Posted on by Fred · 7 Comments

Online Panhandler

This week has been a difficult one for me. I had to put my dog to sleep. It was incredibly expensive to do it the way I believed it needed to be done: at home, surrounded by everyone who loves her, feeling as happy as I could make her.

I found I couldn’t pay any of my bills after I spent all that money. I set up a Go Fund Me. I asked my friends for help.

And then I was accused by a friend of being “an Online Panhandler.”

Obviously, that hurt me. We don’t talk anymore. But, it also got me to question my own identity.

My first step was to see if there was any truth in the accusation. The best place to start was with the definition of the term. I looked it up.

To approach strangers and beg for money or food.

v.tr.

1. To approach and beg from (a stranger).

Now it’s worth questioning if that’s what I did. In how many ways do my actions fit that definition?

I left a message on my page. I wrote the following:

I suppose no one was thinking rationally last Friday when we had to put my dog, Melanie, to sleep. We didn’t question the cost. It had to be done; it had to be done immediately. It had to be done in our home where she was always her happiest. I couldn’t bring myself to take her to a Vet’s Office where they would lay her on a cold table. And I know I couldn’t have driven in the first place. I’m not sure whether my roommates could.

At Home Euthanasia turns out to be incredibly expensive. We paid it. We paid to get her ashes back. That was extra, and, from a financial point of view, it was a selfish choice. We made it. And now, as was entirely predictable, we can’t pay any of our bills. My paycheck came that day. So did my roommate’s. So we just spent the money. Perhaps it was foolish. I believe it was the right choice.

I did this to myself. I admit that. I am the one responsible for my decision.

Now, however, I’m reaching out for help. If you could help me offset the cost of the tragedy, I would be beyond grateful.

No one owes me a thing. I have asked for too much, too often, and I have no business whatever doing it again. And if no one chooses to help, I completely understand and respect that choice.

I made a financially irresponsible choice, when I decided to spend the money to bring Melanie’s life to the end I believe it deserved. It was peaceful. She was happy. She wasn’t afraid. She left this Earth feeling loved. That was worth more to me than any amount of money, and I would do the same thing again, even if it meant being here again. She meant the Universe to me.

Most of you have already given me the most valuable support I can get. You have been kind, you have offered advice, and you have sent love, hugs, condolences, and empathy. Those are infinitely more valuable than any number of the Little Green Pieces of Paper the world has decided determine one’s value.

But, if you’d like to help us exist a little while longer in the Green Pieces of Paper World, and you would like to send us a couple of them, it turns out we need them.

Thank you for all you have already done.

Love,

Fred

I also gave the link to the Go Fund Me campaign, and to my roommate’s PayPal account.

I didn’t approach anyone individually. I’ve done that before, though, too. Those who saw this message were either friends of mine, or they were people who were, for some reason, interested in what was on my page.

Having said that, I suppose in a wide enough reading of the term, I met the definition. I was, essentially, begging.

And that brings me to the more important point. Whether or not I’m a Panhandler, I would like to suggest that to be one is not always an insult.

When we were at Wal Mart last week, we saw a woman standing outside. She told us she was homeless, and she needed help. We invited her into the McDonald’s inside of Wal Mart, and we got her breakfast. She told us she was glad we helped her with food instead of money, because she’s an addict, and money represents a greater temptation for her to do things that will make her life briefly more pleasant, but in the long run will make her life somewhat briefer than it might have been otherwise.

It was hot. We have an extra bedroom. We have an old mattress since a friend of mine recently got me a new one. We could have invited her to come stay with us for a while. My heart desperately wanted to do that. She’s a human being. She needs some very basic help. We couldn’t, of course. That’s not the way the world works anymore. And I’m deeply sad about that. That’s a topic, however, for a future essay.

I’ve been thinking about her quite a bit since then. She never told us her name, but she looks like she might be an Erin, so that’s the name I’ll be using to refer to her.

How must it make Erin feel to be in a position that requires her to do that? I’m familiar with the contempt people feel toward Panhandlers and The Homeless. They should pull themselves up by their boot straps. They should get a job. They should never have done drugs. They shouldn’t have euthanized their dogs.

I don’t like that way of thinking. It runs counter to logic, facts, evidence, compassion, and decency. Why?

Logic

There are more job seekers than there are available jobs. For any position in America, there are a minimum of 3 applicants. That means, by definition, 2 people won’t get the job. What follows logically from that? There will be unemployed people. If people are unemployed, they have no money. Without money, they can’t provide the basics of living for themselves. If they can’t provide those basics alone, they have only 2 options.

  1. They can ask for help.
  2. They can die.

The logical choice is to ask for help, although it runs counter to our feeling that we need to take care of ourselves. After a certain age, we are supposed to be able to survive independently. If we can’t, people see us as somehow “less than.” To ask for help is logically correct, and emotionally devastating.

Facts

It takes longer to find a job than it once did.

In 2009, the Wall Street Journal noted that job seekers took longer to find work than since the Department of Labor began tracking in 1948. Now in 2013, the average job search takes 38 weeks or 60% longer. According to the Department of Labor there are over 3.9 million open jobs nationally. Why are so few jobs being matched to workers, if there are a record high number of open jobs?

“98% of job seekers are eliminated at the initial resume screening and only the Top 2% of candidates make it to the interview”, stated Robert Meier, President of Job Market Experts. “Fixing the employment market requires helping job seekers become Top 2% Candidates who can meet employer’s rigorous requirements and easily hit the “bulls-eye” of employer needs to ensure they don’t make bad hires,” continued Meier.


https://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=184277#.Usw5G7GEit9

If one can’t get a job, and one can’t get help from the government, one is forced to ask help from others. 38 weeks is a long time to go without a job.

Evidence

“In 2014 , 1.49 million people used homeless shelters and 578,424 were recorded as being without shelter: sleeping on the streets, in tents, in cars, and other exposed places. Cities completed the 2016 point-in-time count in January.”


https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2016/02/22/how-many-homeless-people-are-there-in-america

How many of those are Panhandlers? I honestly don’t know. I searched, but was unable to find, a reliable source for the number of Panhandlers in America. If someone has such a source, and wanted to share it, I would be grateful.

I’m going to assume that, at some point or other, at least 500,000 people in America become Panhandlers. Some of them may do it professionally. I’m told that, in rare cases, some of them make as much as $80,000 a year. That’s a hell of a lot more than I make. It’s probably more than you make. If it’s not, send me some money, please. (Yes, that was a joke.)

But, the evidence suggests there are a large number of Panhandlers, and I don’t believe the vast majority of them are doing it because they want to.

There is the anecdotal evidence of those we encounter. My experiences with them have mostly been nice. I’m sure others have had negative experiences with them. There are good and bad people in any group.

Three Fast Facts About Panhandling

1. Only 3% of panhandlers don’t want some form of permanent housing that would help to get them off of the street.
2. 48% of panhandlers are African American.
3. 1 out of every 4 panhandlers in the United States has served in the military at some point in time.


https://brandongaille.com/21-amazing-panhandling-statistics/

Compassion

The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blessed:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes

The Merchant of Venice

Previously, I have argued that The Value of a Person cannot be calculated by the number of little green pieces of paper that person is able, in whatever form, to collect.

frededer.home.blog/2019/03/25/the-value-of-a-person/

If a person is alive, that person has a human right to certain basics. All living people deserve food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and the means to explore this life. This is an opinion that I hold deeply, and it would be difficult to convince me to change it. There are examples of people who may deserve to die because they have done something so heinous that they have forfeited the right to breathe. But such people are few and far between, and none of them makes the list simply for having an insufficient collection of money.

So…

Am I an Online Panhandler?

This question reminds me of one Jimmy Smits had to answer in an episode of The West Wing. Alan Alda asked him if he was an Unthinking Liberal. He asked it in the same smug sort of way that the question about me being a Panhandler is asked. It assumes that being a Liberal or being a Panhandler is necessarily and obviously evil. This is their exchange:

Congressman Matthew Santos (Jimmy Smits): I know you like to use that word ‘liberal’ as if it were a crime.
Senator Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda): No. I’m sorry. I shouldn’t have used that word. I know Democrats think liberal is a bad word. So bad you had to change it. What do you call yourselves now, progressives? Is that it?
Santos: It’s true. Republicans have tried to turn liberal into a bad word. Well, liberals ended slavery in this country.
Vinick: A Republican President ended slavery.
Santos: Yes, a liberal Republican. What happened to them? They got run out of your party. What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Repubican party, Senator? I’ll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those programs… every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘Liberal,’ as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won’t work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor.

– The West Wing
from the episode “The Debate” written by Lawrence O’Donnell

If you would like to watch the scene, you can find it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqrG9N-cmds&t=3s

I’m not going to claim Panhandlers are as heroic as liberals, but I still see the same nobility in them that Billy Joel found when he was done being an Angry Young Man. “I’ve found that just surviving is a noble fight.”

I know that when someone calls me a Panhandler, they don’t mean it in a kind way. They are not being friendly toward me. I don’t feel insulted by the epithet, though.

I’m supposed to trade what I have that is of value in order to collect little green pieces of paper. I maintain I did. What I have that is of value is kind, loving, and compassionate people in my life. I wouldn’t trade them for anything. But I don’t believe any of you are in my life because I forced you to be. It’s a choice you made because there must be something in me that you value. There is certainly something in you that I value, or you wouldn’t be reading this. It may be your sense of humor, your ideological bent, the interests we share, the ideas we debate, or just that seeing your name popping up on my page makes me smile. It could be any of a billion or so things. But, I value you. And I believe you value me.

Decency

No one insists you donate your hard earned money to a Panhandler. You have every right to decide to ignore them completely. They have done nothing of any value to you. And, you may even resent them for not appearing to you to be working, and you know how hard you worked for what you have. You don’t need to pay for anyone but yourself.

What I would ask, though, is that you spare them your contempt. Please don’t give them your unsolicited opinion.

“Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.”

  • Mark Twain (mostly)

Making someone else feel small does nothing to make you taller. It just makes you cruel. Let’s be Kind to one another whenever we can. It matters.

Posted on by Fred

The Blindness of Ideology

It is nearly impossible to reach objective and successful conclusions if one can’t see beyond one’s own Ideology. I’m defining Ideology as a set of beliefs about the world that shape how you interact with it. Few people share identical Ideologies, at least if they’re taking the time to think everything through. Those with identical Ideologies are usually following a prescribed set of thoughts blindly. It’s possible to be Conservative in many ways while still despising President Trump. It’s possible to be a confirmed Liberal and loathe President Obama. And, it’s possible to have a set of beliefs anywhere in between.

Well, why shouldn’t Ideology shape my opinions about important issues?

I suppose it should, in some ways. At the Core of My Ideology is the belief that people should be helped according to their needs, and that every life counts. To the extent some policy is impeding that goal, I am likely to oppose it. On the other hand, if I reject facts that don’t fit the way I see the world, I am blinding myself to real problems and possible solutions to them. I can wind up working against my own beliefs.

This has happened to me several times. I was once a supporter of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). It sounds to me like a good idea. My liberal Ideology embraces ethics. And I love animals. They oppose testing perfume and things on animals. They don’t like fur. Those are all positions with which I can agree. I thought no more about it.

Then a friend of mine showed me compelling evidence that PETA kills pets. My first thought was that this must be the same sort of Conspiracy Theory as the famous Pizzagate Scandal that nearly cost an innocent man his business. Or, it was like the faked videos of Planned Parenthood selling body parts. This was to be ignored.

But when I investigated what she showed me, I recognized the information was factual, well documented, and included statistical analysis. It included the founder saying that the idea of pets was bad in the first place. “We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed.” For more, you can follow this link. https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/

Now, my point isn’t to try to convince you PETA is bad. I think they are, but that’s a part of my Ideology, and I recognize that there can be another point of view. That isn’t the point.

The point is that to recognize I had been wrong, I had to pull off my Ideological Blinders. I still see the world as I see it, but I didn’t have enough facts to see all I needed to see in order to decide how I felt. And, even now, I have to accept the idea that I still may be wrong. There may be other facts that I don’t know that will change my mind again. If I’m unable to adjust my views to fit the facts, I have an unsupportable view. More importantly, I can’t develop an informed opinion.

There is a danger in undue credulity. If you’re going to believe everything someone tells you, even in the face of evidence that he’s lied repeatedly, you’re not going to be able to see things in any other way. Your Ideology outweighs evidence. You are unable to change your mind. And then you can’t have an informed opinion, either.

I may still think of you as a good, close, or dear friend, but there is little point in discussing politics with you if you’re going to use Alex Jones as evidence to support your argument. The source is not credible.

And that brings us to the next argument: The Mainstream Media is unreliable… It’s Fake News! Our President has even called The News Media “The Enemy of the People.”

There may be some truth to this. Media is made up of human beings, and human beings lie sometimes. I admit that.

I don’t know, however, any other way of gathering information. And that’s why our government is designed the way it is.

The Founders of the United States were brilliant. They put together a Constitution that included three branches of government in order to keep any one branch from gaining too much strength and taking over.

The Supreme Court keeps the legislative and executive branches in check by ensuring any laws they pass fall within the framework of our Constitution. So long as The Supreme Court is made up of ethical men and women, who are committed to a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, the Court can protect us.

The Congress can keep the Supreme Court from legislating from the bench by means of proposing amendments to the Constitution that would overturn Supreme Court rulings. (I’m hoping for one to overturn Citizens United, for example.) This was made an intentionally arduous task by The Founders to keep a corrupt Congress from destroying us. It’s been accomplished only 27 times. It’s been attempted nearly 12,000.

The President can keep the Congress from getting too strong by means of the veto. The Constitution grants the President to reject legislation, but the word “Veto” never appears. It’s simply a Latin term meaning “I forbid.”

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law…


Article 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution

There have been more than 2,500 vetoes in the last 230 years. As long as the President is an ethical person, this power can be useful.

The President appoints Supreme Court Justices. In order to keep the President from appointing unethical people the Congress has to approve them.

In short, the Constitution is a brilliant document.

In the First Amendment, the Freedom of the Press is enshrined. This amendment protects their right to gather and report facts. It also protects your right, and that of others, to tell the Press they are lying. I would be unwilling to give up either of those protections.

The Press is the most powerful check on the government. Without them, citizens have no power. You and I know what happens in Washington exclusively through the press. Neither of us will be invited to sit in on meetings. Neither of us is going to have the opportunity to ask the President, or a member of Congress what they are doing. It would be impractical. In order to keep a corrupt government from seizing power, we have a Press to tell us what is happening. Their power is to provide voters with the information we need when we go to the ballot box.

We have, therefore, a Press that does this for us. It is popular nowadays to decide that when the Press says something someone doesn’t like, the Press is lying. Ideology, however, doesn’t determine facts.

I posted an article on my Facebook page from a liberal media outlet called Occupy Democrats. They made a claim that was flat out absurd. They had no credible sources for the story. I posted it as an illustration of the concept of Ideology being separate from facts.

I am a liberal. I am a Democrat. I tend to agree with liberal ideas. On the other hand, just because I like an idea doesn’t mean that it’s true. I called bullshit when I saw it. My ideology doesn’t dictate truth. It can’t, because it’s no guarantee that I’m always right. In fact, I’m wrong rather frequently.

Fortunately, when I am wrong, I can learn why, I can change my mind, and I can be right again. If, on the other hand, I decide that only things that I like are true, then I will see the world only through my Ideological Blinders. I will be barred from learning the facts and making intelligent decisions based on them.

We don’t need to restrict anyone’s right to Free Speech. We don’t need to restrict Freedom of the Press. We need to enhance it. Far from being an “Enemy of the People,” the press is our only real representative.

There are problems with it. The majority of the Media is owned by only a few people. Independence is harder to find. Sometimes they get things wrong.

Nevertheless, real journalists continue to push for the truth, in whatever form it comes. And they do this because they have what I believe to be a sacred duty to all Americans. They have to tell us what is happening, so we may make up our own minds what to believe.

In Russia, there are fewer press outlets, and and most of them are controlled by the government. Given that, I’m amazed to find Putin has, in his own country, only an 86% approval rating. I would expect it to be closer to 98%, particularly when disapproval has wound up killing many people, including several journalists, over there. They are poisoned. They are dropped out of windows. And how do I know that? Because the Freedom of the American Press allows me to know.

Is it possible that all of The Press is lying? Of course it is. It’s also possible that Valerie Bertinelli will be texting me and asking me out for dinner this week. And both are equally likely.

If you choose to believe in a conspiracy, there is nothing that can be done to change your mind. Any evidence to the contrary is simply a part of that conspiracy.

I submit that in order for our form of government to work properly, maximum freedom is necessary in order to combat the ever growing tyranny threatening to overtake us every day. I don’t want to live in a country where the only thing The Press can report is what is approved by the government. I would find it difficult to believe anything they tell me when I know that it has all gone through an approval process.

It was the Press that showed us Nixon was a criminal. There are still those who, to this day, deny the facts. I can’t convince them that President Nixon covered up the Watergate break in, even when there are tapes in which he confesses as much. I can make the arguments against his guilt myself. “The tapes were probably faked. He’s not the only President who did lousy stuff. What about your liberal hero, JFK, who cheated on his wife and screwed up the Bay of Pigs? Why don’t you hate on him and leave Nixon alone? You liberals are all such haters.”

That’s an ideological argument that moves us not one millimeter closer to finding the truth. Such arguments are merely detours on the Path to Truth.

Again, Truth is not just what I say it is. It exists independent of my feelings about it. Donald Trump did or didn’t behave unethically, regardless of what I think. The Truth, whatever it turns out to be, has nothing to do with what I think.

I am probably more of a skeptic than most people. I reject many more arguments than I accept. I always look to see how credible a story is before I believe it. I know that The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, NBC, ABC, and CBS have a history of many decades of doing their best to find and report the truth. Like all humans, they have made mistakes. Dan Rather, for example, is one of my heroes, but he reported a story that turned out to be entirely false. He was simply fooled. That doesn’t, however, mean that everything he did before or since is to be ignored. It means he made a mistake.

I would not wish to be defined only by my most public errors. I’ve made more mistakes than I wish I had. But there is more to me than my mistakes.

I wouldn’t want President Trump defined only by his mistakes, either. “Grab them by the pussy” is a mistake of epic proportions, and I think most people would admit that. However, there is more to Mr. Trump than just the fact that he said something stupid once. He is best judged by assessing the body of his work. His credibility is best assessed by looking at his own statements and seeing how well they match up with reality.

We can disagree about how often they match up, but we have only the Press to help us find out what he said and how well it matches with reality. His own statements about his reason for firing Comey, on National TV with Lester Holt, flatly contradict what his Vice President said, what his spokespeople said, and what others in his administration said.

If we can’t agree on that reality, if we just assume the Press is lying to us, then I have no means of determining what to believe. What other source do I have?

If I am to believe only the President’s Tweets, then I am likely to have a one sided view of reality. I like to see more than one side. Russia wants to show us only one. I want to live in The United States.

Let’s all try to beware of our cognitive bias. Let’s all recognize that just because we want to believe something, it doesn’t mean it’s true. Let’s all look for credible sources for our information. If we will all do all these things, we have a fair chance at saving our country from the corruption that seeks to destroy it. “We must disenthrall ourselves,” as President Lincoln told us, “and then we shall save our country.” Let’s try our best to do that.

Posted on by Fred

We Cannot Escape History

“Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history.”

Abraham Lincoln

We live in the most divided country that The United States has been since The Civil War. People hold strong opposing opinions about issues of great importance. Climate Change, Abortion, Vaccinations, Immigration, and the conduct of the government are just a few. I don’t want to downplay the importance of any of these issues, but there is one that seems to me to override all others. Is it right, or necessary, to impeach the President?

I understand that, again, there is great debate over this topic. There are those who believe the President is doing the best he possibly can, given the circumstances. He is as hated as he is loved, he is constantly attacked in the news media, he is being investigated over and over again, and his every word comes under scrutiny. For all of that, though, his supporters point to the excellent economy, and they tell us Mr. Trump is responsible for those numbers. They will tell us that he doesn’t behave like other politicians, and this is to be admired. Other politicians are frequently obfuscating in every word that escapes their lips. Their words are so measured that they become meaningless. This President doesn’t measure his words; he says what he feels, and many people share his feelings. They approve of his aberrant behavior. They applaud it enthusiastically.

There are others who despise the President. They point to the 10,000 documented lies he has told. They talk about the caging and tear gassing of children. They talk about the government shutdown he proudly said he would, and subsequently did, cause. They object to his payments to porn stars and Playboy bunnies, his promised, but failed, Muslim ban, his Wall, and his broken promises concerning healthcare. They’re appalled at his choices for The Supreme Court, and they believe his latest Attorney General to be a fraud. They boo him enthusiastically.

But, for me, the Heart of The Issue is whether his behavior is what we want from our President, not only now, but for all the Presidents to come. The behavior that I’m discussing is his overt efforts to stop Congress from fulfilling their constitutional duty to oversee the Presidency and provide checks and balances to keep it from becoming a dictatorship.

If the Democrats begin impeachment proceedings, they will almost certainly fail. The Republicans are the majority of the Senate, and it is wildly unlikely they will vote to uphold the impeachment. The political risk is that this will empower the President’s base, and it will help him to get re-elected. The Democrats, obviously, don’t want that outcome, so impeachment seems like a foolish idea. They accomplish none of their immediate goals. Not only does the President finish his first term, but he gets elected for a second one. The politics are very bad for Democrats.

But, we must look beyond present day politics, and consider the future. The last time we were this divided, a better President said this:


The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation… We — even we here — hold the power, and bear the responsibility.

Abraham Lincoln

The day may come when Americans look to 2019, and they decide that our country either stood up for itself, or laid down and let the oligarchy in which we’re living slide into dictatorship. If, as our Attorney General suggests, “That’s not a crime… To be obstruction of justice the lie has to be tied to impairing the evidence in a particular proceeding… If the President is being falsely accused… and he felt this investigation was unfair, propelled by his political opponents, and was hampering his ability to govern, that is not a corrupt motive for replacing an Independent Counsel.”

What does that mean for future generations? The next President, perhaps a Democrat, or an Independent, or, for all I know, an Anarchist, a Socialist, or a Nazi, can decide he can obstruct an investigation into his behavior (or hers), because he believes he has been falsely accused.

Even an ardent Trump supporter would, I think, recognize the danger in that. Whomever your Least Favorite President is, whether it’s Trump or Obama, or Carter, or Kennedy, or anyone named Bush, or even Lincoln, imagine that person, or someone much like him, being elected in 2024, or 2028…. or in your grandchildren’s lifetimes. This President can now do things you loathe with absolute impunity. Anyone who tries to investigate this President can be legally obstructed because this President believes the accusations against him (or her) are lies. In other words, the entire system of Checks and Balances will collapse. Without it, there is nothing defending us from a ruthless dictator, of any party or ideology.

I had concerns about writing this. I find myself, even now, reluctant to publish it. Just as the politics of impeachment are bad for Democrats, the politics of publishing are bad for me.

First, I have friends whose anger I’m all but inviting. I’m trying my best to stay open and objective, and sticking only to the facts, but I am certain someone who matters to me will object. I don’t care to lose friends. I have only a few, and each of them matters to me. I have friends whose opinions of my writing carry immense weight with me, and I have no idea what their political persuasions may be. I would be more than sad if they decided that we can no longer be friends because we disagree about this.

Second, I’m just stepping into the world of writing for strangers. I’ve shown my work, all my life, only to my friends. When a play of mine was performed, strangers saw it, but the script, itself, was seen only by those who know me. I’m not in a position that I can afford to alienate strangers who enjoy my work. I want them to return and read more of what I write. Losing them would also disappoint me deeply.

So, why publish this at all?

I’m publishing because, as a friend reminded me earlier this week, “The internet is forever.” I am living, as are you, through an important moment in history. My power to control what is happening in my government is all but nonexistent. I can vote. And, I can raise my voice, and share my thoughts with others in hopes of either reinforcing their beliefs, or getting them to consider new ones.

There are many writers who are both better and more knowledgeable than I who can, have, and will write better about this than I have just done. I’m perhaps half a drop of water in the Pacific Ocean of Pundits. My personal insignificance, however, will no more spare me than it did those who lived during the Lincoln administration.

I want to be able to say that, at this moment in history, I acted in the only way open to me. I’m too old to protest. The last time I tried I passed out from heat stroke. It was nearly another hospital trip for me. I can’t knock on doors; people scare the hell out of me. But, what I can do is write. And I can find the courage to share my thoughts, even at some small peril to myself.

I may lose friends and readers, but I will also be able to say I did what pathetically little I could to save the country I love.

Our leaders have the power to do much more. I’m hopeful they’ll disenthrall themselves, and then they shall save our country.

Posted on by Fred · 2 Comments

Clicking Like

I wonder if you understand the effect you can have on someone simply by clicking “Like” or commenting on a post. It is, for me, the equivalent of saying hi when we pass in the hallway. Commenting is like having taken a moment to talk to me.

When I was in high school, I would have floated from class to class if some of my classmates had just said, “Hey, Fred.” 40 years ago, however, we occupied entirely different social classes. I was a Greatest Nothing among The Coconino Nothings. Many of them were the Cool Kids. They were attractive. They were talented. They were athletic. I was none of those things.

Today, that caste system has evaporated. I have friends, now, who simply weren’t allowed even to acknowledge my existence, then. It would have been a violation of etiquette.

If they take a moment to say, “Hey, Fred,” even now, I am delighted. It’s a power they have. I would like to believe I’m someone who has that same power for them. I hope they get a little smile when I click “Like,” or when I comment on something they’ve posted.

It’s a way of saying, at least in a small way, “You matter to me.”

Yes, if you’re reading this, you may be sure you matter to me. Thanks for letting me inside your mind and getting beyond the social norms that would once have separated us. I’m grateful.

Today might be a good day for you to let your friends know that they matter to you. Perhaps you could make a point of clicking “Like” or making a kind comment when you’re on your Social Media today. You might make someone smile. That can be your Good Deed for The Day. And if this post got you to do that, I’ve done mine for the day, too.

Posted on by Fred

Clara: Three Moments

“For Esme, With Love and Squalor”


J.D. Salinger

Brayden slammed his head against the desk hard enough that his eyes actually rolled back in his head for a second, or maybe two, before he pulled his head up off of it and started downward again. His helmet, covering his blond hair and his slightly misshapen ears, provided some protection. Miss Clara provided the rest. She put her hand on his forehead and did her best to keep it from hitting the desk again. Clara was 77; she slowed the blow but couldn’t stop it completely. She grabbed the pillow beneath his desk and set it on top of it before the third thump. Finally, she took him into a full body hug to keep him from hurting himself. He screamed.

“I found it!” came a voice from behind a computer on the other side of the room. “I have the research to prove it. Mozart is what they need. I can send you the link, Arlene.”

Arlene, an overweight woman in her 60s, made something of a snorting sound. “I’ll send you a link proving the Earth is flat, Ms. Pennywinkle.”

“If you can’t accept perfectly good evidence -” Ms. Pennywinkle began before Brayden screamed again. She looked over to him and Clara. “Can’t you hold him properly? My God, you’ve only been doing this forever.”

Clara held him tighter. “Doin’ my best, Ms. Pennywinkle. I promise you I’m doing my best. Brayden just -”

“I know all about Brayden, thank you. That’s probably why I’m in charge, and you’re an aide.”

“Yes, ma’am,” she said, as Brayden began to calm himself. “I’m sure you’re right.” She wiped the drool off of Brayden’s mouth, and he bit her, not quite hard enough to break the skin.

“Fuck!” she shouted.

“Language!” shouted Arlene.

Clara put her hand to her mouth and sucked on it while she inspected it for holes. “There’s not a kid in this room who understands what I just said.”

“The principal sure as shit would,” said Ms. Pennywinkle. “We need to watch our language.”

“I’ll bear that in mind.” Clara looked up at the clock. It was 2:45. Just 8 more minutes until the bell. She might avoid being late if the bus ran on time.

***

Clara got off the bus and walked across the street, the Atlantic Ocean splashing behind her. She used to look out at the ocean on the way into Mike’s Clam Shack, but now she was too tired.

“You’re late!” came a voice sailing across the restaurant before she had even stepped inside.

“Sorry, Pat. I’m doing my best.”

“Car break down again?”

She shook her head and put on her apron. “Repossessed.”

“Seriously?”

Clara ignored him, and she went out to the patio. The diners at her table were new. They were clearly tourists. They were overdressed for the place. The woman, not more than 30, and her companion, probably her husband, who was already losing his hair, were looking toward the ocean. She overheard their conversation as she moved toward them.

“Ask her,” said the woman.

“She’s only a waitress,” her companion replied.

“No, I’m not,” said Clara arriving at the table. “What can I do for you?”

“Ask her!” the woman demanded.

The man sighed. “Fine. That carcass on the beach.” He pointed across the street. “What happened?”

She looked at the skiff to which the carcass was tied. There were only bones left of what had once clearly been a powerful marlin. “Shark, I’m sure,” she replied. “What can I get ya?” They indicated they weren’t quite ready to order yet, and she told them to take their time, and she walked back toward the kitchen.

In an undertone that had no difficulty in reaching Clara, the man said, “I don’t know what that thing is, but it’s sure as hell not a shark. You don’t ask a waitress questions about marine life. I mean, how smart can she be?”

***

It was after 11 when she walked into her house. The smell of unchanged cat litter greeted her instantly. She flipped on the light switch in the kitchen. The dishes were everywhere. She sighed. She really would clean the house someday. Maybe next week.

She went into the bedroom where Horace, the cat, lay waiting for her on the bed. Her Windows XP laptop was on the bedside table, and she scooted Horace over and sat down. She opened the laptop, turned it on, and waited for it to start up. She knew there was no point in doing lesson plans for tomorrow. But she had done them every night of her 35 year career as a teacher, and they gave her the feeling of having some control. She knew Ms. Pennywinkle wouldn’t even look at them; they were, as Ms. Pennywinkle had told her over and over, not the job of the paraprofessionals. They were the job of the teacher, and now that Clara was retired, no one wanted to see what she thought they should do. She did them, anyway, in the same way she prayed every night, long after she had quit believing anyone was listening.

She got a cup of tea while she waited for her computer to warm up. There was only one clean cup left in the cupboard, and there were two bags left in the box.

When she returned, she set her tea on the table, spent 20 minutes writing out her lesson plans, and then she stroked Horace, undressed, put on her nightgown, and went to the dresser on the wall across from the bed. She retrieved the Makarov PM military pistol her deceased husband, Seymour, had brought back from Vietnam. She found the bullet rolling around next to it, and she inserted it into the gun. She set it on the night stand. She shut off the light.

Posted on by Fred · 1 Comment

Civility or Civil War

Civility or Civil War

We live in an increasingly divided country. This is the inevitable result of growing as rapidly as America has. As of December, 2018, the Census Bureau tells me we have 329.1 million people living in the United States. When I was born, in 1962, there were only 186.54 million of us here. In my short lifetime, our population has increased by more than 75%. There’s no evidence of our growth slowing at all.

So, it’s not surprising that we have more disagreements. The more people there are, the more cause we have to disagree.

When I was born there was no discussion about transgender rights. There was no debate about gay rights. There was little concern about Muslims. Welfare was just beginning to transform. And the idea that black people should have equal rights was just beginning to form, at all, at least on the national stage. Abortion was unsafe and illegal. Health insurance was still in its infancy. There were fewer bankruptcies due to health costs in the 1960s than there are now. Health care, however, is substantially better now than it was then. There was little, if any, debate about a Wall. But all of these things, and many others, have become cause for disagreements in the past few decades.

I don’t pretend to know the answers to these questions. I’m not even entirely confident in my ability to formulate the questions presented by these concerns intelligently. But I feel sure the only way we will be able to solve any of the problems that are inherent in a large society is to discuss them. The objective of the discussion, though, can’t be just to win. The objective must be to find solutions.

This requires getting others to see things from our perspective. But it also means learning to see things from the perspectives of others. If I understand not only what a person thinks or feels, but why that person thinks or feels that way, I gain both the advantage of the possibility of my own perspective changing, and the opportunity to address the deeper issues that cause the disagreement in the first place. My mind can change. And I now have a better chance of changing the mind of another person.

The answer may sometimes be to compromise. But it can’t always be. There are places where we must refuse simply to agree to disagree. There are many causes for compromise to be impossible. If I’m unwilling to tolerate any genocide, then I can’t compromise and say, “You want to exterminate 6 million people. I want you to kill 0. So, we’ll split the difference and agree that you can murder 3 million people.”

If, however, I can understand why this leader intends to commit genocide, I can determine whether a solution can be reached. If it’s simply that the leader gets joy from killing, then he’s just an evil bastard, and nothing can be done. Military action is required.

I’m reminded, though, of Kodos, The Executioner from the classic Star Trek episode, “The Conscience of The King.” He was the Governor of a planet with 8,000 residents, and their food supply went bad. Instead of allowing all 8,000 to starve, he ordered the execution of 4,000, so the remainder could survive on the food that was left. I don’t think he was inherently evil. I think he was in an untenable situation. The problem could have been solved without bloodshed if food could have been gotten.

In order to reach solutions, we need to understand not only the problems, but their causes, and the motivations of those who disagree with us.

This cannot be achieved, however, if we don’t behave in civil ways. Why?

The moment a conservative calls me a “Libtard” I’m done listening to him. He’s not interested in solving problems. He’s interested in schoolyard name calling. The epithet does nothing to advance his argument, and he has now shut down the chance that I’m going to gain the understanding necessary to change my mind.

If I tell someone they’re stupid, I’m wildly unlikely to change their minds. They have no more reason to listen to me, and I have shut down my own opportunity.

If we’re going to solve problems, we need to discuss them in civil ways. We need to address ideas, and not people. We need to think clearly, and do our best to make sure the arguments we offer are logically sound. We must not be persuaded by fallacious arguments or unconsidered ideology. We have to guard against Confirmation Bias, or the problem of believing what we want to believe without scrutinizing it as carefully as what we dislike. But most of all, we need to understand one another. And civility is a first step toward that understanding.

With our country and our world growing at a dizzying pace, it becomes urgent that we begin to solve some of our problems now, before the ever deepening divides finally tear us apart, and we find ourselves at war. While you and I can’t change the world, we can change our portions of it. If we begin with Civility, perhaps we don’t have to end in Civil War.