December 15, 2013

We Must Change the Delivery of Higher Education

Today only the very wealthy can afford to pay the cost of a college education from a top university. A significant number of students without wealthy parents depend on student loans to pay the steadily increasing costs for obtaining an education.

Nationally, the average student has accumulated loan debt of more than $26,000. However, students enrolled in exclusive colleges or pursuing educations in advanced fields, such as medicine or law, can easily end up with student loans greater than a quarter of a million dollars.

The dirty little secret not commonly understood is that these loans can never be forgiven, even in bankruptcy. Lenders retain the ability to garnish wages, and even take Social Security benefits if the loans are federally backed or subsidized, for as long as the borrower is alive to ensure being paid back in full.

We should be wondering why we are continuing to rely on so many students attending traditional brick-and-mortar colleges and universities and paying such high costs to receive an education.

Historically, institutions of higher learning existed as brick-and-mortar facilities in fixed locations because this is where the faculty using traditional classroom teaching methods lived and worked. However, today the technology available to share information electronically has become so easy to use and cost-efficient that it seems obvious teachers can expand their reach to a much larger audience without losing effectiveness.

In fact, many lecture-driven courses are so one-sided, and delivered in such large auditoriums, that little interaction can happen, anyway. This results in it being irrelevant that teachers and students are inside the same physical classroom. For these types of lectures, the students would be much better served having the ability to watch a video at their convenience, and even repeat viewings as often as needed.

Even where interactive learning is preferred, available electronics already allow full participation in real time, and recorded Q-and-A formats would allow students to see if the question they are pondering has already been asked/answered.

The most important thing to be considered is that our No. 1 objective should be to provide the best education possible to the largest number of students at the lowest cost. It's quite clear most American families cannot afford to continue to support the current cost-ineffective classroom methods for delivering advanced education.

The American taxpayer is once again facing the collapse of another financial bubble that is about to burst. Student loans now total more than $1.3 trillion and are spread out among more than 39 million borrowers. Worse, one in seven is in default within three years of having to make repayments.

Those of us without student loans may take comfort in hearing that these loans can never be forgiven, but the old adage of not being able to get blood from a turnip also applies. So what if lenders can garnish Social Security benefits and wages? Doesn't that simply result in even more people ending up in the safety net welfare system that all taxpayers will have to fund? Think about the negative impact on the U.S. economy with so many young Americans unable to afford to buy homes and other goods to help drive the economic machine.

We need to demand that expansion of electronically delivered education begin immediately.

In the future, we will see the best teachers from the most highly regarded educational institutions cost-effectively expanding their reach by producing and delivering video lectures that will be accessible via computer through a variety of pay-per-view arrangements.

Heck, I often pursue video education today for just about any information I need by going to YouTube, where most videos are free. Admittedly, some videos are not very good or even always accurate. However, like Google, with a bit of discernment the usefulness is quite good. Why wouldn't we expect to see our higher education delivered in the same simple manner?

Yeah, I know, the value of the social education realized by attending college away from home will be diminished, and sports teams will have reduced followings. For the wealthiest Americans, I'm pretty sure change will come very slowly because they can afford to pay for their children to enjoy the traditional college experience.

However, for most Americans, it all comes down to remembering that the original objective is to obtain an education that will allow one to be employed in order to support oneself.

By the way, if you are the parents or grandparents of college-age people and you see them pursuing an education in a field you know has little practical economic demand, please convince them to reconsider their choices.

Similarly, if you see them attending college but not working hard at learning, or barely making it, you would be doing them a favor by convincing them to stop school until they have matured enough to give it their best. As a former corporate recruiter, I saw far too many nice young people who graduated from college with a bare C average who were then as unemployable as if they had shown up with only a high school diploma. Finally, if you see that some of your kids/grand kids obviously have greater mechanical than mental skills, try to convince them to pursue careers in the trades instead of a traditional college. They will likely have a much better chance of being self-supporting.

Mike Tower

Why we must never allow the 2nd Amendment to be infringed upon

December 8, 2013

Why I'm opposed to gun control

One of the ideas for supporting gun control we hear concerns the word "militia" being used in the 2nd Amendment. Anti-gun advocates claim this word clearly shows the only Constitutionally approved ownership of firearms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment must be connected to the owner serving in a state militia--period.

In fact, the Supreme Court, as recently as 2008 and 2010, affirmed “individuals” right to own firearms cannot be constrained by either state or federal laws, or by requiring membership in a militia. So, this particular basis for supporting gun ownership restrictions is simply opinion and is a moot point which has no basis in law. Remember, we live in a land governed by our Constitution, and only our Supreme Court has the final say on exactly what the individual parts of the Constitution mean. It doesn’t matter what any of us think as individuals, or if we do or don't agree with a court ruling. Any law, as interpreted by this highest court in the land, is a law which we must all obey. The only way the Constitution can be legally altered is via amendment. Therefor, if individuals or groups don't agree with any segment of the Constitution, they should either accept it or try to change it via an Amendment.

Many of our founders' historical writings make it clear they supported the 2nd Amendment primarily to assure our future citizens would be able to protect themselves and our nation from a rogue federal government. A global history of atrocities by evil dictators since our Constitution was written has proven how wise they were, and it's why we must never allow any group, no matter how well-intended, to ever weaken in any way the legal rights of a law-abiding American citizens to own firearms.

America has less risk than many other nations of an evil leader being tempted to enslave our people--but, it's primarily because of the high level of firearms ownership by our citizens. Any evil despot wannabe would know America currently has around 80 million citizens who own nearly 300 million firearms. He/she also know the chances of winning a guerrilla war against this huge number of highly motivated and well-armed defenders of liberty without destroying the entire nation would be quite small.

In the past hundred years or so tens of millions of innocent humans have been tragically murdered by their own evil leaders in places like China, Russia, Germany, and Cambodia, among others. This can only be guaranteed to be prevented here if we doggedly resist all attempts to weaken in any way honest citizens rights to own firearms.

The following statistics provide a logical reason to oppose any ban on honest citizen's rights to own semi-automatic rifles...which gun control advocates incorrectly label “military assault weapons”.

Begin by examining the FBI U.S. Crimes website for 2011. You will find of the 12,664 homicides by all causes committed in 2011 (last year available), only 323 were committed by long rifles of any kind. Knives were used nearly 1700 times, hands/fists/feet over 700 times, and hammers/clubs 500. Yet, gun control advocates remain focused on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines as their main target. Why? Given the above statistics, how does that make any sense? If these advocates were successful in removing semi-automatic rifles...the reduction in homicides would be almost non-existent. Do you think they don't understand these facts? The only possible reason for advocating such a first step is because it is just that--a first step toward eventually removing the 2nd Amendment rights of all honest law-abiding American adults to own any firearms.

As additional evidence to support overall gun ownership freedom, a recent report from the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics, showed between 1993 and 2011 America had a nearly 50% reduction in gun homicides. Have criminals and the insane simply become kinder and gentler? Or, is it possible broader gun ownership by honest citizens is a major factor?

I actually wish most honest, law-abiding adult Americans owned and were trained to use firearms in order to protect their families and their fellow citizen's freedom.

Frankly, I can't understand reasonable people not rejecting the focus on weapons in the gun violence arguments, and instead acknowledging criminals and crazy people are the real killers. Let's focus our energy on improving identification, diagnosis, and treatment for the mentally ill. Let's create and enforce more severe penalties for gun use by criminals. Too much evidence proves gun ownership by honest citizens is simply not the real cause of firearm tragedies.

Finally, we ought to consider the highest incidence of homicides by guns in America are in the places which currently have the strictest gun control laws. Chicago is the perfect example.

Mike Tower

American supermarkets not customer focused

December 1, 2013

Supermarkets don't make it easy

Have you noticed the increasing time and effort it seems to take to shop in most modern supermarkets? I'm guessing most of these chains have signs in their corporate offices proclaiming their number one goal is to serve customers. However, all evidence suggests most of their activities are aimed at maximizing the store's short-term financial performance by encouraging customers to buy stuff they didn't intend to buy when they entered the store.

It's apparent the folks in charge of store operations for most grocery chains have made a science of laying out stores to ensure every customer who enters will walk past as many product categories and displays as possible. None of this is done to make shopping easier on customers. In fact, success is measured by the extra distance customers cover once they walk thorough the front doors, and, more important, how how much extra stuff they buy along the way.

When you enter a modern super-market, you usually encounter barriers intended to guide you on the path they want you to take. The foodstuff staples such as milk, meat, dairy, and bread are placed in opposite sections of the store. Then, the highest profit margin items are placed on shelves at average eye level and lower margin items on the lower and higher shelves. I'm willing to bet all super markets have corporate staffs whose sole function is to develop computer programs designed to maximize customer spending. Perhaps these programs have names such as, "sales maximizer" or "empty their wallets".

Over the past couple of years, my wife and I have begun to notice entire categories of products suddenly relocated. It's obvious "sales maximizer" programs have discovered relocating items will result in customers spending even more time in the store looking for the new location of items regularly purchased, and assure they will walk past even more displays of impulse purchase items.

Physicians should ask patients complaining about memory loss if they first noticed the problem after recently shopping at a super market? I find myself too often going to a specific location for an item I have purchased in the past, only to find it missing, and then wonder if I'm losing it! Thankfully my basic understanding of modern corporate businesses reminds me I am once again being led around by the nose to help lighten my wallet.

"Sales maximizer" understands when a customer cannot find an item, they will initially wonder around trying to read aisle signs for help. When that doesn't work they have to then travel even further trying to find a store employee to ask. Of course, all of this makes you wonder all over the store as planned...and guess what...your shopping cart magically ends up with stuff you never even thought about buying when you first walked in the front door.

The best part of the process comes when the check-out person usually smiles and asks: "were you able to find everything you wanted?" I usually answer, "no I did I not find everything I wanted but, I sure did buy stuff I didn't intend to." Not once has the clerk stopped smiling.

I am not blaming Super markets for trying to maximize their bottom line...I'm just tired of them sapping my energy and causing me think I'm developing dementia in the process. I'm actually surprised they haven't found a way to charge extra for the exercise program!

The more serious question I would pose is: Why don't the folks who run these supermarkets try to increase customer loyalty the old fashioned way--treating people as valued customers by providing pleasant shopping experiences designed to make them want to come back, instead of mainly laying out stores to make sure customers end up tired and poorer when they depart. It really doesn't take a genius to understand why Walmart is literally eating the lunch of most grocery chains. They don't treat customers special either, but they have a reputation for charging less for the shopping pain.

I don't think American supermarkets will ever win a price war with Walmart; but they would have a chance to survive and prosper by better serving their customers--from the customer's perspective. Sadly, this would require something that is missing among senior management for most large publicly traded organizations these days--long range thinking.

My suggestion to the corporate management of these chains would be to begin by asking their customers what they like and dislike about shopping in their stores.

Please understand this article is not intended to portray the folks who manage or work in any local super markets in a negative light. If anything, it is their unwavering friendly service which makes shopping while hanging upside down as one's wallet or purse is being emptied even somewhat bearable.

Mike Tower

Caveat Emptor applies to charitable giving too

November 17, 2013

Donate with caution!

Most of us know mankind often commits fraud and outright theft against fellow humans.

It also happens within charitable and non-profit organizations.

Several weeks ago, Harry Smith on NBC, reported a very negative story about Goodwill Industries. I suspect most of us have shopped at or donated money or goods to Goodwill. They are famous for hiring the handicapped as a major part of their mission in order to provide income and the dignity of work for many otherwise unemployable humans. On the surface it all sounds wonderfully benevolent and admirable. That is until, as Smith pointed out, some of the handicapped and disabled who work there make as little as 22 cents an hour! You read correctly....22 cents an hour! That comes out to a less than paltry $9 per week.

According to Smith, Goodwill workers repetitive activities are timed by observers and they are paid what they are then judged to be worth. No matter how it is explained, this seems more deserving of being called slave labor than just low pay. To make it even worse, Smith went on to report that one senior Goodwill executive was paid more than a million dollars a year, and many others were paid over a half million dollars. How can this be rationally explained, or even possible? I'm guessing these executives are timing each others productivity!

It all goes back to an obscure law signed into law by President Roosevelt in 1938 which shelters some employers from having to pay even minimum wages as an inducement for them to employ disabled or handicapped workers.

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression slavery had been abolished. How can those at the top of Goodwill look themselves in a mirror and not be totally embarrassed?

I encountered another despicable example of charitable failure a few years ago while playing golf at a resort in Florida. My foursome came to the tee of a par three hole where we were greeted by a very attractive lady who had a table with a sign indicating she was representing the American Diabetes Association. She said she was accepting donations of $5 in return for a chance to win a sleeve of golf balls if the golfer could hit a tee shot onto the green. I asked her how much of the $5 went to the charity. She said she didn't know. I asked how much of each donation she kept. Without a hint of embarrassment she replied, half. So, I went on, then half goes to the charity? She replied that she passed on the remaining money to the person who coordinated the event, and who had workers at every golf course in the area on most busy days, and he kept part of it for his work. It didn't take much imagination to understand that this was mainly a money making scheme for the organizers of these events.

I have seen many news stories over the years with the same theme. For example, organizations hire phone solicitors to call homes and request donations. These folks are very well trained and always begin a request for money by describing a person or group most of us will have empathy toward. After all, who can turn their back on requests to support burned children, veterans, disabled veterans, firefighters, or police. The problem is that many if not most of these operations net far more money for the fundraisers than the final beneficiary they claim to be representing. Money finally received by many charities who fund-raise this way will be a fraction of the amount collected.

I will also never donate money to any quasi political group claiming benevolent objectives for our nation. I speak specifically of organizations such as AmericansElect and their ilk. I wrote an article warning about them in late 2011. Careful investigation had shown this particular organization was started by a hedge fund manager. The moment I saw hedge fund manager connected to a supposedly benevolent political non-profit--I was stopped in my tracks. Information on their website showed a small group of individuals, including the leader, had provided several million dollars in seed money to start the organization. However, in the small print, it said these initial contributions were promised to be returned once sufficient funds were raised. I may not be the brightest bulb, but even I can see giant red flags when they're waving in my face!

Guess what subsequently happened? Just before the election in 2012 AmericansElect folded like a tent. Those who sent in donations were left to wonder what happened to the additional millions of dollars raised above the returned seed money?

From now on when someone I do not personally know approaches me to request a donation for any cause...the answer will be no. I will decide to whom I will make donations...after checking out the charity to ensure most of the money will actually reach named recipients. My current answer to phone requests is a firm but polite, "I do not respond to phone solicitations!"

We all know Caveat emptor applies to any purchase decision we make. Sadly, it applies to charitable giving too. Don't stop giving, but do stop giving carelessly!

Mike

American's not trained for survival

November 10, 2013

Most Americans not trained for survival

Bill Howard's article in the Times-News on June 8 should serve as a reminder most citizens of civilized nations are woefully unequipped to provide their own food and shelter in the event of a major disaster of almost any type.

He pointed out, as humans developed greater specialized individual skills in order to become able to earn a living in a capitalistic society, we lost the broader general survival skills of earlier generations. In our own history all the way up to the early 20th century, most people had multiple skills they were able to use to help themselves survive. Families knew how to hunt, gather, and grow their own food, prepare and store foods for consumption, make clothes, even treat minor illnesses. It's clear these skills helped many of the great depression era generation survive in spite of little money to buy life's necessities.

It seems pretty clear most of our current generation severely lack these basic survival skills. Most of us do not know how to hunt, dress, store, or prepare any game foods. Most of us don't really know how to raise our own crops.

You may have seen some of the reality TV shows based on individuals preparing to survive any type of disaster. Most of us likely laugh at the notion of these so-called "preppers" spending time and money to be prepared for a natural or man-made disaster...as if we really can't imagine it happening to us or our part of the world.

Howard describes those who are sincerely interested in making sure they are properly equipped to survive as being survivalists...not "preppers".

In America, as in most modern developed nations, the distribution system used to supply most items needed for human survival has become so efficient, almost every community literally has only a few days worth of food/water available. This means any disruption of the supply chain will result in almost immediate shortages of needed items. Panic buying then ensues, making shortages even worse.

Take a long serious look in a mirror and ask yourself...what will you do if some sort of disaster happened, and the food/water supply runs out within a few days? Do you have enough food...and more important...water to last your family for a few weeks? After the initial survival period passes, do you know how to gather food and water? Probably as important, if you did have the foresight to plan for such an event, do you also have the means to protect your supplies from others who were less inclined to prepare?

I have been watching a Netflix series about real survivalists in rural Alaska. It seems clear, even most of these folks would also struggle to survive because so much of their living requirements are brought in by bush pilots. However, it's obvious from watching them, they have a much better chance than most urban dwellers.

I'm thinking my first option should be to adopt an Alaskan family who would be willing to move south for better weather. We can provide a place for them to live in exchange for their skills to keep us fed and protected from the elements.

In large urban centers where the majority of our citizens live, food shortages will produce almost immediate rioting and bands of normally honest folks will band together to go out and take food away from weaker groups who have no way to protect themselves. As a local young local once told me...when my kids are hungry and I have no food to give them...I will have to go take it from those who have it. For those who have repeatedly asked why a civilian should ever consider owning a semi-automatic weapon...this may be as good a reason as any.

It certainly makes one wonder about what we should be doing? Should we just ignore the possibilities and accept our likely fate? Should we begin to learn survival skills from experts? Should we begin to store extra food and water? Should we begin to form local support groups pledged to help each other survive?

If I had a young family today and wanted to find a way to help us be better prepared for survival I think I would strongly consider searching for a survival training program to take my family through on our next family vacation.

It certainly makes sense to set up a supply of canned and dried foodstuffs...and even more importantly...drinking water. Humans can live much longer without food than water.

Picture you and your family waking up tomorrow in a world in which the basic necessities you have always depended on are no longer readily available. It's a terrifying thought!

These are my opinions. What do you think?

Mike Tower

PS I considered moving to Alaska, except I realized I would remain unable to find/kill/grow/prepare food--and I'd also be colder than you know what.November 10, 2013

Most Americans not trained for survival

Bill Howard's article in the Times-News on June 8 should serve as a reminder most citizens of civilized nations are woefully unequipped to provide their own food and shelter in the event of a major disaster of almost any type.

He pointed out, as humans developed greater specialized individual skills in order to become able to earn a living in a capitalistic society, we lost the broader general survival skills of earlier generations. In our own history all the way up to the early 20th century, most people had multiple skills they were able to use to help themselves survive. Families knew how to hunt, gather, and grow their own food, prepare and store foods for consumption, make clothes, even treat minor illnesses. It's clear these skills helped many of the great depression era generation survive in spite of little money to buy life's necessities.

It seems pretty clear most of our current generation severely lack these basic survival skills. Most of us do not know how to hunt, dress, store, or prepare any game foods. Most of us don't really know how to raise our own crops.

You may have seen some of the reality TV shows based on individuals preparing to survive any type of disaster. Most of us likely laugh at the notion of these so-called "preppers" spending time and money to be prepared for a natural or man-made disaster...as if we really can't imagine it happening to us or our part of the world.

Howard describes those who are sincerely interested in making sure they are properly equipped to survive as being survivalists...not "preppers".

In America, as in most modern developed nations, the distribution system used to supply most items needed for human survival has become so efficient, almost every community literally has only a few days worth of food/water available. This means any disruption of the supply chain will result in almost immediate shortages of needed items. Panic buying then ensues, making shortages even worse.

Take a long serious look in a mirror and ask yourself...what will you do if some sort of disaster happened, and the food/water supply runs out within a few days? Do you have enough food...and more important...water to last your family for a few weeks? After the initial survival period passes, do you know how to gather food and water? Probably as important, if you did have the foresight to plan for such an event, do you also have the means to protect your supplies from others who were less inclined to prepare?

I have been watching a Netflix series about real survivalists in rural Alaska. It seems clear, even most of these folks would also struggle to survive because so much of their living requirements are brought in by bush pilots. However, it's obvious from watching them, they have a much better chance than most urban dwellers.

I'm thinking my first option should be to adopt an Alaskan family who would be willing to move south for better weather. We can provide a place for them to live in exchange for their skills to keep us fed and protected from the elements.

In large urban centers where the majority of our citizens live, food shortages will produce almost immediate rioting and bands of normally honest folks will band together to go out and take food away from weaker groups who have no way to protect themselves. As a local young local once told me...when my kids are hungry and I have no food to give them...I will have to go take it from those who have it. For those who have repeatedly asked why a civilian should ever consider owning a semi-automatic weapon...this may be as good a reason as any.

It certainly makes one wonder about what we should be doing? Should we just ignore the possibilities and accept our likely fate? Should we begin to learn survival skills from experts? Should we begin to store extra food and water? Should we begin to form local support groups pledged to help each other survive?

If I had a young family today and wanted to find a way to help us be better prepared for survival I think I would strongly consider searching for a survival training program to take my family through on our next family vacation.

It certainly makes sense to set up a supply of canned and dried foodstuffs...and even more importantly...drinking water. Humans can live much longer without food than water.

Picture you and your family waking up tomorrow in a world in which the basic necessities you have always depended on are no longer readily available. It's a terrifying thought!

These are my opinions. What do you think?

Mike Tower

PS I considered moving to Alaska, except I realized I would remain unable to find/kill/grow/prepare food--and I'd also be colder than you know what.

Americas's moderates can have a powerful voice

November 3, 2013

America's moderates can have a powerful voice

As a result of gerrymandering, of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, nearly 70 percent are controlled by one political party. Opposing party voters end up knowing their candidates can never win unless the district is someday re-gerrymandered.

We saw this play out in our own congressional district in 2010 when Jeff Miller ran unsuccessfully against incumbent Heath Shuler for the District 11 seat. Jeff had almost no chance of winning because our gerrymandered district had an overwhelming number of Democratic voters.

Then the tables turned. The GOP won control of the N.C. Legislature for the first time in a century at the end of 2010, and it took immediate action to gerrymander every district possible in its favor. Shuler, knowing he had no chance of being re-elected, stepped aside, and Mark Meadows won a hard-fought primary race to become our congressman.

Perhaps one of the reasons we are seeing such abysmal voter participation rates is because voters from the secondary party in any gerrymandered district know they have almost no voice in determining who will be elected to represent them in Congress.

To make matters worse, in a majority of these gerrymandered districts, party extremists control who gets nominated — and remember, anyone nominated from one of these districts is nearly guaranteed to win.

Because of gerrymandering, the majority of elected congressional representatives end up coming from districts controlled by either ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative extremists. They are left unable to compromise, and the frozen political debate in D.C. results.

Interestingly, while this partisan debate is happening, the majority of voters define themselves as middle-of-the-road moderate-centrists. However, they have almost no say in the nominating process for their party since they are rarely well organized, and so usually support the candidate chosen by their party's extremists.

I'm going to share an idea that would easily allow moderates to not only be heard but to actually kill the power of the extremists.

Remember, in the 300 or so gerrymandered districts, winning the primary of the party in power is the key to getting elected. Did you know that if you are registered as an independent, you can vote in either party's primary?

Today more than a quarter of American voters are registered as independent, and the number is growing steadily — mostly because so many people simply can't fully support either party.

Here's the simple strategy to help make real change in American politics:

If you are a moderate-centrist who is a member of the controlling party for your district, don't just go along with the crowd. Work to help nominate the most moderate candidate you can find. You would be even more effective by also registering as an independent to signal to party leaders that you are unhappy with them.

If you are registered as a member of the minority party in your district, change your registration to independent. Next — and here's a huge key to making change — vote in the opposing party's primary elections for the most moderate candidate.

Obviously, if you are already registered as an independent, make sure you vote to nominate the most moderate candidate for the party in power. If you are a moderate-centrist but not currently registered, please register as an independent and support moderate candidates of the party in power during primary elections.

Imagine the power that could be unleashed if the majority of moderate-centrist independent voters followed this strategy.

Imagine how it could change the behavior of current incumbents as they face the new challenge of speaking to this new powerful constituency that is larger than the extremist minority, whose directions they have been following.

Imagine the types of candidates who will surface in an environment in which their basic decency and desire to serve all of their constituents will be highly valued.

If this strategy were followed, when the next Republican primary rolls around for District 11 and all moderate voters are deciding on a candidate to support, how likely is it that the current tea party poster boy would be re-nominated?

It seems clear that the majority of moderate-centrists are very frustrated at the frozen partisan politics playing out in Washington. This partisan politics is being led by each party's extremist minority. This is moderate Americans' chance to be heard in ways that can actually force positive behavioral change in those we elect to represent our best interests.

Wouldn't it be refreshing and uplifting to hear candidates say they intend to represent the best interests of their moderate constituents instead of either the ultra-liberals or the ultra-conservatives? Wouldn't it be even better if they were elected, and their walk matched their talk?

It's up to each of us to take the first step by registering as independents, and then follow that up by voting in the primary for the most moderate candidate of the party in power during the primary election. This is action we can and must take if we are to have any chance of taking back control of our nation from the opposing extremists in both parties.

We've all seen how stubborn and unyielding the extremists can be. They won't back down willingly. So let us moderates join together and push them out of the way!

Mike Tower

Memories for my Father

Memories for my father

October 31, 2013

On a winter day in Indiana in 1981, my then-64-year-old dad took a face-first tumble from his garage roof while trying to remove accumulated snow. His crash landing fractured his nose and both cheekbones. When he awoke from surgery to repair the damage, we discovered he had permanently lost his short-term memory.

At the time, he and my mom owned and operated a small landscaping business. Mom did the paperwork, dad did the planning and communicating with customers, and they had a small group of workers to do most of the heavy lifting.

Mom quickly realized he could no longer deal with customers effectively because he would immediately forget every conversation. Rather than close the business, she became his memory. She listened in on all customer phone calls and accompanied him to customer meetings to take notes about their conversations. She then translated her meticulous notes into work instructions to remind him of what work he had agreed to do for each customer. She also accompanied him to each job site to make sure he was reminded of what he was supposed to accomplish each day.

Amazingly, he never forgot what he knew about landscaping and could apply his skills as well as before the accident. He simply could not recall any immediately recent event or exchange. They managed to run the business effectively for several more years.

My wife and I were living in Connecticut at the time, and on every home visit we always found Dad in great spirits. He had always been a voracious reader and could no longer enjoy that pleasure because the moment he put a book aside he could not recall what he had just read. But he never stopped trying, and books were scattered all around the house, opened to the last page he had turned. He once joked that one good side effect of no memory was that TV shows no longer had reruns.

I never once saw him demonstrate an ounce of anger or disappointment about the bad luck he had encountered in losing his memory.

My mom was simply amazing, too. She never complained and did whatever it took to help him keep their business and only means of support operating. They finally retired and closed the business when he turned 70. They had saved enough to look forward to a peaceful retirement.

About a year later, Dad was diagnosed with terminal leukemia. The oncologists told us they could slightly prolong his life with chemotherapy, but in recognition of dad’s missing short-term memory, they told us it would be a horrible experience for him because he would have to be hospitalized, and every time he woke up he would be terrified because he would not know where he was or why he was strapped to a bed. Mom could not stand putting him through this suffering and decided to let him go peacefully.

I was full of guilt at being so far away during what would clearly be his last year alive because I felt like I was failing my parents. My wife came up with what turned out to be a brilliant idea. She reminded me that about the only meaningful conversations we could have with Dad since his injury was to jog his memory by reminding him of some old family memories. He never forgot the distant past, and once reminded would spend long periods of time retelling stories. It took a bit of patience because he would finish a story and then begin again ... and again.

She suggested we send Dad memory cards. She explained that we could buy a large supply of greeting cards, and every day until he died, we could write down a memory about Dad’s life and mail him a card describing some past event in his life to jog his memory.

That’s exactly what we did. Each new card would start out with, “Dear Dad, do you remember the time when ...” — and the memory of an event would follow. It turned out to serve several purposes; it helped me recall many fond memories I had forgotten, it helped my mom recall and remind him of their shared memories, and it definitely provided immense pleasure to my dad during the last year of his life.

Mom told us Dad couldn’t wait for the mailman to show up each day so he could open his next memory card. She told us it made her cry to see the pleasure on his face as he read each new message and began to share the rest of the story, and the sad look when, for whatever reason, a card was delayed in the mail.

It cost little, but it provided a small way to be there more often for Dad in spirit if not in person. I will always be grateful to my wife for her loving thoughtfulness.

As Dad was dying in hospice, my brother and I were on either side of his bed when he woke up for the last time. He recognized us and smiled. For some reason, I asked him if he was afraid of dying. Ever the optimist, he said no because he couldn’t wait to see what was on the other side!

His answer and the peaceful smile on his face are memories I will never forget.

Mike Tower