Old Dogs

An excerpt from the book, 50 Things That Really Matter. And no, I didn’t ask permission. I’m not gaining anything, just thought this was worth passing on. It will be relevant in a future blog.

OLD DOGS

“When my old golden retriever developed major health problems, I knew that watching him fail would be painful, but I wasn’t prepared for the powerful lessons he’d offer in the last year of his life.

Chance was 14 when the problems started. First, he developed a thyroid tumor that collapsed his throat and left him whistling for breath. Then came cataracts in both eyes, arthritis in his hips, and a series of ministrokes that threw off his balance. Any one of these setbacks would have left me pleading for relief, but Chance became more serene as the disabilities piled up - seemingly seizing each problem as an opportunity to demonstrate how to face aging with dignity and grace.

When hip pain left him frozen on the floor, unable to rise for a quick pet as I came home, he didn’t complain. He just lay there patiently, beckoning me with his thumping tail, each stroke spelling out the value of waiting for the things you want.

When his cataracts made navigating difficult after dark, he’d stand calmly until I could guide him inside, proving how easy it is to find contentment if you let go of your pride and insecurities and learn to lean on those who love you.

When ministrokes had him staggering like a drunk, he taught the value of persistence. For days after each attack, he’d lurch and fall as he moved about. Yet again and again he’d try to walk, each day moving a few more steps until finally he was able to get outside and back by himself.

There were lessons in so much of what he did, but the key one surely was the importance of living in the moment – of extracting all the joy possible from each experience – whether it’s a day lazing under a warm sun or a few minutes savoring a favorite meal.

For most of our life together, Chance was always rushing ahead, searching out new adventures, then circling back to let me know what lay around the next bend. As an old dog, he did the same thing, using his attitude, instead of his once-fast legs, to show the way. For this, I’ll be forever grateful.”

- Kevin Ireland -

Obama's Peace Prize

By now I'm sure everyone has heard the news. Our President of the United States, this week, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. Like many on either side of the liberal/conservative platform, I too, was surprized. It's difficult to imagine that the leader of the free world and Commander-in-Chief of the largest arsenol on the planet, at war no less, could be awarded a prize for peace. I'll have to agree that the nomination and the award seem a little "soon" in his administration. However, like most opinion I put to print, I try to do a little homework before I hit the Enter Key.

As you might guess, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh were having a hayday with this. Their conservative talk radio platform was overloaded with calls from both sides. More on that later, but for now, lets look at the Nobel Prize and it's origin.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, which selects the Laureate (or recipient) of the Peace Prize, is appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. That committee is presently chaired by Thorbjorn Jagland. There are, in fact, five members of the committee and here they are:

Thorbjørn Jagland
Kaci Kullmann Five
Sissel Marie Rønbeck
Inger-Marie Ytterhorn
Ågot Valle

The Last Will and Testament of Albert Nobel (for whom the prize is named) states that the prize should go, "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."[1] Alfred Nobel's will stated that the prize should be awarded by a committee of five people elected by the Norwegian Parliament.

Remember, this was Nobel's wish, but he died in 1896 and the committee had some ideas of their own. These are the basic criteria by which they select the Laureate:

"The AFSC Nobel Committee has formulated its own criteria, without expecting the AFSC
nominee to have a perfect score on each one: 1) commitment to nonviolent methods; 2) quality as a person and sustained contributions to peace in such areas as justice, human dignity, and the
integrity of the environment; and 3) possession of a world view rather than a parochial concern,
with potential for a global rather than a limited impact. In its search for nominees, the committee is expected to include all parts of the world, noting critical areas of conflict, and to consider how a Nobel Prize could further a peaceful result, as well as the relevance of a candidate's work to AFSC or other Quaker experience."

Although you may not see Barack Obama in Nobel's criteria, I think he rings pretty true in the eyes of the Committee. He's liberal, more socialistic. He's committed to the environment and possesses much more of a "World View". I realize all of those points can be argued, but on the world stage, with the exception of the Taliban, the guy can do no wrong. Oddly, in some of my readings, I learned that the Committee doesn't necessarily have to consider a nominees progress in the area of peace. A candidate need only have potential for furthering the peace process. Kinda makes you think maybe the committee has an agenda.

Which brings me back to the conservative media. I actually heard Sean Hannity say that he didn't view peace as the absence of conflict. Rather he saw peace as a strong military and lethal arsenal. In my little world, that seems a little frightening. In today's world, having a strong defense certainly helps promote peace by acting as a form of intimidation, but having nuclear weapons and mass quantities of destructive power certainly ISN'T peace.

I'm convinced that the committee may have had something a little more underhanded in mind. What better way to nudge the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces away from an increase in troops in the Middle East, etc. than to award him a prize for peace. I don't think it was so much a reward as it was a carrot. "Please, Mr. President, help us become a peaceful world". That's just a theory, but for me it holds water.

It may seem a little like an answer to a question for Miss America, but don't we all want world peace? Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to have nuclear weapons, chemical warfare and hundreds of thousands of troops? Wouldn't it be nice if we actually COULD set the example by laying down our weapons and saying to the world, "see what we've done, now you can do the same"? I'm not naive enough to believe that will happen, but wouldn't it be nice?

In the overall scheme of things, this is just an award. Sure, it comes with a 1.4 million dollar paycheck, but it's still just an award. I don't think it will influence Obama's decisions regarding our national defense. But maybe, just maybe, it will make everyone think before they order another strike or push the big red button. Can't we all just get along?

I swear, sometimes this stuff just writes itself.

Water, Water Everywhere...............

"Water water everywhere! Nor any drop to drink!" The Rime of the Ancient Mariner

Sooner or later I was gonna have to talk about this. I was going to have to rationally address our world's water shortage. I hate to slap you in the face with this, but there isn't one. There are simply too many people.

Our planet has a finite amount of water. It comes in many forms. In liquid form we have oceans, lakes, rivers, streams, springs, etc etc. All of those forms of liquid evaporate into gas particles which attach themselves to small particles of dust in the sky and become clouds. They get full and we get rain or snow or hail and whalla!!, we have liquid again. And then of course, we have ice. The ice is what has everyone in an uproar. The bottom line is, that the amount of water we DO have gets recycled in various stages, but worldwide, we ALWAYS have the same amount. There IS no shortage of water. You can't make more.

But, you may say, "I'm having a drought!" Look again my friend. Check any world weather map and I promise you that someone else is having a flood. Nature has a way of putting water where it wants it or NEEDS it. The problem is, we think it oughta go where WE want it. Seems a little short-sighted doesn't it? At the risk of sounding Obama-like, we have to start thinking more globally.

Ok, so maybe what we're really worried about is USEABLE water.....you know, the stuff we can drink! Thats a horse of a different color. There is little doubt that the water we have available to drink or use for consumption is at risk. Please tell me this doesn't surprise you. As our population continues to grow, there will be more competition for consumable water. And since there is a FINITE amount of water, we have to think about how it gets used, and by whom.

I'm going to ask you to think about something that most people avoid. Consider every other species on our planet. It doesn't matter whether it's amoeba or white-tailed deer. What happens when the habitat they depend on for survival becomes overcrowded? In other words, what happens when they've exhausted their resources? There are too many deer for this corn field or that meadow or whatever. I'll tell you what happens. The herd moves or the population starts to die off to adjust to available habitat. Moving is a short-term solution because ALL the herds move to a place of plenty and before long you have the same problem.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the same goes for humans. Our earth has finite resources whether it be water or oil or coal. Once it's gone, it's gone. We can prolong the agony some by moving to say, Mars, but eventually, we're gonna run out. I know I know. It's probably millions of years......maybe. My point is this. We're going to eventually have to die out in order to compete for those resources. Sure, not in my lifetime, but it's coming. We can drink less, irrigate less, build electric cars (which are ultimately powered by coal), or a hundred other things that will make it all last a little longer, but in general, we aren't going to put a dent in it. Not if you look at the big picture.

There are countries on this planet that actually try to control population by placing limits on the amount of children people have. In America we cry at the injustice of all that. I too, think it's wrong, but you have to admit it's at least something that should come up in a brainstorming session. Basically, controlling our population isn't gonna happen. Even if we had some success, it wouldn't matter in the long run. Besides, nature will take care of it.

But lets get back to that ice everyone is so worried about. Our glaciers are melting at an alarming rate. The rate at which they are melting is accelerating. Of course it is. Put an ice cube on your counter top. The more of it that melts, the FASTER it melts. It's physics. There is less "ice" to keep it frozen and so it melts faster and faster until it's water. Not a hard concept. It's the same with our glaciers. The one we all hear about all the time actually covered Kansas as little as 11,000 years ago. It didn't start melting yesterday. It's been melting for centuries and the more of it that melts the faster it's gonna melt. Go ahead and try to stop it. You can't. Put every PhD on the planet to work on this problem and they'll fail. I wonder if it ever occurred to anyone that the glaciers are melting to provide more fresh water to a growing population. It's Mother Nature at work.

Ok, so all this melting is going to raise sea level and huge quantities of land mass are going to disappear. In addition to that land mass, densely populated areas will be lost. The "herd" is going to have to move inland. And now that "herd" of people is going to be competing for the same resources in a yet smaller area until those resources are gone. You know what happens next. Mother Nature will introduce a disease or bug of some kind to thin the herd. I'd love to hear someone try to prove me wrong on this. In fact I'm kinda counting on it.

If we had unlimited resources this would all be a mute point. But even land is finite. If you had all the water and oil and food you could ever dream of, we'd still be at war over where to live within a million years or so. We aren't gonna win this one......not in the long run.

Take a good long drink of cool water. Irrigate your crops and share what you have with a friend. Lets make sure everyone has enough to drink while we still have some left. All the technology on the planet won't cure this problem. Generations from now it'll all be over. It has to be.

Don't hate me for this. If I'm wrong, why is NASA looking for other planets to inhabit?

Silence is Golden

Several years ago I was visiting my parents in Nebraska. I went to see them in the house where I was raised. It's nestled inside the boundaries of a small town, but only a stone's throw from open fields of soy beans and wheat. Those fields are where I spent a large percentage of my childhood. But I digress.

This particular visit was in the dead of winter and it was extremely cold. One night, well after dark, we lost all power for no apparent reason. Everyone on the block was blanketed in darkness. There were no porch lights. The street lights were out. There was no humming of transformers or flourescent lights. It was dark....and it was quiet................very quiet.

I don't remember the exact reason I decided to wander outside in such a bitter cold (probably to find out why the power might be out), but what I do remember is this; it was a clear night, not a cloud in the sky. You could see stars beyond your wildest imagination because the sky wasn't littered with artificial light. It was wonderful.

I took in a deep breath of the bitter cold, gazed into the sky and listened. I didn't hear a sound. It was deathly quiet. I can remember thinking about what a rare opportunity this was. I was truly enjoying the moment, when my ears picked up something I hadn't first noticed. From a distance, nearly 5 or 6 miles, I could hear the faint sound of cars and trucks rolling down Interstate 80. As much as I tried not to be, I was instantly saddened to realize how really difficult it is to find true quiet in a world full of noise. Sure, it wasn't loud or overbearing, but it pierced the quiet blanket of night all the same.

Being in absolute quiet is difficult even if you can find it. Without the distraction of music or television or video games or honking cars, you're left to listen to whats going on inside. That can be disquieting in itself. Sometimes I don't like the thoughts racing through my brain. Sometimes I just want whatever is in there drowned by 10 decibels of ZZ Top or Cooder Graw. But other times, more often than not, I prefer to listen to those thoughts. The time I have in my truck with the radio off is sometimes the only opportunity I have to listen to what's going on with me. It's important that I listen even when it isn't comfortable.

I think we all need quiet time. I only wish we had ways of finding absolute quiet. Sadly, I think those days are mostly gone in an overpopulated society. Sure, you can find it. But it may take a noisy jet airplane ride to get close to a place of solitude. All I'm really saying is this. Take time to enjoy the quiet. If you don't have a quiet place, just do the best you can.

I'll bet your brain and spirit have a lot of great things to say. Take time to give them a voice without distraction. You might like what you hear.