Dad...
1. Asks who is knocking at the door when I tap bowls into the trash.
2. Sees groundhogs outside where there are only piles of leaves.
3. Suddenly walks all around the house looking for me and forgets there is a basement.
4. Watches me making lunch (where I routinely make a large sandwich and cut it in a half for each of us) and asks (in seriousness) if one half is for him.
5. Shuffles in tiny tiny little foot movements, freezing in place a minute at a time, and thinks he is "w alking normally".
6. Needs to listen to the TV at volume 20, when 15 is normal, and then assumes that I can't hear it because his "hearing is excellent".
7. Thinks that walking to the bathroom and back is "good exercize".
8. Asks about the "explosion" when I drop a knife on the countertop. Yes that contradicts #6...
9. Asks for a calendar so he can tell what day of the week it is (think about that for a few minutes)...
10. Tells a cat to get off his chair and gets annoyed when they can't understand his words.
11. Doesn't undersand why not taking a shower once a month is a problem because "he doesn't do any work".
12. Believes in everything Fox News says because "they are the most-watch news show".
13. Worries hours about medicare statements that say "THIS IS NOT A BILL", because it might be a bill.
14. Asks how to open the drapes every afternoon this week, after I've shown him how to open them every day this week.
15. Can't use the very simplified TV remote I bought "specially for old folks" to change the volume. "Yes Dad, its that button labeled "volume".
16. Can't turn ON the TV with the simplified remote. I wrote on an index card for him. "Press PWR Button and wait until picture appears". He can't do that.
17. Flips deck light switch on and off rapidly hoping to get the drapes to open or close.
18. Calls all the cats "he" and "dogs".
19. Refuses to go to bed until I do. No "me" time. Sometimes I can pretend to go to bed then get on the computer if I am REAL quiet. I close the room door, open the window, and let in some wonderfully cool air...
20. HAS to have corn AND potato, AND bread with every meal. All those starches! But it probably doesn't make any difference at his age.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Back To Dad
Well, it seems like I am talking about Dad almost all the time these past months. It IS the major focus of my life. I can't avoid it; just having another person in the house is strange. Having an adult who is becoming less able and more confusing is even stranger.
I understand, intellectually, that Dad is forgetting more and more things. But its the THINGS he is forgetting that are most confusing. I understand that older memories are more stable and new ones are iffy.
Last week, the sun started setting so that it shined on the chair he sits in and he wanted to close the drapes partially. I happened to walk into the room, and he was flicking the deck light switch on and off trying to get the drapes to close. I showed him the cord on the side that you pull to open/close the drapes. OK, he hadn't had to do that in months, maybe years (picturing his FL house).
The next day, I had to tell him again.
Today, he pointed to the toolshed in the house next door and asked when they built it. I said about 15 years ago. He said "No, this is new". I looked at it was the same old shed. It might have been a bit brighter from the lower angle of the sunlight. He said "NO, it wasn't there yesterday". I mentioned that he had looked at it a couple months before and asked me what that yellow box was attached to my shed, and that I had explained it was the neighbor's shed.
OK, so he forgot that and the different sunlight made it stand out more. But he said that he looks out that window every day and it wasn't there before. I said "Dad, I KNOW my yard and the views from it. That shed has been there many many years". He insisted it hadn't been there before.
Sigh... OK, I'm not the most diplomatic person in the world. I told him his memory was failing. I've been honest about things like that with Dad. Not to be cruel, but to be realistic. It seems important to me, as his caretaker, and for him, that he accepts that I am always going to be right on simple factual things. Things like day of the week, time to take pills (and whether he has or hasn't), when he needs to change his clothes, what he can safely do himself or not do, etc.
I also understand that trusting other people on factual stuff is hard for him. Even decades ago, in the prime of his life, he never thought ANYONE else was right about ANYTHING he didn't know personally. I used to spend a lot of time researching factual disagreements to prove him wrong. Me 100, Dad 0, and that never affected him in the least! He had that kind of selective memory that forgets all lost disagreements.
Could I have that same kind of selective memory? No. I remember all my mistakes all too well. I hate being factually wrong as much as Dad does but I acknowledge it and remember.
So when Dad got overly insistent that the neighbor toolshed had NOT been there a few days ago, I tried to relate the situation to the drapes (see above). I was direct about it. I simply asked Dad if he knew how to close the drapes to keep the sun out of his eyes in the afternoon. He looked at them, but he couldn't recall.
So I pointed out that he had asked me how to close the drapes every day the past week, and I had shown him every day the past week. That his short-term memory wasn't working as well as it used to. That he didn't remember seeing that neighbor's toolshed there while looking out the window previously. That he had to start trusting me on those simple things...
I'm not trying to score points against Dad. That's as pointless as beating your 5 year old at chess. It isn't a contest. Its about getting Dad to accept that he can't remember some kinds of things. Does he want to acknowledge that? Of course not. Neither would I. But can he accept that? I think he can.
I need him to trust me. Because as he gets less able, that is going to become more important for him than for me. When he gets too difficult to take care of (or live with), he is going to have to move to an assisted-living facility.
I haven't mentioned the idea ever. And I won't until I can't bear the situation any longer. I wouldn't ever threaten him with it or even hint at it. But I am always aware that the day will come. I will both hate that day, but also be relieved. I both love him and want to take care of him, but he s also driving me nuts and completely upending my life.
I hope you understand the conflict. I you do, then you've "been there". If not, I hope you get your turn taking care of an elder relative so that you will understand...
Its a valuable life experience.
I understand, intellectually, that Dad is forgetting more and more things. But its the THINGS he is forgetting that are most confusing. I understand that older memories are more stable and new ones are iffy.
Last week, the sun started setting so that it shined on the chair he sits in and he wanted to close the drapes partially. I happened to walk into the room, and he was flicking the deck light switch on and off trying to get the drapes to close. I showed him the cord on the side that you pull to open/close the drapes. OK, he hadn't had to do that in months, maybe years (picturing his FL house).
The next day, I had to tell him again.
Today, he pointed to the toolshed in the house next door and asked when they built it. I said about 15 years ago. He said "No, this is new". I looked at it was the same old shed. It might have been a bit brighter from the lower angle of the sunlight. He said "NO, it wasn't there yesterday". I mentioned that he had looked at it a couple months before and asked me what that yellow box was attached to my shed, and that I had explained it was the neighbor's shed.
OK, so he forgot that and the different sunlight made it stand out more. But he said that he looks out that window every day and it wasn't there before. I said "Dad, I KNOW my yard and the views from it. That shed has been there many many years". He insisted it hadn't been there before.
Sigh... OK, I'm not the most diplomatic person in the world. I told him his memory was failing. I've been honest about things like that with Dad. Not to be cruel, but to be realistic. It seems important to me, as his caretaker, and for him, that he accepts that I am always going to be right on simple factual things. Things like day of the week, time to take pills (and whether he has or hasn't), when he needs to change his clothes, what he can safely do himself or not do, etc.
I also understand that trusting other people on factual stuff is hard for him. Even decades ago, in the prime of his life, he never thought ANYONE else was right about ANYTHING he didn't know personally. I used to spend a lot of time researching factual disagreements to prove him wrong. Me 100, Dad 0, and that never affected him in the least! He had that kind of selective memory that forgets all lost disagreements.
Could I have that same kind of selective memory? No. I remember all my mistakes all too well. I hate being factually wrong as much as Dad does but I acknowledge it and remember.
So when Dad got overly insistent that the neighbor toolshed had NOT been there a few days ago, I tried to relate the situation to the drapes (see above). I was direct about it. I simply asked Dad if he knew how to close the drapes to keep the sun out of his eyes in the afternoon. He looked at them, but he couldn't recall.
So I pointed out that he had asked me how to close the drapes every day the past week, and I had shown him every day the past week. That his short-term memory wasn't working as well as it used to. That he didn't remember seeing that neighbor's toolshed there while looking out the window previously. That he had to start trusting me on those simple things...
I'm not trying to score points against Dad. That's as pointless as beating your 5 year old at chess. It isn't a contest. Its about getting Dad to accept that he can't remember some kinds of things. Does he want to acknowledge that? Of course not. Neither would I. But can he accept that? I think he can.
I need him to trust me. Because as he gets less able, that is going to become more important for him than for me. When he gets too difficult to take care of (or live with), he is going to have to move to an assisted-living facility.
I haven't mentioned the idea ever. And I won't until I can't bear the situation any longer. I wouldn't ever threaten him with it or even hint at it. But I am always aware that the day will come. I will both hate that day, but also be relieved. I both love him and want to take care of him, but he s also driving me nuts and completely upending my life.
I hope you understand the conflict. I you do, then you've "been there". If not, I hope you get your turn taking care of an elder relative so that you will understand...
Its a valuable life experience.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Post Election Thoughts, Part 2
The campaign money from anonymous sources is bad, but it didn't actually determine this year's election results overall. I expect there are a lot of millionaires and billionaires who would like to have their money back and will re-think contributing so generously next time.
But the real problem it modern politics is re-districting. That's the decisions that are made about the borders of districts in your state. You vote within your assigned district. In a very real sense, you are competing with all the other voters in your district to make YOUR vote count.
Let me give an example or two. If you are in a district that has an equal number of Republican and Democratic voters (and a smidgeon of 3rd party voters) your vote matters a LOT! It could be the ONE that decides a state or local election (rare, but it has happened). More possible, you and a few hundred voters make the difference in a state or local election. That really does happen more than you would think.
Statewide candidates come from local winners. National candidates come from Statewide winners. Presidential candidates are usually Governors or Senators and they almost all started in local elections. That local County Comissioner who won by 100 votes Tuesday may rise to the Senate or even President some day by that few 100 votes the first time.
Here is where the redistricting comes in. The winners want to get re-elected; they can't play in the game if they don't stay in the game. Did you know that district borders are NOT set in stone? They can be changed. And they GET changed. The winners get to redefine their voting districts almost at will (well, there are ballot questions, but they almost never lose). Their goal is to redefine their voting district to include as many of their own party/voters as possible. That insures that they will stay in office until they win a higher office or until their cold dead bodies are pried from their chairs.
In a general sense, I don't blame them. In the course of my office career, I had to defend "the existence of my job" through arguments and tactics I would not defend in my retired life. Every organism strives to live...
Originally in the US, voting districts were defined by close-knit communities, logical geographical boundaries, and county lines where possible. Then, some "genius" got the idea of arranging the voting districts to his benefit. His names was Gov Elbridge Gerry and he did this in 1812 in Massachusetts. To preserve his party control, he redrew the voting districts, one of which resembled a salamander.
The practice has continued for all the years, but with the advent of computers, has become much more precise and effective. Today, registered voters can be identified by party affiliation right down to street level, so Gerrymanderying is routine. It has even been beneficial to minority groups in the recent past.
But the process has gotten out of hand. The original idea of local campaigns was that several qualified individuals, all well known to the communities, would be considered, and one chosen. Today, routinely gerrymandered voting districts are arranged by incumbents to assure that they will seldom, if ever, lose office. Incumbency reigns supreme!
Gerrymandered voting districts means that each one is more and more of one party. And when the district is more one-party controlled, it encourages the kind of extremism we see today (on both sides). The only vote that matters is the one-party primary, and that encourages the candidates to take position on the far edges.
I suggest a solution. A simple one, just for discussion. I want a great big inked grid stamp. Allow some one person to push it down on the state map blindly. Demand that the PRIME PURPOSE of district borders be "political competitiveness". Then demand a NON-partisan committee to arrange adjustments according to general population evenness for voting districts in best alignment with that grid.
Honestly politically competitive voting districts in every state would go VERY far in eliminating the extremism of candidates and winners in both parties and promote political competition. I can't think of anything else that would improve US politics so immediately and positively.
But the real problem it modern politics is re-districting. That's the decisions that are made about the borders of districts in your state. You vote within your assigned district. In a very real sense, you are competing with all the other voters in your district to make YOUR vote count.
Let me give an example or two. If you are in a district that has an equal number of Republican and Democratic voters (and a smidgeon of 3rd party voters) your vote matters a LOT! It could be the ONE that decides a state or local election (rare, but it has happened). More possible, you and a few hundred voters make the difference in a state or local election. That really does happen more than you would think.
Statewide candidates come from local winners. National candidates come from Statewide winners. Presidential candidates are usually Governors or Senators and they almost all started in local elections. That local County Comissioner who won by 100 votes Tuesday may rise to the Senate or even President some day by that few 100 votes the first time.
Here is where the redistricting comes in. The winners want to get re-elected; they can't play in the game if they don't stay in the game. Did you know that district borders are NOT set in stone? They can be changed. And they GET changed. The winners get to redefine their voting districts almost at will (well, there are ballot questions, but they almost never lose). Their goal is to redefine their voting district to include as many of their own party/voters as possible. That insures that they will stay in office until they win a higher office or until their cold dead bodies are pried from their chairs.
In a general sense, I don't blame them. In the course of my office career, I had to defend "the existence of my job" through arguments and tactics I would not defend in my retired life. Every organism strives to live...
Originally in the US, voting districts were defined by close-knit communities, logical geographical boundaries, and county lines where possible. Then, some "genius" got the idea of arranging the voting districts to his benefit. His names was Gov Elbridge Gerry and he did this in 1812 in Massachusetts. To preserve his party control, he redrew the voting districts, one of which resembled a salamander.
It was dubbed a Gerrymander... The head, wings and feet were added for effect by a newspaper, but you can see where the image arose.
But the process has gotten out of hand. The original idea of local campaigns was that several qualified individuals, all well known to the communities, would be considered, and one chosen. Today, routinely gerrymandered voting districts are arranged by incumbents to assure that they will seldom, if ever, lose office. Incumbency reigns supreme!
Gerrymandered voting districts means that each one is more and more of one party. And when the district is more one-party controlled, it encourages the kind of extremism we see today (on both sides). The only vote that matters is the one-party primary, and that encourages the candidates to take position on the far edges.
I suggest a solution. A simple one, just for discussion. I want a great big inked grid stamp. Allow some one person to push it down on the state map blindly. Demand that the PRIME PURPOSE of district borders be "political competitiveness". Then demand a NON-partisan committee to arrange adjustments according to general population evenness for voting districts in best alignment with that grid.
Honestly politically competitive voting districts in every state would go VERY far in eliminating the extremism of candidates and winners in both parties and promote political competition. I can't think of anything else that would improve US politics so immediately and positively.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Post Election Thoughts, Part 1
I'm not saying this to be mean. It's because I think the country is best served by having 2 major parties with differences but close enough together that co-governance is workable.
The Republican party has been moving steadily to the right for a couple of decades. Over those years, they have managed to bring most of their constituency along with them. But groups have been falling (or jumping) off the wagon for years. The party has survived by improving the turnout of its base in recent elections. That can't continue; there are limits to the "turnout strategy". If ythey were to (impossibly) achieve 100% turnout in a shrinking base, where can they go in the future.
Extremism is a strength and a weakness. Yes, it improves the percentage of the turnout, but it increases the opposition turnout as well. There were some startling examples of the extremity in the Republican party this year. Looking back on the primary elections, it is clear that almost all of the candidates were actually to the left of the base. This drove all of them to make ever more extremist statements. Whoever the eventual nominee was to be, he was going to be dragging extremist views (and perhaps more importantly, soundbites) into the general election campaign.
The extremism also affects campaign planning. I saw an interview with some Republican strategist (forgive me I lost track of the name) who was genuinely shocked by the election results. He had watched all the Fox News channel discussions, he had followed the Rasmussen polls carefully. And they were WRONG! Shocked, he said, SHOCKED...
I hope I am not saying anything controversial here, but Fox News was created to be a media outlet for (and controlled by) conservative Republican views, unfiltered by standard mainstream news channels. The idea was originally proposed by top Republican strategist Roger Ailes to fellow Republican leaders in the 1990s. Guess who is the president of Fox News? Roger Ailes.
Equally, Rasmussen appears to be a polling company created to present positive Republican spin on voter preferences for the political benefits of influencing voters who can be swayed be wanting to support a "winner". They are politically (as opposed to professionally) convinced that Republican voters are under-represented in the mainstream neutral national polls. So they deliberately over-weigh their own Republican poll numbers to "correct" the perceived inequity.
So when Rasmussen gets ties, they increase the Republican support a few percentage points. If behind, they make it tied. If ahead, they make the Republican candidates more ahead. Their professional Republican customers know this, but then they believe it! So when Rasmussen said Romney/Ryan was ahead by 5% in most of the "swing states" where they were actually slightly behind, and had an even chance in other states where they were actually well behind, the Republican leadership and candidates acted on the Rasmussen polls and ignored ALL THE OTHER (more professional) polls.
The results were a substantial Presidential electoral defeat and shocking (to them) Senate and House defeats.
Next time: Why this is all happening...
[Disclaimer: I have an undergraduate degree in "Government and Politics" (with a minor in History - American Politics), but mostly, I have maintained a possibly unhealthy interest in the practices and strategies of modern political campaigns. My favorite book is 'They Also Ran' the story of the men who were defeated for the Presidency, Irving Stone]
The Republican party has been moving steadily to the right for a couple of decades. Over those years, they have managed to bring most of their constituency along with them. But groups have been falling (or jumping) off the wagon for years. The party has survived by improving the turnout of its base in recent elections. That can't continue; there are limits to the "turnout strategy". If ythey were to (impossibly) achieve 100% turnout in a shrinking base, where can they go in the future.
Extremism is a strength and a weakness. Yes, it improves the percentage of the turnout, but it increases the opposition turnout as well. There were some startling examples of the extremity in the Republican party this year. Looking back on the primary elections, it is clear that almost all of the candidates were actually to the left of the base. This drove all of them to make ever more extremist statements. Whoever the eventual nominee was to be, he was going to be dragging extremist views (and perhaps more importantly, soundbites) into the general election campaign.
The extremism also affects campaign planning. I saw an interview with some Republican strategist (forgive me I lost track of the name) who was genuinely shocked by the election results. He had watched all the Fox News channel discussions, he had followed the Rasmussen polls carefully. And they were WRONG! Shocked, he said, SHOCKED...
I hope I am not saying anything controversial here, but Fox News was created to be a media outlet for (and controlled by) conservative Republican views, unfiltered by standard mainstream news channels. The idea was originally proposed by top Republican strategist Roger Ailes to fellow Republican leaders in the 1990s. Guess who is the president of Fox News? Roger Ailes.
Equally, Rasmussen appears to be a polling company created to present positive Republican spin on voter preferences for the political benefits of influencing voters who can be swayed be wanting to support a "winner". They are politically (as opposed to professionally) convinced that Republican voters are under-represented in the mainstream neutral national polls. So they deliberately over-weigh their own Republican poll numbers to "correct" the perceived inequity.
So when Rasmussen gets ties, they increase the Republican support a few percentage points. If behind, they make it tied. If ahead, they make the Republican candidates more ahead. Their professional Republican customers know this, but then they believe it! So when Rasmussen said Romney/Ryan was ahead by 5% in most of the "swing states" where they were actually slightly behind, and had an even chance in other states where they were actually well behind, the Republican leadership and candidates acted on the Rasmussen polls and ignored ALL THE OTHER (more professional) polls.
The results were a substantial Presidential electoral defeat and shocking (to them) Senate and House defeats.
Next time: Why this is all happening...
[Disclaimer: I have an undergraduate degree in "Government and Politics" (with a minor in History - American Politics), but mostly, I have maintained a possibly unhealthy interest in the practices and strategies of modern political campaigns. My favorite book is 'They Also Ran' the story of the men who were defeated for the Presidency, Irving Stone]
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Election Results
Well, I'm pleased. I know some people won't be. In fact I'm sure some people will be positively angry. I've been on that side of the fence more often than not, so I know the feeling.
Fun Fact: Who was the last Republican elected president WITHOUT someone named Nixon or Bush on the ticket? (see end)
To a great extent, I'm SO glad that this election is just plain OVER! I'm sure there have been nasty, more negative campaigns, but I don't remember them. Hopefully, this election will teach us that anonymous money needs to be removed from political campaigns.
And maybe some degree of bipartisanship will now return to national politics...
(Fun Fact Answer: Herbert Hoover, 1929. Nixon was on the winning ticket in 1952, 1956, 1968 and 1972; a Bush was on the ticket in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004)
Fun Fact: Who was the last Republican elected president WITHOUT someone named Nixon or Bush on the ticket? (see end)
To a great extent, I'm SO glad that this election is just plain OVER! I'm sure there have been nasty, more negative campaigns, but I don't remember them. Hopefully, this election will teach us that anonymous money needs to be removed from political campaigns.
And maybe some degree of bipartisanship will now return to national politics...
(Fun Fact Answer: Herbert Hoover, 1929. Nixon was on the winning ticket in 1952, 1956, 1968 and 1972; a Bush was on the ticket in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004)
Sunday, November 4, 2012
You Can't Fall Off The Floor
But Dad can now fall out of bed. Happened last night for the first time. I was just sitting here typing at 4 am (I take free time when I can find it and I wasn't tired) and there came a THUMP from Dad's bedroom. I ran straight over, to find him on hands and knees on the floor.
Its awkward trying to get Dad up. I'm not trained at it. I could just lift him up brute force, but that's not what he needs...
I learn gradually (maybe as slow as a giant tortise walks). He wants help to let himself get himself up onto the bed again. Pride matters. But he knows what he needs to do better than I do, and that matters too. He says he gets cramps when I lift him myself, for example.
I can't tell what he feels when I try to lift him. If he says lifting him my way causes muscle cramps, I have to believe him.
Are there classes I can attend for this stuff? He weighs more than I do. I know emergency techniques. I could get him upon my back and carry him out of the house if needed even if it hurt him. But him as dead-weight on the floor, non-emergency, baffles me.
I am sure I am doing all this elder care stuff wrong. I thought common sense would get me through these stages. I THOUGHT I was smart enough (and able enough) to know what to do when the falling-down stages happened. Apparently, I'm not.
And I should have known. Years ago, a friend did that cartoonish unbelievably stupid "foot on the boat and foot on the dock while the boat moved away thing". Yes, he fell in the water. But I could NOT get him onto the pier again. He was just too heavy. OK, if it had been ME, I would have just heaved myself up on the dock and never mind that it wouldn't have happened to me in the first place. But I'm not a total klutz like my friend.
Dad is now officially a klutz. Its not his fault, he can't help being old. But he is and I have to deal with that now.
The point is that Dad was dead weight and I couldn't begin to lift him without cramps on his part. You don't realize what lifting dead weight is until you fail at it...
Its awkward trying to get Dad up. I'm not trained at it. I could just lift him up brute force, but that's not what he needs...
I learn gradually (maybe as slow as a giant tortise walks). He wants help to let himself get himself up onto the bed again. Pride matters. But he knows what he needs to do better than I do, and that matters too. He says he gets cramps when I lift him myself, for example.
I can't tell what he feels when I try to lift him. If he says lifting him my way causes muscle cramps, I have to believe him.
Are there classes I can attend for this stuff? He weighs more than I do. I know emergency techniques. I could get him upon my back and carry him out of the house if needed even if it hurt him. But him as dead-weight on the floor, non-emergency, baffles me.
I am sure I am doing all this elder care stuff wrong. I thought common sense would get me through these stages. I THOUGHT I was smart enough (and able enough) to know what to do when the falling-down stages happened. Apparently, I'm not.
And I should have known. Years ago, a friend did that cartoonish unbelievably stupid "foot on the boat and foot on the dock while the boat moved away thing". Yes, he fell in the water. But I could NOT get him onto the pier again. He was just too heavy. OK, if it had been ME, I would have just heaved myself up on the dock and never mind that it wouldn't have happened to me in the first place. But I'm not a total klutz like my friend.
Dad is now officially a klutz. Its not his fault, he can't help being old. But he is and I have to deal with that now.
The point is that Dad was dead weight and I couldn't begin to lift him without cramps on his part. You don't realize what lifting dead weight is until you fail at it...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)