Book Review: SuperFreakonomics

SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance
By Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner

This book is a follow-up to the insanely popular Freakonomics that came out six or so years ago.  I read it while in D.C. and thought it was one of the best books I had ever read.  I still do.  I'm pretty sure I saw one of the authors on "The Daily Show" one night and liked what he had to say, so I got the book.  The best part about it was that it was funny.  Laugh out loud, wet yourself funny.  The second best part was that they used original research to make very good points that were not necessarily obvious at first but that made complete logical sense once they broke them down.

To call it "economics" is somewhat of a misnomer in that its mainly statistics.  The authors are economists and they do use economic theory to drive the statistical analysis, but I liken it to being more similar to Damned Lies and Statistics and an economic tome.  I was, and still am, impressed with their ability to find great data sets.  Its essential in statistics that your data set be complete and as large as possible.  I like that they discuss any limitations of their data sets upfront.  They do not try to manipulate the numbers to show something, because ultimately they have no agenda but to entertain.  And these guys could spin any outcome to be hilarious and endlessly entertaining.

SuperFreakonomics draws on some of the topics from the first book and also goes off into completely new terrirory.  I can't say enough good things about these guys, their creativity and their (or their editors') ability to craft a book that has excellent style and is very readable.  Just like with the first book, once I started reading it I couldn't put it down.  I hope these guys keep writing and exploring new issues for a long time, and I sincerely hope they do not wait another six years before coming out with another volume--even though I understand the immense amounts of work that go into creating the product they do, and with such quality.

I would recommend these books to almost anyone because they explain these complex concepts and conclusions in layman's terms.  I was no economic genius in school, and had the most difficult time of my life trying to survive my grad-level econ class, so I don't necessarily have much more background on the subject than any average reader.  They also teach economic concepts in such a practical and plain-English way that its hard not to learn basic economic principals from their work, even if you don't realize you are learning them at the time.  They search for answers to the most basic economic question, upon which all other economic questions rest: what motivates people?  They also do so without an agenda, as previously mentioned.  They are not trying to get the reader to believe one theory of this or that, or convince the reader on policies or economic issues.  They present their data, their conclusions, and let the reader decide what makes sense.  All they do is explain how we *should* think about those things.

I highly recommend both books, and they don't even need to be read in order.  Just grab one and start reading, and I promise you you will enjoy it.

Preds and Caps Postmortem, Second Round Picks

Well…by now everyone knows the Preds were eliminated in Game 6 Monday night and my Caps fell to Montreal last night in Game 7.  What a first round!  I’m now left without a team, and without birthday plans.  Although I think I’ve decided to settle for a Kindle and that trip to Knoxville for Kirby’s hockey tournament (and fun times with my Cheryl!).  It’s not La Tasca and a Finals game, but there’s always next year.  Or a Winter Classic!

I don’t really have much bad to say about either the Preds or the Caps.  The Preds played hard and kept themselves in the game as well as I could expect, but Rinne seemed a bit shaky and let in uncharacteristic softies.  The Caps sure weren’t lacking in offense, outshooting the Habs by 20-30 shots a game.  That was one epic collapse, though, to fall from being ahead 3-1 in the series to losing it at home in the final game.

So, that leads me to which teams to root for in the next round.  You can go ahead and cross off Chicago and Montreal for obvious reasons.  Next you can strike the Pens.  So, in the East that leaves me with Boston and Philly for the two series, and Philly all the way.  Mainly because they have so many former Preds players.  In the West I’m going to break tradition and go with the Sharks, simply because they didn’t harm us this year (except that one unbelievable game mid-season).  Detroit has gone to the Finals the last two years, winning in one, so I’m going to take a break from the soul-sucking trauma that is rooting for Detroit in the Playoffs.  And as much as I dislike Vancouver, Chicago’s out, so that leaves me with…Vancouver.  Honestly, all the worst possible choices shook out in the West and I could give a crap about who goes for the West now. 

In the end, I really don’t care who wins just as long as it’s not the Penguins again.  With any luck Sidney Crosby will get injured, as well.  That would be the only consolation for what turned out to be a miserable and depressing First Round.

Blast from the Past: Re-post!

This is part of a "blog" I posted on MySpace (what's that?) before the election in 2008.  I just thought I'd throw it out there.  I may not be the best at predicting things, but one thing I do understand is how our system of government typically works.  I could see clearly then the challenges a would-be President Obama would face in implementing his agenda, and as much as I hate to say it...I told you so.

Please, I am urging all of you to vote responsibly next month.

Everyone that knows me knows I was a die-hard Democrat. I cheered only two years ago when the party finally regained control of Congress. I thought the end of the insanity of the Bush years was near, and a great Democrat candidate for President would emerge and save us all.

That did not happen. They gave us Obama. I know many of you like him, like the idea of "change" and maybe even like the idea of our first black President. But please think a little harder about this decision before you go into the booth November 4.

First, you must know that the President does little to actually affect change, to create legislation. In fact, the President is forbidden by the Constitution to author any legislation. He can have ideas that are then supported by Congress and translated into legislation, but without the cooperation of Congress, the President is impotent in this regard. So, consider how your candidate will work with Congress. We do not know if the Democrats will retain their majority in Congress. With the outrage over the bailout, many Congresspeople might be sent home this cycle. Therefore be sure to consider how your candidate may work with a Congress of a different party...
...Please forget the charisma, the campaign promises, what they will "do for you." Forget the notion that the President has a magic wand and can make any significant change in just a few short years. Forget that you can make history by voting in the first black President. And think about what could happen if, IF IF you are wrong about Obama.

It's a Trap!

The Republicans screamed, "Its a trap!" when President Obama invited them to the Blair House a few months ago for the so-called Bipartisan Health Care Summit.  Turns out they didn't get what they wanted but it wasn't a trap.  In response to that stunning defeat, however, I think the Republicans have set their own trap in the hopes of adding some electoral insurance come November.

The public was significantly outraged by the passage of the health care bill, but the Republicans know that the American Public has a short attention span.  Relying on just that one issue would be dangerous.  So...the trap.  Financial reform wasn't going to do it.  The issue is too complex and passions too high for the average American to really grasp what the Obama Administration wants to do and why its bad.  No other issue was truly ripe for the picking.  Then the Republican Governor of Arizona signed into law this new immigration legislation aimed at apprehending illegal immigrants in the state.  BINGO!

Immigration had ceased to be the hot-button issue it was just a few years ago.  The majority of people want something done about it, but with everything else going on--particularly with the economy--the priority of the issue slipped significantly.  Democrats wanted something done because this was yet another abandoned campaign promise from President Obama and Latino voters turned out in record numbers to support him in 2008.  Republicans have come to accept that their position on immigration will not gain them the support of the majority of Latinos, and are okay with that.  Because the Republicans know that their position on immigration falls in line with the majority of Americans, particularly the middle-of-the road moderates and independents.  

Arizona passing this law was sure to set off a firestorm, even if it wasn't an election year.  Add in the resentment of a large number of Democratic voters that was lingering under the surfact at Obama's to-date refusal to address the issue and the clear opposition to the law that was bound to come from the Left and you've got yourself a TRAP!  Polling in Arizona shows that 70% of their residents support the bill, and national polling shows 60% support nationwide!  Currently 87% of Arizona voters say this legislation will have a major impact on how they vote in November, with 67% of those saying it will be in important influence on their vote FAVORING the law.

By setting off this debate almost overnight the Republicans have forced Obama to stop waffling and delaying action on immigration policy.  This law, to be clear, does NOT enact any new immigration policies.  It only authorizes state law enforcement to enforce the federal laws already on the books.  It does not create a new "offense" or punishment.  And anyone who thinks it will lead to more Hispanics being pulled over have obviously not lived in a major city and seen the races of the people commonly on the side of the road during traffic stops.  This law may be struck down by the federal courts.  It may not go anywhere.  But what is has done is forced Obama to come forward, very publicly and loudly, on immigration--going on the record with views that are in stark opposition to the majority of Americans.

Expect to see more of this to come.  The Republicans are not done.  They will continue to incite political battles that force Obama and the Democrats to come forward with their very Liberal policies in the months ahead, drawing sharp relief between their views and those of "mainstream Americans" and most importantly, the moderates and independents that were so crucial to his 2008 victory. 

201: F-U Comedy Central!

I was cleaning out the DVR Wednesday night and thought I accidentally deleted South Park "201." At work Thursday I went to the South Park Studios website to watch the episode. Of course, I got the message everyone else got--that it was not available and might not be, due to network censorship. At that point I just wanted to see what the big deal was. Further blips posted on Facebook that day made me so curious I almost couldn't stand it. Last night I was going through and catching up on recorded shows when I realized I didn't delete "201," I had deleted "200."



So, I started watching "201," and was getting really irritated because, like most of the episodes so far this season, it wasn't funny. I didn't really care about the Cartman's dad issue and I already knew they had bleeped every reference to Mohammad. Then we came to the end of the episode. Kyle's final monologue, plus other characters including Jesus, were completely bleeped. Minutes of dialogue censored. WHAT DID THEY SAY??!!


I looked around online this afternoon and there's no clear answer except that Mohammad WAS NOT mentioned by name in any of the final dialogue that was bleeped. What? Then what did they say?


I've always been a fan of South Park. It came out when I was in high school, and I've watched it ever since it first started. In the beginning it wasn't too much different than other "controversial" cartoons of the past, like The Simpsons, Beavis and Butthead, and even Ren and Stimpy. It was potty humor. It was base and crude, but it wasn't the worst thing out there. The plots were often silly, and the only point they made was we'll be as gross and juvinille as we want to be and you'll keep watching. Over the years it evolved into a very relevant, mature social satire--better than anything out there, IMO.


There was the episode where they didn't bleep the word shit, and kept a counter in the corner for how many times they said shit in the episode. They still did some silly, pointless episodes now and then, but the overarching theme seemed to really grow up. I went from liking South Park to loving South Park. Then there have been the other projects by Trey Parker and Matt Stone that are euqally as good--like "Team America." If you didn't laugh until you wet yourself watching that movie then you don't have a sense of humor, period. I'm sorry to anyone who didn't like that movie, but that makes you officially a tool.


I'm fully aware that the world has changed since South Park first went on air. And I'm not a supporter of pushing the boundaries just for the sake of pushing boundaries. I understand there's a difference between when they showed a cartoon image of Mohammad in the "Super Best Friends" episode years ago and now. But whatever they censored this time...it can't be any worse than anything that's been done on that show before. The episode where they killed Chef still remains, IMO, one of the most disgusting and crude episodes to date, even though Isaac Hayes brought that on himself and deserved the treatment the show gave him in that final episode. South Park has never held anything sacred, and has NEVER avoided controversial topics. I can't think of a single group that hasn't been harpooned on that show yet.


One so-called group threatened violence over "201." All threats of violence must be taken seriously, but Comedy Central really screwed themselves by choosing to air the episode anyway with all of the edits. Just don't air it if you are that afraid. That still wouldn't be right, but to bleep the entire final minutes of dialogue in a show that was clearly dependent on it--the rest of the plot was lame and pointless, and usually in those episodes the final speech by Kyle ties it all together--was the worst thing they could have done.


I'm beyond pissed at Comedy Central right now, and don't know the appropriate way to show my support of Matt and Trey but not Comedy Central. I would honestly not fault them if they never made another episode, or if they finally went to another network (which I've thought they needed to do for a while now anyway). I want to continue to watch South Park, but I'll be damned if I turn my TV to Comedy Central ever again. I also love "The Daily Show" and "Colbert Report" and don't want to penalize those shows for the actions of their obviously retarded network. It really puts me in an ethical bind here, and I don't like being put in those situations either. That just compounds the anger of the situation for me.


So, without any censorship here on my blog: FUCK YOU COMEDY CENTRAL! Until the network apologizes, agrees to let Matt and Trey stream the episode from their website and stops pulling this kind of PC bullshit, I will not watch Comedy Central. And if anyone didn't see the episode, I've still got it on the DVR. I've locked it so it can't be deleted on accident. Censor that!  Oh, and MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD!

Preds v. Hawks game #5 Wrap-Up

Like a bear prepares to hibernate for the winter, I'm now beginning the mental preparations for the end of the predators' hockey season, which is a mix of anger, frustration, sadness and withdrawal (boredom). I can usually stall the withdrawal symptoms with other playoff series, but this year I'm just not feeling the other games as much as in the past. Because my expectations were pretty low for the Preds post-season, the excitement of exceeding those expectations has led to an artifically inflated emotional high which is going to be accompanied by an equally inflated emotional crash.



If the Preds need to lose this series, I would actually appreciate them going ahead and doing that at home on Monday. You see, as bad of a letdown as it is its less hard when you are actually there. And I'd rather see that then have Chicago win out at home. Man, would that suck. One of the only consolations in Playoff hockey is when a team DOESN'T get to share excitement with their home crowds. And since we don't get the joy of having them win a series at home I don't feel bad for wanting to rob Chicago fans of the same joy. That is not to say that I THINK they will lose, I'm just saying that if they have to......


Of course I'd still like to see Nashville pull out the ultimate surprise, and give us a few more games yet. But out of all the ups and downs of this afternoon's game, the most important thing that was revealed is that Nashville can't close the deal. They have fought hard this entire series and been better than anyone expected they would be, but to give up a goal with 15 seconds left in the game? It wasn't pretty, but it was the Predators of the regular season.


The Preds found some offense, and Wilson can give the rest of the team some lessons on how to cover your man successfully. Still, the team has not grasped the concept of a 60 minute game all year, and nothing's changed in that regard apparently, despite early signs in the Playoffs to the contrary. The worst part is that if Chicago advances we've taught them that being the "anointed ones" doesn't mean you aren't going to have to work for it, and their chances of going all the way increase.


Dan Hamhuis would have best served his team to have stayed down on the ice. Regardless of how he felt, he should have let them take him off the ice on a stretcher. Then it would have been likely Hossa gets kicked out, and then Hossa isn't there to score the GWG. If the NHL isn't just full of bullshit about "hits from behind" then Hossa needs to be suspended, but I guarantee this is going to be a marquee example of star player on a sweetheart team that escapes punishment by virtue of Colin Campbell being the biggest dickhead on the face of the earth. Yeah, you heard that right. Osama bin Laden doesn't have anything on that massive waste of space. Can someone please get that man a dictionary, because its clear he doesn't know the definition of "consistency."

Preds v. Hawks Game #4 Wrap-Up

Again I was working so had to listen to the game on the radio.  I did see the odd bit here and there in the lobby, though.  The Preds seemed to come out strong, but just weren't able to get one past Niemi.  Klein made several more stupid mistakes--man, I can't stand that guy!  He makes me glad, for the first time, that's not my last name anymore, lest someone thing we're related!  Geez!  Arnott needs to step up his game, for sure, and they really have to watch the stupid penalties.  How in the hell can you NOT convert on an almost 2 minute long 5 on 3?  Oh yeah, you make it a 4 on 3 by taking a stupid penalty!

We surprised Chicago in Game #1.  They adjusted their game and took us to the cleaners in Game #2.  We adjusted out game and beat the crap out of them in Game #3.  They adjusted again...and well, you get my point.  If this pattern continues it looks good for the Preds, and if they can win tomorrow night I have no fear about how this series might end.  BUT...they have to win at least one more in the United Center which is no easy task.  Might as well take care of that tomorrow night.  Overall I think we have been much peskier than Chicago--or anyone else--thought we'd be.

Here's hoping the Caps wrap up their series tonight in DC!!!  I'm going to completely miss the game, so no wrap-up will be available, but best of luck to Ovechkin and the entire Caps team!!!

A Constitutional Quandary: Part Two

What measures, then, did our Constitution enact to protect our republic from the negative effects of faction?  First, the Founders created two houses of Congress—one elected according to population of the states and the other with two representatives no matter the state’s size.  Both houses of Congress were given the right to create their own rules and procedures, and only one (The House of Representatives) was given the power to tax.  However, both houses had to pass legislation with the exact same wording before it could be presented to the President to sign into law.  The Founders knew this would be a cumbersome process, but that was the point.  A slow-moving legislative machine was preferred, and it was thought that time and deliberation would weed out the majority (if not all) bad legislation.

Second, the powers of the federal government were divided into three co-equal branches.  Madison’s Federalist No. 51 explained.

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions…

…But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions.

The three branches of government were intended to be as separate from each other as possible, and were designed to fight against each other. People who believe today that our government is contentious and that nothing gets accomplished are missing the bigger point—that was the Founder’s intent, and I think they would be proud to watch the mess that is our legislative process. Without this infighting and fierce protection of the rights and powers of each branch, power would become too centralized and tyranny would begin to creep in.

Further, the powers of government were divided between the federal and state (and even further, local) levels: 

There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view.

First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.

Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority -- that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights.

The full text of Federalist No. 51 can be read here: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm

Even after all the hard work of constructing a Constitution that would be accepted by the New England states and the Southern states, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, something was still missing. The Bill of Rights were drafted to help secure ratification of the new Constitution, and went into effect in 1791.

A Constitutional Quandary: Part One

 This is the first in a multi-part blog series regarding the Constution and related political matters. I don't plan, at this time, to discuss the entirety of the Constitution or even a broad range of issues. There has been intense interest in Constitutionality as it relates to the Health Care Bill, and other Obama Administration plans, particularly since twenty states (to date) have filed suit against the Health Care Bill. I have seen and heard substantial debate on the issue and it turns out that the particular issues in question are ones I know a little bit about. You see, I wrote my Political Science Senior Thesis on court challenges surrounding medical marijuana. Turns out the same Constitutional questions surrounding that issue are the main issues surrounding the health care debate. I also had to write an Honors Program Senior Thesis, and to keep myself from going completely insane in my last year of college, I picked a tangentially related issue to write about.--Theodore Lowi's "intrest group liberalism" theory as it related to marijuana policy and the courts. So, I will be drawing from my previous research, which honestly, six years later I could use a refresher course on myself, and positing some thoughts on the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the 10th Amendment.

I also concentrated in both undergrad and graduate school on social policy, interest group theory (collective action), and rhetoric and social movements. I will write a seperate series on those issues as they relate to the "Tea Party Movement."

But before any substantitive discussion of the Constitution can take place, a little historical background is required. In my personal exerience I've found that a good majority of people do not know that the United States was not founded in its current configuration immediately following the Revolutionary War. This is a major failing of both our public school system and the university system because knowing about the time period between the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 when we were governed by the Articles of Confederation.

The Articles of Confederation was our first attempt at creating the great republican society we desired to become. Unfortunately they were a massive failure. Basically they gave too much power to the states, which meant that larger states had the upper hand against smaller states. Further, with a very limited and weak centralized government, our ability to engage in any kind of real commerce was greatly limited, as well as foreign policy. the biggest problem at the time was the inability of the central, or federal, government to tax and maintain an army. The Untied States had assumed a large amount of debt during the Revolutionary War and did not have the ability to repay it. It also did not have the funds to keep a standing army, and had to rely on disorganized state militias to basically volunteer. In an ear where hostilities between the different regions of the United States were raw and ripe, this was a challenge. Not to mention foreign powers that had their eyes on this new, weak and broke group of rebels and the massive amounts of land and resources we suddenly had available but were unable to defend.

The Constitutional Convention was convened in Philadelphia in 1787 to fix these problems. Two main groups had formed around ideas about how America should approach a new constitution. The Federalists supported a much stronger federal government, more similar to what we have today (although I think even they would be surprised at the power and reach of the modern federal government). The Anti-Federalists, later known as the republicans, believed that the federal government should ideally have less power than the states, but worst case equal. While some Federalists had an unspoken affinity for the monarchial form of government, they firmly believed that a democracy could have a strong federal government without becoming tyrannical. In fact, they believed it was necessary to keeping society free, by keeping society orderly.

Anti-Federalists believed that a strong federal government would not only quash the liberties of states, but of individuals as well. Feeling that the nature of man is such that it will always break into "factions," or groups gathered around common interests, a strong federal government presented a threat to the freedom of all people because the majority would have the ability to oppress the minority--just as had been done to the Colonies. they also thought there were no good ways to restrain the powers of the federal government to prevent this from happening without limiting liberties in different ways.

To a modern reader the ideas of the Anti-Federalists probably sound more "American" and "democratic," but the ideas of the Federalists probably make more practical sense, because that is closer to our modern system of government. Modern "factions" seem to be less concerned about government doing something, they just want the government to do what they want, and this is the exact fear the Founders had in mind when forming our government.

The Federalist Papers were phamphlets written and distributed by the Founders, advocating for or against particular provisions in the Constitution and for or against its ratification. They outline the major concerns of the time and give ample insight into the intent of the Founders, providing a great resource to supplement the rather short and concise document that is the Constitution.


Federalist Paper No. 10 written by James Madison describes the dangers of "faction:"


If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind....


...From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

The full text of the document can be read here: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

The threat of faction was very real at the time, just as it is today, and threatened to destroy the young union of the United States. It is not surprising that many Anti-Federalists were from Virginia, which as a large, wealthy slave-holding state with many sea ports was poised to become dominant, much to the dismay of the New Englanders.

***Note on terminology: when writing about historical political ideas and institutions it is important to recognize that some terms used do not have the same meaning as they do today. For example "republican" as used in this post does not mean Republican as in the current political party. Nor does "liberal" mean Liberal as defined my the modern political ideology most closely aligned with the Democratic Party. Further, "democratic" as used above simply means the form of government by which a majority vote determines law, not Democratic Party. Please take not of the differences in capitalization and be sure to understand the meanings of the words in the context, because many political debates I have engaged in over the years get caught up in matters of semantics when using the traditional, political theory terms versus modern definitions of the same, or similar, words.

Hockey Thoughts: Caps v. Habs Game #4 Wrap-Up

I just realized that I haven't had a political post yet, and the majority of the subjects here have been hockey-related.  Not to worry.  Hockey season will wind down soon and I'll have to find other things to talk about for a few months.

Anyway...I listened to the game tonight via the interwebs because I was still at work and Versus decided to run the Boston v. Buffalo game again, for some unexplained stupid reason.  I was starting to get frustrated because it seemed that either the Caps had fallen back again or Montreal had figured something out again.  Honestly, its really hard to tell when you are listening on the radio in the first place.  To make matters worse, whoever this radio guy was DID NOT CALL THE GAME.  He was a fountain of obscure statistics and hockey history, so much so that I expected him to tell me what color underwear the players were wearing when they did this or that.  There were literally spans of time where it was dead air because he wasn't calling the game and he wasn't spouting statistics.  Five and ten seconds at a time of silence.

Price had good success against the Caps this season and the Caps didn't have a good track record playing IN Montreal, and apparently with getting up 3-1 in a series according to Mr. Statistics Man.  I assumed that the Caps, though, had cracked the Montreal nut in the last game.  After facing a ridiculous number of shots they busted the game wide open, and topped it off with two empty netters.  I wish I could say more about the game, but my limited information doesn't really allow me to extrapolate any more than that.  The series returns to Verizon Center Friday night and hopefully the Caps lock it up in front of their home crowd and have some time to rest.  GO CAPS!!! 

Preds v. Hawks Game #3 Wrap-Up

Again, I'm late to the party but I was so exhausted last night and this morning that I wouldn't have written anything coherent.  First of all let me say...WHAT A GAME!!!  Even though the building wasn't 100% full the energy was high and the crowd was loud!

I was really hoping the Preds would score a quick one within the first minute or so, and they didn't but came close.  The Preds scored first but came out of the first period tied 1-1 and with a few seconds of a penalty to kill.  Speaking of that penalty, is there an imaginary or invisible player on the Hawk's team?  You know I'm not quick to defend Kevin Klein but really...there was no one around him and his stick stayed on the ice...how in the world did he get called on slashing!?  That wasn't the last terrible call of the night--the majority of the penalties called on Nashville were wholly imagined by the officials.  

The second period started and the Preds came out hot!  I still wasn't comfortable because if anyone knows how to blow a big lead in the third period, its Nashville.  Once Erat scored on his penalty shot though, I knew the Hawks had been completely deflated for the night.  The Preds did a great job of shutting down all of Chicago's offensive powerhouses.  our defense was almost flawless, except for a few close calls.  Namely, both Rinne and Hamhuis tried to pull Dan Boyles and score on our own net.  How embarrassing would it be for our own goalie to score on himself?!  Weber had a couple "DOH!" moments, but on the whole the defense was tight and together.  Our offense finally found some spark, too.  While I certainly recognize the individual contribution David Legwand made last night I'm a little miffed at the press attention he's been getting today for it.  Just because he woke up and had ONE good and one OK game doesn't mean he's the David Legwand of years past, or the David Legwand he was *supposed* to be.  Thank him for his game last night and move on.  I'm not being mean, I feel the same about Sully.

I'm not particularly happy with Goc's play so far in the Playoffs.  While he hasn't done anything bad, he's been practically invisible and hasn't contributed in the way he was earlier in the season.  I was glad to see Arnott deliver a few hits last night, even if he was still very careful and only used his shoulder to check people along the boards.  With any luck we'll see Hornquist back in the lineup soon, although we are doing alright without him.  Don't want to mess with a good thing! 

What an amazing home opener for the Playoffs!  Hopefully this will help sell out Thursday's game.  And Monday's, if it gets played, and any potential second round games.  We need to be in that building showing our support.  I just watched the game reply on TV and boy, could you hear the crowd!  Everyone yell twice as loud Thursday and we'll show the United Center who's the loudest, rowdiest crowd in the NHL!!!  

**An aside: if we are trying to compete with Chicago's rendition of the National Anthem, that was a poor attempt.  Michael W. Smith, despite being a great guy, kind of sucks.  And that strange, synthesized musical backing was terrible.  Let's get someone with some real pipes to knock it out of the park on Thursday!

April 20, 2007

April 20th is the most important day of my life. Ha ha, no, not 4:20! April 20, 2007 is the day I met Kirby--my husband and best friend, the person who changed my life. When I woke up that morning I knew it was going to be a good day, but I had NO IDEA what the day had in store.



I started the morning by teaching my class. I was an adjunct professor at Belmont that semester. I left class and went to Amerigo on West End because I knew there was a game that night and that some of the hockey players would be there eating lunch. Stalkerish? Maybe a little. I sat in the bar and ate my lunch and had a few glasses of Pinot Noir. I sat one seat away from Steve Sullivan and he spoke to me a little. Nothing about hockey. I stared stupidly at Shea Weber which made it almost impossible to eat my food. The players left, and I kept grading papers. This strange British guy was sitting next to me and I ended up talking to him for over an hour. Turns out it was John Waite. As in "I'm Not Missing You at All." Very nice fellow.


Went home and changed clothes, packed another change. I was going to the Preds Playoff game with my Mom, then after the game out with Honey and her cousin from California. I had only been single a few weeks and this was my first real time going out, partying hard and enjoying my singleness. Mom picked me up, we went to Big River for some food and sangria, then went to the game. Preds lost. I drank alot. I went back to Mom's car, changed shirts and shoes--into my AWESOME pewter heels--and then stumbled across the street to the Bluegrass Inn on Broadway. Given that I was already drunk I was fairly social. That's not me in my sober state. I see a group of three guys standing near the bar in Preds gear. While I'm ordering a drink I start commiserating with them about the loss.


Fast forward a few minutes and me and my two friends are around a table with these three guys, talking hockey and various other things. The band is Hillbilly Casino and they are rocking it out. I think I have this one guy locked in. Keep in mind that I'm not looking for a boyfriend or a relationship. I had just gotten out of a long relationship and it had been close to seven years since I dated because before the previous relationship, I had been in another long relationship. I hadn't "dated" dated since I was 18. I just wanted to meet someone, go on a few dates and get back into practice. After an hour or so the group was bored and wanted to go to The Stage. Bar tabs are closed, people start migrating and along the way I lost the group, except one. We both walk into The Stage together and go to the bar to order drinks. I buy him a Coors Light. We talk while waiting for what seemed like forever to get our beers.

We finally locate the rest of the group and we can't find the guy I had been talking to or Honey's cousin. Finally Honey spots them upstairs, on the balcony making out. Okay. So much for ever going out with that guy. I like to think that my standards are a bit higher than that. I'm really drunk and at this point and standing, let alone moving, in my four inch heels is getting difficult. I'm not even sure how many times I fell on my ass while standing perfectly still. This nice, tall guy kept helping me up and we kept talking.  Discovered he was from South Dakota.  Finally the time of the night came and the bar closed down. We were all standing out on the sidewalk and decided to go across the street to the Trailer Park Cafe and eat before heading home. At this point, me and the really tall guy had totally hit it off. We take a picture together at the Cafe. We flirt.


The night comes to an end, and Honey being the doll that she is offers these strangers a ride home. She had recently found out she was pregnant, so made the perfect DD for us that night! Then she started worrying that maybe having strangers in the car was a bad idea. We assured her it would be okay. On the drive the tall guy kept talking about this song "Goodnight Moon" and was astonished we hadn't heard it. When we pulled into their driveway he ran inside and brought out his guitar and played it for us. Admittedly, I don't remember it really. I'm pretty sure I was 90% passed out at that point. I do remember his dog coming out and sticking his head in the door. That was the first time I met Fudgie.

The evening concluded and the tall guy got my number and asked if he could call. I said sure. I didn't really expect him to. Honey drove me home and I crawled in my bed as the sun came up. The next afternoon my phone rang. It was the tall guy. I was hungover and beat and didn't really want to do anything that night. He had something going on Sunday, so we agreed to meet on Monday night. I honestly couldn't really remember what he looked like. I searched him out on MySpace.


Monday night we agreed to meet at Mellow Mushroom in Franklin. I lived downtown then, so I walked. When I got there I saw a tall guy get out of a pickup with South Dakota plates. We went in and after a beer or two loosened up and had a really great time. Turned out he was a dog lover, so I invited him over to meet Rocky. We sat in my kitchen talking for a few more hours and Rocky wasn't sure what to make of him. He left my place around 2:00am. It felt like I was walking on clouds when I went upstairs to bed. I knew I could really like this guy.


We met the next night at Brewhouse West. I was still wary of going to his place or being somewhere not public, despite inviting him to my house the night before. We had another great time and basically closed down the bar again. On the way home I called Cheryl because I knew I was in trouble. I didn't want to be in a relationship, I wasn't ready to face my future. But I knew I had met the man I was going to marry.

I can't remember if it was the next night or Thursday, but he had a hockey game. He played men's league. I'm pretty sure it was Thursday. I went to his game. His team won, and it was the league's playoffs. His team won the "championship" for that year. The team went out for beers at Blackstone and I went with him. One of the guys on his team kind of blew me off and said, "We'll see if you're around next season." After that we went to one of his friend's house and he played guitar and sang.

Saturday night he had an acoustic gig at the now defunct Caffeine on Demonbruen. I talked Cat into going with me. She could tell right away that I was smitten, and tried to talk me down from my feelings a little. It didn't work. We went back to his friend's house after the show, and when I went to leave he walked me to my car. There, that night, we had our first kiss. We continued to hang out, watch the Playoffs and eventually Stanley Cup Finals together. We bonded over our shared passion for hockey. We just really clicked. We were practically inseparable for weeks. Rocky even got along with Fudgie, and eventually warmed up to Kirby. So much so that he's Kirby's dog now, not mine. We went on an ill-fated road trip that took us through St. Louis and back just four weeks after we met, and gave us plenty to laugh about for years to come. A couple months later we road tripped from here to Gillette, WY with several more comic mishaps. He stayed there for a month, came back to help me move into my house, then went back for another month. I flew out to Omaha to meet him and help him drive back to Nashville. A week later we lost Fudgie. In another month we had found a building and started Team Witt with $2000 cash and a prayer. We truly crammed a year's worth of dating into a six month period of time!

Sometime in April or May of the following year we decided to "officially" move in together, because he stayed at my place 99% of the time anyway, since it was significantly closer to the new shop than his sister's house where he had been "living." In mid-June we decided to get married, and about six weeks later on August 9, 2008 we did. (I'm not sure of the exact date of our "engagement" because we didn't exactly go about it in the traditional way, you see. In typical Jenn and Kirby fashion we were having a conversation about something else and it just kind of came up and we decided, over the course of the discussion, to get married. We then discussed when the most convenient time would be for our families, checked to see if the church was available, and then I planned the wedding in the span of one week.)


But it all started on April 20th, and so many things had to go right for us to meet that night. Normally, I wouldn't have been that drunk and so wouldn't have wanted to talk to strangers. Normally, I would have just gone home after the game except Honey's cousin was in town and wanted to go see Hillbilly Casino. The game just so happened to fall on a Friday night they were playing. Kirby had actually met another girl at a party the weekend prior and invited her to the game, and she agreed to go. But then she backed out, and he ended up taking Gerster.  Gerster is a fan of Hillbilly Casino, too, and convinced the guys to go there after the game. I find it hard to believe that our meeting, in that place on that night was anything short of fate.

I've had alot of important days in my life. Big accomplishments and lots of joy. I know I will have many more in the future. However, out of everything that's happened to me so far, the night I met Kirby has been the most important and the best--even more than our wedding day. Our wedding day just made "official" what I knew four days after I met him, on our second date. That he was "The One." That my life would never be the same. (The guy who had originally gotten my number and then made out with Honey's cousin? Kirby's best friend Danny, who was the Best Man at our wedding. My Matron of Honor? Honey!)


So, today I celebrate the day three years ago that I met Kirby. I love you!

**Also, after my post a few days ago about my dad's cancer, he informed me that April 9 was the day he was diagnosed and April 20 was the day we got the pathology results declaring him cancer-free! So, April 20 continues to be a very lucky day in my life, one that's certainly worth celebrating!

Hockey Thoughts: Caps v. Habs Game #3 Wrap-Up

So, I'm a little late to the blogging party tonight because I had to come in to work again.  I'm actually still at work, but waiting for something to be available for me to do.  When its actual work on cars sometimes I have to wait my turn, for a task to turn up that is within my skill level.  Anyway...I did take a few hours away from the shop to do errands and chores and took in the majority of the game in the process.

Basically the Caps blew that one wide open.  They went with Varly, which wasn't a surprise but his performance was.  The Habs ended up pulling their goalie after the first three Washington goals, but they scored twice on Price as well.  Apparently the high glove-hand observation on Halak turned out to be accurate.  Whoever noticed that, player or coach, should be given a bonus.  That was dead-on.  Its never good when your goalie has a glaring weakness like that.  (Such as Dan Ellis' tendency to commit to quickly.)

Montreal showed their frustration in the form of stupid penalties, as well.  They managed to prevent a shut-out but their game plan, which had been almost flawlessly executed up to this point, started cracking.  It is still too early to say if this was a temporary breakdown due to in-the-moment frustration after an offensive explosion by the Caps in front of Montreal's home crowd or a longer-term breakdown of a team that was not on the same level in any way as the Caps.  The next game will tell the tale there.  After the first period it should be obvious which way the pendulum is swinging, but my guess would be that the Habs just put the first nail in their coffin tonight.

Ovechkin has finally found a way to get more space and generate some play.  The only advantage the Habs still have is the ability to break up Washington's laser-like passes.  Still, once Washington got on a roll stopping their passes was not enough.  Varly is probably emboldened by his win tonight, and nothing would make him (or the team) happier than Montreal having to eat their words about goaltending in Washington.  If they continue to crack Price as they did Halak, they will regret the day they opened their mouths on that subject.  And once again, the Caps have kept my birthday wish alive!  GO CAPS!!! 

Preds v. Hawks Game #2 Postmortem

There were times it was hard for me to tell if Nashville was playing bad or Chicago was just playing better.  There were other times when it was clear that Nashville was playing sub-par--and that was the majority of the game.  Nashville came out in a scramble and just couldn't seem to get anything going.  That empowered chicago and they really took to the attack, but the first period ended even at 0-0.

The first ten minutes of the second period Nashville was on fire.  Even though chicago scored on the power play, Nashville opened a shooting gallery on Niemi and kept the pressure in the Chicago end.  Somewhere around the ten minute mark Nashville broke down and never got it back.  Penalties didn't help, and most of the calls were questionable.  Obvious calls against Chicago were overlooked.  But whether its the regular season or the Playoffs, you can't make excuses period, let alone about poor officiating.  nashville should be well adapted to taking stupid, nonexistent penalties in the Playoffs.  Its always the case, and this year will not be any different because the league has alot riding on a deep Chicago run.  By "alot" I mean "money."  It appears that Game #3 Tuesday night in Nashville is still not sold out, and that is just pathetic.   

It appears that Friday night Chicago played to our level.  They weren't expecting much of a fight from the little guys I guess.  Tonight they brought everything they had and it was too much for Nashville to handle.  I don't think its a permanent condition, I just think Nashville was prepared to play the Chicago of Friday night.  Unfortunately, Chicago came ready to play the Nashville of Friday night, too.  Nashville needs to come home and take Monday to reassess the enemy.  I'm not discouraged. 

No Nashville player, besides Renne, played a noteworthy game in a positive way.  Again, Klein played a noteworthy game in a negative way.  I still am dumbfounded as to why we resigned him earlier in the year and why we continue to play him.  He's not strong in general and he's really showing his weaknesses and proclivity for making "rookie mistakes" even though he's no longer a rookie this Playoff series.  I think Trotz would be well advised to sit him the next game and see what happens.

A Million Tiny Needles

I'm about to go for my first accupuncture appointment.  Not sure that I believe, or don't believe.  There are alot of aspects of anchient medicine that I do believe in, so I have faith that this will work and not end up being just a massive waste of money.  I'm not in poor health overall, but I do suffer from a number of minor ailments that taken alone at any given time aren't a big deal that I manage well with what modern medicine has to offer--and occasionally a home remedy.  Take my allergies, for example.  I have two prescriptions (nasal spray and eye drops), three OTC medications (Zyrtec, Benadryl and Chlortabs) that I use as needed and rotate so I don't build up a tolerance to any particular one.  I've also found that certain allergy symptoms, my eyes for example, only respond to Benadryl.  Then I use a neti pot on occasion and try to consume a couple spoonfuls of local wildflower honey at the peak of spring pollen season.  The honey really does work, and sometimes if I eat it in the morning, I won't have to use anything else the rest of the day. 


On top of having allergies, I have occasional lower back pain, near constant neck pain, migraines, and stomach and digestive issues.  Lately they've all been active together making me one unhappy camper.  Dealing with one, again, is tolerable and not so bad.  Dealing with all of them at the same time makes me feel like a big pile of dog crap.  It saps all my energy and makes me feel generall ill instead of generally well.  Each medicine I have makes the symptoms go away, but it doesn't treat the cause.  Beyond that each medicine has side effects that affect another one of my problems.  I get a migraine so I take my Zomig.  Headache goes away but it makes my neck stiff which already hurt to begin with.  My allergies are bothering me so I take Benadryl or Chlortabs and those make me sleepy, and I was already tired.  Any of those ailments bother me and I get stressed out so my stomach starts hurting and I have to take my Bentyl.  Bentyl stops the stomach cramps but then it supresses my appetite, my blood sugar drops and I get a migraine.  see what I mean?


So, I'm off to give this a try, because it is about the last thing I haven't tried for my various conditions.  Report on the results follows.


VERDICT:
First off, the office was very clean and professional.  Not like a doctor's office really, more like a massage studio.  Dr. Ly was very nice and attentive, which is good, since many medical doctors are not.  (I'm lucky to have a great PCP who does listen and work with me on my issues.  Actually, all my doctors are good because I'm picky when it comes to medical professionals.)  He told me that fatigue and neck/back pain were easy and I should see results almost immediately.  Migraines and IBS take a bit more time.  After discussing why I was there I took my shoes and socks off and got up on the table. 


In all, it was probably about 20 needles in total.  Two in my ankles, two in my legs under my knees, two in my wrists, five in the stomach, two in the neck, three in the ears and five or so on the top of my head.  Then a lady came in an hooked up a machine that sent a light electric pulse to the ones in my ears.  It was kind of like the thing they use at chiropractors offices on your back before an adjustment.  It kind of make my neck twitch.  I did not feel any of the needles going in, except one.  They really are very tiny.  The one that I felt actually hurt, and it was the one on my right leg below the knee.  Apparently that spot is for energy and digestion, and I didn't need a painful needle to tell me that was a problem area.  The pain went away almost immediately, and it wasn't a sharp pain from the needle itself, but a fist sized burst of pain in that area as soon as it went in. 


While I was laying there muscles would kind of twitch and spasm at random and different areas around the needles would tingle a bit.  It was really relaxing and not in the least bit uncomfortable. 


Then another lady came in with an "herb cigar" (ha ha ha!) and heated some of the needles.  When she was done she removed them.  They finished up by giving me a B-12 shot in the spot on my legs that had been painful.  With the left leg I didn't feel anything.  With the right one I had pain again.  Dr. Ly came back in with three supplements for me to take.  One is for concentration and energy, the other for energy and the third for digestion.  I'm going to go back once a week for the next few weeks and see if I see any improvement in the "difficult" areas.  I can say that the knot that had been in my right shoulder blade and all of my neck pain and tension was immediately alleviated.  My neck and upper back hasn't felt this good since before I hurt it last March, even after physical therapy and chiropractic adjustments.  Its probably the result of the B-12 shots, but I've had a bizarre amount of energy this afternoon and even after working my ass off at the shop this afternoon, I still feel pretty good.  My neck and back are still pain free.

Hockey Thoughts: Caps v. Habs Game 2 Wrap-Up

Now that was more like it! My guys showed what they can do, particularly in the "comeback area" of the game, but Montreal certainly showed they can keep up with whatever Washington throws their way. This is going to be a tougher series than I originally thought!



I only really saw the 3rd Period and OT, because I was working, then listening to it on the radio on the drive home. And I'll admit that I was a little discouraged when the Caps went down two goals in the 2nd Period. Not that it is insurmountable by them, by any means as proven tonight, but it just seemed like they hadn't really figured out how to counter the Habs attack yet. I'm also greatful they ended it EARLY in OT because long games wear on both teams, and the Caps are going to need all their stregnth for the long run! Habs will only need stregnth for golfing here in a few weeks! :)


I'm not sure any other adjustments need to be made, but I don't know how I feel about the early pull of Theodore for Varlomov. Typically that would mean Varly's got the start from here on out. Its not the usual MO to rotate goalies in the postseason. But I'm in favor of whatever works so I'm trusting Coach B to make the right call when it comes to who's in net. Glad Ovi found his game. Glad the offense loosened up and had good pressure in front of the net. The lack of denfense is still glaringly obvious in a game that ended 6-5. But the Caps showed that you can't count them out, and like Detroit, they are capable of scoring at any time, even in the waning seconds of the game.  High scoring games are nothing new to this year's Capitals team so as long as they can keep scoring, I'm not as concerned about their defense.  This was just your run of the mill Caps game, through and through!


I hope this series doesn't go to seven games, and that the Caps have found their plan and can stick with it.  Even if I wasn't a raging Caps fan, I'm not one of those people who always hate on the "best" team just because they are good.  There's gotta be another reason.  It would be a shame, IMO, if the Caps went out in the First Round this year because they are an amazing team that's had an amazing season and if they lose in the First Round all of that will go to waste--and worse, be forgotten.

The C-Word

Time flies and I sometimes lose track of when it is exactly. But the anniversary I'm referring to isn't one I really want to remember, which is why I'm probably not sure of the exact date. But it was approximately one year ago that my Dad was diagnosed with cancer. I do remember that it was April. And I remember that it was before the end of the NHL regular season, because other events transpired in the week after his diagnosis and so I have one clear memory of the last regular season game and its place on the timeline. I'm sure he knows the exact date, but for me, from the time my Mom sat me down and told me to the day he came home from surgery about two weeks later my memory isn't clear.



Many of you might not have even known that my Dad even had cancer. I didn't talk about it much at the time because we didn't know much. When we finally got more information it was that he was cancer-free after his first surgery and we were very fortunate that it was discovered very early and taken care of quickly. I spent much of the two to three weeks--however long it was--in a fog. The rest of the time I spent trying to keep it together for my Mom (and Dad) and driving my dear husband insane with my moodiness and crying jags. I owe him an enormous thanks for being supportive, and dealing with me as best as he knew how and for sitting at the hospital with me and my Mom, when he really needed to be at work, while Dad was in surgery. I haven't talked about it much since because, well, I just haven't. That's not really my style. I also know how hard it was on my parents, and the fact that they never want to upset me and I did a pretty good job pretending at the time that I wasn't all that upset. I knew that if I broke down my Mom would break down, and then where would we be? She was strong for me and I was strong for her, because that's how we've always done things. But it wasn't their fault, and there was nothing they could have done short of not telling me, to shield me from the event and the accompanying emotions. So even as I talk about it now, I don't want to upset them and stress them out over how much it worried me and how severely it derailed my life for a few weeks. On the other hand, I want them to know that I did, in fact, care and it wasn't like I was brushing it off.


Dad was diagnosed with Merkel Cell Carcinoma after he went to his regular physician to have a spot on his arm removed that had been bothering him. He's kind of a hypocondriac, and we sometimes make fun of him for that, and we sort of did that day because the spot looked completely harmless. Merkel Cell is an extremely rare skin cancer--when I looked it up before I read that fewer than 1,200 people are diagnosed with it annually in the United States. That's compared to almost 200,000 cases of breast cancer annually and 8,000 cases of testicular cancer. Along with being rare, it is typically very aggressive. By the time it is usually noticed on the skin it tends to have spread to other parts of the body already.


Skin cancer in general runs on his side of the family. A diagnosis of skin cancer in and of itself didn't come as a surprise. I personally expect to develop skin cancer at some point in my life even though I do everything I can to prevent it--no artificial tanning (anymore!), wearing excessive amounts of sunscreen when I'm in the sun, avoiding the sun as much as possible, etc... I have already had two precancerous nevi (moles) removed up to this point and get an annual skin exam. Still, even though it had always been in the back of my mind as a likely event I didn't expect it to be so soon. And actually hearing that, no matter your expectations, is not at all like you expect it to be when you run those scenarios in your head.


Merkel Cell is not genetic. It is not caused by sun exposure or damage. They aren't really sure what causes it, although some cases may be linked to a virus like cervical cancer, but they aren't sure how people contract the virus and it is not contagious. Since no one was giving me the medical low down on the situation I spent many hours reading about it on the internet because I always feel like if I have alot of information about something that I can be in control of it somehow. On the one hand that made me feel better at times and other times it just made me feel more out of control and helpless.


The worst part of it all is not being able to do anything to help. I've been blessed with wonderful parents who have always been there for me and done everything they could to help and support me. In my Dad's first real time of need I could do nothing, and for a control freak like me, that just made things even worse. Eventually all kids have to face their parents declining health and needing something because of it. That is the circle of life. I admit to being ill prepared for that, and I can't say having already gone through it once has made me any better prepared for when it inevetibly happens again in the future. All I can say is that it sucked. Hard.


Today, however, there's no need to dwell on the past and the negative because we were some of the lucky ones. I am eternally greatful that the whole process from diagnosis to being declared cancer-free was only a few weeks long. I can only begin to imagine what it is like to face a protracted battle with cancer, and how emotonally and spiritually draining that must be fore the individual and their family. I commend them for their stregnth and determination in those times.


One year later my Dad is still cancer-free. As other people we know have been diagnosed or succumed to the illness I am reminded every time how lucky we were, and still are, that he's healthy and still with us. I just wanted to take this time to remember the event, as it was hugely important in my life in many ways, and also to celebrate the good luck and grace we experienced as a result. I also want to take the time to remember those among us who were not as lucky, and say a prayer for their families as they heal from their losses.