Traveling last week on business, I was seated on the plane next to two teachers.  One of them was also a counselor.  In the course of our conversation she told me about a ten year old boy she had counseled, and whose home she had visited.  She was trying to motivate the boy to work harder in school:

"What do you want to be when you grow up?"

"I wanna be a thief," he replied seriously.

The counselor, a bit surprised, maintained her composure.  "Tell me, what does that mean to you.  What does a thief do?"

"Well, you go into other people's houses, usually while they're gone, and take some of their stuff.  Then you sell the stuff and that way you get money to take care of your family."  He never missed a beat, was as earnest as could be.

"Hmm.  How do you suppose it makes the other people feel...the people whose stuff you took?  Wouldn't that make them sad."

"Oh, you don't understand.  There's this thing called 'insurance.'  When we take their stuff, they tell the insurance people, and the insurance people buy them new stuff to replace it.  So if we take their TV, then they get a brand new TV.  So it works out pretty well for them, too."  This little boy hadn't thought of that on his own, of course.  The counselor had been to their home, and knew that his daddy didn't live there, but he and his mom and siblings lived there with some of his cousins, two of his uncles (when they weren't in jail) and grandma.  These things had been worked out in the minds of the older generation, and were passed on to the younger.

The counselor thought of one more approach: "What about the fact that it is against the law, and if you get caught being a thief you would go to jail?"

Without hesitation, the reply came: "Oh, jail!  My uncles go to jail, and do you know what?" Continuing with a touch of incredulity, "They feed you three meals every day, and you get your own bed to sleep in!"

The counselor knew that in his home, they didn't get three meals a day, and there were only three beds shared by the conglomeration of 'family' who lived there; one child slept in the bathtub, most on the floor, some with a parent (when the parent didn't have a 'friend' over for the night).

Hearing the story nearly moved me to tears.  What a tragic example of the consequences of many choices.

When small children are taught in their home how to justify robbery as an acceptable career path, something is wrong.  We are clearly reaching a crisis in our nation.  It is a moral crisis, more than anything.  Often we think 'moral' is just about sexual issues, but morality touches every area of life; it's the question of objective right and wrong. 

The proliferation of regulation is the result of, and at the same time I believe is a contributing cause of, this moral crisis.  No longer do we teach simple honesty as the standard for dealing with our fellow man.  No longer do we suggest that there may be eternal consequences.  No longer do we explain that there is a Creator God who knew best, knows best, and therefore deserves our respect and obedience.

Perhaps it started with Bill 'Philanderer-in-Chief' Clinton lying about his sexual harassment of an intern, but I don't think so.  Maybe it began with stealing information from the DNC headquarters, by Richard 'I-am-not-a-Crook' Nixon?  Or when the Supreme Court said you could not post the Ten Commandments on the wall of a public school?  Or pray in school?  Maybe it began with the New Deal, when it became fashionable to presume that others should be responsible for your retirement needs?  Probably each of these was just one more small step, one more choice that seemed right at the time, disregarding objective morality.  Each was just one more 'situational ethics' decision, and 'everything is relative' conclusion. 

As man has continually rejected any outside, objective standard of morality, he has gradually, ever so slowly, step-by-step, slid into a slough ...where little boys are now being taught robbery as a perfectly acceptable, logically-justified career option.

We need to get some facts straight, and figure out the right position to take, and stand on it, or we are going to be picked to pieces by the vultures on the left, and never know what ate us. As clear as one might believe the Bible is in condemning homosexual activity—as it is on adultery, pornography, lying, stealing, envy and a host of other activities common in our culture, some but not all of which coincide with civil law—the Bible will not be the basis for the civil definition of marriage. To make it so will speed Conservatives’ defeat. Activists like those in Maine can turn it against us in the debate.

I propose that we put aside nuanced rhetoric and be clear and unembarrassed in our beliefs, and aggressively pursue legal means of protecting or regaining the proper definition of marriage, as follows.

1. Conservatives don’t believe in discrimination (jobs, taxes, access to public accommodations and services, etc.) on the basis of benign, immutable characteristics.  Homosexual inclinations are in many situations benign traits, but in other situations (military barracks, for instance) they are not benign.

Though it is not essential to this debate, we should note that immutability remains a scientific debate. The American Psychological Association recently pronounced that despite all the efforts to prove homosexuality is genetic, there “is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.” (See here)

2. The term “relationship” applies to all sorts of legal and emotional interaction between humans. Conservatives believe everyone should be free to engage in relationships that the individuals deem appropriate, unless those relationships injure others. (As Thomas Jefferson said good government will “restrain men from injuring one another”) All sorts of contractual relationships are permitted, and discrimination is against the law. 

These relationships are based on economics as well as pleasure: I pay $40 to the proprietors for a day riding roller coasters at an amusement park; clients hire a professional to render particular services that bring them peace of mind, economic benefits or other satisfaction; two individuals with complimenting skill sets who trust each other agree to form a partnership for their mutual economic gain; one person appoints another (as his 'agent') to make medical decisions (power of attorney) for the individual.  The existence of homosexual inclinations makes no difference in these relationships.   

3. Conservatives also believe that there are some specific relationships which deserve government favor or recognition: parent-child relationships, for example deserve special treatment as compared to brother-sister, cousin-cousin, neighbor-neighbor, professional-client, principal-agent, etc.  Marriage between man and woman is one of those special relationships that deserves special recognition.

The relationship between a man and woman who have made a solemn religious vow and/or civil pledge to be husband and wife for life is called “marriage.”  Marriage is a unique relationship which goes beyond pleasure, economics, convenience, satisfaction or peace of mind.  It is not subject to the whim of the parties…they cannot simply agree to dissolve the relationship. 

The essence of marriage is that a man and woman are biologically designed to bear children when they engage in the intimate activities associated with such mutual promises of permanent fidelity, and their promises are held to a standard of legal permanence that assumes as at least one major purpose the nurturing of their offspring. Not only is this obvious from their physical makeup, but it is supported by thousands of years of civil and religious culture and law. I defy anyone to produce evidence that the term "marriage" has been used by any culture to define any other sort of relationship.  The commitment between two humans biologically designed (or “evolved” if you buy that explanation of origins—it matters not for this discussion) to procreate is one that has gained deserved governmental recognition and preferential treatment. 

The government has a long-term interest in the continued replacement of population. Some countries are providing direct financial incentives to its citizens who bear and rear children. (Don't believe me? Click here)

And for good reason. Various studies show that economies are suffering greatly, and the well-being of the elderly is in jeopardy, in large measure because of the declining birth rates. As fewer people have children and those who do bear less than “replacement” levels, our population is getting age-heavy, and there are insufficient producing individuals to provide for the elderly and to support the tax revenue required to deliver the social services promised to the elderly. (See Demographic Winter, for specifics.)

With the unique benefits—pleasure, companionship, security, and more—of the marriage relationship come inherent obligations.  The parties cannot opt out of their duties to the natural product of this unique union—a child. People of ordinary mental capacity recognize and embrace, at least at an emotional level, the natural duty of parent to care for their child even when it means subordinating their own desires. The law also enforces this duty: even giving up the child for adoption is subject to judicial approval, and permitted only if the well-being of the child is assured.  

In addition, marriage between man and woman creates a type of stability in society because of the inherent difference between men and women. By and large, they complement each other in a family or household, each brings strengths not found in the other, each filling a necessary role in the home. Even by the most basic biological differences such as the ability to nurse and usual disparity in physical strength for protecting and providing, nature makes evident that this is the proper balance and order in society.

Because it is the building block of the human race—since we accept the recognized value of life, the value of children, the value of new workers, the value of new voters, the value of new soldiers, the value of new doctors, the value of new scientists, and on and on—the government recognizes and gives special privileges to that solemn man-woman relationship called marriage. Because of the value it brings to culture we go on to provide incentives for marriage: the right to engage in consensual sex without shame (after all, premarital and extra-marital sex are still frowned upon in most religions and are illegal in some jurisdictions), inheritance rights, transfer tax exemptions, modest (barely!) income tax incentives, the right to be executor of an estate, and other such privileges. 

No homosexual (man-man or woman-woman) relationship, even if coupled with a public promise of lifelong monogamous commitment, can be compared fairly to marriage between man and woman. No homosexual relationship gives the government anything in return. Homosexual relationships are essentially about nothing more than the personal happiness and pleasure of the parties. This doesn’t mean we discriminate against people who want to have these kinds of relationships; it just means that such relationships should not entitle the participants to any special governmental incentives.

ANSWERING THE OBJECTIONS:

“Marriage has evolved to being just about the mutual pleasure, companionship and happiness of the parties.” Inroads have been made, as acknowledged above. And the battle should not be conceded in that area.  If marriage is about pleasure of the parties and no-one else has the right to deny them the pleasure and happiness afforded people who love each other, then there would remain no reason to prohibit polygamy, for instance. Why not three men being married? Four women and two men? Under what theory would we prohibit incestuous marriages, so long as the parties are at the age of consent and take steps to assure no biological offspring result from their marriage? The definition has served civil society very well; there is no reason to start down the slippery slope.

 “There is discrimination in inheritance and other legal rights.” Some will argue that homosexuals are not allowed fairness with respect to inheritance rights, the right to be executor of an estate, the right to visit in the hospital, and other such privileges. This is exaggerated at least and in many instances absolutely misrepresented. Here is the truth. If a person has no will, his or her heterosexual spouse is probably the “default” heir and the “default” executor of the decedent’s will/estate. A spouse may be given “automatic” visitation privileges at the hospital.  But there are very few areas where the affirmative act of the parties cannot make these privileges equivalent for homosexuals. You can appoint not only your spouse (married, heterosexual), but about anyone who is of age—including your gay lover—as your health care proxy/agent (power of attorney) and thereby have them privileged to see your medical records, be involved in medical decisions, and visit you in the hospital. Further, the laws of every state allow individuals to appoint anyone—including their homosexual partner—to arrange for disposition of their body, and as the beneficiary to receive their estate. Modest tax advantages are still granted exclusively to a married couple; I submit they are more than justified by the procreative purpose they provide for the country.

“But marriage has evolved in many ways over the centuries; this is just one more of many.” The marriage relationship has evolved over the centuries, without a doubt. In different societies and times men have virtually “owned” the women, polygamy is practiced, marriages are arranged, and so forth. Many aspects of marriage have changed…about all but one, that is! Marriage has always been the joining of two humans of opposite physical gender, who are naturally designed for procreation.  Provide evidence to the contrary.  There is none.

“But not all marriages produce children, so you can’t limit the definition that way.”  Obviously, some married couples cannot have children; some have disabilities. Would you advocate discrmination against persons with physical disabilities?  We don’t penalize people of a particular clearly-defined category—gender—for being disabled in other ways, nor should we deprive them of the classification "marriage" because of some physical defect.  Their fundamental design--human male and female--fits, despite their physical impairment.

You further object that not all who marry and are capable of producing offspring do. Either they choose not to engage in the activities that lead to pregnancy, or they choose to interfere with the natural fertilization process, or even abort their child when they discover the pregnancy. Still, their natural state and design is for procreation; that they choose to reap the pleasurable benefits of marriage and reduce the “risk” of bearing children does not change the fundamental physical design. It could more easily be argued that the state has an interest in limiting access to birth control than in erasing the procreative design differences between men and women.

“The government has no business endorsing or providing incentives to marriage relationships at all.” This could be argued meritoriously only if we accept your definition of marriage, that is, as nothing more than a relationship for the mutual pleasure and happiness of the parties. If that is all marriage amounts to, then you truly are arguing for the abolition of the entire concept. That sort of relationship contributes nothing that the government has a valid interest in. Be careful what you wish for.

NO RELIGIOUS BASIS?

Of course there are many, many moral and religious bases for retaining the traditional definition of marriage. I leave those to our pastors and priests.  In the debate in the statehouses, Congress and courts, those bases simply are not given any weight. Rather, those arguments create the impression that the only reason we don’t want marriage redefined is because it violates “our religion”—and the lawyers and legislators don’t care about your religion or mine.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that he will decline stimulus money specifically targeted at expanding state unemployment insurance coverage, becoming the first state executive to officially refuse any part of the federal government’s payout to states.

In a statement, Jindal, who is slated to give the Republican response to President Barack Obama’s message to Congress on Tuesday, expressed concern that expanding unemployment insurance coverage would lead to increased unemployment insurance taxes later on.
“The federal money in this bill will run out in less than three years for this benefit and our businesses would then be stuck paying the bill,” Jindal said. “We must be careful and thoughtful as we examine all the strings attached to the funding in this package. We cannot grow government in an unsustainable way.”

I wonder, Gov. Jindal, if you could accept the federal money and turn it into a tax cut for job-creators in Louisiana?  Or does it have too many strings attached?  If you could turn it into a state income tax cut, you'll help your state surge ahead economically!  Roughly the opposite of what we can expect in the Socialist State of Insaninois.

"Republicans have caught the Democrats in a midnight “stimulus” power play that seeks to cut Republican conferees out of the House-Senate negotiations to resolve a final version of the Obama “stimulus” package. Staff members from the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) met last night to put together the “stimulus” conference report." 

BILL PRESS:  ... All we want is, you know, some balance on the airwaves, that's all. You know, we're not going to take any of the conservative voices off the airwaves, but just make sure that there are a few progressives and liberals out there, right?
HARKIN: Exactly, and that's why we need the fair -- that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

I am watching a good man die.  It is a fascinating experience.  Emotions ebb and flow around the house where it is happening. 

I believe it was John Wesley who said, "Our people die well."  This man is dying well. 

He is looking forward to what awaits on the other side.  He wants to be shaved each day, looking his best for the trip when Jesus comes to get him.  Each morning he says he thinks it will be today.  Each evening, maybe tomorrow.

He is torn, of course.  He loves his family, his friends, his fellow-workers, his church, his nieces and nephews, even the customers he was serving just last week (lesser men would have quit many months ago, when this cancer had advanced to the brutal stage).  He loves the men he helped through Interfaith Freedom Initiative (Prison Fellowship).  He loves the children from his small community, many of whom are now grown, who he invited and transported to Sunday School. 

His loved ones are mostly on this side; we won't be going with him...not now, anyway.  Oh, yes, there are others he loved who are awaiting his arrival.  His mother.  Ronnie & Harry, his dear brothers-in-law.  Others, too, of course.  He looks forward to seeing them.  But he already said goodbye to them, and he's still with the rest of us, the living.  The approaching separation carries some natural dread. 

He looks forward mostly to seeing Jesus.  After all, that is who he has served.  His selfless service and love to those around him has been nothing if not motivated by his love for his Savior.  Jesus changed his life dramatically.  I was 5 at the time, and don't remember him from before.  But from what I hear, Jesus' influence changed him from a truly "nice guy" to perhaps the finest man, father, husband, neighbor, friend and example the world has known.  Even on his deathbed as people come by the house to say their often-teary goodbyes, and while his mind is fogged by enormous amounts of pain medication, he searches for words to give Jesus Christ credit for all the good that has come from his life, for the things people thank him for.  For those who are not believers, he gropes for one final word to say to encourage them to trust Jesus with their future.

I will never be the same for having shared these hours, so far, a couple of days.  Hospice tells us it might be another week or more.  He doesn't want it to be.  After all, he's been the "man of the house" since he was 10, when his father died in this same house.  He feels like in his condition he is no longer able to give and serve, that he is now just the one who is being served, and he doesn't want to live that way.  Of course he is incorrect.  Even in the groggy fog of methadone and morphine, he finds ways to give.  He is blessing us all, even through his embarrassment and discomfort.  But let us not be selfish.  We must let him go...so we are ready.  We will miss him for the rest of our lives, but will look forward to a reunion.  Where he will be, it will seem like no time at all, so there will be no time for him to miss us.  And we'll keep his memory steering us, as a tangible representation of Jesus Himself, in our lives until we each rejoin him.

Lord, we know Dad is ready to meet you.  We are confident that what awaits him is beautiful and pleasing beyond our imagination.  We are ready for you to take him out of his agony, to heal him once and for all.  His final victory over cancer, over death itself, although bittersweet, will be a time of celebration for us all.  Help us to grow each day until that right moment, when you will take Richard Ferguson to your side.

***********************************************************

Nov 19, 2008

Dad thought he was leaving for good around midnight last night.  "Not sure why, I just feel different," he said. "What are you feeling that makes you think so?" I asked.  "Joy!" he beamed.  The rest of the family gathered into his bedroom, talked, cried, smiled, prayed, and sang hymns together.  It was beautiful.  As time slipped past and "nothing happened" Dad's spirits sank slowly but visibly.  A few (counting Mom, kids, our spouses and grandkids, there are 12 of us "living" here to be with Dad) started to drift back out of his bedroom to their various air mattresses, couches, sleeping bags, etc.  Most of us lingered, until he announced, "dismissed."  That cleared everyone but his son, sleeping on the floor by his bed.  He struggled the rest of the night with pain and disappointment.  By noon the medicine was increased enough, it started holding his pain at bay again.

Nov 20, 2008

Dad is sleeping most of the time now, heavily medicated.  Maybe his premonition of dying night before last was not actually about death, but a last opportunity for us to be with him and he really to enjoy us, smiling, singing with us, and happy.  As the dosages have increased, now we only get a few minutes with him--and he with us--each time he wakes.   He eats some pudding or yogurt, drinks water or eggnog, takes his pills and quickly starts nodding off again.  But he seems to be in little pain now.  Thank you, God.

Nov 21, 2008

No noticeable change today.  "I'd like to just go to sleep and wake up in heaven," he said.  Several visitors; dad even made the rest of us "clear out" of his bedroom so he could give personal advice to one.  The last granddaughter arrived today.  In his wheelchair Dad joined us and some extended family for supper at the dining room table tonight.  Rather disoriented tho.   "My body is just wasting away," he told me as we tucked him in for the night.  That's OK, he won't need it much longer.  Days? Weeks?  Just allow him to stay out of serious pain, Lord.

Nov 22, 2008

Seems to all of us that Dad was slower, less sharp during his waked time today.  He spent some extra minutes (doubtless their last) with the eldest granddaughter, as she has to leave tomorrow morning.  My daughters and one son-in-law had to leave for a few days.  We three kids and Mom gathered in this evening and Dad actually joined us in singing his favorite song, I'd Rather Have Jesus (which he will be singing via recording at his funeral).  He says things we don't understand at times.  Once when giving him meds he asked me something like, "think I can get out the smaller garage door?"  I assured him he can leave any way he wants and anytime he is ready.  We'll be fine, Dad; you taught us responsibility and to trust Jesus.

Nov 23, 2008

As I lay on the mattress beside his hospital bed in the earlier part of the morning, listening to his labored, gap-filled breathing, it seemed that this was probably going to be the day Dad got to really go Home.  At 9:30, he opened his eyes and rather suddenly asked, "What's for dinner?"  Before I really got an answer out, his eyes closed again and he seemed asleep.  Later: "what time is it?" Answer: "About 10 am." Question: "What did I have for breakfast?" Answer: "A roll and some yogurt" (a few bites of each, which he had to be reminded to chew...and to swallow).  Around 10:40: "What are we having for dinner?"  Someone who knew told him about the meal dear friends had brought for us to heat up today.  Made me think, I bet in heaven he is going to get a lot of good meals.  After eating lunch on the side of his bed, Dad was relatively perkier the rest of the day; although he still slept most of the time, he seemed to be swallowing better when he was awake.  Got him into his wheelchair and out of the bedroom for over an hour this evening.  We'll see what another night holds.

Nov 24, 2008

Interesting day it has been.  During the night Dad had me read some of the emails he has received in the last week from people saying goodbye and thanking him for his positive influence on their lives.  That brought happy, sometimes almost incredulous tears to his eyes.  Then he slept.  The morning started much like any other.  Dad wanted to get out of bed at lunchtime, and for the next 4 hours wouldn't go back to bed.  Ate.  Showered (one of us got clean, the other sweaty).  Shaved.  Ate dessert.  "Dictated" a letter of recommendation, then edited it at length.  Finally went back to bed around 4 and we realized that one of his "sleepy" meds was not given at its usual noon time.  Supper time he was back up in his wheelchair to join us at the table.  Sat on his bed after that and told us some stories (recorded those- yeesss!) but finally admitted he was in a lot of pain.  Too much activity today.  A dear couple stopped in to visit then, and with them and dad we enjoyed singing, reading a Psalm, and praying together.  Finally worn out, he went to sleep...only to wake up within an hour.  Still hurting.  Now (9:20) he wants to watch a video!  Looks like it will be  Secondhand Lions.  Gets his mind off the pain.  Every day is a new experience, and today it's been "never a dull moment"...

Nov 25, 2008

Much different than yesterday.  Not much activity.  Hospice nurse came early afternoon, said some of his physical evidences of 'the end' had actually diminished!  Blood pressure still pretty strong.  Meds apparently kept him sleepier today, tho; he hardly woke long enough to take meds and a few bites of food until after 5pm.  Then he wanted to go for a wheelchair ride to the living room and watch Brit Hume on FoxNews.  A couple of visitors came about then, which always cheers him.  He went back to bed by 8, and promptly to sleep.  We had some precious moments, as we do every day.  We thank God for every "relatively pain free" day.  Thanksgiving together looks quite promising; maybe even his 72nd birthday on Dec 1.  Thank you all for your thoughts and prayers.

Nov 26, 2008

Dad had a visitor today who brought significant cheer: his Merschman Seed boss came by; they had a very warm visit.  Dad's overall condition seemed a bit stronger, almost a rebound of sorts.  Pain generally under control, and he had us wheel him to his desk, to two meals, and for some evening time in the living room. Looks like we (my wife and daughters) may be able to get back home to Salem this weekend to take care of some obligations.  Who knows?  Maybe we will be "commuting" on a regular basis for some time...if Dad holds steady.  Such hopes are guarded, of course.  He is clearly terminal, but so long as he is pain-free and aware we want him around as long as we can have him!

Nov 27, 2008

One thing to be thankful for like never before...Dad had a very active day and very little pain.  Morning was about like others, and Dad joined us for Thanksgiving dinner around 2.  Then he asked to be taken outside for a ride in the golf cart!  When we came back in, he sat in his recliner in the living room for a couple of hours, before finally asking to be taken back to bed, where he has been sleeping soundly.  The relatively stable condition gives us some peace about having to leave tomorrow for a couple of days.  Pray for Carma, Canda and Allen as they "hold down the fort" while we take care of obligations in Salem this weekend.

Nov 29, 2008

I am back in Salem, Illinois, taking care of business matters this weekend.  Dad's condition yesterday and today seems to be remaining stable at the slightly improved level.  Still requires assistance to get out of bed, is wheeled around the house in a wheelchair, and is at his best still a little foggy (mentally).  We are expecting an increase in medication soon, tho, as he has complained some about pain again.  He spent much of this morning in his recliner in the living room. After lunch, Canda said he wanted to rest, went back to bed.  Thanks for your continued prayers.

Dec 2, 2008

Sorry to have missed a couple of days.  Laura, our girls and I returned here to the folks' house late Sunday night.  Monday was Dad's 72nd birthday!  We had company in the evening.  Biggest changes I am noticing: dad is starting to lose some bladder control, and when he is awake and alert, he seems to be more easily confused; yesterday during supper, it seemed as tho he momentarily didn't recognize my two sisters who have been here for several weeks.  He was teary-eyed about that, seemed to recognize that he is wavering between competent and not.  (Company started coming for the 'birthday party' shortly after that.)  This morning around his 4am meds, he asked me, "Am I going crazy?"  I assured him, no, he wasn't crazy but the medicine is making it hard for him to think straight at times.  He still acts like he wants to go to the desk and try to work, but then he is just too sleepy.  It is both heart-warming and heart-rending to see him still wanting to be productive; he's never been a slacker!

Dec. 2, 2008, 4pm

Dad has enough wits about him that he continues to struggle with feeling worthless.  His life has been so devoted to working, contributing, earning his way, making a difference for others.   This new status in life where he simply cannot physically do for others is terribly distressing.  This afternoon he shared some of those feelings with me, feeling badly to just "sleep the day away."  He wanted to stay up in case Matt, the fellow who is assuming Dad's Merschman territory, would stop by to visit!  I tried to assure him that his "work" of that sort is complete, that God has a new role for him.  Dad said he could "still pray" and be a help to others that way.  He sees it, but it is still a very, very difficult transition to internalize.

Dec. 3, 2008, 11:45pm 

Dad seemed a bit stronger today.  A couple of times he got up (from sitting on the bed or a chair) with almost no help at all, to get into his wheelchair.  Canda's family is still all there; Laura stayed to help out while my girls and Carma and I came back to Salem tonight to take care of some obligations Thursday and Friday.   Without any adjustment to his pain pills in the last 2+ weeks, his pain is remaining under control for now.  That's the biggest challenge, so we are thankful.

Dec. 4, 2008, 9:10pm

I am in Salem still, but (ironically after last night's post) the word from Iowa is that Dad's pain is coming back.  His back and hips are hurting, where it usually kicks returns.  Medicine will start increasing, with it's usual effects.

Dec 6, 2008, 1:40pm

Sorry I didn't post yesterday.  I was in Salem, arrived back in Iowa at 12:40am today.  Dad woke when I came into his room, was very happy to see me, teary-eyed, talked about something I did for him he was thankful for...Hospice adjusted his medicine yesterday, and I couldn't quite make out what he was talking about, seemed to be about the Memo we helped him write to all of his Merschman customers...gracefully telling them about his 'new assignment', thanking them for their patronage, and encouraging them to give his successor the same respect as they have always given him.  Dad slept pretty well the rest of the night, up a couple of times, but mostly sleeping until 7:30 am or so.  He is up right now in the recliner; thankfully, he seems to be pretty comfortable.  

Dec 7, 2008, 3pm

Up several times last night.  Seems his new medication routine is making Dad more unpredictable.  This morning we got some of the first hints of a sort of "rebellious" attitude from him, in an "I can do it myself" situation; he even said something about wanting to "go to the county home" instead of staying here with us caring for him!  We're confident that it is the medicine and possibly tumors on his head that are making him this way.  And thankfully, it doesn't seem to be a new direction, but was more of an aberration.  Later in the morning, and through and since lunch, he has been in good humor, laughing at lame jokes, and making a few of his own.  Again, he is up in the recliner this afternoon.  We pray, and appreciate yours, that his mind won't go off in the hostile direction.  It would be so out of his character.  I think it was Normal Vincent Peale who said, "As you are at 30 you will be at 70, only more so."  If that holds true with this slipping mind, we don't have anything to worry about.

Dec 8, 2008, 10:30pm

Slept better than ever last night, only up at 2:30 and 6, then slept in ‘til 9!   During that earliest morning wake time, sitting on the bed beside each other, I asked him, "Do you still think about heaven?"  "Oh, yeah!" was his immediate reply, followed by something like it "has to be better than" this life.  It was a good day; thank you for any prayers you offered, esp. on yesterdays "request"...so far, they are being answered.  He was so gracious and pleasant again today.  It is a little amusing, in a way, how his mind has become a bit juvenile.  It makes it easy to get a chuckle out of him!  We moved a bird feeder to be in view outside his bedroom window, and he was moved to tears when he saw it.  For years he has loved to sit at his desk and watch the birds outside that window, but he can't get to his desk now.  Later, I quietly thanked him for being so gracious to let us help him in the many ways he now requires, and he turned the thank you around, of course, in appreciation for what we are doing.  Then, squelching tears of gratitude, he said "let's go watch a ballgame."  I pictured Candy and Martin in Planes, Trains & Automobiles.  (Some others were watching a cooking show, so we just joined them.)

Dec 9, 2008, 3pm

No obvious change today.  Seems we're in a rather stable situation.  Dad's seems tired of taking pills, seems weary when we offer him 8 pills before breakfast.  But, he dutifully complies.  Didn't stay up long, went back to bed and slept through lunch.  We'll likely see him up and out for supper, maybe to the recliner for an hour or two.  A shower wore him out totally.  It does seem his mind gets a bit foggier each day.  Tomorrow, Laura the girls and I must go back to Salem again for a couple of days.  (Our van has a transmission problem--we'll have to use the folks' van for the round trip.  Grrrr)

Dec 11, 2008, 8pm

We left Wednesday a little before noon, had to go to Salem for work.  When I called him in the evening, and again today, he is pretty hard to converse with on the phone.  Partly just his voice, but he also can't follow a thought thru to a complete sentence, it seems.  Mom says he slept most of the day.  Pain still at bay, tho. 

Dec 13, 2008, 7:45pm

Seeing Dad this afternoon, I am pretty amazed at how far he has declined in the last three days.  Did not leave his bedroom today, did not eat anything after a couple of bites of pancake this morning.  Hasn't been able to keep his pills down orally.  Although he woke momentarily when I arrived this afternoon, and seemed glad to see me, he hasn't really been able to make any sort of conversation at all.  Made me understand that he wanted to be warmer (turned off his ceiling fan, covered him with a blanket) and wanted to use the bedside toilet, and that's about it.  When he wakes he is pretty much just staring-into-space.  Maybe it is God's time; maybe Dad is starting his descent...maybe he's about to "touch down" at his new home...at this rate the landing may take him a few days.

Dec 14, 2008, 4:45pm

Up several times in the night, generally refusing to take pills; one pain medication is a liquid given by a dropper, we just keep giving him that.  Dad is very mixed up, tho.  Has talked several times about "going home"; we think at times he is talking about going to his house, i.e. home from the hospital (and we reassure him, point out the window, etc. that he is home--which amazes and pleases him) and other times we think he may be talking about going "home" to heaven.  We had a very special time with him this afternoon, after Cameron and I showered him.  (That project was the hardest it has ever been, he being less able to help than ever before.)  He was bushed when we got him back into bed.  After lying there a few minutes, he looked up at me, curiously, and asked: "When did we meet?"  "January 24, 1965," I replied, "when I was born and you saw your new son."  Amazement went over his face, then tears as he reached to give me a big hug.  "Where have you lived?" he asked.  We talked like this for awhile, then I "introduced" him to my wife.  Each family member who is here came into his bedroom, reminded him who they were, and he hugged them, and expressed overwhelming joy at all of us being right there with him.  We sat and stood around his bed awhile, and he talked more than he had in awhile about heaven, and going to be with Jesus.  He even cried for people who "won't go there."  Still thinking of others...

Dec 15, 2008, 9:15pm

About two hours ago I told my nephew that it would not surprise me if tonight is Dad's night.  I'm probably wrong, but he is definitely getting closer.  He asked several times about his car and pickup, like he is planning a trip.  Wanted to know where his coat is.  He shows more physical signs, it seems.  Weaker.  More confused.  Has to be reminded repeatedly that he is in his home; apparently thinks he is at the hospital when he is in his bedroom.  He did sit in the recliner again today (after missing 2 days) but slept nearly the whole time.  Still not eating, generally refuses to take pills.  Has some additional pains he tells us about when we ask.  Mom and sisters took a much-needed afternoon/evening off; this evening at bedtime Dad asked repeatedly where they were, when they are coming.  We'll see. 

Dec 18, 2008, 7:30am

Dad made it through the night (Dec 15) and another (Dec 16) and I haven't received "the call" yet this morning, so I am assuming he is still with us this morning.  I've been away almost 2 days.  Yesterday, sisters reported that Dad slept in the recliner chair instead of his bed Tuesday night.  Still generally staying sweet in spirit.  Monday night (2:30am) he got a bit obstinate, wanting to go outside and go somewhere in his car, even "if you kids won't go with me, I'll go myself," and tried to stand on his own.  Couldn't.  He is also a bit testy about taking pills now.  Hospice says we must get the methadone in him one way or another.  A set that he swallowed yesterday, however, didn't stay down.  Since he hasn't eaten anything, maybe his stomach just won't hold anything.  Vitals were still generally strong Wednesday when Hospice visited.  Like the Energizer Bunny...

Dec 19, 2008, 9:30pm

When we arrived back at the folks place today, there is a marked difference.  Dad is considerably weaker, and cannot maintain a coherent conversation, or really a sentence.  His voice is down to a coarse whisper.    He regularly asks about his car, is it available, where are the keys.  Wants to go to town.  No reason given that we can understand.   He sips a little 7-up, had some orange sherbet in it; orange sherbet float has long been a favorite.  He gets about two sips, then loses interest.   Hospice gave us a new plan for the pills, since he takes his morphine from a dropper OK; crush the pills, mix them with a little water, and give it to him with the dropper.  So far that is working pretty well.  This evening he seems to recognize us all pretty consistently.  One thing I notice: he doesn't seem to be aware of his weakness and loss of mental capacity; now.  He had been expressing frustration about that sort of thing.  Now he seems unaware of it.  That is a blessing.  He sits in the recliner all day (slept there almost 11 hours straight last night!); then two of us move him to the wheelchair.  Moved his feet a tiny shuffle as we moved him from wheelchair to bed, where he seems ready to sleep tonight. 

Dec 20, 2008, 10:30pm

Well, it was a pretty quiet day.  After he woke up for meds this morning, Dad slept pretty much continuously ‘til about 5pm.  I think this is the first day that he did not leave his bed at all.   (OK, two of us stood him for a brief moment while another straightened his sheets.)  It does seem like the end is approaching now.  Days?  The nurses we talk to seem to think so.  He was pleasant when awake.  At 5pm he took some meds, drank a few sips of 7-up.  Said a few words, watched a little Christmas programming on TV, and drifted back to sleep.  When he does talk, it is more like he is unaware of his fast-approaching "graduation" from the school of hard knocks.  During the night when he was awake, he told Laura and me that he would help us "get the cows" and also offered us the use of his car, and said he'd have mom make us breakfast!  Still thinking of the other person.  It definitely had become a major part of his character, and still shows itself.  Moments ago (10:15) he was awake for a few minutes.  Said "I think I'll sleep here one more night."  Wonder if it's just his confused mind...or he knows something we don't?

Dec 21, 2008, 7:30pm

As I sit here in the corner of Dad's bedroom, listening and watching him breath erratically and occasionally shift his hands or legs slightly, I can't help but wonder which breath will be the last.   This morning, we were talking a bit about where he is (in his nearly lifelong home) and one of us asked, "is there any place you would rather be?"...to which he whispered a one-word reply: "Heaven."  We're all with you on that, Dad.  Today's new experience: hospice LPN came and helped us give Dad a bed-bath.  He objected at first, rather distressed, didn't think he or we needed that help.  Had he been physically able I think he would have fled the room!  But when Mom said it was OK, he settled down.  The best thing about his current status is he usually seems unaware of it, not only is he sleeping the vast majority of the time, but when he is awake he is childlike, generally content to let us help him with his basic needs; and his sporadic moments of clarity are pretty much in character (like his "Heaven" answer).  During another of those moments, Christ's coming birthday was mentioned, and he indicated he might be with Jesus by then.  What an amazing gift that would be, as expressed in these words from Michael Podesta: 

"Imagine stepping onto a shore and finding it heaven. 

Imagine taking ahold of a hand and finding it God's hand. 

Imagine breathing new air and finding it's celestial air. 

Imagine feeling invigorated and finding it immortality. 

Imagine passing from storm and tempest to an unknown calm. 

Imagine waking and finding it home."

Dec 23, 2008, 5:30am

Early hours of the morning, here.  Sitting in Dad's room, again.  Giving him cold water on a sponge when he wakens (often, but briefly) and giving him medicine ever 90 minutes or so.  Dad's biggest change seems to be the ever-increasing [how do I say this?] phlegm building up in his throat, causing his breathing to be rattly, and causing regular coughing/gagging spells.  He is so weak; used to put his hands behind his head occasionally, now it seems like he is trying to at times, but can't.  Back is always itching, so he squirms, slipping down in the bed that is supposed to keep his head elevated.  Last evening (December 22) he wanted his shoes (we put slippers on him) and his Merschman cap (got it, kept it on even while he slept for a couple of hours); then wanted Merschman pants, too! (No such thing.)  Seemed like he was going somewhere.  We still from time to time get a big happy-looking smile from him, especially when he recognizes us.  We thank God for those moments.

Christmas Eve, 2008, 5am

Don't know how much longer it can be.  Sitting again in Dad's room listening, whispering to him as we wet his mouth.  He has mouthed the words "how long?"  I don't know, Dad.  "One of these times you're going to close your eyes and the next thing you'll see is Jesus,” I told him. “Try to rest.   Close your eyes and ask Jesus to come and get you.  He will soon, but we don't know when."  Hospice RN was here late yesterday morning.  Still doesn't have a lot of the clear signs of the end, she said.  Blood pressure up a bit.  Phlegm in the throat still a constant discomfort.  Lungs still pretty clear.  Bladder still functioning.  Strong pulse in feet.  No obvious mottling in skin color.  Yesterday evening Dad’s sister Dorothy and Joe were here.  Dad seemed to recognize them after awhile.  With them we all sang Christmas carols, then hymns around his bed.  Precious time.

Christmas Eve, 2008, 1pm

Dad's pain is over.  He has a perfect new body, and is getting all his questions about heaven answered now, in person.  Several of us were in his room with him; at about 12:40pm.  Thank God, there was no apparent struggle.  My Dad gets to spend Jesus' Birthday with Him.   What a gift!  It's an answer to prayer. 

Christmas Eve, 2008, 10:50pm

This will be my final update.  Thank you to those who cared to follow our family saga, especially for all your prayers.  I believe most of those prayers have been answered.  Our family is strong, we firmly believe that Dad is excited about his new home, that he is enjoying his pain-free existence and is experiencing life that is wonderful beyond imagination. 

For a man as strong minded, independent, and self-reliant as to all other humans (while remaining humbly dependent on the Lord) as my Dad was--having been the "man of the house" since age 10 when his own daddy died--this last illness was a terrible trial.  He bore this "cross" bravely; yet it has obviously been an emotional struggle for him, particularly since he was physically forced to stop working in early November.  He rose to the challenge, however, and was gracious and took it (our necessary help) with gratitude that was regularly expressed.  Learning to allow others to receive the blessing of giving to him (something he and I discussed several times in recent months) rather than he always being the giver...and getting the attendant blessing that comes with it...was a big learning experience for Dad.  

I think that "trial" was God's Final Exam for him.  Ultimately, he passed it just fine!  He has graduated from the school of hard knocks, and is now experiencing real life, a life beyond fear, pain, temptation, worry, and all of the limitations placed on us by the human condition and physical restraints.  For those of you who prayed that he would die peacefully and without (most of) the horrible possibilities that sometimes come with this sort of cancer, again, we thank you, your prayers were answered.  We are truly grateful that Dad gets to celebrate Christmas with the One who gave His life for us all, and the One for whom Dad lived.

"[W]e want to do this, change our tax code [a.k.a. 'redistribute the wealth']. ... John McCain and, and Sarah Palin, uh, they, they call this socialistic. You know I, I, I don't know when, when, uh, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness." 

Keeping what one earns is simply justice. Charity, a decidedly Christian virtue, is giving freely and voluntarily of one’s means to help those in need, particularly those who are in need through no fault of their own.

Forced “giving” is not charitable, and actually diminishes both the ability and willingness to be charitable. 

Studies have consistently shown that conservatives are more charitable than liberals. Let’s just “randomly” select two high-profile liberal households in particular, who apparently think giving is a virtue:

Barack & Michelle Obama’s average annual income exceeded $500,000 between 2000 and 2006, and they only gave two percent for charitable purposes.

The Bidens' income averaged $260,000 over the last 10 years, and they averaged just $650 a year in charitable giving.

No money-where-your-mouth-is there, that’s for sure.

So who is it that thinks Obama’s presidential redistribution of wealth plans are something virtuous? Hmmm, let me think. Take a look at his screaming fans at the rallies and you’ll see that the overwhelming majority are folks who would be on the receiving end of the giving! Wow, takes a lot of “virtue” there to be supporting “selflessness” don’t you think?

Which begs the question: how smart and smooth does one have to be to persuade the envious receivers of other peoples’ money that his plan is right and virtuous?

Deregulation would free up competition and in the process solve a lot of the major economic problems that trouble the voters today: drive down consumer prices, reduce profit margins of “big corporations,” slash fat-cat compensation, and increase productivity, just for starters.

The first game of the tournament is played. Team A wins handily. Then the coach of Team B goes to the official after the game, and points out a problem: “We have a good three-point shooter, but nobody as tall as their 7’6” center and they are killing us on the inside. It’s not fair; and besides, the fans are not getting their money’s worth, since we were beaten so badly. Let’s change the rules to say baskets in the paint are worth one point instead of two.” 

In any reasonable world, this would be a ridiculous request. But, say the official agrees with the coach, and changes the rules. Why? Maybe the official agrees with the importance of fans enjoying the game. Or maybe because the coach and the official are old friends, or their wives are in the same club. Maybe the coach donated a lot of money to the official’s wife’s favorite charity. Whatever the reason, the rule is changed and the next game goes much better; it is closer, and Team B wins a squeaker. 

Team A is furious, of course, and their coach approaches the official this time. “With the new rule, you made the game unfair. We don’t have any good three-point shooters; we relied all year on our big man inside, and his baskets are only worth one point now. Since you made the change in their favor, to be fair you need to reduce the outside shots to be worth only two points instead of three.”   The official hesitates. “I’ll buy your dinner this evening, and my wife will contribute $10,000 to your retirement fund,” adds the coach.  With that, the official agrees, and another rule changes.

As expected, the outcome of the next game is changed in favor of Team A. And so it goes through the tournament, back and forth, the rules seesaw, changing the outcome from game to game. 

The official has become something other than an independent observer enforcing the rules: the official has become a participant, with the power to dictate winners and losers. Who would consider this a fair tournament? 

The only way to have a fair tournament would be to keep the rules the same througout. If Team B wanted to win, they would have to find an answer to Team A’s big man; recruit a giant of their own. But how easy is that, compared to a conversation with the official? Getting a rule change that favors your team is much easier than just making the adjustments on your team to win within the rules.

This is the way government regulations work; government has become a player instead of merely an official. Businesses (as well as community organizations…this does not just happen in the for-profit world!) look at the difficulty of competing within the rules versus the possibility of getting a rule changed in their favor. Unfortunately, they have found the latter to be the easier way to get ahead. Every new regulation has an effect of giving someone an advantage; thus we see endless pages of new regulations and rules coming out of Washington.

Companies and their lobbyists bring requests to the officials: change this regulation so more minorities can buy houses, or that one so that fewer people will be turned down when they apply for insurance, or another saying all cars have to have airbags, or to mandate that signs cannot be so close to the road, or requiring that at least 50% of the parts are made in America. Each regulation has a supposed purpose that is in the public interest (sort of like the original Team B pretense of getting a rule changed because the fans were bored with the lopsided game) but will also have an actual effect of giving and advantage to one of the competitors. 

Take the last one as an example: imagine (hypothetically, of course) that most cars have about 65% of their parts made in other countries where the cost of labor is lower, but “Pluto Autos” company has been slower at outsourcing and still has 70% of its parts made in America. As a result, its costs are higher even though the quality of their car is only equal to that of their competitors; those costs have to be passed through to the consumer as a higher-priced but equal-value car. They find that it is getting harder to sell these vehicles. So, Pluto hires lobbyists to ask Congress for a new law…on the premise that it is better for America to have all companies import no more than 50% of the parts. Who could be against that? It means more jobs in America and less of our money going overseas, right? Congress passes the law in a surge of patriotic zeal (or maybe because the lobbyists are big campaign contributors?).

What just happened?   Like Team B that had no tall players, Pluto got the officials to change the rules in the middle of the game. Pluto gave itself a competitive edge in the marketplace. All the other companies are going to have to find American sources for more of their parts, and wiggle out of contracts they have with their overseas suppliers. Pluto’s competitors’ costs are going to jump, surpassing even Pluto’s, giving Pluto at least a temporary advantage. What happens to the price of all cars? Prices go up, meaning every consumer has to pay more to get a car, has less opportunity to buy the cheaper car of equal value.

The basic rules of the business game are this: don’t lie; abide by your agreements; don’t injure other people or their property. That’s it. That’s all we need.

If a particular company has such a large market share that there is no way anyone else can compete, then we break up that monopoly. The Justice Department has done that a few times, as we know. Beyond that, let people buy if they want or go elsewhere if they prefer. 

In a free market governed by only the basic rules of the business game, no person or company can make too much money, because if they can provide a good or service that buyers want and they charge too fat a price, someone else will see the opportunity, get into the business and undercut them, taking away their profits. The first company will have to lower its price and thus its profit margin, or else it will go out of business altogether.

As Thomas Sowell has so aptly put it, we are silly to decry the entrepreneur who gets into business “just to make money” because in a free market, there is only one way to make money, and it is quite honorable: make or provide something that other people want, and offer it to them at a price they are willing to pay. All free market business boils down to a voluntary exchange of value: I have something (a good or service) that you want, you have something (money) that I want, and we only exchange the two if we each freely agree on the equality of the transfer. If I hold out for too high a price, you will look to others to buy from; if you cannot find others who offer the same thing for a better price, you still have freedom to simply not buy at all. If you so decide, I still didn’t get what I wanted (your money) and I am stuck with the good or service that I wanted to sell. Therefore, I lower my price until it reaches the point where you are willing to enter into the exchange.

All of business, when governed by only the basic rules of the business game, is a matter of creative people finding goods or services they can offer to other people that those other people will value. If a buyer values it as much as the creative person asks, there is an exchange: dollars for the good or service. 

Deregulation gets the officials out of the game and forces the players to simply do their best. Be the most efficient at converting raw materials into finished product, because if you don’t, your competitor will. Provide the most valuable advice for the fee, or someone else will provide more for less and you’ll lose your customers. Regulations are like an official changing the rules to affect the outcome of the game, making it too easy for one team to win (and in business that means reap excessive profits or deficient quality).

If they are worthy of the title—and compared to Obama-Biden they would be—McCain and Palin should wear their deregulation credentials on their sleaves! 

(Comments are welcome at cwf@ussonet.net )