I've been both a Republican and a Democrat, and in that order. I quit the Republican Party back in 1992 when Bill Clinton ran for President, haven't voted for one since . . . in any election. To make a long story short, the Republicans pissed me off when they allowed the right wing fundamentalists to take over their party. I swore then to never vote for anyone with the big R behind their name again, and I haven't. But if Chris Christie runs for President in 2016, and the Democrats come up with another candidate like Obama, I will break that vow, bite down hard, take a deep breath, and vote for Christie. The only thing that will change my mind is if Brian Schweitzer wins the Democratic nomination, in which case I'll probably stay with the dumocrats and vote for him. I might have to think hard about it, though, 'cause at the moment I don't see a lot of difference between the two men. Schweitzer looks like a moderate to right leaning Democrat, and Christie looks like a moderate to left leaning Republican. I like both men.
I'll cut Obama some slack when it comes to his mediocre performance as President because he had one helluva mess to clean up when he took office. I'm not sure anybody could've fixed all the problems left by the Bush bunch when they left town. We were left with too many Republicans still in office, plenty enough to keep screwing things up. Put plainly, right wing Republicans could fuck up a one car funeral procession, much less a highly complex government. If I end up voting for Christie, I'll have to overcome some deep-seated resentments toward his party, but I think he's capable of bringing about some change. The same is true of Brian Schweitzer. He's not a mainstream Democrat, and that's what I like about him. He too could bring about change in the country, and in his own party.
You can bet the liberal leaning Democrats will fight Schweitzer's candidacy, as will the right leaning Republicans who'll fight Christie's run for the Presidency. I'm hoping lots of Americans are like me, sick to death of both sides - the extreme left and the extreme right. Liberals tend to be naive, out of touch with what's practical and achievable. Conservatives are limited by narrow mindedness, sort of a brain freeze when it comes to critical thinking. And if you can't think, you can't run anything. It's hard to lead anything when you're systematically limited by an obstructionist stance, and if there's anything Republicans do well, it's obstruct. It's likewise difficult to lead if you work from a stance of considering too many options. That's another brain freeze thing, I think - not being able to decide what to do, which way to go. Liberals tend to struggle with that.
I loved Harry Truman because he was a practical man - perhaps not the brightest President we ever had, but he didn't get bogged down by either restrictions brought about by not being able to see the problem (Republicans) or by seeing too much of it (Democrats). Bill Clinton had that quality about him, some of that Truman practicality. And I'm seeing some of that in both Christie and Schweitzer, and so far, I like what I see. I'm not optimistic at this point that either man can win the nominations of their parties, but I hold out some hope it might happen. For once in my life, I'd like to vote in a Presidential election where either candidate would be acceptable to me. Maybe that's just a dream.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
WHAT YOU SPEND IS CRITICAL TO SURVIVAL IN A HARD ECONOMY
Ok, here's the deal: It's all about spending. Think of it this way, and it will make more sense to you. What got the government into so much trouble with their budget? Simple. They spend far more than they make, and they spend money on a things that almost any nation will call extravagant. What if the government spent half as much money as they now spend? If they cut military spending and social programs in half, they'd be back in the red . . . and they're not about to do that. If they trimmed the size of government, they'd be far better off. We wouldn't, but they would. Cuts in social programs leaves many people hanging by a string, a cuts in military spending leaves us more vulnerable to terrorists and other foreign threats.
Remember Pogo, the comic strip character? He's credited with saying, "I have met the enemy, and he is us." We are our own worst enemies, that's for sure. We do that at the government level, and we do it to ourselves at the private level. Did you ever sit down a figure out what you could do with your family budget if you had to go into a crisis mode? I'm talking simple survival here, just hanging on, should the need arise. Nobody wants to do that, but it can be done. We all have choices to make each week or month with what we spend, and those choices determine how well we live. If you cut out everything except what you need to stay afloat, you'd be surprised at what you come up with.
If it's any help, here's my cut first list:
1) Get rid of car payments altogether
2) Cut back drastically on driving to save gas
3) No new clothes
4) No recreational budget
5) No vacations or travel except what's absolutely necessary
6) Shop carefully for food, get what you need, not what you want
7) Drop all insurances unless required by law or what's absolutely necessary
8) Minimize your utility bills (unplug everything you're not using, etc.)
9) Get medical attention only when it's a must
10) Rid yourself of the parasites (demanding family members included)
Doing that would save me over two thousand dollars a month, cut my budget by a third. Not enough? If I absolutely had to, I could cut the budget in half. Like everyone else, I don't want to . . . but it could be done. Hard times would require doing hard things to survive.
Remember Pogo, the comic strip character? He's credited with saying, "I have met the enemy, and he is us." We are our own worst enemies, that's for sure. We do that at the government level, and we do it to ourselves at the private level. Did you ever sit down a figure out what you could do with your family budget if you had to go into a crisis mode? I'm talking simple survival here, just hanging on, should the need arise. Nobody wants to do that, but it can be done. We all have choices to make each week or month with what we spend, and those choices determine how well we live. If you cut out everything except what you need to stay afloat, you'd be surprised at what you come up with.
If it's any help, here's my cut first list:
1) Get rid of car payments altogether
2) Cut back drastically on driving to save gas
3) No new clothes
4) No recreational budget
5) No vacations or travel except what's absolutely necessary
6) Shop carefully for food, get what you need, not what you want
7) Drop all insurances unless required by law or what's absolutely necessary
8) Minimize your utility bills (unplug everything you're not using, etc.)
9) Get medical attention only when it's a must
10) Rid yourself of the parasites (demanding family members included)
Doing that would save me over two thousand dollars a month, cut my budget by a third. Not enough? If I absolutely had to, I could cut the budget in half. Like everyone else, I don't want to . . . but it could be done. Hard times would require doing hard things to survive.
GLOOM AND DOOM, OR JUST KEEN OBSERVATION?
There's always money to be made as a prophet of gloom and doom, and you have to take that stuff with a grain of salt. Still, few people want to believe the worst can really happen, and that means not many are prepared for it when it comes. Some gloom-and-doomers tried to warn us about the financial collapse of 2007-8, but it happened and pretty much caught us flat-footed. We're still trying to dig out from under that big pile of political poop . . . and that's what it was - a government that badly mismanaged that dismal affair. But all the blame should've fall on them alone because we're all to blame for it. Greed caused it, fed by a lusty public wanting more and more and more. Houses were selling like hotcakes, business was booming, and almost everyone thought it would last forever. The hard times fell on us, took the air out of our sails, left us adrift for a while . . . while government and business leaders tried to figure out ways to get us back up and running again. But did they want to return to a time when some sanity ruled, when things were good but not fantastic? Nope. They wanted it all again, and the measure of success they set for us has been too high and unrealistic.
Well, the gloom-and-doomers are at it again, this time with some really dire warnings about what's to come. Some of these people aren't just hawkers of books of prophecy; they're legitimate specialists who should know the system, and they're pointing to some indicators that show the direction we're headed. I'm not an economic wizard by a long shot, but I do know something about politics and government. At the cost of sounding like just another all hell's fixing to break loose pessimist, I've got to agree with some of what I'm reading about an impending depression, one that might last a while. And in doing so, all I'll be accomplishing is throwing in just one more voice of warning. Damn few people will listen, or care. Too many of us live in a world of the right now, immediate gratification . . . and we're still too greedy, want too much.
With that aside, I'll take aim at the let's-go-with-the-flow folks who just won't listen and will suffer the most when and if there's another serious economic downturn. By that, I mean just your average American who's trying to survive in a world of ups and downs . . . and without much planning for the future. There's a problem with planning for another economic downturn, like . . . just what do I plan for? And even if I believe it's going to happen, what can I do about it? The answers to those two questions are easy, but they're most certainly bitter pills to swallow.
As for what you can plan for, my suggestion is to go down the middle. I'm not at all convinced there'll be a big, long-lasting depression like we saw many years hence in the 1930s. On the other hand, I see some hard times ahead, due mostly to the government's inadequacy to deal with it. Not much is going to change in regard to a sharply divided nation when it comes to liberal vs. conservatives. Elections will be close with winners barely getting public approval and leaving us with lots of dissatisfied losers. Congress will not break out of gridlock, regardless of who wins the elections this fall and in two years. It won't matter much who becomes the President when Obama leaves office, but what little difference it makes could be for the worse. I think Obama's unpopularity will hurt the Democrats some, but few people really love Republicans either. In fact, public approval of Congress is around 15 percent. 15 percent! That means 85 percent of folks, me included, don't think much of how they've handled things. Can that get worse? Not much, but the economic situation we face might . . . if Congress calls the shots. Obama's approval is at least three times higher, if that tells you anything, but he's no financial wizard either.
By going down the middle, I'm suggesting that things will get worse . . . bad enough to cause some difficulties for almost any family, especially middle income folks. Maybe you've noticed this about government, but when things get bad for the basic wage earner, the crowd who really pays most of the taxes in this country, their solution to shortfalls in revenues is to increase taxes. Atta boy, big brother and little bro. Take more from those already suffering, drive us into deeper water and cause more anger and despair. And they won't back off because they are the most greedy of the greedy. Too many people look to government for jobs, and they'll scratch and claw for every dime they can raise through taxation. That means those of us who actually tote the load will have an even bigger load, and that means we cut back on other things.
I don't know where everyone else plans to do, but my plan is to simply spend less money. You won't get any help from government here because they want you to spend, and spend a lot. The more you spend, the more they make off various taxes. I plan to be observant, pay close attention to what's going on, and they try to act accordingly. I've already started the process, just so I'll be used to it when the times comes to hunker down, do the turtle thing and pull back into my shell. Nothing I do can save me from a wholesale meltdown, and it won't save most other people either. But should we go into a moderate depression, I'll survive. I no longer have credit cards, don't owe any bank or lender except my house and car payment . . . and I'm closing in on getting those paid off. By the time Obama leaves office, I won't have a car payment. I don't buy clothes, don't have a recreational budget of any kind, don't take vacations, travel, or even go out much. In short, I'm not buying anything that isn't essential. Will I be ready when and if the hard times come? Not completely, but I'll be in a lot better shape than most people.
I'll write more about living on less later on, just in case anyone is interested. And I've got a queasy feeling that we damn sure need to pay attention.
Well, the gloom-and-doomers are at it again, this time with some really dire warnings about what's to come. Some of these people aren't just hawkers of books of prophecy; they're legitimate specialists who should know the system, and they're pointing to some indicators that show the direction we're headed. I'm not an economic wizard by a long shot, but I do know something about politics and government. At the cost of sounding like just another all hell's fixing to break loose pessimist, I've got to agree with some of what I'm reading about an impending depression, one that might last a while. And in doing so, all I'll be accomplishing is throwing in just one more voice of warning. Damn few people will listen, or care. Too many of us live in a world of the right now, immediate gratification . . . and we're still too greedy, want too much.
With that aside, I'll take aim at the let's-go-with-the-flow folks who just won't listen and will suffer the most when and if there's another serious economic downturn. By that, I mean just your average American who's trying to survive in a world of ups and downs . . . and without much planning for the future. There's a problem with planning for another economic downturn, like . . . just what do I plan for? And even if I believe it's going to happen, what can I do about it? The answers to those two questions are easy, but they're most certainly bitter pills to swallow.
As for what you can plan for, my suggestion is to go down the middle. I'm not at all convinced there'll be a big, long-lasting depression like we saw many years hence in the 1930s. On the other hand, I see some hard times ahead, due mostly to the government's inadequacy to deal with it. Not much is going to change in regard to a sharply divided nation when it comes to liberal vs. conservatives. Elections will be close with winners barely getting public approval and leaving us with lots of dissatisfied losers. Congress will not break out of gridlock, regardless of who wins the elections this fall and in two years. It won't matter much who becomes the President when Obama leaves office, but what little difference it makes could be for the worse. I think Obama's unpopularity will hurt the Democrats some, but few people really love Republicans either. In fact, public approval of Congress is around 15 percent. 15 percent! That means 85 percent of folks, me included, don't think much of how they've handled things. Can that get worse? Not much, but the economic situation we face might . . . if Congress calls the shots. Obama's approval is at least three times higher, if that tells you anything, but he's no financial wizard either.
By going down the middle, I'm suggesting that things will get worse . . . bad enough to cause some difficulties for almost any family, especially middle income folks. Maybe you've noticed this about government, but when things get bad for the basic wage earner, the crowd who really pays most of the taxes in this country, their solution to shortfalls in revenues is to increase taxes. Atta boy, big brother and little bro. Take more from those already suffering, drive us into deeper water and cause more anger and despair. And they won't back off because they are the most greedy of the greedy. Too many people look to government for jobs, and they'll scratch and claw for every dime they can raise through taxation. That means those of us who actually tote the load will have an even bigger load, and that means we cut back on other things.
I don't know where everyone else plans to do, but my plan is to simply spend less money. You won't get any help from government here because they want you to spend, and spend a lot. The more you spend, the more they make off various taxes. I plan to be observant, pay close attention to what's going on, and they try to act accordingly. I've already started the process, just so I'll be used to it when the times comes to hunker down, do the turtle thing and pull back into my shell. Nothing I do can save me from a wholesale meltdown, and it won't save most other people either. But should we go into a moderate depression, I'll survive. I no longer have credit cards, don't owe any bank or lender except my house and car payment . . . and I'm closing in on getting those paid off. By the time Obama leaves office, I won't have a car payment. I don't buy clothes, don't have a recreational budget of any kind, don't take vacations, travel, or even go out much. In short, I'm not buying anything that isn't essential. Will I be ready when and if the hard times come? Not completely, but I'll be in a lot better shape than most people.
I'll write more about living on less later on, just in case anyone is interested. And I've got a queasy feeling that we damn sure need to pay attention.
Monday, October 27, 2014
DO ANIMALS TALK TO US?
Can animals talk? Do they have a language of their own? Oh, you bet they do, and it's mostly all Greek to us. I understand only one language - English. That puts me at a communication handicap at times, but fortunately for me, I live where most people speak the same language. Half the people who live where I do speak Spanish, or a form of it we call Tex-Mex down here in Texas, but they also speak English. I've studied French and Spanish, don't speak them well but can read a little of it. Some folks might argue that I don't even speak English well, but I seem to be able to get my point across when I speak or write it. And I communicate with animals on a regular basis, and that's 'cause I understand dog and cat language. I learned to do that by simply paying attention to their mannerisms, their barks and meows and other sounds. The tell me when they want food, or when they want in or out, or when they want affection. If you observe and listen, you learn their language . . . and animals are a lot smarter than most people give them credit for being.
Most people have an anthropocentric relationships with animals, and that comes from the erroneous assumption that we are superior to them. Have you ever seen a human being as graceful as a cat? Can you jump six feet off the ground, or navigate along the top of a wood fence only a half inch wide? No, and you can't move at an unbelievable speed either, and you can't climb a tree like a squirrel either. Compared to a cat, you are slow and clumsy and plodding . . . and perhaps stupid. We can't take on any of the physical attributes of a cat, but they can sure take on some of ours. Anyone who takes time to work with them knows how much they are capable of learning. I've got an Australian cow dog with a working vocabulary of several hundred words, and that's because she pays attention to what I say. So do my cats, and I talk to them a lot . . . and they talk back.
Animals don't need to wear a wristwatch to know what time it is, and they don't need to watch the weather reports to know what's ahead. My cow dog knows in advance when rain is coming. She hates it because the thunder and lightening scare her, and I can tell from her movements when something is in the air. My cats tend to huddle up when bad weather is coming. They tell me when it's time to eat and sleep, their two favorite things. I've got one cat that sits and stares at me when he comes inside for the night, makes repeated trips to the bedroom, looks up at the bed and then at me, saying, "Hey, I'm sleepy. Let's hit the sack." And he won't go bed without me, likes to sleep curled up behind my knees or around my feet. Another cat crawls up in my lap and gives me a little nip to remind me it's time for his rubs, his attention for the day. They all have a way of telling me what they want, and like children, they act up sometimes. If Gracie, a calico cat, doesn't get what she wants, she pees on something that belongs to me.
Animals can be selfish, moody, angry, sad, disappointed, happy, or playful, just like people can, and they show that through behavior. Animals grieve when one of their own kind dies, or is sick. My little cocker spaniel dogs knows when you feel bad and tries to comfort you. The cats have ways of telling me when something isn't right, when they feel bad . . . and you only know these things when you pay attention, listen or observe their language. And like with people, some dogs and cats have certain personality traits and mannerisms. In fact, each one of them is different from the others in some way, and what works for one of them might not work for the others. You can't treat all of them the same way.
Some of my cats, for instance, are totally dependent, while others are free spirits that want to be allowed a lot of freedom to move about and do things their way. Not all of them are friends, and some conflicts develop between cats that don't like each other. Sometimes that changes when they reach an accommodation. Sometimes they never do that and you have to keep them separated. And sometimes, you'll notice some real love affairs between two animals. Some of our cats are more attached to the dogs than they are to the other cats, want to be around them all the time. Do they share a language of some kind? I think so.
Most people have an anthropocentric relationships with animals, and that comes from the erroneous assumption that we are superior to them. Have you ever seen a human being as graceful as a cat? Can you jump six feet off the ground, or navigate along the top of a wood fence only a half inch wide? No, and you can't move at an unbelievable speed either, and you can't climb a tree like a squirrel either. Compared to a cat, you are slow and clumsy and plodding . . . and perhaps stupid. We can't take on any of the physical attributes of a cat, but they can sure take on some of ours. Anyone who takes time to work with them knows how much they are capable of learning. I've got an Australian cow dog with a working vocabulary of several hundred words, and that's because she pays attention to what I say. So do my cats, and I talk to them a lot . . . and they talk back.
Animals don't need to wear a wristwatch to know what time it is, and they don't need to watch the weather reports to know what's ahead. My cow dog knows in advance when rain is coming. She hates it because the thunder and lightening scare her, and I can tell from her movements when something is in the air. My cats tend to huddle up when bad weather is coming. They tell me when it's time to eat and sleep, their two favorite things. I've got one cat that sits and stares at me when he comes inside for the night, makes repeated trips to the bedroom, looks up at the bed and then at me, saying, "Hey, I'm sleepy. Let's hit the sack." And he won't go bed without me, likes to sleep curled up behind my knees or around my feet. Another cat crawls up in my lap and gives me a little nip to remind me it's time for his rubs, his attention for the day. They all have a way of telling me what they want, and like children, they act up sometimes. If Gracie, a calico cat, doesn't get what she wants, she pees on something that belongs to me.
Animals can be selfish, moody, angry, sad, disappointed, happy, or playful, just like people can, and they show that through behavior. Animals grieve when one of their own kind dies, or is sick. My little cocker spaniel dogs knows when you feel bad and tries to comfort you. The cats have ways of telling me when something isn't right, when they feel bad . . . and you only know these things when you pay attention, listen or observe their language. And like with people, some dogs and cats have certain personality traits and mannerisms. In fact, each one of them is different from the others in some way, and what works for one of them might not work for the others. You can't treat all of them the same way.
Some of my cats, for instance, are totally dependent, while others are free spirits that want to be allowed a lot of freedom to move about and do things their way. Not all of them are friends, and some conflicts develop between cats that don't like each other. Sometimes that changes when they reach an accommodation. Sometimes they never do that and you have to keep them separated. And sometimes, you'll notice some real love affairs between two animals. Some of our cats are more attached to the dogs than they are to the other cats, want to be around them all the time. Do they share a language of some kind? I think so.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
IT'S A SMALL WORLD, AIN'T IT?
I see disturbing news reports of American teenagers trying to leave the country to join up with ISIS. A few if them have apparently been successful . . . and I'm glad. What disturbs me most is that we actually go to lengths to stop them from leaving because a part of me says, or rather shouts, "LET THE LITTLE BASTARDS GO! Another thing that disturbs me is how small the world is getting to be due to all the media devices now at our disposal. As long as we have Facebook, Twitter, global websites, cell phones, and other electronic gizmos, we're shrinking boundaries that have protected us some in the past. Everybody seems to know what everybody else is doing these days, and that's not always good.
The war against terrorism has become one of technology, ours against theirs. Bombs are no longer as important as we would like for them to be . . . not unless we resort to using the really big ones . . . you know, the nuclear bombs. That's a quick and easy solution to the problem in terms of disposing of those who want to tear you down, but it presents an even bigger problem: Who and where would we bomb? We knew exactly who the enemy was and where they were when we nuked the Japanese back in 1945, but we can't do that with terrorists. For one thing, if we did, we'd have to consider bombing ourselves. We could bomb Iraq, or Syria, or Iran, or any number of middle eastern countries, but that would cause problems we might not recover from. That would make us one of the bad guys, and we don't want to wear that tag forever.
Perhaps the solution is really in the very thing we find most threatening right now, and that the technology explosion that makes the world a smaller place. We can no longer protect our borders because they aren't as clearly marked now. And then there's the threat of disease, like the ebola thing. Here we become victims of our own craving for liberty, the freedom to move about at will, go where we want, do what we want, all that. We might also be victims of our inclination to be the good guys who rush to the aid of stricken nations . . . like doctors going to Africa to help fight ebola . . . and then bringing it home with them. We hate any form of government interference with our freedoms, even during times when we're under attack from disease or terrorists. A good, far-reaching propaganda campaign against that might be in order . . . and some good old common sense might work too.
The war against terrorism has become one of technology, ours against theirs. Bombs are no longer as important as we would like for them to be . . . not unless we resort to using the really big ones . . . you know, the nuclear bombs. That's a quick and easy solution to the problem in terms of disposing of those who want to tear you down, but it presents an even bigger problem: Who and where would we bomb? We knew exactly who the enemy was and where they were when we nuked the Japanese back in 1945, but we can't do that with terrorists. For one thing, if we did, we'd have to consider bombing ourselves. We could bomb Iraq, or Syria, or Iran, or any number of middle eastern countries, but that would cause problems we might not recover from. That would make us one of the bad guys, and we don't want to wear that tag forever.
Perhaps the solution is really in the very thing we find most threatening right now, and that the technology explosion that makes the world a smaller place. We can no longer protect our borders because they aren't as clearly marked now. And then there's the threat of disease, like the ebola thing. Here we become victims of our own craving for liberty, the freedom to move about at will, go where we want, do what we want, all that. We might also be victims of our inclination to be the good guys who rush to the aid of stricken nations . . . like doctors going to Africa to help fight ebola . . . and then bringing it home with them. We hate any form of government interference with our freedoms, even during times when we're under attack from disease or terrorists. A good, far-reaching propaganda campaign against that might be in order . . . and some good old common sense might work too.
Friday, October 24, 2014
OLIGARCHY: A WARNING COME TO PASS
One of the first books I was required to read while studying political science was The Iron Law of Oligarchy, written by Michels and Pareto. It pointed out a flaw in democracy, saying oligarchies would arise among them. An oligarchy is rule by a few from behind the scenes, such as a strong military or religions group or a wealthy elite. Sound familiar? It should because that's what you're currently living under in these United States of America. We aren't a full-fledged oligarchy, not in the sense perhaps like you'd find in other countries, but we're definitely no longer a full-fledged democracy either.
We still vote politicians into office, but what's behind all that? Nobody can get elected to Congress these days without the support of big money, and the country is full of monied people looking for influence in government. Most of your representatives in Congress are essentially bought and paid for, and beholding to groups with money who put them there. That, partner, ain't democracy. Want to be President? You'll have to sell yourself to these monied interests, or you won't get there, and the same is true all down the line. I grew up in a small town that was essentially run by a few wealthy and prominent men, and they never held public office. Everyone who lived there knew this, didn't care because they trusted the elite more than they did the politicians. I now live in a small town run the same way. None of the people who really wield power around here hold public office, but they still run the town, and again, nobody cares.
We have a hard time getting people to vote in America, and when the public doesn't vote in big numbers, the changes grow that somebody behind the scenes will end up running things. They have a better chance of getting their folks elected to office with a low voter turnout. If we can get over 60 percent of the registered voters to the polls for a Presidential election, that's good. That percentage goes down some for other public offices, and it seems that the further down the line you go, the lower the percentages go. Here in my home town, which has a population of around 6,000, city council jobs are usually won with some 500 votes. County offices are won with low vote totals. Members of the state legislature are likewise won with low vote totals. That means most people choose not to vote, and if you ask they why, you get a response like, "It doesn't make any difference."
I've studied voting trends for a long time, and I used to tell my college classes that democracy in this country has turned out to be lazy and indifferent. Most people just don't care enough to vote in big numbers, and the people who do care enough want something from government. And when the people who want the most have big money, the outcome is inevitable. They buy government. The grand idea of an independent representative going into public office has not come to pass . . . but the warnings from Pareto and Michels has. It's a basic fact of life that the elite will always look for ways to take over, run things, reap the rewards of those efforts, and that's not part of the democratic principle. I wouldn't dare say that allowing the elite to govern, whether it's out in the open or behind the scenes, is always a bad thing. But it's a bad thing for democracy, for the people who live under it. The only way the masses can stop that is by voting, and you can't do that until you work toward organizing people. That's a near impossible job.
We work through political parties in America, and most people don't like politics much. I suppose one could make the argument that a political party itself is an oligarchy wanting to control government. We choose not to identify them as such, and that's perhaps proper. That's the system we have, so it's the one we must work with. We have choices between candidates from the two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, and from a few independent office seekers. The best we can hope for is that our party wins, and that means that for a while we have government by Democrats, or government by Republicans. That way, we know who to give credit to when things go well, and who to blame when they go wrong. My worry is: Who should we blame when things go wrong most of the time?
We still vote politicians into office, but what's behind all that? Nobody can get elected to Congress these days without the support of big money, and the country is full of monied people looking for influence in government. Most of your representatives in Congress are essentially bought and paid for, and beholding to groups with money who put them there. That, partner, ain't democracy. Want to be President? You'll have to sell yourself to these monied interests, or you won't get there, and the same is true all down the line. I grew up in a small town that was essentially run by a few wealthy and prominent men, and they never held public office. Everyone who lived there knew this, didn't care because they trusted the elite more than they did the politicians. I now live in a small town run the same way. None of the people who really wield power around here hold public office, but they still run the town, and again, nobody cares.
We have a hard time getting people to vote in America, and when the public doesn't vote in big numbers, the changes grow that somebody behind the scenes will end up running things. They have a better chance of getting their folks elected to office with a low voter turnout. If we can get over 60 percent of the registered voters to the polls for a Presidential election, that's good. That percentage goes down some for other public offices, and it seems that the further down the line you go, the lower the percentages go. Here in my home town, which has a population of around 6,000, city council jobs are usually won with some 500 votes. County offices are won with low vote totals. Members of the state legislature are likewise won with low vote totals. That means most people choose not to vote, and if you ask they why, you get a response like, "It doesn't make any difference."
I've studied voting trends for a long time, and I used to tell my college classes that democracy in this country has turned out to be lazy and indifferent. Most people just don't care enough to vote in big numbers, and the people who do care enough want something from government. And when the people who want the most have big money, the outcome is inevitable. They buy government. The grand idea of an independent representative going into public office has not come to pass . . . but the warnings from Pareto and Michels has. It's a basic fact of life that the elite will always look for ways to take over, run things, reap the rewards of those efforts, and that's not part of the democratic principle. I wouldn't dare say that allowing the elite to govern, whether it's out in the open or behind the scenes, is always a bad thing. But it's a bad thing for democracy, for the people who live under it. The only way the masses can stop that is by voting, and you can't do that until you work toward organizing people. That's a near impossible job.
We work through political parties in America, and most people don't like politics much. I suppose one could make the argument that a political party itself is an oligarchy wanting to control government. We choose not to identify them as such, and that's perhaps proper. That's the system we have, so it's the one we must work with. We have choices between candidates from the two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, and from a few independent office seekers. The best we can hope for is that our party wins, and that means that for a while we have government by Democrats, or government by Republicans. That way, we know who to give credit to when things go well, and who to blame when they go wrong. My worry is: Who should we blame when things go wrong most of the time?
Thursday, October 23, 2014
AGING GRACEFULLY JUST NOT IN THE CARDS
You wake up one morning and something is missing, and it takes you a while to figure out what's gone. You still have demands, obligations, duties to perform, but for some reason they just don't seem all that important anymore. You don't really look forward to anything; you're just passing time. Yeah, time, the thing you're running out of. That alone should put anyone into panic mode - the thought that before long you'll be gone. The big problem isn't that the end is just around the corner; it's a matter of what to do with what time you have left . . . or think you have left . . . and there's no way of knowing when or how it ends for you. It almost seems like a waste of time to do anything at all, and that's what old age is all about - dealing with short time.
But regardless of how short time might be, it's still here, and you've still got things to do, or should do. My closest friend died about 15 years ago, and shortly thereafter his wife said, "I'm so disappointed for him because he had such big plans. He wanted to write more, go places, be involved in things, and all that got cut short." My response to her was a simple question: "Would you have wanted him to die doing nothing, just sitting and waiting on an end to it all?" Those words come back to haunt me now. I was with him just hours before he passed, knew he was in desperate shape, and I let him send me away. I had been pleading with him to return to the hospital, see if they couldn't do something for him . . . but he was resolute about not going back. I know now that he didn't want help, that he'd had all he wanted and was ready for the end.
I'm now a good dozen years older than he was when his life ended, just short of being the same age my father was when he died. Neither of those men waited it out, didn't stop doing things because they're bodies were shutting down. They knew time was short, but they kept going, kept making plans and looking forward to something. I've stopped writing, have book projects going but can't find the inspiration or determination to finish them, and I don't work on much of anything else anymore. I have chores to attend to because I'm a caretaker for quite a few small animals, dogs and cats mostly. I've got those daily chores to run, bills to pay, upkeep of property to see about, and so I'm not idle. But I know what's missing, and I have no idea how to get it back. I'm not excited about anything, don't have any real plans for the future. And I'm not afraid, not really worried either. As of just last week, when I had my normal six months check-up, the doctor said everything was fine, that my tests were the best he'd seen in me since I'd been his patient. I'm in decent physical shape, but somehow that hasn't translated into anything productive. I am not aging gracefully, at least not when it comes to actually doing anything worthwhile.
I went to the refrigerator the other day and looked inside at all the jars and packages of things that were 90 percent used up but still there. Why had I not finished off that jar of mayo? A couple of sandwiches, and it would've been gone, just another jar I could toss into the trash. Then it hit me. Why bother? It's just a few tablespoons of mayo, so why not just throw it away and clear out some
space in the refrigerator? Because it's a bother, that's why. You have to dig deep into the jar to get out what's left . . . and old age is the same. I'm down to having to work harder to get what little is left out of life, and I'm letting that shut me down. You can't save it, that's for sure . . . so why not just go ahead a use it up?
Maybe it's just a gesture, but I'm going to have a sandwich, and it's not even lunch time. I might be wrong, but I figure the last few slices of ham or those few last bites of mayo will taste just fine . . . and then, they will be gone. And that's the way it should be.
But regardless of how short time might be, it's still here, and you've still got things to do, or should do. My closest friend died about 15 years ago, and shortly thereafter his wife said, "I'm so disappointed for him because he had such big plans. He wanted to write more, go places, be involved in things, and all that got cut short." My response to her was a simple question: "Would you have wanted him to die doing nothing, just sitting and waiting on an end to it all?" Those words come back to haunt me now. I was with him just hours before he passed, knew he was in desperate shape, and I let him send me away. I had been pleading with him to return to the hospital, see if they couldn't do something for him . . . but he was resolute about not going back. I know now that he didn't want help, that he'd had all he wanted and was ready for the end.
I'm now a good dozen years older than he was when his life ended, just short of being the same age my father was when he died. Neither of those men waited it out, didn't stop doing things because they're bodies were shutting down. They knew time was short, but they kept going, kept making plans and looking forward to something. I've stopped writing, have book projects going but can't find the inspiration or determination to finish them, and I don't work on much of anything else anymore. I have chores to attend to because I'm a caretaker for quite a few small animals, dogs and cats mostly. I've got those daily chores to run, bills to pay, upkeep of property to see about, and so I'm not idle. But I know what's missing, and I have no idea how to get it back. I'm not excited about anything, don't have any real plans for the future. And I'm not afraid, not really worried either. As of just last week, when I had my normal six months check-up, the doctor said everything was fine, that my tests were the best he'd seen in me since I'd been his patient. I'm in decent physical shape, but somehow that hasn't translated into anything productive. I am not aging gracefully, at least not when it comes to actually doing anything worthwhile.
I went to the refrigerator the other day and looked inside at all the jars and packages of things that were 90 percent used up but still there. Why had I not finished off that jar of mayo? A couple of sandwiches, and it would've been gone, just another jar I could toss into the trash. Then it hit me. Why bother? It's just a few tablespoons of mayo, so why not just throw it away and clear out some
space in the refrigerator? Because it's a bother, that's why. You have to dig deep into the jar to get out what's left . . . and old age is the same. I'm down to having to work harder to get what little is left out of life, and I'm letting that shut me down. You can't save it, that's for sure . . . so why not just go ahead a use it up?
Maybe it's just a gesture, but I'm going to have a sandwich, and it's not even lunch time. I might be wrong, but I figure the last few slices of ham or those few last bites of mayo will taste just fine . . . and then, they will be gone. And that's the way it should be.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
ROOT ROT: SMALL TOWN AMERICA IN DECLINE
Sunday morning in rural America, a small town in central Texas, a place that's been around since shortly after the Civil War. You can see the oldness around here and in other towns nearby, and like all small towns, some old time traditions hang on. Nobody around here gets in a big hurry, so life here is comfortable (if you don't mind the slow pace). The countryside around here is good to look upon, the weather in always pretty nice, and the people are friendly. From the outside looking in, this place looks fairly prosperous. Few people worry much about the future, don't pay a lot of attention to what's going on in the world around them, and their philosophy is rooted in rural stoicism. You take life as it comes.
So, on this Sunday morning I drove across town to take care of my shop animals, those cats and dogs that expect to be fed twice a day. Chores here at home with animals are done for the morning - front porch cats to feed, inside cats to be fed and let out for a while, check the yard to make sure everything is secure there, and then go to the local donut store for some breakfast. People are stirring around, heading for church, and there's a crowd at the place I buy breakfast . . . a place run by Cambodians. If you get your nails done in a salon, some Vietnamese gal will likely do that, and there's a Chinese restaurant just off the square. Last night at a drive through place, the vehicle in front of me was a big foreign made SUV, driven by a grossly overweight Mexican/American lady (this town his half their numbers), with kids hanging out every window. At the local high school football game a few weeks back, I noticed few white kids on the field for our team. My waiter at the Italian restaurant on the square didn't speak good English when I went there not long ago, and all but one motel in town belongs to Indians. You know, like from India type Indians. A hamburger place on main street is owned by some dude from Afghanistan.
My home town is dependent on the oil business, and when that goes bust, the town takes an economic nosedive. Since some seven highways cross there, we've got lots of trucking companies. A factory outside of town makes big trailers and oil field equipment. We've got sand plants here, those places that supply the sand used in fracking for oil . . . big businesses, lots of money into the local economy. Yeah, things are sorta booming around here . . . and the town is still dying. Dying in the sense that it's no longer what rural America used to be; it's no longer a place that keeps up a culture that became the roots of America. And we all know what happens to a tree that gets root disease. It can stand lightning strikes and survive, blistering winds, drought, all sorts of things, but when the roots go bad, the tree is a goner. America is suffering from root rot, dying from the bottom up, and we're too dumb to see it.
But wait! Not everyone is totally unobservant or ignorant about what's happening to us. Cities, where most of our population lives, can't save America from root rot. They are there for reasons - the need for jobs, the lust for the urban experiene, all that . . . and I'm glad they're there. Cities are also magnets for almost everything that is wrong with us as a nation. Overcrowding is causing us big time problems because people in need flock to the cities. Taking care of them costs billions of buck, and some of those costs are not easy to recognize. I like the cities because I want those people to stay there, not come out here to our rural areas and fuck it up like they have their own backyard. Maybe you've noticed, but city folks are always wanting to dump their waste on the country folks. There's a value out here opposed to that, and I want that preserved. Country culture is important to this nation because we are the root stock, the beginning place, and not because we provide the urban areas with more people. Yeah, we're backward in some ways, but that's not always bad. Somebody needs to take action to save the small towns . . . or we all go down with them.
I welcome the newcomers, the foreigners and the minorities, to small towns . . . but only if they are able to adapt to our way of life. Do it our way, the root way, or don't come. Everything changes, and that's a fact, but we need to resist the changes that tear us down. We need to, but we probably won't, and that will bring about the demise of what made us a great nation. We die from the roots, and I'm not sure we can stop that process. My advice to anyone who lives like I do, in a small town that still has something worth saving is to resist the rot. Hang on, baby . . . hang on.
So, on this Sunday morning I drove across town to take care of my shop animals, those cats and dogs that expect to be fed twice a day. Chores here at home with animals are done for the morning - front porch cats to feed, inside cats to be fed and let out for a while, check the yard to make sure everything is secure there, and then go to the local donut store for some breakfast. People are stirring around, heading for church, and there's a crowd at the place I buy breakfast . . . a place run by Cambodians. If you get your nails done in a salon, some Vietnamese gal will likely do that, and there's a Chinese restaurant just off the square. Last night at a drive through place, the vehicle in front of me was a big foreign made SUV, driven by a grossly overweight Mexican/American lady (this town his half their numbers), with kids hanging out every window. At the local high school football game a few weeks back, I noticed few white kids on the field for our team. My waiter at the Italian restaurant on the square didn't speak good English when I went there not long ago, and all but one motel in town belongs to Indians. You know, like from India type Indians. A hamburger place on main street is owned by some dude from Afghanistan.
My home town is dependent on the oil business, and when that goes bust, the town takes an economic nosedive. Since some seven highways cross there, we've got lots of trucking companies. A factory outside of town makes big trailers and oil field equipment. We've got sand plants here, those places that supply the sand used in fracking for oil . . . big businesses, lots of money into the local economy. Yeah, things are sorta booming around here . . . and the town is still dying. Dying in the sense that it's no longer what rural America used to be; it's no longer a place that keeps up a culture that became the roots of America. And we all know what happens to a tree that gets root disease. It can stand lightning strikes and survive, blistering winds, drought, all sorts of things, but when the roots go bad, the tree is a goner. America is suffering from root rot, dying from the bottom up, and we're too dumb to see it.
But wait! Not everyone is totally unobservant or ignorant about what's happening to us. Cities, where most of our population lives, can't save America from root rot. They are there for reasons - the need for jobs, the lust for the urban experiene, all that . . . and I'm glad they're there. Cities are also magnets for almost everything that is wrong with us as a nation. Overcrowding is causing us big time problems because people in need flock to the cities. Taking care of them costs billions of buck, and some of those costs are not easy to recognize. I like the cities because I want those people to stay there, not come out here to our rural areas and fuck it up like they have their own backyard. Maybe you've noticed, but city folks are always wanting to dump their waste on the country folks. There's a value out here opposed to that, and I want that preserved. Country culture is important to this nation because we are the root stock, the beginning place, and not because we provide the urban areas with more people. Yeah, we're backward in some ways, but that's not always bad. Somebody needs to take action to save the small towns . . . or we all go down with them.
I welcome the newcomers, the foreigners and the minorities, to small towns . . . but only if they are able to adapt to our way of life. Do it our way, the root way, or don't come. Everything changes, and that's a fact, but we need to resist the changes that tear us down. We need to, but we probably won't, and that will bring about the demise of what made us a great nation. We die from the roots, and I'm not sure we can stop that process. My advice to anyone who lives like I do, in a small town that still has something worth saving is to resist the rot. Hang on, baby . . . hang on.
Friday, October 17, 2014
OBAMA IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL DUD
He talks a good line about environmental quality, but when it gets right down to it, Obama is a dud. In other words, listening to him talk about environment is just more political bullshit, sort of like listening to Republicans talk about family values and all that. Obama once said that fracking for oil could be a bridge to a cleaner environment, when in fact, it's been disastrous. It's hard to believe the man in the White House is that blind, or just indifferent . . . but anyone who drives through a fracking oil patch sees the burn-off spouts billowing flames and smoke into the air. That's gas, partner, and it's going to waste . . . and it's polluting the air. And Obama likes that?
There is nothing good about fracking other than it provides more fossil fuel, and that's something we are greedy for. The costs of having that are enormous. My son-in-law works for an oil company, is currently in the oil patches in eastern New Mexico. He doesn't work with a fracking unit, says he won't do that. My daughter went to visit him a while back, came home talking about what a shithole the place was. She talked about the gas spouts, about how they burned off the gas, about how the entire area smells rotten, how it looked awful. I know that area fairly well, have watched it go into the crapper over the years. Now the oil companies are in North Dakota and are doing the same thing there.
I'm told that fracking is the worst job in the oil business, and that it takes a special breed of worker to do it. It's hard work, demanding work, and it attracts the dregs of society to do it. Wherever fracking outfits go, so goes the bottom feeders, the lowlives, the desperate worker who needs the money. And with them come the other lowlives, those who feed off them . . . the vendors of booze and drugs and prostitution. And what they leave behind when they're done raping Mother Earth is ugly . . . and Obama likes that? Is he just too misinformed to know what's going on? Is he just playing politics as usual? Or . . . is he part of the problem and needs to go? Oh, I forgot, he is going before long, and in my mind, that's not all bad.
I'm a Democrat, by the way, who voted twice for Obama. My votes didn't come out of total ignorance of what to expect from him. It was one of those grit your teeth and do it things because I couldn't tolerate the idea of voting for the men running against him. His stance on any number of things don't sit well with me, but it could have been worse had the other guys won. And the election of 2016 is not far off, and I'll probably vote for another Democrat . . . if he comes out with a believable statement about fracking indicating a desire to stop it. And if no one does? For the first time in my voting history, I'll sit home that day.
There is nothing good about fracking other than it provides more fossil fuel, and that's something we are greedy for. The costs of having that are enormous. My son-in-law works for an oil company, is currently in the oil patches in eastern New Mexico. He doesn't work with a fracking unit, says he won't do that. My daughter went to visit him a while back, came home talking about what a shithole the place was. She talked about the gas spouts, about how they burned off the gas, about how the entire area smells rotten, how it looked awful. I know that area fairly well, have watched it go into the crapper over the years. Now the oil companies are in North Dakota and are doing the same thing there.
I'm told that fracking is the worst job in the oil business, and that it takes a special breed of worker to do it. It's hard work, demanding work, and it attracts the dregs of society to do it. Wherever fracking outfits go, so goes the bottom feeders, the lowlives, the desperate worker who needs the money. And with them come the other lowlives, those who feed off them . . . the vendors of booze and drugs and prostitution. And what they leave behind when they're done raping Mother Earth is ugly . . . and Obama likes that? Is he just too misinformed to know what's going on? Is he just playing politics as usual? Or . . . is he part of the problem and needs to go? Oh, I forgot, he is going before long, and in my mind, that's not all bad.
I'm a Democrat, by the way, who voted twice for Obama. My votes didn't come out of total ignorance of what to expect from him. It was one of those grit your teeth and do it things because I couldn't tolerate the idea of voting for the men running against him. His stance on any number of things don't sit well with me, but it could have been worse had the other guys won. And the election of 2016 is not far off, and I'll probably vote for another Democrat . . . if he comes out with a believable statement about fracking indicating a desire to stop it. And if no one does? For the first time in my voting history, I'll sit home that day.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
GLEN CAMPBELL'S LAST SONG
I got a late start as a guitar player, was about 25 years old when I bought my first one and started learning to play. That first guitar started a lifelong fascination with that particular instrument . . . and with music. That passion grew into becoming a guitar maker, owning a shop where I could build the guitars I loved so much. My second guitar, a present from my mother, was an Ovation, the same guitar Glen Campbell played. It even had his name on it, and it was one of the first guitars of that kind the company made. I still have that guitar, and it's still in pristine condition. I treasure it more than any guitar in my collection.
My second wife turned out not to be a big Glen Campbell fan. She didn't dislike him, just didn't care for his music . . . and that didn't sit well with me at first. When I took her to Mississippi to meet my mother for the first time, I offered a warning. "Don't say anything unkind about Glen Campbell's music around my mother. She adores him." My mother passed away back in 1992, but to this day when I hear one of Glen's songs, I think of her. Maybe she loved him because of my interest in him. I used to make cassette tapes for her - me singing and playing the guitar, and many of those songs were Glen's songs. I never met the man, but I owe him a lot. His music encouraged me to work hard at learning guitar, learning how to sing,
Maybe you've noticed, but you don't often hear anyone trying to perform one of Glen's great hits. There's a good reason for that, I think. Nobody in the music business wants to look bad, or come off as being second best . . . and nobody can sing Glen's songs like he did. Damn few people ever learn to play a guitar as well as he did. And now he's recorded his last song, "I'm Not Going to Miss You." Well, maybe not Glen, but at least one guy out here is sure going to miss you.
My second wife turned out not to be a big Glen Campbell fan. She didn't dislike him, just didn't care for his music . . . and that didn't sit well with me at first. When I took her to Mississippi to meet my mother for the first time, I offered a warning. "Don't say anything unkind about Glen Campbell's music around my mother. She adores him." My mother passed away back in 1992, but to this day when I hear one of Glen's songs, I think of her. Maybe she loved him because of my interest in him. I used to make cassette tapes for her - me singing and playing the guitar, and many of those songs were Glen's songs. I never met the man, but I owe him a lot. His music encouraged me to work hard at learning guitar, learning how to sing,
Maybe you've noticed, but you don't often hear anyone trying to perform one of Glen's great hits. There's a good reason for that, I think. Nobody in the music business wants to look bad, or come off as being second best . . . and nobody can sing Glen's songs like he did. Damn few people ever learn to play a guitar as well as he did. And now he's recorded his last song, "I'm Not Going to Miss You." Well, maybe not Glen, but at least one guy out here is sure going to miss you.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
SOMETIMES YOU PLAY FOR A TIE
Everything in life can't be measured in terms of wins and losses. Hardly anyone plays the game of life to lose; it just works out that way sometimes. We might be tempted to think we always play to win, but that's not the case either because we're smart enough going in to know that a win isn't possible. David slew Goliath, so goes the biblical story, and perhaps that's an encouragement to always consider coming out on top. You won't know until you've tried, and the implication there is that you must first try. Winning usually takes some luck, but I've noticed that good luck won't come your way until you've first put yourself in a position to accept it when it presents itself. We posture ourselves, in other words, so we'll be ready for it. And if we don't get lucky, it could well be that we at least come out with a tie because we prepared for it.
Let's say, for instance, that you are going up against something that's just too big to beat. An outright win is out of the question, but that doesn't mean we're out of options. Should I fight or not? Can I fight hard enough to at least tie with the beast I do battle with, or can I minimize the effects of the loss? The answers here are yes to both questions. You should fight, and even if you can't come out with a tie, you can minimize the loss. It's like going up against the IRS over taxes. Suddenly coming into some money reminds all of us that some losses are attached to wins, or good luck. The IRS works with the mindset that your good fortune is likewise theirs 'cause they'll be the first ones in line to get what's due them . . . and more, if they can get it. So, let's say a rich relative dies and leaves me
a million bucks, and the IRS steps up and says, "Hold on there a minute, partner. We want half of that." You can accept that, pay up, and be content with half a million, which is a lot more than you had to start with. Or you can say, "Nope, ain't gonna do it without a fight. If you take my money, partner, you'll have to jump through some hoops to get it."
Here's where you've got few chances of winning, but it's also a chance you can fight for a tie, or perhaps to minimize the loss. And even if you just outright lose, you at least have the satisfaction that you fought back. That's always worth something. Everybody likes to see Goliath toppled, so you'll likely encounter some help along the way in your fight against him. Did David kill the giant all by himself, or did he get a little help? He had a slingshot and a small stone, supposedly . . . but he also had God on his side. From my perspective, David had a lock going in, had the big advantage, and the giant fell dead when a rock whacked him in the head. Good shot, little man. Good shot!
I don't know for sure, but I don't think God would ever side with the IRS. Even if there is no God, or at least a God who doesn't get involved in such battles, the underdog has some advantages. A bully's greatest weakness is his arrogance in thinking he can whip you, beat you down. A smart bully picks his fights, doesn't mess with anyone his size or bigger, and that means even the IRS will back off when it goes up against a tougher opponent. Nobody likes taxes, and they sure as hell don't like tax collectors. The court of public opinion is against them, and they are aware of this. Forget outright legal action against them - too expensive and likely a waste of time. It's an option, but a slim chance option. Negotiators have better success against them because compromise is a better possibility. And if you do that, remember that you're playing for no better than a tie . . . and sometimes a tie is almost as good as a win.
Using the IRS as an example might be misleading, so here's another one for you. Let's say you have to have emergency surgery, a lengthy stay at a hospital, and you end up with a half million bucks in charges for that. Your insurance balks, won't pay up, and you've got lots of outstanding debts to deal with. That's when the sharks start circling, wolves go on the hunt, and you're the prey. Here come the bill collectors, the threats, the various actions against you to retrieve the money. I know this story well because that happened to me. Not quite that much money, but a lot . . . enough to ruin me for life. I fought with them. I pushed aside my distrust and suspicions about lawyers, and came up with a good one. I told him what I'd been doing to deal with the sharks and wolves, and he smiled and said, "You're a bill collectors worst nightmare because you're smart and literate." I won that fight, by the way. The insurance company paid more, and I was able to get out from under the big debt by negotiating it down. And they ones who wouldn't negotiate? I just didn't pay them at all, and I got by with it. The statue of limitations expired on those debts some years ago, and I saved my family from financial ruin. I did everything I was supposed to do (like paying big insurance premiums), just
got caught up in a rotten system.
My point? Don't ever let the bully get the best of you without a fight. I didn't win my fight against a corrupt health care system, but I came out with a tie. I ended up paying plenty, but I didn't get ruined. And they would've ruined me, if I hadn't fought back. And maybe, just maybe, I got a little help from upstairs.
Let's say, for instance, that you are going up against something that's just too big to beat. An outright win is out of the question, but that doesn't mean we're out of options. Should I fight or not? Can I fight hard enough to at least tie with the beast I do battle with, or can I minimize the effects of the loss? The answers here are yes to both questions. You should fight, and even if you can't come out with a tie, you can minimize the loss. It's like going up against the IRS over taxes. Suddenly coming into some money reminds all of us that some losses are attached to wins, or good luck. The IRS works with the mindset that your good fortune is likewise theirs 'cause they'll be the first ones in line to get what's due them . . . and more, if they can get it. So, let's say a rich relative dies and leaves me
a million bucks, and the IRS steps up and says, "Hold on there a minute, partner. We want half of that." You can accept that, pay up, and be content with half a million, which is a lot more than you had to start with. Or you can say, "Nope, ain't gonna do it without a fight. If you take my money, partner, you'll have to jump through some hoops to get it."
Here's where you've got few chances of winning, but it's also a chance you can fight for a tie, or perhaps to minimize the loss. And even if you just outright lose, you at least have the satisfaction that you fought back. That's always worth something. Everybody likes to see Goliath toppled, so you'll likely encounter some help along the way in your fight against him. Did David kill the giant all by himself, or did he get a little help? He had a slingshot and a small stone, supposedly . . . but he also had God on his side. From my perspective, David had a lock going in, had the big advantage, and the giant fell dead when a rock whacked him in the head. Good shot, little man. Good shot!
I don't know for sure, but I don't think God would ever side with the IRS. Even if there is no God, or at least a God who doesn't get involved in such battles, the underdog has some advantages. A bully's greatest weakness is his arrogance in thinking he can whip you, beat you down. A smart bully picks his fights, doesn't mess with anyone his size or bigger, and that means even the IRS will back off when it goes up against a tougher opponent. Nobody likes taxes, and they sure as hell don't like tax collectors. The court of public opinion is against them, and they are aware of this. Forget outright legal action against them - too expensive and likely a waste of time. It's an option, but a slim chance option. Negotiators have better success against them because compromise is a better possibility. And if you do that, remember that you're playing for no better than a tie . . . and sometimes a tie is almost as good as a win.
Using the IRS as an example might be misleading, so here's another one for you. Let's say you have to have emergency surgery, a lengthy stay at a hospital, and you end up with a half million bucks in charges for that. Your insurance balks, won't pay up, and you've got lots of outstanding debts to deal with. That's when the sharks start circling, wolves go on the hunt, and you're the prey. Here come the bill collectors, the threats, the various actions against you to retrieve the money. I know this story well because that happened to me. Not quite that much money, but a lot . . . enough to ruin me for life. I fought with them. I pushed aside my distrust and suspicions about lawyers, and came up with a good one. I told him what I'd been doing to deal with the sharks and wolves, and he smiled and said, "You're a bill collectors worst nightmare because you're smart and literate." I won that fight, by the way. The insurance company paid more, and I was able to get out from under the big debt by negotiating it down. And they ones who wouldn't negotiate? I just didn't pay them at all, and I got by with it. The statue of limitations expired on those debts some years ago, and I saved my family from financial ruin. I did everything I was supposed to do (like paying big insurance premiums), just
got caught up in a rotten system.
My point? Don't ever let the bully get the best of you without a fight. I didn't win my fight against a corrupt health care system, but I came out with a tie. I ended up paying plenty, but I didn't get ruined. And they would've ruined me, if I hadn't fought back. And maybe, just maybe, I got a little help from upstairs.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
FOOTBALL IS JUST A GAME . . . OR IS IT?
I live in Texas where football is a religion, and that's just downright stupid. I like to watch football, have been doing it a long time, and I like some teams. I went to school at both Mississippi State University and Ole Miss, undergraduate and graduate school, and I feel compelled to support their football endeavors. Sometimes that's not easy since neither school has been all that good in past years. If either of them end the season with a break even record, that's acceptable . . . and that's the way it should be. Even on years those two school come up short, I still like them . . . but it's not because of their football programs. Without my education that came mostly from them, I would've had a much more difficult life than I've had.
But . . . I still like watching football, and I like seeing "my" schools win. I'm having a ball this year 'cause State and Ole Miss are undefeated so far. This past weekend, State beat Texas A&M and Ole Miss beat Alabama. Being a dutiful Mississippian by raising, I don't like Alabama. Being a Texan now with preferences, I don't like A&M either, and I don't know a damn thing about the place other than that they've got the most obnoxious fans on the planet. Ever hear those Aggie jokes? Well, folks, they're not really jokes in my opinion. I usually enjoy seeing Texas schools win, when they're playing out of state foes, but I've got my druthers about which in-state teams I like best.
I lived in Oklahoma for 30 years, so I've got loyalties there too. Watching OU get whacked by TCU yesterday was a little disheartening, but I sort of like TCU too. The fact is, I don't get unhappy these
days when any team loses, even my favorite teams. I don't get delighted at any team's loss, unless maybe if it's Alabama or Auburn, and then I have to grin a little. I'm old enough now to accept football as what it is . . . a game, just a game. And the longer I live, the more concerned I get about those folks out there who live football. Ok, go ahead and have fun with it, but don't take it too much to heart. In case you missed it the first time, I'll say it again: It's just a game.
Somebody needs to get that point over with a helluva lot of colleges in this country. Far too much emphasis is placed on football. As a point of reference, do you know anything at all about Notre Dame other than its football team? Do you even know where it is, what town and state? Do you know anything at all about the academic programs at schools like USC, Oregon, Ole Miss, Ohio State, Miss. State, Auburn, or South Carolina? Here's a news flash for you, if you don't already know. Some of those universities that play good football have academic programs much better than their football team. Even if Alabama won all it's games for a hundred years, the football program there wouldn't measure up to the academic success of that university . . . and that, partner, ain't no game.
Here's the deal about football or any other sport, about why you should never take it too seriously. Yeah, I'm an Ole Miss fan, also a Miss. State fan, and they're undefeated right now. It won't stay that way because a winner is only a winner for one weekend. They beat two teams this past weekend they weren't supposed to beat, and the very same thing may happen to them this coming weekend. At least one of those teams won't finish undefeated because they play each other the last game of the year. If both teams have good records by then, say like 8-3 or 9-2, I'll be happy with that, and I won't care who wins when they play each other. IT'S JUST A GAME, DAMMIT! The good news is, win or lose on the football field, they'll both still be a couple of good universities.
But . . . I still like watching football, and I like seeing "my" schools win. I'm having a ball this year 'cause State and Ole Miss are undefeated so far. This past weekend, State beat Texas A&M and Ole Miss beat Alabama. Being a dutiful Mississippian by raising, I don't like Alabama. Being a Texan now with preferences, I don't like A&M either, and I don't know a damn thing about the place other than that they've got the most obnoxious fans on the planet. Ever hear those Aggie jokes? Well, folks, they're not really jokes in my opinion. I usually enjoy seeing Texas schools win, when they're playing out of state foes, but I've got my druthers about which in-state teams I like best.
I lived in Oklahoma for 30 years, so I've got loyalties there too. Watching OU get whacked by TCU yesterday was a little disheartening, but I sort of like TCU too. The fact is, I don't get unhappy these
days when any team loses, even my favorite teams. I don't get delighted at any team's loss, unless maybe if it's Alabama or Auburn, and then I have to grin a little. I'm old enough now to accept football as what it is . . . a game, just a game. And the longer I live, the more concerned I get about those folks out there who live football. Ok, go ahead and have fun with it, but don't take it too much to heart. In case you missed it the first time, I'll say it again: It's just a game.
Somebody needs to get that point over with a helluva lot of colleges in this country. Far too much emphasis is placed on football. As a point of reference, do you know anything at all about Notre Dame other than its football team? Do you even know where it is, what town and state? Do you know anything at all about the academic programs at schools like USC, Oregon, Ole Miss, Ohio State, Miss. State, Auburn, or South Carolina? Here's a news flash for you, if you don't already know. Some of those universities that play good football have academic programs much better than their football team. Even if Alabama won all it's games for a hundred years, the football program there wouldn't measure up to the academic success of that university . . . and that, partner, ain't no game.
Here's the deal about football or any other sport, about why you should never take it too seriously. Yeah, I'm an Ole Miss fan, also a Miss. State fan, and they're undefeated right now. It won't stay that way because a winner is only a winner for one weekend. They beat two teams this past weekend they weren't supposed to beat, and the very same thing may happen to them this coming weekend. At least one of those teams won't finish undefeated because they play each other the last game of the year. If both teams have good records by then, say like 8-3 or 9-2, I'll be happy with that, and I won't care who wins when they play each other. IT'S JUST A GAME, DAMMIT! The good news is, win or lose on the football field, they'll both still be a couple of good universities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)