At my house there are many positions on team Gubler. There's Mom, Dad, Daughter and Sister; but nothing compares to being named as "Waterboy". I've been serving in the position since 1999 though I have never officially received title or designation.
Valinda, whom we'll call coach, first started grooming me for the position after we found out Fred was on the way. Coach would be lying on our bed and I would come into our room, lie down and then start to get comfortable. As soon as I felt settled in, Coach would request in a sweet voice "Could you please get me a drink of water baby?" I would open my eyes look at the ceiling, grunt and then roll out of bed and bring her back a cup of water. Coach would then look at me and the cup and say, "That's kind-of a small cup." I'd grunt and turn around and bring her back a larger cup of water.
Coach would then explain to me that this routine was just training for when the baby came as the baby would require a lot of attention and would be waking up in the middle of the night.
So Fred arrived and, sure enough, required a lot of attention and midnight feedings. My job would be to run to the kitchen, make bottles for Fred in my half-sleep state, and take the bottles to Coach. Next came Jr. and then George. Same routine, though by George Coach was letting me slack off and would keep bottles close to our bed. It seemed like those first four months for each kid I didn't get much sleep; though I'm sure Coach slept less then me during those days. For all those who think Coach was mean to the Waterboy, I was glad to help out.
Currently, my duty is to provide water at bedtime. For instance, George will ask, "Dad will you get me some water in a sippy cup?" As I'm kissing her on the cheek and tucking her in.
"Yes," I say and hurry to the kitchen and fill up the first sippy cup I can find all the pieces to. I rush the sippy cup back to George whereupon she examines it and looks up at me and says, "Not this sippy cup Dad...I want the blue one!"
Coach trained me well.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Can Third Parties Be Effective?
I got into a discussion with my Uncle Tim concerning politics this last weekend and he indicated that third parties only have the effect of changing the outcomes of elections (think Ross Perot helping Clinton win by stealing away Republican votes and Ralph Nader helping George W. win by stealing Democrat votes.) That discussion left me wondering if third parties ever have been effective as presidential candidates.
Doing a little research on the internet, I found that the United States has had around four major political parties during its history.
The first major political party was the "Federalist Party" led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams and was around from 1789 to 1820. This party favored an active Federal government, a Treasury that played a role in the nations economic life, and a Pro-British foreign policy.
The second major political party was the "Republicans" or "Democratic-Republican Party" led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and started in 1792. The party later morphed into the "Democrat Party" led by Andrew Jackson in 1828. For several years in the early 1820's this party was the only political party as it was so effective the "Federalist Party" dissolved. The party initially favored a limited Federal government, little government interference in economic affairs, a Po-French policy, and championed states rights. However, with FDR's election in 1932, the party sponsored far-reaching social-reform legislation. This legislation won the support of labor unions and blacks (due to unemployment relief); these groups continue to be large supporters of the "Democrat Party" today.
The third major political party started in 1829 and was named the "National Republican Party". The party later became known as the "Whig Party". This party believed that the Federal Government should actively promote economic development. This party dissolved in 1856.
So looking at these "Major" parties, it looks like only two major parties have existed at any one point in time. What about the success of third parties? And what about the fourth major political party I mentioned earlier on?
From what I can discern, the only really successful third party is also the fourth major political party. This party was able to draw enough members from the "Democrat Party" and the "National Republican Party" to be successful. In fact it was so successful and drew so many members of the "National Republican Party" that the "National Republican Party" dissolved. This party is known today as the "Republican Party", it started in 1854, and was also known as the "Union" party. The presidential candidate in 1860 for this party also won the election that year. His name...Abraham Lincoln. His platform included: (1) a promise to prevent admission of new slaves to the union, (2) a promise to diminish slaveholders' influence in the Federal Government, (3) championing manufacturing interests, railroad builders, speculators, and financiers, and (4) championing nationalism. In the 1980's Ronald Reagan sponsored a "New Federalism" - one that featured a smaller Federal Government which represented a shift in Republican thinking.
My conclusion is that third parties can have success, but that success must come by drawing members from other existing major parties over politically charged issues. Are the issues in our day enough to cause a change in parties? Possibly; it will be interesting to see how things shake out.
Here is a link to some information on the history of political parties.
Doing a little research on the internet, I found that the United States has had around four major political parties during its history.
The first major political party was the "Federalist Party" led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams and was around from 1789 to 1820. This party favored an active Federal government, a Treasury that played a role in the nations economic life, and a Pro-British foreign policy.
The second major political party was the "Republicans" or "Democratic-Republican Party" led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and started in 1792. The party later morphed into the "Democrat Party" led by Andrew Jackson in 1828. For several years in the early 1820's this party was the only political party as it was so effective the "Federalist Party" dissolved. The party initially favored a limited Federal government, little government interference in economic affairs, a Po-French policy, and championed states rights. However, with FDR's election in 1932, the party sponsored far-reaching social-reform legislation. This legislation won the support of labor unions and blacks (due to unemployment relief); these groups continue to be large supporters of the "Democrat Party" today.
The third major political party started in 1829 and was named the "National Republican Party". The party later became known as the "Whig Party". This party believed that the Federal Government should actively promote economic development. This party dissolved in 1856.
So looking at these "Major" parties, it looks like only two major parties have existed at any one point in time. What about the success of third parties? And what about the fourth major political party I mentioned earlier on?
From what I can discern, the only really successful third party is also the fourth major political party. This party was able to draw enough members from the "Democrat Party" and the "National Republican Party" to be successful. In fact it was so successful and drew so many members of the "National Republican Party" that the "National Republican Party" dissolved. This party is known today as the "Republican Party", it started in 1854, and was also known as the "Union" party. The presidential candidate in 1860 for this party also won the election that year. His name...Abraham Lincoln. His platform included: (1) a promise to prevent admission of new slaves to the union, (2) a promise to diminish slaveholders' influence in the Federal Government, (3) championing manufacturing interests, railroad builders, speculators, and financiers, and (4) championing nationalism. In the 1980's Ronald Reagan sponsored a "New Federalism" - one that featured a smaller Federal Government which represented a shift in Republican thinking.
My conclusion is that third parties can have success, but that success must come by drawing members from other existing major parties over politically charged issues. Are the issues in our day enough to cause a change in parties? Possibly; it will be interesting to see how things shake out.
Here is a link to some information on the history of political parties.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
The Divided States of America
A Russian academic has posited the United States of America will fall apart during 2010. Who is this Russian academic? His name is Igor Panarin and he is the dean of the Russian Foreign Ministry's academy for future diplomats and a former KGB analyst. He also prepared strategy forecasts for former President Boris Yeltsin.
What's even more unusual is that Panarin has been making this prediction since September 1998. He based his prediction on (1) moral and psychological factors and the stress of the American Population, (2) financial and economic problems, and (3) an increase of anti-Americanism in the world.
According to the Wall Street Journal, "[Panarin] predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in."
Panarin thinks of President Obama as the United States version of Gorbachev and that the United States will collapse like Gorbachev's USSR due to President Obama's inexperience. As a result, the United States will break-up into 6 pieces: (1) The California Republic (under Chinese influence); (2) The Texas Republic (under Mexican influence); (3) An Atlantic America (which may join the European Union); (4) The Central North American Republic (under Canadian influence); (5) Hawaii will be a protectorate of Japan or China; and (6) Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.
Back in 1998 everyone scoffed at the idea; however, now Panarin is getting quite a bit of press, which makes me concerned on several levels.
Panarin has described United States foreign debt as a "pyramid scheme" and predicts that China and Russia will take over the United States' role of global financial regulator.
If this is the road we are on, then we need to turn things around. A good start would be to particpate in the 9-12 project. This project is designed to bring people together on September 12th to remember the way we felt the day after September 11, 2001. According to the 9-12 project web-site, "We were not obsessed with Red states, Blue states, or political parties. We were united as Americans standing together to protect the values and principles of the greatest nation ever created."
Here is a link to the Wall Street Journal article, and here is a link to the 9-12 project site. Also, below is a YouTube video with Panarin.
What's even more unusual is that Panarin has been making this prediction since September 1998. He based his prediction on (1) moral and psychological factors and the stress of the American Population, (2) financial and economic problems, and (3) an increase of anti-Americanism in the world.
According to the Wall Street Journal, "[Panarin] predicts that economic, financial and demographic trends will provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. When the going gets tough, he says, wealthier states will withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. Social unrest up to and including a civil war will follow. The U.S. will then split along ethnic lines, and foreign powers will move in."
Panarin thinks of President Obama as the United States version of Gorbachev and that the United States will collapse like Gorbachev's USSR due to President Obama's inexperience. As a result, the United States will break-up into 6 pieces: (1) The California Republic (under Chinese influence); (2) The Texas Republic (under Mexican influence); (3) An Atlantic America (which may join the European Union); (4) The Central North American Republic (under Canadian influence); (5) Hawaii will be a protectorate of Japan or China; and (6) Alaska will be subsumed into Russia.
Back in 1998 everyone scoffed at the idea; however, now Panarin is getting quite a bit of press, which makes me concerned on several levels.
Panarin has described United States foreign debt as a "pyramid scheme" and predicts that China and Russia will take over the United States' role of global financial regulator.
If this is the road we are on, then we need to turn things around. A good start would be to particpate in the 9-12 project. This project is designed to bring people together on September 12th to remember the way we felt the day after September 11, 2001. According to the 9-12 project web-site, "We were not obsessed with Red states, Blue states, or political parties. We were united as Americans standing together to protect the values and principles of the greatest nation ever created."
Here is a link to the Wall Street Journal article, and here is a link to the 9-12 project site. Also, below is a YouTube video with Panarin.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Oh The Irony...
"I want to change my working environment...what do you mean I don't have a right to work here? I've worked here for 5 years!" Yes, amazingly enough this is the situation 30 workers and Republic Services of Nevada find themselves in.
I was watching the news the other night and the piece about the 30 workers who wanted to unionize their workplace at Republic Services of Nevada (our local sanitation company) who got laid-off cracked me up. Apparently, those 30 workers were undocumented workers. Republic Services, not one to miss a trick, promptly fired the workers for not being able to prove that they legally could work in the United States.
My favorite quote from Bob Coyle (VP of Public Affairs), "We do not hire undocumented workers."
So the 30 undocumented workers, some of whom had been with Republic Services for 5 years, just hired themselves? Come on Bob, I'm not buying it.
To me, another funny part about this is that it is being plastered all over the news and Teamsters Local 631 is trying to represent these illegals. Um, INS are you listening? There's 30 illegals over here at Republic Services trying to get their jobs back, you mind doing your job?
If there's any justice, Republic Services will get slapped with a fine for hiring illegals, get some sort of INS audit for their remaining workers, and the INS will step in and send the illegals packing.
My guess though is that the illegals stay in Nevada and file for unemployment benefits. Man the system is screwed up.
Here's a link to the article.
I was watching the news the other night and the piece about the 30 workers who wanted to unionize their workplace at Republic Services of Nevada (our local sanitation company) who got laid-off cracked me up. Apparently, those 30 workers were undocumented workers. Republic Services, not one to miss a trick, promptly fired the workers for not being able to prove that they legally could work in the United States.
My favorite quote from Bob Coyle (VP of Public Affairs), "We do not hire undocumented workers."
So the 30 undocumented workers, some of whom had been with Republic Services for 5 years, just hired themselves? Come on Bob, I'm not buying it.
To me, another funny part about this is that it is being plastered all over the news and Teamsters Local 631 is trying to represent these illegals. Um, INS are you listening? There's 30 illegals over here at Republic Services trying to get their jobs back, you mind doing your job?
If there's any justice, Republic Services will get slapped with a fine for hiring illegals, get some sort of INS audit for their remaining workers, and the INS will step in and send the illegals packing.
My guess though is that the illegals stay in Nevada and file for unemployment benefits. Man the system is screwed up.
Here's a link to the article.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Creative Card Play
Last week Jr. came to me and convinced me that I really needed to play cards with her. So I worked in a few games of UNO in between playing in George's pretend band and eating my dinner (George got to be lead guitarist, but I played a mean couch cushion drum).
What really made the UNO game interesting was the way it was played. Before I get into how the game was played, I think I ought to point out that at my house Monopoly and many a grown up game is played with very unique rules. For instance, when you land on a property on the Monopoly game board and it is not owned and choose to buy the property, you get to immediately choose to place a green house or a red hotel on the property, thereby marking your territory. Houses and hotels do not affect the going rental rate by the way. This is a habit picked up from Disney Princess Monopoly; however, in Disney Princess Monopoly everyone gets castles in their own color, which helps to distinguish who owns what. One day someone is going to show them the real Monopoly rules...heaven help that person!
Back to Jr.'s UNO game. Apparently when you play UNO with Dad the rules dictate that you get to place all the "Wilds" and "Draw Four Wilds" in your own hand and then deal Dad a normal hand. Thus after I would play a card from my hand Jr. would wallup me with a "Draw Four Wild" and then choose a color that she knew I didn't have. Then she would let me continue drawing until I found the color I needed.
This worked pretty good for Jr. until she got down to one card left and I said "UNO" before she remembered to or I played my own "Draw Two" card as this caused her to pick up cards that weren't "Wilds". However, Fred soon came to Jr.'s rescue and whenever Jr. was forced to pick a card from the pile, Fred would make sure to look through the deck for Jr. and find a nice skip or reverse in the color Jr. needed.
The upside to all of this is that my misery of holding half the deck in my hand would generally go by pretty quickly as games didn't last that long!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)