Duplicity

“I’m sorry,” she said.

“For what?” I responded.

What, exactly, are you sorry for?

For letting him into your life and letting him think that you loved him as much as he loved you, or for abruptly ending that love and evicting him from your life when you decided that you couldn’t “fix” him?

For betraying him to his ex-wife repeatedly via text after you kicked him out?  For sharing  personal information about him that was none of her business? For conspiring with her to keep the communications a secret from him?  For then lying about it to him when he asked you if you had communicated with her?

 Or for us finding out about it? You made a mistake trusting her to keep your conversations private: she forwarded all the texts that passed between the two of  you to him, not wanting to be called a liar. She really can't be trusted.  But then, apparently, neither can you.

Are you sorry for accepting his engagement ring as though you would love him forever, or for not having had the decency to hand it back to him two months later when that turned out not to be true?  You let him think that the separation was temporary, until he happened to find the ring a week after he had moved, neatly boxed up and buried in with his clothes that you had so quickly packed up while he was out at work one day.

Are you sorry for  the envelope that came to your mailbox from the Court that you refused to either deliver to him or let him pick up in a timely manner, opting instead to write a forwarding address that did not even include the town, thus delaying its delivery until after he was supposed to appear in court? He had no idea what it was about, and he narrowly avoided getting arrested for failing to report to a hearing thanks to your selfish negligence. Thank God he had the good sense to call the Court House to find out what it was for when the letter still hadn't come after more than a week of waiting. Are you sorry for that?

Are you sorry for often offering money to help out with his expenses, or for deciding that he owed you all of it back when you ended the engagement? I doubt that he asked you for money; he probably assumed that you were helping him out of love, and that once he could land a better-paying job all this would be resolved. After all, this was the love of a lifetime. Too bad that wasn’t true. Coincidentally, he did land a better job, but you had already made up your mind by then. Bad timing.

 

Your pursuit of a stress-free life has caused more emotional damage to him and to us than anything we have ever experienced. Our son, while flawed, is nevertheless a kind, sensitive, gentle and loving man who was a wonderful father figure for your son, especially given the boy's special needs. Very few men have the capacity to love children like he does, yet you discarded all of that when you literally erased him, and us, from your life. There is an expression that aptly describes what you did: throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Memorize this: you can’t fix people. Either accept them as they are, or leave them alone. Love is not a reward for good behavior. It is a gift freely given, something you apparently are incapable of doing.

Do I forgive you? No. I wish now that you and he had never met. Will I ever forgive you? That depends on whether and to what extent our son can recover from this explosion to his self-esteem and to his ability to trust another human being again. He really loved you, more than anything else besides his own son, and it will take a long time for that love to eventually die, in spite of what you have done to him. His heart is broken and so is mine. When his heart heals so will mine, and then I will think about forgiving you.

This Kind of Love I Do Not Understand

My youngest son has not had an easy life: he got involved with older kids at an early age, and also got involved with alcohol. By the time we learned the extent of his drinking problem, he was half-way through college. By the time he was in his thirties, he was an out-of-control alcoholic with a wife and son.  The wife hated him and divorced him when the son was about a year old, but not before condemning every action he tried to take to  gain sobriety, calling his first stint in rehab a "vacation", and slamming him with every demeaning label she could find, further tearing into his already-low self-respect. Since then she has continued to castigate him and refuses to believe that he is sober, continually forcing him to take a breathalyzer test every time he picks up his son for weekend visits - that is, when she lets him, which is almost never on the schedule that is supposed to be in place.  He is so afraid of her that he refuses to apply for a Court-Ordered visitation schedule, fearing that she will somehow be able to take visitation away from him altogether, especially now that he is living at home.  My husband and I have struggled to help him stand up to her for years, to no avail, for the sake of his son, now seven years old, who adores him and would benefit greatly from spending more  time with him.  Financially, although he has rarely been unemployed, he has never been able to fully support himself, and has always lived with roommates when he was not living at home.  Then last year he reconnected with a young lady from his childhood, and the two of them soon became inseparable.  She also had a son the same age as our grandson, and the two boys bonded instantly.  They moved in together unofficially last June, and officially (names together on the lease) last August.  They became engaged at Christmas, and she said this is exactly what she wanted.  It seemed like a union made in Heaven, and Ryan was finally getting some control over his situation, with a good deal of emotional support from his now-fiancee.  Then, out of the blue, three weeks ago she suddenly decided that they could no longer live together and the engagement was off. She cited money problems, inability to deal with the drama of the ex-wife, and an alleged diagnosis of "selective mutism" as the explanation of why her son had stopped talking in school.  She decided that the problem was stress, that it was caused by her living with Ryan (even though Ryan had always been nothing but the best role model for the boy), and he had a week to move out.  The timing could not have been worse, inasmuch as he was finally able to get a new job that would pay him enough to get out of debt, and was starting the next week. In the meantime, there was no choice but for him to move back home until he could get his bearings.  One week prior to this, she had introduced me as her mother-in-law, as though the marriage had already taken place. Then, within mere days after she evicted Ryan, she started posting daily Facebook comments on the joys of living stress-free, posting pictures of her son, also 7, "proposing" to her, drawing pictures for her, and miraculously being cured of the selective mutism. Ryan is still reeling from the turnaround, as are the rest of us, including me: I opened my heart to this boy, who has other psychological problems, and who had grown to accept me as one of his family, calling me Grandma O.  They live only a few minutes away, and it was always nice to have them come by. I keep recalling all the loving things she said about Ryan, and wonder now if any of it was true.  How can someone profess love one minute then just turn it off the next? She didn't even have the courage to give the ring back to Ryan, and until he found it buried in with his things, which she packed up while he was working, he thought that the separation was just temporary, until they could resolve their individual issues.  Finding the ring like that changed everything. Love - true love - is supposed to be kind, patient, slow to anger and quick to forgive, at least according to the Bible.  I wonder where the women are who still believe this.  Poor Ryan hasn't met anyone like that yet, although he really believed, as we all did, that this one was different. He let his guard down and trusted her completely. This is so much worse than the first time-for all of us. Meanwhile, he has started his new job, and so far it seems to be everything he hoped for. Only, now, the success feels hollow, as there is no one to be successful for. My heart breaks for my sweet boy.

Reflections on Fatherhood

It is a fact that every human on the planet is the creation of the joining of one male sperm and one female egg - or as the traditionalists maintain, one father and one mother.  It is also a fact that children who are raised by both their biological parents are far more likely to develop into a psychologically and emotionally healthy adult. It is my belief that every child should have the right to be raised by both his biological parents, regardless of whether they get along or not. Studies have shown over and over again that children who grow up with both parents do better at school, are far less likely to drop out of school, get into far less fights, are far less likely to join a gang or commit a violent crime. So why is it that fathers are practically ignored when it comes to custody arrangements?  My experience has led me to believe that Family Courts give much too much weight to the wants of the mother, and not enough to the needs of the child.  Fatherhood is a sacred responsibility, not a reward for good behavior. Unless the father presents an actual and verifiable physical danger to his child, he should be encouraged  and allowed to spend as much time as he can with his child, not denied because the mother doesn't like him. Mothers who restrict or prevent fathers from being with their children are hurting the child, and should not be allowed to do so. The trouble is, with good lawyers being so expensive, only the wealthy dads have the means to fight for their rights and those of their children. It disgusts me that this issue is such a difficult one to resolve. Mothers can make damning statements to a judge about fathers,  with or without evidence to support them, true or not, with no investigation into the veracity, and judges will still lean on the side of the mother. And we wonder why there are so many deranged people out there.

This is Not Supported by the Constitution

It is one thing to protest actions by the government, but it is quite another to label the fire and destruction of parts of the Berkley, California campus by its own students as  constitutionally protected protest.  The whole reason for this action was to prevent the conservative/libertarian  editor of Breitbart News from speaking on the campus. This is an assault on the rights of others to express ideas freely.  It  happened at Rutgers when students violently protested and prevented Condoleeza Rice from speaking at the2015 commencement, and it has happened at numerous other colleges around the country.  Why are these people so afraid to allow others to speak who don't share their views? All this violent destruction does nothing to advance their ideas,and makes reasonable people who actually know something about the Constitution cringe in horror at how little the Left respects free speech.  This is truly and deeply disturbing to me. These students should all be either arrested, expelled, or both. They should also have to take a real history course in the Constitution and its meaning.

On the Question of Immigration

To my Liberal friends and family members who are marching, stopping traffic, and signing petitions protesting President Trump's  action to delay entry into the country, I ask first that you forgive me for not thinking as you do. I would then suggest that you read the text of the Executive Order for yourself, so that your opinion, whatever it is, will be based on real information, and not just on the news media's interpretation of it which, in this instance, is in most cases biased and/or incomplete in my opinion. I feel I can say that because I did read the Executive Order; it's very easy to find on line. Beyond that, I would suggest that all the marching, shouting, and petition signing will do nothing to help the situation, and if you really believe that this country should take in thousands of refugees,  then you should be ready to help, not just use the situation as an opportunity to tear down the government.  Here's how you can help: offer to sponsor a refugee for a year, provide them with housing, and help them to find jobs. If only ten thousand people sponsored one refugee or one refugee family each, look how much of the problem would be solved.  I further believe that what Sanctuary Cities should really be doing is to work with the Federal government by making use of all their local resources, charitable organizations, religious communities and volunteers to take in however many refugees they  can handle, depending on their finances and other considerations, instead of working against the government to protect immigrants who are in this country illegally. It seems that t here is so much screaming from the opposition that it drowns out any semblance of civility.  When I was a child growing up and being schooled in the 40's and 50's the prevailing lesson was that if you didn't like a law then work to change it.  Today there are too many laws that have simply been ignored or outright violated with no consequence.  Patience has been replaced by demands for instant change. This is not a good lesson to be teaching our children. I hope that you will at least consider my suggestions, and work to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.  Thank you for reading to the bottom of this blog.

Reflections on the Recent Election

     Pundits and prognosticators all over the media  are wringing their hands over the miraculous election of Donald Trump, projecting doom and gloom and everything else from a financial meltdown to a nuclear holocaust. In among all these rants some truths have peeked out, and I would like to share some of them.  First, due to the existence of the Electoral College, America is the only country in the world where the president is accountable to all the voters, not just those who voted for him.  In the voting process, the Electoral College functions much like the Senate does in the legislative process: it gives equal, or nearly equal, weight to each state, regardless of population size. Second, America is not, and never has been, a true democracy; we are a representative republic, where senators and representatives do the actual legislating for us. Throughout our governing process there are checks and balances built in, so that no one person or group can easily gain too much power.  This last item has become somewhat problematic, especially during Mr. Obama's administration, with the unchecked growth in the use of Executive Orders by the president, which at least temporarily by-passes the need to get congressional approval in the form of legislation.  The down-side of this is that Executive Orders can be eliminated instantly by the next president, wiping out any gains made by the  previous one. I suspect that Mr. Obama may live to regret taking this short-term approach to implementing his agenda, in that Mr. Trump, when president, can and probably will eliminate many if not most of  his predecessor's orders. I also believe that one of the reasons that Mrs. Clinton did not win, in spite of the apparent popularity of Mr. Obama, is that his policies did not please any group except his core base of socialist-leaning voters, most of whom live in the larger urban areas of the country.  From a population standpoint, more people in the urban areas appear to want these socialist policies, but from a country-wide standpoint, most of the people outside of the urban areas did not want any part of the agenda, which is why Trump won 31 states in the Electoral College while Mrs. Clinton only won 19. The real problem has been a suppression of real diversity, the diversity of thought. The people in power and the media who support them have pushed the idea that only one side is right, labeling anyone who disagrees with them as racists, homophobes, Islamophobes, misogynists or just plain stupid, none of which is true, and none of which helps to have a true dialog related to identifying and solving the nation's problems. So Mr. Trump won.  The media still doesn't seem to be listening, but I hope the people still do.

Attic Treasures and Reflections on a Former President

Whenever I finish one of these posts, I tell myself that I am going to be much more diligent about writing my thoughts down.  Then time goes by and I realize suddenly that days or weeks have gone by and my blog has remained empty.  No wonder practically no one follows this.  Oh, well, it's OK.  To those few who do, I say "Thank you" really gratefully for sticking with me and checking back occasionally. On to my entry:

When we moved back to Connecticut from California, we had with us many, many boxes, some of which have never been opened.  They were put in the attic until we needed them, and eventually were forgotten as more recent items that needed to be saved were put in the attic in front of them. Now that we are getting old, I decided that it was time to clean out the attic before we get too feeble to climb the pull-down stairs that lead to it. So far, I have gone through about a half-dozen boxes and gotten rid of most of their contents, mainly consisting of old books and magazines, but the latest box contained pictures in frames and other breakable stuff that was wrapped in old newspapers dating back to 1978, which is when we started packing for the move in early 1979.  This particular wrapping paper was a copy of the Sacramento Union dated December 10, 1978, and the top-of-the-fold headline read "Nixon Flattened, but no 10-Count". The Nixon referred to in the headline was Richard M. Nixon, the 37th president of the United States, who might have gone down in history as one of the greatest presidents, had it not been for a little scandal called Watergate, which resulted in a choice of removal by impeachment or voluntary resignation less than two years after the start of his second term.  He chose resignation, and left office in August of 1974. Interestingly, the House Judiciary Committee at the time had used charges of obstruction of justice, abuse of power and refusal to honor the committee's subpoenas as justification for recommending impeachment, all of which in some form or other could also be applied to Mr. Obama, yet no one in this Congress has had the courage to pursue an impeachment charge here. I wonder why? Anyway, four years later, Nixon was still a big deal, so I opened the yellowed pages carefully and read the article.  In it, Mr. Nixon stated the following to the reporter:

"If a leader doesn't stand up on a great issue, he's not going to be great.  If he does stand up, he will be controversial.  The mark of leadership is not how a leader can take a popular position and ride with it, like a poll or congressional sentiment.  The real test is to take the unpopular position, if he thinks it is right, and make it popular."  Nixon was pretty good at this until he was derailed by Watergate.

The article was very long, and covered a variety of issues besides Watergate, including issues of the day on which he commented.  Among the views that he held were that the balance-of-power strategy was still the best way to deal with the Soviet Union (now Russia), and that without our military superiority the Soviets would otherwise take advantage of American weaknesses to engage in "adventurous policies" that could result in America suffering a defeat without actual warfare; a bad agreement (like the SALT agreement at the time) is worse than no agreement at all;  the Soviets must be kept out of the Middle East at all cost; Israel must be kept strong enough to defend itself; the US should remain friendly with Israel's Arab neighbors so that the Soviets can't move in, and Egypt's president at the time, Anwar Sadat, must be kept in power as a guarantee of future stability in the region (Israel and Egypt had signed a non-aggression treaty sometime during Nixon's presidency, I think) . Almost forty years later, those policies are essentially still valid, although they have been egregiously dismissed by our present administration, with disastrous results, as we all now know.

 Nixon was also clear-eyed about the complications inherent  in supporting allies who don't engage in the same level of human rights as we do, citing Saudi Arabia and South Vietnam as examples of this dichotomy and laying out exactly what the conflicting ideologies were in each one.  He maintained that keeping them as allies could take precedence over differences in human rights issues, even as we recognize and publicly disagree with those differences. That he had an unsurpassed understanding of politics and especially international relations was never questioned even by his adversaries, according to the article.  It's too bad that he got it so wrong on Watergate.  History may still redeem him, or at least put his accomplishments in perspective. I think I hope that happens. I also think I will save this article and the newspaper in which it was written.