Paul's Passing Thoughts

“There is no more prejudice in anything than prejudice in death.” 

I don’t wish death on anyone. Even though there are many politicians I wish would shut up because their agenda is more important than truth, I don’t wish death on them for that purpose. According to the Bible, death is God’s enemy. The Bible also says to be careful not to celebrate the demise of your enemies.

With that said, I am not much for making a big deal out of the passing of political hacks like Congressman John Lewis. For that matter, I am not much for making a big deal out of the passing of any high profile person; as a nurse aide, I see that as a little strange.

Don’t get me wrong, I think there should be some recognition along with honoring them by remembering the good about their life, which is always embellished with sanctified boldfaced lying, but let’s be honest, going overboard on the effort rarely accomplishes anything beneficial. For example, there was much ado about the passing of Ronald Reagan, but yet, less than 16 years later, everything that made him a successful president is all but forgotten and half of the country is on fire.

Today, flags will be at half staff for Congressman John Lewis who never wanted to declare success for his involvement in the civil rights movement of the 1960s. While being deemed a hero for that, his present claim to fame was being a warrior for civil rights in our present day because supposedly, America is more racist than it has ever been. That’s strange. Furthermore, all of these heroes live in overt wealth in our systemic racist system, which is also strange.

Here is another thing that is strange: all of this ado for the rich and famous from the eyes of a nurse aide who sees the passing of extraordinary people with little or no recognition at all. There is no more prejudice in anything than prejudice in death. The prejudice in nursing facilities wasn’t too abhorrent until COVID-19. In that, the rich and famous in general, and the politicians in particular, have gone full throttle on dishonoring the passing of the common folk.

Before COVID-19 and subsequent extreme staff shortages in nursing homes as well as inadequate means to handle the pandemic, facility staff made sure a resident’s passing was dignified. Special procedures were in place to facilitate the gathering and serving of the family, etc. For those residents who died without anyone in their lives but the aides and nurses, there was always some special recognition prepared, and some tears expended by the staff that loved them.

Presently, due to out of touch politicians like John Lewis, not so much. Before a couple of months ago, I saw prejudice in death as one of those strange little deals in life that we don’t think about much, but I had an experience that changed all of that.

I was walking alone down a hall in a very large facility a couple of months ago, and a gentleman disrupted the eeriness of the silence by coming out of a room and ambushing me with a request: “Hey, I am doing a pickup and this lady’s roommate is getting upset, can you give me a hand?” As I looked in, his gurney was crowded into the room by a bed occupied by an elderly lady who was obviously deceased. No nurses or aides were anywhere in sight. The following thought entered my mind: “This lady is being picked up like a UPS package.” Then I thought: “Thank goodness for her upset roommate, maybe we will have some sort of departing ceremony.”

The roommate on the other side of the curtain was unable to get out of bed by herself, and was pleading for help to say goodbye to her friend. The whole room was crowded and I barely had enough room to squeeze her wheelchair in-between her bed, the curtain, and the gurney on the other side. The gentleman from the funeral home agreed to wait for me to get her out of bed. I wheeled her around, and she wept and stroked her friend’s hair, and kissed her cheek. I assured her that she had been a good friend, and put her back to bed. She would be alone in her grief.

I then stepped into the empty hallway and watched my Jane Doe being wheeled away. I failed to check the name on the door, if there was one, and I regret that. But yet, I stood there wondering who this women was, and wondered about her life. What did she do for a living? Did she have children? How special and great was she?

I am different now. EVERYTIME, every single time, I hear about someone famous dying, my mind sees Jane Doe being wheeled down that hallway. In my mind, it seems that I remember the hallway being dark, but it would seem the hallway lights would have been on. I see the whole scene with me standing behind myself, I am just standing there, watching the gentleman push her covered body down the hallway, and asking myself all those questions.

So, once again someone important has died. Once again, much ado will be made. Once again, flags will be flown at half staff. And again, without fail, I will wonder about her, and my imagination will suggest that she is some amazing forgotten person, and once again…

…the flag of my mind flies at half staff  in her honor.

paul

Nurse aides in nursing facilities will typically work on long halls with 20-30 residents or in units with two smaller halls. This article is about skilled nursing units, behavioral units, or Dementia units. In most cases, assisted living units would not beg the question as to whether or not two aides should work together on a hall or unit. However, some assisted living units are only that by name and require a lot of total care.

Among aides, working a unit together rather than splitting it up and working the two halves solo is not a popular notion, but for some reason, that is changing. In the last two months I have worked units together with another aide three times, but before that, only once in my entire career as an aide.

In all three cases, it was young aides that were very experienced and also very good. I was surprised that they were so readily open to working together. Most of the activity in the rooms was automatic. I paid close attention to time, which most aides, including myself, give too much concern to, and found that tasks do get done faster. The other day, the two of us got three people up with Hoyer lifts and did one shower in well less than an hour. That’s pretty good and brings me to my next point.

Facilities have gotten really good about abiding by laws that require two aides to transfer a resident with a Hoyer. So, let’s think about this: if you divide a hall and work separately, the other aide has to stop and spot you on a transfer anyway. Usually, the other aide is in the middle of something and you end up waiting for them. Secondly, beyond that, you may have residents that require two aides anyway even if they are bed ridden. Some residents can lend little help with bed mobility.

Then, there is the whole issue of accountability. Two heads are better than one. Since you are not in such a rush, being by yourself, you are thinking more about safety issues and other care issues. One aide may be turning the resident while the other one is making sure catheter tubes and other lines have plenty of slack. Many needs can be done separately at the same time. One aide can be helping with oral care while the other is making the bed and straightening up the room. And yes, being in the room and ending up without everything you need happens; so, the other aide can go fetch what you need while the other aide keeps the tasks moving along. In addition, having to leave the room to get something or find a nurse in the midst of a task can be a safety issue.

This is for certain: even if the time is about the same, quality of care is greatly increased. In addition, the residents like two aides in their room instead of one; it’s additional personal contact that aides usually avoid because of time constraints.

Let’s also discuss resident preference regarding the gender of the aide. That cuts all the different ways that you can think of; some male residents don’t want male aides etc. Again, one aide can do the personal care while the other aide does the other tasks.

Another issue is residents needing to be “pulled up in bed” and having to go find the other aide to help you do that using a draw sheet. The point here follows; as mentioned prior in this article regarding other care items, the aides have to work together on a lot of tasks anyway. Let’s also add the possibility that one aide is unfamiliar with the residents; not only is that a safety issue, but you don’t have one aide looking for a nurse or aide to ask questions about resident care.

When an aide is going to get charting done can be a stressful issue, especially if the day is not going well. The two aides might want to split up for that. One aide can start second rounds while the other one charts and then rejoin the other aide after charting is done, or they can do the charting together. Break times are more likely to happen if you work together as well.

There is something unfortunate in aide work that is much more likely to occur if a hall is split: walking past a call light. “Not my room, that’s your room,” right? Only problem is, an aide should never walk past a call light for any reason. During meals, residents needing assistance can’t be evenly divided for several different reasons, so there is some crossing over in assignments for that as well. You can add these to the list of things that invariably lead to the assignments being intermixed anyway. In other words, splitting a unit is somewhat of a fallacy to begin with. I am convinced that it leads to a reduction in care quality.

COVID 19 is also an issue. While quality of care is increased, time exposure in each room is less, and there is a decreased possibility that a single aide that is behind schedule will cut corners on standard precautions. Two aides working together wash their hands more etc.

lastly, aides are the eyes, ears, and nose for the nurse. When aides work together, that perception is doubled.

Paul Dohse STNA/ MA-C

There is a huge difference between Christianity and religion—religion is totally invested in the present world while pretending otherwise. Religion is just another political party seeking to fulfill its control lust. Religion always functions within an institution—institutions function on authority and the institution’s infrastructure speaks to that authority. This is why the measure of a church’s success has always been measured by its splendid buildings and number of followers. Institutions can be seen as organizations that support individualism, or organizations that control individualism. Philosophy and religion are defined according to their definition of mankind.

The following problem arises with tyranny: even though mankind is seen as totally depraved, there is a wisdom caste system that demands the wise rule over the unwise for the express survival of mankind even though mankind is supposedly not worth saving. “Wisdom” is defined by knowing how totally depraved mankind is. Therefore, the wise ruling elite get a pass for all their evils because after all, “We are all just sinners saved by grace,” but yet, the elitist knowledge of good and evil (the goodness of God as set against the evil of man) is efficacious for the survival of mankind.

Many people buy into this worldview, but forget to ask, “Why bother at all if humanity is so corrupt?” Meanwhile, here is the dirty little secret: elitists seek to control the great unwashed for service to their own needs. Elitists are necessary to lead mankind to its sole purpose and calling: to support the state. This is why EVERY Communist country has NO middle class. Communist-like tyranny has always been in league with religious institutions for this reason: it’s the exact same ideology.

But, whether secular or religious, it will ALWAYS lead to the masses serving a minority elite and defined as man’s sole purpose for living. Justice becomes irrelevant because the producers (the great unwashed who support the state) are a dime a dozen. However, don’t you dare slight the elitists. Thousands of illustrations could be cited here, but note city counsels that want to abolish the police, but expect citizens to pay for their private security. That sounds really nuts until you understand the ideology behind it. Once you understand the ideology, it makes perfect sense.

In every Third World country that once had a relatively high quality of life in all social classes, it all starts with causing division between classes or races. Victims are created for purposes of revolution. This usually starts with low achievers who are readily open to blaming others for their failures. It also includes young people who are not taught respect for elders; a strong sense of moral superiority then fills the void. No matter the state of any part of the world, the ignorant young person could somehow do it better. In the minds of many young people who are untaught, if they were made ruler over the whole world, it would result in utopia. Feel-good intentions are the ultimate youthful wisdom. This is the Achilles heel of youth, and always exploited by tyrants.

Jesus came to usher in a totally different approach. He came to invite all people to be a part of God’s literal family. What Jesus propagated is a unified cooperative body that functions apart from authority. When someone does something to avoid consequences, that’s not love. Jesus taught, and invited people into the kingdom of God. The key to unity was persuading people to agree on the truth. Christ never compelled anyone to follow him through authority or force. If He did, His kingdom would obviously be in charge presently. Christ wants love, not ritual sacrifice for prevention of condemnation.

Jesus was often confronted by the religionists of His day this way: “By what authority are you doing these things?” It was all about authority and still is. Unlike Jesus, religionists cannot stand to be disagreed with nor disobeyed. Why? Well, if only the world would do things the way Christians would do them, the world would be a utopia. In addition, doesn’t it make sense that all government laws should be based on “Christian values”? It’s interesting, I once heard a pastor say the world is like a man with cancer refusing to accept a shot that would cure him. Well then, wouldn’t a government mandate to force the individual to take the vaccine be a good thing? Obviously, the institution we call “church” and government both think they know what’s best for the commoners.

Here is another interesting observation. Former governor and Christian Mike Huckabee was on a Fox News program last week. In times past, he has said things like, “Man’s law is not above God’s law.” This time, he talked about how anyone who rejects God’s law is trying to replace God with themselves. This implies that, ideally,  non-religious people should be excluded from any policy decisions. After all, if they don’t agree with the church’s take on the Bible, they are attempting to replace God, right? Furthermore, is there really a strict dichotomy between “man’s law” and “God’s law” as if man is totally incapable of making laws God would agree with?

Nevertheless, certain people who see themselves as humanity’s elite and church leaders have something in common: the great unwashed must submit to and obey those who have the authority over them for the survival of mankind. This is why James Madison stated:

“Because experience witnesses that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.  During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, and in both, superstition, bigotry and persecutions.”

And,

“Because…what influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; and in no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people.”

Of late, we have learned that despotic revolutions always take place in history by the same pattern: division and disunity between the people, elimination of local authorities like the police, anarchy that creates a void in the rule of law, and that void being filled by those who incite the revolution, and lastly, the disillusionment of the useful idiots deceived by the revolutionary leaders.

But, it all starts with creating disunity in the populous. The apostle Paul instructed the early ekklesia not to get involved in the political squabbling of that day, and for certain, not to partake in any discussion or activity that causes disunity in the populous. Jesus began his Sermon on the Mount with, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.”

Today, much of the church, or the “woke” church, is supporting the idea that America is systemically racist, and any rejection of that idea is racist, in and of itself. Any disagreement with the idea that America is racist proves that those disagreeing are racist.

Furthermore, the idea has its origins with Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa, both organizations that support the overthrow of the American government. Like BLM and Antifa, the woke church claims the idea of “all lives matter” is a racist slogan. Woke pastors refuse to disavow the mode of operation used by these two groups because their violence is “a symptom, not the disease.” And, until everyone is equally angry about “systemic racism” as the rioting, the rioting is a mute point even though the rioting has resulted in unimaginable tragedy. Ironically, the vast majority of victims have been black people. Yet, the woke church is unfazed by the contradiction.

Can this position possibly bring about peace? No, because you cannot bring about peace with an illogical argument. America is not founded on a system of racism, and even if it was, it doesn’t function that way. Among the thousands of proofs, the most glaring is the fact that our country recently elected a Black president for two terms, and I might add, not a person who was very pro American. If you would like more irony, their is no criticism of Barak Obama for his obvious failure to make the situation better. In other words, a Black president was unable to break the system of systemic racism? Why? And where is all of the discussion of that? During his first term, he controlled the House and Senate, and was surrounded by a radical leftist cabinet.

But the woke church quickly reminds us that it is not about any improvements that America has made in recent history per se, but about Black people disproportionately killed by the police. Actually, statistics show that police have killed more White people than Black, and in either case, the percentage of shootings when compared to police encounters with the public is barely calculable due to the low percentage. Clearly, BLM and Antifa have demonized all police officers accordingly and the church refuses to call them out on it. That’s because the first step is the creation of civil unrest through deliberate propagation of class envy or race-baiting, and the second step is the elimination of local civil authority. If nothing else, it is hard to imagine Jesus being in favor of spending time on those endeavors. Jesus can call on a handful of angels and have the world to be any way he wants it. Nevertheless, woke pastors would have us to believe Jesus is in league with BLM and Antifa.

The woke church stands by the BLM/Antifa narrative with the same caveat: if America refuses to come to grips with its systemic racism, let it burn to the ground. This has been stated to me by many, many woke church people claiming to be Christians. Indeed, sometimes peace comes as a result of violence, but is this the kind of peacemaking Jesus was talking about? I doubt it.

Moreover, would Jesus advocate rampant injustice for the sake of bringing about justice? Would he advocate an escalation of injustice for the sake of justice? The burning down of Black businesses is a mute point until White people repent? Really?

Once again, like much of history, we see church siding with tyranny. Why is this? Because the importance of unity is confused with authority. We are here as ambassadors representing God’s kingdom for purposes of spreading the gospel, but over time, the disrespect for the church authority begins to wear thin on church leaders. They have this in common with secular tyrants. Justice is not the issue, authority is the issue; justice is just an excuse. Beside that, no country has ever stood for justice and rule of law more than America.

Iran was once a free country and a decent place to live. Women were very progressive and had many freedoms. But, indeed, the Shah wasn’t perfect. Cultural kerfuffles were instigated and grew into revolution. Radical Islam was totally behind the unrest from the beginning, and now the Iranian people are among the most oppressed people in the world. The youth of Iran were exploited according to their visions of grandiose moralism and the idea that the revolutionaries just wanted to tweak their existing cultural experience. Hardly, the whole system was torn down and replaced. This is the exact same thing from the exact same playbook unfolding presently in America, and per the usual, the church or some other religion is backing the tyrants.

As the useful idiot of every tyrant that comes down the pike, the church supposes it will be rewarded for backing the revolution. Supposedly, the musings of elitist woke pastors will become the law of the land. There is a reason why pastors remain silent in the face of churches being shut down, and burned down; they are up with the cause. Tyranny has a food chain: the revolutionary elitist leaders and their useful idiots; the church elitist leaders, and their useful idiots, and at the bottom we have the future producer class.  For years, parishioners faithfully tithed trillions of hard-earned money to the church only to watch their leaders stand by while churches are burned down, shut down, and their symbols torn down or spray painted.

This is the same nonsense that was going on in religion when Jesus showed up on the scene. Religion was about authority and not love. Religion wasn’t about peacemaking, it was about political revolution in an endeavor to obtain authority.

Woke pastors have no understanding of who we really are in Christ and what we should stand for. We don’t stand with subjects of another kingdom and encourage them to obtain peace through violence. Nor do we encourage them to obtain justice with the compounding of injustice. The woke pastors would have us believe Jesus agrees with injustice as a means to an end.

At the very least, we should be sure how Christ defined peacemaking because this approach to peacemaking is, at least, suspect, and Christ connected a proper application of peacemaking with being in the family of God.

paul