Rules - How Many is too Many

Every day Melissa and I struggle to decide what "rules" we need to have for Elizabeth. Sure we have rules about don't play with knives and the kitchen stove will burn you. We tell her to stay out of the street, but I'm really talking about rules with no basis in safety, but things we just want her to do. I'll give you some examples.

When Elizabeth was approaching three years old, her mother and I both tired of carrying her everywhere. She was more than old enough and big enough to walk, but she still wanted to be carried. Looking for an easy way out of this chore, we told her it was a rule that she couldn't be carried anymore after she turned three. She did ask why several times, but we just kept telling her it was the rule. Eventually she bought it and really didn't ask to be carried anymore after turning three. If by some chance she does ask us to carry her today, we just remind her of the rule and that's the end of that discussion.

Another rule was at age five she was old enough to walk herself into school. For virtually the entire school year last year, we took her to school, parked the car and walked into the building with her. As she approached her fifth birthday, we told her it was a rule that she had to walk in by herself when she turned five. Again we got lots of questions, but we just kept saying it was the rule and she accepted that too.

The latest is the rule that once you start kindergarten you don't need to sleep with the bathroom light on. Now, to keep you from thinking we are horrible and make the child sleep in the dark, she has a nightlight in the bathroom, in the hall outside the bathroom, in her bedroom, and we leave a lamp on with a 25 watt blue bulb in it on her dresser. It is never dark in her room. But for some reason, she wanted the bathroom light on as well. I think it was just something she could control. With school starting on Thursday, we've been reminding her of the no bathroom light rule and she even decided it would be good to "practice" sleeping without the bathroom light Sunday and Monday night's this week. We'll see how things go tomorrow, but so far she is good with this new rule as well.

Her doctor reminds us to be careful about having too many rules. "God only had 10" is one of his favorite comments and we are way passed only 10 rules.

I guess as long as they don't really hurt anything, there is no harm in having these kinds of rules. At least not until she figures out we just make up the rules as we go along.

One for Me; Two for You

After watching and listening to all the posturing by both parties regarding increasing the country's debt ceiling, I have decided we just need to return to grade school to find the answer.

Weeks of rhetoric has devolved into an incredibly annoying "he said-he said" that is getting us no closer to a vote on increasing the debt ceiling or making changes to our federal government's spending habits. Each time one side stands up in front of a microphone or a camera they immediately begin telling us why their plan is only chance we have to save our economy and how adopting the other side's plans will be the end of the world.

What we all know is the truth is somewhere between both ideologies and with a split between parties in the two Houses of Congress ultimately any agreement will land somewhere between extremes that are being tossed around by both sides.

Since there seems to be a complete lack of statesmen who are willing to do what's right for the country's economy - or at least do it in a timely manner that will keep us from running right up to the brink of default - I have arrived at a solution so simple even grade school kids can understand it and do it every day.

Just like we learned to choose "teams" during our days in grade school, I would propose we follow the same pattern in solving this crisis. Both the Republicans and the Democrats get to designate a team captain. For the sake of this argument, I'm designating President Obama to captain the D's and John Boehner the R's. Anytime you pick teams someone has to get the first pick. Since the D's control the White House and the Senate, I'm giving them the first choice in our debt ceiling, deficit reduction draft.

The way this works - just like it did in grade school - is the D's get first pick. After the D's make their first choice, the R's will get two picks. Then two more picks for the D's and two more for the R's and so on. Rather than put a number of rounds on this draft, we'll call for an end to the when we have successfully raised the debt ceiling AND cut spending by something like $1 trillion dollars.

Nothing is quite as simple as picking items so I'm willing to give a bonus to each side. Just like in a jury selection, I'm going to give each side 2 peremptory challenges to whatever is proposed by the other. These challenges can be used to strike any proposal made by the other side and once something is proposed and challenged by the other side, it can't be brought back up. And remember, each side only has two challenges so they best use them wisely.

Here is how the debt ceiling, debt reduction draft could look:

In the first round, the D's decided to raise the debt ceiling by $1 trillion. While this is a lot more than the R's want, they choose to save their strike and allow the increase to happen. Now the R's get two picks and with their first, they choose a balance budget amendment. The D's don't like the idea so they use their first strike. The R's get another first round pick. With this choice the R's elect to increase the minimum age to qualify for social security. The D's don't want to waste both strikes early, so they let this one pass.

In round two, the R's go first and they here they suggest a repeal of the new health care law. The D's decide this is too much to allow and they use their second strike. This uses up all the D's strikes so the R's get another pick in round two and choose major cuts to Medicare. For their choice in the second round, the D's choose eliminating tax loopholes for oil companies. Here the R's use a strike and the D's get another choice. This time they propose a dramatic reduction in defense spending and R's again use a strike. Now with both sides out of strikes, the D's finish round two by raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000.

In the third round, both sides are out of strikes and the D's get the first choice. With no strikes left, the D's can pick whatever they want such as increasing funding to EPA. The R's will get back-to-back picks and they can also pick whatever they want.

To speed the process along, we put a time limit on how long each side gets to make a pick and the amount of time starts small, say five minutes, and gradually increases starting in round five to a maximum of five minutes. If we commit to spending just 4 hours on this process, we can probably get 12-15 rounds of selections and they should add up a significant reduction in the budget and the debt ceiling will be increased. Both these items prove to be good for the country and both sides will get somethings they want and they'll have to accept somethings they don't want.

While actually negotiating in good faith and accepting that they won't get everything they want through the negotiations would be preferable, this at least provides a solution and would let us get the crisis addressed and move us on down the road.

If this doesn't work, I vote for my friend Terry's suggestion of putting them all outside in the Oklahoma sun without shade or water and making them stay there until they reach a resolution.

Punishing the Innocent

It never fails. A group of people - most of the time a small group of people - will choose to ignore our laws and our elected officials will see it as their sworn duty to add a bunch of new laws that won't change the previous violators' behavior, but it will certainly punish the innocent.

In one of the newspapers this week, there was a story about another small town in Oklahoma trying to make the purchase of allergy medicine with pseudoephedrine require a prescription from a doctor. Holdenville, Oklahoma has already adopted this city ordinance and the man pushing the ordinances has moved on to other communities.

I know the use of methamphetamine is a major problem in our state. My wife works with criminals every day so I fully grasp the extent of the drug problem.

What I don't follow is the nanny-society thought that another law to make it more difficult to buy allergy meds is really going to help in any way.

Several years ago, Oklahoma created a registry for everyone who buys pseudoephedrine. The US Congress followed suit and today, when I need to get my allergy meds, I have to show my drivers license and sign a sworn statement about who is going to use the meds. Add to that, I can only buy a limited number of the pills at time. For example, I had a prescription for Allegra-D. My doctor prescribed them for me in a 90-day supply with a renewal good for an entire year. Now Allegra is no longer a prescription drug and I can buy it over the counter. That should be a good thing, but it really isn't. Not only does it now cost me almost four times as much to get the Allegra, I can only buy 15 days worth at a time. Not only is the amount I can buy limited, they don't even offer a 15-day supply package. I have to buy a box of 10 and a box of 5 to get my "maximum" allotment. And every 15 days I have to go back to the pharmacy and get another two boxes. But when I get home and get ready to take the Allegra each night, I have to open some stupid little bubble-wrapped package that at times requires a pair of scissors to open.

Now, when I had a prescription for Allegra D and they filled it at the pharmacy I got a bottle with 90 pills in it and no special bubble wrap or ID required. If cities adopt local ordinances requiring a prescription for pseudoephedrine, will this remove all the other packaging and limited quantity restrictions? Can I go back to my single pill bottle with unwrapped pills in it? I think we all know the answers to those questions.

We have laws today to limit who can buy pseudoephedrine and how much they can buy. The law-abiding citizens have already been inconvenienced in order to comply with the existing laws. And while meth manufacturing declined for a short period of time, it is now on the rise again, just in a a different form. The law-breakers amongst us found a way to skirt the current law.

With other cities comtemplating new ordinances to further limit access to pseudoephedrine, does anyone really believe it will have any lasting impact on meth manufacturing? Or is this just another ordinance that will punish the innocent?

Smoke 'em Out

Earlier today, I was visiting with a friend of mine about a challenge she has been dealing with at work. Nothing she can really do anything about, but still a challenge anyway.

The gist of our discussion was there are two factions of an organization she is affiliated with that are fighting over the direction and leadership of the organization. This in-fighting is not good for the organization and it is distracting them from their real purpose.

As we discussed this challenge, she suggested to me that both sides should be locked in a room and left there until the white smoke appears. In case you don't understand the "white smoke" reference, when it is time to select a new Pope, the College of Cardinals meet behind closed doors and they vote repeatedly on who should be chosen as Pope. The only way the public knows what's going on in the College is through the colored smoke coming out of the chimney. If the smoke is black, there is no agreement and the discussion and voting will continue. Once they have agreed on a new Pope, white smoke comes from the chimney.

I'm not Catholic so I've never really paid attention to this process, but my friend shared the story that some time long ago, the Cardinals couldn't reach a decision and those outside the building ultimately decided to lock them in building with no food or water until they reached a decision and sent up the white smoke. Neither of us knew if this was really the truth, but it was enough to make me think it could be the solution to the challenges we see facing government, both in OKC and Washington.

As we watched last week's near government shut-down and as I visited DC this week and listened to both democrats and republicans tell us why their version of the near shut-down and looming budget fight was the right version, all I could think was maybe it's time to smoke 'em out.

I know reasonable people can differ as to the best answer to our nation's budget challenge. What they really can't differ on is that something absolutely must be done. My fear is, much like they all did last week with threats of a government shut-down, there's going to be more and more posturing by both sides with neither side really listening to the other or doing what's truly in the best interest of the country.

While it pains me to contemplate the time that will be wasted while the public banter continues, it does put a smile on my face when I think about how quickly could they solve this problem if we just locked 'em in without food and water and waited for the white smoke to appear.

Bedtime Hugs and Kisses

I'm not good at telling the people around me that I care for them. Most people think I'm joking, but it is very close to the truth when I say that I told my wife I loved her once and that I'd let her know if that ever changed. Fortunately, Melissa is cut from a similar cloth. She doesn't need to be told I love her and she doesn't say it often either. Both of us believe that actions demonstrate that love far more than words do.

The challenge for me came when Elizabeth was born. I know the importance of children believing they are loved. They have to be told repeatedly they are loved. They will tell you how much they love mommy and daddy, but they need to be told and shown that we love them. And that's especially true of the bond between daughters and fathers.

To help with that, I had decided I would never turn down a request for a hug or kiss from Elizabeth. Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. There is nothing in the world that makes me feel any better about myself and/or my family than a kiss and a hug from Elizabeth. I know almost every parent feels that way about their kids and that's a good thing. But she's learned how to use hugs and kisses as a weapon in our nightly bedtime battles.

In the last several weeks, Elizabeth has been searching for new ways to avoid going to bed or going to sleep once she's been in bed. Here are a few of her favorites:

• I have to go to the bathroom.
• I'm really thirsty. Can I have some more milk?
• It's dark in here. I want to turn on my closet light.

Eventually, I just get fed up answering these questions and dealing with these distractions and I tell her NO. That generally causes much crying, wailing, and gnashing of teeth. She cries and wails and I gnash the teeth. Even though it creates drama, it generally doesn't last long and she'll go to sleep.

The latest attempt on Elizabeth's part to avoid going to bed is to ask for hugs and kisses. And not just one hug or kiss but every time she sees one of us she wants a hug and a kiss. If she gets out of bed - even after being told not to - when you send her back to bed she has to have a hug and kiss first.

And she draws out the process too. She'll start toward the bed and then turn and put out her arms and say "hugs?" She then walks slowly across the room for hugs and kisses and then slowly heads back to her bed. And then she'll look at me and say "I need hugs and kisses from Mommy."

If you walk by her room on the way to the bathroom, she'll immediately begin talking to you and won't stop until you tell her it's time to be quiet. At that point she turns to the hugs and kisses.

I don't ever want Elizabeth to think her mommy and daddy don't love her. I know all kids will go through a phase when they believe that, but they shouldn't go through it at age 4. I don't ever want her to even question whether or not she is loved. That doesn't stop me from punishing her when she breaks a rule of the house. But even after punishing her, I try to sit down where we can look at each other eye to eye and explain why she was in trouble, give her a big hug, and tell her I love her.

I don't have any problem telling her she can't have another glass of milk or make another trip to the bathroom or leave the light on in the closet. But so far I'm not willing to deny her a hug or kiss.

It looks like it will be many more nights where we fight over going to bed while Elizabeth asks for one more hug and kiss.

Let Them Eat Cake in the 21st Century

In case you missed this editorial http://newsok.com/why-are-oklahoma-public-schools-in-busing-business/article/3540809, it was in the Oklahoman earlier this week. The gist of the piece is that we should just eliminate buses as a means to get our kids to school.

I recognize things are vastly different than when my dad lived five miles from his school and he walked to and from school in the snow every day and the walk was uphill both ways.

The Oklahoman tries to say that we have moved past the time our schools need to provide transportation for our kids to get to and from school. I'm not sure I buy their argument. Actually I find their argument somewhat elitist and condescending.

There was a time when kids went to school hours after sun-up so they could help with morning chores. They got out of school in time to help with evening chores. We used fall and spring breaks as a time to help harvest or plant crops. My point is that things are different than they used to be.

In my dad's day, a family was lucky to have a single car or truck for transportation and you can bet the family member who was working away from the home almost always used that vehicle to get to and from work. Today, most families have more than one car. But not only are we more likely to have two cars, we are also more likely to have both parents working outside the home. Or for kids to be living in a single parent home.

Today, kids can ride the bus. Parents can drive their kids. Some day care centers provide rides to and from school. I recognize the needs for busing kids to and from school may not be the same as they were just 30 years ago. That doesn't mean we are ready to move away from busing entirely. It seems to me there are still very good reasons for kids to able to ride to the bus.

If you're a single parent who has to be at work at 8 a.m., how do you get your children to school on time? If you work past 3 p.m., how do your kids get home from school? Most schools don't start classes until after 8 and they get out long before 5 p.m. While schools are not babysitters or daycare centers, in a society that almost demands we work away from the home and on a given time schedule that is really not compatible with the school schedule, what are we supposed to do to get our kids to and from school?

When my dad walked to school, even when I rode my bike to school 30 years ago, you didn't worry as much about someone picking up a kid from the side of the road. Granted I grew up in Cordell and we knew everyone in town - not to mention anyone who tried to kidnap me would have returned me very quickly. But the fact remains these are different times and our kids aren't as safe as we were.

For many families, it may not be the best option, but riding the bus may be the only option they have to get their kids to and from school.
So, back to the editorial, if we eliminate busing of kids just to save money, what do we do about getting all our kids to school safely?

It's easy to identify perceived problems and to suggest that someone should do something to address the perceived problem. It becomes much harder to suggest a solution and this editorial stops way short of offering solutions.

If the only reason the editorial is proposing to drop busing is to save money, maybe we need to take a broader look at the issue. If we are going to get rid of busing because it is outdated, wouldn't we be better served to consider many more significant changes to our educational model that actually improve education as opposed to just saving money?

This editorial just reeks of someone who believes every home in the state has at least one parent who isn't working when school starts and ends or has the financial resources to have someone else pickup their kids at school. It certainly looks like the writers have clearly forgotten what it is like to be a young couple who's struggling with just paying their bills, to get to work on time and get their kids to school.

Forget let them eat cake. Is this let them walk to school?

We Will Remember

Every year about this time I'm reminded of the 10 men associated with the OSU basketball program who died in the plane crash on January 27, 2001. This evening, as the Cowboys played Texas on national TV, was no different.

From the inclusion of Doug Gottlieb in the broadcast team to the features on ESPN leading up to the game, ESPN did a masterful job of helping us remember those 10 men. Local media has also done an outstanding job reminding us of the impact those 10 men had on the people around them.

You can find great features on the websites of many of the major media outlets across the state. If you haven't checked them out, I would encourage you to do so.

I had met some of the men who died in the crash. I didn't know them but I had met them. I knew the coaches at OSU and I could see how this was impacting them. Even today, as I look back on the news stories and video clips it brings tears to my eyes.

During the memorial service in Gallagher Iba ten years ago, Coach Sutton told us Bill Teegins was the most humble sportscaster he had ever met. I believe this to be true as well and I want to share my Bill Teegins story with you.

During the OSU football seasons between 1995-1998, I would make the road trip from Norman or Lawrence, Kansas, to each home game. I had a great group of friends that would meet before and after every game at George's Stables to "tailgate" in the parking lot behind the Stables. I don't remember exactly which game, but after one game, we were in the parking lot with the grill fired up and cooking some brats for an after game snack. Down the street that runs just east of the Stables and Joe's we saw Bill Teegins and another gentlemen walking toward Joe's. I know I waved and said "hello" to Bill as he went by. He smiled and waved back and then noticed we were cooking. He walked out of the street and up to our grill and introduced himself and asked if we would be willing to sell him a bratwurst. I told him he was welcome to help himself but we weren't selling anything. Bill smiled and grabbed a bun, made a sandwich, and then started fishing in his pocket for cash to pay for the brats. Again we told him there was no charge, but Bill insisted we take his money. He stood around and ate his brat and visited with us for a few minutes. When he finished, he gave us all a great big thank you and smile told how much he appreciated our hospitality.

My job at OPC has given me an opportunity to meet many media personalities. Some of those men and women have been wonderful people, but none have been more genuine and more likeable than Bill Teegins.

It may not be much of a story to anyone else, but it was a special moment to me and its the memory that brings the loss of these 10 men home to me.

I will always remember.

Fourteen Down and Who Knows How Many to Go

Let's start with an obvious comment - at least obvious to those who know me or have seen me somewhere in the last 10 years. I love food in general and especially foods and quantities of food that are not good for me.

I'm sure this is not a news flash, but I'm overweight. Not just a little overweight, but a bunch. I've known this for sometime, but I've never done anything about it.

Two months ago, my doctor scolded me again for not doing something about my weight. This isn't the first time I've heard this speech from him. In fact, I've heard it every year during my annual physical. I've always said I would work on it later. Well, later has finally arrived.

This last scolding from the doc included some new pressures. He told me I was diabetic and needed to get my blood sugar under control and losing some weight would really help with that effort. I knew diabetes ran in my family and I expected to hear those words some time in the future, but I didn't expect it at age 43.

For the first couple of days after my visit with the doc, I moped around the house and the office grousing about being hungry and not having anything I could eat. Melissa tried to help me understand what I could eat, but I was feeling sorry for myself and wasn't really listening to her. She finally gave me a book on diets for diabetics and I spent several days reviewing the lists of foods and the information on putting a diet plan together.

Melissa and I began shopping with a focus on finding foods and meals I could enjoy and fit within my diet. We planned a few meals and came up with some "staples" of my new diet. Some of these are harder for me to live with than other choices. For example, I loved eating pears (in heavy syrup) as a kid and I didn't realize pears would become one of my favorite fruits in my new diet. I grab the no-sugar-added pears and they are really pretty good. Another example is the need to add a significant number of vegetables to my diet. For a guy who really only eats green beans and carrots for vegetables and now needs to eat multiple servings of veggies each day, I am really getting tired of green beans and carrots.

The other big change for me was to move to eating at regular times and intervals throughout the day and learning that "snacks" are acceptable as long as they are the right kind of snacks. I love peanuts, cashews, almonds, etc. and those make great snacks. Pork jerky fits nicely in my snack plans. 90 calorie granola bars also are a good fit.

The thing that has been most amazing to me is that it has been relatively easy to put aside the things I really enjoyed eating - or drinking. The first Saturday after my visit with the doctor, I made it through the whole day tailgating in Stillwater without a beer or other adult beverage and no Cokes. Probably the hardest part of changing my diet has been cutting out Cokes and fried potatoes. I was a several Cokes-a-day drinker. I ordered fries with almost every meal. I made fries at home on a regular basis. I ate McDonald's several times a week.

In the past 60 days I haven't had a single Coke - wanted several but haven't had any. I haven't eaten at McDonald's once. I've been cooking at home more and taking my lunch to work more. I've even begun exercising a little with some walking as often as I can.

In the last 60 days, I've lost 14 pounds and my blood sugar is much more stable. I'm not sure how many more pounds I have to lose, but I feel good and I'm optimistic about my efforts and looking forward to the future.

I always resisted the urging of others to lose weight and watch my diet. It simply wasn't on my "to do" list and it wasn't a priority to me. Once it became a priority, it became much easier to accomplish. I''m a big believer in every one's right to make their own choices in what we eat and how much we eat. I didn't need the government to tell me I was too heavy. What I needed was to make that determination on my own and take ownership of the process to fix it. I've not done anything special or anything unique. I've simply put some effort into it and I'm seeing results.

Fourteen down and more to go!!