I've had a lot of fun since I started up this blog a few months ago. It's nice having a soapbox from which to respond to current events, make my case, and share my observations about the world. Feedback has been good. But I don't feel like I've reached a lot a people that didn't already agree with me.
I am more interested in having a lively debate than in just basking in the wisdom of my own opinions. I feel that Obama is an excellent president and that the health care reform bill is entirely worthy of support. I am told that these views are not universally held. Real engagement between people across the vast chasm of our political divide is sadly rare. Common ground is elusive. In a vast sea of opinion it's unusual to see someone forced to consider the arguments from the other side. But that's what I want to do. I'm looking to start a new blog with a different format. Something that would be more interesting to read and to write. I want to start a debate blog.
But first I need a worthy adversary. A nemesis. A yin to my yang. A Lex Luthor to my Superman. Or at least someone who disagrees with me and wants to write about it.
The basic idea is a kind of Crossfire in blog form taking on whatever topics interest the participants. This would be a new blog with a new name. Maybe: Dawn Pistols, or Rapiers at Dawn, or Preaching to the Convertible. Or something else.
For the format I'm thinking of a simplified, casual Lincoln-Douglas format: Affirmative post, Negative Post, Affirmative Rebuttal, Negative Rebuttal. 4 posts total on a topic, 2 from each side, maybe 300-1000 words per post. We spend about a week on a topic. Then we move on to a new topic. The other guy starts off with an Affirmative post that can be a spin on the old topic or something entirely new (or whatever you want).
So, I start with:
Obama's Health Care Plan is Great: blah, blah, blah
You reply: No, its not...
I reply: Really, it is...
You post: No its not...
New topic, your choice.
You say: Obama is a Terrible Commander in Chief
I say, no he's not...
etc, etc...
Sound like fun? The offer is open. Somewhere out there there must be a right-wing blogger with opinions to spare looking for a lively debate. I await you. Terms are negotiable.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
My Take on the "Whole AGW Scheme"
Recently I've been poking around on some political sites, looking for a lively debate (I'll post more on this adventure very soon). I wandered over to the forums on Politico where I was asked about my "opinion of the whole AGW scheme". I obliged. Here it is.
Regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming there are two main questions before us:
1. Are we human beings causing a rapid increase in global temperatures?
2. What, if anything, should we do about it?
In this post, I'll just look at question #1. This is not really a political question. Regardless of what I think, either all that carbon we're burning is causing the atmosphere to heat up or it isn't. Is this real or not? The honest answer is: How should I know? I don't spend my time examining polar ice cores or tracking ocean temperates.
There are a wide array of factors that have changed the earth's climate over the years. There were ice ages and warmer epochs long before humans were around. We are not the only agent of climate change. But we should take no comfort from this. The natural forces that have caused the earth's climate to change have occurred over a much longer span -- tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of years. On those occasions where the climate did change rapidly, the record suggests this was very bad news for the creatures who had the misfortune to be around at the time.
Let's just concern ourselves with the next 100 years or so, a blink in history, but it's our blink. Climate worrywarts estimate the average global temp will maybe increase around 5° F by 2100. That sounds like a small change. You'll never detect it standing in your yard. It's certainly not a threat to all human life. But still, if we believe the climatologists, even a 5° bump will trigger massive coastal flooding, crazy weather system, fresh water shortages, agricultural disruption and a host of other problems we might prefer to avoid.
A considerable majority of the people who spend their time on this issue are in agreement, and have been for years now. Global warming due to human activity is real. And it's going to cause some big, big problems for us humans if we don't do something about it. The question for us is, should we believe them?
Even if climate change is happening, it is happening at a pace that's hard for us as individuals to perceive. Gradual changes that happen over decades may trigger big environmental changes. But as we live day to day, we don't see it. We can't see it. But if we think about aggregate human activity, it's not that hard to imagine. For over a century now, we've been extracting oil and coal and other carbon-rich fuels from the ground, and burning them as fast we can. Currently, we burn about 85 million barrels of oil a day. We have massive operations going to pull these fuels out of the ground and we use them to run our cars, and heat our homes, and power our power plants. We've been doing this on massive scale for a while now and have every intention of continuing to do it. 85 million barrels. Every day.
Even if we don't know the exact net effect of releasing all these greenhouse gasses is, we know the basics of how these gasses trap solar radiation and keep the planet warm and habitable. We also know that we are extracting and burning fuels, creating more greenhouse gasses, as fast as we can. And that's pretty fast.
And why wouldn't we? Oil is great stuff. From the industrial revolution to the information age-- modernity, life as we know it, is made possible by energy. Power. Oil, and its carbon-rich fossil fuel friends, are the cheapest, most efficient, most scalable, most plentiful sources of energy we've got.
It is precisely because fossil fuels are so wonderful that we really don't want to hear about the nasty side-effects. It would be really, really swell if we could just burn all the oil we want as fast as want, for as long as we want and not ever have to worry about all that additional carbon in our atmosphere. That's a pleasant thought. But wishing won't make it so.
Wishful thinking will make us want to listen to those who tell us what we want to hear. As usual, there is no shortage of people willing to tell us there is a free lunch, that we don't have to sacrifice or work together. You can do what you want. Al Gore is a jerk, and bore, and Democrat. Don't trust him. Look, newly reveled emails show us that some scientists are cleaning up and spinning some of their data. Now we get to ignore everything they and their colleagues have ever done. And every other climate scientist is probably doing the same thing. Let's ignore them too. They can't even get each and every scientist, pundit, blogger and ex-vice-presidential candidate to agree there is problem! Clearly this is very controversial at best. We should probably just hold off and study the problem some more. Let's wait until everyone agrees. We'll do something then.
Unfortunately, the AGW deniers have a lot more media attention than scientific credibility. There are over 180 countries taking part in the Copenhagen conference. All of those countries are populated by citizens that don't want to be told to cut back, pay more, or use less. All of those countries have scientists who are telling their leaders that this is real, and we need to do something about it. I hope they are wrong. But I believe they are right.
Regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming there are two main questions before us:
1. Are we human beings causing a rapid increase in global temperatures?
2. What, if anything, should we do about it?
In this post, I'll just look at question #1. This is not really a political question. Regardless of what I think, either all that carbon we're burning is causing the atmosphere to heat up or it isn't. Is this real or not? The honest answer is: How should I know? I don't spend my time examining polar ice cores or tracking ocean temperates.
There are a wide array of factors that have changed the earth's climate over the years. There were ice ages and warmer epochs long before humans were around. We are not the only agent of climate change. But we should take no comfort from this. The natural forces that have caused the earth's climate to change have occurred over a much longer span -- tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of years. On those occasions where the climate did change rapidly, the record suggests this was very bad news for the creatures who had the misfortune to be around at the time.
Let's just concern ourselves with the next 100 years or so, a blink in history, but it's our blink. Climate worrywarts estimate the average global temp will maybe increase around 5° F by 2100. That sounds like a small change. You'll never detect it standing in your yard. It's certainly not a threat to all human life. But still, if we believe the climatologists, even a 5° bump will trigger massive coastal flooding, crazy weather system, fresh water shortages, agricultural disruption and a host of other problems we might prefer to avoid.
A considerable majority of the people who spend their time on this issue are in agreement, and have been for years now. Global warming due to human activity is real. And it's going to cause some big, big problems for us humans if we don't do something about it. The question for us is, should we believe them?
Even if climate change is happening, it is happening at a pace that's hard for us as individuals to perceive. Gradual changes that happen over decades may trigger big environmental changes. But as we live day to day, we don't see it. We can't see it. But if we think about aggregate human activity, it's not that hard to imagine. For over a century now, we've been extracting oil and coal and other carbon-rich fuels from the ground, and burning them as fast we can. Currently, we burn about 85 million barrels of oil a day. We have massive operations going to pull these fuels out of the ground and we use them to run our cars, and heat our homes, and power our power plants. We've been doing this on massive scale for a while now and have every intention of continuing to do it. 85 million barrels. Every day.
Even if we don't know the exact net effect of releasing all these greenhouse gasses is, we know the basics of how these gasses trap solar radiation and keep the planet warm and habitable. We also know that we are extracting and burning fuels, creating more greenhouse gasses, as fast as we can. And that's pretty fast.
And why wouldn't we? Oil is great stuff. From the industrial revolution to the information age-- modernity, life as we know it, is made possible by energy. Power. Oil, and its carbon-rich fossil fuel friends, are the cheapest, most efficient, most scalable, most plentiful sources of energy we've got.
It is precisely because fossil fuels are so wonderful that we really don't want to hear about the nasty side-effects. It would be really, really swell if we could just burn all the oil we want as fast as want, for as long as we want and not ever have to worry about all that additional carbon in our atmosphere. That's a pleasant thought. But wishing won't make it so.
Wishful thinking will make us want to listen to those who tell us what we want to hear. As usual, there is no shortage of people willing to tell us there is a free lunch, that we don't have to sacrifice or work together. You can do what you want. Al Gore is a jerk, and bore, and Democrat. Don't trust him. Look, newly reveled emails show us that some scientists are cleaning up and spinning some of their data. Now we get to ignore everything they and their colleagues have ever done. And every other climate scientist is probably doing the same thing. Let's ignore them too. They can't even get each and every scientist, pundit, blogger and ex-vice-presidential candidate to agree there is problem! Clearly this is very controversial at best. We should probably just hold off and study the problem some more. Let's wait until everyone agrees. We'll do something then.
Unfortunately, the AGW deniers have a lot more media attention than scientific credibility. There are over 180 countries taking part in the Copenhagen conference. All of those countries are populated by citizens that don't want to be told to cut back, pay more, or use less. All of those countries have scientists who are telling their leaders that this is real, and we need to do something about it. I hope they are wrong. But I believe they are right.
Quick Health Care Reform Note
- The bill going forward is a good bill. It's an important bill. It's not perfect but it is the best bill we'll get. Anyone who says they support health care reform but think this bill should be killed is a fool. Or they are lying. Or both.
- Hate Joe Lieberman if you want, but there's really no reason to hate him more than the 40 other non-Democratic Senators who aren't even negotiating on this. They are the ones really working to kill it dead.
- Read Ezra Klein's blog. He is doing fantastic reporting on health care reform and is just about the only writer who seems to really know what is in the bill and why it matters. He also explains it clearly and frequently.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Obama: Best President Ever
Those who venerated Bush because he was a morally upright and strong evangelical-warrior-family man and revere Palin as a common-sense Christian hockey mom are similar in kind to those whose reaction to Obama is dominated by their view of him as an inspiring, kind, sophisticated, soothing and mature intellectual.I view Obama as an inspiring, kind, sophisticated, soothing and mature intellectual. He's also a great president. I am inclined to rise to his defense against critics to his left and right. There are several Bush-era policies that appalled me at the time of their introduction. Because I trust him, I am willing to grant Obama lot a latitude to continue those same polices. I'm stunned by the rationalizations of Bush and Palin defenders, but I fit Greenwald's profile of a pie-eyed Obama fanboy rather closely.
Criticism of Obama from the right is certainly voluminous but it has such an incoherent kitchen-sink quality to it that I have a hard time taking any of it seriously. He's a socialist. He's a Nazi. He's a coward. He's a tyrant. He's hasn't done anything. He's trying to take over the country. He's too intellectual. He's an empty suit. He's a ruthless Chicago pol. He's naive and in way over his head. If there's a coherent right-wing critique of Obama I've yet to encounter it*. I always feel like telling these people to just turn off the Fox News. Pay attention to his actual words and the policies he proposes. Measure his actions against the principles you claim to have. These feelings of incoherent rage will pass.
The criticisms coming from the left are more pointed and, to my ears, better grounded in reality. The most frequent of these are that Obama is too centrist, too moderate, too conciliatory, doesn't know how to play political hardball, and that he's insufficiently aggressive in denouncing Republican chicanery. If these are flaws, they are flaws that I admire. Obama seems to be genuinely committed to forging consensus, exploring the options, prioritizing policies over politics. On issues from health care, to the economy, to Afghanistan, to climate control we see an administration that is patient but persistent. The president should set the national interest above the interests of the Democratic and Republican parties. If more politicians did this we would all be much better off.
Greenwald blasts Obama defenders saying...
These outbursts include everything other than arguments addressed to the only question that matters: are the criticisms that have been voiced about Obama valid? Has he appointed financial officials who have largely served the agenda of the Wall Street and industry interests that funded his campaign? Has he embraced many of the Bush/Cheney executive power and secrecy abuses which Democrats once railed against -- from state secrets to indefinite detention to renditions and military commissions? Has he actively sought to protect from accountability and disclosure a whole slew of Bush crimes? Did he secretly a negotiate a deal with the pharmaceutical industry after promising repeatedly that all negotiations over health care would take place out in the open, even on C-SPAN? Are the criticisms of his escalation of the war in Afghanistan valid, and are his arguments in its favor redolent of the ones George Bush made to "surge" in Iraq or Lyndon Johnson made to escalate in Vietnam? Is Bob Herbert right when he condemned Obama's detention policies as un-American and tyrannical, and warned: "Policies that were wrong under George W. Bush are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House"?Greenwald is entitled to his questions and his criticisms. And the individual issues merit direct answers. I will decline to address all of them now, but hope to address these issues in future posts.
Instead, I offer these general defenses:
- In many of these cases Obama inherited huge problems for which there are no good solutions. The proposed policies are easy to criticize, but do you, the critic, have an alternate plan that you think is better? If you offer your own counter-proposal I may disagree with you. If you can't think of any other plan which you like better and you are prepared to offer and defend, then perhaps the criticism is unfounded.
- Many critics point to some action (or some lack of action) as evidence of some glaring character flaw. Obama did (or didn't do) X, therefore he is weak/cowardly/craven/ unprincipled/incompetent. Often the case for the flaw following from the act is very weak. In such cases, it us not unreasonable to rise and defense and point out the weakness of the case and the absence of the flaw.
- Some critics don't argue with a policy per se. Instead they argue that the policy seems or could be seen as an indication that Obama is cowardly/craven/ unprincipled/incompetent. Do you fault the policy? Do you feel the flaw is real? Everyone should support politicians that pursue sound policies especially when those policies are politically risky and subject to unprincipled demagoguery. Every policy can be seen as evidence that one is cowardly/craven/unprincipled/incompetent-- especially when there are so many partisans so bent on seeing them that way.
- As President of the United States, Obama is responsible the efficient function of the entire federal government including and especially the vast national security apparatus. He has never been president before. In many cases he is pursuing his principles and campaign promises cautiously. He is moving at a pace that will not disrupt the function of, or his relationship with, those organizations that he needs and we need to rely on. But he is moving forward.
* For right-wing critique, there is this. Pretty thin gruel. Anyone got anything better?
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Curtains for You 'Buster
Of course, it's not great. It's pathetic.
We hear a lot about the need for 60 votes, and cloture, and filibuster threats. What happened to passing a vote via will of the majority? The talk of "60 votes" is so persistent you might think the filibuster is some sacred institution, enshrined in the Constitution. It's not. It's a gimmick. The filibuster and its ilk the last refuge of those philosophically committed to government inaction. It's time for them to go away.
The Constitution does specify times when a super-majority is required. If the Senate wants to convict the President of impeachment or remove one of their own members from office then more than 51 votes are required. There are other extreme circumstances where the Constitution requires more than a simple majority. Motions to start or end debate are not among them.
The Constitution does state that the legislative houses get to set their own rules. And that is where the trouble started. The idea that 3/5th of the members should agree to consider an issue or cease debate is predicated on a base level of civility and common sense. The Senate rules were conceived to insure sufficient debate on important issues. Now the rules are routinely abused to insure debate never takes place and that bills are never voted on at all.
Our legislative process is already deliberately inefficient. On top of that, we have entrenched interests willing to spend a lot of money to insure that status quo. We have a political minority that puts party ahead of principles, and considers any compromise to anathema. We have mobs and media outlets dedicated to spreading misinformation and discontent. We also have a lot of problems. Our country faces a multitude of challenges. We need to find a way forward if we're going to confront them. We need to end the gridlock.
Most of our problems aren't going away anytime soon. But there's a way to get rid of the unnecessary filibusters and friends. The Senate created these barriers for itself. It has the power, the right, and the obligation to take them away.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Dear Senator Gregg
Dear Senator Gregg,
I am writing to you once again, to ask you to support the health care reform. I do not doubt that you are under a lot of pressure to oppose reform. You may have the sincere intention of opposing the current bills. But supporting reform now is the right thing to do. I think you know this.
I do not claim to be a steady supporter of yours. I do think of you as a moderate, sensible voice in the Senate. I appreciate that you are not prone to the partisan hyperbole that seems to permeate so much our national debate. There was a time when you sought to be a member the Obama administration and when they sought to have you. You know they are not monsters. You also know the severity and extent of the problems this administration faces. As you enter your final year as US Senator you have a unique, historical opportunity to do something important.
In your Washington Times editorial of 7/17/2009 you wrote:
In that article and in subsequent comments you have been highly critical of ongoing reform efforts. Many of these criticisms are legitimate. But you were correct in recognizing the failings of our current system. These problems must be addressed. You should also recognize that the proposed legislation does, however imperfectly, address these concerns. It will vastly reduce the number of uninsured. It will not disrupt current insurance systems. It will not add to the budget deficit. It does make a first, tentative, but essential, attempt to control skyrocketing medical bills. These are important reforms. They are essential for controlling state and federal budgets. The are need by New Hampshire families and business facing ever-escalating costs. They are necessary for the millions of Americans who can't get and can't afford insurance.
Our system is broken. It must be fixed. If we do not reform this system this year when will we? How will we control medical costs in the future? In what year, under which administration, will tens of millions of uninsured, working Americans be able to obtain health insurance? How many more years will pass before we can put a stop to the medical-bill bankruptcies? What will happen to state, federal, business and household budgets during those years? I work for a small company. In the past two years my family's health insurance premiums have increased by 55%. Most insurers in New Hampshire won't sell insurance to my family because my son has a "pre-existing condition". In what year will there be a system that works for my family?
If you are opposed to health care reform out of your own self-interest, or because for political reasons -- if you are voting to maintain the status quo because you think it will hurt one political party or advance another -- then you must realized your reasoning is inadequate and sad. Do you believe that the current health reform bills will make things worse for citizens of this country? Do you think perpetuation of the status quo will be good for my family, and your family, and the people of New Hampshire? Even if you believe this, you know this system is broken. You know this administration is willing to compromise. You know there are deals to be made. You can work to produce a bill that is worthy of your support. You know that all laws are a product of compromise and are all imperfect. You know that the worst thing we could do is nothing at all.
Fixing our health insurance system is not easy. Easy or not, it is broken. It must be fixed. You serve the citizens of this state in the United States Senate. You have the power to fix this. You have the responsibility to fix this. You have been given the opportunity to fix this. The people of this country are relying on you to do what is right. Easy or not. Politically expedient or not. We have put our trust in you.
I do not claim to be a steady supporter of yours. I do think of you as a moderate, sensible voice in the Senate. I appreciate that you are not prone to the partisan hyperbole that seems to permeate so much our national debate. There was a time when you sought to be a member the Obama administration and when they sought to have you. You know they are not monsters. You also know the severity and extent of the problems this administration faces. As you enter your final year as US Senator you have a unique, historical opportunity to do something important.
In your Washington Times editorial of 7/17/2009 you wrote:
"Our health care system is broken and must be fixed. We also agree that we must reform how we pay for this system, and, at the same time, reduce the number of people who lack coverage without disrupting the coverage that insured people already have.
We must encourage quality of care and reduce the skyrocketing medical bills so many families face. These are goals President Obama has endorsed and these should be the center of our bipartisan health reform efforts."
In that article and in subsequent comments you have been highly critical of ongoing reform efforts. Many of these criticisms are legitimate. But you were correct in recognizing the failings of our current system. These problems must be addressed. You should also recognize that the proposed legislation does, however imperfectly, address these concerns. It will vastly reduce the number of uninsured. It will not disrupt current insurance systems. It will not add to the budget deficit. It does make a first, tentative, but essential, attempt to control skyrocketing medical bills. These are important reforms. They are essential for controlling state and federal budgets. The are need by New Hampshire families and business facing ever-escalating costs. They are necessary for the millions of Americans who can't get and can't afford insurance.
Our system is broken. It must be fixed. If we do not reform this system this year when will we? How will we control medical costs in the future? In what year, under which administration, will tens of millions of uninsured, working Americans be able to obtain health insurance? How many more years will pass before we can put a stop to the medical-bill bankruptcies? What will happen to state, federal, business and household budgets during those years? I work for a small company. In the past two years my family's health insurance premiums have increased by 55%. Most insurers in New Hampshire won't sell insurance to my family because my son has a "pre-existing condition". In what year will there be a system that works for my family?
If you are opposed to health care reform out of your own self-interest, or because for political reasons -- if you are voting to maintain the status quo because you think it will hurt one political party or advance another -- then you must realized your reasoning is inadequate and sad. Do you believe that the current health reform bills will make things worse for citizens of this country? Do you think perpetuation of the status quo will be good for my family, and your family, and the people of New Hampshire? Even if you believe this, you know this system is broken. You know this administration is willing to compromise. You know there are deals to be made. You can work to produce a bill that is worthy of your support. You know that all laws are a product of compromise and are all imperfect. You know that the worst thing we could do is nothing at all.
Fixing our health insurance system is not easy. Easy or not, it is broken. It must be fixed. You serve the citizens of this state in the United States Senate. You have the power to fix this. You have the responsibility to fix this. You have been given the opportunity to fix this. The people of this country are relying on you to do what is right. Easy or not. Politically expedient or not. We have put our trust in you.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Mattea Louise Swainbank
Here is what I wrote for her memorial service:
One of the things that saddens us about Mattea’s death coming so soon is that so many of the people who have loved and supported us never even had the opportunity to meet our little girl.
And even for many of those who did get to see her, their meeting was for only a few fleeting moments during the hectic first days of her life.
As a result, relatively few members of our friends and family really got to spend time with Mattea and get to know her as we did.
For those people who didn’t have the opportunity to know her, her story might be viewed, in large part, as a series of crises and distressing events…
We learned Christine was pregnant in a hospital emergency room.
We discovered we would be having twins only to learn we would be losing one.
We mourned the passing of this child we would never know, even as we prepared to welcome the other one into our lives and into our hearts.
And our preparation was cut short by Christine’s sudden illness. In the course of an afternoon little Mattea came to be with us.
And… after only 54 days she was taken away.
Throughout this we’ve experienced a lot of sadness, a lot of pain, and a lot of grief.
But, for those of us who were able to spend the time, and to experience life with Mattea, all the sorrow and all the hardship is overshadowed by the joy she brought to our lives.
I think, in part, because so few people got to know our little girl as we did, we feel its important to share what she was like. So that everyone might get to know her a little, even as we say goodbye.
Life with Mattea was series of small, daily, triumphs.Mattea's service took place at the congregational church in Lebanon. It was our family church growing up, but I had never attended services regularly or enthusiastically. They opened their doors to us, and the church was packed. Hundreds of friends, family, congregants, and colleagues packed the pews and filled the balcony. They came to support us and to say goodbye to a little girl few of them had ever even seen and whom none of us would ever know. The love and support we received that day is a kindness I will never forget.
I felt so proud to see her coming off of a ventilator or take a little more of her mother’s milk than the day before.
It was a pleasure to watch her grow stronger and larger, to mature in her body and mind.
It was miracle to hold her to my chest, flesh to flesh, so small and fragile, and hear her emit her tiny cry, until she was nestled and comfortable. Then she would grow silent and rest so peacefully in my hands.
We loved to celebrate in the daily gain of a few grams. Another day of health, a day that would bring her one day closer to coming home.
It was a joy to watch her sleeping. Mattea’s world was one of busy nurses rushing by, and warning buzzers going off all around. But it was nice to watch her sleeping so peacefully through it all, so calm, so innocent, gathering her strength for her central task of getting stronger every day.
But the truly special times were when we caught her while she was awake.
It was wonderful to see her open those big clear eyes and look out at the world. I’ll never forget staring into those eyes and seeing them stare back. So innocent, so at ease, so bright.
It was during those times that she truly had us in her spell. I remember times when we just stopped by the hospital to see her, on our way to a movie, or on my way to work in the morning. And I'd see those eyes. And that would be it. We didn’t make it to that movie and work would just have to wait until Mattea got tired, and closed those eyes to sleep.
She was so eager to try and understand this great big world, that she was so suddenly thrust into, and that was so quickly taken away.
It’s hard when you lose someone that you were planning to have with you as part of your entire life.
We loved the little baby that she was. And we also loved the idea of the little girl that she would be.
We envisioned summer afternoons lying in the grass in the park by the water, with all the flowers.
We started referring to the local elementary school as Mattea’s school.
We tested the new equipment on the local playground to see if Mattea would like playing there.
We loved our baby. We loved the little girl she would grow into. We loved the woman she would one day become.
And now we say goodbye. Goodbye Mattea.
Thank you for the joy you brought to our lives.
We will never forget you.
Now, 10 years later, there are friends who know us well but don't know about Mattea. It's not a secret. But it's not a detail you ever drop on a conversation. Mattea was my first real experience with loss and grief. But, inevitably, not the last. A year after Mattea we would say goodbye to J.P. Plumez at his beautiful, bittersweet wedding at the Guggenheim, a week before he finally succumbed to Hodgkin's disease. This spring we suddenly lost Gavin Symes, another close friend. Again we felt the loss of someone we thought would be in our lives forever.
I was 27 years old when we had Mattea. Most of our friends were not married yet, much less having children. We had had and lost a child. Over the years, many friends have started their own families and too many have experienced difficult pregnancies and miscarriages, the sorrow of crushed expectations, and the grief of losing a child you'll never know. These experiences are bitter reminders that as much as we feel we are in control of our lives, the beginnings and the ends are beyond our reach.
After Mattea, Christine and I didn't turn on or away from each other. We turned to each other for strength and support. From Mattea we learned the instant and powerful pull that your children have on you. We learned that we wanted to be parents. We had been through the worst and felt we were ready for, wanted to have, everything else. The doctors told us not to worry, but that we might want to wait. We waited. Or thought we waited. We measured our wait in days. Eight and a half months after Mattea's death, Isaac was born (also premature).
Now "Mattea's school" is Isaac and Leo's school. Our boys have grown up with pictures of their (big? little?) sister. Together, we pay regular visits to her gravestone. Mattea's stone is in a cemetery near us, across a narrow strip of water from the school where her brothers go now, where she would have gone. If you go during the day you can hear the children running, screaming, and playing. When I visit the cemetery I try to remember who she was. I imagine who she might be now. Mostly, I ask her to look after us and to watch over her brothers. Given what she was and what I believe, I find it odd that I imagine her to have that power. But I do. And I take comfort in it.
It's been 10 years. Good years. Happy years. These days the trips to the cemetery are less regular. In the busy business of day-to-day, thoughts of Mattea are less frequent. At times an a innocent question, and stray image, or an overblown bit of rhetoric will touch a trigger, and bring back of wave of melancholy memories. I'm grateful for those memories. I try to stop and spend some time with them when they come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)