Life Lessons

Note: I wrote this blog on Saturday, but didn't publish it till today.

I read much concerning the achievements of Ted Kennedy from the day he died to now, which I write as his funeral motorcade winds its way to Arlington National Cemetery. Besides his legislative accomplishments, many of the articles pointed out his personal ones, often in contrast to his personal failings. He could have given up after the Chappaquiddick incident. Indeed, a lesser man would have wallowed in his grief at being, at least, partly responsible for a young woman's death, if for no other reason than that he drove the car that claimed her life. He could have chosen to deflect blame. He could have decided that his actions in not reporting the accident until the next day would define him for the rest of his life. Perhaps, in a way, they did. That is something that only Teddy would know. But whether it was the memory of his brothers or the memory of Mary Jo Kopechne, something drove him to serve for so long, and with such distinction, in the U.S. Senate.

Searching reactions from others concerning his death, one notices two things: 1.) all of the positive comments are by people who knew him, or had direct contact with him at some point in their lives, 2.) all of the derogatory comments are by people who didn't know him, who lambast him for Chappaquiddick and his behavior before he met and married his second wife--before she saved him, as he put it. And, out of those positive comments (for negative comments by strangers are as useful to me as criticisms of a movie by a random audience member), I can understand why the man was so beloved.

He truly cared about people.

He cared about his constituents. He cared about his colleagues. He cared about his friends. He cared about his adversaries. And, most of all, he cared about his family.

As for his success, that can be explained, too. He became this century's greatest Senator (if greatness is to be decided by the quality of bills that one helps to pass and/or author) through hard work. Hard work and a great staff. It wasn't due to talent, though he had talent. It wasn't due to the strength of his arguments, though he made them as strong as he could. Hard work, combined with his love of people, respect of people, translated into the passage of major bills. The Civil Rights Act. The Immigration and Nationality Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act. And many, many more.

But it's his life that we can learn the most from. Here was a man who had one brother die in combat and two more assassinated, whose nephew died with his wife and her sister in a plane crash while heading to his cousin's wedding, and another who died in a skiing accident. A man who, at the end of his life, battled brain cancer for fourteen months before succumbing to it. And yet, during all that time, he served the lowest, served with the highest, and befriended many, both low and high. If there are lessons to be learned from Ted Kennedy's life, they are these:

1.) Don't let tragedies define you, whether they are personal tragedies or national ones.

2.) If you don't have the talent of others, work harder than they do, and you'll succeed.

3.) You can compromise the details, but don't compromise your convictions.

4.) You can disagree with someone and still be friends with them.

5.) A sense of humor always helps.

6.) Give to those who have less than you do. Help those who need it more than you do.

Rest in peace, Teddy. A nation mourns your passing.

Update on the Novel 2

Since I wrote so much for my mid-week blog, today I thought I'd write a quick update on my novel.

As I approach the climax, work has been slow, especially since I still haven't figured out how to write in a plausible ending, based on the personalities and behaviors of my characters, nor what that ending should be. The past few days, I have written two or three pages worth of material, only to have to delete most of that progress by the time my writing session is over, leaving me with a few paragraphs, at most, by bedtime. I believe Oscar Wilde said it best when he described writing in this manner:

"I was working on the proof of one of my poems all the morning, and took out a comma. In the afternoon I put it back again."

The writing process is slow and can occur in fits and starts. One's progress in the morning can be negated by one's progress at night. Besides these observations, this quote points out how meticulous one has to be when revising. But one also needs a forum in which to try out new things and not have to worry about tidying up the wording or the grammar to perfection--a place where one is allowed to fail easily is also a place that allows one to succeed easily.

This blog isn't such a place, since I am writing partly for me and partly for my audience. Since my goal here is to communicate to my readers--which lies at the core of all literature--I can't write sloppy grammatical sentences or let spelling errors slip by, whereas when I write in my diary, only I have to be able to read and understand what I write. Even there, if I write terrible sentences or spell words strangely, then I will lose the meaning of what I wrote over time, as I rely more and more on the words to fill in the gaps of my memory, rather than the other way around. Still, this blog is a place where I can iron out rough edges, without having to make them smooth as glass.

As for my novel, I hope to finish my current revision in two months, if not sooner. I have gotten to the point where I'm ready to move on to short stories and poetry, instead of having this novel hog all of my writing time during the week.

Until next time.

On Healthcare

When I created this blog, it was never with the intention to write anything political, impossible though that might be, since the original Latin word that "politics" comes from means "people" (you Latin majors out there can correct me if I'm wrong). But with all the vitriol I've heard about health care reform in this country--all the lies, the shouting, the pettiness, the fear--I've decided to write a blog mid-week to address this issue, not so much as to trumpet my opinion to you, but to share with you my observations about this debate, and what it reveals about Americans today.

First of all, every poll I've seen shows that Americans support health care reform. As this Time article points out, it's the details that people worry about. Those details are what the health care debate should be focused on, not these shouting matches at Town Hall meetings. And the details that people worry about should be ones in the actual bills, or ones that they think should be in the bills. Not "death boards." Actually, don't insurers already use them, when they decide not to cover a life saving procedure because it's too expensive?

Another problem I have is with people who label the public option in health care reform "socialism," and therefore, of course, automatically disqualify it as something that the U.S. should do. First of all, the word "society" is in "socialism," which implies people working together, much like "commune" or "community" is buried in the word "communism." Plus, socialism is an economic system, like capitalism. Like capitalism, it has its excesses, but it doesn't equal totalitarianism, which is a political system, and which would be anathema to the United States.

Of course, that's not their point. Their point is that public health care, health care for all, is somehow something the U.S. government should not be involved in (even though they already are--Medicare and Medicaid, anyone?). It should be left to private businesses. And that's the problem. The mindset among some people is that health care is not a right. Or rather, health insurance is not a right, because, hey, you can make money off of it, so leave it to the free market. Who cares if millions are uninsured? Who cares if we spend much more money on health care than other countries, and yet rank lower than thirty-six of them for quality of care? On the other hand, if you consider health care to be a right of every citizen (after all, healthy citizens are productive citizens, so it benefits the government to make sure they can remain healthy), then why shouldn't the government make sure that everyone is covered? I think there should be a public option to go with private insurers. Private insurers claim a national health insurance system will drive them out of business. That's interesting, because in Japan, national health insurance and private insurance plans exist side-by-side. So basically, if private insurers can't survive with a public option, they must be pretty incompetent.

One other thing that bothers me about this health care debate is people who are in it for themselves. They don't want to have to pay slightly more for health care costs, even if it's for the good of all. I can understand this from people who are squeezed for cash, or who live on a fixed income, but if you can afford to pay a little more, why wouldn't you? Why wouldn't you want to help others have what you have? Is it because they may not be able to pay, so it looks like they're getting a free ride? We wouldn't be having this argument if it was about children...oh wait. Every year in my town we have a group of people who complain about tax increases, and in years when the budget doesn't pass the first time, the school budgets get cut, as well as other services. Seems children aren't important, either.

I guess my big problem doesn't have to do with the yelling that's going on in Town Hall meetings, or citizens basing their opinions on lies concocted by people who should know better. My big problem is with a culture that believes that everyone should fend for themselves, instead of doing everything possible to lift all Americans together. We may have individual freedoms, but we are connected as a society, and as a society, we have obligations to each other. We say we are one nation when pledging allegiance to the flag, but do we actually believe it? We should be doing what is best for all, for in the end, it benefits us individually, as well. In the Declaration of Independence, it declares we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," among others. Is it so much of a stretch, then, to believe that the quality of life is just as important as the length, than we not only have the right to live, but to live well?

Benjamin Franklin, one of our founding fathers, invented such useful items such as bifocals and the Franklin stove, yet he never patented his creations. His reason? He wrote, "That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously" (The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin). So should we help each other, freely and generously.

Note: The Preamble to the Constitution mentions "promoting the common welfare" as a reason for "We the People" establishing our Constitution. Makes it sound like health care is a right, doesn't it?