CW: Marginalization, -isms
The United States of America has a laundry list of oppression and marginalization from its very beginning. It doesn't take a history scholar to look backwards to see the type of horrors that have been committed in this country.
1. The Dynamic of Racial Division
As you research more about the American structure, you learn about the dynamic of slavery and the purpose it served. Obviously, it served an intensive labor purpose, in which, black people were dehumanized and forced to work and suffer to build up this country.
However, slavery in all of its "peculiar institution" glory had another dynamic to it.
The institution of slavery permitted white people to have a position of power, almost regardless of their economic standing. You did not have to be a rich elite to have slaves. White male slave owners were able to get out any aggression they had on slaves and white women, who were second class citizens at best, had people of their own to oppress.
With this institution in place, the elite could remain the elite. They weren't often threatened with a loss of power because the people below them had power and people to oppress. It's much easier to oppress a group of people if they get to oppress another group of people.
When slavery was abolished, black people were not immediately subjected to Jim Crow laws. That hadn't happened quite yet. An enraged and undignified white population grew serious disdain to the now freed black people. They were angry that they lost their free labor, their power completely gone.
Status quo, however, was severely enforced by civilian to civilian violence and once the federal government removed their troops from the South, it became even easier to oppress the newly freed people.
Prior to this, some states had actually elected black officials, and even a few legislators were elected at the federal level. This frightened many politicians, who feared that the black man was going to takeover the land and in turn oppress them.
Violence ensued.
As Jim Crow developed, it was first backed by a conscious of the white population that racial integration would be very dangerous for all parties involved. Pseudoscience said black people were racially inferior. But most importantly, the name Jim Crow itself came from the minstrel shows, "Jump Jim Crow", in which a white performer portrayed a black man while in blackface. These offensive minstrel shows were created to entertain white audiences but also served as a powerful force in shaping the minds of the white public as to the behavior of black people.
A play, The Clansmen, was written by the Ku Klux Klan to create a conscious image in the mind of white people of the dangers of racial integration. This was later turned into a silent film in 1915, known as The Birth of a Nation. The film depicts the dangers of the Reconstruction era and perpetuates an image of white lives in danger at the hands of the black man. The film's hero, the Ku Klux Klan, is there to save the day.
Jim Crow laws relegated black people to second class citizenry. Although the Plessy ruling claimed separate but equal, such a thing was not the reality. Sections dedicated as "Colored" were of lower quality, rarely maintained and when it came to public services, were often underfunded.
Jim Crow, in and of itself, was an institution designed to continue the power dynamic that the abolition of slavery destroyed. Your average white man, rich or poor, had someone beneath them.
They had people they could take their anger out on. When things went wrong, they had the perfect scapegoat to blame.
The average white American simply had a fear of being equal to black people. They were afraid they would lose their piece of the pie and their stance in society. With this in mind, Jim Crow was viciously enforced both by law and by culture.
Anyone who attempted to disrupt the system was considered a troublemaker who needed to be stopped.
See, the system had a very important reason for existing. By keeping the power structure in force, the elite could remain the elite. As long as the people in the middle of the system had the psychological feeling of power and superiority, there was no doubt that the elite would not find themselves in a position of peril from the awoken masses.
In order to keep the system in place, the country had to ensure that white people knew their enemy was disruptive, entitled black people and not the government or the capitalism system in and of itself. In fact, serious fears existed around the topic of integration. From concerns of crime, rape and economic competition. White people thought that black people integrating into their schools or into their workplaces would result in their jobs becoming at risk. They weren't willing to chance this.
While it would be nice to pretend that the racial division power is a thing of the distant past, that simply is not true, as it is very much alive and well to this day.
2. The Dynamic of the Immigrant Enemy
Like racism, xenophobia is an important power structure to maintain the systems. The hot button topic of immigration is as American as apple pie. Cities were often segregated by ethnicity and people were quick to blame immigrants for all the woes in society.
The government knew they wouldn't be held as responsible for the woes of society and the oppression of capitalism if the immigrants could be blamed for stealing jobs and harming the American culture. German immigrants, Irish immigrants, Italian immigrants, Mexican immigrants and Middle Eastern immigrants all at one time or another were the scapegoat for the plight of the American worker.
This selling point has existed in the political arenas for as long as forever. It's an easy sell. These immigrants are going to come in, take over our language, destroy our customs and steal our jobs.
Today, the immigration conversation is mostly aimed at Mexican immigrants and immigrants from the Middle East. For the Mexican population, the fears that are perpetuated are the fear of drug cartels and job theft. For the Middle Eastern population the fears that are most often perpetuated involve terrorism and the disorder of the religious systems we have in our society.
As long as there are immigrants to blame, the lower and middle class person cannot focus on their government's oppression. They feel that capitalism would work if only these people would stop consuming the entire system.
It threatens the core of the American identity and in their minds, the core of the economy.
3. The Dynamic of Political Order
The fear of socialism and communism has been rampant in the United States. The red scare is probably one of the most famous incidents in our history. Any person who subscribed to any type of communist or supposedly anti-government philosophies were dubbed a serious threat to the national security of the nation.
In order for the oppressive system of capitalism to thrive, it must rely that the people within it are invested in it entirely. It is very fragile, like all elements of the status quo, and will fight away any enemy. Capitalism works, they will tell you, and they will point out to the many successful and brilliant people that America has produced.
Most Americans do not have a true, definitive understanding of either socialism and communism, in fact, so many Americans think they two are non distinct of each other, which isn't true at all.
Anyone who is seen as a radical opponent of the capitalist system as it stands is branded as a communist or socialist. When this happens, it is severely stigmatized in the public conscious. Thoughts of North Korea or Cuba come to the mind.
This fear is important to maintaining the political order as we devote most of our collective allegiance to two establishment parties that truly encompass the interests of elitists in one form or another.
But--as long as the average American has an enemy, they will not realize that the enemy is the violence perpetuated by the very government and economical structure of the land.
4. The Dynamic of Social Order
Social order is important in American society. Men do this and women do that. Gender norms are challenged every day and have come quite a long way but most of us are very trapped into the gender normatives that society expects of us. Homosexuality and transgender identities are stigmatized. Anything that disrupts the social order is a threat to the fabric of the American form.
Just like with immigrants--it is at the expense of sexual minorities, non-binary people, genderqueer people and otherwise non-traditional gender people. This creates an enemy to the social order and allows the common collective to have a view of "us" vs. "them".
One of the most powerful persuasions in this thought occurred during the suffragette movement. Suffragettes were portrayed as masculine, unattractive old maids. Fear campaigns distributed propaganda that shows women in charge and men relegated to a second class citizenry. With this in mind, the social order was easy to maintain because it played into the collective male fear of losing their power and privilege.
When marriage equality was still not uniformly legal, this threatened the social order Americans hold dear. Even though men marrying men would do nothing personally to heterosexuals, it was an extremely serious issue for them. It threatened the social order and the values of the American conscious. Many opponents of gay marriage were willing to "compromise" by supporting domestic partnerships--as long as "they" didn't come for marriage, then it was okay. We have to have our institutions and they can have theirs.
5. The Dynamic of Patriotism
The American conscious is very much about patriotism, the flag and pride. Despite how oppressive our government is and how horrible the capitalism system is to really most of us, people are blindly patriotic. Challenging this status quo leads to social stigmatization and possible violence.
We must stand up for the anthem. We must recite the pledge with our hands over our hearts.
Talking about the injustices of America, like slavery or the genocide of the First Nations, is simply unAmerican. We must respect the flag and all the privileges that they believe it gives them.
If you speak ill of the American systems, you are a traitor and you "need to move out" if you don't like it.
Assimilation is the only respectable way to be an immigrant, along with doing it the legal, documented way. Anything less and you are an infiltrator.
We are indoctrinated at a very young age to believe in the American dream, prosperity and that we are the greatest nation on the Earth. Criticizing America too harshly will make others uncomfortable and is considered disrespecting the flag and our troops.
Truthfully, Americans are fearful of breaking the customs and traditions because they don't want to be outcast.
American patriotism is no different than a cult. America is God, the flag is Jesus and capitalism is the Holy Ghost.
As a natural born American, I feel it is so important that our youth think critically. Yes, there are wonderful things about America. Multiple truths can exist! But we can no longer indoctrinate the youth into these principles of American exceptionalism. The longer we are indoctrinated, the longer people will continue to be oppressed. If we were, in fact, the greatest nation on the Earth, we wouldn't have people using GoFundMe to raise money for health care.
We can no longer live in fear of immigrants and we can no longer perpetuate racism and sexism. If we truly want to live in the land of the free, we must become free in our minds from the chains of the American structure.
Toxic American culture is killing all of us slowly--and the problem is, it is not a liquid that you drink, it is a gas in the air that we breath in. It is a way of life and thinking outside of it is uncomfortable.
But we must work past that discomfort and understand that most everything we've been taught is a sugar-coated, whitewashed lie.
While these thoughts are my observations based on what I have learned, seen and even experienced, I am not the first person nor the only person to think them up. This has been a discussion for years--often undercover and silenced.
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
Monday, January 16, 2017
Sunday, January 8, 2017
100 Days of Trump
Whether we like it or not, on January 20th, Donald Trump will be sworn in as the President of the United States. Of course, I fought with every aspect of my being to prevent this from happening, but alas, here we are. Not only is he taking office, but the Republican Party will also be in full control of the House and the Senate. This is going to be a series of control by the Republican Party and we must be prepared to tackle it.
Donald Trump has made a "contract" with us, the American people, of a list of actions he plans to tackle in his first 100 days.
I'm going to talk about his plans and my individual thoughts on each point.
Category 1: Six Measures to Clean Up the Corruption and Special Interests in Washington D.C.
Proposing term limits for Congress.
I am a huge supporter of term limits for Congress. I believe it will help prevent an overabundance of power and stop the notion of career Congress. Some states, like Florida, have term limits on their State legislative departments. It has some support from Congress but it mostly left with resistance. After all, the Congress themselves would have to pass the legislation and it isn't likely they are going to term themselves out of a job.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-term-limits-promise-faces-its-own-limits-on-capitol-hill/2016/11/26/ef172f6a-b332-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.c36312863dbb
http://time.com/4578718/donald-trump-term-limits-congress/
Although I support this initiative, I am going to file it under NOT LIKELY to actually come in force.
Hiring freeze on all federal workers to reduce the federal workforce by attrition (exempt military, public safety and public health)
This is likely to appease the conservative mindset on reducing the size of government. I took this to mean his plan to not hire new federal workers to replace those who retire. This would effectively reduce the federal workforce.
It is sort of an ironic standpoint to take by a President who claims he wants to make America great again--after all, this will reduce jobs available to the American people.
Besides, it seems that federal agencies are already understaffed:
http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/federal-agency-severely-understaffed-handle-widespread-animal-disease-outbreaks
http://www.expressnews.com/business/local/article/Understaffed-regulators-rarely-know-about-7950515.php
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-a-leaner-federal-government-hire-more-federal-workers/2016/04/21/a11cf98c-fd8b-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html?utm_term=.c55069d19b9c
As the Washington Post article states, cutting staff won't be the budget saving grace that Trump would like you to believe.
I do not support this plan one bit.
For every new federal regulation, two must be eliminated.
This again goes into the conversation conscious of lowering the governments size and federal power, a strong selling point to conservatives. Truthfully, I am not sure this can be applied without being dangerous. It may prevent regulations from coming forth as to avoid the risk of nixing important regulations. What regulations are we going to cut? Department of Labor's overtime rule? Environmental Protection Agencies already lax environmental rules? This seems like a very treacherous pattern.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/11/22/donald-trump-promises-to-eliminate-two-regulations-for-every-one-enacted/#4aee2a812b87
http://fortune.com/2016/10/07/donald-trump-business-regulations/
Do you know what is regulated? (But not nearly regulated enough) Wall Street, banks, insurance companies, businesses....do you really trust a business man to make the best decisions about regulations to cut? How could that go wrong right?
I am not sure of the plausibility of this happening but I will say I do not support it.
A five-year ban on Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.
So what two regulations do we have to eliminate to make that happen?
I actually do support this and, bear in mind, I support quite a number of regulatory proposals to lower the impact and power of these professional lobbyists. The only lobbyists should be you and I, the people. But, I am skeptical about such a regulation existing if the blanket policy is you must eliminate two regulations in order to regulate. Naturally, he doesn't have the support of the lobbyists:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/lobbyists-donald-trump-transition-ban-231562
I do see where he is coming from with this ban, although five-years doesn't seem long enough to me. The idea is to cut those friendly ties and remove the cronyism. I am here for it, I dig it.
A lifetime ban on White House officials becoming lobbyists to a foreign government.
Great, now we have to chop out another two regulations!
I can get behind it but it seems like it just isn't likely to go beyond the rhetoric.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/18/trumps-new-lobbying-rules-could-drain-the-swamp-but-they-may-be-illegal-and-are-porous/?utm_term=.d5ff54c42d92
Complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising funds for American elections.
Campaign finance is a huge arena of interest for me. I certainly am for anything that will reduce the amount of interest groups, including foreign groups, influencing our elections. I am going to have to say I support this one just on the mere principle of it.
(But damn--now we've got six regulations to repeal due to these new lobbying rules.)
Category Two: Seven Actions to Protect American Workers
Truthfully, I find it intriguing that the same man that wants to reduce regulations and cut federal workforces is the same man that is going to "protect American workers". I just don't see it as very probable to do both. If you think workforce regulations don't matter, ask me what you are doing on your day off. Did you know a day off is a result of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938? That comprehensive legislation is stacked full of Department of Labor regulations. So, without regulations, how exactly are we supposed to "protect American workers".
Trump will announce plans to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal.
The North American Free Trade Agreement has been quite the topic of controversy in our Presidential election. Naturally, any talk of changing or eliminating it is going to spark interest of the American public. The give you a bit of history:
The framework for NAFTA was created under the conservative hailed hero President Ronald Reagan in 1987. It was signed into law in 1994 by President Bill Clinton. Two different Presidents, two different parties.
NAFTA allows for trade between the North American countries without tariffs (or taxes). As such, the trade of goods can flow seamlessly throughout the boarders.
According to CNN, it is true that NAFTA has resulted in job losses in the United States. However, it also claims NAFTA is also responsible for securing some jobs within our boarders. The United States Chamber of Commerce claims that 6 million U.S. jobs rely on NAFTA.
Another advantage of NAFTA is that it provides Americans with a better price on goods, so in theory, an elimination of NAFTA could result in higher prices for goods, which will have a negative impact on the economy.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/news/economy/trump-what-is-nafta/
https://www.thebalance.com/history-of-nafta-3306272
So, in all, it seems like although NAFTA has had some negative effects, it generally seems like it has provided our continent with more positive benefits.
All I have really seen of Trump is that he plans to negotiate the contract to secure a better deal for the American workforce but I am not sure I have been able to find exactly what that means.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/285189-trump-says-he-will-renegotiate-or-withdraw-from-nafta-without-changes
But the United States Chamber of Commerce isn't so optimistic about that:
https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/trump-s-trade-policies-would-make-america-recession-bound-again
Trump will announce our withdrawal from the TPP.
What is the TPP? The Trans Pacific Partnership was an agreement that involves the United States, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico, Chile and Peru. Like NAFTA, it is a trade deal designed to lower tariffs between these agreed upon countries.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32498715
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18695/TPP_Free-Trade_Globalization_Obama
http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2016/11/02/tpp-good-you-and-me-depends-and-heres-why/92002390/
Overall, I think I agree with the withdrawal from TPP.
Trump will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China as a currency manipulator.
I have nothing on this one--so I'll just post a few opinion pieces.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/13/trumpd-right-china-is-a-currency-manipulator-but-theyre-manipulating-the-yuan-up/#1065860327a6
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/12/29/what-means-if-trump-names-china-currency-manipulator/95955094/
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/treasury-china-not-currency-manipulator-trade-229812
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/10/17/what-happens-after-you-label-a-country-a-currency-manipulator/
Truthfully, I am not sure what this is supposed to do really to protect the American worker.
Trump will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately.
Under what--the regulations that we have eliminated by his for every one, eliminate two policy?
I don't have much of a comment--I am certainly for investigating any abuses but this is very vague and I don't see how much of this is really an action plan.
Trump will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars worth of job-producing American energy reserves including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
It sounds great in theory--eliminate our need to use foreign countries and instead do the work here. But truthfully I think we, as a nation, need to work toward more sustainable energy platforms, like solar, wind and other means, rather than continuing to decay our environment.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Inhabit/2016/1110/Coal-and-oil-revival-Six-ways-Trump-could-shift-energy-policy
While I can certainly see how this will help with American jobs, I believe it is the wrong way to go about it. If we invested in sustainable energy, that too would create jobs. I believe this would have a disastrous overall effect on our economy and our environment.
https://mic.com/articles/159378/trump-s-energy-plan-could-have-devastating-and-irreversible-effects#.5MGH4UKJM
I will give this one a hearty NO.
Lift the roadblocks and allow for energy infrastructure projects, like the pipelines.
Absolutely no, no, no. Again, it goes back to the previous statement. We need a progressive energy plan---this looks like it will benefit corporations moreso than it would us, the people. I don't really think it's really about jobs.
Because it ties exactly into the previous statement, there's no point to delve further.
Cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's infrastructure.
This is definitely going to appease the conservative rights belief system that climate change is a hoax. I am going to go with NO for the same reasons above.
Category Three: Five Actions to Restore Security and Constitutional Law
I wonder if Trump has even read the document.
Cancel every unconstitutional executive order by Obama.
Probably a statement used to fuel the conservative rights hatred for everything Obama.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/03/trump-says-hell-cancel-obamas-unconstitutional-executive-actions-its-not-that-easy/?utm_term=.da2d4c730eec
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/11/14/immediate-risk-executive-orders-regulations-affect-work-nonprofits/
This type of action could harm LGBT people, immigrants, non-profit organizations, health care and environment.
I am going to go with a "I do not support this!"
It seems very reckless, truthfully.
Begin the process to replace Antonin Scalia.
That's very scary--but inevitable--and should have already happened.
Cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities.
http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary-cities.html
This is, of course, to appease the anti-immigrant rhetoric. This would result in a loss of protections for undocumented immigrants within these cities.
This will result in more of a police presence and is seriously dangerous to immigrants and citizens alike.
I do not support this one bit.
Begin removing the more than 2 million illegal immigrants and cancel the visas of foreign governments that won't take them back.
It disgusts me the way we talk about human beings as though they can be "illegal". As a country founded on immigration (well genocide and oppression really but you get it), we should support and welcome different customs and cultures. Plus, I think the cost of something like this would be astronomical.
This could have serious repercussions on our economy and our budget deficit.
http://immigrationimpact.com/2016/09/21/economic-cost-deporting-undocumented-immigrants/
In summary, we could expect a reduction our gross domestic profit by 2.6 and a reduction cumulatively over a span of 10 years in the amount of $4.7 trillion.
Suspend the immigration of people from terror-prone countries.
Remember Nazi Germany? We turned away refugees trying to fled the holocaust. Why would we, as the supposed greatest nation in the world, allow for people to live in terror?
I don't support this--we should provide humanity and compassion to human beings, especially since we cause so much destruction in their home states.
That was my summary of Trump's 100 day plan. What are your thoughts?
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
Donald Trump has made a "contract" with us, the American people, of a list of actions he plans to tackle in his first 100 days.
I'm going to talk about his plans and my individual thoughts on each point.
Category 1: Six Measures to Clean Up the Corruption and Special Interests in Washington D.C.
Proposing term limits for Congress.
I am a huge supporter of term limits for Congress. I believe it will help prevent an overabundance of power and stop the notion of career Congress. Some states, like Florida, have term limits on their State legislative departments. It has some support from Congress but it mostly left with resistance. After all, the Congress themselves would have to pass the legislation and it isn't likely they are going to term themselves out of a job.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-term-limits-promise-faces-its-own-limits-on-capitol-hill/2016/11/26/ef172f6a-b332-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.c36312863dbb
http://time.com/4578718/donald-trump-term-limits-congress/
Although I support this initiative, I am going to file it under NOT LIKELY to actually come in force.
Hiring freeze on all federal workers to reduce the federal workforce by attrition (exempt military, public safety and public health)
This is likely to appease the conservative mindset on reducing the size of government. I took this to mean his plan to not hire new federal workers to replace those who retire. This would effectively reduce the federal workforce.
It is sort of an ironic standpoint to take by a President who claims he wants to make America great again--after all, this will reduce jobs available to the American people.
Besides, it seems that federal agencies are already understaffed:
http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/federal-agency-severely-understaffed-handle-widespread-animal-disease-outbreaks
http://www.expressnews.com/business/local/article/Understaffed-regulators-rarely-know-about-7950515.php
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/want-a-leaner-federal-government-hire-more-federal-workers/2016/04/21/a11cf98c-fd8b-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html?utm_term=.c55069d19b9c
As the Washington Post article states, cutting staff won't be the budget saving grace that Trump would like you to believe.
I do not support this plan one bit.
For every new federal regulation, two must be eliminated.
This again goes into the conversation conscious of lowering the governments size and federal power, a strong selling point to conservatives. Truthfully, I am not sure this can be applied without being dangerous. It may prevent regulations from coming forth as to avoid the risk of nixing important regulations. What regulations are we going to cut? Department of Labor's overtime rule? Environmental Protection Agencies already lax environmental rules? This seems like a very treacherous pattern.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/11/22/donald-trump-promises-to-eliminate-two-regulations-for-every-one-enacted/#4aee2a812b87
http://fortune.com/2016/10/07/donald-trump-business-regulations/
Do you know what is regulated? (But not nearly regulated enough) Wall Street, banks, insurance companies, businesses....do you really trust a business man to make the best decisions about regulations to cut? How could that go wrong right?
I am not sure of the plausibility of this happening but I will say I do not support it.
A five-year ban on Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.
So what two regulations do we have to eliminate to make that happen?
I actually do support this and, bear in mind, I support quite a number of regulatory proposals to lower the impact and power of these professional lobbyists. The only lobbyists should be you and I, the people. But, I am skeptical about such a regulation existing if the blanket policy is you must eliminate two regulations in order to regulate. Naturally, he doesn't have the support of the lobbyists:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/lobbyists-donald-trump-transition-ban-231562
I do see where he is coming from with this ban, although five-years doesn't seem long enough to me. The idea is to cut those friendly ties and remove the cronyism. I am here for it, I dig it.
A lifetime ban on White House officials becoming lobbyists to a foreign government.
Great, now we have to chop out another two regulations!
I can get behind it but it seems like it just isn't likely to go beyond the rhetoric.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/18/trumps-new-lobbying-rules-could-drain-the-swamp-but-they-may-be-illegal-and-are-porous/?utm_term=.d5ff54c42d92
Complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising funds for American elections.
Campaign finance is a huge arena of interest for me. I certainly am for anything that will reduce the amount of interest groups, including foreign groups, influencing our elections. I am going to have to say I support this one just on the mere principle of it.
(But damn--now we've got six regulations to repeal due to these new lobbying rules.)
Category Two: Seven Actions to Protect American Workers
Truthfully, I find it intriguing that the same man that wants to reduce regulations and cut federal workforces is the same man that is going to "protect American workers". I just don't see it as very probable to do both. If you think workforce regulations don't matter, ask me what you are doing on your day off. Did you know a day off is a result of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938? That comprehensive legislation is stacked full of Department of Labor regulations. So, without regulations, how exactly are we supposed to "protect American workers".
Trump will announce plans to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal.
The North American Free Trade Agreement has been quite the topic of controversy in our Presidential election. Naturally, any talk of changing or eliminating it is going to spark interest of the American public. The give you a bit of history:
The framework for NAFTA was created under the conservative hailed hero President Ronald Reagan in 1987. It was signed into law in 1994 by President Bill Clinton. Two different Presidents, two different parties.
NAFTA allows for trade between the North American countries without tariffs (or taxes). As such, the trade of goods can flow seamlessly throughout the boarders.
According to CNN, it is true that NAFTA has resulted in job losses in the United States. However, it also claims NAFTA is also responsible for securing some jobs within our boarders. The United States Chamber of Commerce claims that 6 million U.S. jobs rely on NAFTA.
Another advantage of NAFTA is that it provides Americans with a better price on goods, so in theory, an elimination of NAFTA could result in higher prices for goods, which will have a negative impact on the economy.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/15/news/economy/trump-what-is-nafta/
https://www.thebalance.com/history-of-nafta-3306272
So, in all, it seems like although NAFTA has had some negative effects, it generally seems like it has provided our continent with more positive benefits.
All I have really seen of Trump is that he plans to negotiate the contract to secure a better deal for the American workforce but I am not sure I have been able to find exactly what that means.
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/285189-trump-says-he-will-renegotiate-or-withdraw-from-nafta-without-changes
But the United States Chamber of Commerce isn't so optimistic about that:
https://www.uschamber.com/above-the-fold/trump-s-trade-policies-would-make-america-recession-bound-again
Trump will announce our withdrawal from the TPP.
What is the TPP? The Trans Pacific Partnership was an agreement that involves the United States, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico, Chile and Peru. Like NAFTA, it is a trade deal designed to lower tariffs between these agreed upon countries.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-32498715
http://inthesetimes.com/article/18695/TPP_Free-Trade_Globalization_Obama
http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2016/11/02/tpp-good-you-and-me-depends-and-heres-why/92002390/
Overall, I think I agree with the withdrawal from TPP.
Trump will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China as a currency manipulator.
I have nothing on this one--so I'll just post a few opinion pieces.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/11/13/trumpd-right-china-is-a-currency-manipulator-but-theyre-manipulating-the-yuan-up/#1065860327a6
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/12/29/what-means-if-trump-names-china-currency-manipulator/95955094/
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/treasury-china-not-currency-manipulator-trade-229812
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/10/17/what-happens-after-you-label-a-country-a-currency-manipulator/
Truthfully, I am not sure what this is supposed to do really to protect the American worker.
Trump will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately.
Under what--the regulations that we have eliminated by his for every one, eliminate two policy?
I don't have much of a comment--I am certainly for investigating any abuses but this is very vague and I don't see how much of this is really an action plan.
Trump will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars worth of job-producing American energy reserves including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
It sounds great in theory--eliminate our need to use foreign countries and instead do the work here. But truthfully I think we, as a nation, need to work toward more sustainable energy platforms, like solar, wind and other means, rather than continuing to decay our environment.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Inhabit/2016/1110/Coal-and-oil-revival-Six-ways-Trump-could-shift-energy-policy
While I can certainly see how this will help with American jobs, I believe it is the wrong way to go about it. If we invested in sustainable energy, that too would create jobs. I believe this would have a disastrous overall effect on our economy and our environment.
https://mic.com/articles/159378/trump-s-energy-plan-could-have-devastating-and-irreversible-effects#.5MGH4UKJM
I will give this one a hearty NO.
Lift the roadblocks and allow for energy infrastructure projects, like the pipelines.
Absolutely no, no, no. Again, it goes back to the previous statement. We need a progressive energy plan---this looks like it will benefit corporations moreso than it would us, the people. I don't really think it's really about jobs.
Because it ties exactly into the previous statement, there's no point to delve further.
Cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's infrastructure.
This is definitely going to appease the conservative rights belief system that climate change is a hoax. I am going to go with NO for the same reasons above.
Category Three: Five Actions to Restore Security and Constitutional Law
I wonder if Trump has even read the document.
Cancel every unconstitutional executive order by Obama.
Probably a statement used to fuel the conservative rights hatred for everything Obama.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/03/trump-says-hell-cancel-obamas-unconstitutional-executive-actions-its-not-that-easy/?utm_term=.da2d4c730eec
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/2016/11/14/immediate-risk-executive-orders-regulations-affect-work-nonprofits/
This type of action could harm LGBT people, immigrants, non-profit organizations, health care and environment.
I am going to go with a "I do not support this!"
It seems very reckless, truthfully.
Begin the process to replace Antonin Scalia.
That's very scary--but inevitable--and should have already happened.
Cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities.
http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary-cities.html
This is, of course, to appease the anti-immigrant rhetoric. This would result in a loss of protections for undocumented immigrants within these cities.
This will result in more of a police presence and is seriously dangerous to immigrants and citizens alike.
I do not support this one bit.
Begin removing the more than 2 million illegal immigrants and cancel the visas of foreign governments that won't take them back.
It disgusts me the way we talk about human beings as though they can be "illegal". As a country founded on immigration (well genocide and oppression really but you get it), we should support and welcome different customs and cultures. Plus, I think the cost of something like this would be astronomical.
This could have serious repercussions on our economy and our budget deficit.
http://immigrationimpact.com/2016/09/21/economic-cost-deporting-undocumented-immigrants/
In summary, we could expect a reduction our gross domestic profit by 2.6 and a reduction cumulatively over a span of 10 years in the amount of $4.7 trillion.
Suspend the immigration of people from terror-prone countries.
Remember Nazi Germany? We turned away refugees trying to fled the holocaust. Why would we, as the supposed greatest nation in the world, allow for people to live in terror?
I don't support this--we should provide humanity and compassion to human beings, especially since we cause so much destruction in their home states.
That was my summary of Trump's 100 day plan. What are your thoughts?
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
Compassion a Crime: City of Tampa Food Not Bombs
This weekend, the City of Tampa had a major sporting event that was going to attract several out of town folks. It was a highly glorified event, with a full weekend of entertainment available in downtown Tampa.
Unfortunately, the Tampa Police department decided earlier this week to detain the Food Not Bombs activists who were providing free food sharing to the members of the houseless community. On Tuesday, the activists were told by the police to refrain from the food sharing and to not return this coming Saturday. Despite their threats, the brave activists of Food Not Bombs came out to Gaslight Parks on Saturday, amidst the cold and the crowd, and continued food sharing. Without fail, the Tampa Police department arrested seven of the activists and disbanded the group.
The fact is the City of Tampa and Greater Hillsborough County has a serious poverty issue, and naturally as a result, homelessness will persist. Instead of creating a community of compassion, the City decides, randomly and at-will, to enforce some very oppressive legislation to prevent food sharing.
Here is some data on the City's homeless counts in 2016.
Although I may be wrong, I believe the City is acting on sec. 16-43 of Article III in the City's Parks and Recreations ordinance. This ordinance was established in 2004 and proclaims certain prohibited activities in city managed parks. You can read the ordinance here where you see Sec. 16-43 point C.
"No person shall conduct any activity or utilize any department managed land in a manner which will result in commercial activity, as defined in this chapter, or provide for the distribution or sampling of any materials, merchandise, food, and/or beverages to the general public, without prior written approval from the department."
It seems, however, such laws are managed at-will whenever the police department is instructed to make the City more eye appeasing to outside groups. Instead of actually tackling the homeless problem, the City would rather "cover it up" with a band-aid when a large mass of visitors are present. This is not tolerable and must be stopped!
In 2011, people were stopped ahead of the Republican National Convention.
I commend the activists who violated these laws and take a stand for human decency and compassion. Since the City won't tackle the homelessness problem, it has become up to the activists to handle it.
What can you do about it?
Attend the upcoming Food Not Bombs Tampa meeting and find out what their action plan is.
Write AND Call the Mayor to let him know you are not alright with these types of law enforcement actions in your City.
Write AND Call your City Council.
Contribute and share the fundraising for legal support for the activists.
And of course, distribute this information to your peers and ask them to get involved as well.
Unfortunately, the Tampa Police department decided earlier this week to detain the Food Not Bombs activists who were providing free food sharing to the members of the houseless community. On Tuesday, the activists were told by the police to refrain from the food sharing and to not return this coming Saturday. Despite their threats, the brave activists of Food Not Bombs came out to Gaslight Parks on Saturday, amidst the cold and the crowd, and continued food sharing. Without fail, the Tampa Police department arrested seven of the activists and disbanded the group.
The fact is the City of Tampa and Greater Hillsborough County has a serious poverty issue, and naturally as a result, homelessness will persist. Instead of creating a community of compassion, the City decides, randomly and at-will, to enforce some very oppressive legislation to prevent food sharing.
Here is some data on the City's homeless counts in 2016.
Although I may be wrong, I believe the City is acting on sec. 16-43 of Article III in the City's Parks and Recreations ordinance. This ordinance was established in 2004 and proclaims certain prohibited activities in city managed parks. You can read the ordinance here where you see Sec. 16-43 point C.
"No person shall conduct any activity or utilize any department managed land in a manner which will result in commercial activity, as defined in this chapter, or provide for the distribution or sampling of any materials, merchandise, food, and/or beverages to the general public, without prior written approval from the department."
It seems, however, such laws are managed at-will whenever the police department is instructed to make the City more eye appeasing to outside groups. Instead of actually tackling the homeless problem, the City would rather "cover it up" with a band-aid when a large mass of visitors are present. This is not tolerable and must be stopped!
In 2011, people were stopped ahead of the Republican National Convention.
I commend the activists who violated these laws and take a stand for human decency and compassion. Since the City won't tackle the homelessness problem, it has become up to the activists to handle it.
What can you do about it?
Attend the upcoming Food Not Bombs Tampa meeting and find out what their action plan is.
Write AND Call the Mayor to let him know you are not alright with these types of law enforcement actions in your City.
Write AND Call your City Council.
Contribute and share the fundraising for legal support for the activists.
And of course, distribute this information to your peers and ask them to get involved as well.
Monday, January 2, 2017
Daring Greatly: Chapter 2
Chapter 2 is called "Debunking the Vulnerability Myths"
To read my thoughts on Chapter 1, click here.
Chapter 2's myth #1 was the most profound to me and that myth is "Vulnerability is a Weakness"
(pg 33) The perception that vulnerability is weakness is the most widely accepted myth about vulnerability and the most dangerous. When we spend our lives pushing away and protecting ourselves from feeling vulnerable or from being perceived as too emotional, we feel contempt when others are less capable or willing to mask feelings, suck it up and soldier on. We've come to the point where, rather than respecting and appreciating the courage and daring behind vulnerability, we let our fear and discomfort become judgment and criticism. Vulnerability isn't good or bad.
I see this a lot in men. I think it goes back to fragile masculinity. The believe system that vulnerability and the encompassing emotions are weak is appalling to me. We are naturally disposed to experience emotions, both good and bad! I am not sure why negating this natural wiring is somehow perceived as strength.
(pg 33) Vulnerability is the core of all emotions and feelings. To feel is to be vulnerable. To believe vulnerability is weakness is to believe that feeling is weakness. To foreclose on our emotional life out of a fear that the costs will be too high is to walk away from the very thing that gives purpose and meaning to living.
That pretty much sums it up! As I said before, vulnerability is a precursor to all feelings, both good or bad. Without a sense of vulnerability, we simply cannot feel!
(pg 33-34) Our rejection of vulnerability often stems from our associating it with dark emotions like fear, shame, grief, sadness and disappointment--emotions that we don't want to discuss, even when they profoundly affect the ay we live, love, work and even lead.
(pg 34) Vulnerability is the birthplace of love, belonging, joy, courage, empathy and creativity. It is the source of hope, empathy, accountability and authenticity. if we want greater clarity in our purpose or deeper and more meaningful spiritual lives, vulnerability is the path.
Those two passages say to me, "you must take the good with the bad". With vulnerability, we do experience many negative emotions that we'd rather not. But without the same vulnerability, it just simply doesn't become possible to experience the positive emotions that make life worth living. The "birthplace" of emotions being vulnerability just speaks volumes to me.
(pg 34) I define vulnerability as uncertainty, risk and emotional exposure. With that definition in mind, one who may or may not love us back, whose safety we can't ensure, who may stay in our lives or leaver without a moment's notice, who may be loyal to the day they die or betray us tomorrow--that's vulnerability. Love is uncertain. It's incredibly risky. And loving someone leaves us emotionally exposed..
Wow---hits the nail right on the head. Vulnerability to me translates to the individual who decides to invest money into stocks. It's a risk! You could grow exponentially or lose a large sum. But if you do nothing, then you get nothing either way. When you make an emotional investment, just like with a cash investment, you don't want to put ALL of it in one place. This is why, I think, relationships where all the emotional health exists only upon one person are doomed to failure. We cannot put all of our money in one stock and expect a good return on investment. As such, we cannot invest all our emotions into one thing, person or hobby, because eventually it will just go bankrupt.
(pg 39) When discussing vulnerability, it is helpful to look at the definition and the etymology of the world vulnerable. According tot he Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word vulnerability is derived from the Latin word vulnerare, meaning "to wound". The definition includes "capable of being wounded" and "open to attack or damage." Merriam-Webster defines weakness as the inability to withstand attack or wounding. Just from a linguistic perspective, it's clear that these are very different concepts and in fact one could argue that weakness often stems from a lack of vulnerability--when we don't acknowledge how and where we're tender, we're more at risk of being hurt.
It's funny how language works. So, essentially, what I gathered is to abstain from vulnerability is the true weakness. When you refuse to be vulnerable, that means you cannot withstand any type of damage or attack. That is weakness. When you allow yourself to be vulnerable, you are opening yourself to the possibility (but not the guarantee) of an attack. That is definitely strength!
The second myth in Chapter 2 is "I don't do vulnerability."
(pg 45) Regardless of our willingness to do vulnerability, it does us. When we pretend that we can avoid vulnerability we engage in behaviors that are often inconsistent with who we want to be. Experiencing vulnerability isn't a choice--the only choice we have is how we're going to respond when we are confronted with uncertainty, risk and emotional exposure.
I love the line about regardless of whether vulnerability is something we are willing to do, it will do us. It's going to happen, no matter how guarded and protected you believe you are. Those raw emotions will be exposed and you'll get hurt. The question is: Do you want to be proactive or reactive?
The third myth in Chapter 2 is "Vulnerability is letting it all hang out."
(pg 45) Can't there be too much vulnerability? Isn't there such a thing as oversharing?...Vulnerability is based on mutuality and requires boundaries and trust. It's not oversharing, it's not purging, it's not indiscriminate disclosure, and it's not celebrity style social media information dumps. Vulnerability is about sharing our feelings and our experiences with people who have earned the right to hear them. Being vulnerable and open is mutual and an integral part of the trust-building process.
So, this helped explain a lot about vulnerability to me. We all know that person who just meets someone and discloses the very depths of their souls. This isn't healthy vulnerability. Utilizing the investment scenario I used before, you wouldn't just invest all your money into the first stock account you see, would you? No one would recommend that. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't invest at all--you just have to develop a bit of trust. Maybe invest a few dollars in it to see how it works before thrusting your hard-earned life savings. The same could be said about emotionally investing.
(pg 46) Vulnerability without boundaries leads to disconnection, distrust and disengagement.
The fourth myth in Chapter 2 is the myth that "We can do it alone." I didn't take any excerpts from this section but in summary, it's that sense of hyper-independence where we feel we can handle everything thrown at us at all times. I am incredibly guilty of this fallacy. It can be dangerous. No one is 100% self-made ever, it just doesn't happen!
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
To read my thoughts on Chapter 1, click here.
Chapter 2's myth #1 was the most profound to me and that myth is "Vulnerability is a Weakness"
(pg 33) The perception that vulnerability is weakness is the most widely accepted myth about vulnerability and the most dangerous. When we spend our lives pushing away and protecting ourselves from feeling vulnerable or from being perceived as too emotional, we feel contempt when others are less capable or willing to mask feelings, suck it up and soldier on. We've come to the point where, rather than respecting and appreciating the courage and daring behind vulnerability, we let our fear and discomfort become judgment and criticism. Vulnerability isn't good or bad.
I see this a lot in men. I think it goes back to fragile masculinity. The believe system that vulnerability and the encompassing emotions are weak is appalling to me. We are naturally disposed to experience emotions, both good and bad! I am not sure why negating this natural wiring is somehow perceived as strength.
(pg 33) Vulnerability is the core of all emotions and feelings. To feel is to be vulnerable. To believe vulnerability is weakness is to believe that feeling is weakness. To foreclose on our emotional life out of a fear that the costs will be too high is to walk away from the very thing that gives purpose and meaning to living.
That pretty much sums it up! As I said before, vulnerability is a precursor to all feelings, both good or bad. Without a sense of vulnerability, we simply cannot feel!
(pg 33-34) Our rejection of vulnerability often stems from our associating it with dark emotions like fear, shame, grief, sadness and disappointment--emotions that we don't want to discuss, even when they profoundly affect the ay we live, love, work and even lead.
(pg 34) Vulnerability is the birthplace of love, belonging, joy, courage, empathy and creativity. It is the source of hope, empathy, accountability and authenticity. if we want greater clarity in our purpose or deeper and more meaningful spiritual lives, vulnerability is the path.
Those two passages say to me, "you must take the good with the bad". With vulnerability, we do experience many negative emotions that we'd rather not. But without the same vulnerability, it just simply doesn't become possible to experience the positive emotions that make life worth living. The "birthplace" of emotions being vulnerability just speaks volumes to me.
(pg 34) I define vulnerability as uncertainty, risk and emotional exposure. With that definition in mind, one who may or may not love us back, whose safety we can't ensure, who may stay in our lives or leaver without a moment's notice, who may be loyal to the day they die or betray us tomorrow--that's vulnerability. Love is uncertain. It's incredibly risky. And loving someone leaves us emotionally exposed..
Wow---hits the nail right on the head. Vulnerability to me translates to the individual who decides to invest money into stocks. It's a risk! You could grow exponentially or lose a large sum. But if you do nothing, then you get nothing either way. When you make an emotional investment, just like with a cash investment, you don't want to put ALL of it in one place. This is why, I think, relationships where all the emotional health exists only upon one person are doomed to failure. We cannot put all of our money in one stock and expect a good return on investment. As such, we cannot invest all our emotions into one thing, person or hobby, because eventually it will just go bankrupt.
(pg 39) When discussing vulnerability, it is helpful to look at the definition and the etymology of the world vulnerable. According tot he Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word vulnerability is derived from the Latin word vulnerare, meaning "to wound". The definition includes "capable of being wounded" and "open to attack or damage." Merriam-Webster defines weakness as the inability to withstand attack or wounding. Just from a linguistic perspective, it's clear that these are very different concepts and in fact one could argue that weakness often stems from a lack of vulnerability--when we don't acknowledge how and where we're tender, we're more at risk of being hurt.
It's funny how language works. So, essentially, what I gathered is to abstain from vulnerability is the true weakness. When you refuse to be vulnerable, that means you cannot withstand any type of damage or attack. That is weakness. When you allow yourself to be vulnerable, you are opening yourself to the possibility (but not the guarantee) of an attack. That is definitely strength!
The second myth in Chapter 2 is "I don't do vulnerability."
(pg 45) Regardless of our willingness to do vulnerability, it does us. When we pretend that we can avoid vulnerability we engage in behaviors that are often inconsistent with who we want to be. Experiencing vulnerability isn't a choice--the only choice we have is how we're going to respond when we are confronted with uncertainty, risk and emotional exposure.
I love the line about regardless of whether vulnerability is something we are willing to do, it will do us. It's going to happen, no matter how guarded and protected you believe you are. Those raw emotions will be exposed and you'll get hurt. The question is: Do you want to be proactive or reactive?
The third myth in Chapter 2 is "Vulnerability is letting it all hang out."
(pg 45) Can't there be too much vulnerability? Isn't there such a thing as oversharing?...Vulnerability is based on mutuality and requires boundaries and trust. It's not oversharing, it's not purging, it's not indiscriminate disclosure, and it's not celebrity style social media information dumps. Vulnerability is about sharing our feelings and our experiences with people who have earned the right to hear them. Being vulnerable and open is mutual and an integral part of the trust-building process.
So, this helped explain a lot about vulnerability to me. We all know that person who just meets someone and discloses the very depths of their souls. This isn't healthy vulnerability. Utilizing the investment scenario I used before, you wouldn't just invest all your money into the first stock account you see, would you? No one would recommend that. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't invest at all--you just have to develop a bit of trust. Maybe invest a few dollars in it to see how it works before thrusting your hard-earned life savings. The same could be said about emotionally investing.
(pg 46) Vulnerability without boundaries leads to disconnection, distrust and disengagement.
The fourth myth in Chapter 2 is the myth that "We can do it alone." I didn't take any excerpts from this section but in summary, it's that sense of hyper-independence where we feel we can handle everything thrown at us at all times. I am incredibly guilty of this fallacy. It can be dangerous. No one is 100% self-made ever, it just doesn't happen!
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
Daring Greatly: Chapter 1
So at the suggestion of one of my best friends, Megan, I decided to start reading the book "Daring Greatly" by Brene Brown, Ph.D., LMSW
So far I am pretty into it and I wanted to share my thoughts on Chapter 1.
Chapter 1 is called Scarcity : Looking Inside Our Culture of "Never Enough"
(pg 21) It feels good to have an explanation, especially one that conveniently makes us feel better about ourselves and places the blame on those people.
I can't tell you how much that one sentence stood out to me. It describes our society so perfectly. As long as it's someone else's fault, we can't be to blame? Because if we are to blame then that makes us vulnerable to admitting our faults and our mistakes.
(pg 21) The topic of narcissism has penetrated the social consciousness enough that most people correctly associate it with a pattern of behaviors that include grandiosity, a pervasive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. What almost no one understands is how every level of severity in this diagnosis is underpinned by shame. Which means we don't "fix it" by cutting people down to size and reminding folks of their inadequacies and smallness. Shame is more likely to be the cause of these behaviors, not the cure.
Truly, it makes perfect sense. We all deal with people who seem to be riding on this pedestal. Often times, our response is defensive and we want to bring people down a peg or seven. I'm not saying necessarily that we have to listen and take the grandiose behavior but think about it this way: when, in any case ever, has shame ever instilled change in someone? Now, take that and put it on a more macro scale. How has shaming overweight people helped fix body image? It hasn't. How has shaming the poor increased wealth? It doesn't. How does shaming addiction help substance abusers? It simply doesn't.
Shaming doesn't work. Period.
(pg 22) Labeling the problem in a way that makes it about who people are rather than choices they're making lets all of us off the hook: "Too bad. That's who I am."
All I can think of when I read this line is people who justify their behavior or actions based on their zodiac sign. "Eh, I'm a Pisces, so..."
As Brown notes, the problem of narcissism often is related to the environment, rather than hardwiring. What she is saying here is that environmental factors come to play when avoiding shame.
(pg 22) When I look at narcissism through vulnerability lens, I see the shame-based fear of being ordinary. I see the fear of never feeling extraordinary enough to be noticed, to be lovable, to belong, or to cultivate a sense of purpose. Sometimes the simple act of humanizing problems sheds an important light on them, a light that often goes out the minute a stigmatizing label is applied.
So, what I got out of that line, was that the feeling of shame is often masked by ego. I notice it supremely in hyper-masculinity. This fear of not being manly enough is often compensated with guns, big cars and other stereotypically masculine identifying things. We've all said it about men.
It also exists in part because of our sensational society, where we admire the rich and want to be them. It is hard enough to Keep up with Joneses without trying to Keep up with the Kardashians. We enjoy their drama and their pitfalls because it makes us feel better about our ordinary lives. We often don't empathize with celebrities because to us, they are sensational. We haven't humanized them.
Ever seen that person that is always flashing their money? New cars, new phones, new gadgets, the best of everything, That is probably rooted into that deep seeded fear of being "ordinary".
(pg 26) Nostalgia is also a dangerous form of comparison. Think about how often we compare ourselves and our lives to a memory that nostalgia has so completely edited that it never really existed: "Remember when..." "Those were the days..."
This is probably my biggest offender in my life. I do often reflect to a time where this or that. It can be daunting! Living in the past at a seemingly grander time can make the present very challenging. In fact, I have to be real with myself most of the time, it wasn't really that much greater then and I didn't feel so grand then, so why does my nostalgia make me feel so grand about it now?
(pg 27) Worrying about scarcity is our culture's version of post-traumatic stress. It happens when we've been through too much, and rather than coming together to heal (which requires vulnerability), we're angry and scared and at each other's throats. it's not just the larger culture that's suffering: I found the same dynamics playing out in the family culture. And they all share the same formula of shame, comparison and disengagement. Scarcity bubbles up from these conditions and perpetuates them until a critical mass of people start making different choices and reshaping the smaller cultures they belong to.
I really love how she delved into family culture. I have seen these type of family dynamics. Families that lack love and empathy towards one another. Often times, I bet if you really dug deep, you would find shame at the root of it. Shame that they didn't make it here or there or aren't where they should be. Instead of reconciling it, many times families just decide to disengage and their situations become hopeless and further disconnected from one another.
(pg 29) The counter approach to living in scarcity is not about abundance. In fact, i think abundance and scarcity are two sides of the same coin. The opposite of "never enough" isn't abundance or "more than you could ever imagine". The opposite of scarcity is enough, or what I call wholeheartedness.
This really spoke to me. I think it's really a conversation about balance. The old saying goes, money doesn't buy happiness. Looking at this sentence from a money standpoint, we know that it doesn't buy happiness. We know an overabundance of it will not fulfill our lives. However, a complete lack of it, or scarcity, will be troubling and cause a myriad of problems. Therefore, on both ends of the spectrum, the money itself isn't going to solve all problems. More so, the balance of it and the feeling of being whole within it will help you navigate those feelings.
Those were my highlights from Chapter 1. Have you read this book? What are your thoughts?
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
So far I am pretty into it and I wanted to share my thoughts on Chapter 1.
Chapter 1 is called Scarcity : Looking Inside Our Culture of "Never Enough"
(pg 21) It feels good to have an explanation, especially one that conveniently makes us feel better about ourselves and places the blame on those people.
I can't tell you how much that one sentence stood out to me. It describes our society so perfectly. As long as it's someone else's fault, we can't be to blame? Because if we are to blame then that makes us vulnerable to admitting our faults and our mistakes.
(pg 21) The topic of narcissism has penetrated the social consciousness enough that most people correctly associate it with a pattern of behaviors that include grandiosity, a pervasive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. What almost no one understands is how every level of severity in this diagnosis is underpinned by shame. Which means we don't "fix it" by cutting people down to size and reminding folks of their inadequacies and smallness. Shame is more likely to be the cause of these behaviors, not the cure.
Truly, it makes perfect sense. We all deal with people who seem to be riding on this pedestal. Often times, our response is defensive and we want to bring people down a peg or seven. I'm not saying necessarily that we have to listen and take the grandiose behavior but think about it this way: when, in any case ever, has shame ever instilled change in someone? Now, take that and put it on a more macro scale. How has shaming overweight people helped fix body image? It hasn't. How has shaming the poor increased wealth? It doesn't. How does shaming addiction help substance abusers? It simply doesn't.
Shaming doesn't work. Period.
(pg 22) Labeling the problem in a way that makes it about who people are rather than choices they're making lets all of us off the hook: "Too bad. That's who I am."
All I can think of when I read this line is people who justify their behavior or actions based on their zodiac sign. "Eh, I'm a Pisces, so..."
As Brown notes, the problem of narcissism often is related to the environment, rather than hardwiring. What she is saying here is that environmental factors come to play when avoiding shame.
(pg 22) When I look at narcissism through vulnerability lens, I see the shame-based fear of being ordinary. I see the fear of never feeling extraordinary enough to be noticed, to be lovable, to belong, or to cultivate a sense of purpose. Sometimes the simple act of humanizing problems sheds an important light on them, a light that often goes out the minute a stigmatizing label is applied.
So, what I got out of that line, was that the feeling of shame is often masked by ego. I notice it supremely in hyper-masculinity. This fear of not being manly enough is often compensated with guns, big cars and other stereotypically masculine identifying things. We've all said it about men.
It also exists in part because of our sensational society, where we admire the rich and want to be them. It is hard enough to Keep up with Joneses without trying to Keep up with the Kardashians. We enjoy their drama and their pitfalls because it makes us feel better about our ordinary lives. We often don't empathize with celebrities because to us, they are sensational. We haven't humanized them.
Ever seen that person that is always flashing their money? New cars, new phones, new gadgets, the best of everything, That is probably rooted into that deep seeded fear of being "ordinary".
(pg 26) Nostalgia is also a dangerous form of comparison. Think about how often we compare ourselves and our lives to a memory that nostalgia has so completely edited that it never really existed: "Remember when..." "Those were the days..."
This is probably my biggest offender in my life. I do often reflect to a time where this or that. It can be daunting! Living in the past at a seemingly grander time can make the present very challenging. In fact, I have to be real with myself most of the time, it wasn't really that much greater then and I didn't feel so grand then, so why does my nostalgia make me feel so grand about it now?
(pg 27) Worrying about scarcity is our culture's version of post-traumatic stress. It happens when we've been through too much, and rather than coming together to heal (which requires vulnerability), we're angry and scared and at each other's throats. it's not just the larger culture that's suffering: I found the same dynamics playing out in the family culture. And they all share the same formula of shame, comparison and disengagement. Scarcity bubbles up from these conditions and perpetuates them until a critical mass of people start making different choices and reshaping the smaller cultures they belong to.
I really love how she delved into family culture. I have seen these type of family dynamics. Families that lack love and empathy towards one another. Often times, I bet if you really dug deep, you would find shame at the root of it. Shame that they didn't make it here or there or aren't where they should be. Instead of reconciling it, many times families just decide to disengage and their situations become hopeless and further disconnected from one another.
(pg 29) The counter approach to living in scarcity is not about abundance. In fact, i think abundance and scarcity are two sides of the same coin. The opposite of "never enough" isn't abundance or "more than you could ever imagine". The opposite of scarcity is enough, or what I call wholeheartedness.
This really spoke to me. I think it's really a conversation about balance. The old saying goes, money doesn't buy happiness. Looking at this sentence from a money standpoint, we know that it doesn't buy happiness. We know an overabundance of it will not fulfill our lives. However, a complete lack of it, or scarcity, will be troubling and cause a myriad of problems. Therefore, on both ends of the spectrum, the money itself isn't going to solve all problems. More so, the balance of it and the feeling of being whole within it will help you navigate those feelings.
Those were my highlights from Chapter 1. Have you read this book? What are your thoughts?
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
Consumer Advocacy
I always like to dream up practical ways we can better the world we live in. In a previous post, I spoke about some changes to employment law that I think would be highly effective.
Today, I want to talk about consumer protection. Whether you are doing business with a large corporation, a franchise or a small business, we deserve to have protection with the purchases we make. We have to be able to trust in the system that the merchant is following all applicable laws and remain ethical.
Sure, we have the Better Business Bureau, but they are optional and are not a federal agency, so nothing they can do can be forced.
What I propose is this: each county has it's own Consumer Advocacy Network, sort of like the Labor Advocacy Networks I proposed in that other post. This would be run by the county and on behalf of the people. It would be paid in part by the taxation on businesses who operate within the county.
Like the Labor Advocacy Networks, these offices would exist to: provide free consumer protection information, handle complaints of misdeeds, whether civil or criminal, audit and evaluate businesses in the county and perform sanctions, when necessary.
In addition to this: Each business would be required by state law to post their grade in a conspicuous place that can be viewed by consumers, including on their website for e-commerce situations. Customers will see a grade A-F, which is evaluated quarterly, and can request a full consumer report, which must be provided at no-charge by the merchant.
Factors would exist that effect the grade: Failure to respond to consumer claims, refusal to participate in investigations, misrepresenting prices, etc.
When a claim is filed by a consumer to the advocacy network, the board will review each case and determine if a state, local or federal law was violated. The network would have the right to subpoena documents and summon witnesses as well. Of course, the business can appeal and defend themselves as well.
Each case that is forced to be resolved by the network will have an impact on a merchant's grade. Any such merchant that operates in poor faith and has an F grade for longer than a certain amount of time will be forced to conclude business operations in the county.
This way it instill a sense of power and fairness into the people, who can't afford lawyers to tackle large corporations. By holding them accountable to the public, by a public entity (not a private one, like the BBB), it can also instill a sense of responsibility and transparency within the businesses that operate.
What do you think? Would this work?
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
Today, I want to talk about consumer protection. Whether you are doing business with a large corporation, a franchise or a small business, we deserve to have protection with the purchases we make. We have to be able to trust in the system that the merchant is following all applicable laws and remain ethical.
Sure, we have the Better Business Bureau, but they are optional and are not a federal agency, so nothing they can do can be forced.
What I propose is this: each county has it's own Consumer Advocacy Network, sort of like the Labor Advocacy Networks I proposed in that other post. This would be run by the county and on behalf of the people. It would be paid in part by the taxation on businesses who operate within the county.
Like the Labor Advocacy Networks, these offices would exist to: provide free consumer protection information, handle complaints of misdeeds, whether civil or criminal, audit and evaluate businesses in the county and perform sanctions, when necessary.
In addition to this: Each business would be required by state law to post their grade in a conspicuous place that can be viewed by consumers, including on their website for e-commerce situations. Customers will see a grade A-F, which is evaluated quarterly, and can request a full consumer report, which must be provided at no-charge by the merchant.
Factors would exist that effect the grade: Failure to respond to consumer claims, refusal to participate in investigations, misrepresenting prices, etc.
When a claim is filed by a consumer to the advocacy network, the board will review each case and determine if a state, local or federal law was violated. The network would have the right to subpoena documents and summon witnesses as well. Of course, the business can appeal and defend themselves as well.
Each case that is forced to be resolved by the network will have an impact on a merchant's grade. Any such merchant that operates in poor faith and has an F grade for longer than a certain amount of time will be forced to conclude business operations in the county.
This way it instill a sense of power and fairness into the people, who can't afford lawyers to tackle large corporations. By holding them accountable to the public, by a public entity (not a private one, like the BBB), it can also instill a sense of responsibility and transparency within the businesses that operate.
What do you think? Would this work?
Much love,
ArchAngel O:)
Sunday, January 1, 2017
The Film: Passengers
Today, I saw the film "Passengers" starring Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt.
If you haven't seen it but plan to be forewarned that this post will spoil the movie.
PLOT
Jim Preston decides to start anew by joining onboard to Homestead Company's space travel program. As such, he is expected to land to a new planet, Homestead II, after 120 years of hibernation. Unfortunately for Jim, things don't work out so great. He emerges from his hibernation 90 years too soon and finds he is the only one that has. After a painstaking year of being the only living person, his only source of comfort is spending time at the bar and associating with the android bartender Arthur. That is, until he finds Aurora Lane. Yes, this sleeping beauty has quite a story to tell in her profile and he becomes infatuated with her. So he does what any ordinary, decent, loving human being would do: he decides to emerge her from her hibernation so he can have this glorious companion.
Aurora wakes up and is of course traumatized to learn that she was arisen 89 years before she's supposed to. The kicker is, of course, Aurora has no idea that she was woken up on purpose. Aurora is a smart girl, with a dream. As a journalist, she plans to travel to Homestead, experience it for one year and then travel back home to Earth to write about her experiences. Not only will she have experienced a new world, she'll also return to Earth 200 some years into the future. At one point, Aurora even looks into her capsule to find a story from her best friend, who wishes her the best but hopes that she finds someone who will fill her heart.
Ah, how fate seems to work out! Gradually, Jim and Aurora form a strong bond that becomes both romantic and sexual. After all, what other choice does she have? Everything's going perfectly well and Jim is ready to pop the question. But it all goes to Hell when Arthur, the android bartender, spills the tea and Aurora finds out that Jim purposefully arose her to fulfill his desire for a companion.
She's outraged, naturally, and even at one point takes to physical violence against Jim but doesn't follow through with killing him. She does, however, decide to spend the rest of the travels separately, refusing to speak to him. At several points, Jim tries to reveal his feelings for and apologize for destroying her life but she won't hear it. Then suddenly, the plot thickens, when one of the crew members is suddenly awoken from his hibernation pod.
Still not speaking to each other, Gus becomes concerned about how it is possible that these failsafe hibernation pods have failed not only one but three people. He begins to investigate and discovers the malfunctions, of course, realizing that Jim is responsible for Aurora's malfunctioning pod. As he is going through the ship in hopes of repairing the malfunctioning, he tells Aurora he knows about what Jim did, but tells her, "The man is drowning and it ain't right but when a man is drowning, he will take someone with him."
Gus, unfortunately, falls deathly ill and discovers through the automatic doctor androids that he isn't going to live. He tells Aurora and Jim to take care of each other before he passes away. The ship is failing and the two are certain to meet their demise, along with all the other passengers, so they finally agree to work together. Finally, they're figuring things out, Jim risks his life as the iconic hero he is and manages to save the ship. Later on, he finds out that the automatic doctor android has the option of suspending a passenger back into hibernation. The problem is: There is only one pod! He oh-so-graciously tells Aurora she should take this opportunity, so she can live out her dreams.
Aurora doesn't take it and decides to live out her natural life with Jim, with the film ending as Aurora gives a narrative of her life with Jim to the passengers who have now awoken 89 years later.
MY THOUGHTS
So, this is the epitome of the male savior complex that Hollywood loves to sell us. Aurora, a passionate journalist, has a dream, Her own best friend says to her that she hopes Aurora finds someone to warm her heart. After all, that's all a woman needs, right? A man to sweep her away and save the day. Aurora is naturally pissed the hell off when she finds out that Jim took away her dreams and opportunity to sustain his happiness but once Gus (bros before hoes, right) affirms that he is a victim too, she miraculously feels better about it and decides to offer him not only forgiveness but her life. Knowing that if she took the opportunity to hibernate again, Jim would be left alone for his natural life, she sacrifices it all. After all, Aurora's life is fulfilled now because she has found a man.
In short, man wants woman. Man ruins woman's life and crushes her dreams. Woman falls in love with the man. Man tries to make amends by finding a way to let Aurora live her dream. She says fuck it and stays with him.
If that's not some Stockholm's syndrome bullshit, I don't know what it is.
The movie, like most movies, sells this narrative that a person is not complete without a partner. Most importantly, it sells the story that a woman needs a hero, even if that hero is also your aggressor who destroys your life in the first place!
Hey, I can punch you in the face and then go get a washcloth and clean your face up and that makes me a hero, right?
The movie was painfully predictable. From the moment he emerged her from her hibernation pod, I knew exactly how it would end.
Very disappointing film, I do not recommend it. Did you see the film? What are your thoughts?
P.S. Jennifer Lawrence is not that fantastic of an actress in my opinion. Not sure why she's so popular.
Thank you,
ArchAngel O:)
If you haven't seen it but plan to be forewarned that this post will spoil the movie.
PLOT
Jim Preston decides to start anew by joining onboard to Homestead Company's space travel program. As such, he is expected to land to a new planet, Homestead II, after 120 years of hibernation. Unfortunately for Jim, things don't work out so great. He emerges from his hibernation 90 years too soon and finds he is the only one that has. After a painstaking year of being the only living person, his only source of comfort is spending time at the bar and associating with the android bartender Arthur. That is, until he finds Aurora Lane. Yes, this sleeping beauty has quite a story to tell in her profile and he becomes infatuated with her. So he does what any ordinary, decent, loving human being would do: he decides to emerge her from her hibernation so he can have this glorious companion.
Aurora wakes up and is of course traumatized to learn that she was arisen 89 years before she's supposed to. The kicker is, of course, Aurora has no idea that she was woken up on purpose. Aurora is a smart girl, with a dream. As a journalist, she plans to travel to Homestead, experience it for one year and then travel back home to Earth to write about her experiences. Not only will she have experienced a new world, she'll also return to Earth 200 some years into the future. At one point, Aurora even looks into her capsule to find a story from her best friend, who wishes her the best but hopes that she finds someone who will fill her heart.
Ah, how fate seems to work out! Gradually, Jim and Aurora form a strong bond that becomes both romantic and sexual. After all, what other choice does she have? Everything's going perfectly well and Jim is ready to pop the question. But it all goes to Hell when Arthur, the android bartender, spills the tea and Aurora finds out that Jim purposefully arose her to fulfill his desire for a companion.
She's outraged, naturally, and even at one point takes to physical violence against Jim but doesn't follow through with killing him. She does, however, decide to spend the rest of the travels separately, refusing to speak to him. At several points, Jim tries to reveal his feelings for and apologize for destroying her life but she won't hear it. Then suddenly, the plot thickens, when one of the crew members is suddenly awoken from his hibernation pod.
Still not speaking to each other, Gus becomes concerned about how it is possible that these failsafe hibernation pods have failed not only one but three people. He begins to investigate and discovers the malfunctions, of course, realizing that Jim is responsible for Aurora's malfunctioning pod. As he is going through the ship in hopes of repairing the malfunctioning, he tells Aurora he knows about what Jim did, but tells her, "The man is drowning and it ain't right but when a man is drowning, he will take someone with him."
Gus, unfortunately, falls deathly ill and discovers through the automatic doctor androids that he isn't going to live. He tells Aurora and Jim to take care of each other before he passes away. The ship is failing and the two are certain to meet their demise, along with all the other passengers, so they finally agree to work together. Finally, they're figuring things out, Jim risks his life as the iconic hero he is and manages to save the ship. Later on, he finds out that the automatic doctor android has the option of suspending a passenger back into hibernation. The problem is: There is only one pod! He oh-so-graciously tells Aurora she should take this opportunity, so she can live out her dreams.
Aurora doesn't take it and decides to live out her natural life with Jim, with the film ending as Aurora gives a narrative of her life with Jim to the passengers who have now awoken 89 years later.
MY THOUGHTS
So, this is the epitome of the male savior complex that Hollywood loves to sell us. Aurora, a passionate journalist, has a dream, Her own best friend says to her that she hopes Aurora finds someone to warm her heart. After all, that's all a woman needs, right? A man to sweep her away and save the day. Aurora is naturally pissed the hell off when she finds out that Jim took away her dreams and opportunity to sustain his happiness but once Gus (bros before hoes, right) affirms that he is a victim too, she miraculously feels better about it and decides to offer him not only forgiveness but her life. Knowing that if she took the opportunity to hibernate again, Jim would be left alone for his natural life, she sacrifices it all. After all, Aurora's life is fulfilled now because she has found a man.
In short, man wants woman. Man ruins woman's life and crushes her dreams. Woman falls in love with the man. Man tries to make amends by finding a way to let Aurora live her dream. She says fuck it and stays with him.
If that's not some Stockholm's syndrome bullshit, I don't know what it is.
The movie, like most movies, sells this narrative that a person is not complete without a partner. Most importantly, it sells the story that a woman needs a hero, even if that hero is also your aggressor who destroys your life in the first place!
Hey, I can punch you in the face and then go get a washcloth and clean your face up and that makes me a hero, right?
The movie was painfully predictable. From the moment he emerged her from her hibernation pod, I knew exactly how it would end.
Very disappointing film, I do not recommend it. Did you see the film? What are your thoughts?
P.S. Jennifer Lawrence is not that fantastic of an actress in my opinion. Not sure why she's so popular.
Thank you,
ArchAngel O:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)