Oh Brett Favre

Let the record officially state that I am not upset that Brett Favre is still playing football, or that he is playing for the Packer's second biggest rival (sorry kids, the Bears are still #1), although I suppose the Vikings are the biggest rival now.

I am more frustrated and ticked off at how the process went. If two years ago Brett Favre had told the Packers that he still wanted to play, I would have been fine. Sure I was getting sick of the 'I might retire after this year' shenanigans, but who wasn't? I would have been fine last year if he went to the Vikings or Bears or wherever. The Packers are a better team with Aaron Rodgers, I truly believe that. Brett Favre leaving was better for the Packers future because it finally allowed the team to move forward. I, like many people, am just sick of this 'will he or won't he' crap that happens EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

The part that bothers me is that I always thought Brett Favre was different. I didn't think that he was the prima donna. I believed that he didn't care about the records (at least not THAT much). I believed that he didn't like the attention. I believed that he was the kind of player that would go out and throw 4 touchdowns, 3 picks, and still have a PBR after the game just like one of the guys. I believed he wasn't New York City or LA, he was Green Bay. He was wranglers and John Deere. But it turns out I (and most Packer fans) were wrong. Brett Favre is no better than Terrell Owens, a player that wakes up every morning and thinks 'how can I get onto Sportscenter today?'

Perhaps the worst part about Brett Favre is that he has added to my already depleting stock of faith in athletes and other public figures. When I hear someone say something now that makes me think 'they are different,' I will question that thought even more. Barack Obama almost tricked me, but it turns out he isn't that different either (health care reform anyone?). Seems the further you get into the public eye, the more Hollywood you become.

I won't miss Brett Favre the person, but I will miss the fun that he was as a Packer, and going to the Vikings has sort of ruined those memories. Now when I see Brett Favre running around the Superdome field with his helmet above his head, I will think about these last few years, and not those 14 or so years of pure joy.

I could write for pages about this subject, but I am sick of it. And the sad thing is that I bet we are still discussing this NEXT summer when Brett hasn't decided if he will come back for the NEXT season.

Engagement Advice

So yesterday I found myself giving marriage (really engagement ) advice to someone. It should be said that I give advice on plenty of things that I am not an expert at. For example, I love to give advice on how to raise children despite not even being a father.

The person I was speaking with will be engaged for 3 years before she gets married. I believe that is way too long. To me, if you aren't excited to get married, why do it? Marriage is a choice, not a destination (perhaps a future post coming on that topic-- just for Shanna). People say they have to plan and get ready. I can promise you that you don't need three years; therefore, I assume that someone else is going on. There has to be a suspicion in your mind causing you to put things off that long.

Next, she said that she and her fiancee aren't going to have a combined checking account when they get married (in two years). This sets me off. You aren't roommates. You are husband and wife (or whatever combination you want). When you get married you are agreeing to be more than roommates, more than boyfriend girlfriend. You are agreeing to one life. This includes one checking account and one financial system. Katie and I differ a little on economic/financial approaches, but we still are taking the steps to get everything into one account. Like I told the student, if you cannot share a checking account how on earth do you plan on sharing a marriage?

This brings me to my point. I don't think enough couples plan a marriage, they focus more on planning weddings and honeymoons. Marriage is hard. Don't run and assume that I am saying that Katie and I are having problems, not true at all. But anyone who is married will acknowledge that marriage isn't easy. So when couples are engaged, you have to think past the wedding day. Think past the honeymoon. What is the financial plan? What happens when someone is sick? You are married now, things are going to be different.

This is true even when you live together ahead of time (a concept I am still very torn on). Things change when you are married regardless. So if you are engaged, or thinking of becoming engaged, you need to have those tough conversations that might seem extremely uncomfortable. No, not just sex. Things like finances, employment, in-laws, and other issues can be just as touchy.

Why we won't fix healthcare

Perhaps I am overly cynical, but I don't think the health care crisis will be solved anytime soon. We, as humans and Americans, aren't capable of this sort of change anymore. Sure that is cynical, but prove me wrong. The recession hit and we didn't change at all. The environment is disappearing right around our eyes, we don't care and instead spend more time and energy ignoring it. We have become too selfish to fix problems of this magnitude anymore because sometimes the issue doesn't impact us.

I don't think we are capable of this change because we won't have serious conversations. Race is a huge issue in our country, and we will never tackle it because we cannot discuss the issue. Health care is THE issue right now, but the real conversations haven't and won't happen.

The toughest conversation is to ask where the line is with health care. Let's say that we have universal health care. Everyone in the country now has access to health care. Where does that access stop? That is the question. If you are using a government funded insurance program, where does your access end?

Think of it this way, if you are using government-funded health care and you get cancer, do you get whatever treatment you want? If a child gets sick, do we exhaust any and all options (regardless of the cost) even if the conclusion is inevitable? Here is a scenario...

Lets say there is a four year old boy that is very sick. Doctors agree that this boy will never lead anything close to a normal life. Meanwhile, this child is at Children's Hospital running up a bill of $20,000 a day. The parents then stumble upon a new procedure that might extend the child's life a few years, but costs $250,000. They, the parents, aren't paying for it because their child is on state insurance (badger care). Does that make a difference?

I guess my issue is when do we say "that is ok as long as you are paying for it"? I am in favor of giving everyone in the country, and I wish the world, access to basic health care that meets certain standards. Right now, according to my wife (and her opinion matters more than most here), that isn't the case. But when I say basic health care, I am not sure where that ends. Getting really sick is terrible. People don't like making tough choices of when enough is enough, but eventually we have to.