Obama, Oil and the Games Being Played.

A few days ago in Largo, MD Obama said that the US is producing more oil than it has in the last 8 years (I heard the speech). That oil he is referring to is being produced only because private investors are doing it on private land and he cannot stop them.  There has been no new exploration on federal land whatsoever.  His speech he says "We are drilling everywhere.  Well not in the National Mall and not in your yard."  You Mr. Obama are doing nothing -- private enterprise is doing it all despite you.  When he talks to folks who want to think he supports oil exploration he uses this speech. When he is talking to environmental groups he brags about "no new rigs", "no Keystone pipeline". Which is it Mr. Obama?  Are "we" drilling a lot or aren't we?
 

Obama has in effect placed an embargo on the United States and that position has created YOUR gas prices. The rest of the world does not believe the US will become energy independent under this man and thus the price goes up. The moment they feel like we are expanding our exploration -- those prices will plummet.  Oh and he says we like "gas guzzlers" ... your presidential limo gets 8 miles to the gallon sir.

 

He is discussing, and when the timing is JUST right, he will release gas from the U.S. strategic reserves to bring the price at the pump down -- just in time for your vote. What he does not tell you is that we, the American tax payers, are required to replace that oil into the reserves at market price. Of course he denies they have "made a deal" but breaking news says that gas prices have already dropped a smidgen from the news of just the "talking". And he says that a president can do nothing to affect the price of gas? Hmmmmm.  "Talking" affected it in less than 24 hours. Your gas prices are high because the world watches us not produce our own oil.  They don't believe we will ever be able to pull out of Saudi Arabian oil and we are at their mercy -- and we are under Obama.  If they for a moment thought we could and would flood the market with inexpensive crude -- prices would drop dramatically.  Why in the worst economy of our lifetime would he decide to hamstring the economy with high fuel prices?  I have theories.

He already tapped into our strategic reserves twice (30 million barrels a pop -- that is almost 10% of it) to ease the pain at the pump for his politics -- he did not save us money -- we still have to pay for that oil. This is NOT new oil -- it is oil that is there for our strategic reserves -- he is playing politics with it...and we all (Rs & Ds) are paying for it.

 

He has issued no new permits to American companies in the gulf (but he has allowed foreign companies to do so). And JUST now he is talking about issuing a "handful of permits" for the gulf --- hmmmm, again very good timing.  Remember how talking affects prices? Thinking now, talking now, get a little excitement and when the timing before the election is "just" right he will issue them...the games go on.

 

And lastly -- do NOT, I repeat DO NOT believe a word the Obama administration tells you about the US having only 2% of the world's oil reserves. He is just not allowing us to access it and he would rather affect the market with OUR reserves like a parent doles out an allowance to a dependent child...

 

When he took office nationally gas averaged $1.78 a gallon...we have had no 9/11's the housing market does not affect oil prices...think about it. A self imposed embargo.... Hmmmmmm. Make it hurt and then come to the rescue… Then once you have elected him again, the price goes up and you are driven to use alternative energy because now it is relatively cheaper (the difference between the costs of fossil fuels and alternative energy is smaller now because of oil prices being through the roof).  Most alternative energy sources are NOT sustainable -- they cost more than they produce.  The wind farms of the plains will become broken down eyesores when the government subsidies dry up.  I support the research and development of alternative energy -- I do NOT want to be forced to use it by anyone UNTIL it is affordable and sustainable.  I am actually okay with government assistance in R&D -- I am not okay with it to fund operations that are not sustainable.  I hear people talk about the "fat cats" in the oil industry "lining their pockets".  Well Mr. Obama is the one helping line those pockets -- he is driving up the price!  And don't think for a MINUTE that there are not equally fat cats behind "alternative energy".  There are…

The Liberal Lynch Mob

I went to bed thinking about this and woke up thinking about it.  I am affected by it and I am not clear why so particularly other than how utterly blasphemous it is. It is frightening that this group can affect their state legislature regardless of what the law says.

The story, this is a direct quote from an online story:

"For 40 years, it's been illegal to hunt mountain lions in California -- so you'd think California's top Fish and Game Commissioner might respect the law, at least publicly.

Not Dan Richards. The new Fish and Game President not only traveled to Idaho to kill a mountain lion, he even responded to the mounting controversy surrounding the photo he made public saying it's "none of your business." 

Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and at least 40 state lawmakers have now called for Richard's resignation. If he doesn't resign, he can and should be voted out by a simple majority in the legislature." (end quote)

I am stunned. This man did not break any law; he is a law enforcement officer. He might have thought twice about posting a picture on Facebook but it does not call for his moving or resignation/firing. Is your Facebook page  really his business?  If he loses his job he will most certainly have a case for wrongful termination.

Dan Richards traveled to a state where it is completely legal to hunt a mountain lion; he had a successful hunt and is now being told that while he is away from home, outside the state of California, that California law applies to him, no matter what! (The more I write the more stunned I get).  So by that rationale if the speed limit is 75 M.P.H. in Nevada and only 65 M.P.H. in California, he can be pulled over and ticketed for doing 70 in Nevada -- because after all California law applies to him everywhere!  Of course this argument would be dismissed as an example because it does not tug at the heart strings of the liberal lynch mob. Stunned.

Here is a better analogy and I hope that everyone reading this applies the example to his or her thought process. Christians think is is wrong to abort a pregnancy yet it is legal. To them the fetus is a living human being and abortion is tantamount to murder. Some Americans think it is wrong to hunt for sport -- yet it is legal. What would those calling for Dan Richards' resignation do if a bunch of Christians demanded the firing of a state official or high school teacher because it had been learned she had had an abortion?  There would be outrage and marching in the streets -- how DARE they accost this woman with their morality.  Well to those of you out to get Dan Richards…how dare you.

No one in the lynch mob has thought of this man as a human being.  Does anyone know if he is the sole bread winner in the household? Does he have twin boys about to enter college? A thirteen year old daughter who is battling leukemia? Or how about the idea that he and his wife are primary care givers to an ailing parent with Alzheimer's?  Does any of that matter?  None of these are facts that I know to be true -- they are simply examples of what could be. If these were the facts would if affect your opinion?  It seems that this activist group, including California's lieutenant governor, would rather ruin a man's career and take his whole family down because they simply "do not believe in hunting".  We are entitled to our opinions in this country.  What we are not entitled to is the circumventing of LAW in order to satisfy our capricious, emotion-based beliefs.  No one does to to the woman who had the abortion -- it is not right to do it to this man.

In California it is not necessarily a GOOD thing that these cats cannot be hunted.  They have no natural predators; California has an ABUNDANCE of what we in Colorado call "subdivision deer" and we are inviting them into our habitat as WELL as invading theirs.  Of course there is always the argument that "they were here first" but we have to examine how we, as humans have increased their population by providing havens for their prey.  They really face few food source shortages anymore because of us!  And they are opportunists -- they will take what is easy wherever and whenever they want to.

Mountain lions are not threatened nor endangered in California. In fact, the lion population is relatively high in California and their numbers appear to be stable. Mountain lions are legally classified as "specially protected species". This has nothing to do with their relative abundance and does not imply that they are rare. It is all politics and emotion to be brutally honest.  While most people who hike have never seen a cat -- be sure, they have seen you.

They are magnificent animals and even I, as a hunter, will never choose to hunt them.  They are just not "prey" me and I would not shoot what I would not eat. But just because someone does shoot something they will not eat does not make them wrong in my eyes.  I may not agree with what you choose to do -- but if it is a lawful activity -- I will defend your right to do it.

If we as humans unnaturally affect a population (either up or down) are not we as humans responsible, to the best of our ability, for returning some balance?  Unfortunately, for those who don't like it, the only thing we have at our disposal is hunting.  And in our infinite and skewed wisdom in California you ARE allowed to shoot a mountain lion if he is about to eat a big horn sheep -- his natural prey…

I am still utterly stunned.  If this man does lose his job over this he is well within his rights to sue the state of California for wrongful termination. And mark my word, he will win and each of these tax payers who are demanding for his termination will end up paying the bill -- your California tax dollars at work. 

Divine Intervention -- Tim Tebow

I have heard so much about Tim Tebow, the Broncos miracles and the thoughts and questions about this being "Divine intervention". USA Today reported that in a telephone survey, the Poll Position website found that 43.3% of people who are aware of Tebow's success believe Divine Intervention has been a factor. The crux of this is the pollsters did not ask how the respondents defined Divine Intervention. They also probably did not ask what the beliefs of those being polled were. Let me tell you what, as a Believer, we mean by Divine Intervention and why it is real and it happens every single day.


An atheist might look at this poll and dismiss it, guffaw or even have distain, "How can people be so stupid?" But that reaction simply shows their ignorance and inexperience with Divine Intervention and the recognition of it. It is a fairly simple and not uncommon occurrence. 


Do I think that God's hand is directly involved in a Broncos win? Of course not. Does God play a role in the outcome of the game? You bet. What non believers don't get is what awesome power lies in belief, faith, willingness and acceptance. God is always there -- you invite him in or you don't. And guess what? You can call Him whatever you want my; personal term happens to be God. He does not turn his back on anyone; we turn our backs on Him.


What an atheist wants to argue is that faith IN God is not God. Ah, but it is. There is no line between the two. When I am limited by only faith in myself I am accepting the limitations of myself as a human and the universe, as I perceive it. I have already doomed myself to achievements I can imagine. Tim Tebow does not accept the premise of self limitation and that my friends, IS Divine Intervention. Only until you believe you CAN…can you. What about all those things I never dreamed of? What about the impossible? I chuckle at the arrogance of the atheist who thinks that "this is all there is". In 1492 the earth was flat and Columbus was surely going to fall off the edge of the world. How great is this world? Back then it was the Church (a creation of man) who limited the Universe -- now it is the non-believer who is limited. We have come a long way!


The world of hard core science is more likely to have an open mind to the unknown, to the unimagined. Atheism is stuck in the middle. They often think of themselves as the most open-minded folks on the planet (making us Believers closed-minded) -- when they are often choosing so much less for themselves than there actually is… I think of the lyrics from a song by Mercy Me…


If I hear just one more time
That I should try and be more open-minded
I think I just might scream
The world says this is all there is
Yet I believe the One who says there's life after this
Now tell me how much more open can my mind be?


Ever heard of String Theory? From an article by PhD Physicist Frank Lee, "String theory, also dubbed as "the theory of everything" has been able to unify all four fundamental forces. The most revolutionary finding of the string theory is that our 3D world is not the entire universe. It is actually embedded in a ten dimensional space, analogous to a TV screen (2D) embedded in a house (3D). Theologians have long suspected that God could live in a higher dimensional space. Now that the string theory has provided evidence for the existence of a higher dimensional space, the theory could also unify religion with science."


Science is closer to believing in God than we ever dreamed. God created man to be curious, to want to KNOW. But we as humans are limited; we either can choose to Believe or to not Believe. We were created with free will and the power of choice. I choose to not limit my life and my world to the known, the understood and the tangible. Why would anyone choose such a small world?


In the end there really is no debate. An atheist demands "proof" of God. An atheist by demanding proof is assuming he or she has the power to understand and be all knowing -- that is simply not possible, science will tell you that. We all admit that there are things in this existence that are unknown, not understood and undiscovered. Until someone BELIEVES in God can he understand even an inkling OF God, so by definition an atheist never will - he has already decided NOT to. If he, the non believer, tries to argue against the existence of God he is entering a debate he has no business being in…until he has BELIEVED can he have any hope understanding of that which he argues against.  All of us who DO Believe have most certainly faltered in our faith -- we have both perspectives.


What is great for the atheist is that God is there whether you believe in him or not…

Socialism -- Not Ala Carte

Three of many quotes by Thomas Jefferson:

1.) ” I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

2.) “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

3.) “I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence; we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”

What I don't understand it this.  The "left", for lack of a better term, wishes to move more toward a socialist state.  Capitalism is evil.  They want economic equality, a redistribution of wealth and they do not vehemently care to defend private property rights -- after all it is the right to produce and profit that is rooted in private property rights.  In essence, Socialism hands the decision making and the "social design" to the government.  Then we see the same group occupy Wall Street.  They are (at least some of them) sick and tired of the current field of elected leaders.  They feel the leaders are greedy, self-interested and corrupt to put it bluntly. They want their "fair share". 

Well let's examine what is the likely cause of that corruption.  In its most basic form, corruption is generally born from power or the desire for it. In this country and really every other country power equals money.  As they say, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. 

So let's pretend that we could wipe the slate clean. Vote everyone out and elect all new leaders who have the same vision for a pursuit of a socialist utopia.  They, as leaders, will design the system of who gets what, how it is distributed and make life better for everyone around them.  They of course then become the enforcers of that societal design. 

So if I get this right, under a capitalist society where the free market decides prices and distribution our leaders become corrupt.  But under a design where the leaders, NOT the market, determine where the wealth goes, how it is distributed there will be NO corruption?  That is a silly idea.  When the leaders, no matter how wonderful and "good" they were when they were elected, are handed over the power to design society and distribute wealth you will see corruption of a magnitude you never imagined.

I hear people often point out (usually the Scandinavian countries) successes of socialism; they ignore the vast difference in our countries, our demographics and our immigration policies.  If you look at say Norway, you see a relatively homogenous country.  Historically, Norway has limited immigration to those who "add value".  There has been an influx of asylum seekers in the last decade.  But because of that, Norway is making changes to what constitutes "asylum".  In short, the don' let "just anybody in".  Their borders are heavily controlled, the folks who live there are educated the way the state needs them to be.  You cannot simply decide you want to be a "philosophy major" if there is not a demand for that in the State's economy.  Instead you might be directed to a trade school where your education, subsidized by the state, will add value to the state.   

The resources in Norway are also much higher per capita than they are in the U.S. so there is more to "go around". You can do that when you control your borders.  The country has significant resources (they are one of the world's largest exporters of oil, natural gas and seafood). I also learned that the government has majority or full ownership of the largest operators in the Norwegian oil fields, and that any "surplus wealth" from Norwegian petroleum income is invested straight into the government pension fund -- I doubt our "occupy" crowd would like that. Even Canada does not see a huge influx of uneducated, low income immigrants -- they have a fabulous buffer to the south…the United States of course! 

Also, Norwegian men between the ages of 18 and 44 are obliged to serve 18 months in the military -- like it or not.  There are some exemptions but to be sure, if too many folks opt for exemptions or deferrals, things will change!   If you look at the basic tax rate in Norway at first glance they does not look to different but then you get to the VAT -- Value Added Tax.  That is a tax on purchases -- VAT tax is 25% on most purchases, 14% on food and 8% on a handful of other things -- no one is exempt from these taxes, not even low income people.  So in essence they pay very hefty (comparable to ours) income tax rates AND they pay a huge national sales tax.  Olso is the third most expensive place to live in the world -- lead only by Paris and Milan.

So if you really want socialism take a moment to truly understand what it means. It is not an ala carte menu.  To make it work you have to go "all in".  I don't see the folks clamoring for "equality" and "economic fairness" being folks who are willing to:

1) Serve in the National military

2) To shut down the borders

3) To be told what they can and cannot study -- or whether they can at all.  (Utopia needs worker bees too!)

Just a few thoughts on this Friday morning.  I have to get to work now.  Actually I rephrase that…I GET to go to work now!

Breast feeding in Public and the Death of the Melting Pot

We all understand that the vast majority of infants are breastfed.  It is a good thing, a healthy thing and leads to a healthier baby as compared to a baby raised on formulas and milk replacements.  Breast milk cannot be replicated as it carries much needed antibodies from the mother to the infant when the infant has none of its own. But is public, open breast feeding appropriate? 

We hear about scores of women who think it is a natural and beautiful thing.  They even stage "nurse-ins" to demonstrate that they should be able to do it anywhere.  I for one do not want to see another woman's breast, exposed in public.  I have to be honest -- I just don't want to see it and I am a woman.  I think breast feeding is a beautiful thing between a mother and her child -- but their beautiful moment is not specifically beautiful to me nor to the vast majority of us.  I am not in on the relationship.  I praise women who are willing and able to breast feed.

Let's use some analogies.  Babies also soil their diapers.  This is a natural thing and it is a signal that the baby's digestive system is functioning properly. It is good when babies poop! Do these same women insist that I see their baby's diaper changed in aisle 8 at Target?  The act of making love is a beautiful thing between two people who deeply love one another.  Should they too be able to demonstrate that deep love in front of those of us who are not a part of that relationship?  Of course not! We try not to pass gas in public places even when it too is a natural thing for our bodies to do.  We don't do it though when we can help it.

Being a mother of a baby is a challenging thing. It takes time, it takes planning and it is probably the most challenging "job" out there. Most moms choose to become moms -- motherhood is rife with sacrifices and rewards.  I have no issue with the occasional breast feeding in public -- if there are truly no other alternatives.  There are lots of ways to do it in public discreetly and yet not minimize the experience between mother and child and not affect the nutritional value of the meal. If a mom really needs to feed her child when she is out and about she can ask for a private place nearly anywhere to feed her child and to have that moment or two between herself and her child.  I do believe we should be sensitive but I also believe mothers should plan -- they too should be sensitive.  A mom more often than not can step out to her car and have the private moment in her own space.  None of these are unreasonable solutions nor are they insensitive.  Why is it that I am insensitive if I don't want to see her breast but she is not insensitive if she forces me to see it?  I know why, because a baby is involved.

We all adapt every day to societal norms.  What is acceptable to me might not be acceptable to you but we refrain from certain behaviors and acts because we are a society.  In today's society we allow small groups to hijack the whole society with their wants and needs without regard to what the majority wants or needs. It isn't okay to do things in public "just because you can".  There are a lot of things we have the "right to do" but is it the right thing to do?  We lose sight of that because the individual has become more important than the society.

What I don't understand is this.  In most cases a left leaning, more liberal person wants to "share the wealth", close the gap between rich and poor and force us all into a standard of living that makes us equal -- regardless of how hard the individual works.  But when it comes to "self expression" they think that their personal expression is more important than that of the society as a whole or that their small group should be considered over that of another group, even if that other group is a majority.  An interesting dichotomy.  I believe just the opposite.  I believe the individual should be rewarded for hard work and be able to keep the majority of the rewards for his labor.  I also believe that there is a balance between self expression and societal good.  I don't believe that just because it is my "right" that I should do whatever it is I have the right to do.  I have to balance what I want and what is reasonable before I act.  This is not oppression this is consideration.

Individualism and multi-culturalism have the same roots…

America used to be a "melting pot".  People came here from all over the world because America had so much to offer them.  They came here to become "Americans".  We were proud to be called a melting pot.  We are not a melting pot anymore -- the culture that is "American" is now vilified and minimized.  Melting connotes the combining of materials into a new material -- it took all those ingredients to be "America".  We are now a nation of tribes and the culture of America is gone or fading quickly.  When people first began to immigrate here they brought who they were and where they came from with them.  They honored those origins in their homes and added elements of themselves to the "pot". It made the pot more vibrant and interesting.  But there is no pot anymore.  America is filled with immigrants and individuals who think that they do not need to melt -- that everything they are should remain intact.  Assimilation has become a dirty word.  "United" is no longer united and divided we will fall.

From the mothers breast feeding in public to the immigrant insisting that his culture from home should be accepted in totality after he moves to America -- we have become a society of "Me". It is MY needs, MY wants and MY desire that have become paramount while it has become "our" money…That seems pretty backwards to me and it is a sickness that will lead this once great nation to mediocrity if not ruin.

When People Breed Dogs...and Do it Poorly

Okay this is out of left field but I care about the topic and just get irked at some people who breed dogs.  I bred labs -- two whole litters -- and believe me spent more money on the care and feeding of the litters than I made from them even though they were high priced pups.  They were healthy, well adjusted pups and the parents were heavily scrutinized and certified before any union took place. Did not breed mama past her 6th birthday.  I want to do it again and I still get calls for pups from someone who knows someone who has one of my dogs.

Now there is the "silver" lab, the "red fox" and the "white". Just as in horses -- when someone breeds for COLOR they are breeding for phenotype -- (looks) rather than breeding for the genotype (what the dog is really made of).  The red fox and the white labs are color variations of the yellow lab -- just shades of that genotype but they are YELLOW labs.  They are not a different dog, there is no classification for "cream", "white", "red fox" or anything of the sort -- they are still 100% acceptable to the lab world.  I personally don't breed for that specific of a shade of color but if done responsibly it can work out just fine.  With the "whites" when you begin to lose skin pigmentation you are going down the wrong road and you must stop.

The "rare silver" is something that has begun to worry me -- it is outside blood, a strange double recessive expression or a combination of both.  I have a family looking for a pup right now and I am looking for them and doing a bit of the homework for them based on what they are looking for.  The local lab community is tight that way and we promote each other's dogs when we know they are good, well bred animals.  The silver is not "rare" and when I see them advertised they cost twice as much!  Don't do it!  The AKC won't recognize the dog anyway.  Getting outside blood into a gene pool is not a bad thing necessarily -- it helps stave off double recessive genes becoming prevalent. It seems as though the "silver" color might actually be a double recessive expression and since we don't know what other traits it affects it should be avoided. The Labrador gene pool is plenty large to keep the breed alive, well and healthy without tossing another breed in JUST to get a color.  When that is done -- it simply promotes a breeding program now more heavily focused on breeding for THAT color variation thus making that particular gene pool very small.

There are many reasons why silver Labradors should not be produced and the main one is that they are a disqualification and adhering to a standard while breeding is what keeps a breed a breed. The Labrador looks and acts like Labrador and not a German Shepherd because of the dedicated breeders preserving the breed. A standard is a blueprint and varying that blueprint because it looks nice will undoubtedly cause the structure to fail. Also silver breeders do not typically run health clearances on their breeding stock (OFA/CERF) nor do they participate in any competitions to prove their dogs are breeding quality. This leads me to believe that they are breeding simply to make money and do not care about a superior individual nor do they care about the breed in general.

Silver breeders also blatantly lie. They have information on their websites that talk about DNA testing done by the AKC and a researcher at UC Berkley. Both are not true. AKC never did any genetic mapping of silver Labradors nor do they have any plans to do so since they are a registering body only and the Labrador Club of America writes the standard for the breed. Also Dr. Neff at UC Berkley was never looking into whether or not silver Labs were purebred or not which is also a moot point since DNA testing can only prove parentage at this point and is not specific enough to search for breed markers.

So if you are looking for a Christmas puppy for the family a Labrador is a great choice -- pick a yellow (in all its variations) a Chocolate or a Black -- steer clear of that Silver -- it ain't a Lab you want....

I miss Early Thanksgiving

Our family had an odd but wonderful tradition.  We did not celebrate Thanksgiving on the day the calendar dictated.  In 2000 my parents and I traveled to Thailand and then on to Nepal. We were gone nearly a month and that moth spanned Thanksgiving.  Unwilling to give up our most treasured family day, we decided to celebrate with family earlier in the month.  I spent the “calendar Thanksgiving” in a Tea House in Chommrung in the Annapurna Sanctuary.  At any rate we realized that having Thanksgiving on our own day worked out fabulously.  It allowed coupled siblings to spend one day with each family.  It allowed those of us who had to travel to do so on a weekend that was not clogged with other holiday travelers.  It allowed us to find a day that worked for almost everyone, every year. In short, it was ideal.  We dubbed our day “Early Thanksgiving” and so it went.

It is difficult when you realize that your parents were the glue of the family.  This will be my third Thanksgiving without my father and my fourth without my mom. It was their love and passion that held everyone together.  It is also hard when you understand that it was they who made you really want to “go home”. It was the ingredient that they added to the mix that made the “kids” also want to be around one another.  Blood is thicker though.  With a blended family of thirty years one would think that step siblings become relatives. But they don’t.  When the glue is gone, the camps separate and become other families – the ones who can, return to their family of origin connections and ostensibly their “roots”, the ones who have little family of origin remaining are left to find new roots, new “families” or are and pining for what was.  I am all of the latter. 

I am blessed to have a Colorado “family”, a group of really good people. They have welcomed me. I am grateful for that and over time – my connection to them will create memories and spawn traditions.  Right now though there are no old traditions in my world that I have any connection to.  There is no “remember that time when?”

I live 900 miles away from what I used to call “home”, so even when my father and step mom (who I consider my mother) were alive it was an effort to get home – but one I made eagerly. The last time I went it was to dedicate a memorial bench to my parents – it was still them that drew me there. I have one full sibling. She has been connected with the family in a on again, off again way for many years.  While I love her dearly, she is not a family rock for me. I have another half sister with a family who I adore and wish lived nearer. In my survey of relatives I would consider her the one I am most drawn to connect and stay connected with.  Out of 11 half and step siblings, that is a pretty low number of connections.

As a childless adult I have no traditions to create for anyone, dogs don’t care as long as there is food and love (thank God for dogs).  When your parents are gone and there is no “next generation” it leaves one with a feeling of disconnection.  There is no continuum.  When I look around me at the memorabilia I have and the family treasures I think to myself – to who shall these go? What is their purpose? What is mine?

So, I miss our family Thanksgiving, deeply, to my core.  I miss the people, all of them, who were involved and yet realize that without my parents we seem to have little interest or energy to rekindle or maintain that family tradition because THAT tradition as it was is gone forever. I suppose we realize that it was all hinged on and made by the presence of our parents. I too am guilty of “letting go”.  It makes me sad and it makes this time of year difficult.

I am looking forward to my new family Thanksgiving.  We are hosting the day at our house.  I will accept the new traditions and hopefully have the opportunity to honor some of what is deeply important to me on that day. I will find a way to honor what was without neglecting what is. It will take some deliberation but it is worth it and it is vital. For me it is the most sacred of holidays – one that has not largely been commercialized and harnessed by the economic engine of America.  The stores go directly from Halloween to Christmas. It is one that is simple and elegant and all about being thankful.  I have so much to be thankful for – this Thanksgiving I will focus on what is hear and now and be thankful for what was.