Performance improvement is one of the many names given over to the process of figuring out that something needs to work better. There are a number of official-sounding methods for doing this---I personally like LEAN. Its why I bought a Toyota (the 50 MPG didn't hurt, either). But any method is fine as long as it is used correctly. Systems should be efficient and effective--processes should not include steps that are unnecessary or nonproductive. Who really wants to waste time doing a bad job?
Which brings me to the cause of the title. Every day in this area, people study the data and make suggestions that don't relate to it or don't study the data and make suggestions that don't relate to the issues at hand. My point is---the first step is seeing the problem. Looking at what is causing the problem. Understanding how the steps of the process work together and what is going on that is making them not work together has to be the first goal. It doesn't matter if you read about a wonderful way to move the mail if your problem has to do with getting the right piece into the box before it is mailed.. The people that love to fix problems don't want to do the first step. They have a fix in mind when they begin, or think something they read in a trade magazine or heard at a management meeting should be tried. So it is tried, with no baseline data and no analysis of what that information meant.
Now we have a change, but not necessarily an improvement. People are fired for resisting the change. People are moved around to find a way to create the change. AND if everyone is very lucky, the new process actually related to the original process issue and cause what was subjectively seen as an improvement.
Serendipity!
I love chance, randomness, creativity, but for some areas of work, a more scientific method (pun intended) is needed. In science you start with an hypothesis, but we aren't doing scientific research, we are using a more rapid, goal-driven method, so we start with the problem. And the first step is identifying the problem. The exact problem. Not the vague problem. "we waste a lot of time and energy on getting information " is vague. Ask the right questions. Get the right information. See if the industry has any benchmarks that give you something for comparison. It is fine to improve against yourself, but not until you have defined your processes in a way that allows comparison. While some of the world is subjective--everything can be quantified. DO THAT. If your business invests a lot of time and energy (translation--money) into performance improvement, and the end result is everyone thinks it was probably a good investment and the customers and employees think they can see a difference, will you do that again? Will you make sure the changes stay? Or will it be back to business as usual as soon as the improvement project is finished.
Define everything.
Do a library search: to find benchmarks, what other companies have successfully done about the same or similar problems, read about identifying problems, see if there is stuff out there that is evidence-based.
Identify the problem: there may be several that need to be separated and fixed individually, there may be several that are part of one process or one system. And sometimes a problem is a person problem, but it will not be an "all people " problem. If your research is pointing toward "all the people" in purchasing, you may need to talk to all those people, see what they say the problem is, it is probably something built into that department--part of their process which is frequently the result of policies and the people doing the work not communicating.
Administrating is not about sitting up in the clouds dictating to the workers who are so far away the two groups don't recognize each other except with large font badges. If you are making policy, find out what is being done from the people doing it. A policy is not a writing assignment, it is supposed to represent the organizational process. If the two are not related, you-the administrator- are not effective and your process can not be made more efficient if it has nothing to do with what is really going on.
Be OK with finding out that your favorite system/process/person may need to be improved. Nothing stays the same. Anyone that works with technology knows that. The game is always changing. Nothing can be too special for improvement. We all love our babies, but not every baby is going to last forever. My least favorite conversation is with the person that helped to create the old computer system. The bragging never ends, every new change is compared to the greatness of that original system she made---and that every person using it has complained about daily for 15 years. It was her pride and joy, but it was never a very useful system.
So, for this part of the job, be the detective, be the scientist, be the illustrator, be whatever is needed to identify the problem. The original method used to identify the problem should create a data baseline. Use the same types of data collection to document the improvement. And use numbers--they are really not that scary.
Monday, May 26, 2014
Saturday, May 24, 2014
SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE
I was raised on this homily. You know the one, "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." But it was usually being used as code for someone's extramarital affair backfiring and the gossip in the kitchen trying not to be understood by the little ears wandering in and out.
It isn't bad--a little golden rule, a little equal rights, but these days, while we all know that there is a lot of inequality going around, we have a weird little subset of ridiculousness in which women think they are to be treated like princesses by their spouse and they are supposed to treat him like their personal servant and whipping boy. Where did this come from. I have heard a lot of women referring to this as if it is something to be proud of. I have heard mothers tell their sons, "no matter what she does, a gentleman doesn't hit,yell, curse her, or walk away" Amazingly, some of these women are even still married. I would never expect my son or daughter to "just take it". That implies that a marriage is more important than they are. A marriage that sucks the life from one person so the other person can enjoy it more is wrong. Marriage must be a partnership between equals, neither more or less important than the other.
If you have slapped, pushed, punched, kicked, grabbed, cursed, yelled, denigrated, insulted, or otherwise abused your spouse, you were wrong. It doesn't matter if you were mad, it doesn't matter if you were right or they were wrong in the original conversation, and it doesn't matter if you are the female. You were wrong. If you do any of those things, and they respond in kind, you are getting what you gave--a simple law of physics only applied to behavior--think pendulum. If I kick you in the shin and you kick me in the shin back, what kind of jerk am I to complain.
But I here it from young women all the time, "my mother and father told me I should expect to be treated like a princess, like a queen and no real man ever hurts a woman." OK! Got that. So only fake men don't like to be hurt, the real ones are OK with being treated like crap. I've never met one of those, that doesn't even sound human.
In addition, isn't it a little insulting to women to think that their nasty behavior is so expected and so unimportant that it shouldn't be responded to in kind? I never wanted to be treated like a delicate and silly creature that can only be expected to act foolish. I want to be treated like an equal. I want my respect to have been earned, just like everyone else's respect is earned.
So, princess, next time you hit your spouse and he hits you back, that is wrong but that is sauce. Equality is not about being treated like a special little princess, its about acting like an adult human being.
It isn't bad--a little golden rule, a little equal rights, but these days, while we all know that there is a lot of inequality going around, we have a weird little subset of ridiculousness in which women think they are to be treated like princesses by their spouse and they are supposed to treat him like their personal servant and whipping boy. Where did this come from. I have heard a lot of women referring to this as if it is something to be proud of. I have heard mothers tell their sons, "no matter what she does, a gentleman doesn't hit,yell, curse her, or walk away" Amazingly, some of these women are even still married. I would never expect my son or daughter to "just take it". That implies that a marriage is more important than they are. A marriage that sucks the life from one person so the other person can enjoy it more is wrong. Marriage must be a partnership between equals, neither more or less important than the other.
If you have slapped, pushed, punched, kicked, grabbed, cursed, yelled, denigrated, insulted, or otherwise abused your spouse, you were wrong. It doesn't matter if you were mad, it doesn't matter if you were right or they were wrong in the original conversation, and it doesn't matter if you are the female. You were wrong. If you do any of those things, and they respond in kind, you are getting what you gave--a simple law of physics only applied to behavior--think pendulum. If I kick you in the shin and you kick me in the shin back, what kind of jerk am I to complain.
But I here it from young women all the time, "my mother and father told me I should expect to be treated like a princess, like a queen and no real man ever hurts a woman." OK! Got that. So only fake men don't like to be hurt, the real ones are OK with being treated like crap. I've never met one of those, that doesn't even sound human.
In addition, isn't it a little insulting to women to think that their nasty behavior is so expected and so unimportant that it shouldn't be responded to in kind? I never wanted to be treated like a delicate and silly creature that can only be expected to act foolish. I want to be treated like an equal. I want my respect to have been earned, just like everyone else's respect is earned.
So, princess, next time you hit your spouse and he hits you back, that is wrong but that is sauce. Equality is not about being treated like a special little princess, its about acting like an adult human being.
Sunday, May 18, 2014
who is successful?
Rich man poor man, beggar man, thief, doctor, lawyer, Indian chief---when jumping rope as a small girl, that is how we determined who we would marry. Women trying to determine who they would marry and thus their fate or place in this world was neither new nor novel. Neither was determining a persons worth by their job. It wasn't what they did, it was their position in life, relative to other people, hierarchical and not even seen as judgmental or prejudicial or in other ways wrong.
Sounds archaic but we are doing it still. We want our kids to have a college education and every parent of a poor but very smart child pushes them toward medicine and law. Average children are pushed toward entertainment, music, acting, professional sports. If you can't be rich then be famous and you might get rich from that. No one ever really pushes their children toward middle-class anymore and parents and schools have not recommended the blue collar skills as a life choice for generations. We don't want our sons to grow up to be cowboys---or carpenters, or bakers, or electricians or gardeners or farmers (unless we have been farmers for generations, farmers are their own strange group, I kind of like them, but the sons always get the family farm, the girls are still in the back yard jumping rope and wondering about their fate).
I'm not going to pretend I wasn't bought in--I have a lot of college, which was supposed to help me meet a successful man and thus guarantee that happily-ever-after. That college has bought my home and paid to raise my kids and feed me and keep my car functional, but as an over-educated woman, I make about the same as the average skilled blue-collar worker. If I had stayed with teaching, I would be making less per year than high-school dropouts that attended a year of VoTech. I got lucky in my area of study, it qualified me for a job that is in demand and there is almost always a shortage. (why there is a shortage is its own story--another time)
But truly, what comes to mind is that silly nursery poem,
"If all the world was paper,
And if all the sea was ink,
And if the trees were bread and cheese,
What would we do for drink?"
Sounds archaic but we are doing it still. We want our kids to have a college education and every parent of a poor but very smart child pushes them toward medicine and law. Average children are pushed toward entertainment, music, acting, professional sports. If you can't be rich then be famous and you might get rich from that. No one ever really pushes their children toward middle-class anymore and parents and schools have not recommended the blue collar skills as a life choice for generations. We don't want our sons to grow up to be cowboys---or carpenters, or bakers, or electricians or gardeners or farmers (unless we have been farmers for generations, farmers are their own strange group, I kind of like them, but the sons always get the family farm, the girls are still in the back yard jumping rope and wondering about their fate).
I'm not going to pretend I wasn't bought in--I have a lot of college, which was supposed to help me meet a successful man and thus guarantee that happily-ever-after. That college has bought my home and paid to raise my kids and feed me and keep my car functional, but as an over-educated woman, I make about the same as the average skilled blue-collar worker. If I had stayed with teaching, I would be making less per year than high-school dropouts that attended a year of VoTech. I got lucky in my area of study, it qualified me for a job that is in demand and there is almost always a shortage. (why there is a shortage is its own story--another time)
But truly, what comes to mind is that silly nursery poem,
"If all the world was paper,
And if all the sea was ink,
And if the trees were bread and cheese,
What would we do for drink?"
We don't just need doctors and lawyers and famous rock stars, we don't just need CEO's, we need food that is good for us and clothes that fit and keep us warm enough and cool enough and places to live safely, we need \ people to help us teach our children so they can know about those things that we don't understand or care about, thus improving their ability to make choices, firemen for when we get unlucky or screw up, policemen and plumbers, chefs and pastry artists and yes, sometimes we need doctors so everyone doesn't die young of simple things and lawyers and leaders to keep us from living in chaos with violence being how we decide who gets their way.
But who decided that success is measured by power and money? If I make the best bread or grow amazing watermelons or take great wedding photos, am I only successful if those things make me wealthy? Where do healthy and wise come into it? Or Happiness, contentment, joy, love, comfort (and not the definition of comfort that really means "we are pretty rich but I don't want act like I'm impressed with myself"). What about that feeling of self-satisfaction that comes with learning something new or finishing something where you did a good job. When we raise our children to adulthood and they become self-sufficient, are we only successful if they become rich and/or famous? Are we not successful if they are just honest, ethical, loving people that do what they do well?
If you check your own genealogy, you will probably find that people did a lot of things in your family, and few of those things made them rich or famous. Does that mean most of our ancestors were losers? I don't think so. I think the real losers are the people that are buying into the success game. Life is a gift, not a competition. Don't waste it on stupid stuff, spend it wisely. You may be worth billions when you die and some people think that as long as their name is remembered they are immortal, so billions would buy a lot of remembrance, but I think that I would rather be remembered for more personal reasons, even if it was only by those people I loved. If my kids pass on that quilt I made or use my version of a recipe or find themselves smiling because they just sounded like me when talking to their own grandkids.
So, the moral of this story is, be careful what you ask for, you might get to drink ink.
So, the moral of this story is, be careful what you ask for, you might get to drink ink.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Why not update the kitchen?
The first thing everyone says when looking for a house is either "too bad the kitchen needs updated" or "its great, the whole kitchen has been updated" Maybe there is something wrong with me. The modern kitchens are either steel and rock--cold, hard, impersonal, or a cheesy knock-off of grandmas kitchen from my childhood. Its cheesy, because it has the same lines as the steel and rock, and is just as cold and impersonal as the commercial wanna-be.
I miss grandma's kitchen. The old, rounded corners on the white enamel gas stove. The deco emblem. The sound of a match striking to light it up. Add to that the kitchen table, chrome and formica in some mock-rock pattern, and vinyl seats and backs that sort of matched it. The cabinets were also enamel, but the same homeliness was also present when the cabinets were carpentered in the house by the local woodworker. Floors were linoleum or wood or occasionally varnished brick. Rag rugs were thrown in front of the cast-iron sink and the stove. A round and white refrigerator occupied a space that was obviously never intended to house such a thing and it hummed or chugged depending on whether it ran on propane or electricity. The fridge has never lasted as long as the other appliances.
In the morning, everyone parked at that table in various stages of wakefulness, the coffee percolating, the smell of toasting bread and frying bacon. We complain about the end of the family dining together, eating and talking and breaking bread, but such a thing is hooked to the heart of the house and a cold and impersonal kitchen that looks just like a miniature restaurant kitchen has no heart. It will never nurture the soul as it nourishes the body. It can not be made to look comfortable. At best, some stuff will be added--"decor" in an attempt to make it look more homey.
I think this new need to make everything look like it belongs to a rich family is a strange exercise in self-delusion. A 100,000$ home with top of the line steel appliances and granite countertops is not a sign of affluence, it is just one more attempt to keep up with the
Jones', not the neighborhood Jones', the filthy-rich Jones' whose house was featured on the Parade of Homes with estimated worth of 2.5 million in a town where you can get a bungalow for under a hundred thousand that is over 1500 square feet.. What most older homes have is character, and removing that and replacing it with overpriced items seen on the many house-fixing shows (those are basically reality shows, and not nearly as helpful to the person redoing their own house as a trip to the internet and a u-tube of caulking the tub or installing a new doorknob. New is good, old is bad. It doesn't matter if it works, it doesn't matter if you like it, all that matters is if it all looks new.
So don't gut the soul of your home. Clean it if its dirty, change the curtains to colors from this century, or take it back to its original new-time (ebay is fun for that, the search is on) or take it back to the time of your grandma's house when you loved it the most. Replace what is broken with something functional and similar, love it, use it, laugh and cry in it, but don't try to make it something it was never meant to be.
It will thank you for this as you would when you are trying to figure out why you no longer enjoy your kitchen rituals nearly as much, but I just saved you from that.
I miss grandma's kitchen. The old, rounded corners on the white enamel gas stove. The deco emblem. The sound of a match striking to light it up. Add to that the kitchen table, chrome and formica in some mock-rock pattern, and vinyl seats and backs that sort of matched it. The cabinets were also enamel, but the same homeliness was also present when the cabinets were carpentered in the house by the local woodworker. Floors were linoleum or wood or occasionally varnished brick. Rag rugs were thrown in front of the cast-iron sink and the stove. A round and white refrigerator occupied a space that was obviously never intended to house such a thing and it hummed or chugged depending on whether it ran on propane or electricity. The fridge has never lasted as long as the other appliances.
In the morning, everyone parked at that table in various stages of wakefulness, the coffee percolating, the smell of toasting bread and frying bacon. We complain about the end of the family dining together, eating and talking and breaking bread, but such a thing is hooked to the heart of the house and a cold and impersonal kitchen that looks just like a miniature restaurant kitchen has no heart. It will never nurture the soul as it nourishes the body. It can not be made to look comfortable. At best, some stuff will be added--"decor" in an attempt to make it look more homey.
I think this new need to make everything look like it belongs to a rich family is a strange exercise in self-delusion. A 100,000$ home with top of the line steel appliances and granite countertops is not a sign of affluence, it is just one more attempt to keep up with the
Jones', not the neighborhood Jones', the filthy-rich Jones' whose house was featured on the Parade of Homes with estimated worth of 2.5 million in a town where you can get a bungalow for under a hundred thousand that is over 1500 square feet.. What most older homes have is character, and removing that and replacing it with overpriced items seen on the many house-fixing shows (those are basically reality shows, and not nearly as helpful to the person redoing their own house as a trip to the internet and a u-tube of caulking the tub or installing a new doorknob. New is good, old is bad. It doesn't matter if it works, it doesn't matter if you like it, all that matters is if it all looks new.
So don't gut the soul of your home. Clean it if its dirty, change the curtains to colors from this century, or take it back to its original new-time (ebay is fun for that, the search is on) or take it back to the time of your grandma's house when you loved it the most. Replace what is broken with something functional and similar, love it, use it, laugh and cry in it, but don't try to make it something it was never meant to be.
It will thank you for this as you would when you are trying to figure out why you no longer enjoy your kitchen rituals nearly as much, but I just saved you from that.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Time, that great equalizer
I've been in mourning, lately. I looked out my kitchen window and instead of seeing nothing but trees followed by pasture, I see the framing of a house. Its a pretty big house, no McMansion, but a good sized farmhouse and its going up pretty fast. It's positioned so there is no way to look out the kitchen window and not see the house.
Suddenly, the love affair I've had with my old and strangely put-together house is over. For the first time, I'm thinking of selling, thinking of buying something closer in, smaller, smaller yard, one story....I feel old. I feel hopes and dreams sliding away from me, the plans of my youth are gone, and good riddance to most; unimaginative, traditional, just-like-every other girl's dreams. But now I feel the things I wanted after I dealt with all those white-picket fence ideals are no more realistic at this point in my life than the other's were.
I feel a little lost, a little sad, a little mortal and small and pointless.
The American Dream passed me by. I am not rich, or famous. In fact, I am living within 20 miles of where I was born and 10 miles from where I was raised. My traditional, working-class father/housekeeping mother had a lifestyle very close to mine, only they paid their house off earlier and saved more money. Yet, I did those things as a teenager that promised to make me a success---studied hard, went to a good university, got 2 degrees that were aimed at preparing for jobs that paid a middle class living and were in demand. Went to church, was respectful to adults, acted like a lady, and on and on and on.
By 20, I knew it wasn't working for me. The one thing I couldn't do at that time was be blonde and beautiful---and I tried. Back then, success was easier to marry than to be.
So instead of marrying my high school sweetheart (not advice from everyone but frequently a plan parents suggested to other girls, and definitely a step more successful girls my age were taking, I bought a house--by myself. OK, that was a bit odd, but successful. Then I met someone, and if not prince charming, we got married, had 2 kids and worked, and worked, and worked. Then we divorced, which if not a sign of success was a sign of the times and very average. It also killed the teenage girl dreams that oddly mimicked every Disney princess that has ever been branded and marketed. What a relief.
The earth mother dream was born, home in the country, strong, independent, grow your own food, do your own repairs, keep it simple. Of course, it is not cheap to keep such a dream so twenty years of time-consuming jobs to make enough money to work toward the goal. And during that time, things that were fixed wore out, broke, became obsolete and always at a higher price. The end result, no time to enjoy the land, the dream, just time to work toward maintaining it. Time passes and passes and everyday is very similar to the day before and few are filled with much joy.
Suddenly, the stairs hurt your knees and a little fall breaks a bone instead of just making a bruise and a feeling of foolishness. The gas powered tools are too hard to start. The hand tools are much more tiring, And what happened to the weather. Its too hot! its too cold! its too dry! Nothing lives long enough to make food unless the water bill is sky high and you spend hours and dollars altering the soil, and then, some 20'somethings raised in the country inherit the pasture behind the house and decide to build.
I'm done. I want to paint. I want to quilt. I want to make soap. I want to retire while I still can. And I can't pay for the upkeep here on my retirement funds. I don't want to move to a retirement home. That is not even a goal, that is giving up. That is admitting its about over- that I'm just spending time waiting for the end.
What do rich people do when they reach this spot? I have no idea. Do they reach this point? We all have 1 lifetime. It has no prearranged endtime but money doesn't necessarily buy good health, sometimes it just buys the same excesses that the homeless and downtrodden get for almost free. Even if you do everything for your health that you should, human life expectancy is only sooooo long.
I watched bucket list---money paid that down, but it was still a bucket list, mortality's shadow lying low over the enjoyment. Am I mourning this part of my life, or mourning the reality that is my life.
We all get a piece of time and it is up to each of us to do with as we will. But how much more could I have done?. Perhaps I'll just get some goats, and sheep, and maybe a couple of rescue donkeys, that would handle the grass maintenance and might annoy the new neighbors as much as the new view bothers me.
The American Dream passed me by. I am not rich, or famous. In fact, I am living within 20 miles of where I was born and 10 miles from where I was raised. My traditional, working-class father/housekeeping mother had a lifestyle very close to mine, only they paid their house off earlier and saved more money. Yet, I did those things as a teenager that promised to make me a success---studied hard, went to a good university, got 2 degrees that were aimed at preparing for jobs that paid a middle class living and were in demand. Went to church, was respectful to adults, acted like a lady, and on and on and on.
By 20, I knew it wasn't working for me. The one thing I couldn't do at that time was be blonde and beautiful---and I tried. Back then, success was easier to marry than to be.
So instead of marrying my high school sweetheart (not advice from everyone but frequently a plan parents suggested to other girls, and definitely a step more successful girls my age were taking, I bought a house--by myself. OK, that was a bit odd, but successful. Then I met someone, and if not prince charming, we got married, had 2 kids and worked, and worked, and worked. Then we divorced, which if not a sign of success was a sign of the times and very average. It also killed the teenage girl dreams that oddly mimicked every Disney princess that has ever been branded and marketed. What a relief.
The earth mother dream was born, home in the country, strong, independent, grow your own food, do your own repairs, keep it simple. Of course, it is not cheap to keep such a dream so twenty years of time-consuming jobs to make enough money to work toward the goal. And during that time, things that were fixed wore out, broke, became obsolete and always at a higher price. The end result, no time to enjoy the land, the dream, just time to work toward maintaining it. Time passes and passes and everyday is very similar to the day before and few are filled with much joy.
Suddenly, the stairs hurt your knees and a little fall breaks a bone instead of just making a bruise and a feeling of foolishness. The gas powered tools are too hard to start. The hand tools are much more tiring, And what happened to the weather. Its too hot! its too cold! its too dry! Nothing lives long enough to make food unless the water bill is sky high and you spend hours and dollars altering the soil, and then, some 20'somethings raised in the country inherit the pasture behind the house and decide to build.
I'm done. I want to paint. I want to quilt. I want to make soap. I want to retire while I still can. And I can't pay for the upkeep here on my retirement funds. I don't want to move to a retirement home. That is not even a goal, that is giving up. That is admitting its about over- that I'm just spending time waiting for the end.
What do rich people do when they reach this spot? I have no idea. Do they reach this point? We all have 1 lifetime. It has no prearranged endtime but money doesn't necessarily buy good health, sometimes it just buys the same excesses that the homeless and downtrodden get for almost free. Even if you do everything for your health that you should, human life expectancy is only sooooo long.
I watched bucket list---money paid that down, but it was still a bucket list, mortality's shadow lying low over the enjoyment. Am I mourning this part of my life, or mourning the reality that is my life.
We all get a piece of time and it is up to each of us to do with as we will. But how much more could I have done?. Perhaps I'll just get some goats, and sheep, and maybe a couple of rescue donkeys, that would handle the grass maintenance and might annoy the new neighbors as much as the new view bothers me.
Prohibition, sexual harassment and world domination
The current focus is on sexual harassment and rape in traditionally male environments. The military, universities, prisons, you know--everywhere. A coworker asked the question "what makes men want to put that ....." you get the drift. But it made me think. And while most people seem to equate the whole men and their penis which controls them. I can't help but think that that is not the answer. If it really was just men being dragged around by their sexual natures with no ability to control themselves, we would have a very different culture. I can't imagine humans being the dominate species if that was the driving force of our natures.
There are infamous dolphin rape gangs but scientists say we can't say that is true as we don't know if the females consented or if that behavior is aberrant or normal. If human males were truly acting on instinct, then female consent would never have been needed and society would be completely different.
Why do people commit rape?"Can i commit a rape?" Reality is, most of us don't want to hurt other people. We don't want to hurt their feelings. We don't want to cause them pain. We don't like the feelings that come with stealing the peace-of-mind and feelings of safety from another person.
If you watch a lot of TV, you will hear repeatedly that rape is not about sex, and that people prone to rape that have been castrated either physically or chemically are prone to stabbing as it has the same up-close-and-personal type of action against the other person.
The temperance movement (which had a high Venn diagram-type cross-over with the suffragettes and was probably the same women that are called feminists, only 100 years before, felt that prohibition was the answer as alcohol was the cause of male misbehavior. To live, women needed a husband or a male employer to have a place to live and food to eat. It was not illegal to beat your wife or children or your female employees (or male employees or child employees for that matter). A drunk was more likely to beat or rape or in other ways act out. Rather than blame the men, the 'demon drink" was blamed. Therefore, if no more alcohol, no more beatings and rapes and other forms of control and domination.
But where does that need to compete/drive to control/desire to dominate actually come from? I recently heard an NPR article about the new attempts to aim the campaign ads at women by removing the facts and issues and focusing on grabbing at the emotional strings that control women because "THAT IS HOW WOMEN THINK" (I'm probably foaming at the mouth right now) Is that a stereotypical statement? Are all women really that alike? I don't like it when women say things like all men are dogs or all men are cavemen and have never heard anyone say that Blah-blah-blah is how all men think. In other words, I don't think testosterone is causing men to rape and pillage. In fact, men are not all alike . Most of those things we consider to be male or female are learned, society teaches them, and most of us humans just fall into line. "girls need to be submissive, real women are emotional and caring and not at all analytical, women are mothers because it is there inborn nature to be soft and nurturing, men are hunter, protectors, dominant and violent because that was needed to fight off the men of the other tribes"
Reality check #1---women are mothers because that is the word we gave the people with uteruses (uteri?) that gave birth. Reality check #2, the only reason one sex needs to be submissive is to get along with the other sex that is thinking that it is dominant (learned behavior, not inborn or there wouldn't be so many people of both sexes having such a hard time with that) Reality check #3, men have to be dominant to protect women from other men that have to be dominant (really? is that not circular enough to make your head spin?) Reality check #3 women are weak; minded, bodied, spirited, add your area, there is no evidence that this is true, but plenty of women that have proven it is not, minded--think Rosalyn Sussman Yalow, Madame Curie,Irène Joliot-Curie, Barbara McClintock, Rita Levi-Montalcini, bodied(would it be shocking to know that when this is googled, half the returned hits include the words sexiest or hottest?)--Dr. Jan Todd, Babe Zaharias, Lisa Leslie, Llyn Padarn, Spiritual--Mother Theresa, Emily Dickinson,Jane Addams,Tawakkol Abdel-Salam Karman, Tamara Siuda, Ida B. Robinson, Ellen Gould White, and just plain powerful--Emperor Wu (not empress as she didn't want anyone thinking she was anyone's subordinate) Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, Hillary Clinton, Aung San Suu Kyi, Gudit, Trieu Thi Trinh, Boudicca, Ahhotep I. (if you don't recognize them all, look them up, women have been doing more than birthing babies, housekeeping and making men happy for a very long time.
So that reality check was the lead in to what is actually behind the myth of why men are dominant and therefore women must be submissive.
There are infamous dolphin rape gangs but scientists say we can't say that is true as we don't know if the females consented or if that behavior is aberrant or normal. If human males were truly acting on instinct, then female consent would never have been needed and society would be completely different.
Why do people commit rape?"Can i commit a rape?" Reality is, most of us don't want to hurt other people. We don't want to hurt their feelings. We don't want to cause them pain. We don't like the feelings that come with stealing the peace-of-mind and feelings of safety from another person.
If you watch a lot of TV, you will hear repeatedly that rape is not about sex, and that people prone to rape that have been castrated either physically or chemically are prone to stabbing as it has the same up-close-and-personal type of action against the other person.
The temperance movement (which had a high Venn diagram-type cross-over with the suffragettes and was probably the same women that are called feminists, only 100 years before, felt that prohibition was the answer as alcohol was the cause of male misbehavior. To live, women needed a husband or a male employer to have a place to live and food to eat. It was not illegal to beat your wife or children or your female employees (or male employees or child employees for that matter). A drunk was more likely to beat or rape or in other ways act out. Rather than blame the men, the 'demon drink" was blamed. Therefore, if no more alcohol, no more beatings and rapes and other forms of control and domination.
But where does that need to compete/drive to control/desire to dominate actually come from? I recently heard an NPR article about the new attempts to aim the campaign ads at women by removing the facts and issues and focusing on grabbing at the emotional strings that control women because "THAT IS HOW WOMEN THINK" (I'm probably foaming at the mouth right now) Is that a stereotypical statement? Are all women really that alike? I don't like it when women say things like all men are dogs or all men are cavemen and have never heard anyone say that Blah-blah-blah is how all men think. In other words, I don't think testosterone is causing men to rape and pillage. In fact, men are not all alike . Most of those things we consider to be male or female are learned, society teaches them, and most of us humans just fall into line. "girls need to be submissive, real women are emotional and caring and not at all analytical, women are mothers because it is there inborn nature to be soft and nurturing, men are hunter, protectors, dominant and violent because that was needed to fight off the men of the other tribes"
Reality check #1---women are mothers because that is the word we gave the people with uteruses (uteri?) that gave birth. Reality check #2, the only reason one sex needs to be submissive is to get along with the other sex that is thinking that it is dominant (learned behavior, not inborn or there wouldn't be so many people of both sexes having such a hard time with that) Reality check #3, men have to be dominant to protect women from other men that have to be dominant (really? is that not circular enough to make your head spin?) Reality check #3 women are weak; minded, bodied, spirited, add your area, there is no evidence that this is true, but plenty of women that have proven it is not, minded--think Rosalyn Sussman Yalow, Madame Curie,Irène Joliot-Curie, Barbara McClintock, Rita Levi-Montalcini, bodied(would it be shocking to know that when this is googled, half the returned hits include the words sexiest or hottest?)--Dr. Jan Todd, Babe Zaharias, Lisa Leslie, Llyn Padarn, Spiritual--Mother Theresa, Emily Dickinson,Jane Addams,Tawakkol Abdel-Salam Karman, Tamara Siuda, Ida B. Robinson, Ellen Gould White, and just plain powerful--Emperor Wu (not empress as she didn't want anyone thinking she was anyone's subordinate) Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, Hillary Clinton, Aung San Suu Kyi, Gudit, Trieu Thi Trinh, Boudicca, Ahhotep I. (if you don't recognize them all, look them up, women have been doing more than birthing babies, housekeeping and making men happy for a very long time.
So that reality check was the lead in to what is actually behind the myth of why men are dominant and therefore women must be submissive.
Dominance and submission is a set of behaviors, customs and rituals involving the giving by one individual to another individual of control over them ... this implies that the submissive voluntarily gave over their will to another, but frequently in history this giving is at the behest of the religion and/or laws of the land. In hindsight, most of us have no problem with seeing that slavery was wrong (still is, but no longer legal in this country). But while the first feminists were getting us the right to vote and trying to "stay the powers of demon rum" they were being ruled by a religion that told them to submit. The book by Alice Walker "Possessing the secret of Joy" described very well how the little bit of power that is given to women over women but under the domination of the men can make us our daughter's worst enemy. The book, (read it, beautiful and tragic and in her style which is like staring at a haunting painting while listening to the wind) the highest women in the tribe are also the ones that perform the female circumcision, and they do it to make the girls marriageable, and clean and acceptable. Even when they know that it makes sex a nightmare and childbirth a life-threatening event, they continue. And they are no different than our own society. We would rather call our daughters sluts and whores when they do what teenagers do than educate them on how to be safe. We discourage careers that compete with male applicants and train our female children to do laundry and wash dishes and clean house while our sons watch TV.
So men are raised to believe that their will is more important than the will of women. That boys are better than girls at everything that matters. That it is alright to expect someone of the opposite sex to take care of them, their laundry, cooking, cleaning, raise their kids, make them happy, and if the woman is not happy with that, there is something wrong with her. Wrong with her. But if she expects a man to make her happy she is a nag, a princess, a bitch, a tease, or "not a real woman".
So men are raised to believe that their will is more important than the will of women. That boys are better than girls at everything that matters. That it is alright to expect someone of the opposite sex to take care of them, their laundry, cooking, cleaning, raise their kids, make them happy, and if the woman is not happy with that, there is something wrong with her. Wrong with her. But if she expects a man to make her happy she is a nag, a princess, a bitch, a tease, or "not a real woman".
If you were born with a uterus (or for the transgenders out there--should have been) you are a real woman. There are no fake women anymore than there are fake men or fake horses or fake pastures. The word has a meaning. It does not include behavior, expectations, submission, roles, jobs, intelligence (or lack thereof) in that meaning.
Who we each are, no matter what sex we were born, or race, or culture, or religion, does not give us the right to dominate another person, nor does it make us have to submit to be acceptable. There are no excuses for dominating other's against their will, neither drugs nor alcohol, being born male, not mental illness, not cultural upbringing, not badly written laws or excessive money gives anyone a right to dominate another person. The need to dominate, compete, win is an act of utter selfishness. It implies that the person acting in that way thinks they are in some way superior to the people they are treating that way. If they were 3 on the playground they would be stopped, but they are grown, and they are bullies and they always find someone like them that will slap them on the back and tell them they are fine, they are great, and they deserve to treat others badly because they are strong and powerful.
There have a been a number of men that wanted to be the king of the world. Such ego, such an immense need for power. What is missing from the people, and how do we fill that need without letting them abuse the people whose on egos and needs are more on scale with the less than 100 years we each have.
Perhaps, the first step is to stop playing to them. And stop training our own sons and daughters to fall into the same old patterns. We all deserve to be happy as humans.
Saturday, April 19, 2014
The state of Paranoia
Going on the internet, the first thing I see is a picture of an old-style revolver with a caption about gun-control. Having read the 2nd amendment recently (previous blog made me do it) I see that it does state that a "well-regulated militia" is good. Well-regulated screams gun-control. The statement that is more often heard is "right to bear arms" which to me says weapon, not gun, but the watch command for this particular amendment is the NRA and they are all about the guns. The point being, not that I think the well-regulated militia should carry butterknives, but that the amendments doesn't really remove such things as atomic missiles and grenades and flamethrowers, so assault rifles are also still just arms.
This is where I'm going to take a weird turn, because of my personal paranoia---if something is well regulated--regulated by whom? Simple question. Most people think the obvious answer is the government, but the amendment was written just after the American Revolution with the intent of making sure that the people of the USA maintained the physical ability to protect itself from its own government in the event that government became corrupt and stopped truly being for the good of all the people.
A recent research article by some high-falutin school stated that the government that is usually called a democracy and is actually supposed to be an republic and is actually an Oligarchy and maybe always was--also. Yikes, sounds scary, maybe fattening, maybe infectious.
(who doesn't love the internet)
- small governing group: a small group of people who together govern a nation or control an organization, often for their own purposes
- entity ruled by oligarchy: a nation governed or an organization controlled by an oligarchy
- government by small group: government or control by a small group of people.
Well, no arguments on that research, looks pretty obvious.
So, about the paranoia and the "arms". Should we all be without them? Should we all have them? If they pry your gun from your dead, cold fingers, will all of the regular folks be searching great-grandma's barn for a pitchfork?
Will we all start inventorying the sports, camping and yard equipment for possible ways to protect ourselves from our own government gone awry?
Do regular people really do that?
Below is a list I stole from the internet of revolutionary war patriots. It is interesting in that most of those names are pretty well-known and became rather powerful after the war. But were they regular people before the revolution? (the following is a long list of revolutionary guys and a female or two with comments about their pre-revolutionary station in life. Read it or skip it, and we will go on.
So, about the paranoia and the "arms". Should we all be without them? Should we all have them? If they pry your gun from your dead, cold fingers, will all of the regular folks be searching great-grandma's barn for a pitchfork?
Will we all start inventorying the sports, camping and yard equipment for possible ways to protect ourselves from our own government gone awry?
Do regular people really do that?
Below is a list I stole from the internet of revolutionary war patriots. It is interesting in that most of those names are pretty well-known and became rather powerful after the war. But were they regular people before the revolution? (the following is a long list of revolutionary guys and a female or two with comments about their pre-revolutionary station in life. Read it or skip it, and we will go on.
| Adams, John - Second President of the United States, 2x vice-president, before the revolution he was from modest means but very well-educated. (ok, ideaslistic leader--that's cool) | ||||||||
Adams, Samuel - American Revolutionary--while now known for his great beer, he was the son of a prosperous brewer with political tendencies--I do like the beer)
| ||||||||
Saturday, April 12, 2014
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.
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.
(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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
I have always been told I have too much imagination. I am not realistic. According to these people, we live in a democracy. Democra...
-
It's Memorial Day. When I was a child, we would have gotten together and taken flowers to all the cemeteries we could drive to with rel...
