Our Fall Trip to the Ozark's

The first weekend of October Dan and I went over to the Ozark's for a four day weekend. We took the boat and it took about five hours to get there. We stayed at a resort, that wasn't the greatest, but the weather was so beautiful and we spent most of our time exploring the huge lake and it's many tributaries. Most of where we were was privately owned and we were very surprised to see how many mansion type homes were on the lake. Lots of condos too. It was their off season so the normal crowds of boaters, skiers and jet ski's were not there. Apparently, at high season, the wakes created by the big pleasure boats make it pretty rough and unstable for regular boaters. We experienced a few of those moments, but since it wasn't a constant occurrence it wasn't bad. After gawking at the homes and grounds of the rich lakeside owners, we went up the Gravois arm of the lake where the state park is located. There were practically no homes here and more fishermen as well as people anchored and swimming or partying. One day we did go ashore to a really nice bar with a terrace where we drank a couple of beers and watched the action from there. It was a very relaxing trip and we both thought being able to visit the area during a slower time in the fall was great. I did experience some trepidation when we discovered a scorpion in our bedroom one night. We looked it up on the Internet the next day and discovered that nonpoisonous scorpions also enjoy the Ozark's. But I remembered my boss at the Bayfield Inn's response to a guest who had discovered a mouse in her guest house in Bayfield. That's just part of the charm of the northwoods! She bought it, so I just figured, what are ya gonna do.

Trip to the Ozarks

Watching the world and the people around me.

This morning I heard a segment on "This American Life" about the proper way to raise children, and what the experts have learned etc. It was interesting and I agreed with some of what they said. But I decided to articulate my ideas on this subject and explain where I got my ideas. My home... I was advantaged enough as a child, to have been born to a loving mother and to begin my life with all the material necessities provided for me by my family or the community around me. I always felt my mother loved me. I felt she was a loving mother with a good sense of humor and a fun loving outlook on life. I never heard her gossip. I never heard her run anyone down. We were sent to schools taught by nuns, with classroom sizes large and rules clearly stated and enforced. We were taught respect for others and shielded from language and ideas that we were too young to be exposed to.

At Guardian Angel... There were many kids and few adults to care for them. It was obvious that the tactics they used, consistent rules and order, to keep things running smoothly were necessary. There was no tolerance for individual manipulation of the system. So, you stayed in line and looked for fun amongst the other kids. I didn't resent this life, because it totally made sense to me. If you have 27 kids to get dressed in the morning, feed and educate, you really don't have much time to deviate from a pretty organized plan if you expect to accomplish anything. At times we were punished enmasse (forced to sit on the floor quietly for an hour, not allowed to go outside, or even made to bend over our beds for a few swats on the behind.) Again, since everyone was punished, I spent no time whatsoever meditating on the justice or injustice of this. I do believe it made us form a camaraderie amongst ourselves and of course we learned together that circumventing the rules brought consequences. We were all part of this big system that required everyone to cooperate. We might not have "felt the love" individually, but under the circumstances our needs were met and we were treated the same. From this experience, I personally came to believe, that if the rules apply to everyone the same, and there are good reasons for the rules, progress can be made toward acquiring the most advantage for everyone. Oh, and did I fail to mention, nobody ever saw the nuns sitting around or gossiping. Now, I'm sure they did both at times, but all we ever saw, were these women doing their job, not always cheerfully, but a steady, consistent work ethic every day. Yes, I do believe kids understand these things. They may not be able to tell you about them yet, but instinct provides them with a desire to participate and receive a share of their environment, be it family or institution. When that environment is overseen by adults, and is directed according to the needs of all, I think the individuals involved create a healthy sense of what the world in general should be. A place where everyone is important and everyone has to comply with certain regulations since resources are limited. But, naturally individual personalities emerged, and lent plenty of diversity to the group. These personalities provided friendship and conflict, entertainment and competition. And again, a sense of fairness was overall maintained in not letting individual personalities unduly dominate the group. Another important lesson learned there. Everyone is entitled to develop their own individuality, but no one person should control the environment just because they have the capacity to do so. Everyone in the group needs to feel that they will have the same consideration given to their individual opinions and their unique contributions to their family or home.

Sullivan's... A fun place to live, but after the regimented life I was used to, I really missed the feeling that we were headed somewhere. There was very little communication with adults. Mr. Sullivan worked nights, and Mrs. Sullivan never seemed interested in establishing any type of cohesion or order. I really felt like there were very loose boundaries there, and I was not really comfortable with that. Yes, it was fun. Lots of kids to play with but no one seemed in charge. There were five Sullivan children and William and I. When Mr. Sullivan occasionally appeared and laid down the law, I liked it! Lesson here--Kids like to feel that someone is watching and directing them. (I'm a kid. I shouldn't be in charge). I think they also need to feel they are being taught something. Not just drifting along, trying to figure out things all by themselves.

Kramer's , Miller's... You can't talk about one family without the other. Here was a good combination of rules and fun. I loved hanging around with the Miller kids, but was definitely constrained by good rules. I lived here ten years, until I was married. It was my first look at a marriage. They have a good one. Kramer's were definitely involved with their kids and their families. They had fun, and I was indulged in being allowed to have a lot of friends, and be involved with many social functions through church and community. Here, I watched families with lots of kids interact with other families at potlucks, ice cream socials etc. Women cooked, sewed, served on church committees, school functions etc. They were busy and seemed happy. Their was no doubt about their contributions to their homes and their communities. I really admired these women. I loved the life. Because I did love the life, I emulated much of it in my own family. I think I took all of these experiences, and adopted what I felt were the most effective means of creating the life I wanted for our family. After Guardian Angel, as most kids do, I tried my hand at dominating situations. Thankfully, there were adults around who quickly made it clear that I was not in charge. After all, what does a 10 or 15 or 17 year old really know about holding a family together. And while I may have cried and carried on dramatically (about how unfair it was, that no one was following my lead, or allowing me to navigate situations I was clearly not ready to navigate), I was fortunate to have people strong enough to stand up to me. I was punished or smacked as the occasion called for. Thank God, someone took the time and employed the energy to block me.

Dan... Then I met Dan. Although we disagree on much, we definitely agree on a lot of core ideas. I respect him very much. He has a calm, direct demeanor. I may go on and on (as in this blog) and he will utter in one sentence the solution or explanation of something I have been going back and forth on for a long time. I trust him. Although he thinks I never listen to him he is wrong. He has taught me so much. Because I trust him, I entertain ideas he has, that I never considered or that are not widely held. He is really good at making things simple and solid. He expects a lot from us (his family) but he is such a good example himself that it is hard not to try to live up to his strengths.

Together, I think we have tried to raise our kids to be ready for this world. We tried to assure them a fun, safe, and innocent childhood. But we also wanted them to learn their own way in life. To achieve their own goals. To live their own lives. To find where they are most comfortable and happy. We felt it was more important to impart to our kids that they were members of a big world with many ideas and talented and smart people. They should share this world with all those people and contribute their fair share. They should respect other peoples ideas, but think for themselves. We are very proud of our kids. They have always lived up to our expectations and they are kind, considerate, and interesting adults, who we love being the parents of.

So, when I hear from experts, that kids need to be praised effusively, or have their opinions listened to and go unchallenged, or are incapable of distinguishing between an adult spanking them for something they have done wrong, and beating up their siblings because mom and dad sometimes smack them, I respectfully disagree. I think kids deserve more than that. They deserve to take their time being kids, and to formulate their own opinions over time by listening and observing the world around them. We, as parents, are the ones they observe for the first twenty years of their lives. We need to keep that in mind and always try to be a good example in our homes, so that we can, through our lives, give them some ideas to build on to make their own observations and contributions to the world.

These were just things I was thinking about today, and thought I would write about so that people are aware of things that I believe, and why I believe them.

Our first boat outing in Kansas

I am just learning how to get pictures on my blog. Now after finally getting the pictures posted, I see where you can sharpen them up and crop them. I tried that, but my doctored pictures never made it to publication. Oh well.
Anyway, dad and I went to Melvern Lake last Sunday and had a very enjoyable afternoon. The lake is a reservoir built by the Army Corp of Engineers and the first picture is the dam. From the pictures you can see that this lake is used for all kinds of activities; Skiing, tubing, kneeboarding, fishing, swimming and,much to my delight, we even saw horseback riders on a trail along the lake. They have a huge campground too. We plan to go to another lake close by next weekend if the weather is good. But we need to prepare a little better next time. I guess beer is not the only essential requriement for a day at the lake. Towels, food, hats, lawnchairs etc. would have come in handy too!

Boat Outing in Kansas

 

 

Sailboats Too.

 

 

Kansas Pics

 

 

 

 

Democratic Dilemna

Main Entry: 1im·peach
Pronunciation: \im-ˈpēch\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English empechen, from Anglo-French empecher, enpechier to ensnare, impede, prosecute, from Late Latin impedicare to fetter, from Latin in- + pedica fetter, from ped-, pes foot — more at foot
Date: 14th century
1 a: to bring an accusation against b: to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office c: to remove from office especially for misconduct


This morning I heard Nancy Pelosi interviewed on the Leonard Lopate show. I gained a new respect for her but I don't agree with her on impeachment. She said that she has a big plan for the democrats... a long term plan which they will be able to start implementing once they win the Presidential election. She feels that impeachment might jeopardize their chance of winning. Here is a good example of partisanship. Isn't it the duty of Congress to make sure that our laws are not violated. There is wide suspicion that the Bush administration has violated our laws by overstepping their power in a number of areas. Torture, wiretapping, dismissal of officials for partisan reasons, failure to respond to subpoenas etc. To impeach someone is to first accuse them, and then to see if there is enough evidence to try them. We should look upon this process as a protection against tyrannical power not as a means of defamation and character assassination. So even though I understand her political argument, I think she is wrong. Winning is not always victory. Even if they lost the election, they would have first of all lived up to their responsibilities. If they really believe laws have been violated, their responsibility is to investigate. I think the public can tell the difference between an investigation against serious charges and a mere political stunt. Furthermore, whether Republican or Democrat, any member of Congress who does not take seriously their responsibility of bringing such charges against a President, if they are warranted, is not representing the people and their best interests.

A New Conversation

Communism: a) A theory advocating elimination of private property. b) a system in which goods are held in common and available to all as needed.
Capitalized: a) a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. b) a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state owned means of production. c) a final state of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equally. d) communist: systems collectively.

Democracy: a) a government by the people: especially: rule of the majority b) a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. 2) a political unit that has a democratic government. 3) capitalized: the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States --from emancipation Republicanism to--New Deal Democracy. 4) the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority. 5) the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.

This morning I heard a podcast on Taiwan and China. It was about the question of Taiwan independence or Taiwan's reunification with China. This is the conversation we need to change. I don't think we should still be discussing whether it should be Communism or Democracy. Those two ideologies have been exhibiting their forms of government for years, both insisting that they are the correct model. I say they have both exposed their worse sides now and we should be talking about adopting the best ideas from both philosophies. I see nothing wrong with 1)"a theory where goods are held in common and available to all as needed." Of course, not all goods, but definitely the essential resources of a nation should be held in common. 2) "a government in which the supreme power is invested in the people and exercised by them... (directly)...(I left out that indirect representation part)...usually involving periodically free elections." 3) "the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges.
We practice this combination of philosophies in our lives. We have families where individuals are distinct from one another, have different opinions, different careers, different lives and yet share things in common such as a home, property etc. Democracy gone awry elevates individualism and power above community and the well being of all citizens. Communism unbridled elevates power and control above change or challenges to that system. Commonly owned is replaced by state owned or controlled. Why can't we combine individual freedom, (through equal opportunity for all) but the wealth of the nations held by the people. By wealth, I mean that no citizen is without the opportunity to secure for themselves the basic needs of life. And of course every nation should see to it that those who cannot secure for themselves those basic needs are taken care of. Adopt a capitalist society with a strong socialist bent. The wealth that is essential to a good life, (food, education, health care, jobs, cannot be left unmanaged or exploited. There is enough wealth for everyone. But it does have to be protected against those market forces that seek to own so much of that wealth that others are left without enough for their own well being. The few own the most. That is the worst of capitalism. The few control the most or everything. That is the worst of communism. There should be private property and common property. There should be individual opportunity but there should be regulation of common resources.
I guess my point is this. Not all ideas that promulgate the common ownership of wealth are evil. Not all ideas that make the idea of private property sacrosanct should go unchallenged.

The Electoral College and elections. Sources-How Stuff Works, A Peoples History.

In the United States a system called the electoral college allows a candidate for president to win the election while not having a majority of the popular vote. This is an indirect voting system. This is not allowed in Russia. There, a candidate is elected by the process of a direct vote of the people.
The American system was instituted by the framers of the Constitution. Some thought a popular election was too reckless. Others didn't want to give Congress the power to select the president. So a system was set up that would allow voters to vote for electors who would then vote for the president. (Article 11, section 1 of the Constitution)
Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of U.S. senators plus the number of it's U.S. representatives. The electors of each state meet in their state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are sealed and sent to the president of the Senate who on January 8th opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress.
Most of the time the electors cast their votes for the candidate who has the most votes in that particular state. Some states have laws that require electors to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote. Other electors are bound by pledges to a specific political party. However their have been times when the electors have voted contrary to the peoples decisions and there is no federal law or constitutional provision against this.
Four presidents have won with fewer popular votes than their opponents, but more electoral votes.
In 1877, the democratic candidate Samuel Tildon won 184 electoral votes and needed only one more to be elected. (He had already won the popular vote by more than 250,000 votes) The Republican candidate Rutherford B Hayes had 166 electoral votes. His people went to work. Since 1873 there had been a depression in the country. There was plenty to promise. The South wanted the Federal troops removed. They also wanted more of the federal money that was then going mainly to Ohio and Maine. In the East there was unemployment. Both the East and West were against protective tariffs, national banks, and railroad subsidies. The Hayes committee made concessions to the Democratic party and the white South. Colorado had just been admitted to the Union. They decided to appoint electors rather than holding elections. Hayes won Colorado's three electoral votes with zero popular votes. Hayes managed to secure 185 electoral votes thus becoming the next President.
The goal of the presidential candidate is to put together the right combination of states that will allow them to win the most electoral votes. The Constitution allows each state legislature to designate a method of choosing electors, thus creating more confusion, and little continuity in the process.
The point is, it is far easier to control or buy off or appeal to the narrower interests of 538 electors (that figure changes with the population) than to accept the choice of the electorate. The system is created to be gamed. It seems to me, it is time to return to the idea, one man, one vote. We need more challenges to these antiquated systems. Caucuses are of the same stripe...again created to give power to fewer people thus making it easier to control the results.

Why I must blog.

I must either blog or explode. Now that I have a lot of time to read, pay attention to news and listen to very interesting people and ideas, I find I want to talk about them. Of course my family does not have the same amount of free time as I do, so I have no place to go and discuss these things. Therefore, I have decided to start unloading my thoughts somewhere. Obviously, since there are many other bloggers all over the world this is a forum commonly turned to by many to communicate what they are thinking. Once I master how to actually use this forum, I mean to talk about things that I don't understand or like. For example, why we still use the electoral college or turn over our individual voting rights to delegates. But right now, I have to go do the laundry . I just wanted to give a preview of the direction this blog will be going in. However, being me, I will probably digress into any other topic that sparks a strong reaction in me.

I confess to my idiocy!

This is so damn frustrating. I am trying to get a full post here, but cannot. Sarah is badgering me for a password, which I don't remember creating. I am about ready to confess to any password under her grueling questions.