The Myths of Marriage and Kids

Five years, one month, and five days ago, I met my wife.  It has been four years, three months, and 28 days since I asked her to marry me.  And it has been 4 years to this day since she and I hitched our wagons together for the long haul.

Since the day I got engaged, friends would come up to me (married friends) and offer hearty congratulations, then add, "now, when you get married, things are going to change."  I got this heads up from many people (mostly guys) who I think were earnestly trying to give me some important insights into married life that I would find valuable.

But I just didn't understand what they meant by it.  "What is going to change?  What are you talking about?" I'd ask.  They'd persist.  "Trust me, things will change.  Don't worry about it.  Just, y'know, be prepared for it."

I'd persist: "what are you talking about?  Give me something specific to work with here.  What?  Do you mean things like toilet seats and toothpaste caps?  Help me out here."  But they never clarified.  They just left it hanging out there that some sort of mysterious change would happen when we got married.

MYTH #1: "When you get married, things are going to change."  

They do not.  Or, perhaps, things don't have to change.

I often remarked to my girlfriend/fiance back in those stages of our relationship that going to Safeway or Fred Meyer felt like a date to me because I always had such fun with her no matter what we were doing.  (And stop snickering out there, people.  We actually went out on real dates all the time.)

And as I was driving around today with my beloved wife (and kids in the back seat), I thought back to those times and happily declared to my wife out of the blue "I still think going to Safeway feels like a date!"  I still do have that much fun with her no matter what we're doing.  I feel good.  I feel happy with her.

As for those mythical changes that are supposed to occur, they just never did.  She did not transform into a girl with some sort of hidden personality once we got married.  She was who she was when we were dating, engaged, and married.  Nothing has really changed, except that my appreciation of her has grown with time.  Hopefully, I'm still the guy she said "yes" to back then.  Wiser, more experienced, but the same guy.

I think it has been very helpful in our relationship that when we started dating, she sort knew who she was, and I sorta knew who I was.  We more or less had our own selves figured out.  So, when we started dating, I, for example, didn't have a moving target in her to figure out.  She was who she was, she knew herself, and that made it easy for me to figure her out.  In fact, I really don't think I had to figure her out.  Who she was, was (and is) obvious.  I hope and think the same can be said for me.

So, there's no moving target, no shifting fault lines.  No mysterious changes once it's "too late to back out."

MYTH #2: "You'll have arguments.  Don't worry about it, every couple has them."

This one has always bothered me.  Long before I got married, even long before I was remotely interested in getting married, I thought marriage shouldn't be that way.  But it has been the universal refrain from anyone and everyone I heard comment on the subject - whether or not I was involved in the conversation.  So universal, in fact, that I just assumed that it must be my willful ignorance that prevented me from accepting the universal truth that all couples argue.

But I continued to chaffe at that apparent truth.

Then I heard a leader in my church give a speech on the hazards of anger.  He talked about marriage and divorce, and identified divorce as the bitter fruit of anger.  He then added that he had been married 67 years to his wife (who had passed away a few years prior to the speech), and he had never had a quarrel with her.

When I heard that, I thought "Ah hah!  I knew it could be done."

Now call me inexperienced at only 4 years of marriage.  Fair enough.  But I believe the trend my wife and I have started is more than just luck.  I believe it to be a pattern, the rule, and not the exception.  We have not had a quarrel yet.  Either I've held my tongue, or she has.  But neither of us have let the other have it, nor do I think either of us has wanted to.

When she's passionate about something, I tend not to be.  When I'm passionate about something, she's generally not that interested.  There have only been a few occasions I can think of that we've had differing opinions on a matter, and we both felt strongly about it.  What did we do?  We did nothing.  We sat on it.  We let things play out and decidedly chose not to force a decision.  And things have always worked themselves out.

I recall being a best man at a buddy's wedding, many years before I got married.  When the time came to offer the toast, a small wave of panic came over me because I hadn't given it any thought.  But there I was, glass in hand, and blurted out: "look after your spouse's wants and needs before your own, and things will work out fine."  I couldn't believe that came out of my mouth, because I had never considered those thoughts before.  But it stuck with me ever since.  And it is how, I think, my wife and I have been able to go 4 years without arguing.

MYTH #3: Once you have kids, you no longer have a life.

I don't put quotes around that one because no one has explicitly said that.  No one (with kids) will actually say that kids crush any sense of liberty, freedom, and fun in your life.  But I've heard it implied many times over.  With facial expressions, tones of voice, knowing looks, and even words that come close.

Now, the flip side of that perspective is that you absolutely can have a life with kids by ignoring the fact that you have kids.  Dump them on your spouse and go hang out with the guys all the time.  I don't believe in that one either.

As with most things in life, the happy place I've found is in the middle.  I like to camp, cycle, hike, and fiddle with my yard, house, and other minor home improvement projects.  So, I let my kids join me.  Initially, our bike rides are very short.  The camping is in the tent set up in the living room, then the back yard, and this summer, we'll do some car camping, with perhaps a hike in camp out as well.  We ease them into it.  My boy has limited hose privileges now, but they're expanding as we go.

I like to go to movies too.  In fact, my wife an I loved going to the movies.  But, we don't do that yet.  We think its too much for a toddler or infant.  We put the kids to sleep and rent a Red Box.  That's the compromise for now.  But, we can still do what we want (have a life, enjoy a little freedom, whatever) in smaller doses.  And as time goes on, in even greater doses.

MYTH #4: "Kids are germ factories, and will get you sick."

Actually, that one is true.

I was invincible before kids.  Only periodically got the sniffles.  Now I get a new bug every 3-4 weeks. It's brutal.

In sum, happy wife, happy life.  I take care of her, and she takes better care of me.  She rocks, and I couldn't be happier with her riding shotgun with me through life and parenthood.

The Gun Debate

Alright, the dust has settled a little. Now, let’s chat with rational heads and hearts about this issue. When it comes to gun control, this is always the first thing that comes to my mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbHH5xZcVvQ.

What bothers me about this debate/argument (I dare not say “discussion”, because not a whole lot of that seems to be happening), is that it is frequently cast in absolutes. “Guns are the problem! Take them away!” Or, “More guns makes for a safer society! It’s Hollywood’s fault!” Et cetera, et cetera.

As with most things in life (and many rational folks know this), I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. So, let’s toss out the varying elements to this discussion, and pick them apart one at a time:

The Constitution: for many, this is where this debate begins and ends. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Now, I’m not a Supreme Court scholar, nor am I one who follows closely the various Court decisions and interpretations of what that means. But I recall that the Courts have upheld a few things: that militia means average citizens, not just the national guard, and that people have the right to keep arms (e.g. Washington, DC gun ban being over turned). Again, not being one who follows closely court cases on the 2nd Amendment, I wonder if it has specifically addressed the “bear arms” part. I would think that is referring to the ability to carry concealed…but I’m not sure on that.

However, as I observe, this right is not an unlimited right. There are limitations to it, as with other Constitutional rights (e.g. First Amendment, you can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theater, etc.). With guns, you’re not allowed to keep or bear arms if you’re a convicted felon or if your mental stability is determined to be lacking. So there are limitations on this right, and I think they are reasonable. Indeed, I am grateful for those two limitations in particular.

The question in this variable (the Constitutional right to bear arms) is how many limitations are too many limitations? When do we cross the Constitutional line? Purists, I imagine, will say any infringement (including the two limitations noted above) crosses the line. Others, I would imagine, would want more.

My opinion? I think the limitations in place are reasonable. As a citizen, I don’t want people who have either displayed gross irresponsibility (felons) or an inability to be responsible (mental stability) to have access to firearms. (Nor do I want them, parenthetically, to have access to cross bows, large quantities of fertilizer and ammonia, etc., but we’re talking about guns, here, and we’ll just leave that alone for now). Should there be more categories of folks or crimes or levels of mental instability included in the list of limitations? Perhaps. Let’s hear them in the public square, and discuss them.

Guns: Is the accessibility of guns a problem? Are there too many guns or too many types of guns out there, and does this ease of accessibility create a public safety hazard? It depends, I think.

Responsible gun owners, I think, secure their guns. They don’t let anyone else get a hold of them, but themselves. They either have them in a safe, on their person, or stowed away somewhere relatively safe and secure. Then what do we do with those folks who aren’t responsible gun owners, who leave their guns lying around for kids or dirtbags to get their hands on? I think they are just as responsible as the folks who use the guns illegally. Accomplices, if you will. Throw them in jail for the length of time the person who actually pulled the trigger. Or at least a substantial part of that prison term. Details can be worked out, but the punishment for being an irresponsible gun owner (and that irresponsibility leading to a gun crime) should be severe.

Which leads me to another subset of this bullet (pardon the pun): If someone wants to kill people and doesn’t have a gun, they’ll find another way of doing it. That’s the rhetorical point many gun supporters make. And there is some validity to it. But the thing that separates guns from other ways of killing is that guns are: a) easy to use (in general); and b) can harm a lot of people in a short amount of time. Everyone knows how to use a gun. Four year-olds know how to use guns. Aim and pull (yes, I know, many guns have safety mechanisms, etc., but most people can figure those out). A really motivated killer can go on-line and figure out how to make a bomb, but then they’ve gotta gather the bomb making ingredients from a variety of sources, figure out a triggering method, sneak into the building plant the bomb, and then detonate it while off-site. All of that times time, effort, some level of intelligence, a lot of luck in not getting caught in the process, etc. With a gun, you don’t have to make it, you don’t have to sneak around ingredients, plant it, arm it, etc. You just get the gun, and walk into the nearest office building, school yard, or quicky mart, and you’re there.

The ease of use and efficiency of use is what makes guns so distinct and potentially dangerous, and makes moot (in my opinion) the rhetorical argument I hear so often that a killer will find another way.

Types of guns: do we need “military-style assault weapons” (whatever that means)? Do we need Ferraris (for the record, I think we need Ferraris)? Do we need suits of armor, do we really any host of things people like to collect that could potentially be used to harm someone else? More than those things, do we really need porn on the computers at the library? Guns destroy the body, but porn rots the soul. But the First Amendment protects porn, and the Second Amendment protects guns.

As a sidebar, this brings me back to a quote that I think cannot be read too often in the American experience: "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the councils of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."

In other words, we keep the rights so long as we are responsible with them.

Mental Health: Do we really need to talk about this one? Can everyone agree there are some folks out there who simply don’t have the mental capacity to understand what they are doing? What it really means to point a gun at another human being and pull the trigger? The tragedy associated with all of that? I think we can.

So how do we handle folks who are dangerous to themselves and to others? Do we make it easy to take away their freedoms and “incarcerate” them in a mental treatment facility? How do we manage that issue (I ask in exasperation)? I am inclined to be slow to take freedoms away from any innocent (innocent, in that they don’t have the capacity to make informed decisions for themselves) soul. I tend to believe people are responsible for the portion of intelligence given them (although, willful ignorance is no excuse). Call it belief in the parable of the talents, or call it by some other philosophical name. I just have a hard time punishing someone with the loss of their freedoms if they just aren’t accountable for their actions.

On the other hand, among our government’s first responsibilities are to establish justice and insure domestic tranquility (I translate that to meaning peace and safety). In order to accomplish that, it is hard to justify allowing the proverbial ticking time bombs to walk the streets until they explode. Striking the right balance on mental health is a tough one for me.

But there is a subset to this topic that leads me to my next topic….

Popular Culture (a.k.a. Hollywood / video game industry): Enter the chicken and the egg. The purveyors of violent material into our culture claim that they are only providing the public what they are asking for. It’s hard to deny that claim since we seem to eat it up to the tune of billions of dollars every year. On the other hand, there are quite a few consumers who reject that material, and abhor the reality that they can’t turn on their television at anytime of the day and realistically expect to find genuinely G-rated material for themselves or their kids to watch.

When I hear the back and forth between the entertainment industry and various groups (gun groups among them) who blame the entertainment industry, three statements come to mind:

• Lincoln referenced a New Testament scripture in his second inaugural address: "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." I agree with this.
• The inimitable Peggy Noonan recently wrote: "Violence is different, I said, because there are unstable people among us, and they are less defended against dark cultural messages. The borders of the minds of the unstable are more porous. They let the darkness in. You can go to a horror movie and be entertained or amused: “This is scary, I love getting scared, and I love it because I know it isn’t real.” But the unstable are not entertained by darkness. They let it in. They are inspired by it. Sometimes they start to live in the movie in their heads. “I am the Joker,” the shooter is reported to have told the Aurora police."
• Said Director Ang Lee: “I think we should use restraint. You should have the freedom to create whatever is in your mind. Of course, you pay the price for that.”
• “If you don’t want to watch it, turn it off.” To those who say this, I say you are correct in most cases. Just like Ms. Noonan’s comments about scary movies are okay for most people. But there are plenty of folks out there for whom it is not as easy as turning it off. And with those people in mind, we should consider Mr. Lee’s comments about paying the price.

So this is a multi-headed beast. The laws of our land, the guns in our hands, the health of our minds and souls, and the world around us who dangle violence out in front of us like it is an tantalizing piece food. If we attack one element without addressing the others, I’m convinced we’ll fail.

Ultimately, I think we can address all of them balancing justice with mercy and still fall short if we don’t address the spiritual deficiencies of our own hearts. (And while there are many paths to spiritual stability – religion among them – any number of spiritual paths can help on this one.) As we fail to practice the golden rule (Matthew 7:12 "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.") we erode our own abilities to act responsibly. And for those who are so mentally ill that they never were able to act responsibly, we fail them too, as we are not equipped to address their needs per the golden rule.

On Mormonism, Homosexuality, and Krikava’s Views

There seems to have been quite an unusual amount of discussion on these topics lately (not Krikava’s views, but the other two), and I feel to add my two bits.  I do not represent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints position on this matter.  If you want those views, go to www.lds.org and read what’s in there on the topic.

I am, however, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (from here on, referred to as the Mormon church); and as such, it is my hope and desire to align my beliefs with that of the Church.

To understand me in specific, and Mormons in general, you have to accept (for the sake of argument) a few basics. 

I believe in what Mormons call the “13 Articles of Faith”.  These are basic beliefs of the Mormon faith that Joseph Smith wrote up in 1842 for a Chicago newspaperman who later published them.

Among those basic beliefs are that there is a God (article of faith #1), there are sins (article of faith #2), there is repentance (article of faith #4), and (important to the discussion of this essay) there are prophets (article of faith #6) who are called of God (article of faith #5) to preach the Gospel (article of faith #5) as revealed by God (article of faith #9).

These are among my basic beliefs.  Anything that follows in this essay is founded upon these principles: namely, that God has defined right from wrong, communicates those things through prophets both ancient and modern, and that when we find ourselves askew of those teachings, we may repent and find forgiveness through the divine miracle of the Atonement of Jesus Christ (article of faith #3), our Savior from sin and unhappiness.

(And if you can’t accept those basics for the sake of argument, stop reading now.  There would be no point in reading any further.)

It is unqualified Mormon (and I would add, Biblical) doctrine that homosexual behavior is a sin.  Note that I used the qualifying term “behavior”.  It is also unqualified Mormon (again, Biblical) doctrine that adultery is a sin.  So is thievery, lying, murder, covetousness, etc.  Many are familiar with the Mormon health code known as the “Word of Wisdom”.  In the Mormon faith, it is sinful to harm our bodies (gifts from God) by taking harmful substances into it such as drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc. 

These standards originate from God.  The prophets teach them, the scriptures record them, and the Mormon church accepts and adheres to them.  If you do not accept them, there’s not much to discuss on these points.

These are all sinful ACTIONS to take.  It is not a sin, however, to be tempted.  It is not a sin to have weaknesses.  Indeed, Mormons are familiar with the expression found in the Book of Mormon “if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness.  I give unto men weakness that they may be humble….”  Another verse in the Book of Mormon comes to mind: “I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me.”

We all have spiritual weaknesses and shortcomings.  Why I have some, and you have others, I don’t know.  To be a believer in God is to be one who recognizes that He (God) knows more than we do, and that there must be a purpose in the weaknesses we have.  I have my challenges, I have my weaknesses, and I certainly have those things “which do so easily beset me.”

The question I have to ask myself as I look myself in the mirror, or, as I kneel before my God and say my prayers at the end of the day is, “did I act on any of those temptations?”  If so, I need to exercise some faith and discuss those things with God, undertake the repentance process, and pray and work so that some day those weaknesses become strengths.

I do not, however, turn to my wife and ask her what sins she committed today.  Nor do I accost co-workers, neighbors, or fellow parishioners about their sins.  My wife’s, co-worker’s, neighbor’s, or fellow parishioners’ sins are a matter between them and their God (and/or ecclesiastical leaders, if their church operates thusly) – not me.  I am to love and support my wife as she grapples with her weaknesses, just as she loves and supports me as I grapple with mine. 

How do I love and support a friend who is grappling with the spiritual weakness of homosexuality?  I would suggest some of the items noted in a talk given by a Mormon Apostle, Jeffrey Holland.  There are a number of positive things a person can do to help a friend who is grappling with any spiritual weakness.  I would note that the best way we can support our gay friends is the same way we support any other friend with any other spiritual weakness – we love them and encourage them to read their scriptures, pray with God, counsel with their ecclesiastical leaders, and to avoid acting on temptations.

It borders on the absurd to me, then, to march side-by-side with someone in a “pride” parade as a sign of support.  This logic simply escapes me.  Do we march beside a friend who has committed adultery in an “Adultery Pride” parade?  Or in a “I-stole-money-from-my-office Pride” parade?  Or in an “I-abuse-my-children Pride” parade?

So how much sense does it make to march side by side with someone in a Gay Pride parade?

Participating in a -pride parade clearly demonstrates that you haven’t accepted that your spiritual weakness IS a spiritual weakness.  It shows that you think your weakness is an exception to the “God has defined right and wrong” principle I mentioned earlier.  

And for those who walk side-by-side in those pride parades to support folks, I applaud your misguided (although, surely heart-felt) desire to help your friends.

However, one picture from the scriptures just won’t leave my mind alone.  I recall the “woman taken in adultery” and “in the very act.”  We all know the story found in John.  The Pharisees and scribes wanted to stone her.  Indeed, she did commit the sin.  However, Christ did what we should do with our sinful friends.  He: 1) protected her from the stoning in the public square; 2) rebuked her in private (commanding her to “sin no more”); and 3) encouraged her to do better. 

But I don’t remember Him walking with her and other adulterers in an Adultery-pride parade later on in the afternoon.  Something to think about.

Republican Presidential Primary

I made my first donation to any political campaign the other day.

In the past, the one guy who I would have donated to readily and freely was the one person I wasn’t allowed to, by law, donate to. That was my boss, Gordon Smith. I was forced into early retirement by the voters of Oregon in 2008, and found myself unexpectedly sympathetic with former Congressman Dick Tuck who said on the night of his re-election loss, “the voters have spoken, the bastards!”

There have been other worthy candidates to donate since then, but I never felt to donate. Why?

Well, to answer that, I must first present my political manifesto:

I believe that “no government can exist in peace except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.”

I believe that politics (or, political campaigns) are the means to that end.

I believe that in supporting and voting for politicians to achieve those ends noted above, we must select good, honest, and wise representatives.

I believe that there are good men and women on both sides of the political spectrum, as well as dirt bags on either side.

I believe there are honest men and women on both sides of the political spectrum, as well as dishonest on either side.

Where the wisdom lies, of course, depends on the political philosophy one adheres to. I am conservative. For reasons why, see my July 15, 2010 blog. I see more wisdom in conservative thinking than I do in liberal thinking.

So, in the great contest of the 2012 presidential primary, I will, for the time being, limit my thoughts to the Republican candidates. Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. How do these four candidates rate in the “good, honest, wise” calculation (while not entirely possible, for the sake of discussion I will treat the three characteristics as mutually exclusive)?

Newt: For reasons that have been splashed all over news, and have been circulating for many years now, I believe he is neither good nor honest, but does possess wisdom – yielding Newt a net +1.

And while I don’t want to dwell much longer on Newt, I must draw attention to something Peggy Noonan highlighted a few weeks ago. “What is striking is the extraordinary divide in opinion between those who know Gingrich and those who don’t. Those who do are mostly not for him, and they were burning up the phone lines this week in Washington.”

Ron Paul: Candidly, I don’t know much about Ron Paul because I can never get past the 3^rd sentence of any set of remarks he makes. He seems like a decent man, and I don’t know that he’s ever been known to be brazenly dishonest. Score him +2.

But good gravy, his solutions to problems are so breathtakingly unwise, he is disqualified from my calculus even though he seems to have the 2 other critical traits.

Mitt Romney: Good, honest, and wise = +3. The guy is squeaky clean. You may not like his disciplined (aka boring) approach to politics, you may not appreciate his lack excitement or visible passion, but when did a presidential primary become MTV’s Real World or Survivor? This is a serious and sober business, and we need a serious and sober candidate.

Rick Santorum: Ditto to everything above about Mitt Romney. Good, honest, and wise = +3.

My answer to all the Paul-ites out there is to refer you to my August 30, 2010 blog.

Newt, Newt, Newt. As you’ve read, he got +1 because he seems neither good, nor honest. But, wisdom is something he possesses. He understands government, its weaknesses, limitations, and perhaps strengths. But in his zeal to get the nomination, he lost sight of the important principle that the ends don’t justify the means, as he layed waste on the capitalist economic system in an effort (an apparently successful one, at that) to damage Mitt Romney.

The capitalist economic system is the most effective means in society today to “secure to each individual … the right and control of property.” And because Newt assaulted one of my big three functions that government must deliver on, he not only caused me to scratch him off my list of prospective candidates, but he also drove me to contribute to his rival’s campaign.

Mitt Romney is my guy, anyway (for how I reconcile the “flip flop” accusation, see my February 7, 2008 blog). So he got the loose change from my pockets. He doesn’t need my donation, but he got it because of “Newt being Newt.”

(One might ask, why not Santorum instead of Romney? Santorum is a little bit further to the right than Romney, though, not as much as he likes to portray. I like Rick, and think he’d be a righteous Veep pick for Mitt because he’s got great street cred with the party, pretty decent with foreign affairs, and he knows the Hill and can be a good envoy for Mitt. But, being further to the right he’ll have a tougher time grabbing the middle in the general election, he’s less knowledgeable on the pressing issue of the day, the economy, and senators rarely make good presidents because of a general lack of managerial skills that Governors have.)

A Mixed Bag...

Lately, as I've been observing the great debate, I've found myself sharing Peggy Noonan's sentiments in her Wall Street Journal column last week when she said that it's hard to write something new. Things that are happening now have been happening for last several months/couple years...just more so.

That said, I do have a few nuggets of observations that might be worth consideration:

1) There will be "draft Hillary" clubs or organizations popping up all over the country. Yeah, I know she declared about a year ago that she will not run for public office again. She may very well have meant it, and still think it. But, one only needs to Google "Hillary 2012" to find out how many are going to prod her along. And these won't just be those who Hillary loyalists, either. It will also be many of those who are now suffering from buyer's remorse with President Obama. And she's popular, too. According to some polls, the most popular politician in America.

This will be interesting to watch, as this has happened in the past. While Eisenhower didn't come in to challenge a sitting Republican president, he was the reluctant candidate who only got in because of the overwhelming number of "draft Ike" clubs that popped up all over the country, and because he feared that no other Republican would win, and another Republican loss would essentially dissolve the party.

Hillary may be in the similar position. I can already see the speech: "the overwhelming call for me to serve has caused me to consider the ramifications of a 1-term Democrat president bookended by 2, 2-term Republican Presidencies. I cannot let that happen. Therefor, I reluctantly, but wholeheartedly, declare myself a candidate for the...."

But, she won't pull the trigger yet. There has to be overwhelming evidence well into the election season that President Obama is toast...and she'll challenge.

2) As a former Congressional staffer, I shuddered for my former colleagues who were interviewed for this Politico article. We've all been there - "we" being congressional staffers. We all worry our boss will say something stupid, silly, or just plain inaccurate. Damage control and spin are the verbal gymnastics that staff have to engage in when the boss just gets something wrong. Fortunately for me, I can't think of too many times I stood in the back of the room with my palm planted firmly on my forehead, muttering something about "cleaning that one up after the meeting."

And its not that I can't sympathize with the bosses. They read a ton of memos about every conceivable issue, they are constantly in meetings, going from one to the next, with certified smart people doing a fire hose information dump on them in 5 minutes or less on the most complicated issues ever to face that field of study. The mind numbing minutia these Members of Congress are exposed to is...mind numbing.

The good bosses, however, have two things: 1) a self awareness of what they do understand and know of assurity...and what they don't know; and 2) the ability to admit they got it wrong when they got it wrong. One might call the latter "humility".

Michele Bachman has a checkered past with inaccurate statements. And I've got no beef with someone confusing the mountain load of factoids they have read in the past week. But this episode with her relaying quite a stunning accusation about a cancer treatment medicine's side effects that she heard from some lady smacks of what one of her former staffers characterized as "inventing something out of whole cloth" in order to score points. Reading this article about staffers who have told of their experiences...it all rings true. The things they say, and the way they said them...I've seen this stuff happen. I've seen the blank stare in an elected officials eyes when they didn't have a good response at their disposal, and just made something up. And each time, I saw the sinking expression and depressed body language of the staffers who knew they'd have to clean up the mess.

I worry about someone like this on our side of the aisle getting a prominent place in our party. The old saying "he's a blowhard, but he's our blowhard" doesn't extend this far, in my opinion. Which is a shame, because I think she's angling to be Mitt's VP running mate, and she'd be good at it (a good partisan, with great party-base street cred)...except for the aforementioned achilles heel.

3) Lastly, I can't pass this one up. Remember the urgency of President Obama's speech the opening night of NFL a little while ago? "Pass this bill!" Repeated over and over again. Then the road show. "Pass this bill today!" Repeated over and over again. One was left with the impression that the bill was just sitting in the House and Senate chambers waiting to be voted on, but for the lazy Congressmans' inability to get on the subway cars to take them from their Congressional office buildings to the bowels of the Capitol, just a short escalator ride away from some elevators that take them up to the 2nd floor of the Capitol, and just a 10 step waltz to the chamber floor where they can yell "aye", then take the 10 steps back to the elevator, down the escalator, to the subway cars, to the congressional office buildings, where they can curl up on underneath their desks and resume their naps. That's the impression he is leaving everyone.

But again, I can't pass up experiences I have had. I wondered if there was actually a bill. Many times before a President (not just this one) would fist pound and announce a new and vital initiative, but then leave it up to Congress to figure how to write down and make it work. So, I was curious, did the President actually write a bill, and get someone in Congress to sponsor it, introduce it, and make it move through the legislative process.

Answer? Nope. Exhibit A: The "American Jobs Act", as he called it has been introduced, but by a Republican. Huh? "How could that be?", you ask. Well, a certain House Republican named Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas beat him to the punch. After the President's speech before the Joint Session of Congress, Mr. Gohmert probably thought he'd have a little fun with the President and beat the President to the punch, introducing his own "American Jobs Act" (HR 2911). I don't know if the bill is any good, but this is classic Congressional hijinks. And the President's urgent bill? Well, as the LA Times indicated, "it seems the urgent jobs bill hadn't actually been written yet but should be ready in a week or two. When the laughter died, the White House said on second thought the legislation would be ready for a photo op the next Monday. Well, here we are on the next Monday after that next Monday and we've just learned from the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, that actually it seems that body won't really be seriously getting into the legislation for a while yet."

As I said, I couldn't pass this one up.

The Anatomy of a Train Wreck

It was hard to not notice the train wreck on the news today for Congressman Weiner. As I watched that hideous thing unfold, I was watching a guy (could have been any guy...or girl) who came to that heart-sinking realization that no matter what he did, he was not going to get out of this jam. The decisions he made, freely and of his own volition, and a little bad luck (some might call it karma) invariably led him to this moment of crisis in his personal and public life.

And while it is supremely easy to pick on this guy, and his particular actions, I'd rather focus today on a couple broad principles that I gleaned from his press conference.

First, he alluded to this activity as a personal failing that he had paused on occasion to consider the wrongness of, but proceeded anyway. I found that remark absolutely fascinating, and filled with information about the nature of this guy's problem.

Personal failings: we all have them. Weaknesses, I mean. If we're all really honest with ourselves, we all have things about our personalities, attitudes, habits, etc. that we would rather no one else find out about. Some of these are different in levels of social acceptability and severity. Pride, exaggerating (i.e. lying), lust, greed, laziness, gambling, etc.

If we're "good", we're working on those weaknesses. Actively resisting them, and perhaps even taking steps to turn them into strengths. We may even enlist the assistance of close ones to help us work on them. If we're "not good", we give into them. Actively working to improve our weaknesses is a purposeful decision, and often a difficult task. Giving into them, in my observation, is rarely a conscious decision, but rather the result of a series of seemingly insignificant compromises, rationalizations, and deferments of serious soul searching. In the short run, improving ourselves is hard, deferring or giving in is easy. The long run results, however, are always brutally obvious.

We are a habit forming people. If we indulge in good behavior, we tend to continue that pattern. If we get bumped off that track and indulge in our vices and weaknesses, we tend to continue that pattern. The difference between the two is that, again, the former is harder in the short term, whereas the latter is easier. So, taking the path of least resistance leads us to bad habits which, of course, lead to long term habits (a.k.a. addictions; be they habitual, substance, or psychological addictions) and brutal consequences.

So, on the level of a guy indulging in a behavior that he knew was not good, and getting caught in doing it, lying about it, humiliating himself, his wife, kids, family, friends, staff, etc.; on that level, as I watched him bear it all out in the public square, I felt bad for the guy. Everything he said about his sense of shame, his panic upon discovering that he had been discovered - that all struck me as brutally honest, painful, and true.

However...

Second, the statement: "I take full responsibility for my actions" followed on in the next breath by "I will not resign." What does taking responsibility for one's actions really mean?

I learned it in the simplest of terms when I was a kid: if I stole a candy bar, I'd pay for it. If I messed up the living room, I'd have to clean it up. There are a couple steps in these examples: confession and restitution. Paying back the price of the candy bar, and cleaning up the room. Those forms of restitution are fairly obvious.

But what about those actions that damage things less tangible, like the trust between a husband and a wife, an elected official and his/her voters? How does one assign a value of restitution to those intangible damages? That's a little more challenging, I think.

I think there are two ways of approaching this one. The questions one has to ask are: "Am I sorry I got caught?" or "Am I sorry I did what I did?" If you're sorry you did what you did, the self-imposed price of restitution is high. There's no easy away around it, nor does the offender look for one. They seek out all the possible ways in which to take on the consequences, and they take them on to an almost self-sacrificing degree.

To the person who got caught, and is sorry they got caught, when there's no other way around it, they'll admit it, apologize for it, then try to walk away from it all hoping there are no real consequences other than embarrassment.

Congressman Weiner did the latter, and I feel sorry for him and especially his wife and kids. Because the degree to which he is truly sorry for his actions (as opposed to getting caught), he will want to pay the price of restitution. Reconciling with his voters - whom he lied to - means resigning, in my mind. More importantly, part of the price of restitution is taking his weakness on, head on. He punted on accepting the consequences of lying to his voters, so I think he'll punt on dealing with this weakness. Which means he'll still indulge (perhaps in other forms), and he and his family will suffer as a result.

That's a shame.

"Government Mandates" and Shallow Thinking

During my time in college, I was fully engaged in the passion of political debates. I remember going to my first college republicans meeting excited to hear the debate on the club's platform. The first proposal out of the box was to "eliminate all entitlement programs immediately." I listened with amusement as folks were advocating this position with zeal, passion, and fervor.

I was blown away.

Setting aside my belief that there will always be a few folks out there in need of some level of government assistance (e.g. folks who aren't able to provide for themselves, have no family to help, and aren't plugged in with various churches and community non-profit organizations); setting that aside for a moment, a categorical elimination of all entitlement programs was simply ridiculous. It would never get votes on the floor of the House and Senate, and signature by the President. It would never happen. Yet these college republicans were spending so much time and emotional capital on it. And the proposal was adopted.

I walked out of the meeting never to return.

This college-era recollection was brought to my minds as I caught coverage today of the press gaggle around Mrs. Palin at her bus stop just a few clicks away from Mr. Romney's announcement party. Mrs. Palin repeated several times that while she conceded that then-Governor Romney's health care plan for Massachusetts was better than a federal plan, her opposition to "Romney-care" was based in her opposition to "government mandates." She repeated this non-qualified opposition to government mandates several times.

I kept listening for some sort of qualifier to this position, and each time she repeated this belief (or talking point - because it was repeated so often in the exact same words), she never hesitated or qualified it.

The irrationality of this thought process is as mind boggling as those college republicans. If she opposes the plan because of certain components or features of it, I can understand that. I can even understand opposition to the plan because she doesn't think government should be involved with health care at any level (which, if I'm generous, I could assume is her actual belief). But her opposition - stated over and over again - is rooted in her unqualified opposition to government mandates.

I think just about everyone on the conservative side of the great debate would agree that, in general, government mandates should be alternatives of last resort in most cases, or alternatives of no resort in some cases. However, her apparent belief is that there are no cases in which a government mandate is good.

Safety standards for highway overpasses and bridges? Registering with Selective Service? Drivers licenses? These are all government mandates. And I think they're good ones. There are a laundry list of other good and worthwhile government mandates. There are also a whole slog of counter-productive government mandates. But listening to Mrs. Palin's unqualified opposition to them reminded me of the lunacy I witnessed at that college republicans meeting.

Now, it's certainly possible that she does believe there are some government mandates that have value, but she should have said that, and made her point of opposition specific to government health care.

So, either she's a lunatic on the level of a person the person who thinks they are a poached egg; or she didn't take the few moments necessary to think through the implications of the talking point she crafted and repeated over and over again at this particular bus stop.

Either way, I'm blown away.