20 years

My mother-in-law has 6 friends that have met every year for the last 20 years. She is 62 and the oldest in the group. There is a 10 year difference between Margarette and the youngest. They always meet on the last weekend in April, so she missed for our wedding and she missed one other time to go hiking with a different friend and she took all kinds of flack for that decision. Another member missed once while she lived in the Philippines with her military husband. None of the others have missed, even when two, who are sisters-in-law, weren't speaking to each other over some family issue. They used to arrive on a Friday and depart on a Sunday, but now some of them will arrive on the Thursday. Four of them live in Charleston, SC, so those four always drive together. At the beginning they all went to the same church in Charleston and this started when the military one was about to move away. It was like a going-away party weekend for her. Now wherever they meet, it is within driving distance of Charleston. They wish they had suspended that rule and come to SA for our wedding. At one point in the early days they left 22 children and infants at home while they went off for their weekend. (Patrick is the oldest of 4 and the other families are large-ish also). They take minutes and keep them in a binder. Minutes from a few of the early years have been lost, but they love looking over the old ones that remain as they are generally hilarious.

I was wondering if we could try something like this for the high school crowd. It is probably impractical to do it every year and we could bring families if we wanted, as some of the spouses enjoy the group as much as the Mac folks. I like the part about the same weekend every time so people know way in advance to keep that weekend open if possible. Something to think about. Suggestions welcome.

So who's Ron Paul?

I was watching a TiVo'd Real Time with Bill Maher last night and remained suprised the entire show. I'd never before seen PJ O'Rourke on television (only knew of him thru radio or print) and I was expecting the Jennifer Lopez Ben Affleck to show up as I didn't know there was any other version of him. He can apparently string three words together and seems to know at least more than Bush. Not a high threshold, but again, suprising. Then a Texas Republican was supposed to round out the show. I always expect Alfred E. Neuman or Yosemite Sam with that kind of set up. Then Ron Paul walked on stage. He was well spoken, apparently has a genuine sense of humor, seemingly reads actual books, and I don't believe he invoked God even once. And lest I offend, I don't personally mind when God is invoked IF somethng of political and intellectual substance has come before the invoking. I'm sorry to say the conversations usually begin and end with God alone and almost always smack of stupidity AND sanctimony. So what am I missing? Because if I'm voting based soley on what has been said publicly (that I've heard), I'll be gobsmacked, but I think I might currently be a Texas Republican. I don't know about all of you, but right now Smaller Gub'mnt and non-interventionist policies seem like a REALLY good idea. And yeah...I know, I know... Fool me once... I believe shrub ran on the same things, but I think Paul actually knows what the words mean. Even when they're strung together like that.

It's Not WHAT You Say, It's HOW You Say It

It's still early in the race for the White House for 2008, but so far, I am seeing no signs that Democrats have learned the biggest lesson from the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. While Democrats have been presenting nuanced platforms with shades of gray to address complicated issues that the U.S. government should be tackling, Republicans in general and George W. Bush in particular have used buzzwords to appeal to the baser instincts of the voting public. While Democrats are trying to use logic to appeal to voters' brains, Republicans are using wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage to pull on voters' heart strings or hit them in the gut. I think 2000 and 2004 prove that, at least in a presidential election, voters use the area below the neck rather than their heads to choose a president. That kind of pattern can benefit either party, because Bill Clinton used the same kind of approach to win his two terms in office.
A lot of Democrats are all abuzz at the Barack Obama candidacy, and his eat-your-spinach approach to campaigning may appeal to hardcore Democrats who are tired of being hit over the head with Republican talking points, but telling voting constituencies that they need to swallow some foul-tasting medicine to get the country back on track is no way to win the popular vote. It may be the truth, but it's not going to get you into the Oval Office.
They need to use some of that buzzword trickery that Republicans have used (like turning the Estate Tax into a Death Tax) to appeal to voters' hearts, not their minds. The problem with that approach is that the country's problems (and the world's for that matter) are too complicated to reduce a policy to one or two catchphrases, so you are essentially diluting or twisting your message just to be heard by more people. Not to mention selling your soul to the political Devil.
Bush figured out how to speak to people's hearts. Clinton not only spoke to people's hearts, but also managed to spoon-feed a few ideas into their brains at the same time.
Is there anybody in either party that has the ability to speak to your heart?

Jimmie's Ship

Here is Jimmie's ship as I mentioned in an earlier post as the Navy fleet moved into the waters off Iran. Jimmie's ship is the U.S.S. Bonhomme Richard and is the ship in the center of the formation with the number "6" on the side.