the little people

I once was told by an Osage man to "never mention the little people".   Just talking about them would let them find you and that was very bad.  A Cherokee woman of pretty tough stuff told me that there was  a place in Osage County that the "little people" frequented.  She didn't go there but she was not afraid to tell me what she knew.  Neither person considered them to be a good thing.

A family I knew that was 3rd generation from Ireland was not that skittish about them, but implied that they were not cute little elves and pixies--that was Victorian-era donkey dung.

I once read that in the middle ages, land of feudal kings and bubonic plague, the merchants and landowner and nobility called the serfs and slaves and servants and farmers the "little people" and they rarely spoke of them either.

Those little people left us little about the details of their lives--perhaps if they had not been over-worked, malnourished, and illiterate they might have shared a diary or two.

The idea that over half the population of the time was considered nothing more than disposable labor horrifies me.  And being good at genealogy and capable of admitting that I am not the forgotten remnant of some royal family, I am fully aware that those people, those little people, those little, disposable, never spoken of except as extras in the theater of some important person's life drama, people, are my people.

We still have little people.  They are poor and powerless.  They are given a free education that we have known is not effective for 50% of the students since we first started following statistics.  They are given the opportunity to find a job that will barely pay for a place to live and unhealthy food in an area in which they will be surrounded with other little people that can barely pay their bills.  They will be victimized by those that just keep hunting for a way to make enough money to get out of there (we call those "get rich quick" schemes, and call the perpetrators predators, but they are really just more little people that are flailing about trying to figure out how to be the star of their own life drama instead of an extra till they die.)

What does it mean to be a little person?  Well most can write now, though not necessarily well. And while slavery was ended by an amendment--one with a huge hole in it for those that have committed a crime--hence forced labor for convicts is not an infringement on their rights as the constitution stands now--but how does one without money live free.

You can't live off the land unless you own land and have the money to pay the property taxes.  A person who tries to live unimpaired by their own lack of cash is either a squatter or homeless.  Camping on park land or federal land without having paid and received permission is not acceptable.  You will be removed.  You will be subject to fines or imprisonment.

So instead we have debt-slaves.  People that want the "good-life", that have bought the American Dream;  that believe all those sitcoms with middle class people living in 4000 square feet houses while working as a laborer, or a low-level white collar worker while supporting a spouse and 10 kids that have every hot toy and all the latest fashion accessories.  They believe that we are all equally able to go from struggling to feed ourselves to living in a mansion with just a little hard work and perseverance.

They believe, shoot, I believe--it's what keeps me going-- there is some hope that the payday to payday juggling act and always looking for the best sale and never wasting money on fads and fun will eventually end.  And it will, because eventually we all die.

I heard that Capitalism was actually not the way of things until starting in the mid 1700's.  Before that, we little people were working for the rich.  We were at their mercy.  They decided what we got.  They decided when and if we had free time or could marry or could move somewhere else or change careers.  The rich,  the landowners and nobility, they already owned everything and the little people were like their personal army of laborers, and craftsmen and personal servants.  In the bigger cities, there were those that led less slave-like positions, frequently as beggars or working for the town as removers of the dead, rag pickers, junk collectors, handyman or baker's helper or what ever could be found working for one of the merchants.  The merchant class was neither as respected nor as wealthy as the landowners, but trade was becoming more important for those items desired that couldn't be grown or made by the local little people.

And capitalism begins.

So no, we weren't better before it.  But there is no reason to think that the acquisition of money is the best we humans can do.

The inclusions in our government's basic tenets about equality and opportunity are a sign that better things were desired.

The fact that 200 years after they were first mentioned we still haven't gotten past a division of the important people and the little people just shows how hard it is to make real progress as long those in power fear only being equal.

A teacher once told me the problem with egalitarianism was that while the bottom rises, the top drops down.  We would no longer have people with 60 summer homes or garages for their 50 collector cars.
And we would no longer have people dying of preventable illness while sleeping in a cardboard box.  Apparently having too much is much more important than millions of people with too little.

Money needs to quit being the scorecard for successful living.

We are all just people.  All the same size.  All the same importance.

We little people are not really scary.

Dear Donald

I guess I should write this, as the election is coming round the final bend and fair is fair.

I am not a fan; not of reality TV shows and not of glitzy hotel casinos.

I am not the person that purchases a steak or a bottle of wine or a perfume because it bears the name of a famous person.

I hate branding, bumpersticker slogans, commercials aimed at making poor people feel richer so they spend too much for their whistle, and people being mean and nasty to prove they are rich and powerful.

And your campaign, your "say something at the beginning of a speech and change directions and deny you ever said it at the end of the speech" history changing, your insults that mimic the most simple-minded and hatefilled among us--I can see the country if you become president.

All those people that have tried to rein in their ugliness and hatefulness and meanness suddenly empowered to grab women's genitals and shoot homeless people and push people of color.  All those bullies that were barely maintaining jobs and lawfulness and families suddenly emboldened to let that selfish, egotistical and violent teenager back into control.

We will have a police state.

We will have violent riots instead of peaceful demonstrations.

We will have foreign journalists writing nightmare stories about where the USA has devolved to and our allies and enemies upping their surveillance so they can be ready when you pull out the nuclear codes over some little country insulting your hair or manhood.

You have gone bankrupt repeatedly and some of our citizens--the same ones that bought the patriotic "we are great" story that was pumped into us through the public schools for the last century--decided that what we need is a successful businessman.  In that case--where is Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Paul Zuckerberg.  Shoot--where is Oprah Winfrey?  She has a real Rags to Riches story.  Her daddy never loaned her any millions to start and lose a few times.

A part of me has thought your whole campaign was a lark.  You just being you, sh...ts and giggles.  But then you didn't just throw a kink in the Republican Primary--you won!  Who knew so many Republicans were so tired of their obstructionist, angry-faced, conservative, money-focused, "do it like we always did it" cronies.

A part of me thinks you also got a lot of people to the polls that don't usually vote.  The people with attention spans to short for sentences with more than 5 words.  The people that only read the headlines of a news article, the folks that thought every TV station but FOX was lying to them.

I know a lot of women that plan to vote for you. (Some of us women find that shocking and confusing.)  They are women that excuse rapists with "boys will be boys" and think government corruption is the cost of getting things done.  They also watched your TV show and have dreamed of a night in a sparkling, overly glamorous casino hotel with free drinks with umbrellas and a round bed in satin sounds sooooooo romantic.

Truthfully, most of the folks that want you, want to be you---they want to be rich.  They want to be famous.  They want to be able to say anything and do anything and be untouchable because of all their money.  And somehow, they think, if you are president----that is going to be possible.

So tell us Donald, are you going to give everyone that votes for you a million dollar loan so they can get rich also?

I didn't think so, even you don't have enough money to buy an election at that price.

Fortunately for you,  most of your voters don't realize that.  Math is not taught in headlines and 5 word sentences.  And those that can read and think and seem rather successful and together?

Well, we all buy our hope differently.  We hide from the truth that is sitting in our faces when it lets us be happier.  We pretend to things, like everyone is being treated well and fairly and no one has anything to gripe about that is out of their personal control.

We like our fictions that help us accept injustice, inequality, poverty, hopelessness, and evil as "not really that bad" or "they could have avoided that if they just followed the rules".  We prefer to blame the victims.  We want our institutions unsullied.

We have mostly earned you, Donald, as president.

Please don't blow us all up.

lesser of two evils

As we get closer to the actual election of our next president, the news stories get more horrifying and the Facebook posts become more insane.  There are women of Mexican heritage touting Donald Trump with dire warnings about Clinton.  There are black men totally invested in Clinton while ignoring that the last Clinton presidency started this amazing new race-to-the-top with incarcerating black men for minor drug charges--I must admit, it took the wind right out of the sails of the drive-by's in our town, but now we have a militarized Police force using profiling and stop and frisk as an excuse to harass people of color--especially if they are large and dark, if they are surly or could be high, you can shoot them.
We have Wiki-leaks--showing up a little at a time so that no one knows what to do with the information.  And do we know where it came from?  Do we know if it is altered?  Is anyone checking and reporting back to us?
A random study (or poll, or questionaire or imaginary dream re-creation announced that our paid bureaucrats in positions of power think we are not smart enough to know what is good for us--the government needs to just tell us what to do.  Our female candidate makes the point that Lincoln spoke out of both sides of his mouth to get rid of slavery, My granddaughter has pointed out--repeatedly--that by fifth grade, she has learned about the pilgrims 6 times, complete with how they dressed and how they ate turkey and dressing and cranberries and pumpkin pie and had the meal with the Native Americans, but has never got that that they survived to that meal due to assistance from the Native Americans.  (Forget most of the rest of that lesson--the clothes and food are not accurate and they never discussed when this meal occurred or how many years went by before anyone found a need to commemorate it or if it really happened at all.  This year they added the story of Pocahontas.  At least she learned she married John Rolf and not John Smith.  It is like history is by Disney anymore and has no actual purpose.

It does make the nonspecific study results in which our bureacrats need to tell us what to do, more likely.

But back to the topic at hand--an election between two candidates that are seen as evil, choose which one is the lesser evil.  (what I don't understand is why so few people get that there are other candidates and with media attention and their votes, they are as viable as those 2 evils.)
So lets look at some other "lesser of two evil" choices:

• would you rather be bitten by a rattlesnake or a copperhead?
• would you rather eat dog crap or cat crap
• would you rather be murdered by a knife or a gun
• would you rather be falsely accused/ then framed for rape or for murder
• would you rather live in a single room with no windows, doors or light, or a glass room that is constantly bright as day.

I could go one, but by now, most of you are thinking, I wouldn't want either one, I can avoid a snakebite (in truth, most of the snake bites I've seen were to the hands of drunken young men that decided to pick them up on a dare).
I'm not eating crap, try to make me and I'll fight you.
I try to avoid being murdered--by anything--and have no intention of going softly into that....blah, blah, blah,
I hope not to have anyone try to accuse and/or frame me, but certainly should never be expected to choose one.
and the last--who cares, sounds horrible, and only a madman/woman would cause me to have to choose either one.

In other words--we humans do not have to choose the lesser of two evils.  We don't have to.  We can find other options and if someone or something tries to force us to choose--we can fight, we can even go so far as to fight for our lives, so why should we go to the polls and "choose the lesser of two evils"
 I think perhaps this election cycle is a sign of bad times coming.  I think maybe we Americans, that  are so quick to spout off about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and "living free or dying free" and "government by the people and for the people" are going to have to stop our infernal self-absorption; our non-stop focus on buying the latest craze and being entertained and making our kids feel happy-happy-joy-joy all the time, and try to find an actual way to get our country on track.  I'm not a "let's get back to how it used to be" kind of person.  It needs to be a country for all its inhabitants and we all need to wake up and think, empathize, look at our current lives and make some decisions about what it means to be a member of this society.

We can keep thinking in bumper stickers--"make America Great again", "we are number 1" "America, love it or leave it"---none of those mean anything because they are slogans, not plans, not goals, and not truths.  We aren't number 1 in anything we should brag about.  We were never great to everyone.  And if it keeps going like it's going, most won't love it and no other country is going to welcome our refugees anymore than they are those of Africa or South America.  Wake up.

Because, truly, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
No one should have to vote for evil.
We can do better than that.

 

We daugters of Eve.

When I was little, I remember the discussions of 2 piece swim suits and---god-forbid--the bikini.

We were definitely going to hell in a hand basket.

Woman showing their bodies, flaunting them even, no modesty...what man would want such a woman.  Might as well marry a prostitute.

Then the sixty's hit full blown, with nudity on beaches, free love, drugs/sex/and rock and roll.

Doomed, definitely doomed---at least we women were.

These days there are places making it unlawful to wear a burkini--which is similar to a swimsuit from Victorian England. If their religion won't let them dress like the rest of us--what is wrong with their religion.  What kind of modern woman would allow a religion to tell them how to dress and act.

If you stand around any water cooler or sit in any work breakroom, you will hear gossip about coworkers.  If the workplace is both genders, it might get raunchy.  If it is mostly women, it will get judgemental.

Sally's hair makes her look older and Alfrieda is putting on weight, but the big one is always about sex, sex and men, sex and women, too much sex, not enough sex, needing sex, or their daughter's sex lives or their mother's sex  lives and on and on.  And it is never complimentary.  And they are more judgemental about that than men.

Women expect other women to act like a proper woman.  I have heard 60 year old women refer to themselves as "good girls" and have heard 30 year old women referred to as sluts because they are single and go clubbing on weekends.  We talk about each other as if how to be a proper woman is a very specific thing with very specific rules.

We women want our women to be independent, but married.   We want our women to be fashionable but not too sexy.  We want our women to be ambitious and to always have a clean house and take good care of the kids.  And we want every woman to want children.

A woman that accepts a faith that places her in a submissive role is not acceptable, although a good christian woman accepts her place.  A woman that has children without ever marrying can never be accepted into the group of permanent "good girls" although if that same woman marries later its like that never happened.  Some of the strongest women I have ever met raised families alone and never married. 

And woman that are overweight but never talk about dieting, that wear their hair in an easy to care for pony tail or cut short---hopeless.  Did they wax.  Do their hands look too big or to work-worn.  Is there make-up polished.  Is it too heavy?  Is too little?

No one is safe from the judging until they are dying, and then only if their lifestyle couldn't possibly have caused the illness.

I have been told that women caused original sin.  That we are the weaker sex because of this.  That we need protected and need pampered and need guidance and need firm rules of conduct.  I have been told our shallowness is hormonal or in the DNA or is a result of our inborn role as mothers.

Yet every day I see women that are hunters, marksmen, athletes, CEO's, criminals, terrible mothers, great spiritual leaders, and on and on, like a list of every possible job and role a human can have.

Why do we try so hard to define women.  Why do we try to put them into a box that meets our standards.  Why do women do that to each other?  Why?  Why?  Why?

And why do we worry so much about how women dress and what they look like and what set of sexual mores they live by.

There is so much more to being a woman than how a woman looks.

There is so much more to being a woman than her sexual functions.

Maybe we need to stop being the foot on the head of the women around us.  If our partner is like that, we do not have to agree with him (or her).  If our religion is like that, we do not have to participate in that part of the religion.  If our coworkers can find no other way to feel better about themselves; if our relatives can't stop being that judgemental person, we do not have to join in.

We are all women, just women.  And there is no one way to be that.

Being a woman is just being a person.  That is a journey that is hard enough without a bunch of silly superficial and arbitrary rules.

If wishes were horses...

I was an idealistic child.  I expected a fair world.  I expected, in order of strength of expectation, a fair government, fair police, a fair school principal, a fair teacher, fair parents, fair friends and last--and probably least--a fair sibling.

Since I expected all this fairness, I was frequently disappointed and occasionally just plain mad.

I was also a wishy-washy child, not prone to confrontation (except with little sister) and always trying to be what I saw as nice--lady-like, even.  Because of that, I may have started a few too many of my complaints about the sad state of the planet with the words "I wish..."

As in,  "I wish that Mrs. Teacher didn't treat Lulu worse than Joseph just because she doesn't like her mother."  Or  "I wish we could all afford to go to summer camp"  or even  "I wish that the coaches didn't treat kids in glasses like they were hopeless at softball, they like to play too"  I may have been a whiner, and some of those things directly affected me, but some of them didn't.  I really did want a fairer world.

My mother's response was also, frequently, "If wishes were horses then beggars would ride."

She said that to me quite a lot.  More than the familiar "who said the world was fair".  Much more than "God works in mysterious ways" although I was prone to wishing God was fair also, so she may have given up on that one.

I am still pretty idealistic.  I still wish the world was fair.

I have figured out that with some truly awful things---perhaps God's mysterious ways are the cause, such as childhood cancer and tornado's sucking whole families into the sky and auto driver's having heart attacks and killing themselves and a van full of red cross workers--those I have to leave alone.  If I thought about those too much, I might become incapable of carrying on.

But other things?  There are a lot of things we could make fairer; systems we control and untruths that we agree to call true and plainly preventable ugliness.

I wish we could make it easier for everyone to get enough to eat.  And make it easier to get healthy food--no more food deserts in poor neighborhoods.   The government pays farmers to destroy excess food that would drive down prices and groceries and restaurants routinely throw out food that is completely edible just not purchased.  Some of them pour bleach on it in the dumpster to prevent anyone from eating that food safely since they didn't pay for it.

I wish we could get rid of poor neighborhoods--not by gentrification but income equilibration.  I remember a long boring car ride with parents in which I questioned why garbage collecting paid less than accounting.  Sitting behind a desk in clean clothes sounded much more pleasant than riding on a garbage truck in heat and rain and cold, and the smell could not be good.  The discussion about how the accountant had gone to college and the garbage collector had not, and that made his time more valuable became an argument about everyone's time being valuable, life was too short, and it made no sense to pay someone more for a more comfortable job.  I argued that maybe we should all get the same amount for our time since we all got a set amount of it and none of us knew how much that might be and "I wish jobs were fair"  ended with a "shush, you sound like a communist".

I wish every little nerd child  (we know who we were, and only want to learn more) and every older child and adult that found they had a passion to learn how to do something new had access to the education they needed to do that.  Not just college degrees but also skills and the arts.  I know many people that have piled up student loan debt--and not on the thing they are passionate about, but for a degree that someone talked them into because they could get a job, or a better job, or a good paying job, but not the job they really wanted and loved.  We don't really send people out to explore their options and we definitely don't encourage our children to find what they love.   We don't send our children in pursuit of their dreams, but of money--artistic children are encouraged to learn something saleable, hire-able, to make a better living.  Athletic children are encouraged to become professionals in a field that is so competitive and cutthroat that it eats their childhood then leaves them rudderless when they stop growing short of the body requirements expected in that world or get injured before they make any money.  And then there are those families that no member has ever had the ability to get an education.  Families in which they lose their dreams and hopes because reality calls for them to help earn money to feed the rest of the family long before they should have such pressure put on them.  If we stacked a single sheet of paper  for each person that wanted an education  but couldn't get  the one they dreamed of because of money or status or time requirements or responsibilities, it would be a terrifyingly high mountain.  But remember, at one time, there was no public education system, only rich children were educated to read and write.  There is no reason that our nation couldn't value education above weapons and make education free for those that wanted it.

I wish Walmart was a profit-sharing company.  That every employee shared in the profits at a rate of 50% divided quarterly with the employees and 50% with shareholders--which includes our own richest family.  And the profit sharing needs to be even, from lowest paid to highest--none of this million to the top and 10$ to the bottom.  Greed is ugly, we need to start valuing every person's time fairly.   (and the Walton' and the other shareholders would still get plenty--they didn't spend any time working, just bought some stocks)

We could all make at least a living wage doing whatever we chose as our life work.

We could all receive preventative healthcare--real preventative care--education heavy, exercise heavy, nutrition-heavy preventative healthcare, emotional coping mental healthcare--not just the insurance-will-pay-for-these-immunizations-and-these-screening-exams at these ages.  These days, healthcare is all about what can the healthcare provider get money from and not at all about improving the quality of life of the patient.  (The very name "patient"  implies a dependent, passive, and unimportant person.)

We could all receive basic financial and economic lifeskills starting in childhood.  Right now, public school is all about 1. following directions, 2. basic reading for comprehension, 3. writing for basic form-filling out, 4. Math for basic low-level work.  It teaches little regarding emotional health, caring for our selves, finding what we love doing or what we do best.  We could be aiming for helping each child reach their full potential.  Instead, except for those rare savants and the children blessed with a private education in an amazing school--the goal is to create minimally skilled, compliant, followers capable of low-level labor and office jobs.

It's not fair.

And the justice system--that is also not fair--which really sucks, since justice is supposed to be all about fairness.

I wish that people that have served their time were not pariahs afterward, relegating them to recidivism due to inability to become anything else.  Prison should not be for profit.  They should be able to get an education, psychological assistance, chemical dependency assistance, and learn skills beyond the current slave labor they provide to big corporations to make those companies have a higher profit.  Yes, they committed a crime, but if we are going to sentence every person that commits a crime to a death sentence of hopelessness and continued failure, maybe we should just decide that is who we are as a nation and kill them at entry.

 Our justice system is flawed, we have 2 adversarial teams, the prosecution and the defense.  The prosecution team includes law enforcement and the defense team frequently only includes a single unpaid and minimally experienced lawyer and both of their goals is to win.  It is not at all about truth.  It has nothing to do with justice or fairness or making the world a safer place.  And no one cares if the law that makes something a crime is fair or just or even sensible.  Our justice system has become a meat grinder that we put people into and what comes out in the end is broken lives and tears.

I wish that corporations were not controlling our government.  I wish the people running for office were not being paid for by those corporations.  I wish that the current voting system was clean and fair and unable to be hacked or twisted or bought.  Unfortunately, there is no actual oversight.  Every state is over their own.  Imagine if we all voted, 1 person 1 vote, and every person's vote counted equally.  Not this-electoral stuff.  No gerrymandering for party affiliation.  No closing of polling places or employers not letting people off get to the poll or refusing any ID's that are likely to be hard for a certain group of people to get.  Every person has a vote--and it counts.  That should not be hard.

I wish that life was fair: that the systems created by our government were fair, that the way we choose who represents us in our government were fair, that the way we decide who gets to be happy and who only gets to yearn for a chance at happiness was fair.

In my world--we all get to ride. It's only fair.

The path we took leads here.

"Guns don't kill people, people do,"
 We have all heard it, and many more.  Pro-gun is as American as rodeo's and college football. 

The gun issue has its own amendment--the second.
The first is 

"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 petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 

The second is

"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."

Interestingly, the amendment never mentions guns or firearms specifically.  They could be bearing anything from pocket knives, pitchforks, beany-flips, hunting rifles, muskets, slingshots, hand grenades or dirty bombs.  Arms is vague, and back when this was written, most people didn't even own a firearm and the usual firearm was a single shot packed just before taking a shot.  Soldiers used bayonets and tomahawks more frequently.  Less than 15% of the population owned guns at that time.

The purpose of the amendment was more to prevent the rise of a fascist government or the invasion by another country than to put firearms in the hands of every man, woman and child.

A well-regulated militia--the part that never makes it on the bumperstickers--implies the militia is-well---regulated.  It's organized.  Its members are known and some sort of training occurred.  The National Guard comes to mind, or a reserve.

In the late 80's there were a lot of militias.  They were not well regulated--as the capital of my home state can attest.  Everyone had a relative in a militia back then.  And while stories of black helicopters and groups building bunkers is now comedically portrayed in movies, there was a lot of fear--both of the government and of the militias.  The members spoke in NRA bumper sticker and wore camo to Walmart and bought lots of ammo and beef jerky and bottled water.  I was invited more than once to join one, presented like they needed Sarah Connors type females to fight for a free future, but with paper pamphlets with illustrations that combined the art of 1950's Betty Crocker and the appeal of Phyllis Schafly.  If their war had happened, I would have been shot right after the militia won.

This time was definitely when the NRA's message started overwhelming our history.  From 1620 to 1836, those guns made in the America were constructed one at a time by a gunsmith.  They were as good as that gunsmith, and not cheap.  Every little laborer was not packing heat.

Samuel Colt was first to mass-produce a revolver which was patented in 1836.   Guns aren't hooked to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  They are hooked to the Industrial Age.  If a good gunsmith could live a comfortable life making good guns one at a time--the owner of a gun factory could make himself into a tycoon.

http://business.time.com/2012/12/18/americas-gun-economy-by-the-numbers/

 The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) was founded in Virginia in 1871.

In 1975, the NRA-ILA, the lobbying arm of the NRA was started.  It is now one of, if not the most powerful lobby affecting our government. 

But politics alone did not create our gun-heavy, violence prone situation.  After reconstruction, we continued to move West, and we continued to find ways to make large quantities of things more cheaply through improved technology.  Things like 10 cent western novels and true crime novels--and America loved the gunslinger books.

When silent movies started, those same subjects, high drama, high violence--frequently called "shoot-em ups" were the rage------and still are.

It is estimated that 47% of U.S. households own guns.

Over 5 million U.S. citizens are members of the NRA.

Over 13.5 billion dollars revenue from guns and ammunition in U.S. in one year.

Over 229 billion dollars spent on the effects of gun violence in a year.

There are over 310 million firearms estimated to be in this country but less than 150,000 currently registered.

 http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/02/americas-gun-business-by-the-numbers.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/upshot/compare-these-gun-death-rates-the-us-is-in-a-different-world.html?_r=0

So, we went from less than 15% gun ownership when we built this country and its 2nd amendment to 47% gun ownership after we let the NRA lobby our lawmakers so heavily starting in 1975.

But the NRA is not the only For-profit fear monger with the ear of our lawmakers.

http://time.com/3984453/defense-contractors-lobbying/

Military contractors (53 different ones) spend millions on lobbying for increasing our budget toward defense spending despite the USA spending nearly 3x the amount of the next big spender (China) and more than all the others combined.

We cut social programs and tighten our belts to buy more weapons to store--or, god-forbid--use.  We could easily destroy the human life on this planet several times over without making another thing, but he need to keep building and stockpiling because the profit is in the making.

In 2012, I heard a podcast about "lonesome George", a 102 year old Galapagos Turtle, and the last of his subspecies.  It was one of the saddest stories I had heard, but not because of what they said or how they said it.  Empathy kicked in, and I realized that we humans WILL eventually have our own "Lonesome George".

Right now, it's hard to envision except on TV.  We have swarmed over the surface of the planet, sucking up resources, creating trash, fouling water both over and under the land.  We destroy other species for parlor decorations, facebook posts and fashion statements.  Our leaders are so far from where most of us live our lives that the 98% of us that are flailing about trying to survive and find our purpose are in a continuous low-level state of anxiety because of our own powerlessness and feared worthlessness.

We take our food money to buy guns, then use our guns to take money to buy food PLUS those highly advertised things that will prove we aren't worthless.

We drink and get high to mask that anxiety.

We search for hope--at church, at shrink, at retreat--where we can find something to take away that sourceless fear.

Or we watch a good thriller,  read a shoot'em up, do some target practice.

Because, what is a gun if not a symbol of power.  With power we are safe.

At least Lonesome George was not the author of his species demise.

Alas--that was us humans, also.

Don't shoot anyone.

Sitting on the porch

When I was a child, we regularly visited my parents friends that lived in an old bungalow on a basement apartment.  There was a porch and a porch swing and you could see the river while swinging.  I don’t remember an adult sitting in the swing, and was told to get off regularly, but always ended back on the swing, perhaps a sign of a 4 year old’s mind.  I loved that porch although I’m guessing that swing was 1 step from falling apart.

My grandmother had a porch that was enclosed, with strange windows that dropped into the lower wall and then were raised in winter using cords in the frame.  There was a manual water pump on the front porch that worked for quite a while after its need was gone, much to the joy of grandchildren and the chagrin of the person cleaning up the water we periodically dumped on the floor.  It eventually lost its function, the rubber apparently retired. 
There was no swing, but there was a rocking chair and it was a favorite place when visiting, or when reading or when just staring down at the fields across the road.  It was also a great place for snapping beans and shelling peas and removing cherry pits.

I now have a porch because those other porches convinced me of the importance of a porch for my soul’s comfort and delight.  It is a place of great greenness and color and light in the summer and wonderful breezes and smells in spring and crisp fall leaves and evening warmth.  And in winter, it provides a bit of comfort to stray cats and other creatures that don’t have the ability to hibernate.

Most houses now have a porch, although it is frequently not big enough for more than a tiny chair.  I don’t see many people setting on them.  Perhaps it is the speed we live our lives a that prevents this meditative practice.  Or maybe sitting there, where neighbors might walk by and wave…or not wave is too indicative of the disconnection people have from the people closest too them geographically.  Or maybe it’s the way the new porches are made, small, neat, architecturally pleasing but without a place to scribble with chalk or plant seeds in spring or lay yard tools when tired.  Our houses are so perfect these days, so without personality, so serious, and soulless.

Years ago, my first house had a single tiny bathroom.  The house had been splendidly decorated in late disco sparkle.  It was a perfectly coiffed little thing—except for a blue plastic radio toilet paper holder. 

I hated that toilet paper holder, but buying the little house made me unerringly broke for several years so it continued to serve its purpose valiantly.

On day, a friend told me that he loved that radio—that houses should not be so serious and homeowners should understand that they were a place to live, not a museum.  Wisest thing he ever said to me.

So while my neighbors decorate a chair that will never be sat on in honor of Halloween, while they spend every spare moment mowing and trimming and pulling—removing trees that make it harder to mow that perfect football field of grass, while they cover themselves in sunscreen and bug repellant and wear huge hats and face masks while pruning and weeding and spraying, I sit on the porch, rocking, reading, listening to the sounds of windchimes and bird calls and wind streaming through leaves and feel---happy?  Safe?  Relaxed?

I guess I just feel at home.

Just me and the weeds and bugs and little varmints that share this space—we are all at home.

At home on the earth, part of earth, sharing a little peace and contentment in that one point in space and time.

I highly recommend a porch.

anthropomorphized

I have been accused of anthropomorphizing pets, trees, dolls, toys, wild animals, stuffed animals and food sources.  It is always stated as if I am silly and ridiculous but sweet, and probably crazy.

The way I understand this fine word, is that we silly folk are giving animals, etc,etc, human traits, feelings, beliefs, needs, thoughts and behaviors that they can't possibly have because they are not human. (Circular, isn't it)

I get what they are saying.  I understand that I can't read the mind of a goat.  But I do know that those naturalists (not the naked ones) that watch a species for a long time, frequently find behaviors that seem  both caring and meaningful.  There seem to be attachments to other individuals.  There seems to be education of their young, and protection of their young and...playing.

But I'm probably just anthropomorphizing.

The real question is, did we anthropomorphize ourselves?

Have we been separating ourselves  from other species based on facts, or wishful thinking, or did we just make it up from whole cloth to explain why our destructiveness, selfishness and greed is not a problem--we deserve to act like that---because we aren't animals, we are human.  At one time, we even argued about whether women were human vs just anthropomorphized, or the actual possibility that other races were human--and too many argued against on that one also.

We use language to separate ourselves from others, but we don't all speak one language or even all speak with our mouths and tongues.  And some of our language skills are pretty rudimentary.  So perhaps what we do is communicate--only every species communicates, even plants.

We use our problem-solving abilities as proof of our humanness, while calling beaver dams and chimp tools and wasp nests instinct.  (are we also using instinct, but too arrogant to admit the possibility?)

We say only we can remember the past-but recent internet videos document animals reuniting after years and obviously recognizing each other and seeming excited, even joyful to see each other.

We can empathize, (use that seldom enough) but every depressed person with a pet knows the comfort of their furry or feathered friend becoming more emotionally demonstrative at that time.

We claim we are heroic, self-sacrificing, altruistic, but truly, has anyone NOT heard of an animal giving its life to save another?

And Mourning?  Mourning seems universal, though they seem better at moving on unless their loss was the last one in their family--no matter what species.  Nothing sadder than a spouse dying within the year their mate dies, if not, perhaps the dog or cat or swan that suddenly is alone and can't move on--at least not on this plane,  is at least as significant a sign of mourning a terrible loss.

Perhaps we need to quit trying so hard to separate the human species from the rest of life.  Wouldn't we all be better off if we found a new word to describe those traits that make us all better--make all life better, make all species better?

So many words to describe our best selves; loving, kind, compassionate, caring, open, honest, thoughtful, capable, joyful, purposeful, meaningful, curious, empathetic, determined, energetic, excited, happy, sad, mournful, comforting, comfortable, demonstrative, heroic, self-sacrificing, relaxed, sleepy, beautiful, soulful, and on and on and on.

And all of those words we feel---and all of them describe other forms of life.

So do we need to lose the word "anthropomorphize".

Should we maybe just accept we are alive and full of meaning and purpose because we are alive.

Is life what makes us special?

Is that the only word we need?

Stereotypical Thinking.

If you consider yourself to be smart or thoughtful or a free-thinker, you might have noticed the canned responses that occur frequently in some situations.
Take--the burqa or burka or--spell it how you will--the western response is usually a put-down of the women wearing it because they are "being controlled by men", "giving away their power as women" "not liberated" etc, etc,.
If those same women were walking down the same street in bikini's, they would be called "sluts", "exhibitionists" " only interested in the attention of men" and "superficial".
The problem is not the women, whether veiled from head to toe or naked as a jaybird in time square.
The problem is the way we humans like to judge each other based on as few facts as possible.
Judgement, while necessary to survival can be overused.
Not every situation, person, idea or thought requires us to make a judgement--and as night follows day--pronounce sentence.
For one thing, if personal choice is actually considered a good thing, what anyone else thinks about that choice is totally unconcerning.
Blue hair, sleeve tattoos, primer-only cars, wild prairie lawns, tomatoes in the rose garden--choice--if you don't care for it, don't do it.  And shut-up about how unnatural, gaudy, low-class, undignified, or unsophisticated they are.
There really is more than one way to skin a cat (don't even look at my cats with this in mind)

We were all raised to learn the difference between right and wrong.  My mother was the first to tell you there is a right way and a wrong way to do everything.  How to boil an egg, how to sew a hem, how to frost a cake, how to plant corn---and fashion?  No white shoes after labor day.  No cowboy boots with dresses.  No jeans at church.  No bra straps showing---ever, ever, ever.  Always wear socks or if over 12, always wear hose.  Never put black and brown together.  Red and pink clash.  Match the color of metal of your jewelry.  Match the color of your shoes and purse.

My father was more of a no rules man.  He solved the fashion dilemma by just wearing nothing but work uniforms--to everything.  In the world of right way and wrong way, that was wrong.  And he was ok with that.  But if something was broken--he could fix it, though often not in my mother's "right" way.

I think, maybe the right and wrong we need to worry about is whether our action actually took something away from someone else.  Taking from another--whether their life or their time or their belonging or their opportunity is harm.  No harming for personal gain.      (That covers my right and wrong rather well.)

Most of the judgements we make about things come from stereotypical thinking.  That is easy thinking--dependent, not on actual reasons but upon truth by popular vote.

This type of thinking, with no objective research as given us such gems of knowledge as:

• Red heads have hot tempers.
• All blonde women are dumb.
• All red heads are sluts.
• Christians are homophobic. They are blinded by God and will recruit you if you go near them.
• All politicians are philanders and think only of personal gain and benefit.
• If I wear Goth clothing I'm a part of a rock band, depressed, or do drugs-but probably all three.
• Girls are only concerned about physical appearance.
• Guys are messy and unclean.
• Men who spend too much time on the computer or read are geeks.
• Men who are not into sports are 'gay.
• All librarians are women who are old, wear glasses, tie a high bun, and have a perpetual frown on their face.
• Girls are not good at sports.
• All teenagers are rebels.
• All children don't enjoy healthy food.
• Only anorexic women can become models.
• Women who smoke and drink do not have morals.
• Men who like pink are effeminate.
• All Blacks are great basketball players.
• All Asians are geniuses.
• All Indians are deeply spiritual.
• All Latinos dance well.
• All Whites are successful.
• Asians have high IQs. They are smarter than most in Math and Science. These people are more likely to succeed in school.
• African Americans can dance.
• All Canadians are exceptionally polite.
• French are romantic.
• All Asians know kung fu.
• All African American men are well endowed.
• Italians are good lovers.
• All Muslims are terrorists.
• All white people don't have rhythm.
• All Blacks are lazy.
• All Asians are sneaky.
• All Hispanics don't speak English very well or not at all.
• All Jewish people are greedy, selfish money hungry people.
• Caucasians can't dance.
• Russians are violent.
• All Americans are cowboys.
• All Italians are stylish and sophisticated. They are usually painters, sculptors or fashion designers.
• Germans are Nazis or fascists.
• All Asians are Chinese.
• All Asians speak Pidgin English.
• All Native Americans love to gamble.
• All Middle easterners hate America.
• All Italians are good cooks.
• The people of Netherlands are all promiscuous and drug addicts.
• All Italians are mobsters or have links to the mob.
• All white people are racist.
• Chinese will eat anything.
• All Asians are Communists.
• All Australians are bullies, racists, drinkers and constantly uses swear words. They are also portrayed as lazy and stupid morons.
• People from the Indian subcontinent are generally portrayed as shopkeepers and motel owners.
• All Egyptian women are belly dancers.
• The Japanese are engineering geniuses.
• All South Koreans are gaming nerds.
• Irish are alcoholics.
• All Hispanics are illegal aliens.
• All Indians and Chinese are cheap and live a frugal life.
• All Latinos are on welfare.
• In the US all South Koreans are stereotyped as dry cleaners.  
• All Mexicans as gardeners.
• Women always smell good.
• Women take forever to do anything.
• Women are more brilliant than men.
• Women are always moody.
• Women try to work out problems while men take immediate action.
• All women like the color pink.
• All women like dolls.
• Women become cheerleaders.
• Women take 2 hours to shower.
• Women hog the bathroom.
• Women love mirrors.
• Women like make-up.
• Women are fussy about their hair.
• Women work in department stores.
• Women like fashion magazines.
• Women are discrete about intimacy.
• Women do not drive well.
• Women never take chances.
• Women always talk too much on the phone.
• Women actually use only 5% of what's in their purse. Everything else is junk.
• Only women can be nurses.
• Only men can be doctors.
• Men are stronger and more aggressive.
• Men are better at sports.
• Men hate reading.
• Men always have an "I don't care" attitude.
• Men don't get grossed out by scrapes and bruises.
• Men are tough.
• Men are thickheaded.
• Men like cars.
• Men become jocks in high school.
• Men take 2 seconds to shower.
• Men like hats.
• Men could care less if they become bald.
• Men wear whatever is clean.
• Men usually work in messy places.
• Men like car or porn magazines.
• Men brag about intimacy.
• Men take too many chances.
• Men always lose all arguments against girls.
 
 If none of those offended you--I'm amazed.  If you have never heard any of them--these days most of us know "all" or "none" statements are usually false, but if you eliminate all or add most, well, I've heard many of statements used like the speaker had just pronounced truth.


Stereotypes are used most by those that think least.  Not people with actual neurological problems, but by those individuals who have spent a lifetime relying on their physical attractiveness, class standing or personal opinions spoken loudly with conviction to give them an audience of listeners if not followers.  


None of the above statements accurately describe any group of people-and any of those statements might describe individuals from any group.  
Stereotyping--some may call it profiling in the name of legitimizing what they do, has only one purpose--to categorize and label people.  The cultures of the world have a long history of this to identify us and them, "our tribe" and "other".  It was to protect ourselves and our children from people that might eat us or wear us or enslave us.


These days--its more about hierarchy and class-placement and keeping the underdog under.
The problem with using stereotypes is that is stops both the stereotyper and the stereotypee from actually having a meaningful relationship or even communicating.
Once you turn someone into a label--they stop being a person. 
They are no longer an individual with their own past full of memories both happy and sad.  
They are no longer an individual with hopes and dreams for their future or their family's future.
They become 2-dimensional--flat, cookie-cutters of their group members.
They become "them".
They become "other".
If this country is to survive, If this world of humans is to survive--we have to all become "US".


Namaste to all of us!




http://www.simplypsychology.org/katz-braly.html

How do we compare.

In the USA, with a population of 321,368,864 people (including men, women and children) we produce $55,854 per person.
In Russia, with 142,423,773 people, they produce $22,105 per person.
In China, with 1,367,485,388 people, they produce $14,179 per person.

In Finland with 5,476,922 people, they produce $41,081 per person.

For 2016, the Federal poverty guideline is an annual income of $24,300 for a family of four.  That is four people living at under 1/2 of the GDP per person--per ONE person.  (Yes, I get that kids don't produce, but they are part of the population, they eat, they wear clothes, and they get sick, so they don't live free---AND I included them in the $55,854 per person)
 The 2013 poverty rate (most recent data available) was 14.5%, down from 15% in 2012, and the first decline since 2006. However, it was still higher than the 12.5% living in poverty in 2007, before the recession. Nearly 1 in 5 children live in poverty (19.9%), while nearly 1 in 10 seniors do (9.5%) and that is WITH social security. (Source:U.S. Census, Highlights, Poverty Thresholds. The next report will be released in September 2016.)
That is at least 46 million people that are not sharing in the wealth of this countries production.
Russia has 16% of its population living below poverty level.
China has a 14.7% poverty rate.
 Finland, on the other-hand, while its per person product is less than the USA, has fewer than 5.6% of its population living below the poverty level.
In Norway--that number is even smaller.

We can no longer remind our children to eat their food because there "are starving children in china".  These days, we can merely threaten to move them to Detroit--with a 58% child poverty rate, or Tampa--with 32% of its children living below the poverty threshold.

Shoot, with 20% of our children living in poverty--there is a 1 in 5 chance they are already living there and wishing they had more food, not griping about their peanut butter sandwiches.

Of course we can always threaten them with worse conditions like Somalia or Syria, but the condition  across town or over the state border may also scare them into compliance.

If you are one of the lucky 4/5th of US children, there are worse places to be a child.

Half the world lives below the poverty level.  About 45% of children in the world live in poverty.  Thousands die day daily from starvation.

(That might include our 20%--but that only makes the news when they are found in a dog kennel in the garage).

Ok, if you only compare those amazing countries we like to consider ourselves #1 amongst, we were number 2 for child poverty rates.  Only Romania beat us with 23% child poverty.  Iceland was at the bottom with only slightly over 4%.

http://www.communitychange.org/page/study-ranks-us-second-highest-in-child-poverty-among-35-developed-countries/

So----you can threaten those ungrateful kids with Somalia.  (You can threaten me with Somalia--a country down in the horn of Africa that is slightly smaller than Texas.  It is a  country with drought, civil war, anarchy, terrorist splinter groups and pirates).  It has human trafficking, forced child labor, child soldiers, no birth control, no condoms so that HIV is endemic, it has no free education system--and few schools outside of urban areas.  And girls don't go to school.

And it's only the sixth poorest country in the world.

http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/world/poorest-countries-in-the-world/

What do most poor countries have in common?
  They have something a rich country wanted--and it isn't their residents as neighbors.

• natural resources like gold/diamonds/silver/waterways/ivory/furs/coffee/chocolate/spices/
• cheap labor/slaves
• land to get rid of their own criminals and poor and undesireables.

They also have civil unrest, unstable governments, recent wars on their lands, poor or no public education system, poor or no women's rights, endemic diseases that lower life expectancy drastically, corruption at all levels of government, criminal enterprises--usually involving human trafficking, endangered animal/animal product export, narcotics, etc.  Throw in a recent natural disaster--hurricane, earthquake, drought that they couldn't bounce back from--and you get the makings of a very bad place to live and a very good place to immigrate from.

Seventeen of the 20 poorest countries are in Africa.  There but for the grace of God go the America's and Australia. The other three--Afghanistan, Comoros and Haiti have similar issues.

But we in the USA have done an unfortunately great job of keeping the English Class system alive and well.

I've been reading

"White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America "

It's interesting, and my dive into genealogy definitely hinted at this--I'm fairly sure that those elite societies like the DAR weren't seeking the descendants of those that arrived as bond-servants or on penal ships.  

Those African nations that were held in thrall by European countries until the last half of the 20th century were left without education to function in the current world and little memory of how they functioned successfully 500 years before that.  And now, they are floundering, trying to survive in a time that is both complex and unforgiving.  And there are still people out there trying to use them for their natural resources and living resources--working with those people native to those places that have lost their souls in their search for power and riches.  AND there are rich and powerful people in each of those countries.

But what about the USA?  Why do we have the one of the highest per person GDP AND  one of the highest rates of poverty without putting "third world" in front of our nation?

Because we were settled by the same nations that created those third world nations.  We revolted and have had over 200 years to decide who we would be when we grew up.  

Apparently, we decided to follow in the footsteps of the motherland--feudal all the way.

Too bad we didn't learn from the people that were already here.
Too bad we didn't assimilate more than food from all those immigrants that brought their knowledge.
Too bad we didn't make a new and better government in which the words implied by the constitution were meant to reach everyone--everyone--all races, all religions, genders, ethnicities---the real meaning of "everyone".

Maybe it would be easier if we could convince all those delusional folks that are afraid we are going to fix the inequality right before they got theirs that they weren't ever going to get theirs until everyone could do better.  
After all, how many kids and their parents encourage their children to focus completely on sports, getting into an Ivy league college, compete in gymnastics, dance, sing, play an instrument, become a Doctor or Lawyer or Politician because they want them "rich".  Most children pushed hard in those directions don't make it to the top 1% or even above the position of their parents.  

Maybe we could work on narrowing the wealth divide; make it possible to be a successful plumber, kindergarten teacher, artist, office worker, food service worker, retail clerk and have time and money to enjoy our avocations like softball and piano or volunteering.  

Maybe we could all enjoy our lives like we are rich with opportunity and options, a little free time and a financial pad beyond food and rent.

It's not 1500 anymore---we can reshape the future so we all have a good life.

Omens and portents.

I have this continuous feeling of expectation these days.  Its not excitement so much as a lump in my throat just waiting to turn into mourning.  I feel like something bad is about to happen.

When my parents were in their last year on earth, a huge owl flew almost into my windshield while I was driving to see them.  Huge--like wings covering the entire windshield, at me, as in full frontal with me hitting the brakes just as it changed the pitch of its flight to miss hitting the car--missed colliding by less than 12 inches.
It was ominous.  My brain returned to that moment many times after that.  I don't know that I had ever seen an owl outside of a zoo until that night.

These days, that lump in the throat, mourning is coming, feeling is almost constant.

I feel it when another unarmed person is shot.
I feel it when a sniper is hunting police officers.
I feel it when our congress cares only for their party's concerns.
I feel it when the whole election process--from the rigging primaries to gerrymandering to voter ID laws make it obvious that most of us are not part of the political process--we have been systematically shut out.
I feel it when children are fed lead in their water via a crumbling infrastructure--while families (think fortune 400)  possess more wealth than countries like Bangladesh or Somalia or even Russia, and they are getting tax-breaks.
I feel it when glacier ice that has been continuously frozen for at least 30,000 years, thaws and causes landslides and outbreaks of anthrax and loss of animal habitat.
I feel it when a person running for president of a country with a lot of nuclear weapons asks "why can't we just nuke 'em".
I feel it when 1000 acres of trees burn and the animals that lived in those trees burned because someone threw their lit cigarette butt out of their car window because they didn't want to dirty their ashtray.
I feel it when 400 year old cities are destroyed by weather--for the first time.
I feel it when people driving  $30,000 cars complain about homeless people being given $30,000 houses to live in.
I feel it when young people go to prison for life for nonviolent crimes but wealthy people that hurt people are given community service and second and third chances.

Are all these things omens?  Do they portend our future?  Maybe.

A lot of people hope for the end of days.  They want to go to heaven.  They want peace and plenty.

How can people be so awful to each other, so greedy, so acquisitive at the expense of others--both human and nonhuman and then think that they want the world to end so they can live a better life.

Everyone needs to take their foot off the neck of whoever or whatever life form they see as less important than themselves and ask themselves "how are we alike".

I think that these people that hate everyone and everything that is not like them in appearance and belief are really delusional if think that hoping for the end so they can get their reward is ever going to take them to heaven.

If they want to live in a place of peace and plenty, they need to work toward that here.

Start with the golden rule--and consider the other species when you do.

Me--I'm already missing the bees.