KAA RAY Z

                                                       

I would imagine when I am finished saying what I'm about to say, most of you, who do not already think it, will think I'm nuts. (Those who do not question my sanity maybe we should get together and form a support group.) Here goes:

In our pet cemetery we have buried eleven of our animals. We have Lincoln our dog and Smokey our cat left. When they go, we will have buried, if my math is correct, thirteen animals (interesting number).

Everyday I see some reminders of the dead in and outside the house, and when I am reminded, something happens in the pit of my stomach. The more recent deaths, the bigger the happening. I do know that time helps. It doesn't heal, but it helps. I've given a lot of thought as to why, when we have given an animal a good life and a good death, should I feel as I do.

Here is where the nutty part comes in:

When you have an animal, he or she relies completely on you for pretty much everything. Being a good animal owner that is what you provide. They feel safe and protected around you. Here it comes. I believe I feel the way I do after a loss is that I worry about the animal, after death, being--SCARED. Is that nuts or what? I intellectually know they are not scared, but what are they going to do going to a strange place without Jean or me? Are they going to be OK? Do they have someplace to go for protection, on the other side of the Rainbow Bridge without us and their pack mates?

(I don't know if I'm even going to publish this, it sounds so screwy.)

I have a reason for thinking that pointing out this "unconventional" theory may have some validity. When I was younger I wasn't any more fearful of heights than the average guy. As the years went on I got less and less comfortable standing on the edge of any significant height. Trying to understand what concerned me when I was on the edge, I determined that it wasn't that I was going to slip and fall, or that somebody was going to push me, I was afraid, of all things, that I was going to jump. Doing some research on the subject I found out that was not such a whacky thought; other people felt the same way. That made me feel less demented.

Is it possible that anyone out there, when you think about it, in any way, shares my irrational thought about animals after death? Should I be seeking professional help? Should I, like Billy Bob's character in Sling Blade, go to the nervous hospital?

As long as I'm pushing this hypothesis, let me push a little, actually a lot, further. I, in no way, want to relate children with animals, but the concept, to me, seems eerily the same. Why when a child dies do the parents generally feel so much worse than when Grandma dies? Of course number one is the lost future of the child, and the loss to the parents of part of themselves, but how much of the pain of loss comes from the parents being the protector, the shielder from all harm facing the realization that they just couldn't do it? What will the child do without them? Will they be scared? Grandma can take care of herself what ever the after life is, from nothing to the very religious heavenly, heaven. Grandma can handle it, but can an innocent baby?

I believe most of us like to think of ourselves as logical people, but deep down, where the real us hides, is a Wizard Of Oz behind the curtain pulling the heart strings. These thoughts on death have helped me open my curtain just a little bit so I can get a peek and maybe recognize my "Wizard" in the future.

UP ONE SIDE, DOWN THE OTHER

How much of the differences in philosophy between left and right can be defined on the standard bell shaped curve. I am a firm believer in the fact that both left and right want the same things, we want the same results, it's in how to get those results that we differ. It's in where we stand on the Bell Curve.

Let's take a look at some of the major issues of the day:

Taxes. The left is much more willing to pay higher taxes for perceived government benefits. The right would just as soon primarily care for themselves and get the government out, or at least to the background, of the picture.

Enter the Laffer Curve. This classic economic model Bell Curve suggests that, as taxes increase from low levels, tax revenue collected by the government also increases (rising slope of the curve)-- up to a point. At that point (the top of the curve) additional taxes bring in less money to the government. Taxes at a certain higher rate would cause people not to work as hard, or not at all, thereby reducing tax revenue (descending slope of the curve). Eventually, if tax rates reached 100% (the far right of the curve), then all people would choose not to work because everything they earned would go to the government. This is the argument against forced economic distribution. So, politically we find the right on the left side of the curve, and the left on the right side (Still with me?).

Minimum wage. The more a thing costs, the less of it is bought is an economic fact . So the more labor costs, the less of it is bought. On the upside of the curve we have the low skilled, entry worker who is providing a service commensurate with his/her pay. There are jobs available on this side of the curve where the work provided equals the wages paid. (win/win for both worker and employer). As we top the curve the worker now begins receiving more money than he/she is worth to the organization. (win for worker, loss for employer). Since the more a thing costs the less is bought, less low skilled, entry worker labor is bought because the work is not worth the pay to the employer.

Immigration. The US brings in low/no skilled workers to do the jobs Americas will not do. For awhile the country can provide jobs and absorb benefits. (upside of the curve). When too many people come over the border, we begin our slide down the far side of the curve. We now have too many people looking for work in a country with unusually high unemployment and requiring financial outlay in a country with a $17 T debt.

Welfare. There is point on the curve where we are providing help to those who really need it, then we reach a point where we are providing help to those who just want it. A truly moral country will commit itself to caring for those of its citizens who truly cannot care for themselves. This financial assistance will provide the needy with what they need to get back on their feet, enhance their self-esteem and begin caring for themselves. Random across the board “help” brings us down the back slope of the curve, and we are providing the grease for entire generations of families to live forever on the backside of the curve.

I'm going to give our government the benefit of the doubt in believing they are trying to do the right thing, but there is a line where, when crossed, the right thing become the wrong thing. The left and right in this country are engaged in a monster tug-o-war, each side trying to pull the other over the line. What we should be doing is working together to find the “line,” the crest of the Bell Curve, that will maximize the benefits for us all, not just those with the money and/or votes.

We can only wish.....