How Auburn should, and still could, handle the Cam Newton story

As a recovering journalist and corporate spokesman currently attending graduate school while on professional hiatus, I have turned my tongue into Swiss cheese watching Auburn gyrate its way through the Newton incident.  There were answers I hated hearing as a reporter or giving as a PR rep than "no comment".  It's like a vegetarian Thanksgiving; something is missing, but everyone pretends that it isn't and that they are better for the missing piece.  Since no one else will do it, I'll designate myself the school's communication point man on this issue in calling the news conference that has yet to be held:

Ladies and gentlemen of the press, I appreciate your time and will not waste it.  Over the past few weeks, a lot of has been said about this institution, the football program, Cam Newton and his family, the coaching staff, and the state of college athletics in general.  Almost all of it has been based in rumors and allegations, speculation and inuendo.  Today, I offer you the facts of this case, limited as they are. 

If you take issue with this list, I'll stand here and answer your questions until each of you is fully satisfied with the response.  If new facts emerge or if the circumstances surrounding known facts change, I will do the same thing.  I will not, however, put Coach Chizik, Cameron, or any other player in that spot.  They have already told you what they know or don't know; they will talk football with anyone who wants to listen, but they will not be discussing this. 

Fact 1:  neither the Southeastern Conference nor the NCAA has accused or implicated Auburn University of any wrongdoing in the recruiting of Cameron Newton. 
Fact 2:  mutliple other coaches - Bob Stoops of Oklahoma and Lane Kiffin while at Tennessee come to mind - have likewise said that there nothing unusual or illegal occured during their recruiting of Cameron Newton. 
Fact 3:  there has been one and only one institution with which the issue of money is said to have been raised.
Fact 4:  that institution neither offered money during the recruiting of Cameron Newton nor paid any. 
Fact 5:  there is no evidence to date that any institution was, in fact, solicited during the recruiting of Cameron Newton. 
Fact 6:  the lone individual who has suggested that Cecil Newton sought money in return for his son signing a letter of intent is Kenny Rogers. 
Fact 7:  Rogers' story has had some inconsistencies and he has no proof of any sort that Cecil Newton sought money from Mississippi State or from any other institution. 
Fact 8:  every story has been based on the word of unnamed accusers who effectively inoculate themselves from cross-examination.  Aside from Rogers, there is not a single person who has gone on the record to connect Cecil Newton with talk of money during Cameron Newton's recruitment.  John Bond and Bill Bell have been interviewed, but neither offers more than second- or third-hand information, and Bond's story has changed.    
Fact 9:  the NCAA believes something wrong was done, yet its ruling hints at a lack of clarity as to what did or did not happen.  The organization cannot definitely state whether Cecil Newton asked for money, if Kenny Rogers offered money, or some combination of those two possibilities occured and no one else has been able to, either.   

Ladies and gentlemen, those are the indisputable facts as we know them.  The rest of the talk is about the alleged presence of a smoking gun despite the concrete absence of a body.  Maybe something did happen, maybe it didn't.  The NCAA believes the former, yet even the organization's own announcement indicates some uncertainty.  When two individuals are offering diametrically opposing accounts, it is not likely that both accounts are true.  This isn't a movie with a subjective plot line.  Money either was or was not discussed.  Cecil Newton either did or did not solicit funds.  Kenny Rogers either did or did not offer them.  But thus far, no one has been able to separate the either from the or. Both Auburn and Mississippi State have chosen to separate themselves from the principals in this case. 

I cannot control what you write nor do I want to.  I believe in the First Amendment and freedom of the press, but just as strongly believe in the presumption of innocence.  I believe Cameron is owed that and it is clear that the University has earned it.  If you have facts that contradict anything that you have heard today, please bring them forward and, as previously stated, I will answer questions until each of you is satisfied with the response.  If my accounting of the facts is in error, please point out where and I will make the appropriate correction.   

It is a shame that what we have witnessed on the football field these past several weeks cannot simply be enjoyed on its own merit.  Not just the skills that Cameron Newton has or the work that goes into cultivating them, but rather, the sheer unadulterated joy this young man brings to football.  When was the last time any of you saw a player of his magnitude having so much fun playing this game?  Now, what questions do you have for me?  
------
 
This probably would not make the story go away, certainly not with Auburn headed to a national title game and the attendant media hoopla.  But, it is a start and it is major step forward from no comment and from terse statements that certain questions will not be asked.  Frankly, it is not a kid's job to say such things; that is what media/public relations folks do.  There is nothing wrong with setting the tone for interviews or establishing certain ground rules. "You can ask all the non-football questions you want, but each will produce a version of the same answer - I cannot answer that, I don't know the answer to that, I am not going to discuss that.  The media are going to ask the questions they want to ask and tell the stories they want to tell; the task on this side of the microphone is to effect conditions to the extent possible and tell the truth afterward.

Sparky's gone, and Mary's not doing too well, either

If there is something more gut-wrenching than watching someone mentally deteriorate, I don't want to know what it is, because it has to be something truly horrible.  We tried to keep Mary, my mom, at home for a time but, unlike physically-debilitating conditions, those of the mental variety soon outpace the ability of family members to keep up.  The neighbor ringing the doorbell at 4 am with mom in tow put the exclamation point on the effort at home-based care.  Mary is now at a nice facility, cared for by a round-the-clock staff and surrounded by older folks who are sometimes part of this world and, at other times, in their own universe.  The typical conversation includes a lengthy spell of trying to figure out the context of what she is talking about:  did something happen at the facility, did a friend say something, is what she is talking about even real. 

Some weeks ago came word that former baseball manager Sparky Anderson had died, just a few days after being put into hospice care during the last days of dementia.  I was a huge fan of the Big Red Machine in the 1970s, a baseball team that always finds a spot on lists of best ballclubs ever.  Sparky was a character, a latter-day Casey Stengel type who knew baseball but had a habit for mangling the English language.  His death was a stark reminder that while people sometimes beat back physical ailments, no one gets over on things like dementia and Alzheimer's.  Imagine knowing the day you talk with someone who has such a condition is the best day that person is going to have; that the next day will be a little bit worse, as will the one after that and the one after that. 

If there is an upside, it is that such patients are not in pain, not spending their last days and months in agony.  Mom has her own world that she sometimes lets us into; at other times, it is virtually impossible to know what she is talking about.  So, you nod where it seems appropriate, say clever things like "uh-huh" and "really?" to give the impression that you are following along a narrative that may as well be in another language.  Frankly, visits are depressing but what do you do.  We visit and try to make the most of it. 

The most maddening thing is that these patients retain a good deal of social skill; in other words, they can fool someone who is unfamiliar with things like the 4 am wakeup, or her calling for a husband who's been dead 9 months, or the other people she sees that no one else does.  But, if you don't know that, she can ask enough general questions or carry on enough of a conversation to leave you believing that the problem is just a few "senior moments".  Those who visit often, however, learn that is not the case.  It's a nasty thing, this dementia.  People don't get a choice but if they did, my recommendation is ask for a physical ailment at the end; the mental type is much harder. 

Facts are facts, except when they aren't

It has not been a good run for journalism.  From the open cheerleading of the '08 and '10 electoral campaigns to the trading in speculation that has marked the Cam Newton "story", the profession continues to be its own worst enemy.  As a former reporter - not a journalist, not a commentator, not a pundit (though I did have the chance to be one of those - it is troublesome to see such a casual disregard of the basics of the profession.  Stories require facts, usually supplied either by documentation or on-the-record interviews.  Maybe the most valuable lesson that any J-school can teach students today is that a reporter can only burn a source one time.  After that, the source will never talk to you again, will discourage others from doing so, and will let anyone within shouting distance know of your unscrupulousness. 

A generation ago, Reagan-era Transportation Secretary Raymond Donovan asked where he could go to reclaim his reputation after being acquitted of some very shaky charges.  The question seems a quaint relic from different time when pesky little things like facts were considered staples of journalism.  It may be that Newton will be come the Shoeless Joe Jackson of his generation but, thus far, there is not a shred of evidence, a trade of data, or a single person going on the record to accuse of him of anything.  Not. One. Thing.

To keep the story alive, the narrative has relied on a combination of second- and third-hand allegations from shady characters and un-named sources who offer nothing to back up their stories, and internal navel-gazing and canibalism over the state of the profession.  A few writers have taken shots at other writers which will last until the next round of allegations is launched so another batch of Heisman voters can self-righteously wax about wanting to avoid another Reggie Bush.

The voters' role is not elect the good citizen of the week, mister congeniality, or a public official; it's to choose the most outstanding college football player in the country and I do not hear any debate over who that is.  And, the writers who chastise colleagues do so only after inserting some version of "if this turns out to be true" into their stories.  Well, if the allegations are proven true, so be it.   Cam will suffer, and it appears that Mississippi State will, too.  Auburn appears in the clear all the way around save for wins that would have to be vacated in the case of a negative finding.  We are a long way from such a finding, however; in fact, we are a long way from anything of substance. 

The 24-hour media monster is aided and abeted by a public that demands to know everything about everyone, five minutes ago.  That leads to sloppy reporting, rumor passed as fact, and an over-reliance on sources who may have axes to grind or are looking to cover their own hides.  It's not pretty and if the industry does not take serious efforts to get its house in order, the next generation's Raymond Donovan is just an allegation away. 

Is it over yet?

It's a year of the additional season - the political season, which makes NASCAR's silly season look like sanity.  A couple of thoughts regarding future campaigns:
--a quiet period 36 hours from the closing of the polls.  That means NO television ads, NO print ads, NO rallies or campaign appearances, NO nothing.  Anyone who remains undecided at that point should forfeit their right to vote.  Sorry, elections demand more than the equivalent of deciding between candy bars at the checkout counter.
--enough with the references to faith, church affiliation, and the other religious garb some candidates are determined to be cloaked in.  While 'separation of church and state' is NOT in the Constitution, politics and religion were never meant to be intertwined.  Besides, who can guarantee that the lead tenor in the choir at Antioch Baptist is better qualified than the New Ager or the candidate who happens to be Jewish, Hindu, or pagan? 
--any ad that does nothing but slam the opponent should be required to provide references to fully back its criticism and I mean fully.  No twisted contexts, no half truths, just reality.  I get the point of negative campaigning, but shouldn't I vote FOR you rather than AGAINST your opponent?
--it's a shame that the current representatives of the word have rendered "liberal" a pejorative of the worst kind, but it is comical to watch candidates joust for the conservative label.  Here's a clue - if your history of donations includes giving money to Obama, Kerry, and Edwards, you are not conservative. 
--no Democrat is willing to admit to being one.  In fact, Dems in ALA and GA make a point of referencing how the DON'T side with their party leadership.  If you are going to vote like a Repub, have the decency to run as one.  (Note to Charlie Crist - this applies to opportunists who bailed on the GOP when it became evident they would lose a primary.)

So I met our next door neighbor......

...at 4 o'clock.  In the morning.  Seems Maria (that's my mom) and her dementia thought someone was being held captive in my car.  That someone was my dad.  Who died in February.  She could have walked down the hall and told us about the "problem", but that would have been too easy and a dull story.  So, she went outside to investigate for herself. 

The neighbor is not a big sleeper and the light in her living room drew in mom like the proverbial moth.  What an Asian lady with a pronounced accent was able to say to a Greek woman whose command English is deteriorating is a mystery, but it was enough to convince mom to let the lady walk her back home. 

Her leaving the house was new, time of night notwithstanding, meaning countermeasures were necessary.  After consultations with Homeland Security, the NSA, and a couple of ex-Special Ops contacts, we went with child-proofing tools and physics.  Doorknob covers, a monitor at the front door, and re-arranged furniture to cover the back prevented further escapes, but these remedies mostly served to raise mom's agitation level beyond our ability to manage. 

A couple of near-sleepless nights later (which makes for interesting lecture participation, by the way), we are preparing for another transition, one that involves a place that makes sure there are no late-night jaunts.  It's not what the plan was and, frankly, feels a bit like failure.  On the other hand, we're not medical professionals and this is a disease beyond our ability to control.  Some lucid moments remain but the toughest part is knowing that the present day is the best that person is ever going to be.  Try wrapping your head around that concept.   

THIS is research?

Enter graduate school and, sooner or later, you will run across a research piece that leads you to question who thought it would be a good idea to study the obvious.  I ran across one such article in a Public Relations Theory class, an article that upheld the Curmudgeon Theory.  That is the one that demands each generation to think poorly of the one that succeeds it.  In this case, PR practitioners of the Baby Boomer variety do not think highly of Generation Y, or Millenials, if you prefer.  

This distaste was based on the elders' belief that Millenials enter the workplace with out-sized senses of entitlement and self-importance.  Gee, now where do you imagine those who have those things got them?  Couldn't be from being reared by members of the same generation that is doing the complaining, could it?  All those "spoiled" kids are the result of an atmosphere in which everyone got a trophy, score was not kept, high schools had multiple valedictorians, and all kids were treated as future kings and presidents.  The remarkable thing isn't that the older set views the younger with a jaundiced eye, it's that the Millenials are able to function as well as they do.  Few generations tried harder to ruin childhood than the same Boomers now whining about young 'uns. 

The predictability in the study is that EVERY generation gripes about the one that follows it, whether the "problem" is tastes in music, hairstyles, clothing, or friends.  And, this works both ways; young people like to think they're getting over on their parents.  They're not; just like the youth of my day did not invent rebellious behavior, and neither did my parents.  Or their parents.  The bar of permissibility has changed but, again, whose fault is that?    

I have high hopes for the Millenials, partly because I have two sons and two step-daughters in their ranks and partly because I am surrounded by them all day.  These are not brats-in-waiting; they are sharp, motivated people.  Sure, they're different from my generation but they are supposed to be.  Their experiences and the things they have been exposed to are different, as those things were different in my childhood as compared to my parents. 

The one surprising thing (at least to me though I am probably wrong) is that Millenials were found to be averse to conflict, a bit startling considering that their parents' generation practically invented youthful conflict.  Then again, those same parents likely overcompensated, so busy wanting to be their children's friend that they ignored being mothers and fathers.  The real study here may be that more Millenials are not in need of therapy.  Good thing.  My retirement years depend on their productivity.   

The ABCs of APA

It is not that APA writing style is particularly difficult, it is that this method is complicated, particularly for a newcomer.  On each of my first two papers, I may have spent as much time on the stylistics imposed by APA requirements as with the substance of the actual writing.  Yes, I get the point; these are research-based works and citation of sources is necessary so anyone curious about a particular point that is made can easily track that information down.  Still, it is quite foreign when compared to anything else I have ever written and, like so many other things associated with grad school, has taken some adjustment. 

The one aspect of APA that practically leaps off the page at both reader and writer is how seemingly everything, no matter how innocuous, is treated as worthy of citation with author, publication, date, and page number.  I half expect to find a paper that includes a source to justify the claim of the sun rising in the east.  Shouldn't some things be considered public knowledge, facts established beyond any hint of doubt? 

For example, I recently did a literature review on envy between siblings.  Every article I looked at included a citation for stating that a sibling relationship is usually the longest-lasting relationship any of us has.  That seems obvious, doesn't it?  The age difference puts a limit on one's relationship with parents; even the best of marriages won't start until a person is over 20; and, friendships also have built-in chronological limitations.  Apparently not good enough.   

Can't help but reminisce on occasion about the relative freedom of writing a 750-word column where the only requirement was  writing something that others would actually want to read and, if all went really well, be moved enough by it to write a letter to the editor to either hail the piece or condemn it.  I have had folks do both and have no particular preference as to which tack readers take.  Both are satisfying in that 1) people took the time to read something I wrote and 2) took a bit more time to think about it and formulate an opinion of their own.  

To a degree, I suppose APA sets the tone for similar results among academics.  They read another's published work, see where material and information came from, scour through the actual piece and possibly some of the sources, and find themselves intrigued enough by the subject matter to attempt to move the discussion further along by doing their own study.  None of this is meant as a complaint; it is simply an observation from someone new to the style.  I'll get better at it and fully expect to be able to justify each of its requirements as more assignments are completed.  A former colleague of mine may have been thinking of APA in saying "learning never ends, but will time?"

They said it would happen

And, they were right.  "They", in this case, being professionals warning of the tangential effects of caring for someone with mental deterioration.  The 'effect' this time was my brother, spurred into an inquisition of mom's care after her dementia made a couple of incoherent phone calls that left him upset. 

Fair enough; prior to moving to Auburn, I had also gotten such calls.  They leave the recipient feeling helpless and confused; they usually do NOT leave one feeling hostile or accusatory, which was the course my  brother chose to take. 

His belligerence stirred the Col. Nathan Jessup that lies in all of us.  Jessup, if you recall, was the character played by Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men", the one whose signature line was telling the Tom Cruise character "you can't handle the truth".   Not only is my brother unable to handle the truth about mom, he is denying its existence.  

I will not go into details other than to say, unless you are with the deteriorating person every day, you are in a woefully weak position to judge those who are.  My Jessup sentiment was along the lines of "she has to be cared for and her peculiarities accepted.  Who's going to do that?  You?  Not so far.  You have the luxury of not knowing what I know.  You get to sleep and rise knowing that she is taken care of yet have the audacity to gripe about that care is given.  Frankly, I would prefer you just said thank you.  Otherwise, take up a shift and see if your perspective doesn't change a bit."  

Books on this subject are filled with tales of intrafamily strife and the theme is consistent - those on the outside have little clue as to what the inside looks and feels like, yet want to play some sort of directorial role.  Look,  circumstances happen in every family where one sibling or another is precluded from being an active participant.  Such is the case with my brother and I don't begrudge him that.  My opportunity to go to grad school was knowingly coupled with returning mom to her home; I am neither a martyr nor seeking canonization.  But, reality is what it is and it cannot be seen from 300 miles away. 

Fortunately, there is a vast repository of literature available, and his email and regular mailbox will fill up with both.  He can choose to read them and modify his approach, or take a second pass on the path of confrontation.  The latter is guaranteed to not only fail but to potentially cause irreversible harm.  He's a smart guy who works in health care, no less.  It is not like he lacks for resources.  This should be easy to figure out.  Should be.  Nathan had his exercise for the week but he is manning a post.  

The First Assignment

"Do not overthink this".  With those words, the class and I were dispatched on our first writing assignment of the semester.  Don't overthink it; easy for the professor to say.  No one will be grading her work.  Besides, who likes writing?  No, wait; I do.  I love writing.  But, this is for academia, the kind of writing that makes one think of stuffy language, stodgy vocabulary, and stiff syntax.  Isn't this exactly the sort of thing one is supposed to overthink? 

It's not like the assignment snuck up on me.  Reading and writing are as common to grad school as polls and pundits are to politics.  The past month's volume of reading has topped that of the previous few years, without a single box score or opinion column.  Still, as that noted wordsmith Dan Quayle once said - "how terrible to lose one's mind, or not have a mind at all", or words close to that.  He took a catch phrase about a mind being a terrible thing to waste and absolutely butchered it.  I want to avoid anything similar on this writing assignment. 

I have already violated the professor's commandment.  Repeatedly.  But, it is a thought piece, so what else does one do except think, right?  Maybe if there was no grade involved, but I checked.  There will be.  Seems they don't give trophies to everyone just for being on the team; they actually keep score.  Hmmm; the folks in K-12 are not going to like this.  They specialize in avoiding any hint at the malicious truth that all students are not created equal, to the point of having multiple valedictorians at some high schools, which totally defies the point of the word 'valedictorian'.

But I digress, which is not a part of the assignment but does provide a break from thinking about it.  Now, however, I am thinking about it again - writing and re-writing witty intros, snappy transitions, and a clever ending.  If I can only get those components to actually address the topic of the assignment, this will be easy.  And, I can stop thinking about it.  Until the next assignment.    

Totally unrelated note - was anyone else embarrassed that during Saturday's game the athletic department was pushing tickets for the remaining schedule?  Really?  This schedule has 5 home games that are sure-fire national television attractions and we can't sell out the stadium?  Sorry; I don't like it.  Tennessee regularly fills up a larger venue with lesser teams; Bama has a waiting list on season tickets; and, even South Carolina has more people wanting in than seats in which to put them.  If you want to be taken seriously, you have to act like you are serious.  The players and coaches are doing their part.  I have season ducats; do you?   

The New "D" Word

If you have not already done it, you will.  Sifting through the remains of a deceased parent's life can be alternatively uplifting and melancholy.  There are the flora and fauna of a life well lived:  the family photos - some dating back multiple generations; there is the correspondence of courtship (I know, no one wants to go here but your folks had the same thoughts you do); a sprinkling of awards, citations, and work-related commendations; and, evidence of personality traits kids tend to overlook for being too close to the person. 

For instance, my father never threw away any type of paper document.  Never.  Anything.  Not the 1985 calendar from some charity to which he contributed.  Not the car insurance bill from August 1994.  Not travel itineraries from years ago.  Not his meanderings about which stocks might be worth buying.  Nothing.  I'm reasonably sure stock in the company that owns Glad went up as keepers were separated from trash. 

Of course, because nature demands a certain balance, there is the flotsam and jetsam, too, such as a book called "The 36-hour Day".  Which is a family guide to dealing with memory issues that can afflict the aging.  Which affect my mother.  Which my father kept to himself.  Which adds a degree of difficulty to caring for an older parent.  Which would have been good to know ahead of time. 

The discovery brought a series of previous events that, at the time, seemed odd into clear focus.  A bit of digging revealed a diagnosis dating back at least 5 years.  Maybe keeping it to himself was Old World on dad's part; conditions of mental deterioration are hardly the stuff of dinner party conversation.  In fact, they are barely discussed at all in comparison to physical ailments.  Everyone knew dad had cancer; no one knew a thing about mom. 

It's a bit ironic if you think about it.  A generation ago, words like "cancer" and "divorce" were spoken in hushed tones, as though volume correlated to severity.  Today, "alzheimer's" and "dementia" get similar treatment, though I am regularly surprised when the subject does come up by the reach of both conditions and by the common themes that permeate those who have had a family member fall under the spell of either. 

I'll get into more detail on that in subsequent posts though, to date, I have been confused for my brother and for at least one person outside the family, there are regular discussions about how the house really is the house and not a "home", and various other things that, at times, defy description.  The concept of the 36-hour day is beginning to make sense.  Good thing I'm only a graduate student. 

Transitions, changes, adjustments. oh my

At what point does class participation go from active to annoying?  That mark may have been reached during my first week of classes.  At least I think it was.  I could be wrong; maybe the professor wasn't thinking "geez, anyone other than him want to chime in?", but that seemed to be the vibe. 

A wise man once said "just because you have an opinion doesn't mean everyone else is entitled to it".  Embracing that philosophy is part of my transition from the corporate arena to academia.  In business, the only thing worse than a bad suggestion was the one not made.  I can't help it; I am a vocal guy.  Good thing, too, considering I am in the Communications and Journalism program.  However, it is quite possible, likely even, that not a single of my classmates is paying for the privilege of being regaled with my thoughts and meanderings.  I'll work on adding to the discussion when necessary and listening when it is not.

Transitioning is the theme of the moment.   That and fitting in with the other students, age gap be damned.  Probably odd for them, too, but since I am outnumbered, it makes more sense for me to adapt to the rest of the group than the other way around. 

At this point, being surrounded by sharp young folks is a nice change.  The blast of energy and enthusiasm are replacing the cynicism and jaded nature that can seep into the workplace after a few years of the same people doing more or less the same thing every day.  It is also a good antitode for the curmudgeon streak that begins to creep up on folks whose last foray to college was for Parents' Day and whose common refrain toward the younger generation is "ah, kids today...I tell ya".  The students in the Comm and Journo grad program are the type they will want to hire.

Meanwhile, the transition continues at home, too.  Those who read the first episode will know what I mean; those who didn't, well, what are you waiting for?  

And so it begins

  Periodically, life makes sure you don't get too comfortable.  Or complacent, as my bride calls it.  Semantics aside, if someone had asked a year ago where I would be August 2010, graduate school may not have been the last possibility, but you could see the end of the list from where it ranked.  Actually, last was selling security tools for the self-storage industry which, coincidentally, is what I was doing a year ago.  Not that it was a bad job; it was a great job, full of cool people with interesting stories.  But, it had reached the point of being a JOB and who wants one of those.

  Then, my father died, which was not totally unexpected except for the timing.  And, we learned my mother, well, let's just say the cogs are not as well-oiled as they used to be.  It was a curveball that would have made Sandy Koufax jealous.  Yes, that is an old-guy baseball reference and your first assignment if you are not either a baseball historian or spend entirely too much time watching SportsCenter.

  That led to one of those taking stock moments that are usually confined to sappy dramas on Thursday nights at 10pm, 9 o'clock Central (another thing I'm getting used to).  With mom, let's just say the assisted living facility didn't take.  Nice people, peace of mind to a huge degree for us, but calls home became a source of dread rather than enjoyment.  As to the job, would it be any different in two years?  Bigger question - would it even exist in two years? 

  The wheels went into motion:  GRE exam, talking to my boss - who was way cool and supportive over a steak dinner (and I will miss the corporate expense account), and everyone's favorite chore of packing and moving.  The latter provided ample evidence about the value of my previous job; everyone has more stuff than square footage, which is why there are almost as many self-storage operations as fast food stores.  

  And now, we are here - the grad returned to tackle the next rung on the academic ladder, the chief support officer and caregiver embracing new responsibilities, and a cantankerous 79-year old.  For the moment, it's fair to say I am "transitioning" in numerous ways that will be covered in subsequent episodes.  As a great line from a favored comedy of the past went - first, you show up; then see what happens.