Money is free speech?

I'm having a hard time with that one--that judicial decision.  
No one will let me buy a car with my opinion.  
If I tell the guy at the drive-in window that I have paid for a hamburger, he is not going to hand me a hamburger, he is going to give me some free speech back, probably involving crazy old ladies.  
When corporations became people, that was ridiculous.  We need definitions of what a person is, we have definitions of what a corporation is.  But the very idea that money and free belong in the same sentence or even paragraph is an omen of more ridiculous things to come.
But first-I must go off on a tangent-----What happened to the checks and balances system guaranteed by having three branches of the government?  The original set up should have worked.  Executive--not given enough power to become a dictator or so little power that the position becomes a figurehead(sorry Royalty of England, but when all you have is tradition  it isn't really a branch of government, its more of a paparazzi thing), the Congress--divided into two parts, one giving each state 2 reps, and one giving each state a number of representatives based on population--there is a max number allowed--435--since 1963), and the Judicial branch.
When I was little, Donald Duck's relative explained it, perhaps a bit vaguely, but the job of congress is to make law, the president is to enact laws and the judges are to interpret laws.  Thus the branches are equal in ability to check the other two.
Somehow, the idea that we would get to a place where people (corporations?) were having undue influence over members of each of those branches by giving them large amount of free speech (money/contributions/perks?) and effectively making the system of checks and balances disappear---just never occurred to most of us.

So, lets look at this thing.

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to 

the United States Constitution.

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitition the Government for a redress of grievances.  (I underlined the one that made it OK to buy an election or law)

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.  (this one is tricky, the "well-regulated" part makes some of the NRA tactics look like they just have a LOT of free speech)

Third Amendment

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.  (hope we followed this in the north during the Civil War--guess it didn't really apply in the south since they had seceded, considering how many wars we have fought and young people we have lost to death/disability and mental distress, hard to guess that we have not had a war on our own soil since the civil war)

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.  (this one might be fightable by those individuals that have lost everything due to drug investigations, then when not found guilty, not received anything back)

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.  (think Guantanamo, think held for years for mental illness, think about those already executed then the DNA said---"OOPS")

Sixth Amendment

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed; which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.  (this is the only one that has caused some issues, although I'm sure that public defenders are not all created equally and notifying people of their rights and charges after keeping them up for hours/needing to go to the bathroom/and the general stress of being arrested could make the public efforts less than genuine)

Seventh Amendment

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law. (my question?is it still twenty dollars?)

Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.  (what is excessive to a billionaire is not at all the same as what is excessive to a homeless person, or a person working at minimum wage---this problem is pretty evident at the county jails where people sit in jail for misdemeanors due to no money)

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.  (HUH?--I guess we can't go in later and take away people's constitutional rights with an amendment)

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.  (or to the people?  where do the people have access to the system?  what was this intended to mean?)

 AMENDMENT 11

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.  (got it, unless the state judicial system does something that is against the constitution, the federal judicial system has no say--why the federal cases and the state cases never have the same charges.  This was added in 1795)

AMENDMENT 12

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice­President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice­President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice­President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-­thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice ­President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes asVice­President,shall be theVice­President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice­President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two­thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice­President of the United States.  (So, the electoral college was not part of the original bill of rights, it was ratified in 1804--so we didn't get very many true elections by the people,  we have mostly just been allowed to vote on who will vote for us!  I would be curious to know what initiated that bit of crap)

AMENDMENT 13

[1.] Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.  ( I underlined this because I'm fairly sure that placing criminals into slavery and involuntary servitude would require an amendment to this list)

[2.] Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT 14

[1.] All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[2.] Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice­President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty­one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty­one years of age in such State.

[3.] No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice­President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two­ thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[4.] The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebel­lion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrec­tion or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

[5.] The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.  (pretty obvious what created the need for this amendment)

AMENDMENT 15

[1.] The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.(since

[2.] The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.  (was that already in 14,  people love to find loopholes)

AMENDMENT 16

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.  (oh my, look up the 16th amendment and start reading, from questions about the legality of its ratification  to concerns that it flies in the face of several parts of the bill of rights,  I've heard a few militia men discuss this as their main problem with our current government.  (ratified in 1913--explains why those wild and wooly frontiersmen didn't start a war over it)

AMENDMENT 17

The Senate of the United States shall be com­posed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided,That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.  (i'm sure there is a story here, that this is part of the constitution and written so recently)

AMENDMENT 18

Repealed by Amendment 21, 12/5/1933

[1.] After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is here­by prohibited.

[2.] The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[3.] This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission here­of to the States by the Congress.
(We learned nothing from this, as proven by our current war on drugs.  With drugs illegal, no source except black market or for pills--those amazing Doctors that don't mind flying in the face of ethics/law--there are times when I can't even fault them, although the people hooked on pills frequently got their by those same Docs.  Black market ranges from huge and dangerous drug cartels to desparate home chemist/addicts/and gardeners.  The prices are inflated for the drugs due to their illegality, so addicts {and we pretty much stopped trying to help the addicts without money in the early 1990's} had to buy their drug of choice at high prices when their disease was making them unable to get or hold a job or finish school--high school, college, trade, i.e., homeless/minimum wage earner/sofa-surfers.  What do people with a strong physical or psychological need do  to earn enough money to buy their only real solace?  Sell their bodies, sell their loved one's bodies, hurt people, rob people, go to work for the nearest dealer that can keep them in supplies.  
The government can not legislate addiction, making an addiction illegal is like making cancer illegal.  No one says "when I grow up I want to be an addict, I want to risk everything to take a chemical to make myself feel ok for a little while".  Ratified in 1919, repealed in 1933, a time of monstrous growth of gangs and organized crime.  If we were smart, we would make the stupid drugs legal through clinics and on a fee based on a sliding scale.  Also offering free counciling and education and rehab and meeting space for groups like AA and NA.

AMENDMENT 19

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.  (women have been able to vote since 1920--less than 100 years.  These past ten years, with all the push to make women's health issues again a part of law, has me expect this amendment to come up for repeal anytime.  The Tea Party scares the crap out of me.)

AMENDMENT 20

[1.] The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

[2.] The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

[3.] If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

[4.] The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

[5.] Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

[6.] This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three­fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.  (If you can't see what this is about, it used to be that they started in March, horses and buggies, snail mail, so this is housekeeping to catch up with the times. )

AMENDMENT 21

[1.] The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

[2.] The transportation or importation into any State,Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

[3.] The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. (very self-explanatory, read the 18th)

AMENDMENT 22

[1.] No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

[2.] This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three­fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.  (This was done after Franklin D. Roosevelt just kept winning.  Apparently there was a fear that he would make himself king,  I personally want one that limits the members of congress to 2 consecutive terms,  they treat it like they have been appointed for life and even if the same person ran 2 out of every 3 times, it would make it more less likely for someone to invest so much in one when they wouldn't keep being there forever.)

AMENDMENT 23

[1.] The District constituting the seat of Govern­ment of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representa­tives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.  (now the District of Columbia can vote for the president---what!?!  They couldn't before?!? holy crap)

[2.] The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT 24

[1.] The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. (wow, some things never change, how is the cost of an official government ID not a Poll tax)

[2.] The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT 25

[1.] In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

[2.] Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

[3.] Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be dis­charged by the Vice President as Acting President.

[4.] Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assem­bling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.  (Read the constitution, while the assumption that the vice-president exists to take over for the president in case of death or debility or other issue, it apparently was never spelled out.  ratified 1967)

AMENDMENT 26

[1.] The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

[2.] The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.  (basically it was decided that if they are old enough to die in a war that they were drafted to fight, they were old enough to vote)

AMENDMENT 27

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.  (first presented in 1789, ratified in 2011---those crafty self-serving congressional branch people)

So, If you have made it to here, you may ask, what does this have to do with free speech and money, and the answer is--I'm ADD--so I get off track.  Hope you enjoyed the lesson with commentary.   But truly, I want some judge on the Supreme court to rule that free speech is money.  
I'll take a greenhouse, please, with a hot tub inside.  I just paid you with my free speech!

The dread midlife crisis!

I'm not having one, now.  I'm too old to have one or even remember when I had one.  Maybe I'll figure that out at the end of this blog.

Yesterday, during a discussion with my new, young daughter-in-law the subject of midlife crisis came up.  Since she is a matchmaker, it ran to why there are so many women having midlife crises these days.  The idea being that women before women's lib didn't have a midlife crisis, it was a man thing to do.  Her reasoning was that women were now having the same responsibilities as men so the stress was doing it. 

My theory was that a midlife crisis was not an option when you couldn't support yourself, and never believed you had a choice to do anything except what you were doing--being a wife and mother.  The topic was dropped, we are both argumentative, but don't know each other well enough to want to create a monster over something so philosophical, but I thought about it over night and decided to see what, if anything, was going on.

Midlife crisis is a term coined in 1965 by Elliott Jaques stating "a time where adults come to realize their own mortality and how much time is left in their life. A midlife crisis is experienced by many people during the midlife transition when they realize that life may be more than halfway over. Sometimes, a crisis can be triggered by transitions experienced in these years, such as andropause or menopause, the death of parents or other causes of grief, unemployment or underemployment, realizing that a job or career is hated but not knowing how else to earn an equivalent living, or children leaving home. People may reassess their achievements in terms of their dreams. The result may be a desire to make significant changes in core aspects of day-to-day life or situation, such as in career, work-life balance, marriage, romantic relationships, large expenditures, or physical appearance.

Ok, that was pretty straight forward.  And women of my mother's age in the 60's were having something that fit that when I was in my teens.  I know this, because there were copies of "the joy of sex" book out there, and several women went out to find jobs while their children (14-18 year olds) stayed home alone in the summer, and a couple of families went through a divorce.  One woman actually got a job, and had an affair with her boss leading to a divorce--(that was good for some backyard fence time in the neighborhood). 

Since divorce seems to be seen as related to midlife crisis (amazingly, most articles/therapies seem to see it as related to marriage, a thing I think is false, but  I have no other measuring stick for the early years, so it will have to do).

Before WWII (think Rosie the Riveter) divorce rates were less than 5%.  After the end of that war, rates rose rapidly to 14% and by 1975, 40% of marriages were ending in divorce.  We are currently at 50%. (remember that is marriages, not people, some people get married repeatedly, and each of those count independently.)  From this, I see that the rise in independence of women does seem to be a possible factor in female midlife crisis.  But is it from the newly added, previously unexperienced stress of work, decision-making, and rat-racing? or is it because they can now dream and acheive something more.  

If we look at the identified parts of a midlife crisis compared to grief, we see an great overlap.  Perhaps we are just grieving for our own lost youth.

This is a list of the identified components of a midlife crisis.  They are juxtaposed with the stages of grief in parentheses)

1. Feelings of Depression

(Depression — "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; "I'm going to die soon so what's the point?"; "I miss my loved one, why go on?"
During the fourth stage, the grieving person begins to understand the certainty of death. Much like the existential concept of The Void, the idea of living becomes pointless. Things begin to lose meaning to the griever. Because of this, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time crying and sullen. This process allows the grieving person to disconnect from things of love and affection, possibly in an attempt to avoid further trauma. Depression could be referred to as the dress rehearsal for the 'aftermath'. It is a kind of acceptance with emotional attachment. It is natural to feel sadness, regret, fear, and uncertainty when going through this stage. Feeling those emotions shows that the person has begun to accept the situation. Often times, this is the ideal path to take, to find closure and make their ways to the fifth step, )

2. A Loss of Interest in Things That Used to be Important. (Any therapist will tell you this is a sign of depression)

3. Feeling a Need for Adventure and Change (Denial — As the reality of loss is hard to face, one of the first reactions to follow the loss is Denial. What this means is that the person is trying to shut out the reality or magnitude of their situation, and begin to develop a false, preferable reality.)

4. Anger and Blame of The Spouse (or some other person that influenced the current life choice) (Anger — "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?"  Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Anger can manifest itself in different ways. People can be angry with themselves, or with others, and especially those who are close to them. It is important to remain detached and nonjudgmental when dealing with a person experiencing anger from grief.)

5. Unable to Make Decisions About Their Future. (depression symptom)

6. Doubt Over The Choice to Marry (or not marry, or have kids, or not have kids) (Anger)

7. A Desire For a New and More Passionate Intimate Relationship (could be denial, could be acceptance, depends on motivation)

Below is a list of the stages of grief in order--people do not really go through them in order or even in a straight sequence, frequently return to a stage in which they were more comfortable.  While the goal is to work through grief, some people live--and die there.

1. Denial — As the reality of loss is hard to face, one of the first reactions to follow the loss is Denial. What this means is that the person is trying to shut out the reality or magnitude of their situation, and begin to develop a false, preferable reality.
2. Anger — "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?"
   Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Anger can manifest itself in different ways. People can be angry with themselves, or with others, and especially those who are close to them. It is important to remain detached and nonjudgmental when dealing with a person experiencing anger from grief.
3. Bargaining — "I'll do anything for a few more years."; "I will give my life savings if…"
   The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow undo or avoid a cause of grief. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Other times, they will use any thing valuable as a bargaining chip against another human agency to extend or prolong the life they live. Psychologically, the individual is saying, "I understand I will die, but if I could just do something to buy more time…" People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek to negotiate a compromise. For example "Can we still be friends?" when facing a break-up. Bargaining rarely provides a sustainable solution, especially if it is a matter of life or death.
4. Acceptance — "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."
   In this last stage, individuals begin to come to terms with their mortality or inevitable future, or that of a loved one, or other tragic event. This stage varies according to the person's situation. People dying can enter this stage a long time before the people they leave behind, who must pass through their own individual stages of dealing with the grief. This typically comes with a calm, retrospective view for the individual, and a stable mindset.

From an internet search--I saw this      

"The 'midlife crisis' is measurable, and it may be earlier than you think, study finds

A long-term study of wellbeing across three countries found a distinct dip in happiness around the ages of 40-42, according to new research published by the German-based Institute for the Study of Labor. The U-shaped curve suggests people regain their happiness later in life.

I think this is acceptance that is giving them their happiness back.  I also think that we could decrease our own difficulties with midlife crisis by thinking of our life, our whole life as a series of choices, rather than a set of roles.  People talk about wearing different hats; its a cute image, and perfectly describes the roles we take on through life.  They are hats, because they are not us.  We are not roles.  I can be a teacher for a while or a Doctor for a while, a parent, a brother, a wife, a committee chairman, or anything else but while I will learn different things in that role, I will still be me.  I am myself without any roles.

Every choice we make, eliminates a different choice and that starts pretty young.  The child that decides on baseball instead of science club, ballet instead of cheerleading, studying instead of socializing.  Each of those is a choice that can't be made again at the same time.  We can play a sport or learn an instrument at any age, but the benefits of longer experience at a younger age can not be regained.  I can go take tapdancing tomorrow, but I will not likely be good enough to perform on broadway when I start at 60.  Every athlete knows that their body does not have an eternal time to start and reach professional levels of performance.   While I might reach some level of professionalism with my painting before I die, I can't go back and become an amazing artist by 30, that is over.  The wife and mother that always wanted to write a novel can still succeed, but only if she still believes she can, and many of us lose our faith in our own ability.  

Does everyone that experiences grief for their own half-done life throw everything away and lose their mind?  Of course not, some buy a sports car, or take up skydiving.  Some decide to get to know themselves--again (that can be tough, especially if you thought you WERE the role you were playing)  Some volunteer, helping the world and meeting new people and learning new skills.  For others, they refind the love they had for their spouse, or finally decide that they don't want to spend more time on a bad marriage and get a divorce.  We have long acted as though divorce is the same as loser, but marriage should make both people better, not just one, and if both are unhappy, see a counselor.  You need insight, you need someone to give you some outside perspective, you need permission to love the rest of your life and live in happiness.  

So, do I think women didn't have midlife crises in the past?  Of course they did.  They couldn't buy a sports car--no money, usually no drivers license.  They couldn't get a divorce, because while they earned no money, they had a fulltime job, a 24/7 job with no days off.  Women's life expectancy in 1900 was 1-2 years longer than a man, by the 1970's they had a 13 year lead on men, today that is down to 5 years.  Is that because of the current push to return women to the 1900s in power/choices? or are we approaching a brick wall.  While the gap is closing  again (back to where we were before WWII), women are at 80+ years as opposed to late 60's-early 70's. And while that is partly better birth control/better health care/easier living conditions, I believe it is also better life quality.  Seeing the GOOD OLD DAYS as golden, happy times is just putting on those rose colored glasses.  If you really think being a woman in 1880 was better, be a widow on the frontier with 10 kids, be the 5th daughter of a farmer, the homely but intelligent daughter of a man with aspirations.  When women have no power over their own lives, they don't get to make their own choices, they get married off to who ever is seen as the best connection for dad, they get married off to whoever gets rid of that extra/nonproductive mouth to feed, or they lose everything, shipped to the poorhouse, kids to the poorhouse or work farms, strewed across the country with whatever relative is willing to put one of them to work.  

When you have your crisis, and you will, and I remember mine---I actually told my coworkers repeatedly that I now knew my life was half over.  It started with the death of my parents and at the time I was more than half their ages.  And ended at 50 when I realized that I needed to not waste the last of my life.  I didn't buy a sports car and didn't have an affair, I changed jobs, but not by choice (I actually have a big mouth, shocking) and I didn't move.  I did start painting, one of the things I always wanted to do, and I did quit worrying about the future, because every minute spent worrying about what might happen is a minute I could be doing something I want to do.  So I survived mine.  And everyone out their deserves to have their own and figure out how they want to survive it, also.

OBAMA

The name sounds foreign to many of us, and saying it in certain states, for example the red one I live in, will frequently start a tirade.  (The name itself is a bit odd.  Out of 44 presidents, his is the only Non-European surname.  We have 37 presidents with good old names off the British Isles, with most English, some Anglo-Saxon, some Welsh, some Irish, some Scottish, and some decidedly Celtic.  We have 3 Dutch names, and 1 German.  So much for the melting pot).

 Too often the tirade is about his appearance or his voice though the tirade never, ever, ever mentions race.  "This is not about race, its him."  Who are they lying to, themselves I think. "He is trying to make us communist", or "he's the next Hitler" (those people never seem to get that Hitler wasn't a communist.) "He is stupid". "He is------"something, something bad, something that is going to ruin the country.  Of course, I live in a state full of rabid born-again republicans.  For some reason, when rich powerful men start complaining about things not being good for them, my neighbors think they are part of that group. There is not a rich powerful man in the area, but they are all white--close enough.  We need racism and sexism and religionism (yes, I made it up, but what else would you call it when people line up behind religious affiliation like it is US or THEM---presidentially speaking, there have been 37 protestants, 4 unitarians, 2 quakers, 1 catholic and 1 jehovah's witness, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson had no listed religion and probably could not have even been elected these days because of it).

We need those things, because while we have those things, we don't have to worry about the real dividing line.  It is and always has been the HAVES and the HAVE-NOTS.  It isn't just money the HAVES possess, it is also power.  That was what started our own American Revolution.  Our colonies had money because the colonies were full of resources and the colonists were cleaning up, but the wealthy colonists did not have any power, and the employed (that might be slaves, bond servants, or other peasantry) had little of either.  That revolution was for Power, the power to determine your own laws, use the tax money for the good of your own people and not just send it back to the king.

In South Africa, the HAVES were all white, they were HAVES because they profited off the horrible misuse of the HAVE-NOTS and we called it apartheid and legalized racism and wrong.  It was a place in which a small percent of the population ruled the larger percent with no concern for the larger percents needs, seeing them as things not peers.  Mandela is a hero for attacking that beast.  But while that was an obvious wrong, it is far from the only place where a small group rules the vast majority to the detriment of that majority.

The French Revolution was very similar, the royals, the nobles, the landed had everything and the people cutting the wood and growing the food and sewing the clothes etc, etc, etc, were frequently hungry and could not afford medicine or shelter or other basic needs. The Russian Revolution that resulted in the rise of communism in the last century was from a similar cause.  They had seen the less than perfect results of the French and American Revolutions and like China tried Socialism.  Reality is, if you read about a republic (which we in America are) or a democracy (which we are not, but frequently claim to be) or communism or socialism, they sound wonderful.  They are all high-minded ideals in which everyone is equal, everyone is able to live to their highest potential.  Apparently, power does corrupt and absolute power really does corrupt absolutely. Add to that, what some professor from my ancient past once said, "its not hard to start a revolution, the hard part is stopping it where you want."  Wars are not led by high-minded idealists, they are led by people that aren't afraid to kill, to maim, to "get their hands"--or their followers hands "dirty".  And they never stop until the rich and powerful are back on top.  Humans are highly corruptible.  I don't understand it, but I have never had power or money.

But back to Obama.  My granddaughter was born during his first campaign.  Her mom was just starting to pay attention to politics and she followed the Obama campaign very closely.  My granddaughter has a kind of hero worship for the president.  By five she was looking at president pictures in old books and asking questions about the office.  She thinks she might want to be the first female president.  Since it hasn't happened yet I feel no need to burst that bubble.

Why has this president polarized the country so thoroughly?  What horrible thing has he done?  We made a huge deal about his birth, "he wasn't even born here" all over the internet, but he was, his mother was from Kansas, his father from Kenya.  And he was not alone, Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson had mothers born in England, Andrew Jackson's parents came here from Ireland, James Buchanan and Charles Arthur both had fathers born in Ireland.  Herbert Hoover's mother was born in Ontario, Canada.  Apparently, the problem is with Africa.  But all people came out of Africa.  How is this not racism?

Okay.  Perhaps it's his agenda.  He does seem very focused on getting health care available to all people whether or not they can afford it (I have never been able to figure out the down side to this, although I do suspect the AMA and Insurance and Pharmaceutical companies are leading the lobby against--personally I wanted a full blown nationalized healthcare.
And there is immigration reform (how many immigrant ancestors are in your family tree, mine is pretty full of them).
This term's focus on gun control (we have no problem with denying violent criminals their second amendment rights, but seem to think that more guns easily available is the answer to the countries woes.  If the militias weren't so full of racists, sexists, and religionists, I might actually be more against gun registration.  Maybe it really is just that we need gun education starting in grade school and everybody has to carry by age 18.  We would either need half the police or half the number of everything else.
It might be a new kind of birth control.  It sounds a lot like anarchy.
Then there is the attempt to get more jobs.  We (editorial, since I don't know anyone making minimum wage that would be included in that "we") don't want to raise the minimum wage because the powerful rich people would not make more jobs.  So maybe we would only need half as many jobs if the jobs paid enough to live on.
Seriously, who has ever been hired to do a job that is not needed.
Rich and powerful people don't make jobs to provide poor people with jobs, they make new jobs because they have work that needs done and that work will make them a profit.  The amount of money involved in the difference between the current minimum wage and the new proposed minimum wage won't even make a blip on their radar.  They don't worry about their profits in dollar or ten dollar amounts, they worry about them in millions.
Keeping the workers underpaid just makes their profits higher, but no workers means no profit.  Not one of them is doing their own work for what they are profiting from.  I am also a fan of lowering  the amount of money salaried people can make and still get over-time.  Why should anyone not qualify for overtime.  If the job takes longer than 40 hours, maybe it is another job.  Paying one person  one salary to do two people's worth of work is a great way to raise your own profits.  But it is not right and there is another job. (amazing, isn't it)

Next is climate change.  In my state, we took a vote and their is no such thing.  We have never seen a lot of the weird weather that has occurred in the last 50 years, but it isn't new.  And it isn't caused by man, only god can change the weather---its because of all the godless, other race/other religion, sexually different people that currently don't have to hide or live in fear of being shot/lynched/tarred&feathered.  In truth, we live in a closed system (mostly closed) and setting off chemical reactions and contaminating the water and spewing gases can"t NOT alter that closed system.  Every action has consequences (physics not philosophy) and we humans has obviously altered the earth in the last 5,000 years.  The speed we are altering it has gone up tremendously in the last 100 years and we need to plan for the future of not just ourselves but our distant descendants.  (I personally would like my great-great-great-great grandkids to be able to walk in the spring air and see butterflies and recent evidence of wildlife walking on a dirt path in the country)

Last is voter access.  While we Americans don't vote as often as we could, we should not have any problems voting.  How do I feel about voter id's.  Make id's free and easily accessible and that is fine.  But use the difficulty of getting an ID like the old Jim Crow laws, and you are exactly as wrong as you sound.  We have seen crookedness in the voting world.  District Lines changed to make one group more powerful, another less powerful.  Long lines the day of, no parking, no workers, trying to close on time even when it was not physically possible for all the voters registered to vote at that place to finish within the allotted time. We have become a nation of slick, self-centered, other-haters. Was that always who we were?

I think that is not new, but Obama,  who my granddaughter unfailingly calls President Obama, has given a whole slew of people with no representation, with no toe-hold in the system, with no way to grab the opportunities this country is supposedly so free with--hope.

Keeping hope alive--Thanks, President Obama.

the bell curve

Otherwise known as the normal curve, what we like to be graded on, what we expect of a single population, favorite of researchers all over.  But what is it?
In IQ tests, its peak is 100, where 50% of the population is expected to be found.  Tests are tested and "normalized" around this.  We aren't sure if it is actually real, since we don't really know what IQ is except for that it is what IQ tests measure. We do know that the tests that similate IQ tests, those standardized tests we give to large numbers of students at a time, have to be altered as sometimes the test changes with culture and technological advances and just plain time.  (if you have never had an individually administered IQ test, don't brag about your IQ, its probably never been checked).

In other populations, you would expect in a total population that has not been skewed by other parameters, to find that 50% of that population  is on one half of the curve (say---right) and the other half on the left.  That makes the middle of the bell curve also the 50th percentile.  That means way over on the right of the curve, where it has dipped down pretty good, is about the 90th percentile. That means that if a person's number is way over there, there aren't very many people sharing that spot and they are doing "better, faster, older, smarter, richer, or whatever.   The same spot on the other side would be about the same number of people (or dogs, or tests, or whatever the "n" is) and about the 10th percentile and they would only be doing better than 10% of the participants. Its symetrical. Humans like symmetry, it's one of the things we use to judge beauty and fairness and whether we have applied our make-up correctly.

There are populations, that due to human intervention or some other force, do not fall on the Bell curve.  Examples would be chihuahuas and post-AIDS hemophiliacs.   The dogs have been impacted by genetic manipulation.  Not that we messed with their actual genes, but that we controlled their breeding.   For the traits that are desired, that the breed is bred for, the curve will be skewed to the right, and for those that are breed to remove the curve will be skewed to the left. For those poor individuals that experienced the discovery of AIDS while requiring blood products in the pre-testing timeframe, the curve is not just skewed, it is a cliff.

There are other things that can happen to a bell curve.  One of the more confusing is when it has two different hills.  That acually means you have two different populations being measured on the same curve.  An example of this, is the current wealth of the US. The best way to show this would be two show it on two bell curves--the top 2% and the bottom 98%.  The top 2% has 98% of the wealth, and by percentile, you would expect that the people at the 98th percentile would have more than 98% of the population.  But you would also expect that at the 50th percentile, 50% of the wealth would exist.  Not true here.  Everyone under the 98th percentile is sharing the same leftover 2%.  The two percent of the money is divided along a skewed bell curve, but not that severely skewed.  It skews to the left.  The top 98% of the money is its own bell curve, and it it also skewed to the left, with a much larger number of individuals making $300,000/year than the far right end, where the fortune-500 members live.

So,  in numbers, about 50% of the US population makes less than  $30,000/year, another 40% make $30,000-$100,000/year (we are now at the 90th percentile) and about 8% make over $100,000 but less than $300,000/year.  The next 1% is the makers of over $300,000 to under $500,000/year. That final 1% makes at least a half a million a year to several billion/year.  Curious?  The IRS has their own fortune 400 that is based on the top 400 income tax returns.  Stats only, the "who" is private.

So the point is? We have two population in the good ole US of A.  The ruling class and the peasantry.  Shades of Europe in the middle ages.

Since I should be doing my taxes and instead I'm writing this, I will make a suggestion.  Its a start, only, but its a new tax law suggestion.  A variation of the Flat Tax.  The biggest change would be to the individual deductions.  Where we currently get some number chosen from something that has nothing to do with life, I think we should plug in the income at poverty level.  That is what it takes to feed and clothe and shelter 1 person without assistance. In 2014, for one person, that is $11,670.  For a couple filing together, $15,730, for a family of 4, 23,550.  In Alaska, where the cost of living is higher, the same family of four would be$29,440, in Hawaii $27,090.  I personally would use Alaska for everyone since there should be some benefit to living in middle America.  Everything over that, whether salary, wage, capital gain, or any other source of income, would be 25%.  I think this would solve the problem of the person making 1 dollar over poverty and paying taxes and the person making 1 billion paying no taxes--and solve it well.
Reality is, it costs no more for a rich person to get enough calories to live, water to drink and shelter to stay warm than a poor person.  All that other stuff, the compounds and 3 vacation houses, the sixteen cars, the new wardrobe every season--designer and custom only, that is fat.  And fat should always be taxable.  Since we haven't gone with a national healthcare system yet, medical expenses should also remain until we figure that one out.  Interest?  I always liked it, but it is a sign of a sick economy and a sicker way of life, not a reason for a deduction.

If there were only 400 homeless people in the country, that would be fine, but we currently have constitution that implies equality yet the people making the laws that are supposed to support the ideal of equality are in the 2% almost to the man (was that an accident?  well there are 20  women in the senate and 79 women in the house, so perhaps I should have said person). There are 100 senators.  There are 435 representatives in the House, so that is 18% female.  All 535 members of Congress are worth an average $966,001 each, according to a new analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.

A typical American household has a net worth of about $66,740 – a value that has been declining since the start of the most recent recession. Between 2007 and 2010, the median net worth of American households sank 47.1 percent. Food stamp enrollment increased by 15.5 million since 2009 and recent job creation figures show that low-paying jobs have largely replaced higher paying ones.

At a time when the majority is struggling financially, the nation’s leaders are accumulating more wealth.  The new freshmen congress members have an average net worth greater than 1,000,000.

If they represent the people shouldn't their entry-level income mirror the average American? Is our country politically becoming as corrupt as any third world country?
 Where is the hope for the majority that is supposedly ruling?
Where is the hope?

American Hoarding

We have TV shows about it, and the crazy old cat woman is the epitome of the hoarder.  So are those depression-era survivors that have stacks of butter containers and newspapers and used aluminum foil neatly pressed, folded and stacked.

In the shows, someone with a mic and camera goes in to do an intervention---shades of addiction therapy---and for the horror and amusement of folks all over the country, makes snarky comments.

It probably is an addiction, and like all addiction, is a way of calming a fear--we call them anxiety, since they are not based on anything that anyone else can identify as real.  Addiction is just a nonfunctional coping mechanism.  We use them to feel better, but the end result is we don't actually do better, and they can kill us.
Being humiliated on TV is probably not the answer.

Because of the hype hoarders have gotten, every magazine and many TV shows are directed at thinning the accumulation.  Pronouncements of "don't keep anything you haven't used in 6 months"  and "if you have more than one of those throw it out" are the kinds of advice that are shared.  I'm not sure why no one ever says "stop buying all that crap".   Shoppers that shop for bargains weekly, buying things they already have, buying things they might someday need, buying to feel the void.  It is just as bad as hoarding, but apparently throwing your excess out is socially acceptable, or maybe it just doesn't sell ads the way the sellers would like.
I am not a hoarder. I hate to shop.  But if I find something that looks like a future art project, I'll probably get it and it will probably not be used in 6 months.  I currently have several boxes of depression-era fabric scraps for quilting, but I don't quilt 24/7.  I quilt when I feel like it.  I also have a roll of art canvas that I have been working on for several years.  I haven't made a new canvas in 2 years because I keep reworking the same stinking one.  Sometimes its just like that.  I have a stamp collection left from childhood, are all stamp collectors hoarders?  I realize that the need to obtain, examine, categorize and store a group of things can be seen as pretty odd.
But is it wrong?
Do they need an intervention?
If a person gains something from their collecting or making that calms them, grounds them, focuses them--is that an illness or is that a tool?
I have no answers, but do know that reality TV was made for the lowest type of entertainment.  If all that makes a person feel good about themselves is to be able to watch someone else be publicly humiliated for not fitting into the mold of the average, they might be more in need of help than the person spending their time stacking magazines around the wall or folding aluminum foil.
If you need to feel better, volunteer.
There are a milllion places to volunteer.  Hospices need volunteers for those of you that feel the need to help the dying and their families; and museums need volunteers for those of you that like to share in the amazing arts and science experiences that both children and adults can learn from and love. There are clean-ups of the environment to help the earth, animal shelters for animal lovers, construction and repair projects that fulfill that need to work with your hands.
There is story reading at libraries, schools need volunteers to present special collections and stories about the past.
There are a million things that are better than watching hoarders on TV.
And if you know a hoarder personally, see if they want to volunteer with you.  That might be a more useful coping mechanism for them. 
Maybe we can stop some of crap from accumulating unnecessarily in the landfills and on the TV line-up.