BS Analogy #2 - with my internal dialogue

Bubba loves the Reds but he knows they never win so he joins the Blues team. (Totally self-serving move - keep an eye on this guy.)

Although he pretended to be a friend of the coach, he really thinks he knows more than the coach. Once he's where he wants to be, he tries to sabotage the coach, and talks trash about the coach in public. (Prick, don't trust him now.)

Bubba boasts that their record is his and pretends their lifetime of wonderful accomplishments are his and his alone. His friends and fans conveniently forget that the Blues held those records before he came along.  He and they also talk bad about every player on the team and do everything they can to hurt them. They tell lies about the team and players, and hang signs everywhere about what terrible people the are. (Wow. His friends are either ignorant or just as ugly as he is. Maybe both.)

When Bubba's up to bat, he strikes out on purpose because he really likes the Reds, not the stinking Blues that he only used to be on a winning team. (Wondering now if it's possible to be uglier than this creep.)

When his Blues teammates finally have enough of this and complain about his actions, Bubba's fans scream about how horrible it is that they are saying mean things to or about their friend. They follow the Blues team members everywhere they go, shouting ugly things at them. (Clueless bunch of bullies. It's time to kick Bubba back to the Reds where he belongs.)

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Unions, and Liberal Groups – Oh, What a Tangled Web

There was a time when I respected and supported Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Unions. I joined groups that professed to be for Democrats only, supportive of Democrats, liberals, or progressives, as well as groups that marketed themselves as non-partisan groups that fight for liberal causes. For many years, I supported liberal groups because in doing so, I had an opportunity to address specific issues head-on, and to spend time and work with like-minded people. The idea of a Sanders/Warren or Warren/Sanders, or Sanders/anybody, or Warren/anybody ticket was attractive. I supported them because they agreed with and supported ideals that the Democratic Party and I had long fought for and supported.

I never worked a union job but appreciated the role that unions played in providing the salaries, benefits, and holidays that I enjoyed in my non-union jobs. I verbalized my appreciation to union leaders and members when I had the chance, stood with them and for them when the opportunity arose and even created that opportunity when it didn’t arise without my help, and I offered my full support when they were under attack.

The groups were first to disappoint me. As groups like MoveOn and CREDO became more about being biggest and best, and first to shoot out email and petitions before anyone else, I lost interest. It seemed they were more about themselves, building mailing lists, and getting media attention than they were about issues, which they were often ready to drop as soon as something else was the big news item.

Over the past couple of years, as Warren and Sanders let their fame go to their heads, the writer in me paid close attention to the audience they targeted, as well as how purposefully and systematically they manipulated that audience. What I saw was not attractive nor was it anything I could continue to support. Sadly, today, I liken it to the tactics the people who called themselves tea party used, which was also the tactics Hitler used (repeat the same lies until people are so beat down they actually believe them). I criticized the Republican Party for allowing that group to destroy what was left of their party. I would be a hypocrite if I remained silent now when I see people trying to do the same to my party. I don’t like hypocrites or want to be one.

For a while, I excused Senator Sanders and assumed his groupies were the meme machine pumping out deceptive information so fast I’m surprised it didn’t shut down the internet, and he wasn’t attached to them. Time showed me, though, that he was not innocent. He did not denounce their actions and many of those memes came out under his name and on his Facebook page. That’s when my respect and trust in him waned.

Then came TPP. Senators Sanders and Warren both pumped out lies (I tried to call them deceptions but they quickly rose to the level of lies when they were debunked repeatedly and both doubled down on their misinformation). They both lost me there.

And the unions joined them. I understood, to some degree, and was patient with union posturing. Unlike politicians, I thought they deserved wiggle-room for championing very specific causes for a specific group of people, where politicians are responsible for looking out for what is best for everyone concerned. As time went on, though, and more information came out, I wasn’t able to excuse them, either. Walmart. That sums it up in a word, but I’ll explain.

Walmart and their cheap Chinese products have done serious damage to this country - to workers, to wages, to tax-payers, to small business owners, to manufacturing jobs – to everyone that these people profess to care so much about. Yet, they say little – if anything – about Walmart and they want to let China lead in trade? That’s what shooting down TPP would do, along with a host of other non-progressive disappointments.

So, in my view, today – I cannot trust anything that is coming from Sanders, Warren, or the unions that support them.

Like demented, delusional, disgusting, dishonest, extremely dangerous Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders is against the gun legislation we need in this country, thinks rules don’t apply to him, and thinks it is okay to crash a party primary. That is not okay with me. Nor is it okay for groups with titles like Democrats Only, Democrats 2014 – 2016, Democrats anything to instruct members not to say anything negative about  Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat; he is a spoiled spoiler.

And, it is absolutely not okay for anyone to lecture me about dividing the party since I am sticking with my party and its Democratic candidates (many of the people trying to lecture me and others are not even Democrats). I will continue to talk about the reasons that I dislike Bernie Sanders: he is not a Democrat, he is not honest, he is feeble, he likes guns, he thinks rules don’t apply to him, he lied about President Obama and TPP, and he jumped in where he doesn’t belong because he wants to split the party. That is the only reason anyone joins a primary race. Seriously, for those who don’t understand the process, the only reason for joining a primary race is to split the party. It’s natural when a candidate jumps into her/his own party primary but ugly when people jump into the primary of a party they don’t even belong to.

And I don’t like ugly.

If it doesn’t make sense . . .

FYI: I can't be shamed into wanting to be stupid. If something doesn't make sense to me, no one is going to convince me that I will regret being unpopular for refusing to stick with people who support the senseless practice, belief, or misinformation train. That's not who I am and certainly not who I want to be.

Some of the same people who criticized Allison Grimes and Jack Conway for not supporting President Obama (although the criteria they use to develop their criticism is flimsy and it actually boils down to these two didn't demonstrate support in the exact ways at the exact times the critics wanted) are not supporting President Obama on TPP and TPA. Not only are they not supporting him, they are spreading misinformation about TPP and TPA and stating, with no reservations, that they do not trust him, believe him, or wish him well. That is much worse than what they are criticizing Allison and Jack for doing, and, I am positive, matters more to President Obama than their imagined slights by Alison and Jack. This makes no sense to me so I totally reject the people who are doing it.

Some of the same people who criticized the Republican Party for not taking a stand when the people who called themselves tea party took over and ruined what was left of the Republican Party are now criticizing me for taking a stand against the group of people who are poised to do the same to the Democratic Party. I would feel like a loser and an idiot if I remained silent when I saw this happening, and I would absolutely be a hypocrite. Being a hypocrite makes no sense to me so I will not do it.

I tossed a ratty old shoe out on my page a couple of times. I didn't name names, identify owners, or try to give that shoe to anyone. I honestly had no one in particular in mind to catch that shoe when I tossed it. However, a couple of people snatched that shoe right up, put it on, decided it felt comfortable, and claimed it. Then, they (and others) got very upset with me for saying it was theirs – when, in fact, I had said nothing of the sort. But they had. This makes no sense to me. None. So, I will not apologize for how uncomfortable that shoe feels to anyone who decided to own it.

I am a life-long, yellow dog Democrat. I love this about myself. Unless the Democratic Party changes drastically, this will not change for me. The hundreds of people who have worked campaigns with me, made calls from headquarters with me, attended meetings and debates with me, rallied with me, protested with me, stood on street corners holding signs with me, carried petitions for signatures with me, watched the things I have written over the last twenty years, had more than two conversations with me - all know that I support my party and its candidates. Now, people who know this about me are trying to say that I should "stick together" with people who pretended they were like me but are wandering away from the party and/or President Obama – most of them because they are siding with someone who is not a Democrat (unless he changed his party in the last five minutes) and/or someone who was a Republican a few years ago because she thought they were better at business, and whose Wikipedia page indicates she might still vote for some Republicans. Thinking I should "stick together" with people who became unglued makes no sense to me. I'm sticking with President Obama because he has been consistent and he has stuck with me.

There is not a single person on this earth that I believe cares more about this country and the people in this country, this world and the people in it, and doing what is best for the most concerned than President Obama. I don't think anyone who is criticizing him on TPP and TPA knows as much about it as he does, or cares as much about doing what is best for the most concerned. And, I don't know a single person whose opinion about this I trust more than his. Not sure there is anyone whose opinion I trust as much as his. It makes no sense to me for people (who know much less about this than I do, and who have gotten most of their information from memes), to criticize me (when I have read every word on the White House site, listened to every speech the President has given, read countless articles, and attended an OFA phone brief with David Simas, Assistant to the President and Director of the Office of Political Strategy and Outreach and Luis Jiminez, Counselor to the U.S. Trade Representative) for sharing information. So, I will continue to share facts and point out when people are sharing misinformation. And anyone else who wants to send a private message and call me a sheeple will receive the same FUCK YOU response the last one got.

Other than brewing this, I had a wonderful Mother's Day and hope everyone else did, too.

Self-fulfilling prophecy, TPP, and a touch of Bernie

Self-fulfilling prophecy at work: both parties are the same. It isn't good and I will do everything I can to protect the Democratic Party.

Just as the people who call themselves tea party systematically destroyed the Republican Party, DINOs (emo progs and firebaggers) on the far left are determined to do the same to the Democratic Party. Pay close attention. They don't like the Democratic Party. Many don't even try to pretend they do, and many aren't even registered as Democrats. 

They just like to infiltrate Democratic groups and bad-mouth every single Democrat in office. Then, once they are in there, they whine to people who are actually registered as Democrats, and who are actually doing the work and—something they hate to do—showing up to vote for Democrats. They start playing a ridiculous, Republican-worthy, game of saying, "If you object to me, you are splitting the party." Yeah, the party they don't like to begin with so what do you think might be their purpose in warning people who actually do care about the party that they might be harming the party?

Better yet, why do Democrats fall for this? 

Same as the Libertarian Pauls infiltrate the Republican Party so they'll have a built-in base, and people who are too foolish to not listen, Bernie Sanders has decided that, at age fossil, he still doesn't know what political party he wants to support when he grows up – or, maybe he's just playing the Paul game.

I am a Democrat and I support President Obama. I will do everything I can to protect my party and my President from DINOs, especially the ones who are dangling on the end of the Koch marionette strings, and especially as that pertains to TPP.

Koch Control Over the TPP Outrage 
http://www.blue-route.org/blog/blog/op-ed-2/koch-control-tpp-outrage/

50 Shades of Sandy

 

 

Very little is black and white for me.

 

• I am anti corporate greed, not anti-corporations.
• I am anti organized religion, not anti-gods that stay out of my business.
• I am anti Republicans. Okay, that one is black and not likely to change. However, my being anti-Republicans doesn't mean that should they decide to agree with something that I think is a good idea I am going to automatically discard that idea. Because that would be stupid.
• I am anti stupid. Another one that is almost black. I do happen to like a few stupid people.
• I am anti hypocrites. That means I will not be one. If I think something sucks when Republicans do it, I will also think it sucks if Democrats do it. (That also goes for people who occasionally switch their party affiliation for self-serving reasons.)
• I am anti giving people who take short cuts the same credit that people who do the work get. For example, I don't think Mitch McConnell, who refused to read the ACA should get to speak about it with the same authority or respect as John Yarmuth, who not only read every version but could also recite it almost word for word and explain it. I don't think people who glance at a meme and say they haven't had time to 'check it out' should try to correct people who have done the research, read the articles, visited the actual source, listened to the speeches and interviews, and discussed the topic with others who have done the same.
• I am anti-war when it comes to invading other countries for no good reason, is based on lies, is to settle an embarrassing perceived debt for someone's daddy, or is out of some weird sense of payback. I am not anti-war if it is to protect lives.
• I am pro union, but I can disagree with them on some things. Sometimes, they disagree with one another.

   

To update as I remember the things that aren't coming to mind right away.

Undress For Success Revisited

 

I routed through stacks of old papers this morning without finding what I was looking for. (Yes, it is okay to end a sentence with a preposition.) The project wasn't a total waste of time, though; I found several things that entertained me and a few that made me think. And, this old essay that made me pat myself on the back for predicting where the corporate nonsense would take us.

 

Undress For Success – 1998

 

Can anyone explain how or why we allowed the ludicrous phrase dress for success to become an element of routine communication, even worse, and American tradition? Who honestly supports this notion that clothes control our destiny and that we can be successful only if we are clones? I can't understand why intelligent people forfeited their freedom of expression and individuality to a corporate idea that serves no purpose.

We wonder why children ignore our lessons about individuality and self-esteem and, instead, become preoccupied by what they are wearing. We wonder why they want to follow the crowd. We are horrified when we hear stories about one child hurting another to teal clothes. Maybe they believe that's their only shot at success. Where did they get such an idea? Then, instead of looking to solve the real problem, we inflict the same punishment on them that we have accepted for ourselves – they must forfeit their freedom and wear uniforms.

The first time I sat through the speech about how to dress for success, (and worse yet, how to dress for the position I wanted instead of the position I was in), I laughed. My response to that was that I could only be expected to dress for the position that matched my salary. It was unreasonable to expect me to go into debt to purchase clothes that I could not afford for a position and salary that I did not know I would have. What was even funnier to me was that if I had followed their suggestion to dress for the position I wanted, I would have gone to work every day in sweats, with no bra or shoes. I had high aspirations; I wanted to own the company or be independently wealthy and free of dress codes.

True to the rebel in me, I resisted the dress for success image as much as I could possibly get away with. I had enough confidence in my job performance and value to the company to know they would keep me, regardless of what I wore. I was determined to prove that. I went to work wearing little make-up, and slacks or casual skirts and blouses when my co-workers were in suits. My work didn't suffer, my evaluations remained top-level, and I was still respected by my co-workers. The clothes did not make a difference.

If forced to say that clothes ever make a difference for me, that difference would be that I might produce more when comfortable. And comfortable to me is not a suite, pantyhose, and high-heeled shoes, even though that might be comfortable to someone else. My point is that we should all be free to choose how we dress.

Some dress codes are not even logical. How much sense does it make to wear long sleeves and a jacket when it is 80 degrees outside? Why have we condoned dressing out of season and wasting utilities to alter indoor temperatures to the season we are inappropriately dressed for? Does that even suggest intelligent decision making?

As an adult, I have a hard time making sense of this so what must children be thinking? We tell them to stand up for what they believe, develop self-esteem, be individuals. We tell them that clothes don't make the person. We preach the evils of peer pressure. We tell them they can be whatever they want. But what they see are adults dressing out of season, in clothes that most would never choose if not required, just to please someone else, for no important reason. What we say and do should be the same.

Maybe we should change the messages we choose to follow, and maybe we should adhere to the true meaning of the messages we deliver to our children. We should set an example by standing up for what we believe in, developing our own self-esteem to a point where we don't have to be followers, or controlled by rules that make no sense.

Maybe we should just undress for success.

Conditional Love

It’s official. I have permanently moved unconditional love over to the con column with colorblind and tolerant. People claim these traits with pride and expect me to be impressed or grateful. I’m neither. Instead, I am confused – sometimes insulted and angry. Elements of each concept hurt recipients, who often suffer in silence since our society gives a blind nod to buzz words that sound nice despite the fact that their existence proves the opposite of what their users meant to imply.

If someone tolerates me, that means he does not like or appreciate me so he will fake a smile through gritted teeth and do his best to convince the world that he is a good guy for being dishonest. He might fool a few people when he boasts about his white, middle-aged, liberal, female friend but he will not convince me – the person who matters. I will hear negativity and feel disdain, and I will know that I am included when he talks about the other white, middle-aged, liberal females he dislikes. I prefer honesty.

Colorblind drives me crazier. Unless totally blind and maybe partially deaf as well, people should recognize features and customs that identify what the self-proclaimed colorblind boast that they are unable to see. I respect people who appreciate color as part of the rainbow that decorates the world. I like people who purposely collect unique individuals instead of restricting admission to only those who meet a ridiculous colorless-blob criterion. The only honest reason for denying the ability to discern color, since that implies there must be something wrong with certain colors, would be to hide bias. Hiding the truth from others is not an act of kindness.

Unconditional love starts on the premise that others are willing to share belief in something that probably does not exist and absolutely is not verifiable, the same as belief in a god, which makes the use of God as the epitome of unconditional love both pertinent and baffling. Unconditional love is always based on a condition, which will reveal itself within a few questions if pursued. The quickest route I have discovered is to thank the person who brags about unconditional love for sharing your love of child molesters, people who eat kittens for breakfast, Jehovah’s witnesses who show up at the door bright and early on Saturday mornings, and drug-dealing prostitutes. I can almost promise immediate proof that you, along with these others, are excluded from her fold of unconditional love recipients.

Unconditional love sounds good on the surface (which is why it is so popular) but no one knows for certain there will never be a breaking point. I can say love never dies since I have not stopped loving anyone but that would be the same as saying love at first sight, death, and winning lotteries do not exist because I have not yet experienced them. At best, it’s a wild guess. I can say that my child could never do anything that would change my love for her but until she drinks my last Coke, votes Republican, stabs her sister in the back, or goes on a bank-robbing spree, it’s only a guess.

Claims related to unconditional love for family are the ones that annoy me most. The obvious condition, of course, is that the recipient of this glorious gift be family. In growing numbers evidenced by fertility medicine, that would be blood family born at controlled times. Me and mine, now – the American dream.

In some families, unconditional love excuses principles, intelligence, honesty, fairness, questions, and apologies. It fails to recognize actions so, thanks to unconditional love, nothing means anything. Or everything means nothing. The person who has always been honest with everyone will receive the same respect as the pathological liar, unless the honest person points out a few lies in which case he will be labeled a troublemaker and expected to take it back. Someone who waltzes in once a decade or so when she needs something will walk out with everything, leaving empty-handed the ones who have been there every day of every year for everyone. Child abuse? Substance abuse? Elderly abuse? Doesn’t matter if calling out the abuse will shatter the image of a big, happy, unconditionally loving family. Better to lose a few to only the good die young or spend eternity scratching the head and saying, “Gotta love ‘em,” than to shatter the façade and do the hard work of saving them.

For many, the same protections spill over to politics. Only traitors doubt the country or the President. Want to abuse the poor, the elderly, the unemployed, the underemployed, and the sick? Want to kill innocent people in foreign countries? Unconditional love is the ticket.

Unpopular as it might be to admit this, I state openly now that my love comes with conditions. Everyone (including people I don’t know and drug-dealing prostitutes) gets my love from the start, but there are conditions. How I respond to the person or use that love will depend on the actions of the individuals. My love does not excuse lies, does not require me to spend time with people who mistreat me, does not mean I will defend people above principles or family over strangers. It does not guarantee my silence when I see something wrong, and it does not mean blood or birth ties trump allegiance to like-minded or kindred spirits. I can love people and find their behavior unacceptable and their company undesirable. And I don’t know that I might not wake up one day unloving half of the people I loved yesterday.

I’m okay with that.