Marching On

In my last post, which was ages ago now, I wrote a bit about the "Death March" that is far too common late in many software development projects.

Well, I'm still marching - believe it or not. The software still isn't officially released yet. It has been a long haul at work. Things are still going ok, but as a result of management trying to compress the schedule so much, the software is pretty buggy, which means that we've been stuck in a release-test-fix-release cycle for what seems like ages now. It's really a drag during the summer, when I'd much rather be spending time with my family, enjoying the weather, and getting outdoor projects done around the house.

I have had time to get some things done, for which I'm grateful. I've spent the past several weekends pressure-washing and re-staining our deck. It's taken quite a while. Our deck is pretty large, has railings, and built-in flower planters and benches, all of which needed to be stained by hand. It's really time-consuming and tedious, but the result has been worth it. We're nearly done, and the deck is looking pretty nice.

We also had a 13 1/2' by 9 1/2' shed built in our back yard (or back garden, as our friends from the UK would say). It looks great, and the contractor that built it for us did a nice job. We still need to paint it, put gutters and downspouts on it, and get it wired, but that shouldn't take too long. Once it's done, we'll have lots of storage space for garden tools, lawn mower, and the like. It will free up lots of room in our garage and help keep things organized. The only downside is that it was kind of expensive to have built. We had the cash on hand to do it, but we're going to have to slow down a bit on doing some other projects to accumulate some extra money for other stuff.

Well, enough about all of that. I will say that posting is still likely to be sporadic at best, since I'm still quite busy at work and most of my spare time is taken by other stuff. I'm going to try to increase the rate at which I post, but no promises (as if anyone really cares, anyway!).

Grief and Its Limits

Everyone and their brother has been commenting on the Cindy Sheehan story, so I don't need to go over it much. The basics:

1. A young man, Casey Sheehan, voluntarily joined the Army against his quite liberal mother's objections.
2. He was sent to Iraq, like so many other young men in the Army. Fighting for our country, after all, is what being in the Army is all about.
3. Like too many other young men, and some young women, Casey Sheehan was tragically killed in combat.
4. After his death, Casey Sheehan's family met with President Bush. The President has met with the families of many of the soldiers that have been killed in Iraq. The accounts that I have read have said that the President is very warm and sincere, and quite clearly takes the death of every soldier personally and emotionally. He often weeps when he meet the family of service members that have been killed. He most certainly is not callous or hard-hearted. Even Casey Sheehan's liberal mother, Cindy Sheehan, agreed - at one time. "I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith." Those were her words shortly after meeting with the President at Fort Lewis, Washington, just a few miles from where I live.
5. Since that time, however, Cindy Sheehan has become more and more radical, and has become, essentially, a professional war protester, camping out at the President's ranch in Texas so that she can "confront" the President and demand answers for why her son died.
6. The far left has seized upon Casey's tragic death and Mrs. Sheehan's understandable and justified grief as the latest example of how the President and his administration are just a bunch of cold-hearted murderers, who if they had any compassion or decency, would bring our troops home and end (as the Leftists would say) the illegal, unjustified, and ill-advised war in Iraq.

I think that pretty much covers the facts. I'm certain a liberal reader might take issue with how I presented some of the information, but that's understandable, given that I've supported the President and the War in Iraq from the beginning.

I'm not interested so much in (once again) listing all of the reasons that the War was justified and the right thing to do, despite the cost. Anyone that still doesn't get it is either not listening or doesn't care, and so rehashing the arguments will not convince them.

What interests me is the Left's use of a mother's grief as cover, as some sort of legitimizing factor, for making the same old arguments. It's especially disturbing, given that Cindy Sheehan is, herself, the major player in all of the drama.

There are some questions I'd like to ask about all of this:

•  Does a mother's or father's grief give any additional validity to any argument? Granted, it gives emotional weight to what she or he is saying, but certainly, it doesn't make it any more right or wrong. The volume at which words are spoken (or screamed) or the sincerity and heartfelt emotions behind them don't make them more true. They may make us listen to them more carefully - or not, and we may naturally regard a grieving mother's words with more sympathy, but truth is not an emotional quality. Most people, I think, understand that, and so I think Cindy Sheehan's grief makes her a sympathetic personality, but not a convincing one.
   
•  What are the limits of grief? Does a mother's or father's grief give her or him the right to disparage the rational and well-considered decisions an adult child has made, even if the mother or father disagrees? These are very difficult questions. Of course, I'm referring to Casey Sheehan's decision to join the Army, but it applies elsewhere. For a few paragraphs, let's move away from the emotionally and politically charged debate over the War in Iraq.
  
  For the sake of argument, assume that my son (who is now 12), decides when he is 18 and a legal adult, to take up skydiving, a dangerous, but to many people, very exhilarating and rewarding sport. Now, I have never been a skydiver, and I have no desire to ever be a skydiver. In fact, I think it's a rather stupid thing to do (sorry, skydivers, but that's how I feel about it). I would try to convince my son that skydiving isn't smart, and that it is too dangerous. My son is my only child, and in fact, if this scenario actually were to come about, I would indeed try to convince him not to take up skydiving. However, suppose that he is insistent and tells me that he is going to take it up, whether I agree or not.
  
  What should my response be?
  
  I could, of course, turn my back on my son, since he refused to listen to my advice and demands, and let him make his plans and pursue his goals without me. As a father, though, that seems childish and small-minded, and not in either my own or his best interests. I think a better and ultimately more satisfying response would be to back him 100%. Make sure that he gets the best possible instruction and best possible equipment. Do everything in my power to see to it that, since my son has chosen to do this thing, he does it very well and as safely as possible. Yes, there are risks - extreme ones - but I would feel much better about it if I knew that my son was going into it with my full support, and with the best training and equipment he can get.
  
  What if he is killed?
  
  Certainly, I would grieve. I would be heart-broken. He is my only son, my only child, my future. I might even be angry at skydivers and skydiving in general. It would more-than-likely harden my belief that skydiving is a dumb thing to do.
  
  But would I be justified in leading an all-out campaign against all skydiving, everywhere? No. Would my opinion be any more valid than the opinions of the many more people that enjoy skydiving and have never had any problems at all? No. Would my son's death mean that skydiving is an evil pastime, intended only to enrich parachute manufacturers? No. Would the death of my son be more important than the life of my loved ones who are still living? It might seem so at the time, I think, but rationally? No.
  
  None of that would be true. So what would be a better response? Well, first of all, I think it would be to honor my son and the decisions he has made - even if I disagree. To celebrate the fact that he was willing to take chances to do something he enjoyed and thought worthwhile. Perhaps to campaign to make the sport safer, if something went wrong. But most of all, to remember him and love him, and look forward to the day we meet again in heaven.

I'm not going to sit here at my keyboard and tell Cindy Sheehan how she should grieve for her son. She has actually lost her son, and I'm only speculating. My son is safe and sound, asleep in bed. I can't know how it feels to lose a child, and I pray that I never do. But as a parent myself, I think it's useful to ask myself these questions and to formulate some possible answers. It won't be long before I'll have to deal with decisions my son makes for himself - and I probably won't like them all.

On the other hand, it seems to me that perhaps Cindy Sheehan has over-stepped the reasonable limits to her grief, or perhaps she has become the victim of those who are so opposed to President Bush that they will use any situation or any person to their advantage. In either case, it seems very sad to me that, rather than honoring Casey for his service, all of the media focus is on his mother. And it is doubly tragic that Mrs. Sheehan, rather than grieving with her family, and giving to them and receiving support from them, appears to be letting it all tear her family apart. I think she and her family need our prayers, and my hope is that dissension in their family is replaced with forgiveness and understanding.

Permanent link