Email to a "minister":

Isn't it fortunate that our country included freedom of speech and religion in the constitution?  It means even the most ignorant and stupid people can voice their opinions on whatever topic they wish.  It's also fortunately that we have risen out of the dark ages and most of us have benefited from education which make it possible for those of us who are intelligent and humane can recognize these various spewings of stupidity, ignorance, intolerance, superstition and righteous idiocy and ignore them.  Sometimes, however, those of us who, through our personal relationship with the Creator, have learned to utilize the intellect and higher emotions with which the Creator has endowed us, find it necessary to make the attempt to assist those who have not; those who live in ignorant darkness, mentally and emotionally, to move into a closer relationship with the Creator and Creation.

I have just read of your opinion of and directive to single mothers.  Clearly, in your heart and mind, you have imagined a God that has stagnated in Judeo-Christian historical interpretation.  The Creator and Creation is ever present and ever evolving.  Whatever your personal relationship with the Creator; I have my own.  Whatever directives you believe come from your relationship with the Creator, it is astoundingly self-righteous and arrogant to believe that the Creator would have identical directives to anyone else and that you have been designated to be the spokesman for the Creator.

I'm a single mother, 65, my son is 36, I have a granddaughter.  Fortunately, I never heard of you until today but it wouldn't have mattered because I made my decision about being a single mother very quickly after learning of my pregnancy and that, "sir", is between me and the Creator and nothing that you should be presuming to be interfering with for me or anyone else. Every time someone presumes to tell someone else what the Creator expects from them, they are, in fact, interfering with the personal relationship between that person and the Creator.  We can assist in sharing all the options that we're aware of, but, in the end, it is imperative that each of us make the choices that are presented to us and learn and experience the consequences, in order to find the path the Creator has set for us.  While often difficult, it is through compassionate acceptance that we can best be helpful to others; not by presuming to know or interfere with the path that they are traveling.

You are just a man.  You would do well to learn, with humility, that that is what you are and that what is decided between others and the Creator is none of your concern.  You would do well to learn that women are the bearers of life and that men are meant to be the protectors of women and children, whatever their circumstances.

Forgive my own presumption in thinking my words will make any difference. I pray for your deliverance from your attachment to a historic interpretation of the Creator's "rules" and a movement into the light and a more immediate relationship with the Creator and with Creation which will bring you joy and acceptance and compassion and fill your heart with love and greater humanity. 

For Everyone:  I would like to reiterate that I believe that each and every individual has the opportunity to have a personal relationship with the Creator and with Creation and that anyone who presumes to know about, to speak of or to act in any way toward someone else's decisions and choices in that relationship is, in fact, interfering with that relationship and with the path that individual is on.

The Affordable Care Web Site

I think some of you don't understand - politicians are NOT managers, they're politicians.  In their own businesses, they usually hire managers.  They're idea people.  They're publicity people.

So, apparently, the PPACA (the Affordable Healthcare Act) web site, is a mess.  I don't know because I just applied for Medicare so it doesn't really apply to me.

However, yelling and pawning off the mess to the President and his party doesn't solve the problem.  Yes, ultimately, he's responsible; he's at the helm, so to speak.  But, I'm guessing he knows little about production and this is a production problem.

Somebody was delegated the responsibility of drawing up the specifications for the web site.  If not, well, somebody was delegated the responsibility of figuring out how the system has to work.  In one way or another, someone or a team of people are responsible for how the system is supposed to work and how the web site makes that possible.  They failed.  Apparently they more than failed, they didn't even work out rational procedures to be translated into the web site.

This is, unfortunately, not all that uncommon.  I recently wrote a rather nasty to our state (New Jersey) pension fund about their web site which kept taking me in circles; never to arrive at the page I needed to get to.  Somebody was paid to create that web site and somebody was hired to create the PPACA web site.  Unless the procedures have been laid out, in detail, before the web site design is designed, the web site will NOT and CANNOT work properly.

Sit down.  Think of the steps necessary to boil an egg - from getting the pan out of the cupboard and the egg out of the refrigerator.  Unless you start from the beginning, step by step, if you write down those steps and give them to someone who's unfamiliar with a kitchen or a stove, they won't be able to complete the task.  Then translate those step-by-step instructions to forms and online instructions and programmed computer routines and you have a tiny idea of why the PPACA web site isn't working.

Someone was responsible for ensuring that all necessary steps in applying for Affordable Care was translated into the web site.  If the specifications that were given to the web designers were insufficient, the contractors are not necessarily responsible.

I just sent messages to the White House, to my House rep, to my Senator and Senator Elect about this matter.  There are 2 questions that need to be asked and answered first:

Who was responsible for writing the RFP for the project?  

(RFP - request for proposal, generally the specifications required and desired in any project, written and distributed to interested contractors who then write a proposal to meet those requirements and specifications and their proposed charges to provide those specifications.)

Whoever was responsible for writing the specs, is the first individual(s) to call on the carpet for the mess the web site seems to be.

We've heard reports that the site is supposed to handle 50,000 applications a day.  That is clearly insufficient for the demand and SOMEBODY should have known that.

You can be sure the President didn't write the specs.  I'm guessing he wouldn't begin to know how.  He delegated that responsibility to SOMEBODY. Who was it?  That person, after thorough debriefing and hearing, HAS TO BE FIRED.

I've been fired for, more or less, nothing.  I always did my job, I never didn't do my job, I wasn't perfect but I did my job pretty well.  Whoever was responsible for writing the specs for the web site didn't.

Second, has the contractor been paid?  They had better not have been.  You never, Never, NEVER pay a contractor unless and until the project has been completed satisfactorily.  There is always an upfront payment for time, materials, etc. that is part of the contract.  The contract must state that final payment depends on satisfactory completion of the project.

However, if the contractor has, in fact complete the project as specked out by whoever wrote the specs, WE are accountable to pay the contractor.  If the specs said the site has to be capable of taking 50,000 applications a day, and that's what it can do, then the contractor has fulfilled their end of the contract, even though the specifications are crap.  

Generally, a good contractor, who knows the business of what the project is for, will see such idiotic specifications and alert the client who will then rewrite the specifications.

I've written RFPs.  Generally, I solicit the advice of colleagues who have completed similar projects.  I read articles and books on completing similar projects.  I talk to contractors who have completed similar projects.  I attend workshops about related projects.  I take notes and draw charts along the way.  I send my notes out to many I've already talked to for their feedback.   

There are many reasons why large projects like this go wrong:

• The person who delegated the project has failed to monitor those to whom the project was delegated.
• The person(s) to whom the project was delegated is incompetent.
• The person(s) to whom the project was delegated doesn't care if the project is satisfactorily or not.
• The person(s) to whom the project was delegated didn't write an RFP but just called familiar contractors to discuss the particulars of the project, then hired one or more of them, leaving there no way to hold them accountable.
• The project specs didn't include procedures for monitoring and evaluating the completion of steps and features.
• The contract didn't include a punch list for completion.
• The contract didn't include procedures in the event of contingencies.
• The contractor had nothing to work with to guide his/their work except their own experience which may or may not have been relevant to the project needs.
• The contractor didn't follow specs, cut corners, etc., etc.

In this case, I suspect that last is NOT the case.  I suspect that the project was managed by someone who either didn't care enough or didn't now how to manage such a project.  A project like this really needs a team of experts to draw up the various aspects of the system, procedures, criteria, etc.  I suspect that the 3 years of the project were mostly filled with phone calls and that whomever was responsible for carrying out the project and others involved did NOT have dedicated responsibility for it.  A project like this, required ALL the time of everyone working on it until it's complete.

Unhappily, it's my observation that public contracts are paid, regardless of whether or not the project is completed satisfactorily.  It happens because the specifications for the project were not written clearly enough and the contractor has a case for completion.  It happens because the contract doesn't have sufficient legal language to protect the public from incompetent or unethical contractors.  

Each payment, other than an initial start-up payment, the % of which should be specified in the contract, must be tied to satisfactorily completion of a piece of the project and the evaluative criteria and process clearly specified for each step.

I've been out of work for 2 1/2 years and the dummies working on the PPACA project were all, undoubtedly, paid very well for giving us this mess, for which WE paid a great deal.  Go figure.

A Flaw in the System

A serious flaw in the make up of our government, pointed out indirectly on the McLaughlin Group tonight:  the the President is the president of the entire country but that Speaker Boehner, a Republican, only represents his constituents and party stance.  

Really?!  

Once in office and voting on decisions on NATIONAL policy, party ideology needs to disappear.  And, as Speaker of the House, with members of the opposing party, he has a responsibility to the entire House membership.

Another reason for the dissolution of political parties.  

If political parties disappeared from the process, ideologies would continue but in greater diversity and the aim would be for all points of view to come together in order to fit as many pieces of all of those ideologies into a more comprehensive framework for all of us.  We need to get away from this idea of  one side gets to win at the expense of the other just because - this time - they're in the majority.

Think about this jerking back and forth between the 2 MAJOR parties we've been living with; how has it benefited the country?  It's a little like the card game, War.  At some point one player wins nearly the entire deck and sudden the game shifts the other player wins back and the deck is nearly all his.  This can continue for a very long time with little resolution or conclusion often ending when both players are bored.  It's a waste of time and pointless.  It's really a stupid game.

The Constitution needs to be reviewed with an eye toward inclusion, toward consensus and away from "majority rule" which by definition and result means the exclusion of large numbers of the citizenry who's "party" loses this time around.  It's based on winners and losers; on competition rather than on cooperation.

It's a major flaw in the system.

Accepting the inevitable breadth and depth of diversity among the population, it's much more sensible to address that diversity by attempting to governing to include the diversity.  The citizenry is a large conglomeration of unique, diverse individuals.  We're not cut out with cookie cutters.  If you look at 5 individual citizens; at their philosophical, religious, political, spiritual points of view, their family make up, their socio/economic situation, their intelligence, their dreams and wishes, you will not find any 2 the same.

This desire to fit the entire population into a handful of categories, depending on an issue, is laziness, ignorance and foolishness.  Just think of the people you work with.  There are shy people, outgoing people; there are intelligent people, less intelligent people; there are pleasant people and unpleasant people; there are skillful people and barely competent people; there are industrious people and very lazy people; and everything in between and in all of these in various combinations.  That's just your workplace.  We're talking about an entire country of nearly 317 million individuals.  And, we try to fit them into 2 political boxes?

Duh!

Definition of this post - (don't worry I'll cover all the political ideologies)

liberal - (www.merriam-webster.com) 

1.  a :  of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberaleducation>

b archaic :  of or befitting a man of free birth

2

a :  marked by generosity :  openhanded <a liberal giver>

b :  given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <aliberal meal>

c :  ample, full

3

obsolete :  lacking moral restraint :  licentious

4

:  not literal or strict :  loose <a liberal translation>

5

:  broad-minded; especially :  not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms

6

a :  of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism

b capitalized :  of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism;especially :  of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.

My definition 1.  is 2.

New Product

Antics in the House of Representatives

Yesterday, Saturday, I saw a news item online that a vote was going to take place in the House to end the shutdown.  I ran downstairs and turned on the TV to CSPAN which gives live coverage of various government and organizational operations.  Not much commentary; you decide for yourself what to think about what's going on.

Unhappily, no vote.

What I saw was so disgusting, so disturbing, so infuriating that I've been emailing, posting, etc. since.  

Today, about half an hour ago, ad of this writing, I read that Republican Representative Rob Portman of Ohio has expressed the opinion that the shutdown will be ended by Thursday. He also expressed the opinion that "Obamacare", the Affordable Care Act (PPACA) should be repealed because most of the country doesn't want it.

I'm afraid I think he's completely deluded.  It's a law.  I will post the text of the email I sent him below.

It's interesting that those opposed to the PPACA are continuing this "fight" now that implementation is underway.  I believe that it's just symptomatic of the central focus of the GOP to obstruct anything and everything that the President proposes, for no other reason that to do so.

Anyone who thinks that a law that has been passed by both houses, signed by the President, been reviewed by the Supreme Court, should be repealed before it is implemented is severely stupid and irresponsibility.  It was passed.  It needs to be given at least 3 years from implementation to give it sufficient time to work out bugs, etc. before any action to repeal it is taken.  But, this isn't about the PPACA, it's about trying to prevent the President from succeeding in making a positive contribution while in office.  Why would anyone want to do that?  It's not just about party politics.  Think.  What have they been trying to say about the President all along.

This is about some ugly, dirty agenda that certain members of our Congress have - but I'll get back to that.

Here's what I saw yesterday:  First I have to say that I'm a terrible citizen and do not know the details of how our government works as well as I, and you, should.  After all, if our government is supposed to be of, by and for us, then we should be actively involved and informed to ensure our "representatives" our representing us.

I saw someone officiating, not Representative Boehner.  I'm sorry to say, I don't know how that procedure is handled.  Someone was yielding his time to various members of the House, all of which seemed to be House Democrats asking for unanimous consent to move a vote to end the shutdown.  I do know a little Parliamentary procedure, having worked for a number of public boards and sitting on several public committees and having been a member of various organizations.  I did have to look up unanimous consent, however.  These members were simply asking the House to vote to end the shutdown without objection to the vote.

Now what's so strange or bad about that?  Well, the vote to end the shut down involves passing the C.R., continuing resolution.  Continuing resolutions become necessary when the annual spending bill is NOT passed.  The federal budget calendar runs from October 1 to September 30, so if a new annual budget is not passed by September 30, the government risks shutdown unless C.R.s, continuing resolutions are passed by Congress (the House).  The C.R. generally means continuing the budget, as appropriated, per department, for a particular period of time.  However, this House, at this time, refused to pass the budget, or the C.R. unless and until the PPACA is defunded.

Remember the PPACA was enacted into law.  It has begun implementation, though shakily.  Now, Congress wants to defund it.  Does that seem intelligent or kosher or prudent?  Not to me.

These calls for a vote were met with the identical response each time, that "... that request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance."  This means that the call for a vote was not being allowed because it did not have the appropriate clearance, according to House Rules.  There was clearly no intention of letting the vote happen, regardless of the fact that the law had been enacted and monies had been spend toward the implementation.

In the midst of this appeal for a vote, there was a break and a delegation of House Democrats appeared to say that they were bringing a petition to the floor, hoping to get enough signatures, from both parties to force the vote.  I haven't read the House Rules on this procedure but they assured the viewing public that it was an acceptable procedure.

After the break, a member of the House posed a Parliamentary question, as I understood it, regarding a question of privilege (meaning the rights of members of the House), in that the requests for unanimous consent to call for a vote to end the shutdown were being denied.  The speaker brought enlargements of Rule XXII, and section 4 of that rule which states:  "When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged."  I believe the disagreement referred to is on the amendment to defund PPACA.  

At this point, the revelation occurred that said House Rule XXII, Section 4 had been changed as of October 1, 2013.  Privilege, as I understand it, in this case, means that any member of the house may bring the motion to dispose of said amendment and call for a vote to end the shutdown.  However, the change made on October 1 was that ONLY the Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, or his designee, could bring such a motion to the floor of the House.  He was, of course, absent, and no designee was apparently present or made.  [which is more than irresponsible].  This was the meaning that the requests for a vote could "not be entertained absent appropriate clearance", meaning ONLY Eric Cantor could approve such a motion.  One man had been given complete control of this decision -- completely undemocratic.

Now, I was unable to find the action enacting this change and I was unable to find an up-to-date edition, online, of the House Rules reflecting this change.  This is an unacceptable situation.  As a citizen, I expect government documents to be available.  I don't know how these changes are made and will probably not make the time to discover that process.

The other thing that is unacceptable is that, apparently, the House Democrats seemed completely unaware that this change had been made.  How is that possible?  Are they not members of the House.  Is the process such that members of the House are not aware of such changes that affect ALL members of the House?  Certainly, the possibility that changes in House Rules can be made without ALL members participating in the decision to make such changes is COMPLETELY undemocratic and unacceptable and inexcusable -- even treasonous, in my book.  If this change was made in a democratic manner, with the participation of ALL members of the House, then the House Democrats are completely remiss in not only not knowing about the change but in not anticipating its consequences and in participating and accepting the change.

So, here we are, the Rules have been fixed to prevent any action.  The House is clearly holding the President hostage in order to repeal the PPACA which is not their job to do not their prerogative.  In the midst of these antics, I heard individuals speaking outright lies.  I heard palming off the blame on the President.  I heard individuals espousing a form of fundamentalist "Christianity" as the end toward which they were moving.  I heard grown men whining and baiting and cheating and acting like snotty children.  I did NOT hear reason.  I did NOT hear interest in the interests of the American people. I did NOT hear professionalism.  I did NOT hear humility.

While individual House Representative are elected by constituents in their districts, once in office and voting and making decisions on national issues, they must understand that their actions affect ALL Americans, many who may not have their point of view.  I have been sending messages to the Speaker of the House and other members of government over the past few days expressing my wishes and point of view.  I feel quite strongly that the time for courtesy and deference toward our elected officials, on all levels, is over. They are our employees. They're not doing their jobs.

My email to Representative Rob Portman:  "It doesn't matter that I'm not one of your "constituents" because, once any of you are in office and making decisions affecting the entire country, all of the rest of us have a right and a responsibility to contact you and weigh in.  I'm 64, soon be be 65, never married, female, Independent, a mother and grandmother, a professional, highly intelligent, highly educated and completely disgusted with all of you in D.C.

I've just read that you believe that there will be an agreement about the debt ceiling that the shutdown by Thursday.  I certainly hope so.  This NEVER should have happened in the first place.  This is NOT about the Affordable Care Act, this is about the irresponsible reneging on our fiscal obligations and trying to blame that action on the President's refusal to "negotiate" about a law that was passed and about to be implemented.  We The People owe what you the federal government en masse have obligated us to, regardless of what the GOP and the disgusting Tea Partiers think about the Affordable Care Act. 

You are absolutely incorrect that the majority of the country is NOT in favor of the Affordable Care Act.  The only people who are against it are the ignorant, delusional and those living in the past, before we had a black president.

I expect a CLEAN C.R. resolution to be passed ASAP.  And, having been responsible for many public budgets; this is no way to operate a budget or run anything.  You've ALL forgotten what you're there for - not to force fundamentalist "Christian" values down our throats; not to tell us spend all your time and our money obstructing a president that the GOP doesn't approve of; not to try to WIN the 2 party playoffs (I wish both parties would disappear); you're all there to work to make our lives as comfortable, as INDIVIDUAL citizens with our own values, our own agendas, our own beliefs, our own aims.  I, for one, don't need any of you to make any decisions for me, I'm only stuck with all of you.  I'm smarter, kinder, more generous, more understanding, more inclusive than any of you that I've witnessed so far, particularly members of the GOP.  Your values fall away in the face of defeat.  I watched Republican members of the House outright lie, in public, on national television to the American People to maintain this idiocy.  I watched in amazement revelation of the change to Rule XXII that the House Dems seemed to be unaware of, that blocks any democratic functioning of the House, then to find that I can't find the passage of that change anywhere online, including on the House web site or in the 2 clearly outdated, online editions of the House Rules.  It's treasonous.

You're not there to legislate an ideology, and while I'm not in your electing district, if you don't see that in your votes on national issues, you have a clear responsibility to me, you shouldn't be in any public office."

Looks like I have some lapses in the text but that's OK, he'll get the idea.

The GOP, specifically the Tea Party agenda, as I see it, to come....

Poor Showing

Do you sometimes wonder, if you're out of work and have recently lost your home because you can no longer pay your mortgage, and you look around and see people working, doing a lousy job, not having any apparent standards for either their behavior or their quality of work, if somehow you woke up in a different space and time? I do.

Most recently, I'm disappointed and irritated by the establishment of a new federal organization and its pathetically crafted first meeting.

I have an interest in Native American issues and activities. It's not necessary, here and now, to get into the reasons for that interest. In the past, I was somewhat actively involved in my immediate geographic area, at the time; no longer. But, I do follow some things as I learn about them.

In June of this year, the President, by Executive Order, established the White House Council on Native American Affairs. This was done in response to a focus and request by tribal leaders.

Section 1. Policy. "The United States recognizes a government-to-government relationship, as well as a unique legal and political relationship, with federally recognized tribes."

Unfortunately, the entire rest of the Executive Order does nothing but establish yet another bureaucratic organization without membership or defined participation by the parties affected and recognized in its establishment: the Native Americans who requested this involvement.

Clearly, the United States government does NOT recognize a government-to-government relationship, but rather an apparent patriarchal, overseer relationship.

This is a huge disappointment. More so, I'm sure for the tribal leaders who had such high hopes than for someone like myself watching from the sidelines.

The convening of the first "meeting" of said council demonstrates so obviously that: "The Secretary of Interior has NO clue how to include constituents, NO clue about the relationship between Native people and their leaders and the United States government. She is NOT qualified, therefore, to be in her position nor to conduct this and any future meeting of this kind." -- from my email to the White House.

As someone who has spent a career in public service and in management and as someone who has been mostly unemployed for over 2 years and who recently lost my house because of my inability to pay the mortgage, I am very irritated by this embarrassing and insulting "meeting". This is nothing more than a token gesture. This is NOT, I'm sure, what tribal leaders wanted nor intended in their requests.

As a citizen, I would like to see my government making efforts to do substantive work in all areas, not just convening pointless meetings to have more discussions, excluding the very people from whom they need to be seeking input.

Many of us have outgrown this kind of government. We are not children asking for "guidance from above". We are, many of us, intelligent, capable, creative individuals with a high degree of vision about our own lives and the future of our country and our world.  And, our Constitution defines our right, outside the purview of any of our various governments, to conduct our lives as we see fit. So, while treaties define the relationship between the Native Nations of this continent, our Native cousins can also be seen as having those same rights and capabilities to conduct their own lives and business.  They have simply asked for a single arena in which to conduct their business with our federal government rather than the multitude of agencies with which they currently have to deal; as I understand it.

I include a photo of the two-row wampum belt which was made as the document of the treaty between the Dutch government in New York State and the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Nations in 1613 as the beginning of the conceptual relationship between the Native People of this continent and the government of the United States. The rows of purple beads signify the path of two vessels, that of the Haudenosaunee dugout canoe and that of the Dutch ship, traveling parallel paths down the river of life but never touching; the understanding that neither interferes with the path of the other. This is the relationship desired by the Native people of our country and it is my understanding that this is the relationship defined in many treaties but not adhered to.

I do, however, think that the expectations of the People (Native People), in view of the entirety of the Executive Order, were not going to be met and, perhaps, the outcome might have been foreseen, given the language of the text and the history of the relationship. There is nothing in the Executive Order describing or defining input from tribal leaders, or input of any kind from outside the various, and numerous, representatives of the various and myriad (there's a literary phrase that escapes me...) government departments and agencies.

I suspect that the requests and discussions of tribal leaders with the President, the Executive Branch and various agencies, were more politic than clearly defined and assertive in their expectations. In my experience, while words similar to: "You say that you are our Father and I am your Son. We say 'We will not be like Father and Son, but like Brothers." (no source cited - Wikipedia) have been spoken by my Native cousins, many actions I've witnessed have belied these thoughts. I imagine that the desire to maintain peace has, generally, tempered most discussions and demands. While I understand that the actual relationship is not as agreed to: separate and equal, I don't believe that anything will change unless and until Native leaders stop behaving as if the historically defined relationship is what exists. I don't believe that protesting the lie, or fighting about the difference between agreement and reality works either. Like many relationships, what is spoken of is often a lie, a fantasy. Still, if the defined relationship is what is desired, there are steps that one party can take to move toward the desired end without discussion, without agreement (the relationship is already defined, the actuality is simply ignoring the definition). Much has been done in gaining independence and self-determination. Much more is needed and is possible. There will be mistakes. There will be sacrifices. There will be conflicts. The Native Nations of this continent DO NOT NEED THE PERMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT to conduct their business, to provide for their people, to create a future for their nations that they desire. That's the desirable end, from where I stand.

Just my opinion.

It Takes an Effort to Move Beyond Reaction

Most of our behavior, most of our lives, are simply reaction to stimulus.  It takes an effort to move beyond reaction.  It takes first remembering that we are mostly robots trained and conditioned, both accidentally and intentionally, to behave in certain ways to the world around us.  It then takes additional awareness to decide on a direction, action, thought, other than the automatic and an effort to move against the initial response to one that is more focused, consistent and intentional.

I am no different in this than you.  I sometimes like to think otherwise.  Certainly, I prefer my reactions to life than those of some other people.  I have a view of life and the world that I want to maintain and support in my actions and reactions.  That I do so consciously and intentionally is an illusion.

Today, I reacted to a reaction that I felt exemplifies this mindless fact about ourselves; that we simply react to what the world puts in front of us.  My reaction is just a reaction to someone else's reaction; the flavor is different but it's just a reaction.

There was a Facebook post about a Dana Perino (some kind of news person on TV - I generally don't watch it) who reacted to the President's 2nd statement about the Martin - Zimmerman mess.  

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dana-perino-bashes-obama-wheres-your-speech-for-baby-shot-in-the-face-by-black-teens/

I didn't watch the video; it would have riled me.  Her reaction, as reported, was stupid and thoughtless, automatic and pointless, although I would imagine she would feel otherwise.  But, then, she's paid to make such statements biased in a particular way.  I'm guessing the reaction, however, is her own.  I posted my reaction, as follows, on her Facebook page.  My post doesn't appear as far as I can see.  Coward.  Here's my reaction:

A few days ago, I was in Trenton to deal with my state pension.  Trenton, like many cities, has many one way streets.  I find getting in and out of such cities complicated and irritating.  Just going around the block is not just going around the block.  I was headed in the wrong direction and lost track of how many blocks I'd traveled in which direction and needed assistance.  I found myself in a black neighborhood - Oh, My.  Yes, I have the same reaction:  I'm in a strange city, I don't know the neighborhood, I'm alone.    But, I have several black blood relatives.  I have many black friends; some of them live in Trenton.  So, resisting my internal reaction, I saw a man on the street ahead, about mid-30s.  Yes, he was black; I was in a black neighborhood.  I slowed down, lowered my window and said, "Excuse me..."  His face showed surprise, a little nervous, then a slight smile.  What was he thinking?  I asked him for directions back to the highway I needed, which he gave me, thanked him and drove on.  I yelled back to him, out the still open window, that I hoped I could remember all the turns.

Nothing bad happened.  He was just a guy; a black guy.  I could have a conversation with him.

You're capable of getting past whatever biases and prejudices you have on a moment by moment, situation by situation basis.  What's inside you belongs to you:  good and bad.  You are responsible for your actions; nobody else is.  You don't know what a black person feels, unless you're black.  I don't know what a black person feels; I've never been black.  You don't know what I feel either; I don't know what you feel.  Stop assuming, or, at least, don't go with your first assumption.

If you treat me like I'm stupid; I'll react badly.  If you treat me like I'm bad; you leave me no choice but to defend myself which you will undoubtedly interpret as bad.  If you look at our differences as problems instead of just differences; if you think I have to conform to how and what you are; we'll have problems between us.  If I were a black person and said these things to you, depending on who you are and how you view the world and life, I'm guessing you'd react differently than to me: a white female senior citizen.

You don't think you're a racist but you are.

You can approach life as an adventure or you can approach it as a mine field.  Your choice, inside.

A black person on the street is just a person unless you make him different by your actions or words or he proves by his actions, not your imagination, to be anything else.  

Why, BTW, are there black neighborhoods?  Duh, THINK.

The New Economy

Just saw something this morning about a show about how 2 families are adjusting to the "new" economy.  I probably won't be able to see it since I only have basic cable through my son with whom I currently live.  I recently signed the deed to my house back to the bank.

I suspect that the majority of Americans are now living in the "new" economy.  This is something I've been expecting since the late 60s when I became aware that there is no longer a frontier to explore geographically and that, while the Europeans left the circumstances of their economies at that time and came here to "America", driving the native people here out of their places, and, while there are people from Africa and South America, etc. still coming here hoping to find a better life, the fact is that there's no where left to go to get away from the predators, acquisators, hoarders of capital and, in most cases, slavers.

What we fail to remember when we talk of social and political issues is that every time a person is born, they begin from scratch to learn the ways of our world.  The circumstances of each life and the inner inborn temperament lead each to a path.  What each of us learns, what each of us values is individual.  What I have learned, what I think I know, what I care about is unique and I have to remember that each individual I encounter is the same and the combination of their values, inclinations, understand, etc. direct them to their own lifestyle and actions.  These individual paths are often in conflict.

There will always be people like me who think they have reasoned out a sensible, responsible path.  I suspect everyone believes this or they become homicidal or suicidal.  Just because another believes this about their life doesn't mean that they see the world, their life the same as I see mine, nor does it mean that they value the same things

But, this is something to be written about more later.  Right now, I just want to write about the "new" economy.

I believe that the lot of the average American has been greatly reduced since 2008.  My son and I had a brief discussion about the economic "reset".  That was when the wealthy and the financial "industry" caused a worldwide economic crash and took that occasion to reset the rules to benefit themselves into the future.  These are people who measure their own value by what they have accumulated in capital and stuff.  The most extreme, that are barely visible, are old men in dark suits who, I imagine, have little in the way of what I would consider a life but, rather, focus all their energy on accumulating capital which they compare with the accumulations of others like themselves.  I can't imagine they enjoy their lives although I also imagine they are surrounded by numbers of people who take care of their lives for them and shield them from the reality of their desolation.  I have seen glimpses of these individuals who generally have severe expressions of distrust and stress on their faces.  While they own the bulk of the wealth in the world, those, particularly in the United States, are puritanical in their focus on capital and seem to have a substantial degree of paranoia about missing some opportunity of acquiring more.  I believe these people are ill, pathological and that their influence is unhealthy for our country, our world and life.

These are the people who think open space is wasteful.  These are the people who think everything is reducible to quantity and a dollar figure.  These are people who probably have no joy in their lives other than the delusion that their life has meaning.

In contrast, many of us are not concerned with so much accumulation although the success of the above acquisators depends upon their efforts to convince the rest of us to accumulate stuff that they sell.  Many of us are more concerned with our relationships with our friends and families, with some amount of pleasure and entertainment.  Some of us are concerned with the world and people around us and doing what we can to make our little sphere of influence better.  Some of us have an inner life that we want to balance with our outer world.

Because the above pathological individuals are so powerful, own so much and have so much influence on those, unfortunately in power, who have been, because of their own circumstances and level of being, convinced by these powerfully "successful" individuals who have, in their material lives, much of what many people think is valuable, that these "successful" sociopaths must be correct in who they live their lives, must be correct in their view of life and our world.

I suspect that the lives of average Americans and much of the population of the world will become less and less materially pleasant because, in order for the capitalists to maintain and increase their positions, since there is, after all, a finite amount of material wealth possible, they must continue to reduce ours.  If you've been paying attention, you will see that the circumstances of the average American has been reduced even before 2008.  Have you looked at the Fair Labor Standards Act recently?  There used to be considerable verbiage about conditions of work environment, etc.  There was even a requirement, at one point, of having a place for someone to lie down, for a bit, if feeling ill, which I thought was a little much myself.  At any rate, for the most part much of that has been dismantled without hew and cry or even announcement.  What remains are the points of discrimination.  Labor standards are also largely determined at the state level.  You should become familiar with your state's labor regulations.  I found out about the current situation when I took a director's position and found that I couldn't expect my employer to provide a meal break.

COULDN'T EXPECT MY EMPLOYER TO PROVIDE A MEAL BREAK.

That particular employer, who I am, thankfully, no longer employed by, taught me a lot about the overseer attitudes of some individuals.  "No personal phone calls at the public desk".  (agreed)  "No eating at the public desk".  (agreed)  "Only 15 minutes break".  (that's for a meal, any necessary phone calls, etc. - in an 8 hour day).  "Why does anyone have to leave the building, ever, during work hours?"  (Well, to make bank deposits; to deliver paperwork to the main office, etc.)  These are people who would return to slavery, if allowed.  These are people whose view of people who work for them,( we didn't work for them, we worked for the community), as objects, without needs, without feelings, without lives, desires, etc.  These are people who believe other people will take advantage of any situation.  Why?  Because that's what these people do.  And, isn't that, in a sense, just wired-in survival?

There is little or no acknowledgement that others contribute the prosperity of this kind of person.

My paranoia takes the form of worrying that there is no way to stop them; no way to get away from them.  They've always existed; they always will.  Only each individual can be enlightened.  These individuals are not  interested; their focus is external.  They are not interested in the future in which they won't exist; they're interested in accomplishing their goals in their lifetime regardless of the consequences to others and to the future and to the world with which they don't identify; apparently, and, if they care about anyone else, in setting up those individuals with the advantages to maintain the lifestyle and values they have.

One way that people learn and even change is by experiencing either something that gives them immense pleasure or by feeling the pain of something they are doing.  I wrack my brain, from time to time, to try to think of a way to make it profitable or desirable for this type of personality to want the rest of the world to be comfortable, healthy, happy; to have a decent life.  I haven't found a generally acceptable way yet.  They know how their world works; they've stacked the deck.  As long as they're getting what they want; they'll continue to behave in the way they behave and to move in the direction they're moving.

For myself, the circumstances of my life have changed dramatically in the past couple of years.  I've learned to let go; to stop identifying with what I no longer have or can have.  I'm also a senior and beginning to feel the physical effects.  I've moved from a 3 bedroom house into 2 rooms and most of the garage with my son. This is undoubtedly temporary and I need to think about the next step.  I think the only way I can continue to have any kind of decent life is to keep a low profile (so here I am blogging) and to try to reduce my dependence on corporations and individuals who want to use me up and on stuff.  While it may seem counter intuitive, I need to reduce what I want and need and redefine my material values.

That's really all I have to say right now.  I've been rambling....  Until next time.

The images in the blog are to, hopefully, keep your attention and for your amusement.  They've been gathered all over the Internet but mostly posted on Facebook.  If any of them is your image, I'll gladly give credit or remove it.