether favourites of a king of a people, have in too many instances abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquility to personal advantage, or personal gratification.”
In both Geitner’s and Daschle’s cases, I believe President Obama was duped by those individuals. Geitner received compensation from the International Monetary Fund and was reimbursed for taxes he owed to the United States. Every fiscal quarter, he received notification of those taxes and reimbursement and had to sign an acknowledgment form. He cannot credibly claim that he did not know he owed those taxes. This is a man billed as a financial wizard. Even more damning is that when he was audited back through 2002, he paid past due taxes for 2002 and 2003 pointed out to him by the Internal Revenue Service. He did not pay the same taxes due for 2000 and 2001 despite the situation being identical. Once again, it is not credible for him to state he didn’t know he owed the taxes. He is a tax cheat and now runs the Internal Revenue Service.
Daschle received free use of a limousine and a driver for four years. He received them from a man who was also paying him $1,000,000 a year in salary. I believe he could have afforded a car. Daschle says he made an inadvertent mistake. If that is true, why did he find out in July he owed the taxes from his accountant but not pay them until two days before his confirmation hearing for Secretary of Health and Human Services were to begin. The taxes were about $148,000. A regular person would have criminal charges filed for an amount like that. Daschle additionally “advised” health care companies which he would have had to regulate in the cabinet post. He is a Washington insider, a knowing tax cheat, and was forced to withdraw his nomination despite his statements and the Obama administration’s comments to the contrary.
The biggest lie in Washington is that “I am resigning because I desire to deal with personal issues and spend more time with my family”. That is Washington code for “I just got caught”.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Recently, the incoming White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on a You Tube video in response to an e-mail that the new Obama Administration was going to definitively get rid of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and allow homosexuals to openly serve in the military. I am a little interested in how that is going to work. There are a lot of issues that would have to be resolved but we can look at it from one limited set of difficulties. By the way, I don’t use the word gay to describe homosexuals as it implies that anyone who is not homosexual is not happy.
In a U. S. military shore billet, open sexual preferences likely won’t make any difference to people who live off base because they live separately and commute to work like anyone else. That is the perspective of almost all the civilian people arguing for the change. For people who live in military housing or are deployed, it is a huge difference. By definition, people in the military who are deployed in tents or ships or live in barracks serve in very close quarters. Many years ago, I had a discussion with former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina about this same subject. He brought up the point of hygiene facilities. He wondered if we were going to have a single set of showers for everyone. The movie Starship Troopers showed a facility like that. Maybe that is where we are heading someday. The point being that if you are going to have to shower with someone who might look at you as a potential sexual partner, you might as well have the heterosexuals do the same. Why should homosexuals have the advantage of showering and using the same rest room facilities as the other same sex unit members when the heterosexuals are segregated? There is a lot of discussion in the military about unit cohesion. Does it enhance or hurt unit cohesion to have members feel uncomfortable when using hygiene facilities? It isn’t a homophobia issue; it is a privacy and comfort issue. The homosexual advocates will say that it is homophobic and portrays an inaccurate stereotype that all homosexuals are predatory in nature and that to think every time someone looks at you, they are thinking of you as a sexual partner. I agree that the stereotype is inaccurate. All heterosexuals don’t lust after all people of the opposite sex, either. Therefore, per the homosexual advocates, heterosexuals shouldn’t have to worry about homosexuals using the same facilities. Given that same logic, heterosexual men and women should not be segregated in the showers, if it is not required for the homosexuals. If it is not a problem for openly homosexual men or women to use same sex facilities with heterosexuals, it is women and men will have to get used to the idea of using the same facilities, using the same logic.
So, we have a paradox: If it is okay for openly homosexual members to use the same facilities, it should be okay for openly heterosexual men and women to use the same facilities. If you don’t agree with that logic, then one possibility is the four facility solution: 1) heterosexual males, 2) homosexual males, 3) heterosexual females, and) homosexual females. It is going to cost a lot of money to retrofit ships and barracks to those standards. Will the homosexual male facilities become the gay bath houses of the nineteen seventies? No, clearly that solution won’t work because it still puts potential sexual partners in compromising positions. Therefore, we have to go to the same two facility system we have now except the homosexual men will use the current women’s facilities with the heterosexual women and the homosexual women will use the ones with the heterosexual men. In order to keep heterosexual men from sneaking in with the women and the other permutations, all people will have to register their sexual preference when joining a unit so they can be classified to the correct hygiene facilities. Or should it just be added to your identification card like a religious preference? Should you wear some identifying badge? Germany did that in the 1930s and it didn't turn out very well. Is anyone beginning to see a problem?
Will homosexuals in relationships have to be segregated in berthing? Clearly, we can’t have people with an ongoing sexual relationship sharing the same berthing spaces with dozens of other members. Does that mean the Senior Enlisted Leadership will have to keep a spread sheet on who is dating so they can make berthing adjustments? Should we use the solution above and house homosexual males in female heterosexual berthing and homosexual females in male heterosexual berthing? No, that won’t work. All the homosexual males are clustered in the same berthing and all the homosexual females are clustered in the same berthing. It is back to the same problem. On the other hand, if we don’t care about segregating potential sexual partners, think of the money savings and convenience of opening all restrooms and showers to everyone. No more long walks down the passageway on a ship to find the sex-specific rest room. No more worrying about separate male or female berthing. Since none of the predominantly 18-25 year olds with raging hormones ever have sex when they are living in a barracks or deployed on a ship for eight months to a year, it won’t be a problem. Wait… you mean 18-25 year olds with raging hormones do have sex while deployed or living in a barracks? Say it ain’t so. Anyone who agrees with the above mentioned hygiene and berthing ideas and thinks they are feasible lives in Fantasyland and has no idea what it is like to be in the military. That is a recipe for turning an aircraft carrier deployment into a singles cruise.
Maybe we should just tell people not to have inappropriate sex, keep their sex life to themselves and keep their behavior professional. What a coincidence. That is exactly what the military does now. When it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.
Everyone knows that there are many homosexuals in the United States military who serve honorably and do their jobs well. There is no reason that your sexual preference prevents you from flying a plane, shooting a rifle, or watching a radar screen. The point is that no one’s sex life is a subject for discussion at work. To serve openly as a homosexual means that you have told people around you about your sex life. No one, heterosexual or homosexual should be discussing their sex life at work. It is not professional and does nothing to improve the climate in the work place. Everyone’s sex life, not just homosexuals, should be subject to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I hear liberal media always talk about how the policy doesn’t work. They constantly refer to some Arabic language speakers who were separated for homosexual acts. If you publish those acts to push the envelope, you cannot expect any other result. Heterosexuals are separated for inappropriate sexual relationships as well when they become known. The idea is to keep your private life to yourself and it is no one else’s business. To those who say the policy doesn’t work, I would say that I haven’t seen that in a lot of year’s experience. It has worked well every place I have been stationed when people keep their sex life to themselves and do their jobs professionally.
In a U. S. military shore billet, open sexual preferences likely won’t make any difference to people who live off base because they live separately and commute to work like anyone else. That is the perspective of almost all the civilian people arguing for the change. For people who live in military housing or are deployed, it is a huge difference. By definition, people in the military who are deployed in tents or ships or live in barracks serve in very close quarters. Many years ago, I had a discussion with former Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina about this same subject. He brought up the point of hygiene facilities. He wondered if we were going to have a single set of showers for everyone. The movie Starship Troopers showed a facility like that. Maybe that is where we are heading someday. The point being that if you are going to have to shower with someone who might look at you as a potential sexual partner, you might as well have the heterosexuals do the same. Why should homosexuals have the advantage of showering and using the same rest room facilities as the other same sex unit members when the heterosexuals are segregated? There is a lot of discussion in the military about unit cohesion. Does it enhance or hurt unit cohesion to have members feel uncomfortable when using hygiene facilities? It isn’t a homophobia issue; it is a privacy and comfort issue. The homosexual advocates will say that it is homophobic and portrays an inaccurate stereotype that all homosexuals are predatory in nature and that to think every time someone looks at you, they are thinking of you as a sexual partner. I agree that the stereotype is inaccurate. All heterosexuals don’t lust after all people of the opposite sex, either. Therefore, per the homosexual advocates, heterosexuals shouldn’t have to worry about homosexuals using the same facilities. Given that same logic, heterosexual men and women should not be segregated in the showers, if it is not required for the homosexuals. If it is not a problem for openly homosexual men or women to use same sex facilities with heterosexuals, it is women and men will have to get used to the idea of using the same facilities, using the same logic.
So, we have a paradox: If it is okay for openly homosexual members to use the same facilities, it should be okay for openly heterosexual men and women to use the same facilities. If you don’t agree with that logic, then one possibility is the four facility solution: 1) heterosexual males, 2) homosexual males, 3) heterosexual females, and) homosexual females. It is going to cost a lot of money to retrofit ships and barracks to those standards. Will the homosexual male facilities become the gay bath houses of the nineteen seventies? No, clearly that solution won’t work because it still puts potential sexual partners in compromising positions. Therefore, we have to go to the same two facility system we have now except the homosexual men will use the current women’s facilities with the heterosexual women and the homosexual women will use the ones with the heterosexual men. In order to keep heterosexual men from sneaking in with the women and the other permutations, all people will have to register their sexual preference when joining a unit so they can be classified to the correct hygiene facilities. Or should it just be added to your identification card like a religious preference? Should you wear some identifying badge? Germany did that in the 1930s and it didn't turn out very well. Is anyone beginning to see a problem?
Will homosexuals in relationships have to be segregated in berthing? Clearly, we can’t have people with an ongoing sexual relationship sharing the same berthing spaces with dozens of other members. Does that mean the Senior Enlisted Leadership will have to keep a spread sheet on who is dating so they can make berthing adjustments? Should we use the solution above and house homosexual males in female heterosexual berthing and homosexual females in male heterosexual berthing? No, that won’t work. All the homosexual males are clustered in the same berthing and all the homosexual females are clustered in the same berthing. It is back to the same problem. On the other hand, if we don’t care about segregating potential sexual partners, think of the money savings and convenience of opening all restrooms and showers to everyone. No more long walks down the passageway on a ship to find the sex-specific rest room. No more worrying about separate male or female berthing. Since none of the predominantly 18-25 year olds with raging hormones ever have sex when they are living in a barracks or deployed on a ship for eight months to a year, it won’t be a problem. Wait… you mean 18-25 year olds with raging hormones do have sex while deployed or living in a barracks? Say it ain’t so. Anyone who agrees with the above mentioned hygiene and berthing ideas and thinks they are feasible lives in Fantasyland and has no idea what it is like to be in the military. That is a recipe for turning an aircraft carrier deployment into a singles cruise.
Maybe we should just tell people not to have inappropriate sex, keep their sex life to themselves and keep their behavior professional. What a coincidence. That is exactly what the military does now. When it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.
Everyone knows that there are many homosexuals in the United States military who serve honorably and do their jobs well. There is no reason that your sexual preference prevents you from flying a plane, shooting a rifle, or watching a radar screen. The point is that no one’s sex life is a subject for discussion at work. To serve openly as a homosexual means that you have told people around you about your sex life. No one, heterosexual or homosexual should be discussing their sex life at work. It is not professional and does nothing to improve the climate in the work place. Everyone’s sex life, not just homosexuals, should be subject to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I hear liberal media always talk about how the policy doesn’t work. They constantly refer to some Arabic language speakers who were separated for homosexual acts. If you publish those acts to push the envelope, you cannot expect any other result. Heterosexuals are separated for inappropriate sexual relationships as well when they become known. The idea is to keep your private life to yourself and it is no one else’s business. To those who say the policy doesn’t work, I would say that I haven’t seen that in a lot of year’s experience. It has worked well every place I have been stationed when people keep their sex life to themselves and do their jobs professionally.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Immigration
I suppose it shouldn’t be a surprise that politicians are using the immigration debate for political points instead of using a common sense approach to the problem. Both liberal and conservative politicians see the rising percentage of Hispanic voters in the United States and are trying to get those potential voters into their camp. Let’s take a look at some of the issues and see if there is a sensible way to deal with the issue.
First, you have to get your head around the fact that the only issue appears to be the Mexican-American border. There is virtually never any discussion of the Canadian-American border or immigration of Canadians into the United States. There is no public discussion about Europeans, Asians, or Africans arriving by ship or plane. There will inevitably be some left winger who says it is a racist issue. I will preface my comments by saying that everyone in the United States who isn’t a Native American is an immigrant and that immigration is one of the strengths of the nation, not a detriment. Anyone who knows anything about science knows that populations improve by melding the strengths of the various components. Populations that don’t improve become extinct. With that as a background, I will focus on Hispanic immigration through the Mexican-American border.
I am definitely in favor of legal immigration because of the additional cultural aspects, foods, labor force, ideas, and all the other things that immigrants bring to the nation. Illegal immigration is a completely different issue. There is no obligation for taxpayers in any nation to pay for the health care, education, unemployment benefits, or any other expense for anyone who sneaks into any country illegally. There is a political view in California and other states that says that the children of illegal immigrants are victims and should be legally educated in state-funded schools. If these children are victims, they are victims of their parents who are, by definition, criminals. There is no obligation to provide benefits for them. No, I am not against children. These people could have come into the country legally. They chose not to. One of their incentives to come in illegally is the very fact that they do receive those benefits. The states bring the problem onto themselves. California is virtually bankrupt because of their policies and is asking for federal money to bail them out. The education system in California has gone from the best in the nation to one of the worst. They apparently never learn. They are now asking for a federal bail out. How do taxpayers in Iowa, Virginia or Ohio have an obligation to bail out California in light of their stupid policies?
Another incentive for the immigrants to come into the United States is our law which says that if you are born while physically present in the country, you are a citizen. Perhaps we should rethink that. If you are in the country illegally (a criminal act) and drop out a baby, how does that entitle the child to become a citizen? It reminds me of the old legal concept of the “fruit of the poisoned tree”. Evidence obtained unlawfully is not permitted to be used in court. If you deliver a baby while committing an illegal act, should the baby receive benefits for it? It is another incentive to sneak in. If fact, the hospitals on the border routinely deliver babies from women who wait until they are in labor, sneak into the United States, and deliver the baby in country. I suppose the question has to be asked, does this entitle this child to all the benefits of being a United States citizen? Would it make more sense to have the requirement be that any child born in the United States would become a citizen only if the mother was in the country legally?
No one can argue that the construction, farming and service industries in the United States do not benefit from the presence of illegal immigrants. Because of the decreased costs of production in picking vegetables and fruit, building homes, cleaning hotels, washing dishes, etc. there is definitely benefit to all American citizens from decreased prices. So, if we need all those folks to do those jobs, why would we want to prevent them from entering the country? The answer is: we want them to get in. The caveat is that we want them to get in legally.
The benefits of legal immigration are unquestioned. That is why I actually prefer the suggestion made in the past few years of the Guest Worker program. If workers from other countries (primarily Mexico, Central and South America) can enter the country legally with temporary paper work, there are a number of advantages for the United States. We can keep track of who is entering the country. From both the security and financial standpoints, this is clearly what we want. This also assuages any guilt over nailing people who come in illegally. If there is an easy way to enter legally for people who just want to make some money to support their family, there is no reason to feel sorry for people who decided to come in the illegal way.
If there is an easy way to obtain legal temporary status to come and work, what is the incentive to sneak in unless you have nefarious motives? Since so many less people need to sneak in, the numbers of people that need to be apprehended is less and the Border Patrol can focus on the real criminals trying to sneak in with narcotics, etc.
The temporary workers can take their earnings and go home to their families in Mexico, Central or South America, knowing that they will be able to come back the next season without having to enter illegally. That gives them more time with their families and less anxiety over the process of entering to earn. The industries which employ the workers who are now illegal will have legal employees who don't have to hide and don't have to stay when their work is out of season.
When you can track guest workers, those people will pay payroll taxes and social security taxes and therefore will be entitled to basic services because they are paying into the system. The financial balance will be much improved for local and state governments. No one should mind the presence of anyone who wants to work and provide for their family. It is the best of human motives.
To me, a Guest Worker program makes sense on many levels. Politicians oppose it for their own reasons but it seems to be the best answer to allow fairness and to maintain viability of the industries mentioned above.
First, you have to get your head around the fact that the only issue appears to be the Mexican-American border. There is virtually never any discussion of the Canadian-American border or immigration of Canadians into the United States. There is no public discussion about Europeans, Asians, or Africans arriving by ship or plane. There will inevitably be some left winger who says it is a racist issue. I will preface my comments by saying that everyone in the United States who isn’t a Native American is an immigrant and that immigration is one of the strengths of the nation, not a detriment. Anyone who knows anything about science knows that populations improve by melding the strengths of the various components. Populations that don’t improve become extinct. With that as a background, I will focus on Hispanic immigration through the Mexican-American border.
I am definitely in favor of legal immigration because of the additional cultural aspects, foods, labor force, ideas, and all the other things that immigrants bring to the nation. Illegal immigration is a completely different issue. There is no obligation for taxpayers in any nation to pay for the health care, education, unemployment benefits, or any other expense for anyone who sneaks into any country illegally. There is a political view in California and other states that says that the children of illegal immigrants are victims and should be legally educated in state-funded schools. If these children are victims, they are victims of their parents who are, by definition, criminals. There is no obligation to provide benefits for them. No, I am not against children. These people could have come into the country legally. They chose not to. One of their incentives to come in illegally is the very fact that they do receive those benefits. The states bring the problem onto themselves. California is virtually bankrupt because of their policies and is asking for federal money to bail them out. The education system in California has gone from the best in the nation to one of the worst. They apparently never learn. They are now asking for a federal bail out. How do taxpayers in Iowa, Virginia or Ohio have an obligation to bail out California in light of their stupid policies?
Another incentive for the immigrants to come into the United States is our law which says that if you are born while physically present in the country, you are a citizen. Perhaps we should rethink that. If you are in the country illegally (a criminal act) and drop out a baby, how does that entitle the child to become a citizen? It reminds me of the old legal concept of the “fruit of the poisoned tree”. Evidence obtained unlawfully is not permitted to be used in court. If you deliver a baby while committing an illegal act, should the baby receive benefits for it? It is another incentive to sneak in. If fact, the hospitals on the border routinely deliver babies from women who wait until they are in labor, sneak into the United States, and deliver the baby in country. I suppose the question has to be asked, does this entitle this child to all the benefits of being a United States citizen? Would it make more sense to have the requirement be that any child born in the United States would become a citizen only if the mother was in the country legally?
No one can argue that the construction, farming and service industries in the United States do not benefit from the presence of illegal immigrants. Because of the decreased costs of production in picking vegetables and fruit, building homes, cleaning hotels, washing dishes, etc. there is definitely benefit to all American citizens from decreased prices. So, if we need all those folks to do those jobs, why would we want to prevent them from entering the country? The answer is: we want them to get in. The caveat is that we want them to get in legally.
The benefits of legal immigration are unquestioned. That is why I actually prefer the suggestion made in the past few years of the Guest Worker program. If workers from other countries (primarily Mexico, Central and South America) can enter the country legally with temporary paper work, there are a number of advantages for the United States. We can keep track of who is entering the country. From both the security and financial standpoints, this is clearly what we want. This also assuages any guilt over nailing people who come in illegally. If there is an easy way to enter legally for people who just want to make some money to support their family, there is no reason to feel sorry for people who decided to come in the illegal way.
If there is an easy way to obtain legal temporary status to come and work, what is the incentive to sneak in unless you have nefarious motives? Since so many less people need to sneak in, the numbers of people that need to be apprehended is less and the Border Patrol can focus on the real criminals trying to sneak in with narcotics, etc.
The temporary workers can take their earnings and go home to their families in Mexico, Central or South America, knowing that they will be able to come back the next season without having to enter illegally. That gives them more time with their families and less anxiety over the process of entering to earn. The industries which employ the workers who are now illegal will have legal employees who don't have to hide and don't have to stay when their work is out of season.
When you can track guest workers, those people will pay payroll taxes and social security taxes and therefore will be entitled to basic services because they are paying into the system. The financial balance will be much improved for local and state governments. No one should mind the presence of anyone who wants to work and provide for their family. It is the best of human motives.
To me, a Guest Worker program makes sense on many levels. Politicians oppose it for their own reasons but it seems to be the best answer to allow fairness and to maintain viability of the industries mentioned above.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
My Aunt and the Interconnections of People
I have unfortunately reached the age where my older relatives seem to disappearing rapidly. My aunts and uncles are all of the World War II generation and those folks are going away quickly. I received information that my last remaining aunt, who is ninety five, is apparently not doing well and is expected to pass away soon. It got me thinking, as those types of events tend to do. We always say with dark humor that the only time that the family gets together is at weddings and funerals. I don’t even think we get together at weddings. The real shame in that is that my mother’s family, including the entire first cousin group that I am in, was very close when I was child and saw each other at least weekly. I have been thinking about this a lot over the last couple of days and thought I would collect some of those thoughts.
I have spent the last ten years or so researching and writing a book about the genealogy of my family. In doing so, I have noticed some generic trends in society. In the United States, up until the twentieth century, the country was primarily an agricultural economy. When I look back at the census listings for my ancestors, with a few notable exceptions, nearly everyone was listed as a farmer. The way things progressed typically was that you were raised on a farm, married someone nearby and either inherited your parents farm or bought some land near by and started your own farm. Families were never too far apart and helped each other when ever bad times came around. People tended to stay in the same area for the entirety of their lives. I can go to the Louisa County, Virginia Circuit Court House and follow my mother’s family from the present all the way back to about the year 1600 when some guy came over on a boat.
My older brother, and several of my first cousins and I were the first in our family to ever graduate from college. The combination of higher education, the change in the economy from agriculture to manufacturing and service, and increased mobility has led to families like mine dispersing about the country in ways almost unheard of one hundred years ago. Back then, when you went out west, you were never seen again. While the increased mobility has led to better job opportunities and more financial independence, I wonder about the impact on families of not having close relationships with one another. In the case of my aunt, my wife is traveling to stay with her, a first cousin (not her child) is checking on her daily, and my mother is in contact with her almost daily by telephone. That support does not include what her living children are doing. I wonder about how much support will be given to the elderly of future generations when their nephews and nieces hardly know them.
My aunt is a person who never misses an opportunity to laugh at the silliness that the world routinely exposes. She has had the uncommon blessing to spend ninety five years on this Earth with all of her mental faculties. Despite all kinds of health issues, she has always been alert and able to think for herself. I only pray that quality is genetic in my family. In fact, the more I think about it, the only person I can remember ever having anything resembling Alzheimers is an aunt by marriage. We also don’t have any male pattern baldness. That is pretty encouraging.
The reason I started typing this entry was because I was thinking of how many lives my aunt touched and connected with over ninety five years. I particularly think of people who were not family. When she lived in Louisa, she would drive a quarter of a mile to a local convenience store to buy a Virginia Lottery ticket and a newspaper daily. She would always have a nice conversation with the clerk. I went down to the store one day for her. The clerk just about talked my ear off about how much she looked forward to seeing my aunt every day. She lived in a housing project subsidized by the State of Virginia and made close friends with her neighbors. That is her, in a nut shell. The examples could fill volumes. She is just someone who is fun and comfortable to be around. My mother regularly goes with my step father to eat lunch at a Subway franchise. The manager of the Subway recently gave a birthday present to my mother just because she likes to see her. I think we all don’t bother to think about the impact that we have on other people as we move around doing our daily tasks. The difference between being abrupt and a kind word can have large implications on the people with whom we interact and we usually are not even aware of it. Something as small as a thank you when you actually mean it can have impact. Most people do the right thing when they can and don’t ask for anything more than just some small acknowledgement that their efforts have been recognized and appreciated. Being pleasant is a valuable asset. My aunt is a walking ray of sunshine that brightens everyone she passes. When you get old enough, inevitably you will have to visit someone in a nursing home. Those visits can be terribly uncomfortable. It is a rare and extraordinary thing to be able to say that I always look forward to visiting my aunt in the nursing home. I will miss her terribly but can’t help but smile every time I think about the good luck I have had to be a part of her family and have her in my life.
I have spent the last ten years or so researching and writing a book about the genealogy of my family. In doing so, I have noticed some generic trends in society. In the United States, up until the twentieth century, the country was primarily an agricultural economy. When I look back at the census listings for my ancestors, with a few notable exceptions, nearly everyone was listed as a farmer. The way things progressed typically was that you were raised on a farm, married someone nearby and either inherited your parents farm or bought some land near by and started your own farm. Families were never too far apart and helped each other when ever bad times came around. People tended to stay in the same area for the entirety of their lives. I can go to the Louisa County, Virginia Circuit Court House and follow my mother’s family from the present all the way back to about the year 1600 when some guy came over on a boat.
My older brother, and several of my first cousins and I were the first in our family to ever graduate from college. The combination of higher education, the change in the economy from agriculture to manufacturing and service, and increased mobility has led to families like mine dispersing about the country in ways almost unheard of one hundred years ago. Back then, when you went out west, you were never seen again. While the increased mobility has led to better job opportunities and more financial independence, I wonder about the impact on families of not having close relationships with one another. In the case of my aunt, my wife is traveling to stay with her, a first cousin (not her child) is checking on her daily, and my mother is in contact with her almost daily by telephone. That support does not include what her living children are doing. I wonder about how much support will be given to the elderly of future generations when their nephews and nieces hardly know them.
My aunt is a person who never misses an opportunity to laugh at the silliness that the world routinely exposes. She has had the uncommon blessing to spend ninety five years on this Earth with all of her mental faculties. Despite all kinds of health issues, she has always been alert and able to think for herself. I only pray that quality is genetic in my family. In fact, the more I think about it, the only person I can remember ever having anything resembling Alzheimers is an aunt by marriage. We also don’t have any male pattern baldness. That is pretty encouraging.
The reason I started typing this entry was because I was thinking of how many lives my aunt touched and connected with over ninety five years. I particularly think of people who were not family. When she lived in Louisa, she would drive a quarter of a mile to a local convenience store to buy a Virginia Lottery ticket and a newspaper daily. She would always have a nice conversation with the clerk. I went down to the store one day for her. The clerk just about talked my ear off about how much she looked forward to seeing my aunt every day. She lived in a housing project subsidized by the State of Virginia and made close friends with her neighbors. That is her, in a nut shell. The examples could fill volumes. She is just someone who is fun and comfortable to be around. My mother regularly goes with my step father to eat lunch at a Subway franchise. The manager of the Subway recently gave a birthday present to my mother just because she likes to see her. I think we all don’t bother to think about the impact that we have on other people as we move around doing our daily tasks. The difference between being abrupt and a kind word can have large implications on the people with whom we interact and we usually are not even aware of it. Something as small as a thank you when you actually mean it can have impact. Most people do the right thing when they can and don’t ask for anything more than just some small acknowledgement that their efforts have been recognized and appreciated. Being pleasant is a valuable asset. My aunt is a walking ray of sunshine that brightens everyone she passes. When you get old enough, inevitably you will have to visit someone in a nursing home. Those visits can be terribly uncomfortable. It is a rare and extraordinary thing to be able to say that I always look forward to visiting my aunt in the nursing home. I will miss her terribly but can’t help but smile every time I think about the good luck I have had to be a part of her family and have her in my life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)