State of the Union 2014

Did you watch?

Are you happy with the way the country is being run?  If you didn't watch, if you don't respond to what you liked and didn't like, then, in my opinion, your opinion about what was said doesn't count for much.

I've felt, for a long time, that what's mostly wrong with our country is us, the citizenry.  On the one hand, we want to hand over responsibility for running things to complete strangers; we want to trust in a mythological "daddy" out there who will look out for our best interests.  We've been thinking and acting this way for a very long time.  On the other hand, we're really, really unhappy with the way things are being run.

I ask you, what's wrong with this picture?  How long do you continue to behave in the same way and expect things to be different?

It's time to rethink, reassess and take hold of the reins.  You voted for somebody.  How often to do tell that "representative" what you think, what you want?  I'm guessing not very often.

How often do you actually sit down and mentally layout, for yourself, what you think about all the issues:  national security, foreign policy, commerce, education, the economy...?

This is our country.

Back to the State of the Union Address --

It's required, loosely, by the Constitution:  "He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient:..." It's supposed to be a REPORT to Congress about - guess what - the state of the union - what's wrong, what's right - and proposals for the future.  And, in my assessment, that's exactly what last night's speech was.  The President reviewed what had been done by his administration and what he intends and wants to do in the future.  In a vacuum, the speech, on its own, was fine; not too much pomp and circumstance; not too much bullshit.  However, there were several things that I noticed that I think are problematic:

The energy policy is too much same old, same old.  I was absolutely not happy that production is up; that the President is standing behind natural gas which means - FRACKING.  This is a disaster.  Almost immediately after making those statements, he mentioned something about the preservation of federal lands.  So here's my assessment of that.  He's OK, Washington is OK with poisoning our communities by fracking for natural gas but federal lands will be protected so we can escape from our polluted neighborhoods by visiting national forests and parks.  REALLY!?  Remember this is a president who believed in CLEAN coal.  So, F for energy policy.  He did mention other energy sources but mostly in passing.

Next, I noticed policies of partnering with major corporations - the usual players - for various programs.  This is same old, same old.  Our economy is a disaster because of big business, Wall Street, the entire financial industry.  If we don't divorce ourselves from these 'partnerships', that serve them more than they serve us, we will eventually be doomed to slavery to them, which, BTW, we nearly are already.

Education, some OK thoughts but defining education as training for a job is just another step in the United States of American Business.  I didn't go to college to get a  job.  I went to college to be educated, to explore things I'm interested in, to expand my knowledge and outlook, and, in the process, decide what kind of work I wanted to do.  We do need updated vocational education; everybody knows that.  But, because we've turned our "think tanks" over to corporate bean counters and accountants, we've ignored the real geniuses that have come from our educational system, from scientists and economists and, yes, philosophers, social scientists, engineers, psychologists, thinkers, who have more constructive and positive solutions to our economic and social problems than whorish businessmen whose sole aim in life is to find more and more ways to make money.  So, D for education policy.

Finally, many of the assumptions on which most policies in Washington are based on are outdated and erroneous.  Everyone in Washington keeps going to the usual players for answers; the usual players are ALL self-serving and will, in my opinion, NEVER do what right unless it means a profit for them, and it usually doesn't.  There's a John Bunyan quote (I just discovered the source) that occasionally goes around Facebook, that Washington should recite every morning, as a mantra:  

“You have not lived today until you have done something for someone who can never repay you.”

My Fellow Americans, have a good day.

Getting Rid of Citizens United - Being a Citizen

It is the 4th anniversary of Citizens United when the Supreme Court granted citizenship to corporations, allowing them to inordinately influence decisions affecting the lives of each and every one of us.

Yes, corporations are a collection of people but by granting corporations personhood and citizenship, each and every member of the corporate board and each and every voting shareholder, is, thereby, granted double personhood and citizenship, on their own, as citizens, and through their corporate influence.  DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?!

This legal action has doomed the rest of us to always be outvoted and out-influenced by corporate interests.  And, if you think that national and multinational corporations have your best interests, our country's best interests, our planet's best interests at heart, I'm afraid I think you're a fool.

Watch this video and educate yourself.

Legalize Democracy

It is extremely important that we overturn each and every one of these decisions and that a constitutional amendment be enacted to define, once and for all that a citizen is a single, individual homo sapien and that the laws of the country apply only to so defined citizens.

Be a Citizen - (American Heritage Dictionary)

"1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation."

Even that definition (matched by Webster's), is outdated and, in a democracy, insufficient.  Remember, in our democracy, as defined by our Constitution, We The People, the citizenry, ARE the government.

Much of what's wrong with our government today, is a result of our throwing away our rights as citizens and by being lax in our responsibilities as citizens.

We are, in fact "governed" by layers of governments; from our local municipal, county and state governments to the federal government.  Are you informed about each and every one of those governments?  Do you know your state Constitution?  Do you know the ordinances of your town?  How many city council meetings have you attended?

Think about your answers to these questions, because if you are not acting and functioning and taking responsibility as a Citizen, what do you think will be the result; government functioning without you.  Complaining about decisions that are made, laws that are enacted, after the fact, is pointless.  You and I must, pro actively, become citizens who include our citizenship in our daily thinking and activities.

Go to your town's web site.  Who's who?  Can you find local ordinances there?  If not, call the Town Clerk and ask how to find your local ordinances.  You public library often has a copy of the Ordinances.  Also ask for the schedule of Council meetings and how to get a copy of the agenda.  You may have to pay for a photocopy (saving the taxpayers money, of course).  DO NOT let anyone intimidate you.  I have had town clerks ask me who I am and what I need the information for, in an authoritarian tone. I simply give them my name and tell them I'm a resident, home owner and voter and I need the information I'm asking for.  They don't need to know why.  

Some towns, that have the correct attitude, that information about their operations is open to The Public, will have that information on their web site, posted in the municipal offices and/or available at the local library.  You have a right to this information.  Don't let anyone tell you differently.  In some cases, they have so seldom been asked that they have acquired wrong thinking and bad attitudes about the loftiness and privilege of their activities and become secretive.  We are responsible for that as well.  

I'm a librarian.  I have been a public employee (differing from a public servant in many ways), serving the public in public libraries in many municipalities in 4 states.  I have attended many public meetings in my capacity and a librarian and a citizen.  Over time, when very few people show interest in what you're doing and how you're doing it, you just stop thinking about how what you do affects them.  So, as citizens, we have to be ever vigilant about how our various levels of government function and continually communicating our wishes to our public servants (our elected representatives).  How else can they represent us?

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.