As you know, my Dad and I shared the same rare bone marrow disorder. He passed away in February from even rarer complications of that rare disorder. Talk about being one in a million...
Today I had my periodic consult at Johns Hopkins, just to make sure I'm staying on track. We discussed the tests and treatments (which is to say, there is no treatment--just management of symptoms). I almost didn't make it out of the visit without dissolving in tears because my regular roster of tests now includes screenings for all of the complications that took my Dad's life back when we didn't know to check for them.
It was a lonely drive home, if not physically certainly psychically. There is something singularly desolate in realizing that you will live a longer life because your father died. His death was, in a way, a gift of life. I know this is how he'd have planned it if he could have had the choice, but it leaves me with profound survivor's guilt to the extent that I have been unable to even speak these words since February. Perhaps most specifically because I'm grateful for the knowledge.
I look at my daughter and I want to be here. I want to live. I want to be healthy. I want to grow old, get fat and stay happy. And, because my father's passing raised the red flags, damned if that just might not happen, precluding any of my usual unfortunate bus accidents, plier incidents or bread knife mishaps. It is that gratitude-in-grief that makes my good health a bittersweet condition, knowing that it has come at such a cost, and knowing how I struggle to reconcile the two feelings.
So what's my point, besides confessing all in an uncharacteristic fashion?
Life is good. Enjoy it, be happy in it. Stop worrying if you are too fat or thin or old or gray or poor or unfulfilled. Don't tell me you aren't happy or you're so stressed or whatever. Fix it or forget it. Do something about it or shut up. If you are physically healthy, financially able to afford three squares a day, and able to count at least one person who loves you, you are a lucky SOB indeed. So cut the crap and enjoy the ride. Don't be an ingrate. Life is a gift that can be repo'd at any moment. It's a sweet deal. Made all the sweeter for me by the fact that my Dad is still taking care of me, even after he has gone.
{And because it ain't right to have such a "very special episode of The Haggis" post without the usual dose of leavening humor, I give you Ben Franklin, who sums up a good few of my days, and whose wisdom I highly recommend:
"I wake up every morning at nine and grab for the morning paper. Then I look at the obituary page. If my name is not on it, I get up."}
EDIT: This quote nagged at me all night, because I know Ben Franklin was an "up at 5am" kind of guy. I re-researched it, and it is also attributed to Harry Hershfield, who sounds from name only, the type of guy who would "grab" the obituaries at 9am. So, who knows. But I'm going with Harry rather than "early to bed, early to rise" Ben.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Check Back Tonight
No posts today, I'm afraid.
I'm off on another of my periodic long-day hospital junkets where they will be able to tell me precisely how many nascent red blood cells are being produced by my bone marrow, but will not be able to provide me with wi-fi.
Bah.
See you tonight.
I'm off on another of my periodic long-day hospital junkets where they will be able to tell me precisely how many nascent red blood cells are being produced by my bone marrow, but will not be able to provide me with wi-fi.
Bah.
See you tonight.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Seeing Double
The Bambina's friend/soul sister is spending the day with us today, so we went out to play. While we were there, a nice woman came up to me and asked, "Are your girls twins?" I appreciated that she obviously assumed they were both mine (not, 'are you the au pair?' or 'are they REAL sisters?'), but here's the thing: Bambina and Fiorelina look NOTHING alike except for the fact that they both are Chinese and have shiny black hair.
Seriously. If I could post a photo of them side by side here, you would be at a total loss as to how someone could ever get "twins" from seeing them together. Bambina is petite but sturdy; gymnast-style body, with really delicate features. Fiorelina has about 6 pounds on Bambina, is taller, and could not have a more different face shape, nose, teeth, mouth, ears if we made a concerted effort to have them look dissimilar. They are both totally eat-em-up adorable girls, but in very different ways, both physically and socially.
I could tell the woman was embarrassed because when I looked at her quizzically and said, "Nope. They're just friends," she said, "Oh, right" and then walked away. It didn't make me mad as much as it made me confused. It's not like Arnold Schwarzennegger and Danny DeVito, but it's more like Lucy Liu (from Charlie's Angels) and Ming-Na from ER. Both Asian? Check! Both have straight black hair? Check! Any other similarities? Nope. Different faces, different body types, different heights and weights, and CLEARLY NOT TWINS.
Say It Ain't So, Joe
Dear Joe Lieberman,
I feel for you. Your re-election campaign in Connecticut has been turned upside-down as former supporters abandon you for neophyte Ned Lamont--and all for supporting the war in Iraq. You will now be forced to run as an independent if you lose to Lamont in the primary.
Joe, I feel for you. But I feel for ME more. I feel for the Democratic Party more. Unfortunately, your race has become the club by which the Democratic Left wants to bludgeon George W. Bush. That's a bummer for you, but it is a catastrophe for all Democrats. I simply cannot understand why Democrats would choose to attack one of their own in order to send a message to a President representing another party, as if GWB gives a rat's a** whether Joe Lieberman lives or dies politically.
What are we hoping to accomplish here? To prove that have officially become that which we have so hated? I recall feeling horrified (and yet gleeful as a Dem) back in 1992 as the GOP's big tent was demolished, moderates were banned, and Pat Buchanan became the keynote speaker at the convention. It was a banner hour for Democrats because the rigid orthodoxy of the Republicans was the means by which their intolerance was exposed to the general public. Since then I've had numerous conversations with people discussing what a shame it is that John McCain and moderates like him are not supported by the GOP.
Which brings us to Connecticut. The state that has exposed the massive fault lines in the Democratic Party. Fault lines that will absolutely prevent us from winning the Senate or House in 2006 and the White House in 2008. What kind of party have we become when a long-time Democratic senator is ousted from office because of his vote on ONE ISSUE. I recognize that the war in Iraq is a monumental issue with strong feelings on both sides. But for Democrats to do a mafia-style rubout on one of their own? That is unforgivable.
If Lieberman runs as an independent, he and Lamont may split the vote and thereby ensure a seat pickup for the GOP. For that reason, the Lefties are crowing that he should "listen to the people" and not run if he loses the primary. Hmm...Show of hands how many of those people fully supported Ralph Nader's run on the grounds that he was following his conscience? Since when have Democrats been in favor of narrowing access to the ballot? Beside the heartache of seeing the schism widening in the Dem Party, Lamont's run is a shame and a travesty for one practical reason: Ned Lamont will lose when exposed to the broader electorate that doesn't tune in to primary races and doesn't necessarily choose to vote on one issue alone. I'm calling the race now: Ned Lamont will lose.
Besides my anger at the potential loss of a Dem seat, I'm stunned and saddened to see the developments in Connecticut because they establish the fact that the Democratic Party is now fully in GOP-political-orthodoxy territory. Where is our big tent? Where is our center? Where is our loyalty? Where is our political savvy? Are we children?--"nyah nyah nyah, you can't be in our club if you don't do everything we do!"
Turning Joe Lieberman out of office to "send a message about the war" to George Bush is the weakest, lamest and most ill-considered move in modern political strategy. George Bush doesn't care about Joe Lieberman; he doesn't care about Connecticut; he sure as hell is not going to manage his foreign policy based on the internecine strife within his opposing party--unless of course it sends the opposite message than is intended: here is a party completely hijacked by its fringes, and therefore too disorganized and disillusioned to represent any real opposition.
As always, we will get the leadership we deserve.
I feel for you. Your re-election campaign in Connecticut has been turned upside-down as former supporters abandon you for neophyte Ned Lamont--and all for supporting the war in Iraq. You will now be forced to run as an independent if you lose to Lamont in the primary.
Joe, I feel for you. But I feel for ME more. I feel for the Democratic Party more. Unfortunately, your race has become the club by which the Democratic Left wants to bludgeon George W. Bush. That's a bummer for you, but it is a catastrophe for all Democrats. I simply cannot understand why Democrats would choose to attack one of their own in order to send a message to a President representing another party, as if GWB gives a rat's a** whether Joe Lieberman lives or dies politically.
What are we hoping to accomplish here? To prove that have officially become that which we have so hated? I recall feeling horrified (and yet gleeful as a Dem) back in 1992 as the GOP's big tent was demolished, moderates were banned, and Pat Buchanan became the keynote speaker at the convention. It was a banner hour for Democrats because the rigid orthodoxy of the Republicans was the means by which their intolerance was exposed to the general public. Since then I've had numerous conversations with people discussing what a shame it is that John McCain and moderates like him are not supported by the GOP.
Which brings us to Connecticut. The state that has exposed the massive fault lines in the Democratic Party. Fault lines that will absolutely prevent us from winning the Senate or House in 2006 and the White House in 2008. What kind of party have we become when a long-time Democratic senator is ousted from office because of his vote on ONE ISSUE. I recognize that the war in Iraq is a monumental issue with strong feelings on both sides. But for Democrats to do a mafia-style rubout on one of their own? That is unforgivable.
If Lieberman runs as an independent, he and Lamont may split the vote and thereby ensure a seat pickup for the GOP. For that reason, the Lefties are crowing that he should "listen to the people" and not run if he loses the primary. Hmm...Show of hands how many of those people fully supported Ralph Nader's run on the grounds that he was following his conscience? Since when have Democrats been in favor of narrowing access to the ballot? Beside the heartache of seeing the schism widening in the Dem Party, Lamont's run is a shame and a travesty for one practical reason: Ned Lamont will lose when exposed to the broader electorate that doesn't tune in to primary races and doesn't necessarily choose to vote on one issue alone. I'm calling the race now: Ned Lamont will lose.
Besides my anger at the potential loss of a Dem seat, I'm stunned and saddened to see the developments in Connecticut because they establish the fact that the Democratic Party is now fully in GOP-political-orthodoxy territory. Where is our big tent? Where is our center? Where is our loyalty? Where is our political savvy? Are we children?--"nyah nyah nyah, you can't be in our club if you don't do everything we do!"
Turning Joe Lieberman out of office to "send a message about the war" to George Bush is the weakest, lamest and most ill-considered move in modern political strategy. George Bush doesn't care about Joe Lieberman; he doesn't care about Connecticut; he sure as hell is not going to manage his foreign policy based on the internecine strife within his opposing party--unless of course it sends the opposite message than is intended: here is a party completely hijacked by its fringes, and therefore too disorganized and disillusioned to represent any real opposition.
As always, we will get the leadership we deserve.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Karl Rove Quickie Questionnaire
As mentioned in a previous post, I met Karl Rove today. Quick quiz:
1. Karl Rove: Fat or thin?
2. Karl Rove: Nasty and rude or pleasant and funny?
3. Karl Rove: Sanctimonious or self-deprecating?
Answers:
1. Proving that "the camera adds ten pounds," Karl Rove can best be described--not as the generally-assumed portly, slovenly or corpulent evil architect of Republican domination--but as the "orange on a popsicle stick" evil architect of Republican domination. He's not so skinny as to merit the ultimate "orange on a toothpick" designation of Mike Meyers' eccentric Scottish father in the cult classic So I Married An Axe Murderer; but he's fit enough--and large-headed enough--to be the popsicle stick. It is shocking how not fat he is in real life when every photo of him makes him seem like a porker, based I'm sure on his large cranium. As Chandler Bing once inquired of Fat Monica on Friends when she blamed an unflattering fat photo on a camera adding ten pounds: "exactly how many cameras were on you?"
2. Trick question: He may still be nasty, but at least at this event he was pleasant and funny. Really funny. Funny to the extent that I'm sure his material was written for him by one of the South Park guys or Drew Carey, those conservative hacks. And funny to the extent that I felt like it was a betrayal of my principles to laugh. Put me down for 15 seconds of polite applause instead.
3. You guessed it: self-deprecating as is required by all speakers to a mixed audience, especially those who know their negatives are up there with OJ Simpson, Joey Buttafuoco and Michael Jackson.
So what did I learn today about Karl Rove? That he's not fat, he's scriptedly funny, and can hold up a conversation. In raw political terms, nothing of any import. In more practical terms, that a human head can indeed have a circumference of 88 inches.
1. Karl Rove: Fat or thin?
2. Karl Rove: Nasty and rude or pleasant and funny?
3. Karl Rove: Sanctimonious or self-deprecating?
Answers:
1. Proving that "the camera adds ten pounds," Karl Rove can best be described--not as the generally-assumed portly, slovenly or corpulent evil architect of Republican domination--but as the "orange on a popsicle stick" evil architect of Republican domination. He's not so skinny as to merit the ultimate "orange on a toothpick" designation of Mike Meyers' eccentric Scottish father in the cult classic So I Married An Axe Murderer; but he's fit enough--and large-headed enough--to be the popsicle stick. It is shocking how not fat he is in real life when every photo of him makes him seem like a porker, based I'm sure on his large cranium. As Chandler Bing once inquired of Fat Monica on Friends when she blamed an unflattering fat photo on a camera adding ten pounds: "exactly how many cameras were on you?"
2. Trick question: He may still be nasty, but at least at this event he was pleasant and funny. Really funny. Funny to the extent that I'm sure his material was written for him by one of the South Park guys or Drew Carey, those conservative hacks. And funny to the extent that I felt like it was a betrayal of my principles to laugh. Put me down for 15 seconds of polite applause instead.
3. You guessed it: self-deprecating as is required by all speakers to a mixed audience, especially those who know their negatives are up there with OJ Simpson, Joey Buttafuoco and Michael Jackson.
So what did I learn today about Karl Rove? That he's not fat, he's scriptedly funny, and can hold up a conversation. In raw political terms, nothing of any import. In more practical terms, that a human head can indeed have a circumference of 88 inches.
A Job With the Gummint
Here is an article in the WaPo about a new effort to get young people to consider working for the government. Here are my reasons why I never did:
1. Low pay
2. High student loan debt that could not be paid off with aforementioned low pay
3. KSAs. Every federal government job requires that you fill out a multi-page application, including a lengthy Knowledge Skills and Abilities form wherein you outline specifically why you have the KSAs for the posted job. Um, helloooo, Uncle Sam! That's called a JOB INTERVIEW.
4. Lengthy turnaround time. I once went through the 4-day (I'm not joking) ordeal of filling out the application and KSAs to be a director of development at the National Institutes of Health. I think I sent it in in March. Needless to say, since I'm not independently wealthy, I had already found another job by the time I received (in JUNE) that little postcard telling me that they'd received my application and could I please check the race box and return it.
JUNE. Like I'm sitting around for three months waiting to hear if I got an interview?!!! I mean, this issue does not require millions of dollars of research or multiple committees studying its origins. It's basic: people looking for work want to work. They don't have months to hang around to see if maybe just maybe they got selected for an interview. And they sure as hell don't spend literally DAYS filling out forms that could be answered by "please see attached resume." The entire process from start to finish tells the applicant: we don't really want to hire you, we don't value your time or your talent, and we don't respect the basic rules of business etiquette. Gee, I can't imagine why I'd rather be in-house counsel at a software company for $175,000 a year...
WaPo
1. Low pay
2. High student loan debt that could not be paid off with aforementioned low pay
3. KSAs. Every federal government job requires that you fill out a multi-page application, including a lengthy Knowledge Skills and Abilities form wherein you outline specifically why you have the KSAs for the posted job. Um, helloooo, Uncle Sam! That's called a JOB INTERVIEW.
4. Lengthy turnaround time. I once went through the 4-day (I'm not joking) ordeal of filling out the application and KSAs to be a director of development at the National Institutes of Health. I think I sent it in in March. Needless to say, since I'm not independently wealthy, I had already found another job by the time I received (in JUNE) that little postcard telling me that they'd received my application and could I please check the race box and return it.
JUNE. Like I'm sitting around for three months waiting to hear if I got an interview?!!! I mean, this issue does not require millions of dollars of research or multiple committees studying its origins. It's basic: people looking for work want to work. They don't have months to hang around to see if maybe just maybe they got selected for an interview. And they sure as hell don't spend literally DAYS filling out forms that could be answered by "please see attached resume." The entire process from start to finish tells the applicant: we don't really want to hire you, we don't value your time or your talent, and we don't respect the basic rules of business etiquette. Gee, I can't imagine why I'd rather be in-house counsel at a software company for $175,000 a year...
WaPo
Thursday, July 27, 2006
And for Today's Non-Political Post!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)