Hello Friends,
It is now 22 days since Myron's accident and he continues to make small steps of progress. As you might expect, however 'things' do crop up from time to time. An Infectious Disease physician has been added to Myron's physician list, and is overseeing the treatment of his pneumonia and infections that have begun. The MRSA has reappeared this week and the ID doc started him on 2 different antibiotics which seemed to work right away. Myron had been coughing and that subsided, but he still had a fever that was being treated with Tylenol. The fever could have been coming from a variety of things, but a doppler ultra sound was ordered by the ID doc as blood clots will cause fever also. Sure enough a clot appeared in his right leg. He was started on anticoagulants to dissolve the clot only to have that drug stopped by the pulmonologist who reminded his staff that Myron had had bleeding in the brain. I'm not certain that the brain bleeds have ceased. It was decided to place a filter in the vein or artery above the clot to capture it should it or any part of it break off. That procedure is kind of like a cardiac cath.
He is making progress with the ventilator.He seems not to be experiencing much pain and maybe can get him away from the morphine injections.
He is also being more interactive with people who visit. He'll wave, wink, he is mouthing words, and can very quietly speak some simple words.
Blessings to you all,
Sue
I'm sorry to hear about the setbacks in some areas and pleased about the progress in other areas. We continue to pray.
O God, the strength of the weak and the comfort of sufferers: Mercifully accept our prayers, and grant to your servant Myron the help of your power, that his sickness may be turned into health, and our sorrow into joy; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Friday, September 11, 2009
I Wish This Man Was My President
Dennis Kucinich was my first choice as the Democratic candidate for president. I knew he would not be chosen, but his policies are my policies. When Dennis speaks, I listen, and for the most part, I agree with him.
Thanks to Allen for the link.
Awakening
In those days,
we finally chose
to walk like giants
& hold the world
in arms grown strong with love
& there may be many things we forget
in the days to come,
but this will not be one of them.
From StoryPeople.
I post this story of the day, but I don't know if I agree with the conclusion. It seems that many of us have already forgotten.
we finally chose
to walk like giants
& hold the world
in arms grown strong with love
& there may be many things we forget
in the days to come,
but this will not be one of them.
From StoryPeople.
I post this story of the day, but I don't know if I agree with the conclusion. It seems that many of us have already forgotten.
In Remembrance - September 11, 2001
I have not forgotten. Once again, I find that I have no words, only thoughts and emotions which I cannot express. I offer these words from The Book of Common Prayer:
I am Resurrection and I am Life, says the Lord.
Whoever has faith in me shall have life,
even though he die.
And everyone who has life,
and has committed himself to me in faith,
shall not die for ever.
As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives
and that at the last he will stand upon the earth.
After my awaking, he will raise me up;
and in my body I shall see God.
I myself shall see, and my eyes behold him
who is my friend and not a stranger.
For none of us has life in himself,
and none becomes his own master when he dies.
For if we have life, we are alive in the Lord,
and if we die, we die in the Lord.
So, then, whether we live or die,
we are the Lord's possession.
Happy from now on
are those who die in the Lord!
So it is, says the Spirit,
for they rest from their labors.
BCP - p. 491
Below is the interior of St. Paul's Chapel near the World Trade Center, which I still consider the miracle church. However did the chapel come out relatively unscathed from the destruction all around it? When Grandpère and I were in New York a year or so after September 11, 2001, we attended a brief noonday service at St. Paul's. I was quite moved just to be inside the building which seemed even more hallowed because of its service as a place of rest and refreshment for those who worked at the site of the destruction. On an earlier visit, while the workers were still using the chapel, my sister and I cried as we walked around the perimeter of the fence when the memorials still covered every surface.
This post is mostly recycled from last year. I remember and note the day with deep sadness, but I have few words.
Images from Wiki here and here.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Joe, Joe, Joe!
From TPM:
Last night, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) issued an apology -- "I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President's remarks" -- and called the White House after heckling Obama during his nationally televised health care speech.
That's the first time most Americans heard of Congressman Wilson, but it's not, it turns out, the first time Wilson's emotions got the best of him and he was forced to apologize.
Flashback to mid-December 2003, when Essie Mae Washington-Williams came forward with the bombshell that she was the illegitimate daughter of the recently-deceased patriarch of South Carolina politics, Sen. Strom Thurmond.
Rep. Wilson, a former page of Thurmond's, immediately told The State newspaper that he didn't believe Williams. He deemed the revelation "unseemly." And he added that even if she was telling the truth, she should have kept the inconvenient facts to herself:
"It's a smear on the image that [Thurmond] has as a person of high integrity who has been so loyal to the people of South Carolina," Wilson said.
TPM has more.
H/T to Oyster.
Get On Board, Democrats!
From ABC News:
ABC News has learned that President Obama will be meeting with 16 Democratic senators (and one "Independent Democrat") this afternoon at the White House.
They are: Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mark Warner of Virginia, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Tom Carper of Delaware, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet of Colorado, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, and Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
The meeting is scheduled for 4:15 pm ET, in the Cabinet Room.
That would be right about now. Give 'em hell, Mr. President.
H/T to TPM.
ABC News has learned that President Obama will be meeting with 16 Democratic senators (and one "Independent Democrat") this afternoon at the White House.
They are: Senators Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mark Warner of Virginia, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Tom Carper of Delaware, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Udall and Michael Bennet of Colorado, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, and Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
The meeting is scheduled for 4:15 pm ET, in the Cabinet Room.
That would be right about now. Give 'em hell, Mr. President.
H/T to TPM.
Thoughts On The Draft Covenant
I first wrote the words below, with slight editing here, in the comments to Tobias Haller's post The Heterosectual Communion. Tobias' post is an excellent commentary on the statement at the Anglican Communion Institute on the Ridley-Cambridge Covenant Draft. Although my thoughts were first expressed in four different comments, they seem to hang together in a kind of coherent continuity, so I offer them here. Of course, Tobias answered each of my comments with his usual brilliance. I won't quote his responses here. If you'd like to read them, go to his post.
I read the Draft Covenant again. Part I seemed all right. In Part 2, I didn't like the tone of the evangelism section. It had a fundamentalist ring to it. "Repentance", "judgment". It did not sound like the Episcopal Church that I know, even the church in the conservative South.
Part 3 seemed heavily focused on bishops and primates, with a nod to clergy, and the laity nearly squeezed out of notice. In truth, I don't see the church I know signing on to this covenant with conviction.
I suppose those of us in TEC could continue our manner of evangelizing even if we signed on to the covenant, but what about the centralization of power in the primates and bishops? That section of Part 3 is quite disturbing to me. Certain primates and bishops already seem intoxicated by their sense of power, and we are asked to yield more to that small, mostly male group in the covenant. Clergy and laity are pretty much left out of consideration as having much of a voice. As I understand it, the text of the first three parts of the Draft is pretty well fixed.
The laity pay for the operations of the church, yet I get the sense from the Draft that we are to be quiet, give our money, and let the primates and bishops decide the weighty matters that will so much affect lay folks and priests. I'd think that the clergy might be concerned by the small role laid out for them in Part 3.
I understand that we are an episcopal church, and in many ways, I consider that a good and helpful way for a church to function. I see many advantages to that structure over a congregational structure. I accept that TEC is structured with bishops and dioceses, even as I see certain bishops in TEC making mischief and undermining their own church. I don't like it, but I accept it a consequence of our polity.
However, I'm not willing to cede control of TEC to bishops in other countries, for good or for ill. If the bonds of affection and the instruments of communion already in place are not enough to hold us together, then so be it. I'm not willing to give away more.
To speak plainly, I think the covenant is a cockamamie idea, and that we have already wasted far too much money, time, and attention on it that could better be spent elsewhere.
I had a thought. (Always a dangerous undertaking!) Suppose after 49 years of marriage, Grandpère said to me, "Sweetie, I know that we have been joined in the bonds of affection for 49 years, but now we need a covenant that says this, this, and this." If he asked me for a covenant now, wouldn't that be an indication that he believed that our relationship was somehow lacking? Wouldn't he be putting our relationship to the test? Suppose I said, "That is ridiculous and insulting. I won't do it. We've been married for 49 years! What on earth have we been about?" What then?
I know that all analogies fail at some point, but this one comes close to describing how I feel about the covenant in the Anglican Communion. It's setting conditions on an already established relationship.
As I see it, we are in communion if we share Communion at the table of the Lord. Those who choose to stay away from the table are those who are out of communion.
I read the Draft Covenant again. Part I seemed all right. In Part 2, I didn't like the tone of the evangelism section. It had a fundamentalist ring to it. "Repentance", "judgment". It did not sound like the Episcopal Church that I know, even the church in the conservative South.
Part 3 seemed heavily focused on bishops and primates, with a nod to clergy, and the laity nearly squeezed out of notice. In truth, I don't see the church I know signing on to this covenant with conviction.
I suppose those of us in TEC could continue our manner of evangelizing even if we signed on to the covenant, but what about the centralization of power in the primates and bishops? That section of Part 3 is quite disturbing to me. Certain primates and bishops already seem intoxicated by their sense of power, and we are asked to yield more to that small, mostly male group in the covenant. Clergy and laity are pretty much left out of consideration as having much of a voice. As I understand it, the text of the first three parts of the Draft is pretty well fixed.
The laity pay for the operations of the church, yet I get the sense from the Draft that we are to be quiet, give our money, and let the primates and bishops decide the weighty matters that will so much affect lay folks and priests. I'd think that the clergy might be concerned by the small role laid out for them in Part 3.
I understand that we are an episcopal church, and in many ways, I consider that a good and helpful way for a church to function. I see many advantages to that structure over a congregational structure. I accept that TEC is structured with bishops and dioceses, even as I see certain bishops in TEC making mischief and undermining their own church. I don't like it, but I accept it a consequence of our polity.
However, I'm not willing to cede control of TEC to bishops in other countries, for good or for ill. If the bonds of affection and the instruments of communion already in place are not enough to hold us together, then so be it. I'm not willing to give away more.
To speak plainly, I think the covenant is a cockamamie idea, and that we have already wasted far too much money, time, and attention on it that could better be spent elsewhere.
I had a thought. (Always a dangerous undertaking!) Suppose after 49 years of marriage, Grandpère said to me, "Sweetie, I know that we have been joined in the bonds of affection for 49 years, but now we need a covenant that says this, this, and this." If he asked me for a covenant now, wouldn't that be an indication that he believed that our relationship was somehow lacking? Wouldn't he be putting our relationship to the test? Suppose I said, "That is ridiculous and insulting. I won't do it. We've been married for 49 years! What on earth have we been about?" What then?
I know that all analogies fail at some point, but this one comes close to describing how I feel about the covenant in the Anglican Communion. It's setting conditions on an already established relationship.
As I see it, we are in communion if we share Communion at the table of the Lord. Those who choose to stay away from the table are those who are out of communion.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
"Status-Quo Anxiety"
James Surowiecki in the New Yorker:
There are times when Americans’ attitude toward health-care reform seems a bit like St. Augustine’s take on chastity: Give it to us, Lord, but not yet.
The article is a one-pager, and it's worth a read.
Lord, I'm ready.
There are times when Americans’ attitude toward health-care reform seems a bit like St. Augustine’s take on chastity: Give it to us, Lord, but not yet.
The article is a one-pager, and it's worth a read.
Lord, I'm ready.
Better Than I Expected
President Obama can give a speech! He's good! As I've been advising him, he should use his bully pulpit more often. He didn't draw the line in the sand that I would have wanted. He didn't say, "I won't sign a bill unless it includes the public option." However, if Congress passed his plan, many folks in the country would be better off. How hard will the president fight to keep the public option in the bill as it passes through the Congressional process? Senior White House advisor, David Axelrod, says the president will fight for it. We shall see.
I'm amazed that we sat back so long and endured abuse by the health insurance companies without screaming bloody murder. What's wrong with us?
What about that clown Joe ("It's a lie!") Wilson (R-SC)? A real class act, that one.
I'm amazed that we sat back so long and endured abuse by the health insurance companies without screaming bloody murder. What's wrong with us?
What about that clown Joe ("It's a lie!") Wilson (R-SC)? A real class act, that one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)