Fatherhood again

I'm going to be a Dad again... I've known this for awhile.  For whatever reason it's only started to become real to me over the course of the final trimester of my wife's pregnancy.  Over the first two trimesters it all seemed more abstract or possibly surreal.

They say each pregnancy is different and while our experiences with our daughter the first time around will serve as guidelines, I've also heard from other parents of two (or more) that we may as well forget what we learned the first time around as much of that will not end up being true with our son.

With our daughter we were surprised.  We didn't find out until the day she was born that we were having a little girl.  We had narrowed the possible names down to 2 possible boy names and 2 possible girl names.  This time around we opted to find out.  In August we learned we're having a boy.  We've got a name picked out (with 2 possible back-ups just in case we don't think our name fits him).  Our daughter has already started referring to him as "Alex" so I'm pretty sure we're having a little Alexander.

For some reason I feel more nervous this time around.  I'm experiencing the difference between "unknown unknowns" (with my daughter) and "known unknowns" (with my son).  One would think that knowing how much my life is about to change (having been through it before) would make things easier but for some reason I think it's given me a worse case of nerves.  I think it's due to the reality of how much my life changed when my daughter was born far exceeding my imagination.

As the father of a little girl, I've felt like not just a parent but a protector and a benchmark.  I try to treat my wife how I would want my daughter's eventual husband/partner to treat her.  I want to be a positive male presence in her life.  

I know I'm not supposed to, but with a son I take the "benchmark" portion more seriously.  I am the man my son will likely try to emulate.  I'm no longer merely the benchmark for some stranger my daughter probably hasn't even met yet and likely won't meet for several years, I'm going to be the example that will guide my son's behavior.

I'm also wary of how my relationship with my son will change my relationship with my daughter.  I've got a great relationship with my little "Daddy's Girl."  I don't want that to change...  Any opportunity my wife has given us for daddy/daughter time I've taken her up on and treasured every moment.  My wife & I have both said we're going to give each other plenty of opportunities for one on one time with both of our kids.  I don't want to deprive my son of the same one on one time that his sister has enjoyed over the past 3 and a half years, but at the same time I don't want to short change my daughter.  She's had me wrapped around her little finger from the moment she was born and while she knows she's about to have a baby brother, I seriously doubt she fully understands the implications.  I want to make this as smooth a transition for her as possible.

The Bridesmaid Should Never Upstage the Bride (or Yet another reason Romney Lost)

The reason bridesmaid dresses are so ugly is to make the bride appear that much more beautiful by comparison.  A bridesmaid should never be more attractive than the bride in any given wedding.

In my life I've witnessed five elections that were lost, at least in part, due to the vice presidential candidate upstaging his/her running mate.

1)  In 1984 former vice-president Walter "Fritz" Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate.  Ferraro was a better spoken and more dynamic candidate than Mondale.  

2)  In 1996 Bob Dole chose Jack Kemp as his running mate.  Kemp and Dole had actually run against each other in the 1988 Republican primary (with then VP, George H.W. Bush soundly defeating them both).  Kemp was a more dynamic speaker than Dole, he was charismatic where Dole was a bit wooden.  He had a Reagan-esque passion in everything he did that Dole seemed to lack.  Going up against a very popular and charismatic (not to mention pre-Lewinskygate) Bill Clinton, this pairing was a recipe for disaster.

3)  Don't ask me how it happened but in 2004, the rather wooden Lurch-esque John Forbes Kerry won the Democratic nomination for president.  I was baffled throughout that whole election cycle.  Prior to the Iowa caucus it seemed Howard Dean was the shoo-in for the nomination.  There was a strong grass-roots campaign for him leading into that caucus (arguably that grassroots campaign was the template that Obama used to catapult himself to the presidency and succeed where Dean had failed).  Before the whole Rielle Hunter mess, John Edwards was EASILY a more attractive candidate than John Kerry.  He was better spoken and he inspired a Kennedy-esque youthful enthusiasm among his supporters that I don't think Kerry was capable of doing even on his best days.  Kerry choosing Edwards was a huge mistake.  His own running mate actually made him a less attractive candidate than he might otherwise have been.

4) Sarah Palin... need I say more.  This case was a little different than the previous three...  Sarah Palin most definitely upstaged John McCain but for all the wrong reasons.  That VP pick caused some of his lukewarm supporters to question his decision making abilities and inevitably jump ship.  Sarah Palin was and is a decent and charismatic speaker... but public speaking and charisma alone can't make a president.  She was supremely ill-suited to the job and I'd argue her VP run cost her her job as governor of Alaska as well.  When she was governor people were coming out of the woodwork suing her... Some of the lawsuits may have been legitimate, but many were not.  Those lawsuits were inevitably too great a distraction (not to mention financial burden) for her to continue effectively executing the office she'd been elected to hold.  Incidentally, shortly after she resigned, many of the suits against her were dropped and/or dismissed.

5)  Paul Ryan is a more articulate speaker than Mitt Romney.  He is a Jack Kemp acolyte and shared with Kemp (and Reagan) a courage of conviction that Mitt Romney lacked.  Given his background he was far more in touch with the middle class than Romney, and in an election following a huge bailout of banks and the auto industry where the perception (rightly or wrongly) of many voters was that America had been screwed over by the wealthy who (thanks to their golden parachutes) were laughing all the way to the bank Paul Ryan should have strengthened the Romney ticket, but due to some of his gaffes, Ryan instead just made Romney appear that much more out of touch (by comparison).  I liked Romney in 2008, he ran from the middle, as the moderate that he actually IS not the neo-con far-right tea partier he had so desperately tried to pander to in the primaries.  Maybe Paul Ryan would have complemented a more moderate 2008 Romney.  Instead, Ryan's courage of conviction created a perception (some would argue, he shined the spotlight on) a 2012 Romney's lack of conviction.

All this being said, this is no harbinger of future elections.  I'm only in my mid 30s and five presidential candidates have made this mistake in my relatively short (thus far) lifespan.  That tells me this is a mistake that presidential candidates are yet to truly learn from.

I'm no fan of Joe Biden, but I can't argue that he was/is a brilliant choice for Obama.  There's no way he could or would outshine Obama and he makes a great "bulldog"-- he goes after the opposition and says things that there's no way Obama could ever get away with saying without being completely eviscerated by the opposition.  Democrats may hate me for this but I see him as somewhat Agnew-esque in that respect.  And I don't think Agnew-esque Alliteration would sound out of place coming from Biden.  It's only a matter of time before he refers to the GOP as "nattering nabobs of negativity" in much the same way Agnew referred to the press under Nixon's watch.

If the Republicans get nothing else from the 2008 and 2012 election, they should use Obama's VP selection of Biden as a clinic on finding the RIGHT running mate for the selected nominee (whomever that ends up being).  Given how much the Latin-Americans broke for Obama, I forsee Nevada governor Brian Sandoval, Florida senator Marco Rubio, or New Mexico governor Susana Martinez as players in the 2016 presidential race.

The Legacy of the Little Shadow

I've got a strong bond with my father.  In that regard I was quite spoiled growing up.  Being between twelve and eighteen years younger than my five older siblings I had a bit of a monopoly on him as I was growing up.  When you throw in that he was the principal of my grade school (Kindergarten-fifth grade) and he retired at age 55 at the same time that I "graduated" from fifth grade.

From middle school through my high school graduation it was Dad, not Mom (although she did join us from time to time) taking me to doctor, dental, and orthodontic appointments.

He's told me stories over the years of how, when he was a boy, visiting his extended family in Connecticut he'd follow his Uncle Charlie around everywhere he went to the extent that Uncle Charlie nicknamed him his Little Shadow.  Much like my father had been to his uncle, I was my father's "little shadow" when he would be out running errands.

Now, as a father myself, I see the same dynamic taking shape with my daughter and I.  While I know many of the errands I run would likely go much faster without her, I've come to quite enjoy having her with me despite this.  It's our time to bond, much like my father with Uncle Charlie, and me with him.

Sami and I will go to Dominick's on the weekends to visit "The Cheese Table" where she throws away her normal finicky eating habits and becomes a rather adventurous little cheese connoisseur.  She's tried everything from Stilton to Wensleydale, Manchego to Limburger, Brie to Habanero Jack.  When she's particularly good on our outings I treat her to unscheduled stops at PetSmart to see the kittens, fish, guinea pigs, chinchillas, hamsters, gerbils, and parakeets, or to McDonald's for a yogurt parfait, or to the Fox Valley Mall so she can ride the carousel in the food court.

It's got to the point where, even if I'm driving past a place I know I need to stop on my way home from work, I'll go home first to pick up Samantha so I can bring her with me.  I hope that someday she looks back on our outings together with the same fondness that I look back on my outings with my own father when I was growing up.

Fast Food vs. Crock Pot Social Interaction

I'm a a Republican.  Surprisingly to some, I don't twirl my nonexistent mustache, rub my hands together feverishly, nor cackle maniacally as I rob cheat and steal candy from babies, and money from the middle class to fill my already full grain silos with even more money (especially since I'm in the middle class myself)

I'm not going to take away a woman's right to choose... regardless of my views on the subject-- I don't have that power (for that matter neither does the president... but that's a civics lesson for another day).  I'm not going to run around with duct tape trying to tape the mouths of Justices of the Peace shut so they can't perform weddings or civil unions for homosexuals.  I wouldn't want anyone telling me whom I can or can't love and marry, so why would I go around telling others whom they can or can't marry?

My religious and my political views are mutually exclusive.  I believe a person's relationship with their higher being of choice (or lack thereof) is very personal.  A person's religious or moral beliefs can be a compass, but should never be a map, for their political beliefs.  At the same time it's something that can be shared with other like minded individuals if one so chooses, but not something to be forced down the throats of those who do not agree.

Over the course of my life I've both made friends with and distanced myself from people of many different walks of life, political affiliations, ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientations.  Respect isn't a right, it's a privilege, it must be earned. I was raised to give everyone equal opportunity to earn my respect and I was raised with the belief that the respect others extend to me must also be earned.

A person's ethnic background, sexual orientation, religion, and political affiliation are all aspects of who a person is.  They aren't the whole.  They are parts of a whole.  My life experience has taught me that when it comes to the good people I know in my life, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  Focusing on only the "parts" that make us up as individuals, we sometimes dismiss and miss out on the whole of that person, much to our own detriment.  I've also learned that learning "why" someone is, is far more enlightening and makes for far more enriching friendships and personal interactions than learning merely "what" or "who" they are.

Sadly, given the speed and pace of our culture, we've stopped taking the time to interact with one another.  We seek the safety of those who share our beliefs and backgrounds rather than the challenge of getting to know those who don't.  It's something we are ALL guilty of (self included).  Our whole culture, down to our interactions with one another has become "fast food/convenience" oriented.  We've stopped making the time to get to know one another better in favor of getting by on knowing just enough about one another to get by.  Assumptions are made and polarity based on those assumptions ensues.  Rather than focus on all the ingredients that separate us, instead we should search for the salt-- it's the ingredient found in everything, it's that which we all share.

Admit it, you meet a person for the first time and if the subject of politics comes up and that person self-identifies as conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican you make a snap judgment on that person's entire character and if that person's political affiliation differs from yours, walls go up and both of you end up going on the defensive.  It's something I believe we're all guilty of from time to time (although, not necessarily EVERY time).  Unfortunately, this is a product of being far too focused on our differences and not focused enough (or at all) on our similarities.

So skip the fast food, take the time to make your friendships and social interactions in crock pots, they taste better and are far more fulfilling.  Oh and please pass the salt.

It's 5:15 am You Have Got to Be Kidding Me!

Last night I was sleeping rather restlessly and keeping the wife awake so I relocated to the guest bed so we could both get a decent night's sleep... around 5:15 am I felt a firm and persistent swat against my feet.  As I lifted my head to see who or what was attempting to rouse me from my slumber and there stood my daughter, "Daddy, I want to come to bed with you."

If it were the weekend I'd have no problem with this.  But with my alarm set to go off in about a half hour I wasn't game for such an arrangement.  I knew that when my alarm went off I'd be in the shower and my wife would be the one who would have to deal with this and I wasn't about to do THAT to her.  So I got up and attempted (with tremendous resistance) to return my daughter to her own bed.

Eventually her histrionics resulted in interrupting my wife's slumber as well.  Between the two of us we were finally able to get our daughter back to sleep.

Today's mission-- find darker curtains for my daughter's bedroom.  With the sun coming in through the diaphanous curtains with furious intensity as early as 4-4:30 am it's no wonder that she's awakened at such uncivilized hours.

The alternative: move to a dairy farm where the 5 am awakenings would come in handy for "milkin' time."  Somehow I think new curtains are a considerably more workable solution.

Nostalgia

I've been reading My Name Is Memory by Ann Brashares.  The main character, Daniel, is a man who has lived several lives but unlike most souls, Daniel remembers his past lives.  At one point he remarks that there are several "firsts" that he wishes he could experience for the first time all over again.

Remember the first time you ever ate a peach?  The soft sweetness crushed between your teeth, the delicious juice running down your chin?

Remember the first time you "discovered" the music of one of your favorite bands?  Hearing those magical notes for the first time, those lyrics that seemed to speak directly to you that made you feel like you weren't alone in your experiences, that other people understood and they'd even had the courtesy to put their feelings and YOURS to music?

As we grow older our opportunities for "first times" grow fewer and farther between.  What once was fresh, new, and exciting grows old, mundane.  But we take comfort in what we know and maybe mundane isn't the best word, as we age, what once was new becomes a personal "tradition" of sorts.  The "old" becomes a reminder of what it was like to experience something for the first time.

I once read that nostalgia is a sentimental yearning for the past.  At first that seems like an appropriate definition, but if you think about it a little deeper, is it really?  Isn't nostalgia more a yearning to be able to experience your favorite things for the first time all over again?  It's not that you want to go back to the way things used to be.  You want to experience the joy and euphoria of your "firsts" all over again because as good as they can be, your seconds, thirds, and fourths never really match your firsts.

I was reminded of this earlier today as an old favorite song of mine came up on one of my playlists.  It had been awhile since I'd heard it.  It reminded me of the joy I'd felt the first time I'd heard the song.  A smile crossed my face, but enjoyable as it was, the newness of it was gone.  It didn't make me want to go back to how things were when I had first heard the song, it just made me want to "feel" the song for the first time all over again.

Once upon a time, not even that long ago, I actually wished I could go back to the way things were.  However, with life experience comes wisdom and the passage of time has brought me the realization that I don't want to go back to the way things were.  I've learned so much and value the experiences I've had far too much to want to go back to "the way it was," that nostalgic tugging I often feel isn't a desire to go back and replay life's greatest hits, it's that longing to "re-feel" my firsts.

Brokered Convention

In recent weeks certain political pundits have been suggesting that there's a possibility of a brokered Republican Convention this year.

A brokered convention occurs when none of the candidates has won at least 50 percent of the pledged delegates by the time of their party's convention.  This hasn't happened since the 1952 Democratic Convention when Adlai Stevenson was chosen to run against Dwight Eisenhower.  It hasn't happened to the Republicans since 1946 when the Republicans chose Thomas Dewey to run against Harry S. Truman.

There was some similar scuttlebutt back in 2008 when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were running closely throughout the race.  If neither of them had been able to carry a majority it would have gone to a brokered convention in which the party elite would choose the candidate rather than those who voted.

However the way the system has been set up for years-- with each state's primaries or caucuses being all or nothing affairs does not lend itself as readily to the likelihood of brokered conventions... especially not in the information age when momentum is a much stronger factor than it was in the early pre-telegraph, pre-telephone days of our country.

That has changed in some states starting with this election cycle.  Some states are opting to go to a proportional allotment of delegates.

To clarify--

Historically speaking, whoever wins a state carries ALL that state's delegates regardless of how close the race might have been.  So in Iowa where Rick Santorum won by 30 some votes, he'd carry ALL of Iowa's delegates.

To my knowledge Iowa is not a state where that changed but let's say it was-- instead of Santorum getting ALL of Iowa's delegates, the delegates would be split proportionally to the number of votes won by each candidate.

If enough states end up going to the proportional allotment of delegates in the future brokered conventions will likely become a bit more common.

Where things get hairy is that many times the candidate chosen by the party elite ends up being a candidate who did not actually run in the primaries.  The name floated around in 2008 when it looked like Obama and Clinton might have split the delegates with neither of them getting a majority was not either of them... it was Al Gore.

Similarly, the names being floated around on the GOP side if this goes to a brokered convention are not Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, or even Rick Santorum... some of the names rumored for consideration in the event of a brokered GOP convention include Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (the chap who delivered the GOP rebuttal speech to Obama's most recent State of the Union address).

The logic behind choosing a candidate who did not run in the primaries is that if none of the candidates who ran in the primaries were strong enough to get that majority none of them are strong enough to face the other party's nominee in the general election so we should look at other possibilities.