Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts

Friday, November 19, 2010

Thankful for Freedom

I am NOT an expert yet, I've only been working inside the prison for three days.

But every day, at the end of the shift, I walk out of my classroom (locking it behind me), through a door at the end of the hall (locking it behind me), and then out of my building (locking it behind me). I wait by an enormous, heavy door with a bulletproof window in it, until a guard throws a switch that opens it. I return my keys to the guard through another bulletproof window, and then wait by a second heavy door, which only the guard can open (this type of entrance/exit is called a sally port; it prevents anyone from leaving the prison without direct supervisory acknowledgement of someone who is completely removed from the person leaving. It is sobering to read the rules that explicitly say no hostage-takers will every be allowed to leave the prison).

For the hours I am at work, things are calm, pleasant. The inmates I see all are very well-behaved. There is an almost child-like, elementary atmosphere to the exchanges with them, as they genuinely seek favor and regard from the staff at the school.

But the lessening of freedom inside is tangible. Like a blanket that settles on your heart, a dimming of the light. It is wearying.

And breathing the free air again is exhilerating. I am Theoden, sundered from Saruman's grip. I am a child, running through a field.


I often ponder the tension between the concepts of freedom and obedience. The difference between freedom and chaos. Perhaps on another day (or in a different month), I can ruminate on those distinctions.

Today, I am grateful that I am free. What a wonderful country, in a wonderful world, where we can exert ourselves with such freedom.

Monday, August 30, 2010

Lights Will Guide You Home



I love my family. I've made that comment before. It is a rich vein of talent, affection and information that I have been glad of repeatedly over the years.

One cousin-in-law has been the source of much music gold over the years. He recently sent us six (!) CDs full of goodness. 3 were his recent faves, and 3 were CDs full of love songs. Maybe he sent them near Valentine's Day? I imagined while listening to this trove of cultural goodness that it must be tricky to make recommendations like that. Don't want to be too hip for good pop stuff, but don't want to be too pedestrian. I think my friends are doing just fine.

So I'm playing through these six CDs. I drive to Towson for my part-time job with the Census 5 or 6 times a week, so it's been great to have some new sounds. On the first play-through, one number on love-song CD #2 caught my ear, Coldplay's "Fix You"; I had a strong, nearly visceral negative reaction to it, based on the line from the chorus, "I will try to fix you".

I spend so much of my time talking to my kids, trying to reason, order, bully, beg, trick, persuade, guide them to do what I think is right. Trying to teach them how to know what's right on their own. When to turn away and make a different choice.

Kids pick hobbies that are expensive (or that they really aren't very good at), and then they get angry when they aren't having fun. You ever had a child come crying to you because a video game is too hard? Or they overreach, take on too much, and founder under the load. Too many AP classes, one too many extra-curricular activities.

Teaching someone how to not throw good money after bad is hard.

So that was what I was thinking when I heard the song the first time. I didn't want any of my children to get sucked into the vortex of trying to "fix" someone that was broken. Trying to make something work that just isn't.

But I stuck with the song and listened to it again, and realized it wasn't just about a boyfriend trying to fix his girlfriend. It speaks rather to the unwavering love than insists no matter how awful something has gone, I will keep trying. I believe it can be better.

I think I can help, and I want to try.

That is a message I can get behind.

So to my kids, who are off to school, off to adulthood, off to points unknown. . .

Be careful. You are precious, of infinite worth, and there are forces at work in the world who mean you harm.

But be brave. Try. If you fail, keep trying.

I will always love you, and will always be there to give you a hug when things go sideways.

And if things go really really wrong, come home. We will try again.

The Coldplay video of this song, linked below, can't be played, but you can click through to watch it at Youtube if you want.

When you try your best, but you don't succeed
When you get what you want, but not what you need
When you feel so tired, but you can't sleep
Stuck in reverse

And the tears come streaming down your face
When you lose something you can't replace
When you love someone, but it goes to waste
Could it be worse?

Lights will guide you home
And ignite your bones
And I will try to fix you

And high up above or down below
When you're too in love to let it go
But if you never try you'll never know
Just what you're worth

Tears stream down on your face
When you lose something you cannot replace

Tears stream down on your face
I promise you I will learn from my mistakes

Lights will guide you home
And ignite your bones
And I will try to fix you



And this is a silly. Chris Martin did a guest-spot on the show-within-a-show on "Extras".

"Plus, Gwyneth is makin' drumsticks."

*laughing*

Thursday, September 24, 2009

~Please Won't You Be . . . My Roommate.~


Things to do today;

  • Apply for medical assistance, since my insurance is going to vanish in 3 weeks
  • Help Dad get his wireless router working again
  • Call the Maryland Court of Appeals and order letters of good standing for the job apps I am submitting everywhere
  • Come up with a killer metaphor to explain online friction between worldviews

Years ago, I read a life-changing, worldview-shaping editorial. And dang it, I've never been able to find it again, so I can't reference the author or publication. If anyone recognizes, leave a comment!

The author (a woman) made the bold statement that all men fall into one of two categories; they are either boyfriends, or they are husbands. I'm not proposing to recreate this amazing hypothesis, though after two decades of adult experience (and far too many experiences with dysfunctional relationships), I will assert that it is very true.

The polar, binary formulation of the above editorial is appealing. It forces us to decide which we are, to defend our behaviors, to self-reflect and categorize. There are so many of these dichotomies in life, not all of them are real; I believe in gradations. Continuums of behavior. But sometimes, the either/or really is true.

Are you a "Type A" personality?
Beatles or Elvis?
Ontime or late?
Star Wars or Star Trek?*
Football or Baseball?
Dem or Repub?

So I propose another binary; I've been trying to formalize my concept of online interaction. Blog-reading, facebook-friending, message-board-messaging. We encounter folks. Leave footprints. You ever had an awkward encounter with someone else online? Maybe they were too aggressive? Or too combative? Too distant?

Some people interact with their online-folks like they were real-life neighbors. See, there's a boundary between neighbors, even if they are apartment building neighbors. Walls divide us. Everything we do outside the home is open for review, everyone knows that. It's embarrassing if you have a fight outside, because everyone hears it. Of course some people really don't care who hears or sees everything.

If that's the metaphor, than we presume everything that we do on online is going to be seen, talked about considered. I mean, maybe we are boring neighbors, and no one will notice us. But folks who are online like that, they use nicknames for their kids (or even themselves sometimes) so no one can learn things they shouldn't know). They are very circumspect about what they say and do online in the first place; you'll never get an online neighbor to admit that they watch trashy soap operas.

But some people treat their circle of online-folks like they are family. Living in the same house. There is a presumed, very real intimacy. They stick to people that they really know, aren't trying to recruit new folks. Their online life is often an extension of their "real" life.

When people from the first group encounter people from the second group, things get weird.

Person A, "Hey, new-friend, great house, cool furniture, love how you've decorated the place!"
Person B, "Dude. Why are you looking through my underwear drawer?"

How do you consider your online friends? I freely declare myself to be in the neighbor camp. When I shared the depressing news that I lost my job on Monday, half of the recommendations and job suggestions came from people I've never even met in real life. They are friends, neighbor-friends. My online life is an open book.

But I can understand that this flavor of presumed friendship can be freaky to someone that spends most of their online footprint staying in touch with family and real life friends.

How do we bridge that gap? I guess just be aware that where cultures collide, there will be friction. If you are a neighbor, don't go barging into a roommate's "house" and trash the place.

If you are a roommate, and a neighbor shows up with a plate of cookies, just try to understand that in neighbor culture, it's a gesture of friendship and welcome.

I believe in the capacity of the human heart to bridge gaps. To be friends. Friendship is an act of imagination and an exercise of will. What kind of friend are you? How do you bridge that gap?

* Note: every true SF fan, every true fan of good art knows there is only one true answer to that question; Firefly

Sunday, April 05, 2009

Politics Can Be Tricky



One of my old blog posts has attracted some recent action. Go catch up on the comments, I'm responding here.

An old friend asked me if I felt differently about Obama now that he was in office. He also questioned if I still felt it was petty for Republicans to have attacked Obama based on his old statements and acquaintances. Actually, he asked a lot more than that, but that was the first bit, the part I began responding to, before the comments thread became an entity unto itself.

I do still feel it is a bad strategy, when running for office, to focus too vigorously on an opponent's flaws. I trust my own capacity to winnow out the wheat from the chaff in a politician's comments, and find it contentious and patronizing when someone tries to force-feed me all the reasons I'm stupid/bad/wrong/ignorant for not being outraged.

But that's what I want to hear; it is obvious from election success stories that lots of the electorate (*cough* that's you guys) responds to negativity.


But if you keep reading down the conversation, it morphed from that initial query. Don and my brother-in-law, Roger, started talking earnestly about the issues. Don spoke strongly. Roger responded. They seem to respect each other, mostly. But the conversation drifted into contention. Don is clearly well-read on things political, which I respect and am grateful for; I don't have time to be well-read, so I rely on the well-reading of others to get by.

But I hate conflict. Normally, when things are contentious online, I just tune out. Life's too short to be so angry. But it's my post. I feel responsible, like I need to say something. But I have been avoiding it. Every time I've wanted to blog for a month, I've felt stuck, like I need to respond to my old blog-post comments first.


I just didn't really see anywhere in the comments that I could contribute to the dialog. I believe any conversation, no matter how combative the individual opinions, can remain a civil discourse. It requires the participants to inhabit a collective fiction; the notion that any person might be right. This allows people to speak, to pose, to conjecture, and feel their words will be treated with respect. That's why, right there at the beginning of my post last year, I referenced an article that talked about polarization.

I'm tired of polarization. I think it's been bad for the country the last 8 years, and wish better for the country now. I think the Republicans lost this time because they relied too heavily on polarizing strategy, and I hope they learned their lesson.



It's great, awesome, participatory, responsible, adult behavior to take a stand. Be a partisan, they are the people that make things happen. I like that part of what Don and Roger were doing. But if you drift into demagoguery, then you cease to be persuasive to me becoming strident, fanatic. You are preaching to the choir, and chasing away anyone who doesn't already agree with you. It is off-putting to us moderates, to be accused of devilry because we are not offended enough.

So, a response. I decided to cherry-pick a few questions and comments, and respond to those.

I am quite sure that Obama is open to influences, but I am equally sure that those influences are in no way "divine".
Establishing an opening position that "Obama is evil" means there is no discussing left to be done. And I don't believe he is evil. I allow it is possible that he is, and acknowledge that certainly some his actions are, but that's not the same thing. He, like every elected official, merits our continued attention and input. I think we are citizens of the country, that the election was legal, and that we have a duty to pray for our leaders and obey the laws that are in effect.

Our freedom is being destroyed by the idea that it is moral for the government to forcibly confiscate the property of some, only to give it to others. If it would be immoral for you to do it, it is immoral for government to do it.
...fundamentally government is force. What gives you (or anyone else) the right to force me (or anyone else) to give my means to meet the ends that you view as worthwhile? The answer is that the concept is immoral to the core and no good thing can ever come of it.
I disagree that the taking/giving of property by the government is immoral. The government needs to be able to take property for the common good or safety of the public, and I think the fifth amendment (hey other readers, did you know the fifth was about more than the right to refuse to answer questions that might incriminate?) is sufficient protection of individual liberty and property rights. This is not a response to your opinions on welfare and the welfare state, just your categorical denouncement of government takings.

Do you support Obama’s efforts to foment thoughtless anger at said bonuses into a further power grab that would see the compensation for all executives be subject to congressional "oversight"?
Do you support the kind of power grab represented by Obama and his Democrat super-majority by demonizing and retroactively punishing--via the tax code--people for accepting bonuses they are contractually entitled to? Threatening to release names and addresses of those involved if they don't pay the money back... I will add that Obama and the Democrats knew well ahead of time that this was going to happen, and in fact included a clause that specifically allowed it to happen in the "Stimulus bill". One can only conclude that they meant for this to happen so that they could gin up misplaced anger. This whole episode is one of the most despicable acts of political theater and thuggery I've ever had the misfortune of witnessing.
I disagree with your premise that Obama is fomenting thoughtless anger. Well, maybe he is. I think we (the people) are pretty dumb, and are easily led off-track. I have a hard time blaming the media, because I think they give the people what the people want, or at least what the people will buy. Those little top ten most popular lists on news sites are pretty informative that way.



And as far as "One can only conclude", one of the most important things I learned in law school; when someone says "obviously", they have just highlighted the greatest weakness in their argument. There are a million conclusions someone could reach, based on the predicates you proposed. Maybe they knew this would happen, and hoped we wouldn't notice. Maybe they knew this would happen, didn't care, but recognized the political inexpediency of ignoring it once it gained traction.

Do you support the effort to grant newspapers (a Democrat house organ in the main) tax exempt status?
I have not heard of any effort to grant this status. I think that's pretty bold to label newspapers a Democrat house organ; I think news outfits in general are liberal, because it reflects the liberal leanings of the kinds of people who go into journalism.

Do you support your tax dollars being used to fund the world-wide murder of innocents under the guise of foreign aid?
I'm opposed to abortion. But I recognize that some people who defend it do so because they don't think it's murder, but a legitimate medical procedure. Hostile abridgement of your opponents' stances is rude and bad form. It makes me mad when people ask me why I am homo-phobic (because I oppose same-sex marriage). I don't think it is unfair to grant the same civility to others that I seek for myself.

Having said that, policy on funding abortion-related activity has sawed back and forth every time a different party has come into power for decades. I cannot generate anger at Obama for doing exactly what he said he was going to do, I can only continue to seek to influence the policy.

Do you support the registration and confiscation of firearms?
Do you support the back-door gun control measures aimed at making ammunition and guns prohibitively expensive to manufacture?
I think the world would be a better place with no guns. I think the mentality that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government is destructive. But I think the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to have guns, but also allows the government the means to regulate them.

Are you bothered by Obama’s appointment of numerous tax-cheats, and dozens of lobbyists to his cabinet after running on a promise to NOT have lobbyists in his cabinet?
No. The tax-cheat thing, those mistakes/cheats have been made by dozens, if not hundreds, of appointed personnel over the last handful of elections. And as far as the lobbyist thing, I think lobbyists have too much influence in Washington, but the cure for that is disclosure. I would rather know the lobbyist history of a well-informed appointee, than have an executive office filled with uninformed rubes with no previous political experience.

Do you support giving nearly a billion dollars away to a terrorist group (Hamas) who has sworn the destruction of both the Great and Little Satan’s (the U.S. and Israel)?
I feel about the same as I do about the funding received by the descendants of the IRA; cautious, but hopeful. Hamas may be a terrorist organization, but that money was ostensibly for refugees. If it gets mis-directed, then hopefully it will be a lesson learned.

Do you support eliminating tax deductions for charitable donations? This goes back to your earlier assertion that the government wouldn’t have to do so much if there were more charity. This is the government intentionally working to dry up charitable donations so that they will have more of an excuse to intrude where they shouldn’t be in the first place.

I'm opposed to eliminating tax deductions for charitable contributions. But I've heard the political rhetoric every legislative season, and how every group gets threatened. I don't think anyone in office actually believes that such a notion would succeed, therefore, I don't believe they have any intentions attached to the success of such a notion.

Do you really believe that our problems with too much debt and spending can be fixed by running up more debt in three years than has been incurred in the ENTIRE history of the country?

Now here, I don't know. It seems counter-intuitive to spend our way out of debt, but all the economists I hear talking keep referring to Keynes, and FDR, and the stimulative effect of government spending. I'd be happy to read anything to the contrary.

So. I think Obama is doing a good job at some of the important things a President is supposed to do. He is a statesman, he is confident, smart, and seems (to me) to be genuine in his efforts to be bi-partisan. It doesn't worry me that he is President any more than it did when Clinton was.

I think that our country is too willing to subsidize bad behavior, too eager to bailout and extend welfare. I think our country is beset by well-meaning people who would destroy the concept of family in pursuit of liberty for all. I think the ranks of those well-meaning people are shot through with genuine I think one of the most effective things I can do is to be informed, and to participate in political processes. I think I have a duty to teach my children how to be intuitive but discerning in their politics, and to remain discerning in what influences they allow to affect their opinions, which is part of what I hope this blog entry is.

Look for primary source material. Be open-minded, but prove all things. Be open to persuasion, and when offered a chance to be persuasive, be civil.

Saturday, February 21, 2009

Room Enough to Receive It



I learned something new today about my oldest son; his wrestling teammates call him "Stewie". This delights me. I had a nearly existential moment, realizing while he was wrestling that the crowd was calling his name, encouraging him. I had heard his teammates, that made sense, but it was a new thing to see adults, men and women my age and older, other team-parents, calling out to him, cheering him on.

Two weeks ago, I was late leaving with him for an early appointment. We hurried up the road. Coming around a corner, nearly half-way there, I swerved slightly (well, I thought it was slightly), whereupon the car fishtailed off of the road and hit a telephone pole.

It happened very quickly, so I am sure there are details that I missed, but there are certain memories that are bright and clear in my mind. My son's grunt of "Oh!" when the car leaped into the air after hitting a slight bump as we left the road.

The slow sliding across the grass towards the telephone pole. I thought we were going to miss it, go by it, but . . .

Nope.

The smoky chemical smell of the airbag detonation (which I didn't "see"; I wonder if the noise made me blink instinctively).

In the two weeks since, I keep having these moments of terrifying clarity. Images of my son, hurt in the accident. We weren't hurt, really; I skinned my shin pretty good on the dashboard. My son was sore, but thinks it was from the wrestling match the night previous. My nose hurt, I presume from the airbag pushing on my glasses.

My Dad came and got us. I've had car wrecks before, but before this one, I was always alone. This one has been much harder to shake off.



Since then, I find myself caught up short. Gasping nearly. You know, when you wake up from a horrible nightmare, and just draw a sharp breath? Like that.

Visions of how my son could have been hurt. While he is wrestling, the lurid image of how harm from the accident might have forced him to forfeit the rest of the season. When he got his A.C.T. scores back (34 composite), I feel the faint echo of worrying wonder, "What if we had spent that morning in the hospital instead?"

My life didn't flash before my eyes, but his has been...

The following Monday morning, we were running late to seminary, thus putting me at risk for missing my train. As we gathered for our mini-family prayer, I told the boys to stop rushing.

"Saturday, I almost killed us racing to be somewhere. I'm done racing, I'll just catch the later train."

He turns 17 in two weeks. Hearing the going-on-his-mission-in-a-month speaker today in church made my mind flash forward to my son, in two years. I am so glad I didn't hurt him in that stupid accident, feel so guilty for almost harming him. Be careful with your loved ones this week. They are our treasures.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Tam Sawyer Hucksterism or Entrepreneurial Spirit?

This is my middle daughter, industriously raking leaves.

No, seriously. Yesterday was our yard-work day, we wanted the leaves up so the City could take them all away today.

The Troop 922 Spaghetti Supper fundraiser was a week ago. With two sons in Scouts, I have a keen interest in the raising of funds; so this supper, the only fundraising the Troop does, lasts us all year. We have a service auction that raises about as much as the ticket sales. It was with great surprise I saw that my daughter had bid on one of the Scouts!

She spent her own money to secure the services of a hard-working young man for "leaf raking".

Genius! My little girl has learned how to sub-contract. She confided in me that her plan was to sit on the rocking chair, drink hot chocolate, and watch.

Our "guest worker" set a good pace. That's him in the blue hoody, helping our middle son.



The Landbecks present and "working" needed occasional goads to stay on task. You can hide, but you can't run!



Here, our oldest son used a leaf vacuum to get some of the leaves off of the bushes out front. As he empties the bag, you see our pile of full bags growing in the background.



Final tally was nearly 50 bags! I had no idea it would take so many. 3 hours of (mostly) hard work.

I'm just totally impressed with my daughter's entrepreneurial spirit. Good for her!

Sunday, October 26, 2008

The Question Is Not IF, but HOW?



Indulge me. Mrs. L talked about this Family Home Evening, but I wanted to present my thoughts on it as well.

Below are 10 groups of five words each. No, these aren't Yoda quotes.

It is possible with each group to form at least one four-word sentence. Look at the words quickly, and then mentally juggle them around until you have a sentence that makes sense, with one word left over, right? So, go ahead, take a minute, and form a sentence with each of the 10 groups.

  • Him was worried she forever
  • From are Florida oranges temperature
  • Ball the throw toss slowly
  • Shoes give replace old the
  • He observeses occasionally people watches
  • Be will sweat lonely they
  • Sky the seamless gray is
  • Should now withdraw forgetful we
  • Us bingo sing play let
  • Sunlight makes temperature wrinkle raisins

Wasn't that fun? Do you feel all mentally nimble now for having exercised your beautiful mind?

Except, whatever you think you feel after doing it, your behavior would demonstrate something very specific; you would act older. That sentence-construction activity hides what Malcolm Gladwell in "BLINK: The Power of Thinking without Thinking" calls a priming exercise. Peppered throughout are words alluding to old age. "Gray". "Florida". "Old". "Forgetful". Don't be irritated at the duplicity, there is a purpose to such an exercise. It helps measure what kind of effect we can exert on our unconcious selves.

Consider a study done with this kind of priming exercise. Subjects were brought, one at a time, into a room with a similar list of five-word groupings, and asked to time themselves creating four-word sentences. One half were "primed" with words with aggressive connotations, the other half with patient ones. They were instructed, when they'd completed the sentence exercise, to leave the room, go down the hall, and tell the professor they were finished.

Now here was the actual measurement. The professor was in his office, but a conspirator was in the doorway, talking to the professor, blocking access. What was actually measured was how long the subject would take before interrupting the conversation. It was thought the difference would be minimal; they joked of making sure their timers could distinguish into the hundredths of a second. After, all, it was New York City, how different could the measurements be?

The results were staggering; 82% of the volunteers who had been primed to be polite NEVER interrupted at all.

If you tend, like me, to be dubious, it might be tempting to write off such a test result as an aberration. Or perhaps you are suffering from sympathy irritation? Rassin frassin psychologists, always trying to trick those poor undergrad students. Who wants to be brainwashed into behaving politely anyway?

Fair concerns, but if that's what you are thinking, you are missing the point. Look at how profoundly behavior is influenced ... by what is essentially background noise. The stuff we behold and consume, with our eyes and ears. Do you understand that environment can have such a polarizing effect on how we act?

Another experiment in the book takes two groups of students to answer 42 demanding questions from Trivial Pursuit. Half were asked to take 5 minutes to think beforehand about what it would mean to be a professor and write down everything that came to mind. Those students got 55.6% of questions right. The other half of the studnest were asked to first sit and think about soccer hooligans. They ended up with 42.6% right.

That's a 13% difference, with no other factor involved except their primed thoughts.

So, the question I had while reading this, was how do I prime my thoughts? I feel fantasically ahead of the game, of course, because Mrs. L does such a fantastic job of priming our home for me. I am surrounded by uplifting words.



I know that puts me at great advantage, but I am sure that is not enough. Our thoughts, the music we listen to, the books we read. All prime us for something. If you knew that taking five minutes before a test to ponder the ideal academic, if that five minutes meant you were going to do 5, 10, or 15% better on the test, what kind of an idiot wouldn't take that opportunity? How different would you be if you took five minutes to ponder the ideal parent, the ideal sibling, before getting off of your knees after morning prayer?

How differently would you treat the people you encounter during your daily living if you primed yourself with the scriptures in the morning?

We live in a time of unparralled freedom, our choices bordering on the infinite. How are you using that great freedom to control your environment?

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Motorcycles and Freedom

My father has three brothers. Had. His youngest, my Uncle Michael, was killed about 17 years ago. He was 33.

I work as a policy analyst for a State agency. For four months every year, a big portion of my job is reviewing proposals for new laws, made by the legislature while they are in session. So every time some elected official starts humming, “I am a Bill, I am only a Bill…” and submits something in a committee, dozens, sometimes hundreds, of staffers like me have to read it. We forecast the effect, if any, the changes proposed by the law-to-be would have on how our agency functions. Most of the proposals have no affect whatsoever.

But I am amused, every year, to consider the blizzard of effort that must be expended on every. Single. One. Of these proposals. First, an email is sent to me, and all of the people in positions like mine in all of the departments in my agency, that lists all of the proposals made thus far. The legislative services staff for my agency tries to flag those proposals that would be of particular concern to each department, and solicits our attention as to the proposal’s impact.

So, last year, when a Delegate (or one of his constituents) was offended by the rubber testicles someone suspended from the back of a pick-up truck, he proposed a law that would prohibit the display of anatomically correct body parts. Seriously. And we had to read it and comment on how expensive it would be to enforce. 2007 HB 1163. Go look it up.

Anyway, a few times during the legislative session, all of the staff legislative analysts meet together and spend as long as it takes (these are called “marathon sessions” for a reason) to go through every last bill, making sure the Legislative Services office knows which bills concern us. If there ARE issues of note, (whether the issues lead us to recommend support or), someone is directed to draft a position paper, summarizing the Agency’s or Department’s concerns and interests. If the issues addressed are substantial enough, someone will be tasked with monitoring the bill’s progress, and personally appearing at any hearings where it is discussed, to testify in favor or against it.

There is one this year that reduces the requirement that all motorcyclists wear helmets. It would allow those motorcyclists who have remained accident-free for a set number of years, to not wear helmets anymore. Being allowed to (or being barred from) ride helmet-free is a great big huge deal to motorcyclists. Bikers in Maryland are all required to wear helmets since the first of October, 1991. It is unfortunate that I know that date.

Anyway, so maybe that’s pretty friendly, you know, to let the safe bikers have the option? The fact that they’ve never wrecked, might mean there’s a better chance they won’t wreck in the future. But public safety policy aside, it’s grossly impractical; how is a police officer supposed to tell by looking at a motorcyclist whether or a not a helmetless rider meets the standard? We get a lot of laws like that, proposing some relief or change that might sound attractive (even if sometimes it only sounds good to single legislator, or a legislator’s single constituent), but would be either impossible or horrendously expensive to implement.

So, back to the marathon; the motorcycle helmet law provoked some jokes.

We should amend the proposal, so that if a motorcyclist gets killed without a helmet, they are automatically an organ donor. See, that’s funny, because when someone gets killed on a motorcycle without wearing a helmet, you know, it’s usually from the head trauma, so there are lots of perfectly good organs left over. So yeah, motorcyclists are just donors-on-wheels, right?

There are profound experiences that come to us over and over. We fall in love with our spouse again, mourn the loss of a parent again, cry at someone’s graveside long after, even decades after their funeral. Every time I hug one of my kids, I feel the kinesthetic echo of when the nurse first handed me the infant, wrapped in a hospital blanket, years and years ago. Strong emotional experiences ripple out over time caressing us over and over again with their brushing-by. Like a rock dropped in a calm lake, the waves move away, bounce, return, creating patterns of interference and reinforcement.

When the motorcycle helmet joke was uttered, I remembered everything that ever happened with my Uncle Mike, concentrated and flashing by in heartbeat.

He was . . . I don’t know, I guess maybe the black sheep. He seemed kind of a free spirit, kind of a ne’er-do-well.

Uncle Mike smiling at me (I'm the infant, hee)He was not many years older than me, closer as a peer than distant as an adult. So I never had a clear perspective of how self-destructive his behavior was. His nonchalance looked cool to me. But admittedly, I couldn’t conceive its consequence, how his marriage failed, his life faltered, stalled. When I was in High School, he worked, sort of, as a contractor for the cable company. I know at some point before that he had been in the army (I got his hand-me-down olive army jacket, which I wore when I walked our dog).

I remember his being AWOL for a while when I was much younger. He left Fort Carson, Colorado, and basically vanished. His car was found a few weeks after he disappeared, out in the desert of New Mexico, all shot up. There were whispers of a drug deal maybe going bad, him being on the lam perhaps. He re-surfaced months later, on the other side of the country, working a shrimp boat in New Orleans. Now I chuckle, imagining him swinging shrimp nets for the Bubba Gump Company.

Uncle Mike always seemed to be just a few steps away from having some kind of exotic adventure. But he never seemed to move much, never took those steps. A lifetime of potential energy. A match never struck, never lit.

He drifted in and out. Was in some family photos, and not others. He was mythic to me. Seemed taller than everyone else. Not around enough to become any kind of a hero-figure, but around. When I was a teenager, old enough to drive by myself, I bumped into him one time at a 7-11, him leaving as I arrived. He was driving some kind of souped-up muscle car I hadn’t seen him in before. Knowing that he didn’t live the lifestyle of the idle rich (a car like that had to be worked on for years, or bought outright; Mike didn’t do long-term souping-up of things, and he couldn’t afford to be buying such indulgences), I asked my Dad what had happened. Apparently, Uncle Mike got hit by a car while riding his motorcycle (breaking his wrists. Plural), an injury case Dad helped settle. Mike blew the settlement buying a street rod. Cool. Not responsible, like I’ve said, but cool. You’d think having experienced such a wreck once, he’d have learned. But it was hallmark of Uncle Mike’s life; learning from experience seemed to be something he never quite got the hang of.

He very obviously was comfortable with his recreational drug use. I remember a t-shirt he had with an enormous graphic on the front with a prescription for Quaaludes on it; I asked my Mom how to pronounce it.

Heh, Mom is so imperturbable. “Quay-loods.” Even said matter-of-factly, it still amuses me to remember her answering that question.

Uncle Michael was killed after being hit while riding his motorcycle helmetless, when a car turned left in front of him. He went through the car’s windshield, suffering a basal skull fracture, and not much else by way of hurt. Maryland had just that year passed a law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets, but it didn’t go into effect until a few months after Mike’s wreck. He apparently looked just fine; it must have been awful to have him so young, so terminally hurt, and still appearing to be so ready to roll out of bed, ready for the next thing.

But that kind of injury, he was dead, it was just a matter of how soon. He was without a spouse, so his brother, my Father, acted as his guardian, making the decision to turn off the machines and allow his organs to go to donors. His liver had to go to someone who had Hepatitis–C (this diagnosis is another piece in the mountain of evidence that he hadn’t really spent his life very responsibly). He was one of the first donors to have a Hep-positive organ donated that way, it was a new program in 1991.

I remember playing pool with him at a family dinner. He was so tall, and I wanted him to think I was cool. I was mean to my sister, goaded by my desire to seem tough. Something I am sorry about now.

The 70s were just too awesome.  Mike in the army uniform, me standing if front of my Dad, Grandpa, Steve, and Chris in front of his Dad Ron.  The four brothers.I remember going to his wedding. Actually, I’ve seen the pictures, so maybe I am just remembering the pictures. He had his dress army uniform on. My Dad had the most excellent moustache, I was wearing a dark blue suit and a spectacle of an orange and blue shirt. I’ll bet it was polyester...

Mike’s marriage didn’t last. He had one daughter, and his ex-wife left for California, taking Audrey with her.

When Mike died, I was young, married with small children, debts, going to school thousands of miles away. I couldn’t afford to come back home to the funeral. I should have made the effort anyway. Mike lived his life with so little affixing him to other people, to places. That’s what it means to be responsible, doesn’t it? To do things anticipating the consequence, the permanent effects? I look back at Mike, and it seems so obvious to me now that nothing he did was ever calculated to be lasting; he just did whatever he felt like doing next.

>whoosh< It all went through my head with the wise-crack about helmetless motorcyclists.

He was 33 when he died, a few weeks shy of his 34th birthday. That’s eight years younger than I am now. He was ten years older than me, but that was 17 years ago; I have lapped him, out-lived him and then some. How have I done with my years of advantage?

Now I am a Dad, an Uncle myself. It delights me to think that my kids have their own Uncle Michael (a fact that makes my youngest son wrinkle his brow in thought, and then laugh).

The bill I told you about, the helmet one? It never made it out of committee. The MVA has a strong fiscal argument based the impracticality of enforcement. But MVA is keeping that paper, for the next time another brilliant legislator decides to propose it again.

It occurs to me, thinking about Mike, that we learn things in one of two ways. We certainly learn by direct experience. Experience is, as they say, the great teacher. The enticement of wantonness, the lure of the exotic; what resonates in our heart is the unknown. The same thing that makes them attractive is what makes them dangerous; we cannot know what will happen, so we either avoid them (which is safe, though boring) or we pursue them (which is thrilling, if hazardous).

Why is that so few of us spend those precious extra seconds to flip through the card catalog of our memory and think about *other* people who faced those choices, and then forecast the results in terms of ourselves? You know; vicariously? Experience I can glean from looking at the choices someone else made is just as educational as the experience I can get by trying the same experiment. Some experiments yield consequences, that are just so . . .

Permanent.

Yes, sometimes it’s boring to live a regular predictable life instead of one of unbridled freedom and chaos. Do free, unbridled, chaotic people bounce grandchildren on their knees? Perhaps, some of them survive, that’s just statistics; there will always be someone who survives the stupidest of chances. So that's the thing I guess. All of us have an economist that lives in our hearts that weighs the possibility of catastrophe before every choice.

Be sure you haven't gagged yours in the pursuit of variety.