Being Human

Humans are a judgmental lot. Religious or non-religious, we judge from the time we get up in the morning until we close our eyes at night.

We judge how people dress (I would never wear that!).

Well, I might not but it's because it looks horrible on me.

How they raise their children (I'd never let mine do that!).

Their little noses will be snotty and they'll have chocolate stains on their shirts, no matter what.

The way people vote. (Why, you're just stupid and uneducated and from the South)

No, no and yes.

The way people worship (you can't worship God in a contemporary service -- it's in the Bible!)

Oh, really? Where exactly?

Even saying someone shouldn't be judgmental is being judgmental. I mean, after all, what is judging but thinking somebody is doing something the wrong way -- or not the way you would do it?

I guess this hit home today because of the death of Bin Laden. So many people were quick to judge others who they felt were being a little too celebratory. I'm not saying that some words/actions weren't over the top but I can't help but feel that most people were celebrating not so much the death of an individual but the death of pure evil -- which happened to wear the face of Bin Laden.

I could be wrong but how do I know what's in anybody else's heart?

I admit I'm judging a little bit today because of the one-Bible-verse postings (mostly on Facebook)  about how we should treat our enemies, fallen and otherwise. I've seen for myself how easy it is to pull one verse out of the Bible and run with it. But the main thing is, I think some people may be using these verses as a condemnation of others.

But condemnation has another name:

 

Judgment

 

Easy to recognize when others are doing it. Not always easy to see in the mirror.

Mirror, mirror on the wall...

Guilty as charged. Sometimes it's just too hard to take a good, long look.

That's why I call myself a practicing Christian...not because I go to church regularly...but because I'm always trying, and often failing, to get it right...

 

The rationing czar | The Augusta Chronicle

If this isn't a wake-up call, I don't know what is.

The rationing czar | The Augusta Chronicle

Something I've noticed...

I try to share a quote of the week each week -- sometimes it's just something I like but most of the time it means something. A lot of times, it may be particular to whatever I'm going through but, often, I choose what I do because of something going on out in the bigger world. This week's quote -- I'll share it because eventually this week will become next week and the quote will change while this entry will not:

I have seen great intolerance shown in the support of tolerance...Samuel Taylor Coleridge

I've always known this to be true but in my meanderings around the internet, I've seen how true it really is. And I've found that many (notice I didn't say "all") folks who carry on about intolerance from high atop their soapboxes are often (notice I didn't say "always") the most intolerant of all. They may sincerely champion certain causes and people but woe to anyone who voices a different opinion. Suddenly, the tolerant become the intolerant -- though, in many cases, they can't seem to recognize this in themselves. Apparently, the mirror fogs up with their righteous anger. Well, I think there are a lot of people who need to turn on the exhaust fan and take a long, hard look at themselves.

There are two things I see happening:

One is that, once someone has posted a disagreeing viewpoint, the poster is hit immediately with words like "ignorant" and "stupid". Now, I've heard tell that the word "ignorant" shouldn't be an insult but, believe me, the way people use it, it is. They are not trying to be kind. Try calling someone ignorant to their face and see what happens. Anyway, this, in itself, is a form of intolerance. It's the "you don't believe the way I do so you're ____"(insert insult of choice here). I maintain, when people turn to insults, it's because they've run out of anything constructive to add to the conversation and, for me, the continuation of the discussion is pretty useless.

The other thing is the opposite of the above -- instead of being blasted with name-calling, the poster is ignored. It's basically the same thing -- "you don't agree with me so I'm not going to dignify you with a response". I think this is another kind of intolerance. Just a quieter one -- and, perhaps, even more hurtful. A person who won't even listen to somebody else's opinion is not, in my book, tolerant at all.

I don't respond very often on political posts or blogs but, if I do, I just walk away (or click away, as the case may be) from anything that goes over the edge. I've found you can't have a civil conversation with anybody who resorts to name-calling -- and you definitely can't have one with someone who won't engage.

I do not claim to always be tolerant -- for instance, I'm very intolerant of stupidity. This is not about the inability to learn but the refusal to do so. And learning doesn't necessarily mean changing one's opinion, it means educating yourself about all opinions -- not just your own. People want to toss around the words "equal" or "fair" all the time but they don't want to reciprocate.

On this blog or on my forum, nobody gets name-called -- or ignored -- if they disagree with me. I never allow any poster to jump on another poster -- not only would the post be deleted but they'd probably get a warning that, if they do that again, they'll be sent packing. I'm always amazed when bloggers, etc. let their readers gang up on each other. And it usually means I won't be going back to that blog again (or Facebook page, forum, etc.).

You see, I think of this blog and my forum as an extension of my home. I don't want to be ugly to anyone or have them be ugly to me -- and I don't want the other guests to feel uncomfortable, either.

So, for what it's worth, that's my promise to you.

Politics As Usual

These are political blogs and websites I check out periodically. Yes, I am conservative so most of these lean that way but there are a couple which lean to the left -- but I like them because they don't use name-calling and hate-speech as a substitution for intelligence.

• Bernard Goldberg
• Bill O'Reilly
  
• Blowout Congress
• Cato Institute
• Charles Krauthammer
• Fact Check
• Frontpagemag
• Herman Cain
• Juan Williams
• Mike Huckabee
• Neil Boortz
• Pew Research Center
• The Weekly Standard
• US National Debt Clock
• Walter Williams
• Why I am a Republican

Nothing could be finer...

than to be in Charleston, SC, for the Bold/Fresh tour...

Me? Conservative? You betcha!

Click here for a few photos and descriptions

Haiti

I haven't been ignoring the situation in Haiti. Every time I've contemplated a blog post, I don't know what to say. The images are horrific -- some of them remind me of the aftermath of 9/11.

Sometimes I can't even wrap my head around the poverty and corruption which exist in Haiti. It's so far removed from the world I know -- the privilege that all of us who live in the USA (and many other places) take for granted. I've never been without clean water or shelter. The only time I've been without electricity is during an ice storm -- for three days -- which seemed like an eternity but was definitely not.

The US, as usual, has aid on the way -- though there will always be the naysayers who say it's not enough or it's not getting there quickly enough. I know I'm on the outside looking in but it seems to me the response was immediate -- unfortunately, we haven't invented Star Trek-like transporters yet. Nor magic wands.

I'm always gratified by the response of "regular" folk who send donations. My favorite organization is the Salvation Army -- I tried several times the other day to donate before finally getting through. I suppose that was a good sign -- it meant people were giving from the heart -- which is how it ought to be.

I encourage everybody to do what they can. We all have our different gifts and talents -- for some it's time, for others, money -- so use what you have to help. You will be blessed.

Thanksgiving

I'm not much on traditions. That's not to say I don't follow some but, for the most part, I'd rather mix it up a little. I grew up with the tradition that every Easter, every Thanksgiving, every Christmas had to be spent at my aunt's. Now, I'm not saying that was a bad thing -- at least not when I was little -- but when I started to grow up, the traditions didn't -- so even with a husband and, then children, this tradition was never relaxed. I can still recall my aunt wondering why in the world we had to be with Mark's family on holidays -- as if his side of the family didn't count.

As far as I'm concerned, when traditions start to weigh too heavily or when they are no longer conducive to peace and joy then, perhaps, it's time to rethink them. Mark and I tried to make everybody happy when we were first married and, for awhile, it was fairly easy because both sets of families lived in the same town (though we didn't). It just meant that on the different "feast" days, we were stuffed by the end of the day, having had to dine at two different places -- and on the same type of food. Fortunately, at Christmas, Mark's mother had her big meal on Christmas Eve (and Thanksgiving at night), while my aunt had her big feasts at lunch time. No exceptions. When Mark's parents moved to another town (not far enough away to be able to go to one gathering and not the other), things got a little more difficult.

When I look back on my childhood, I do have fond memories of my aunt's (where, by the way, I was the only child there. Ever.) but I also remember that we never really had our own traditions at my own family's house. We opened presents and then we had to make sure we got to dinner on time or else. Traditions shouldn't be that way. Nobody ought to feel, if they don't follow the yearly script, that they will be in the doghouse.

After we had children, the rules didn't change but, eventually, we did. I put my foot down and said we were no longer going to travel for Christmas (Thanksgiving -- with no presents -- was easier to deal with). We were going to spend it in our own house and, if anybody wanted to see us on that day, they'd have to come to us. After we made our decision, Mark's stepmom's daughters were happy -- it was something everybody had wanted to do but nobody wanted to be the first to suggest it. That is why we now go to the stepmom's house the Saturday before Christmas -- which, of course, is now a -- you guessed it -- tradition. And, if you don't show up, then you get to hear about how everybody was there except you. Oh, well...

But what it boils down to is this -- if a tradition is working for you, if people enjoy it, if it's fun, then by all means, carry on. But when folks get criticized or guilt-tripped about not being able to make it on a certain day or at a certain time, then I think it may be time to take stock of what the holidays are all about, anyway. You know, the old peace and harmony thing. And what's wrong with doing something different every year if the opportunity presents itself?

So, if I don't get another post up before Thanksgiving, I hope all of you who are celebrating, will have a glorious day surrounded by friends, family, food and faith.

And, thank you, for reading my little blog.

April in November...and no, it's not about the weather...

The new recommendations on mammograms may be a glimpse into the future: a government task force deciding what's best for our health. Yes, I know they had physicians and scientists on this force (very appropriate word?) but I just don't know -- it's government, after all, and we'd all best be a wee bit suspicious, if you ask me. But there seems to be a lot of folks who've been blinded by the reflected light off of Nancy Pelosi's pearly whites. Which I bet she got from the best dentist congress can buy.

When I read this article in the morning paper, I thought I'd blacked out for months and woke up on April Fool's Day. The task force says that women under 50 don't need mammograms and "after 75, the benefits of mammograms are unknown". My own mother might be dead now, if she had not had a routine mammogram after 75.

The report also says that "breast self-exams are of no value". If this wasn't so serious, it would be laughable. Do they not realize how many women have discovered lumps themselves? And now they're saying this is of no value? Do they not understand that there are foolish women out there who might say, "okay, I won't do self-exams anymore because they aren't worth it"? Even if only a small percentage of lumps are found in this manner, saying that it is of no value is ludicrous -- especially considering that doing a self-exam is free -- it's not like anybody is having to pay for it. So, why in the world would they even say this? Is it going to hurt the women if they continue to do it? It's much more likely to hurt them if they don't.

What exactly is going on here?

Now, I know what some folks will say -- that this is just a recommendation, that it won't affect what women and their physicians choose to do. I hope it won't but government-run health care (whether Medicare, Medicaid or a "public option") is not going to give you a choice because the government will say you don't need a routine test and, therefore, they won't pay for it (unless you have risk factors). Apparently, saving one life here or one there is not important enough. Tell that to a breast cancer survivor, if you're brave enough.

Would someone in Washington just get a clue? There's actually a real world out here.

For more on this, go here.

Mike Huckabee in Augusta, GA

Was thrilled this morning to get a chance to meet Mike Huckabee at a booksigning at Barnes & Noble this morning. There were some 500 people in line -- we were numbers 288-290 -- we got to him at 8:45! There was no time for really personal photos or for one-on-one time with him -- just enough to say "glad to meet you" and for him to say "thanks for coming out" -- and we got to shake his hand! If you'd like to see a few more photos, go here.

Thank a Veteran

With everything going on in my personal life for the last few days, I neglected to mention, in my earlier post, about it being Veteran's Day. I hope everybody has taken a moment to thank -- either actually or in their hearts -- the men and women who serve daily -- here and overseas -- in the defense of this country. Without them, well, I'd hate to even think about what it would be like.

So, to all veterans, of all wars, thank you.

Fox Hunt

I watch Fox News. I also watch other media outlets when I want to see what else is being reported. I read different newspapers and I read all kinds of things all over the internet -- so I think I have a pretty well-rounded view of what's going on and what's being said. I try not to pass judgment based on sound bites or blurbs -- or people frothing at the mouth. I try to keep an open mind and I think I do. Like everybody else, I have my opinions and I have certain ideas which are sacrosanct.

So, here's my opinion, for what it's worth:

Fox is just as legitimate as all the other media outlets. Sure, it's right-leaning but, if that's a problem, then outlets such as MSNBC -- and other networks -- which are left-leaning -- are also a problem. If swinging too far one way is an issue, then swinging too far the other way ought to be one, too. Dissenters -- organizations or individuals -- should never be threatened. And certainly not by those in the government.

In full disclosure, I have a degree in journalism and one of the things I fervently believe in is freedom of the press. Without freedom, all you have left is press. And that has a really heavy sound to it.

I think it's time to bring out that old trusty mirror -- and see that, whenever one points an accusatory finger, it's aiming right back at the pointer. Make sure there are no skeletons in your own closet before you start trying to clean out someone else's.

This is an editorial from The Augusta Chronicle. It says everything I would like to say but don't have the talent to express:

Obama's flawed Fox hunt

White House has its claws out against any perceived dissent

Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff

Thursday, October 22, 2009

• Email
• AOL IM
• Del.icio.us
• Digg It
• Facebook
• Fark It
• Newsvine
• Reddit
• StumbleUpon
• Yahoo! Buzz

The Obama administration, so reluctant to finish the war in Afghanistan, wants to silence dissent and destroy the dissenters at home. Ground zero is Fox News.

The Obama campaign and administration have always treated the network as an adversary -- and, in fact, they seem more willing to engage rogue dictators and despots before sitting down with this American network.

Indeed, the White House strategy now has gone beyond avoiding Fox altogether: Officials recently declared that Fox is not a real news network. Moreover, Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel seemed to even fire a warning shot at the CNNs of the world, saying in a mafia sort of way that they shouldn't follow Fox's lead on stories.

You got a nice network here. I'd hate to see something happen to it.

Coming from a powerful and combative executive branch of the federal government, that's downright chilling.

Even Fox's competitors are recoiling. Unabashed Obama supporter David Gergen said on CNN that the White House is making a mistake by attacking Fox and not engaging with the network. And ABC News' Jake Tapper challenged White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs, "Can you explain why it's appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one?"

Moreover, Obama's attack on Fox ignores blatant liberal bias in other media. That's OK, though, since they're on Obama's side.

That's not the American way. Dissent is to be embraced, not silenced.

"This is an overtly political campaign" against Fox, writes Nile Gardiner in The Daily Telegraph of London, "and one that is doomed to failure, as it will ensure that even more Americans end up tuning in to Fox shows. The United States is a nation built around the principles of free speech, limited government, and free enterprise, and it is highly unusual for a U.S. administration to launch an authoritarian vendetta against an individual news station. It smacks of mean-spiritedness as well as desperation ...

"Fox News is succeeding in America precisely because it is not afraid to challenge the status quo, and to take on the power of big government. It is unique in broadcast media in going against the grain of the dominant liberal networks, NBC, CBS and ABC, by providing an alternative perspective in a nation where conservatives are still the largest ideological group according to Gallup. Television news in America has for decades been dominated by a left-of-centre oligopoly that has not reflected public opinion. That smug arrangement was shattered when Fox opened for business in the mid-1990s."

But this is even more than an attack on what Obama perceives as a conservative media outlet. It's a concerted, strategic and multifaceted effort to silence all enemies of state.

The campaign against Fox, writes the nonpartisan Politico.com, "underscores how deeply political the Obama White House is in its daily operations --- with a strong focus on redrawing the electoral map and discrediting the personalities and ideas that have powered the conservative movement over the past 20 years.

"This determination has manifested itself in small ways: This president has done three times as many fundraisers as President George W. Bush had at this point in his term. And in large ones: Beginning with their contretemps with Limbaugh last winter, Obama's most important advisers miss few opportunities for public and highly partisan shots at his most influential critics."

How sad -- especially since Mr. Obama promised hope, unity and bipartisanship.

It will be the biggest and most consequential promise he breaks.

From the Thursday, October 22, 2009 edition of the Augusta Chronicle

The Pit

To stand before
The pit
And not waver.
To shed a tear
But not fall.
To feel the whisper
Of angels
And listen.
To be still
And remember it all.
To know that
Hope still lingers
To feel the
Blood rush
Through living veins.
To learn the lesson
And move forward
To feel at peace again.
This is my prayer,
While defying
The specter
Of catastrophe and doom,
That one voice
Can mingle
With millions
And this spot become
A healing room.


I put this poem on the fence at the church across from Ground Zero in July, 2002. They have said that they kept everything that was put there so I'm assuming it's filed away somewhere.

Please sir, may I have some more?

First of all, I may not agree with President Obama but I do respect the Office of the President -- so heckling him would be as foreign to me as, well, smoking a cigarette -- and I don't approve of anybody -- Republican congressmen included -- yelling in the middle of a speech. However, Congressman Wilson did apologize -- which is something. I've seen a lot of rude behavior -- on both sides of the fence -- where no apology was extended whatsoever. At any rate, I think it's up to President Obama whether he accepts the apology -- if he does, then we probably all should, too.

After the President's speech last night, my fear is that he either paid no attention or doesn't care -- not sure which is worse -- about what went on in this country during the month of August -- was all of that really irrelevant? I know it's been said that the protests were "organized" (maybe I'm dumb as a rock but I've yet to figure out why this is an issue -- in my experience, most rallies/protests are seldom spontaneous) or that folks were "put up" to being at the Townhall meetings. I'm sure both of those things are true in some cases -- but it doesn't mean that anybody who disagrees with the President should simply be dismissed out of hand. There is genuine and heartfelt dissent -- some of it misguided, yes, but some of it not. And dissent, the last time I checked, is protected by the Constitution. And, I can tell you this from my heart -- nobody likes to feel that they or their opinions don't matter.

What about the Republicans being against the healthcare bill but offering no solutions? Well, I'm not sure how this can be said considering that the Republican congressmen were not invited to the table during the process of crafting the bill in the first place. And, I've read plenty of alternative ideas -- from Republicans and others -- which have sound and valid points -- but there seems to be a blind eye where that is concerned. There does seem to be a noticeable bipartisanship in a White House which was supposed to be all-inclusive.

There is a lot of divisiveness going on and I don't think we can lay it all at the feet of Republicans and their supporters. I think there's enough blame to dole out hefty servings to everybody.

And seconds, as well.

Whose life is it anyway?

I've been watching the health care debates with great interest -- like all other Americans, it will effect me -- not only as a patient -- which I've been many times -- but also as a wife of a physician -- which I've been for nearly 30 years. I can actually see both sides of this issue with a certain amount of clarity -- which I fully admit most folks -- on both sides of the issue -- really don't -- and many don't even try.

The fact of the matter is both sides have some good points and nobody needs to be marginalized because they disagree with someone else. After all, this country was built on freedom of speech (yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah) and, if someone feels they have a grievance, then they are well-within their rights to express themselves -- especially to their congressmen/women who ought to be listening.

I find it very disheartening that these people venting their frustrations 0r simply sharing their stories have been vilified as "evil-mongers" -- personally, I would place child molesters or dog-fighting-sports-stars in that category. There's something quite sad about any American referring to another using that term just because they have a different opinion. And it seems to me that other protesters -- like those against the war (pick a war, any war) have made it quite clear that they are well within their rights to protest. Whether you like it or not, what's good for the goose has to be good for the gander.

I watched a lot of the town hall meetings (from various sources). There were times when I wondered if I was watching the same thing some of the commentators were watching. Yes, there were some instances of folks shouting when they shouldn't have been (including some of the representatives) but there were many more instances of people speaking calmly and politely -- but that wasn't really what was covered on the news. Instead, we heard about people toting guns -- I only heard about one case -- and that person had a permit to do so. Were others carrying weapons? Maybe -- but who really knows? Unless these were seen and counted, then saying such a thing is really making up a story where there is none. I also read about how these meetings were mostly full of disgruntled seniors -- well, I did see a lot of seniors -- and just as many middle-aged folks -- and younger. But, somehow, that got lost in the translation. I also saw a lot of questions get non-answers.

So, for what they're worth, here are more of my thoughts:

*Congress was getting ready to pass a bill which very few of them had even read. I don't care if it was 1 page or a 1000 pages -- it needed to be read. There also needs to be clear explanations, about what the bill contains, to any constituent, passionate or not, who asked a question. No bill -- of any size -- and especially one of such importance -- should be rammed through Congress without a thorough understanding by all concerned.

*To Congress -- you work for us. Period. Get off your high horse. Get off "we know what's good for you because you don't" kick. Get off the damn phone. And listen. And here's another idea: term limits.

*If people feel that they have to yell to be heard, then so be it. I've yelled at my husband and my kids when I didn't think they were listening to me. I know that's a different kettle of fish but...actually...no...it's not. It's what happens when folks feel that they are being ignored. Once people felt they were being listened to, things calmed down considerably. And, if you don't know that, you are not listening.

*Most people simply don't want non-medical bureaucrats telling them what kind of care they can receive. Or when they can receive it -- or whether they have to take the "blue" pill because it's cheaper than the "red" pill. I really don't believe most people believe there is any such thing as a "death panel", however, rationing will occur if the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. It's pretty much the only way to cut costs across the board. So, if you're healthy -- or have an illness which responds to conventional treatment -- great. Otherwise, it's a bit iffy.

*Tort reform -- you will hear people say that this makes very little difference in the cost of health care. You will mostly hear lawyers say this. And most of the members of Congress are -- you guessed it -- lawyers. Here's how it works -- doctors have to practice defensive medicine -- meaning ordering expensive, possibly non-needed tests -- because if they don't and something goes wrong, they will get sued because they didn't order the tests. The funny thing is, while this new plan would take some of those decisions away from doctors, the ability for patients to sue because of what will be termed substandard care will still remain. It's a no-win situation for everybody involved.

*There is a shortage of doctors already. It'll get worse. Why would anyone want to spend all of that money on medical school (and I assure you it's a lot -- and the tuition will not go down) and then not be able to practice what they know is best for their patients? And, believe me, there are a lot of doctors, right this minute, thinking about retiring earlier than they had planned -- just to get out of the coming chaos. Your best and brightest? Say bye-bye. They can do just as well in other fields -- which don't have as much restriction -- or stress.

*The American Medical Association does not represent the majority of physicians. In fact, only about 20% of doctors are members of the AMA. The AMA is mostly made up of academicians who do not see patients. My husband is a member but he's about to pull out. So, if you hear someone say, "well the AMA said...", do some research -- and ask your doctor if he's a member -- and why or why not.

I do believe that health care in this country definitely needs to be tweaked -- maybe it even needs a major overhaul. But, there has to be some rational, non-partisan -- and inclusive -- thought processes going on about this -- so far, I haven't really heard much, from either side, that's really brought forth a good solution. It can't simply be a contest to see who can do what and how fast -- and it can't be done overnight. You also can't just look at the big picture without also paying attention to the little details.

I leave you with this lightbulb moment quote from our president:

"UPS and Fed Ex are doing just fine. It’s the Post Office that’s always having problems."


For some of my other thoughts on health care, go here.

The Scariest Thing

I had my first colonoscopy yesterday -- it went well -- don't remember a thing about it -- praise be to God -- but, afterward, I nursed a headache and nausea all day -- probably a reaction to the narcotic. Still, it could have been worse and I'm glad I had it done -- next time, I'll know what to expect. And, yes, the prep is worse than the procedure.

I'm at that age -- nearly 50 -- where they recommend having your first one if you aren't having problems or don't have a family history of colon cancer; after that, it's every five years -- unless they find something -- which they did. I had one polyp -- now, chances are this is benign so I'm not worried (though I'll be glad to get the path report) but this means that I'll have to do this more often than I would have wished.

But here is the scariest thing -- with all the talk about healthcare, will I even be a candidate for having this done every three years? Or, will this come under the "not necessary" label? That bothers me -- because I don't want to end up with colon cancer -- or any kind of cancer -- because some bureaucrat decides that chances are I won't get it so, therefore, the test/procedure is not worth the cost.

See, here's the thing, people complain about unnecessary tests all the time. But, let someone not have a test but then get sick -- then they want to blame someone because they didn't have the proper test. You can't have it both ways.

But, I ask you, what would you prefer? An unneccessary test which showed you didn't have a disease -- or no test which might have shown that you did? For me, it's no contest. Give me the unnecessary test -- I'm not willing to play Russian roulette with my health or that of my loved ones.

Nor do I want the government deciding what healthcare I need or who I have to see to get it. And all I have to do is look at Medicare, Medicaid and the VA system to see how the government runs things.

If you've read my profile, you know that I'm married to a physician -- so I am able to see the situation from both sides -- I've been a patient many times and our insurance premiums (yes, we pay them, too -- as well as massive malpractice premiums) are skyhigh because I have high blood pressure, asthma, hypothyroidism, arthritis and diet-controlled diabetes. Yes, there needs to be some changes but making it so that your doctor is not the one who decides what you need is just plain foolhardy.

My husband is an excellent physician -- he would be embarrassed at me for saying that. I know I'm prejudiced but, honestly, if I didn't think he was, I just wouldn't say anything. He is caring, works long, hard, stressful hours, is frustrated because he can't see patients fast enough to suit them or him (he can't work 24/7), is fussed at by irate patients who think they are the only one he has to see during any given day (wait until he has to cut his time with them even farther if everybody comes running to the doctor because it's "free"), patients who get mad because he won't give them the drugs they are seeking, patients who think nothing of throwing a doctor's bill into the trash, though they wouldn't dare stop paying for their cigs or alcohol.

Yeah, there are perks to being married to a doctor but I can tell you from experience, that although I know my husband loves me and his children, the sacrifices have not been insignificant. Sure, if we have an emergency, he'll be here but our lives have always revolved around his schedule -- and the patients come first - because of duty. We are, however, a close second.

He says if he had to do all it all over again, he would not go into the medical field. The idea of anybody telling him what he can or cannot do for his patients just rubs him the wrong way -- you absolutely cannot do the best thing for your patients if your hands are tied. Unfortunately, I think a lot of good doctors will be retiring early -- and the best and brightest who might have chosen to become physicians will probably think twice -- which is sad -- and scary -- because, in my opinion, the people who are taking care of our health needs ought to be the best and brightest. Of course, it could be that they'll lower the standards for getting into medical school if they need more doctors.

Our youngest daughter, who is 17, is making noises about going to medical school. We will encourage her in whatever she chooses to do but the old saying about becoming a doctor holds true:

Don't do it unless it's the only thing you can think of doing.

Otherwise, pick something else which requires less schooling, less tuition, less stress.

And more family time.

Because you can't get that back.

Sarah, not plain but tall

I have absolutely no idea what Sarah Palin is doing. I'm sure she has a plan and I imagine we'll all know what it is eventually. I'm not sure she should be labeled as a "quitter", though -- I've never really understood how people campaigning for president can keep their "day" job, anyway, and continue to do it well since running for president is a full-time job in itself. Anyway, I can understand her reasoning if what she is doing is preparing for 2012 -- if she's not going to run for governor again, why not step out of the way and let someone dedicated to being Alaska's governor take the helm? I don't know -- it makes sense to me. But maybe I'm one of those who's succumbed to her "act". That's one of those perception things - I could say the same thing about Obama supporters. Perhaps they see what they want to see, just as I might.

For me personally, my desire would be to see Mike Huckabee run again. I think he is fair and honest and knows what he's talking about, however, if Sarah Palin is the nominee, she will get my vote -- in the end, it really has more to do with the party platform, not who the person is. At least, that's how it is for me. I actually like the way they do elections in the UK -- the party is elected and then the leader is chosen by the party. I can see there could be problems with that but, at least, then you can do away with these popularity contests that our elections have become. If you think back to your high school days, the winner of "most popular" was not always the brightest bulb in the pack.

Along those same lines, when in the world are people going to stop harping on how Sarah Palin looks? I would hate to be judged by how I look -- my appearance has absolutely nothing to do with my abilities. Nothing. In appearance, I'm pretty much a frumpy, middle-aged housewife -- but I believe I'm intelligent, creative and am even able to perform a few complicated tasks. I would hate to think I might be passed over because I don't "look the part". I'm still shaking my head over the catty comments made (mostly by other women) about Ms. Palin's appearance. I mean, really, what is that all about? After awhile, it starts to smell like jealousy or fear because there's really no other reason to put forth that she's not capable because of her appearance -- maybe she's not capable but, if she isn't, it doesn't have one thing to do with her hairstyle or makeup. Or whether she was a beauty queen.

The other thing that makes my heart heavy is when I hear people (again, mostly women) say things like "Sarah Palin needs to stay home with her family". What?!! So, are you saying that all mothers should stay home -- or just the ones you don't like? Let's see, what exactly has the feminist movement been all about? Wasn't it the ability to make choices?

And, then there's still that "family values" issue. Oh, my Lord. How many of you have teenagers -- raise your hand. Do your kids always practice what you preach? I think not. To say that Ms. Palin can't stand for family values because her teenage daughter got pregnant is absurd. I guess Ms. Palin failed because she wasn't with her child every single second of every single day. I always hope and pray that my kids will take what we've tried to teach them to heart -- but, hey, they've got their own minds -- and their own set of hormones -- and I can only do so much. It doesn't mean I approve, only that sh*t happens in the best of families.

If you don't agree with Ms. Palin's (or whoever's) views , then, by all means, don't support her. I vote for the candidate who most closely resembles what I believe in (no candidate is ever 100% -- and when people say that they support every single thing a politician does or says, frankly, I don't believe them). I do not vote for or against based on sex, race or how someone looks. And I never will. I believe in intelligent choices, not emotional ones.

But, hey, I'm only a stay-at-home mom, which is, I guess, where I belong.

America the Talented

I'm sashaying once again down the reality TV road. I've said many times before that I don't have any problems with reality TV the way some people do. I mean, hey, if people watch it, they're gonna' keep making 'em. And we all have control of the off button, I do believe.

Anyway, I've been sucked into America's Got Talent for the first time. And all I can say is the dang show has made me nearly weep more than once. What's up with that?! Anyway, the guy singing the Garth Brooks song nearly did me in -- and he wasn't my type nor is country music my thang. But, there I was, fighting the tears. American Idol never did that!!

By the way, I haven't mentioned AI or Adam Lambert in awhile, have I? Okay, I've joined his official Facebook page, joined his website -- and, in case you've forgotten, I'm going to the AI concert in Charlotte on August 1.

Today, while having my toes painted blood red in honor of the 4th of July, I contemplated having them painted black for the Adam -- I mean the AI -- concert. But, nobody will see them -- I'm not about to have my toes out in the open where folks can stampede on them in some mad dash to get to one of their favorite contestants.

Not that I would do such a thing. Seriously, I wouldn't. I might break a hip.

Anyway, maybe the next reality show should be called America's Got Trouble.

Oh, wait. They're playing that daily already.

Herman Cain

I love this guy -- I think he knows what he's talking about and he writes in easy to understand language. Needless to say, I agree with him. Definitely worth reading -- not only this particular column but all of what he writes:

Five Traps That Trick Americans Into Accepting Socialized Medicine

Remembering Bartow

I connected with an old neighborhood friend via Facebook earlier today -- while I'm still not a huge fan of the site, it does make it remarkably easy to find people you "used" to know or who you've lost track of. We had a nice chat and reminisced about other people we knew in common -- one of which was a neighbor who was killed in Vietnam.

I grew up during the Vietnam era but I was too young to really understand all the ramifications. I can remember worrying about whether my brother might have to go -- he was fourteen years older than I was -- he never did -- I think maybe because he was in school. But a family down the street did lose their son. His name was Bartow Potts and he was about ten years older than I was -- he had two brothers who were closer in age to me. I don't remember any of the details other than he was killed over there and, eventually, the family moved away but I couldn't tell you when or where.

Ten years ago, when my eldest was in the 8th grade, her middle school class took a trip to Washington, DC. One of the places they were to visit was the Vietnam Memorial -- at the last minute, I wrote down Bartow's name and told her to see if she could find it. When she came home, not only had she found it (they actually have a list of names and where they are located on the wall) but she did a rubbing of the engraving. Though I never really knew Bartow well, the memory of his death had stayed with me and tears stung my eyes.

Today, on Memorial Day, I want to remember Bartow Potts and all of those like him who lay down their lives for this country. No matter how one feels about war, every soldier -- dead or alive -- should be given their due respect.

I hate to think where we'd be without every single one of them.

Freedom isn't free...

and Memorial Day isn't just a three-day weekend.