Yesterday, multiple bombs were sent to high up democrats---powerful people that President Trump has castigated and bad-mouthed and accused of many horrible things.
His latest bit of pure terror-creating rhetoric involved 7000 "criminals and middle eastern terrorists paid to invade our country" by those above mentioned powerful and wealthy democrats.
The lie made no sense.
Why would the democrats sabotage their own chance to take back majority in congress. Everyone knows that immigration is a mixed bag with both parties' constituents.
There are videos of those about 7000 individuals caravanning up through Mexico; they have been interviewed ad nauseum. They are mostly men, but some women and children from the Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. They are fleeing their countries due to crime, unemployment, gang violence, poverty and hunger. Their countries have much corruption at the government level. (It would seem, so do we, instead of hating them, maybe we should work on not becoming them)
https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/honduras/overview
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gt.html
http://theconversation.com/why-is-el-salvador-so-dangerous-4-essential-reads-89904
This is not the first large caravan of people from Central America---not even the first this year.
https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/arts/he-joined-the-migrant-caravan-then-gave-it-an-anthem/
The trip is more than 1000 miles long. Many will fall out long before they get here. They then apply for asylum.
The last group, at the first of this year started similarly to the current caravan, but it was down considerably when it got to the border and 3---THREE!--received asylum.
We didn't hear about it at the time BECAUSE OUR PRESIDENT DIDN'T TURN A BUSINESS AS USUAL EVENT INTO A TWITTER FRENZY LEADING TO A MEDIA CIRCUS.
So there is no doubt that Trump uses the media.
He just wants to control them completely.
That is how fascists work. (a corporation with a dictatorial, authoritarian owner/CEO is legal, you can always get another job, but in a country---well, where ya gonna go)
Spoon feed those followers to rev them up, turn them into angry, on-fire mobs of mindlessness.
Most of us do not want to hurt people no matter how much we disagree. But there are those, those that are easy to sway and are prone to resorting to violence when their own problem-solving skills fall short of the goal. Those that just want to be a part of something powerful. Those that would really love to have power over others but are not actually very impressive, therefore locked out of the group of movers and shakers---and they will do anything--A.N.Y.T.H.I.N.G-- to please their hero.
Trump has become the hero of a lot of people out there.
He says all that crap that they want to say but don't want to lose their friends or their job or their position in the church.
And, he regularly goes out and "fans the flames" of righteous indignation and hate at his rallies and on twitter with his 5 am poop.
He is a real releasor of the CRAZY.
So, we get bombs in the mail, within days of him blaming CNN (fake news) and "Crooked Hillary" and Obama ("that wasn't even born here") and George Soros, who is a huge supporter of world democracy---I can't decide if Trump(no longer on the forbes 400, as he is now the 716 richest in the world) is jealous of his giving away more money than Trump has, or if he just really hates democracy.
The flip side is the crazy feeling the rest of us get listening to Trump spew hate and rail against the things our democracy (republic, electoral college--whatever) values like freedom of speech and a free press and equal rights (even for nonwhite, nonmale, nonrich people).
So some of those flip side people (non-republicans) are accosting politicians in restaurants and pulling up political signs and punching the people that try to stop them. We even had someone shoot at a group of republican congressmen at the beginning of crazy-man's presidency and the majority Whip was shot in the hip.
And why are people doing this crap?
In America, land of the gun, land of fighting for our beliefs, a land built on people moving here to get away from persecution, and being brought here against their will to make the lives of others easier, and being sent here to empty small prisons, we all expect that we might have to get a little dirty. We worship our soldiers and police for their fighting skills.
Why did we not expect this turn of events?
Why did we not foresee that this highly charged environment could take us here?
You would think we all thought that the USA was too stable for a revolution or a civil war or even riots and assassinations.
Get real.
We have done all those things before.
Sad that one loudmouthed liar more concerned with raking in the money from his well-placed real estate by the patronage of diplomats and CEOs, is going to show the world how crazy we as a nation still are.
My advice. Talk all you want, but be aware that while we have freedom of speech, we do not have the right to stop someone from talking by physical violence. If you know someone prone to losing their sh-- over a verbal disagreement--don't poke that bear.
Dangerous times.
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Monday, October 15, 2018
So, How many people does it take to change the world to make it better.
We are also see population changes---and the age of modern man saw a huge increase in man's own ability to survive and reproduce.
Note that the red line is the growth rate, and it levels and begins falling about the same time that birth control methods become available and falls more as those methods become more available globally. Yet, the population will continue up through 2100-taking the 7+ billion people here now and increasing it to over 11 billion. Picture your neighborhood with almost twice as many people. Humans in that number can not help but impact the world, but we can do things that positively impact our human effects on the world.
Next, we have a graph of the carbon dioxide parts per million in our atmosphere. Note that once again we see an upcurve similar to our population curve but it is also related to the new use of fossil fuels to increase our productivity and speed up all our work. (industrial age, move to cities, increase in automobiles.)
Then we see the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and our planet's surface temperature. Same upward curve. Below shows it with the 5-year running mean, a nice way of leveling any one time quirks.
At current rates of temperature change and without our intervention we can expect to raise drastically by 2100.
Yet, most of us don't think humans are causing these changes or don't know what the whole subject is about.
Amazingly, developed Asia, Latin America, Canada, Europe all know more about it and understand and accept it due to human activity. The people of the USA are most likely to consider these changes natural. The countries that don't think humans are causing it, except for the USA usually have not even heard of the theory.
So what will the temperature changes do to the world? Think glaciers and the ice caps at the north and south pole. Massive amounts of water have been stored in those since the last ice age. (think cavemen and Mammoths.) If current sea level is ground zero, then any increase in water in the ocean from melting will raise sea level. Below is a list of places that currently exist below sea level.
Not every place that is below sea level will be immediately affected by a change in sea level, just as the water table in every place will not be immediately affected. But coastal areas will be changed and while an increase of 1 foot in 125 years (least case scenario) doesn't seem like much, the worst case, will make where we want to build much more important.
Plus, let us look at the flooding caused by hurricanes and torrential rains. A foot of rain can cause flooded streets, swollen rivers that take out bridges and flooded homes.
But, did we humans do this? Did we affect it at all?
This curve definitely mimicks the curves of population growth and industrial growth. But it also is related to the wealth of a nation and the unfettered use of fossil fuels and just plain denial that anyone can tell them anything.
So can we do anything? Let's look at what our human efforts did to the growing Ozone hole once scientists identified it and a plan to decrease the problem was initiated.
It is not like we fixed everything, but by decreasing the Ozone depleting substance consumption to zero we stopped the hole from increasing in size.
A journalist has written a book called the Sixth Extinction. It's timely and scary and worth taking a gander at.
Ultimately, humans will either wake up or they will go the way of the dinosaur. That will most likely eventually happen anyway, although we will probably leave remnants of ourselves---sort of like those modern dinosaur descendants--the chicken. If we don't want to be a rather rapidly extincted species, we might want to wake up today.
Earth is a planet and like all planets it has an atmosphere. Currently, Earth is about 0.03% carbon dioxide, but it was much higher before plants existed. The plants used the CO2 and gave off O2. Until the Plants existed, oxygen breathing/dependent creatures were not possible. Plants needed sunlight, water and CO2 as well as a diverse elemental stew to sink their roots in. (dirt).
The greenhouse effect was what we heard about back before anyone talked about global warming or climate change. Venus is an example of the Greenhouse effect in action. (nope, nothing about plants or glass buildings, just CO2 levels and temperature.)
460 degrees Celsius is 860 degrees Fahrenheit. Not hot as the sun, not hot as a cone 10 kiln, but hotter than an oven on broil. If you look at the graph below, you will see that it is much hotter than any other planet, including Mercury and way out of line with what you would expect the temperature to be based on distance from the sun. It is over twice as hot as Mercury, the planet closest to the sun.
Below is a diagram showing the layers of Earth's atmosphere. The point is, the Troposphere is where the greenhouse effect occurs, the narrowest layer closest to the earth. The next layer contains the Ozone which absorbs ultraviolet light, but none of the others affect convection, and convection is the thing related to heat.
The last chart has to do with the actual composition of the Earth's atmosphere. It's mostly nitrogen in the form of N2, two atoms of nitrogen bonded together making a stable molecule that usually exists as a gas. We rarely worry about nitrogen until someone changes pressure to quickly and the N2 in their body causes "the bends". Think deep sea diving.
Oxygen, the one we humans and most "animals" require for metabolism is the second most plentiful. It is normally considered to be 21%. There is some evidence that this has actually decreased over the years, not from us breathing too much, but because when you increase other gases, you dilute the ones not being added as rapidly. The ones in blue on the chart are the ones most likely to increase in proportion and thus decrease the percent of oxygen in the atmosphere.
In healthcare, we frequently give people higher percents of oxygen or O2 because either they are have a hard time getting enough of the gas through their lungs or their metabolic needs have increased beyond what normal breathing can provide. If O2 levels sink much below 21%, people predisposed to difficulties with their lungs---asthmatics, Cystic fibrosis, COPD, CHF, or people acutely ill with sepsis, pneumonia, acute myocardial infarction will need supplemental oxygen faster or all the time just to be where they currently live.
We decreased the Halocarbons by changing laws and human practices after concerns about increased ultraviolet light and an enlarging hole in the Ozone.
Both Carbon dioxide and Methane are increased by human activities.
We know how to decrease both of those right now.
Some rich people will lose some money when they have to change what they are making and selling.
Some people building cars and trucks and other petroleum based vehicles will have to learn some new things to build electric vehicles.
The coal miners and petroleum workers will need to learn about solar panels and wind energy.
Other changes could be needed.
Humans are currently the most prolific thing on the planet. It is the human Era.
We are not the biggest.
We are not the toughest.
We are not the longest lived or healthiest animal on the planet.
But, in the past, we were the most capable of adapting to change.
Time to choose that change before our adaptability is no longer enough.
Sunday, October 7, 2018
Power and Ethics.
I'm not sure I understand why politics here and world wide are now and have forever been full of corruption.
I do know that Power and Ethics do not seem to make good bedfellows.
Look at Jimmy Carter. A man that seems to be an ethical man, a good man, and a loving man.
While a few people have praised his presidency while he was president, and a lot of people look back and wish they had grabbed him for another 4 years---blinders were on so many back then; and now most people look at him, his return to his family and his work with habitat for humanity and his plain and simple wisdoms---most people thought of him as forgettable. What did he do for me? What did he do for the good of my group?
And there lies the problem.
Most of us only want honesty, goodness, fairness, justice, and ethics when they will personally benefit us. We want to get a raise, but don't give a crap about other groups getting a raise. We don't want the possibility of making massive money in the stock market made safer but less profitable, if we have money in the stock market. If we have health insurance, or paid family leave or 4 weeks vacation through work, then why doesn't everyone get a job like mine. And, if everyone that can benefit from college can go to college, the competition for the job I studied for just went up. How does that help me?
We are living in the time when all the progress made by the suffragettes at the turn of the last century (100 years ago--OMG!) all the progress made by the civil rights workers over the last 150 years, all the progress made regarding women and brown people and children could prove not to have been progress at all but more of a rosy hiccup of the universe that is currently ending.
I could list corrupt world leaders or corrupt local politicians or corrupt judges and district attorneys and officers of the law.
I could list people whose jobs give them power over others that have used that power to ensure sexual favors, bribes, forgiveness for their illegal activities and getting their backs scratched by other's in power in exchange for their own favors.
I could list people who have abused their own power so badly that they have left trails of bodies, piles of destroyed careers, rumors of abuse buried in police reports.
But those lists would be so long, and so depressing that I can't touch that.
Ethics is defined as a moral philosophy or code of morals practiced by a person or group of people.
Ethical leaders all have some things in common. They do not compromise their stand on ethics for the benefit of themselves or their group.
Ethical leaders understand that they must be the leaders of all those under their wing and not just their buddies or some elite group that they are also part of. They do not make deals to benefit one group under them while ignoring or hurting another group under them.
Ethical leaders do not seek yes-men, they seek genuine experts in their fields to help them see the full, long-range picture. They expect collaboration on decisions instead of just impulsively saying something and then trying to make it happen whether it makes sense or not. Ethical leaders are not ego-driven.
Ethical leaders do not deny the leadership abilities of others, but instead work with them respectfully.
Ethical leaders are not dictators, fascists, the supreme being, the king (or queen) for life. They never abuse their power.
A short list of ethical leaders includes:
I do know that Power and Ethics do not seem to make good bedfellows.
Look at Jimmy Carter. A man that seems to be an ethical man, a good man, and a loving man.
While a few people have praised his presidency while he was president, and a lot of people look back and wish they had grabbed him for another 4 years---blinders were on so many back then; and now most people look at him, his return to his family and his work with habitat for humanity and his plain and simple wisdoms---most people thought of him as forgettable. What did he do for me? What did he do for the good of my group?
And there lies the problem.
Most of us only want honesty, goodness, fairness, justice, and ethics when they will personally benefit us. We want to get a raise, but don't give a crap about other groups getting a raise. We don't want the possibility of making massive money in the stock market made safer but less profitable, if we have money in the stock market. If we have health insurance, or paid family leave or 4 weeks vacation through work, then why doesn't everyone get a job like mine. And, if everyone that can benefit from college can go to college, the competition for the job I studied for just went up. How does that help me?
We are living in the time when all the progress made by the suffragettes at the turn of the last century (100 years ago--OMG!) all the progress made by the civil rights workers over the last 150 years, all the progress made regarding women and brown people and children could prove not to have been progress at all but more of a rosy hiccup of the universe that is currently ending.
I could list corrupt world leaders or corrupt local politicians or corrupt judges and district attorneys and officers of the law.
I could list people whose jobs give them power over others that have used that power to ensure sexual favors, bribes, forgiveness for their illegal activities and getting their backs scratched by other's in power in exchange for their own favors.
I could list people who have abused their own power so badly that they have left trails of bodies, piles of destroyed careers, rumors of abuse buried in police reports.
But those lists would be so long, and so depressing that I can't touch that.
Ethics is defined as a moral philosophy or code of morals practiced by a person or group of people.
Ethical leaders all have some things in common. They do not compromise their stand on ethics for the benefit of themselves or their group.
An ethical leader is always fair and just. They have no favorites, and treat everyone equally.
An ethical leader shows respect for all by listening to them attentively, valuing their contributions, being compassionate, and being generous while considering opposing viewpoints.
Being humane is one of the most revealing traits of a leader who is ethical and moral. Ethical leaders place importance on being kind, and act in a manner that is always beneficial to others.
Ethical leaders foster a sense of community. When an ethical leader strives to achieve goals, it is not just personal goals that they’re concerned about. They make genuine efforts to achieve goals that benefit the entire group– not just themselves.
In ethical leadership, all decisions are first checked to ensure that they are in accordance with the values of the group. Only those decisions that meet this criterion are implemented.
Under an ethical leader, everyone thrives and flourishes
Ethical leadership is not just about talking the talk, this type of leader also walks the walk. The high expectations that an ethical leader has are also applicable on the individual level. Leaders expect others to do the right thing by leading by example.
Ethical leaders set the standard for truth--both with their words and their expectation of honest bookkeeping/record keeping and reporting. There are no memos to shred telling assistant number one to make sure no one finds out about that problem that we had. Honesty is transparent.Ethical leaders understand that they must be the leaders of all those under their wing and not just their buddies or some elite group that they are also part of. They do not make deals to benefit one group under them while ignoring or hurting another group under them.
Ethical leaders do not seek yes-men, they seek genuine experts in their fields to help them see the full, long-range picture. They expect collaboration on decisions instead of just impulsively saying something and then trying to make it happen whether it makes sense or not. Ethical leaders are not ego-driven.
Ethical leaders do not deny the leadership abilities of others, but instead work with them respectfully.
Ethical leaders are not dictators, fascists, the supreme being, the king (or queen) for life. They never abuse their power.
A short list of ethical leaders includes:
- Socrates (possible fictional character--but who can say for sure)
- Jesus
- Mahatma Gandhi (but not perfect)
- Mother Teresa (mostly perfect)
- Jimmy Carter
- Calvin Coolidge
- James Monroe
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Che Guevara
- Mark Twain (ok, that is not even his real name, so maybe not)
- Will Rogers (if he wasn't, he at least knew what one didn't look like and could make you laugh while describing him or her.)
It's a tough list. Nobody is perfect.
But currently, we seem to have lost our moral compass at the top. Our leaders are mostly self-serving, backscratching, hedonists that just want power so they can do whatever they want.
Time to find some ethical people to add to this crummy mix we currently have.
I may love a good historical novel or western movie, but prefer not to find myself living in either.
Tuesday, October 2, 2018
Gullivers Travels in 2018
Eminent Domain. The power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character.
If you google that, there are multiple examples of lawsuits by landowners, large landowners, businessmen that are in the middle of fighting eminent domain lawsuits. Whatever "public good" was expected to occur when the current owners had their property taken is on hold.
Eminent domain is not just used for taking property to place prisons or jails, schools, county hospitals, or parks, it is also used if a wealthy corporation decides to talk the local politicals into a project that will increase property taxes, attract tourists, make the area prettier. No one ever mentions that it will also make the wealthy corporation buttloads of money, also.
While prominent businessmen, large landowners, and large groups of uppermiddle class residents can hire someone to squash such ventures, the poorer communities are frequently just walked all over.
We call that gentrification.
As in "Anti-Robin Hood". Steal from the poor and give to the rich.
I realize that when an area looks poor, is full of liquor stores and crappy apartments, empty buildings, and dollar stores, it does not bring in big revenue. Poor people don't have big revenue. But, they have to live somewhere. Getting rid of every place that they call home doesn't make them middle class, it makes them homeless.
I have read in a few books where the poor in feudal times were called little people (not at all the same as fairies, gnomes and brownies).
I have heard those few rich and powerful families referred to as "giants among men."
As a regular human, every time I walk outside, I may--or may not be squashing ants and other bugs. The front of my car proves that I kill much more than ants every time I drive, but especially at night when they are attracted to my headlights. If I glance at the side of the road, I realize that our vehicles create a lot of roadkill, also.
And most of us never think about that at all.
I think those "giants among men" do a lot of that to the "little people". "Well, what was I supposed to do, they were in my way." "They breed like cockroaches, they won't even be missed." "I am doing important work here, what are they doing."
Well, they were living their lives. AND, they weren't easy lives....some of us humans have multiple houses, the best-of-the-best food, never have to worry about their children longer than it takes to call a lawyer or the Doctor on speed-dial, never have to worry about the electricity being off longer than it takes the generator to kick on during the storm. BUT, a lot of us have a certain familiarity with the basic needs---pay the bills on time, how to prioritize the use of the money coming in so that A) everyone eats, B) The rent or mortgage is paid, C)The Utilities stay on, D) the car is not repossessed, E) everyone has the clothes they need to not be suspended from school, not be sent home from work, and not freeze in winter or burn in summer.
There are plenty of "little people" that screw up periodically and miss a beat that causes them some problems: the woman that thinks that better clothes will get her that better job, then finds it doesn't pay her more and now the kids school clothes are too tight and---inappropriate. The family that does everything right till the baby gets sick and mom or dad has to stay at home for a week. IF they knew about FMLA AND did the paperwork, the jobs are still there, but the pay is not guaranteed and now something has to give---will it be the food? the rent? or the utilities. They ride the bus, so nothing to cut their, but also, not much saved while off work not riding. Hopefully the landlord will understand, the rent being late is least likely to make a sick kid worse.
Little lives can be dangerous lives. Fraught with hard choices that those giants among men never have to face. Some of the small things can be a mom or dad that works in health care or was in the military choosing to make butterflies to hold a wound shut that obviously needed stitches. Or throwing a child in a cool bath when their temp spikes to 105 degrees F--to avoid a copay to the ER that is bigger than they have. Choices like feeding the family nothing but processed foods known to cause cancer because the fresh food is too high for the budget. Choices like living in a car when they have to choose between the job and the rent.
Life is full of choices for the "little people".
But rarely full of the kinds of choices that they want to make.
If you ask a 12 year old whether they would rather be the CEO of the bank or the Teller, they aren't dumb, they say CEO. But in the next 6 years, when they should be preparing for their future, they are doing what middle school and high school students have done for generations in public school. They are trying to get the classes they want--based on how easy it is and whether their friends are in it. We have a lot of AP classes anymore, and by 3rd grade, kids in small communities know who in their class will be taking those AP classes and who will be stagnating in boring, minimally helpful classes that have them memorizing pointless facts, filling out worksheets, reading the state approved books (or finding a good report on Google), trying to figure out the new math---and there is always a new math, because how else do you sell all those textbooks on a subject that is set in stone and never needs an upgrade--except maybe to make it less white bread in the story problems.
Most kids like school till third grade. Then, we stop worrying about everyone's self-esteem and start trying to push all the kids into the mold that will build the future workers of America.
We are currently all about STEM or STEAM, depending on whether or not they put art in there to make the name look more recognizable.
But, do we really need an entire population of scientists, technologists, engineers and Mathematics?
Reality is, most of those giants among men, don't want the little people getting any closer to their STEAM moneymakers than clerical work, data entry, and working in the warehouse once they get their next little widget made to sell.
We aren't trying to turn everyone into scientists and mathematicians, we are trying to identify talent early and the rest of them are welcome to go right back to being C students that can apprentice to their plumber father and carry on with their lives.
Maybe, we should start helping all the children of the "little people" identify their special talents and aptitudes and then help them hone those for their entire public school life. Let the musical focus on music and the person with great fine motor skills focus on things that use that.
Let us all, even us little people, live our lives to our best ability, using our strengths for our own success and enjoyment instead of having a government that is busy trying to help the giants groom us for their own business success.
Once upon a time, the lord of the manor would ride out, see a 12 year old girl that looked like she would be a nice addition to the manors servant quarters, and there she would go--her life no longer her own. Or see a big strong 10 year old boy, grab him up and apprentice him to the blacksmith. It didn't matter what they wanted, it didn't matter if they had dreams.
Because the dreams of ants don't matter. Their lives are short and meaningless to those that can't see that small.
Don't misunderstand, I would have loved the STEAM program when I was a child, but we had 2 tracks, college and vocational. For the girls that was further narrowed into---girls to college for teaching or nursing, and girls to secretarial or home economics.
Boys were great athletes to college, nerd boys to college, and all the other boys to shop class.
We haven't changed much. We kill the love for school for many children by third grade. That is a sign that school is not for the good of the children. Right now we have laws requiring IEP's for "special children". It's time that all children were special. Unfortunately, we don't really like to pay for educating the children of "the little people" unless we can mark it off as a business expense.
Just remember, ANTS ARE PEOPLE TOO!
If you google that, there are multiple examples of lawsuits by landowners, large landowners, businessmen that are in the middle of fighting eminent domain lawsuits. Whatever "public good" was expected to occur when the current owners had their property taken is on hold.
Eminent domain is not just used for taking property to place prisons or jails, schools, county hospitals, or parks, it is also used if a wealthy corporation decides to talk the local politicals into a project that will increase property taxes, attract tourists, make the area prettier. No one ever mentions that it will also make the wealthy corporation buttloads of money, also.
While prominent businessmen, large landowners, and large groups of uppermiddle class residents can hire someone to squash such ventures, the poorer communities are frequently just walked all over.
We call that gentrification.
As in "Anti-Robin Hood". Steal from the poor and give to the rich.
I realize that when an area looks poor, is full of liquor stores and crappy apartments, empty buildings, and dollar stores, it does not bring in big revenue. Poor people don't have big revenue. But, they have to live somewhere. Getting rid of every place that they call home doesn't make them middle class, it makes them homeless.
I have read in a few books where the poor in feudal times were called little people (not at all the same as fairies, gnomes and brownies).
I have heard those few rich and powerful families referred to as "giants among men."
As a regular human, every time I walk outside, I may--or may not be squashing ants and other bugs. The front of my car proves that I kill much more than ants every time I drive, but especially at night when they are attracted to my headlights. If I glance at the side of the road, I realize that our vehicles create a lot of roadkill, also.
And most of us never think about that at all.
I think those "giants among men" do a lot of that to the "little people". "Well, what was I supposed to do, they were in my way." "They breed like cockroaches, they won't even be missed." "I am doing important work here, what are they doing."
Well, they were living their lives. AND, they weren't easy lives....some of us humans have multiple houses, the best-of-the-best food, never have to worry about their children longer than it takes to call a lawyer or the Doctor on speed-dial, never have to worry about the electricity being off longer than it takes the generator to kick on during the storm. BUT, a lot of us have a certain familiarity with the basic needs---pay the bills on time, how to prioritize the use of the money coming in so that A) everyone eats, B) The rent or mortgage is paid, C)The Utilities stay on, D) the car is not repossessed, E) everyone has the clothes they need to not be suspended from school, not be sent home from work, and not freeze in winter or burn in summer.
There are plenty of "little people" that screw up periodically and miss a beat that causes them some problems: the woman that thinks that better clothes will get her that better job, then finds it doesn't pay her more and now the kids school clothes are too tight and---inappropriate. The family that does everything right till the baby gets sick and mom or dad has to stay at home for a week. IF they knew about FMLA AND did the paperwork, the jobs are still there, but the pay is not guaranteed and now something has to give---will it be the food? the rent? or the utilities. They ride the bus, so nothing to cut their, but also, not much saved while off work not riding. Hopefully the landlord will understand, the rent being late is least likely to make a sick kid worse.
Little lives can be dangerous lives. Fraught with hard choices that those giants among men never have to face. Some of the small things can be a mom or dad that works in health care or was in the military choosing to make butterflies to hold a wound shut that obviously needed stitches. Or throwing a child in a cool bath when their temp spikes to 105 degrees F--to avoid a copay to the ER that is bigger than they have. Choices like feeding the family nothing but processed foods known to cause cancer because the fresh food is too high for the budget. Choices like living in a car when they have to choose between the job and the rent.
Life is full of choices for the "little people".
But rarely full of the kinds of choices that they want to make.
If you ask a 12 year old whether they would rather be the CEO of the bank or the Teller, they aren't dumb, they say CEO. But in the next 6 years, when they should be preparing for their future, they are doing what middle school and high school students have done for generations in public school. They are trying to get the classes they want--based on how easy it is and whether their friends are in it. We have a lot of AP classes anymore, and by 3rd grade, kids in small communities know who in their class will be taking those AP classes and who will be stagnating in boring, minimally helpful classes that have them memorizing pointless facts, filling out worksheets, reading the state approved books (or finding a good report on Google), trying to figure out the new math---and there is always a new math, because how else do you sell all those textbooks on a subject that is set in stone and never needs an upgrade--except maybe to make it less white bread in the story problems.
Most kids like school till third grade. Then, we stop worrying about everyone's self-esteem and start trying to push all the kids into the mold that will build the future workers of America.
We are currently all about STEM or STEAM, depending on whether or not they put art in there to make the name look more recognizable.
But, do we really need an entire population of scientists, technologists, engineers and Mathematics?
Reality is, most of those giants among men, don't want the little people getting any closer to their STEAM moneymakers than clerical work, data entry, and working in the warehouse once they get their next little widget made to sell.
We aren't trying to turn everyone into scientists and mathematicians, we are trying to identify talent early and the rest of them are welcome to go right back to being C students that can apprentice to their plumber father and carry on with their lives.
Maybe, we should start helping all the children of the "little people" identify their special talents and aptitudes and then help them hone those for their entire public school life. Let the musical focus on music and the person with great fine motor skills focus on things that use that.
Let us all, even us little people, live our lives to our best ability, using our strengths for our own success and enjoyment instead of having a government that is busy trying to help the giants groom us for their own business success.
Once upon a time, the lord of the manor would ride out, see a 12 year old girl that looked like she would be a nice addition to the manors servant quarters, and there she would go--her life no longer her own. Or see a big strong 10 year old boy, grab him up and apprentice him to the blacksmith. It didn't matter what they wanted, it didn't matter if they had dreams.
Because the dreams of ants don't matter. Their lives are short and meaningless to those that can't see that small.
Don't misunderstand, I would have loved the STEAM program when I was a child, but we had 2 tracks, college and vocational. For the girls that was further narrowed into---girls to college for teaching or nursing, and girls to secretarial or home economics.
Boys were great athletes to college, nerd boys to college, and all the other boys to shop class.
We haven't changed much. We kill the love for school for many children by third grade. That is a sign that school is not for the good of the children. Right now we have laws requiring IEP's for "special children". It's time that all children were special. Unfortunately, we don't really like to pay for educating the children of "the little people" unless we can mark it off as a business expense.
Just remember, ANTS ARE PEOPLE TOO!
Saturday, September 15, 2018
That won't work.
"THAT WON'T WORK"
If you have ever said that about anything, and there is plenty our there that that can be said about, but if you have ever said that about, say, Universal Healthcare, or free college education or clean energy, then you need to ask yourself three questions.
1. Who told me that will never work.
2. Why do I believe that will never work.
3. Why are all three things occurring successfully in other countries.
Tough questions.
We have all said things won't work that did.
My grandfather believed so strongly that men going to the moon would not and could not happen that he hooked it to his belief in God. He died before we made it to the moon, so no crisis of faith there.
Gave his children pause, though.
Leonardo DaVinci drew many things that would never work, like helicopters and such.
The Telegraph, Telephone and Television were all three pipedreams at one time.
Women as voting, thinking, productive (not talking babies here) members of society was at one time an absolutely ridiculous set of ideas.
A non-white, non-male ruler has been a "won't work" repeatedly, but has now happened successfully all over the world---repeatedly.
Educating poor people, laborers children, farmers children, girls, etc., etc., etc., has been seen as pure foolishness.
So, right now, if you are calling the idea of everyone having equal access to healthcare something that won't work---why? Why can't we do what those other countries are doing.
Last thing, but far from least, is clean energy.
This one really freaks me out a little.
We, especially in Oil-rich states like mine, but also in those with lots of coal mines, are so loyal to fossil fuels we can't even consider doing something better. We call Natural gas "clean" because it is a clear gas, but the air contamination of burning it is little if any better than oil or coal. And the possibility of leaks; of gas, of pipelines, of coal ash disposal sites, is huge.
I realize that tobacco farmers denied smoking was bad for people, self-preservation and all, but denial will never make fossil fuels clean anymore than denial will prevent cancer and heart disease.
We know how to eliminate most of this, how to change to clean energy that will be cheaper---and there in lies the problem. Cheaper is not the energy folks goal. Profit is and always has been the goal.
Dirty energy is big money.
Expensive school is also big money.
Private healthcare is big money.
People enjoying the benefits of having those three industries stay full of money, full of profit, expensive, will never, ever say, we can do this better, cheaper, faster.
And as long as their money is lobbying our lawmakers and supporting those superpacs, they will keep staying fat and inefficient while not benefiting those of us that need them most.
Maybe its time to change "that won't work" to "Let's do this for us all".
It's actually past time.
If you have ever said that about anything, and there is plenty our there that that can be said about, but if you have ever said that about, say, Universal Healthcare, or free college education or clean energy, then you need to ask yourself three questions.
1. Who told me that will never work.
2. Why do I believe that will never work.
3. Why are all three things occurring successfully in other countries.
Tough questions.
We have all said things won't work that did.
My grandfather believed so strongly that men going to the moon would not and could not happen that he hooked it to his belief in God. He died before we made it to the moon, so no crisis of faith there.
Gave his children pause, though.
Leonardo DaVinci drew many things that would never work, like helicopters and such.
The Telegraph, Telephone and Television were all three pipedreams at one time.
Women as voting, thinking, productive (not talking babies here) members of society was at one time an absolutely ridiculous set of ideas.
A non-white, non-male ruler has been a "won't work" repeatedly, but has now happened successfully all over the world---repeatedly.
Educating poor people, laborers children, farmers children, girls, etc., etc., etc., has been seen as pure foolishness.
So, right now, if you are calling the idea of everyone having equal access to healthcare something that won't work---why? Why can't we do what those other countries are doing.
These green countries have done it. Some for over 70 years. Besides ourselves, we are in the company of some of the poorest, most unstable, least safe countries in the world.
Why can't we join the free world on Healthcare.
Next is free public college education.
Once upon a time, there was no public education at any level. The idea of letting everyone spend time learning to read and write and do arithmetic was ridiculous. Most of the people would never be anything but general laborers, farm hands, maids, and cooks, and blacksmiths and barrel makers. No one really wanted to take those children out of the workforce, and yes, they were working by 7, maybe at the family business, maybe in the coal mine or on the land owners farm or in town for the wealthy households providing maid service and livery service and go-fer service. Why teach them to read and write and do arithmetic.
But we did, and it helped many people NOT have to spend their lives in menial jobs that wore them down and bored them mentally and convinced them life was hopeless. Don't get me wrong. There are people that love service work. They feel fulfilled when they are making someone's life run smoothly and look beautiful. But, if you can't choose not to live that life, can anyone say you DID choose to live that life?
Everyone wants choices, they want to dream and not have those dreams crushed by accident of birth.
For a lot of people, the choice of college is never seen as an option, they are too busy trying to survive childhood, and know that no one can pay for their college. But, if they knew they could go if they just made the grades???? How many lives would that change. How many hopeless poor kids would dream bigger and work harder in school. In cities with free community college to students from that city, enrollment increases by over 10%. It's not Scandanavia. Students still need some source of funds for living while they are in school and there is no telling how many can't go due to needing to work fulltime to find a place to live and eat. I do know that our minimum wage jobs are not going to help students out much. And poor parents can't always afford to keep feeding and housing children after high school graduation. It may take several generations to stop the "crab in a bucket" mentality of poor parents that couldn't go to college, that now don't see themselves as needing to help their own children in college when they are still struggling daily to survive.
The following is a table of college affordability rankings by country. It is not a world map. But we are far from the top. Our income inequality makes this a very tough price for our poor to lower middle class.
Last thing, but far from least, is clean energy.
This one really freaks me out a little.
We, especially in Oil-rich states like mine, but also in those with lots of coal mines, are so loyal to fossil fuels we can't even consider doing something better. We call Natural gas "clean" because it is a clear gas, but the air contamination of burning it is little if any better than oil or coal. And the possibility of leaks; of gas, of pipelines, of coal ash disposal sites, is huge.
I realize that tobacco farmers denied smoking was bad for people, self-preservation and all, but denial will never make fossil fuels clean anymore than denial will prevent cancer and heart disease.
We know how to eliminate most of this, how to change to clean energy that will be cheaper---and there in lies the problem. Cheaper is not the energy folks goal. Profit is and always has been the goal.
Dirty energy is big money.
Expensive school is also big money.
Private healthcare is big money.
People enjoying the benefits of having those three industries stay full of money, full of profit, expensive, will never, ever say, we can do this better, cheaper, faster.
And as long as their money is lobbying our lawmakers and supporting those superpacs, they will keep staying fat and inefficient while not benefiting those of us that need them most.
Maybe its time to change "that won't work" to "Let's do this for us all".
It's actually past time.
Thursday, September 13, 2018
Dear President Donald.
Trump Administration Transferred $9.8 Million From FEMA To ICE.
That is a headline from an Article on NPR.
It is an item being reported by most other news reporting bodies as well.
"They" needed more money to handle the asylum seekers that were entering the country illegally.
To "process" them. and "house" them.
This occurred with not one but three potential hurricanes approaching land that is part of the USA: the east coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and Hawaii (another island--don't forget the 3 thousand plus that have died in in Puerto Rico because, you know, water all the way around it--of course, most of them died because of the hurricane, but when it first hit, that number was 60ish, the rest died of our own failure to rescue them from the aftermath of a destroyed infrastructure and no food/water/medical supplies actually getting where it needed to go.
Of course, most Puerto Ricans are a) poor and b) brown. Not exactly your supporters. And definitely not your kind of people, if they weren't already US citizens, you would be building a wall around them.
But, how is the money for the disaster relief of US citizens a slush fund for a personal prejudice against asylum seekers.
If you really want to fix our immigration problem, stop all immigration.
All of it.
No one from another country comes in, no one goes out. No more of this bringing in the well-educated or monied people from other countries---they are just taking up our jobs and our houses and our AIR. They can stay where they are and fix their own homeland to be more like the USA if they like our country so much.
We can pull all our soldiers back, line them up across the southern and northern borders with automatic weapons, but about 50 yards back, and they just shoot anyone that crosses that line.
The other side is welcome to get 50 yards back from their side also with their own soldiers in case anyone is crazy enough to try to go to their side---because no one ever tried to go to Mexico or Canada to seek asylum--and anyone in that vvvveeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyy wide football field across both borders is target practice.
Of course, we just, kind of declared WAR against Mexico and Canada, but our soldiers will not go out of the country ever again----and they will always know what they are protecting.
I do believe that trade with all other countries will need to end at that point. We won't be importing or exporting to our neighbors with this going on since you don't enjoy a secure and safe business relationship with countries you are at war with.
But what if Canadians or worse, Mexicans, travel to a place that we allow to send ships or planes with merchandise from and ride in that way.
That won't do, we can't risk those people coming into our country that way either, so no more imports of any kind.
And, if we don't buy their stuff, they are most likely not going to want to buy our stuff.
Even if they still want our stuff, we can't risk those ships and planes returning with hidden Mexicans and Canadians on board.
The downside, Mr President, is all those countries with your hotels and casinos and golf courses might decide that Americans can't own property in their countries.
You will never be able to play golf anywhere but the USA.
And, you better be nice to Melania once the border is closed, no replacements coming in after that.
I mean, if we had done this in in 1880, we wouldn't have you over here either.
Where is that time machine when you need it.
That is a headline from an Article on NPR.
It is an item being reported by most other news reporting bodies as well.
"They" needed more money to handle the asylum seekers that were entering the country illegally.
To "process" them. and "house" them.
This occurred with not one but three potential hurricanes approaching land that is part of the USA: the east coast, the Gulf of Mexico, and Hawaii (another island--don't forget the 3 thousand plus that have died in in Puerto Rico because, you know, water all the way around it--of course, most of them died because of the hurricane, but when it first hit, that number was 60ish, the rest died of our own failure to rescue them from the aftermath of a destroyed infrastructure and no food/water/medical supplies actually getting where it needed to go.
Of course, most Puerto Ricans are a) poor and b) brown. Not exactly your supporters. And definitely not your kind of people, if they weren't already US citizens, you would be building a wall around them.
But, how is the money for the disaster relief of US citizens a slush fund for a personal prejudice against asylum seekers.
If you really want to fix our immigration problem, stop all immigration.
All of it.
No one from another country comes in, no one goes out. No more of this bringing in the well-educated or monied people from other countries---they are just taking up our jobs and our houses and our AIR. They can stay where they are and fix their own homeland to be more like the USA if they like our country so much.
We can pull all our soldiers back, line them up across the southern and northern borders with automatic weapons, but about 50 yards back, and they just shoot anyone that crosses that line.
The other side is welcome to get 50 yards back from their side also with their own soldiers in case anyone is crazy enough to try to go to their side---because no one ever tried to go to Mexico or Canada to seek asylum--and anyone in that vvvveeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyyy wide football field across both borders is target practice.
Of course, we just, kind of declared WAR against Mexico and Canada, but our soldiers will not go out of the country ever again----and they will always know what they are protecting.
I do believe that trade with all other countries will need to end at that point. We won't be importing or exporting to our neighbors with this going on since you don't enjoy a secure and safe business relationship with countries you are at war with.
But what if Canadians or worse, Mexicans, travel to a place that we allow to send ships or planes with merchandise from and ride in that way.
That won't do, we can't risk those people coming into our country that way either, so no more imports of any kind.
And, if we don't buy their stuff, they are most likely not going to want to buy our stuff.
Even if they still want our stuff, we can't risk those ships and planes returning with hidden Mexicans and Canadians on board.
The downside, Mr President, is all those countries with your hotels and casinos and golf courses might decide that Americans can't own property in their countries.
You will never be able to play golf anywhere but the USA.
And, you better be nice to Melania once the border is closed, no replacements coming in after that.
I mean, if we had done this in in 1880, we wouldn't have you over here either.
Where is that time machine when you need it.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
An addiction to winning.
Florida had another mass shooting.
An angry gamer just shot last years winner, and some other gamers.
Why?
Why!!!
We, in the USA, have created a world in which it is more important for our children to WIN, to be WINNERS, than it is for them to be happy, healthy, and comfortable in their own skins.
We have fathers that push their kids to play football, forget about that sissy brain injury stuff, "be a real man".
And sons, raised by those same fathers, not only buy into the idea of risking their brains, their future, for high school sports and winning, but then turn around and push their own sons in the very same way.
Because, Football players are winners.
No one brags about losing while playing football.
No one brags about losing at any team sport.
Because, currently, team sports are all about beating someone else's butt.
It is possible to play individual sports competing only against yourself, but then we wouldn't have all these competition and Olympics and events if it wasn't still about beating someone else's butt.
Sports are not the only thing that we in the USA enjoy competing in. We compete in Music, Acting, Dancing, Painting, Cooking, even eating.
But our big competition is the game of life--and the winners are announced by Forbes once a year.
Money is the big competition.
Are you smart enough, hard enough, greedy enough to win at life?
Small towns have their own variation of it, since few of them can compete with the big dogs. They have the biggest farm, biggest house, nicest car, name on most city buildings. Drive through most places and you can name their biggest winners just riding though the town.
A wealthy person once told me that she didn't think that wealthy people should be taxed as much, so they can give to their favorite charities and the high taxes decrease the amount they can give.
All I could say was that poor people want to give to their favorite charities also---even if it won't be enough to get their name on the building. To her, I obviously wasn't even supposed to be playing her game.
Am I angry because I'm not rich?
No.
I am angry because I'm discounted for not being rich.
Am I angry because I'm not a winner?
What a ridiculous concept.
What even is a "winner".
But the idea that "winning" is actually an addiction, that was a recent insight.
Addiction may involve the use of substances such as alcohol, inhalants , opioids , cocaine , nicotine , and others, or behaviors such as gambling; there is scientific evidence that the addictive substances and behaviors share a key neurobiological feature—they intensely activate brain pathways of reward and reinforcement, many of which involve the neurotransmitter dopamine . Both substance use disorders and gambling behaviors have an increased likelihood of being accompanied by mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety or other pre-existing problems. "activate brain pathways of reward and reinforcement" Nothing on earth does that like winning does it for some people. Me, I'm more prone to wine and chocolate, but mostly because I don't like the feeling that I made someone else feel like a loser. I've felt like a loser. When we tell someone to "get back on the horse, don't wait" they are basically telling them to not let that loser feeling turn into an aversion you can't shake. When we compete with others, we are agreeing to be judged according to someone else's standards and then placed into categories according to those doing the judging's judgement regarding those other people's rules. Every time I see a parent whack their kid in the back of the head when he or she misses a ball, give them the evil eye when they don't even place, or tell them "maybe this sport just isn't for you" when it was obvious they had fun, they just were average; I want to scream "Leave them alone" "This isn't even about you" But it is, because now that they are too old to win at their sport, they can only win if their offspring is winning. Did you know there is a gene for grip strength?, for being a warrior vs being a strategist? How about for fast twitch muscle fiber? How about for perfect pitch, academic achievement, reaction time and episodic memory. All of those exist, but those without them are not losers, they have their own genes and those genes helped them to survive just like the others did. The fast twitch muscle fiber is common in elite athletes, but unless both parents are homozygous for it, the kids are not that likely to get it too. And, a gene does not mean that a kid will not prefer reading too sports. AND, why do we place so much importance on sports?!? Because we like winners. When you have kids getting ready for college, the high school is all about getting their athletes to college, they want to get those good students that competed in debate and competed in science fair and tech and computer all in the colleges. But what about the students that just made consistently good grades, went through school basically invisible. Are they losers? Have they already been determined to be losers, NOT winners based on nothing more than they didn't compete. We have millions of things created by barely known people and then mass produced by totally anonymous people. Does that mean the woman that sewed my favorite blue jeans is a loser? How about all those stunt doubles in the movies, most of us not only wouldn't recognize their faces, we wouldn't recognize their name, because they are listed in fine print at the end of the credits. Those movies would not be the same without them. Are they losers? We have people like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy, both are as famous as can be, they were evil incarnate, the fodder of multiple books and movies and copy cats. ARE THEY WINNERS? I think I would remove all references to winning from childrens' lives. We talk about competition and winning like it is just part of life, but is it really? Or did we just make it part of life. If one child loves playing ball and one loves painting, aren't both having a great time. If one child runs fast and one child runs slow, aren't they both getting their exercise? If one child remembers everything they see and one learns to categorize everything so he/she can remember, aren't they both learning? Are we so tribal, so focused on war, so determined to not create a world better than our hunter/gatherer ancestors, that we can't learn to value everyone for being who they are? Most of us like winning an occasional game of checkers or a ribbon for our jelly at the county fair, a little recognition of doing a good job, but can we not treat those that didn't win like losers? And we do make people feel bad for not being the best. Pretty soon, enough years of being treated like an extra in your own life will cause the person to start feeling pretty replaceable, unimportant, worthless. It is my theory, and I have some good but anecdotal evidence, that addictions are are things we start for the purpose of coping, and then continue because they make us feel like we are better. Sometimes, they make us feel like we are better when we are really getting worse. Sometimes, others can see what is really happening better than we can. And just like the alcoholic blames other people for his own inability to keep drinking AND maintain his work standards and family duties and interpersonal relationships, the "Winner" blames others every time he/she does not win, it is never the fault of the "winner" because "winners" are always the best. Their have been plenty of people addicted to winning. When I was a kid, their were neighbors always trying to keep up with the Jones', but our Jones' were not named Jones. When a fancier car or mailbox or sofa appeared at the home of the Jones's not named Jones, the others in the neighborhood would suddenly start having similar cars or mailboxes or furniture store vans appear. Amazingly, there were also those that didn't even try to compete, usually older, perhaps wiser, or maybe they had already seen that particular cycle come through too many times. We currently have a President with an addiction to winning. Because he routinely refers to himself as a winner and everyone who disagrees with him is a loser. He is older, but apparently he is also hooked through the nose, as they used to say about those old coke addicts. Perhaps it is time to examine our motives for continuous one-upmanship. Am I trying to be the best of the best of the best? Am I trying to be better than those around me? Am I trying to be better than I used to be? That isn't a terrible goal as long as I'm being honest about who I'm competing with. Am I trying to be good? Good. No comparatives. No competition with anyone else. But such a hard goal. Hard for toddlers and hard for teens, hard for parents and hard for old codgers. Today, I'm going to be a good person, feel free to join me. No winners will be announced tonight. It will be goodness for goodness' sake.
An angry gamer just shot last years winner, and some other gamers.
Why?
Why!!!
We, in the USA, have created a world in which it is more important for our children to WIN, to be WINNERS, than it is for them to be happy, healthy, and comfortable in their own skins.
We have fathers that push their kids to play football, forget about that sissy brain injury stuff, "be a real man".
And sons, raised by those same fathers, not only buy into the idea of risking their brains, their future, for high school sports and winning, but then turn around and push their own sons in the very same way.
Because, Football players are winners.
No one brags about losing while playing football.
No one brags about losing at any team sport.
Because, currently, team sports are all about beating someone else's butt.
It is possible to play individual sports competing only against yourself, but then we wouldn't have all these competition and Olympics and events if it wasn't still about beating someone else's butt.
Sports are not the only thing that we in the USA enjoy competing in. We compete in Music, Acting, Dancing, Painting, Cooking, even eating.
But our big competition is the game of life--and the winners are announced by Forbes once a year.
Money is the big competition.
Are you smart enough, hard enough, greedy enough to win at life?
Small towns have their own variation of it, since few of them can compete with the big dogs. They have the biggest farm, biggest house, nicest car, name on most city buildings. Drive through most places and you can name their biggest winners just riding though the town.
A wealthy person once told me that she didn't think that wealthy people should be taxed as much, so they can give to their favorite charities and the high taxes decrease the amount they can give.
All I could say was that poor people want to give to their favorite charities also---even if it won't be enough to get their name on the building. To her, I obviously wasn't even supposed to be playing her game.
Am I angry because I'm not rich?
No.
I am angry because I'm discounted for not being rich.
Am I angry because I'm not a winner?
What a ridiculous concept.
What even is a "winner".
Definition of winner
: one that wins: such as
a
: one that is successful especially through praiseworthy ability and hard work
b
: a victor especially in games and sports
c
: one that wins admiration
d
: a shot in a court game that is not returned and that scores for the player making it.
But the idea that "winning" is actually an addiction, that was a recent insight.
Addiction may involve the use of substances such as alcohol, inhalants , opioids , cocaine , nicotine , and others, or behaviors such as gambling; there is scientific evidence that the addictive substances and behaviors share a key neurobiological feature—they intensely activate brain pathways of reward and reinforcement, many of which involve the neurotransmitter dopamine . Both substance use disorders and gambling behaviors have an increased likelihood of being accompanied by mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety or other pre-existing problems. "activate brain pathways of reward and reinforcement" Nothing on earth does that like winning does it for some people. Me, I'm more prone to wine and chocolate, but mostly because I don't like the feeling that I made someone else feel like a loser. I've felt like a loser. When we tell someone to "get back on the horse, don't wait" they are basically telling them to not let that loser feeling turn into an aversion you can't shake. When we compete with others, we are agreeing to be judged according to someone else's standards and then placed into categories according to those doing the judging's judgement regarding those other people's rules. Every time I see a parent whack their kid in the back of the head when he or she misses a ball, give them the evil eye when they don't even place, or tell them "maybe this sport just isn't for you" when it was obvious they had fun, they just were average; I want to scream "Leave them alone" "This isn't even about you" But it is, because now that they are too old to win at their sport, they can only win if their offspring is winning. Did you know there is a gene for grip strength?, for being a warrior vs being a strategist? How about for fast twitch muscle fiber? How about for perfect pitch, academic achievement, reaction time and episodic memory. All of those exist, but those without them are not losers, they have their own genes and those genes helped them to survive just like the others did. The fast twitch muscle fiber is common in elite athletes, but unless both parents are homozygous for it, the kids are not that likely to get it too. And, a gene does not mean that a kid will not prefer reading too sports. AND, why do we place so much importance on sports?!? Because we like winners. When you have kids getting ready for college, the high school is all about getting their athletes to college, they want to get those good students that competed in debate and competed in science fair and tech and computer all in the colleges. But what about the students that just made consistently good grades, went through school basically invisible. Are they losers? Have they already been determined to be losers, NOT winners based on nothing more than they didn't compete. We have millions of things created by barely known people and then mass produced by totally anonymous people. Does that mean the woman that sewed my favorite blue jeans is a loser? How about all those stunt doubles in the movies, most of us not only wouldn't recognize their faces, we wouldn't recognize their name, because they are listed in fine print at the end of the credits. Those movies would not be the same without them. Are they losers? We have people like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy, both are as famous as can be, they were evil incarnate, the fodder of multiple books and movies and copy cats. ARE THEY WINNERS? I think I would remove all references to winning from childrens' lives. We talk about competition and winning like it is just part of life, but is it really? Or did we just make it part of life. If one child loves playing ball and one loves painting, aren't both having a great time. If one child runs fast and one child runs slow, aren't they both getting their exercise? If one child remembers everything they see and one learns to categorize everything so he/she can remember, aren't they both learning? Are we so tribal, so focused on war, so determined to not create a world better than our hunter/gatherer ancestors, that we can't learn to value everyone for being who they are? Most of us like winning an occasional game of checkers or a ribbon for our jelly at the county fair, a little recognition of doing a good job, but can we not treat those that didn't win like losers? And we do make people feel bad for not being the best. Pretty soon, enough years of being treated like an extra in your own life will cause the person to start feeling pretty replaceable, unimportant, worthless. It is my theory, and I have some good but anecdotal evidence, that addictions are are things we start for the purpose of coping, and then continue because they make us feel like we are better. Sometimes, they make us feel like we are better when we are really getting worse. Sometimes, others can see what is really happening better than we can. And just like the alcoholic blames other people for his own inability to keep drinking AND maintain his work standards and family duties and interpersonal relationships, the "Winner" blames others every time he/she does not win, it is never the fault of the "winner" because "winners" are always the best. Their have been plenty of people addicted to winning. When I was a kid, their were neighbors always trying to keep up with the Jones', but our Jones' were not named Jones. When a fancier car or mailbox or sofa appeared at the home of the Jones's not named Jones, the others in the neighborhood would suddenly start having similar cars or mailboxes or furniture store vans appear. Amazingly, there were also those that didn't even try to compete, usually older, perhaps wiser, or maybe they had already seen that particular cycle come through too many times. We currently have a President with an addiction to winning. Because he routinely refers to himself as a winner and everyone who disagrees with him is a loser. He is older, but apparently he is also hooked through the nose, as they used to say about those old coke addicts. Perhaps it is time to examine our motives for continuous one-upmanship. Am I trying to be the best of the best of the best? Am I trying to be better than those around me? Am I trying to be better than I used to be? That isn't a terrible goal as long as I'm being honest about who I'm competing with. Am I trying to be good? Good. No comparatives. No competition with anyone else. But such a hard goal. Hard for toddlers and hard for teens, hard for parents and hard for old codgers. Today, I'm going to be a good person, feel free to join me. No winners will be announced tonight. It will be goodness for goodness' sake.
Thursday, August 30, 2018
humans as trash.
I heard a story of an immigrant that, in his own words, "was born trash, lived as trash, and will be thrown in the trash at his death" He spent his life picking through the trash for food and clothes and to find things he could sell. The journalist he was talking to was asking him if he could talk to him and maybe take photos, and he seemed shocked that someone would talk to him about his life.
He agreed to cooperate, because those anonymous words by that journalist would be the only proof the world would have that he had lived.
Listening to them tell the story (NPR, I don't remember more, because it had me choking on tears in the driveway.)
I'm not an easy crier.
That story made me aware of the number of people that see themselves as nothing. They are hopeless. They have no one that cares if they live or die. No one thanking god for them.
And, they are invisible most of the time.
The thing most of them have in common is they are poor and powerless.
Most countries turn a blind eye to the poor. They are like cracks in the sidewalk---expected but not important.
Syria currently has an over 80% poverty rate. Their most recent GDP places them at 66th place.
The USA has a rate of 15%, falling between Tunisia and Sweden and tying with Belgium.
The USA has the highest GDP in the world.
Tunisia's GDP is 84th.
Sweden's GDP is 23rd and Belgium is 26th.
That was by Gross Domestic Product.
If you use the Gross Domestic Product per capita, things change a bit.
At that point, the USA is the 11th ($59,532 per capita), Belgium was 19th ($47,561 per capita), Sweden was 18th ($50,070 per capita)and Tunisia was 96th ($11,911 per capita).
That means that Qatar http://www.borgenmagazine.com/the-qatar-poverty-rate/, Luxembourg https://borgenproject.org/luxembourg-poverty-rate/, Singapore https://borgenproject.org/poverty-singapore/, Macau https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-macau/, Hong Kong https://borgenproject.org/poverty-rate-in-hong-kong/, Brunei https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-brunei/, Ireland https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-ireland/, United Arab Emirate https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-the-united-arab-emirates/, Kuwait https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-kuwait/, Switzerland https://borgenproject.org/7-facts-poverty-switzerland/, San Merino https://borgenproject.org/poverty-san-marino/ and Norwayhttps://borgenproject.org/look-poverty-norway/ all had a higher GDP per capita than the United States.
So highest GDP, not highest GDP per capital in the USA. And higher GDP per capita is related more to the number of very rich people than the amount the average person is making or the number of poor people in the country.
The USA has 15% poverty rate.
That means that fifteen of every hundred of our people is invisible and powerless.
One thing that is always true in every country and in every time; children and the elderly are always the most vulnerable poor.
About 49% of babies born into poverty will remain poor throughout their lives. So 7 of every 100 people born in the United States are born invisible and powerless, born throw-a-ways, born trash.
When I was a little girl, my grandmother, who considered cats to be nasty but necessary around a farm told about when she was small, "younger than I was" is what she said, her parent told her to put the latest batch of kittens in a burlap bag and take them out to the pond and throw it in.
She didn't want to, but a "switch" convinced her. She handled her farm cat population herself until she was in her 80's, when she developed a most surprising attachment to her barn cats, letting them not only take over her buildings, but feeding them scraps daily. She was dismayed when they all disappeared on week. The cougar paw prints and screams explained that, but what was shocking was---"she was dismayed" at the loss of the kittens. Suddenly they weren't nasty creatures with no reason to live, they had value to her.
Maybe they just stopped being invisible to her.
How do we start seeing that 15% of our population as people like us, deserving of our empathy and compassion.
How do we stop treating 15% of our population like rubbish?
How do we make them visible, empowered, worthy of a decent life?
I am personally fond of the idea of getting rid of actual poverty--change our taxation system to a leveling system, so that no one pays taxes on the amount of money that is considered poverty level. And we need to make sure that the poverty level is based on real numbers per geographic regions. Our Federal poverty number is $12,140 and $4,180 for each additional family member. Obviously that amount is more likely to work in some areas than others. I realize that places like Beverly HIlls and Fifth Avenue cost a lot, as much to keep out the poor as to make a living. Rich people like to only see rich people.
Maybe that is how the poor became invisible in the first place.
But we need to make getting rid of poverty a goal for our country instead of just trying to hide our poor.
No more homelessness.
No more Hunger.
No more lack of healthcare--including mental health and addiction treatment.
No more lack of educational opportunity from lack of funds.
And we need jobs that allow all to contribute to society with their time and efforts, not like a punishment, but like a recognition that most people want to participate, to contribute, to be partners in our country.
No one's future should be determined by their accident of birth circumstances.
No old people should find themselves choosing between rent, food, and medicine.
Life is never trash.
He agreed to cooperate, because those anonymous words by that journalist would be the only proof the world would have that he had lived.
Listening to them tell the story (NPR, I don't remember more, because it had me choking on tears in the driveway.)
I'm not an easy crier.
That story made me aware of the number of people that see themselves as nothing. They are hopeless. They have no one that cares if they live or die. No one thanking god for them.
And, they are invisible most of the time.
The thing most of them have in common is they are poor and powerless.
Most countries turn a blind eye to the poor. They are like cracks in the sidewalk---expected but not important.
Syria currently has an over 80% poverty rate. Their most recent GDP places them at 66th place.
The USA has a rate of 15%, falling between Tunisia and Sweden and tying with Belgium.
The USA has the highest GDP in the world.
Tunisia's GDP is 84th.
Sweden's GDP is 23rd and Belgium is 26th.
That was by Gross Domestic Product.
If you use the Gross Domestic Product per capita, things change a bit.
At that point, the USA is the 11th ($59,532 per capita), Belgium was 19th ($47,561 per capita), Sweden was 18th ($50,070 per capita)and Tunisia was 96th ($11,911 per capita).
That means that Qatar http://www.borgenmagazine.com/the-qatar-poverty-rate/, Luxembourg https://borgenproject.org/luxembourg-poverty-rate/, Singapore https://borgenproject.org/poverty-singapore/, Macau https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-macau/, Hong Kong https://borgenproject.org/poverty-rate-in-hong-kong/, Brunei https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-brunei/, Ireland https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-ireland/, United Arab Emirate https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-the-united-arab-emirates/, Kuwait https://borgenproject.org/poverty-in-kuwait/, Switzerland https://borgenproject.org/7-facts-poverty-switzerland/, San Merino https://borgenproject.org/poverty-san-marino/ and Norwayhttps://borgenproject.org/look-poverty-norway/ all had a higher GDP per capita than the United States.
So highest GDP, not highest GDP per capital in the USA. And higher GDP per capita is related more to the number of very rich people than the amount the average person is making or the number of poor people in the country.
The USA has 15% poverty rate.
That means that fifteen of every hundred of our people is invisible and powerless.
One thing that is always true in every country and in every time; children and the elderly are always the most vulnerable poor.
About 49% of babies born into poverty will remain poor throughout their lives. So 7 of every 100 people born in the United States are born invisible and powerless, born throw-a-ways, born trash.
When I was a little girl, my grandmother, who considered cats to be nasty but necessary around a farm told about when she was small, "younger than I was" is what she said, her parent told her to put the latest batch of kittens in a burlap bag and take them out to the pond and throw it in.
She didn't want to, but a "switch" convinced her. She handled her farm cat population herself until she was in her 80's, when she developed a most surprising attachment to her barn cats, letting them not only take over her buildings, but feeding them scraps daily. She was dismayed when they all disappeared on week. The cougar paw prints and screams explained that, but what was shocking was---"she was dismayed" at the loss of the kittens. Suddenly they weren't nasty creatures with no reason to live, they had value to her.
Maybe they just stopped being invisible to her.
How do we start seeing that 15% of our population as people like us, deserving of our empathy and compassion.
How do we stop treating 15% of our population like rubbish?
How do we make them visible, empowered, worthy of a decent life?
I am personally fond of the idea of getting rid of actual poverty--change our taxation system to a leveling system, so that no one pays taxes on the amount of money that is considered poverty level. And we need to make sure that the poverty level is based on real numbers per geographic regions. Our Federal poverty number is $12,140 and $4,180 for each additional family member. Obviously that amount is more likely to work in some areas than others. I realize that places like Beverly HIlls and Fifth Avenue cost a lot, as much to keep out the poor as to make a living. Rich people like to only see rich people.
Maybe that is how the poor became invisible in the first place.
But we need to make getting rid of poverty a goal for our country instead of just trying to hide our poor.
No more homelessness.
No more Hunger.
No more lack of healthcare--including mental health and addiction treatment.
No more lack of educational opportunity from lack of funds.
And we need jobs that allow all to contribute to society with their time and efforts, not like a punishment, but like a recognition that most people want to participate, to contribute, to be partners in our country.
No one's future should be determined by their accident of birth circumstances.
No old people should find themselves choosing between rent, food, and medicine.
Life is never trash.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/04/678227272/what-it-looks-like-to-have-a-record-number-of-women-in-the-house-of-representati NPR did a nice a...
-
I have always been told I have too much imagination. I am not realistic. According to these people, we live in a democracy. Democra...
