I Thought It Was About A KID

Sunday, March 25, 2012

This morning I went online to see if there was a rally for Trayvon Martin planned for anywhere near here so I could go.  Not finding one listed, I googled how to organize one.  All I found was the report of a mother from Scottsdale, Arizona who is organizing one to be held in Phoenix near the ASU campus at 5:00.  She has used Facebook to publicize the event.  I stupidly read a few of the comments.  I’m not sure why, really.  I have only ever read comments to any news report twice.  Maybe on some level I was hoping to find positive responses that others cared about the life of a KID.   Wow!  What I found!

 One man is outraged because “unarmed white Arizonans are being shot, having their throats slashes (I assumed the writer meant slashed.) and heads bashed in and Arizona law allows the killers to go unprosecuted just like this Florida case yet because white people are not united and no one speaks for us the killers of our children run free.”   (Copied exactly as it read online.) 

Another man is angry at the media.  “I for one am sick of the hypocrisy and double standard evident in the ‘lamestream’ media over the matter…”

Still another is angry with the NAACP and is betting a hundred dollars that the NAACP wouldn’t be up in arms if “the Trayvon (Yes, “the” was in front of Trayvon.) was white, Hispanic, or Asian!”   He goes on to ask “Did the NAACP jump up and down when Casey Anthony killed her daughter in Florida?  Of course not!  I hope the Martin family gets their justice for their son’s death.  But, someone has to point out the hypocrisies sometimes!”   A woman named Catherine gently responds and points out that the NAACP was created to help black people in this country.

You know how people have pictures either of themselves and/or of something else as an identity label?  One person who responded had the picture of the noose of a scaffold and the outline of a city behind.  The name was “Hang Em Man”.  This one upset me the most, saying, “Leave it upto the naacp to claim racism everytime there is crime committed against a black person.  Anything to cause a disturbance and try and sue to get money.  There were crimes committed by both parties that night, but…leave race out of it.”  (Again, typed exactly as it was online, spaces, or lack or, etc.)  This person goes on to predict the outcome but it is too vulgar for me to bother with.    

With respect to the first man, my brother lives in Flagstaff, Arizona.  I will have to ask him about all those murders in Arizona.  Of course, I would be equally upset with the deaths of children in Arizona, regardless of color.  But, I have to say that if the gentleman is concerned that no one speaks for whites AND people who kill children are running free, perhaps he could do the organizing so that there will be someone speaking for whites. 

It is disconcerting to me that I have not heard of any outrage or of people coming out in Arizona to protest the death of a child whose killer went free.  That does not mean it hasn’t happened.   As I understand it, social media got people of all races incensed about Trayvon’s murder.  Couldn’t anyone in Arizona do the same; just make others aware and let parents across the country react? 

Also, from what I can ascertain, Arizona has a form of “Stand Your Ground” law.  I didn’t bother to find out when it was passed, but that should help some Arizonans protect themselves having their throats slashed and their heads bashed in. 

 The second and third gentlemen confuse me.  I remember lots of media coverage of the Casey Anthony trial, as there should have been, in my opinion, and she was white.  I’m not sure exactly where the hypocrisy and double standard is in this case. 

And the “Hang Em Man”?  I respectfully disagree with him that the NAACP is causing a “disturbance”.  People across the country who are white, who are parents, who believe kids should be protected, are part of the “disturbance”.   People like me.  As for suing to get money, I don’t care for assuming guilt before proof of that guilt.  And I don’t like broad, sweeping assumptions.  And speaking about assumptions of guilt, on what basis does this man say “There were crimes committed by both parties that night…”?  The 17 year old kid isn’t here to defend himself in any way, is he?  But other than George Zimmerman claiming self-defense because he was in danger from Trayvon, I have not heard nor read any suggestion that Trayvon was committing a crime.  So what crime on Trayvon’s part this “Hang Em Man” might be referring to, I have no idea.

Here’s the bottom line for me.  I completely understand that many others will not be as upset by this as I.  A woman about my age was at the NYC rally and when asked why she was there she answered that her family had lost a child and the pain Trayvon’s family was going through was touching her heart.  I do not recall her exact words beyond that, but her message was that she knew about that pain and wanted to support them.  She’s right; you will feel for this family more if you have had any such experience. 

 Yet, regardless of our experience, this, from my perspective, is about a KID.  Not a black kid.  Just a kid.  Since Trista played sports in high school we had the opportunity to get to cheer for all the teenaged athletes, not just the white ones.  They were all equally pleased when they did well.  They were all equally disappointed and totally discouraged when they did not.  And they all appreciated someone besides mom and dad taking an interest in them.  (And sadly, in too many cases mom and dad did not take enough interest, or any interest, for that matter.)

Also in my teaching career, I had students from a number of other countries over the years; Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Brazil, Germany, Morocco, South Africa, to name a few.  I had a good number of Hispanic students whose parents were migrant workers.  They would be there in the Fall, but would be moving when the crops were all harvested and winter was on its way.  I learned it did not matter the country of birth.  It did not matter the culture.  It did not matter the language.  Interacting with them on a daily basis made it easy to see what they all had in common, they were just KIDS.  Period.  They thought they were beyond being kids, but they were not. People often enough asked if it wasn’t really difficult working with teenagers.  My response, besides the fact that I loved teenagers, was that many days there is no difference between a 7 year old and a 17 year old. 

Tuesday March 27, 2012

I watched some news shows last night so I could hear the latest about this story.  One young white woman who lived in the gated community where Trayvon was shot was giving her account of that night.  I don’t know if it was at a city council meeting in Sanford or where.  I missed that part.  She said the voice yelling for help was a boy’s.  Let’s say she was wrong and it ends up being George Zimmerman’s voice.  (I’m sure modern technology will be able to determine whether or not it is his.)  It still remains true that George Zimmerman left his vehicle and went towards Trayvon Martin, not the other way around.  If he had not done so he would not have had to yell for help.  And Trayvon would be alive today. 

This morning I read that two women who heard calls of distress and the gunshot came outside.  They came upon George Zimmerman straddling Trayvon, who was face down.  George Zimmerman, according to these two women, had his hand on Trayvon’s back.  One said she didn’t see that Zimmerman was in any way trying to help Trayvon.  I assume, in his defense, and in an attempt to be fair, he could have been in shock.  He had just shot someone.  Maybe he was momentarily unable to react, no matter how the shooting took place. 

Another update I got last night was that Trayvon had been suspended from school for a number of days for being in possession of a bag with trace amounts of marijuana.  I guess we will hear more about that as the days go by.  But, even if it proves to be true, I see no bearing on the fact that a 17 year old is dead.  Evidently the police did a drug and alcohol tests on Trayvon.  I have heard nothing saying they found any of either in his body.  So, why is this part of the discussion about his death? 

As I understand it, the “Stand Your Ground” law speaks of justifiable use of deadly force, without reference to any particular type of weapon.  (I did read the actual Florida law.)   However, I am going to address the gun issue for two reasons.  First, it is the weapon used in this case.  Secondly, and to my way of thinking very significant, is the fact that Marion Hammer, a lobbyist for the NRA was standing next to Governor Jeb Bush when he signed the “Stand Your Ground” law.  I don’t know if there were also present any family members of victims who had been killed and who might have benefitted from such a law.  But I hope so.  That would seem a whole lot more appropriate to me. 

Easy to determine that this kid’s death has upset me.  I know many Americans feel VERY strongly about their guns and gun rights.  I’m not commenting on that issue.  What I am questioning is the wisdom to have laws that can so readily be called upon to protect an aggressor.  Some states now allow guns to be taken into bars.  What rational adult doesn’t see the potential for disaster there?  Aren’t laws intended to protect the majority?  So how is it that laws are being passed that value and respect the right/s of one or a few in situations where it could be detrimental to many?  I can’t go into a theatre and yell “Fire!”  And rightly so.  Does it not also seem logical that guns might NOT be okay in certain places?  That to allow them might be equally inappropriate as not allowing someone to yell “Fire!” when there is no fire? 

We are restricted in other ways and in other situations.  I don’t believe theme parks allow all sized backpacks, etc. into the park.  I believe some sports stadiums inspect bags to ensure that certain items are not taken into the stadium.  I know that was true at Rich Stadium in Buffalo when Allan would go to Bills’ games.  So we Americans are willing to have our person and/or personal belongings searched for some things.  We willingly surrender some rights at times. 

So why not for guns?  Why can’t some restrictions be okay in certain situations?  For example, if there is a neighborhood watch program, why allow the people involved to carry a gun during “watch” times?  His/her right to own a gun does not have to be denied; simply say that in order to be part of a neighborhood watch that is one time during which the gun may not be carried?  If the person does not willingly comply, s/he can’t be involved in the program.  We agree to legal stipulations all the time.  Wouldn’t such a solution be at least an attempt to create a win-win for everyone?  Even for law enforcement. 

And speaking about law enforcement, it seems strange to me that a law would give a citizen the right to protect him/herself by a “Stand Your Ground” law but an officer who shoots someone is immediately suspended so an investigation can be done.  I think that is as it should be.  But why couldn’t it be true, for example, that a person who shoots someone on the basis of this “Stand Your Ground” law be expected to at least surrender his/her gun until such time as the matter is investigated?  Why couldn’t the law read such that a shooter is automatically tested for drugs and alcohol?  Wouldn’t this be similar to the other situations I’ve mentioned in which people temporarily give up some rights in order to have the right to something else?  A person has a right to carry a gun.  Just not everywhere and not under certain circumstances.  And s/he either agree to that or s/he doesn’t get to enter a bar, or be part of a neighborhood watch program, etc. 

I have hated “all-or-nothing” thinking for a very long time now.  It has been my experience that for the vast majority of life experiences it is detrimental and rarely leads to any good that might actually be possible.  Isn’t there some middle ground that we can agree to for different societal issues?     

The last thing I will say about this tragedy is that now Trayvon himself will be on trial.  Everything he has done wrong will be brought out.  It will be brought out and emphasized in the same way I emphasize here using bold and/or capital lettering.  But the kid doesn’t have to be perfect.  The fact remains that George Zimmerman, against the statement of the dispatcher saying they did NOT need him to do so, got out of his car and went in the direction of Trayvon, while knowing he was carrying a gun.  If he ultimately proves that he was returning to his car and Trayvon attacked him, how will it justify this kid’s death?  Even in that kind of case scenario, Trayvon would not have had the opportunity to interrupt his walk home with his candy and tea to pursue a fight; at least not with George Zimmerman, if Mr. Zimmerman had only listened to the dispatcher’s urging and waited for the police.  A 17 year old, regardless of how perfect a kid or imperfect, would be alive.  And neither George Zimmerman, nor his family, would be in fear for his life.  And/or he would not be facing some really frightening consequences. 

And what about those lawmakers who could not, or would not, look for more of a middle ground in drafting a law about self-protection?  I do hope some are feeling like they completely blew it and failed miserably to do work that treats all as equal and affords all those certain unalienable rights, among which are counted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as is clearly stated in our Declaration of Independence.  Due to their inability and/or unwillingness to attempt to draft laws that provide and protect these rights for all, a kid was denied his right to life.  He was denied his right to grow up and pursue happiness.  And a man will most likely lose his liberty, even though the law is definitely slanted in his favor.  It most certainly can not be argued that this law was drafted with any thought or wisdom about the possible impact on kids not yet old enough to vote for said lawmakers.  I hope enough people feel as sick as I do that gun rights trumped all else in this case.  And a KID is dead as a result of that attitude of valuing one type of personal right at the expense of other types.   At least that’s how I see it.  And I can well imagine that Trayvon’s mom and dad are seeing it that way too. 

Trayvon

Note:  I actually wrote this yesterday morning.

I’m not going to write much.  That’s in part because I am just too frustrated and angry to collect my thoughts in any orderly fashion.  (And as you may have noticed, that’s not a strength of mine on a good day!)  I’ve alternated between wanting to sob this morning and being outraged and indignant, with no outlet for my anger.  Thus, this brief post.  (Well, I intend it to be brief, but you know what it’s like when someone gets on his/her  personal soap box.  Shutting up and getting down off the box can be difficult and take too long.)

I only learned about Trayvon Martin‘s death this week.  I was so upset I truly could not sleep.  I just felt so badly for his family.  And if I can’t sleep on a given night, I guess it’s okay with me when it is due to concern for someone else.  I immediately signed a petition with almost 1,500,000 others (at the time I signed) asking for justice.  It was something small, but something nevertheless that might give some comfort and reassurance to Trayvon’s parents that people care.  That means a lot, we’ve learned.

I would have liked to be able to go to NYC for the rally on behalf of Trayvon.  And when I saw on television the thousands that were in Sanford, Florida on Thursday night I wanted to be there.  And mind you, I am claustrophobic.  I NEVER expose myself to crowds willingly.  But I actually felt like were I to be right in the middle of that crowd it would be not only bearable, but definitely okay.

Last night I had an experience I don’t ever remember having.  I wanted to smash something; specifically our television.  While getting ready for bed I had the bedroom television on.  I heard some report on which Newt Gingrich was saying he found it was, in a sense, disgraceful that President Obama was trying to turn the death of Trayvon Martin into a racial issue.  Well, it so happened that I had personally heard the president’s words.  He said he thought about his girls.  He went on to say that were he to have a son, that son would look like Trayvon.  He then said he thought every parent in America should be able to understand why it is imperative to investigate and figure out how the tragedy happened. 

Okay, to me it seems blatantly evident that the president, by theorizing about a son of his, was personalizing the experience of Trayvon’s parents.  But Newt claimed that the president was indicating that it was a tragedy only because Trayvon was black.  I quote, “Is the president suggesting that if it had been a white who had been shot that would be okay because it didn’t look like him?”   

I find it particularly interesting that Newt made no mention of how he might feel if it had been one of his two daughters who had been killed.  And did you notice Newt referred to the white as “it” later on in the sentence?  Where is Newt’s attempt to personalize and empathize with Trayvon’s family?  And for me, the fact that he doesn’t even use a personal pronoun when speaking about a person is just strange. 

Read what President Obama said at the Rose Garden press conference for yourself.  And then read Newt’s comments made on the Sean Hannity’s radio show.  Don’t take my word for it.  I realize another’s response will probably be no where near as strong as mine.  But let me repeat, I wanted to smash the television.  I assume that means I unconsciously would have been slapping Newt’s face.  And you know something?  Had my hairbrush been in hand, I feel certain I would have done some smashing.  And you know something else?  I truly think that were we having to shop for a new television today, it wouldn’t bother me a bit!  I know I should say shame on me.  I know I should want to be ashamed.  But I’m not there yet. 

So what else has me all riled up this morning?  I found out Geraldo Rivera is asserting that Trayvon’s hoodie was as responsible for his death as George Zimmerman.  Geraldo says, “…I bet you money, if he didn’t have that hoodie on, that nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn’t have responded in that violent and aggressive way.”  Were that not enough, he also contends he is trying to save lives.  “I am urging the parents of black and Latino youngsters particularly not to let their children go out wearing hoodies.”   

Where to begin?  How about the less offensive ideas; the ones that could perhaps be attributed to one ignorant, insensitive guy who must be totally impressed with his wisdom and importance?  In what world does any parent who currently lives with, or has lived with a teenager, think you are going to be able to tell a 17 year old not to wear what other teenagers are?  Especially when that teenager is just going to hang out?  And suppose you did have that exceptional (and possibly abnormal) teenager to whom you could dictate your clothing preference, would you really object to a sweatshirt type garment, hood or no?  That would be the article of clothing you would ban?  Really?

Next in order of offensiveness, how about the term “nutty” for a grown man having nothing better to do than be out in a neighborhood, apparently just to see what is going on, but  carrying a gun?  “Nutty” seemed to work pretty well in “The Nutty Professor” movie.  Not so much here.  The term is inappropriately mild and fails to express the seriousness of this grown man’s actions, particularly since it can be proven he had a habit of contacting police on a somewhat regular basis.  For me, it seems to minimalize George Zimmerman’s behavior. 

Difficult to decide what insensitive aspect of Geraldo’s comments to address next, but I’ll go with the idea that Trayvon, by choosing to wear a hoodie, caused George Zimmerman’s response to be more physically threatening than it might have otherwise been.  So, in this country where personal freedom is valued highly, and personal responsibility is encouraged, Geraldo thinks a KID, in America, should give up his personal freedom of clothing choice because it might result in a physical attack?  Or because, as Geraldo opines, that article of clothing could be associated with gangsters?   AND the personal responsibility for one’s actions towards another is mitigated, NOT by the actions of the other, but by his/her clothing?  The total lack of logic (not to mention human feeling) in such an argument almost defies discussion.  How could someone so determined to view tragic situations from such a narrow, just plain mean, perspective ever be engaged in a truly meaningful dialogue?  I have no idea.  And I sincerely doubt it would be possible. 

Now let me speak about the offensive notion that Trayvon bears part of the responsibility for his death?  A teenager, killed while walking from a store with candy and tea, is responsible for causing a more intense emotional reaction and subsequently a more violent physical attack because he wasn’t responsible enough in his choice of shirt or jacket?  That opinion is valid in what we call the greatest country in the world?  The country where, according to the news network for which Geraldo is a senior correspondent, religious and economic freedoms (and of course, gun rights) are right now being eroded by the other political side?  Well, I can only assume Geraldo and his news network better understand freedom.  I guess religious, economic, and gun freedoms are more important than the right of a young person to just be a young person and walk the streets of a neighborhood in our country. 

The MOST offensive part of Geraldo’s commentary, in my view?  The very, very clear implication that Trayvon’s parents, had they not allowed him to wear a hoodie, might have him with them today.  Geraldo’s urging of parents to disallow hoodies is such a hurtful, hateful and arrogant thing to suggest.  And Geraldo contends that he is trying to save lives!  If that doesn’t make his diatribe all the more offensive, what could?  And he has a son!  How could he not pause, and think, for just a moment, what it would be like were he to lose his son?  Especially at the hands of someone older and for no apparent reason?  How would he feel if someone even mildly and obliquely made the suggestion that he made a bad parenting decision that might have bearing on his son’s death? 

And then there is Geraldo’s fellow Fox News guy, Sean Hannity.  After indicating that maybe it was all a terrible, tragic accident, he sent his prayers to Trayvon’s parents.  That was after he said maybe Trayvon was running, thinking he was in danger; that maybe there had been some crimes and that’s why there was a neighborhood watch, so it was all possibly a horrible accident?  Did he listen to the 911 call?  If so, is he incapable of understanding spoken English language?  You know, like when George Zimmerman was told by the dispatcher that they did NOT need him to follow Trayvon?  George Zimmerman just accidently followed this kid then?  And then, also accidently shot him?

Really, how would a rational, minimally sympathetic parent come to any of the conclusions these three men have?  And how would a rational, minimally sympathetic parent ever be able to convince men who view any and all things of life from one and only one perspective, theirs, which is ALWAYS political, and ALWAYS right? 

I attempted to find a petition against Fox News and all that they stand for.  I could not find one.  I wanted to do what I could to stand up against such despicable responses to the loss of a kid’s life.  In this case, it IS Fox News that is demonstrating lack of compassion for one 17 year old whose life is gone.  It is Fox News that is saying something other than asking how this could happen and how we are all together in our support and compassion for the family.  But be assured I have called and/or emailed anyone whom I have seen as rude, mean, insensitive, etc.  I don’t care who they are  or what “side” with which they are aligned.   

And you know why I’ve done that?  Because I have said for some time now, and firmly believe, that were cancer a living, breathing entity, it would be very jealous of how rapidly hate spreads.  I’d like to think maybe I can live in such a way as to stand up against that hate.    

Malaise? REALLY?

While waiting on my coffee last Thursday morning, I wanted to send a quick email.  While going to my mail one of the news items that change momentarily on the Yahoo home page caught my attention.  It was about banker malaise.  I couldn’t resist clicking on it, which I so rarely do.  SO interesting that this was a news story on the day I reported about money for my kids. 

I like to always be fair.  At least I really try, I hope.  I HATE broad brush strokes of any group.  So, remembering that the people quoted in the article are only a very few of the group to which they belong, let me still say they have done neither themselves nor their group any favors.  Let me share some of my favorite quotes from the article.  And need I even say I will comment on them?  Impossible for me NOT to do so, of course.  There are times I have simply NOT been able to keep my mouth shut.  I’ll provide the link and anyone can check it out for herself or himself.  Perhaps others will have a completely different reaction than I did.

 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bonus-withdrawal-puts-bankers-malaise

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bonus-withdrawal-puts-bankers-malaise-050100338.html

(Note:  I have copied the address several times.  But when I try to click it from here, I receive the message that the internet page can not be found.  So I will leave it here.  But let me tell how I found it again this morning, in case it doesn’t work for any reader either.  I typed in “banker malaise”.  When several came up, I picked the Yahoo Finance one, since that is where I read it.  The article title is “Bonus Withdrawal Puts Bankers In “Malaise”.  It is a Bloomberg article by Max Abelson, dated February 29^th.  It should begin talking about a man who was in a traffic jam in California who got out of his car and yelled some profanity because he was so frustrated by the fact that his $350,000 salary is not enough.) 

“Sans Dishwasher”

There is the man (let’s call him “Sans Dishwasher”) who can not make ends meet on his $350,000 per year salary and who received a reduced bonus this year.  He describes his plight as “…where I’m stuck like a rat in a trap on a highway with no way to get out, it’s very hard…”  What I find confusing here is the fact that this man is a banker and yet he hasn’t been able to figure out that, no, $350,000 might not be enough if you have failed to calculate some basics about your income and expenses.  What percentage of your income, for example, is the cost of private school?  And your summer rental makes up what percentage?  And how is it that anyone would build a lifestyle dependent on bonuses?  Shouldn’t this  intelligent guy know that makes no sense? 

In another part of the article he says they have no dishwasher and must wash everything by hand.   He further explains that his children must share a bedroom and mentions he would like each to have his and her own room, and a fourth bedroom as a guest room.  He says “...You have the luxury of a guest room, how crazy is that?”  I wonder if it has occurred to him to consider that giving up the summer rental might enable him to have bedrooms for his daughter and son, as well as a dishwasher and, who knows, maybe that guest room?  No wonder “…it’s very hard…”  It is also very hard when people in parts of the world, here and abroad, have insufficient income for nutritious food for their children, much less hope of sending them to any kind of school.

“Disaster”

“Disaster” reacts to the entire idea of reduced bonuses.  Discretionary pay was “trimmed” by some Wall Street firms, some as much as 25%!!  One firm capped bonuses at only $125,000!!  And still another increased the percentage of deferred pay, as in “you don’t get it right now when you want it”.   This gentleman laments, “It’s a disaster…The entire construct of compensation has been changed.”  To my way of thinking, yes, it is most certainly a disaster when a parent has lost a job and then has to worry about unemployment benefits not being available.  That is a REAL disaster for a family.

“Discounted Salmon”

“Discounted Salmon” seems to understand that his lifestyle needs to change.  He actually checks grocery fliers in order to determine where salmon is the least expensive.   AND he also investigates where he will find the best price on his favorite breakfast cereal.  I think this gentleman might be at the point where he would understand he does not HAVE to have salmon.  He did say he had wasted a lot of money.  I have to respect and appreciate such a straightforward and honest self- analysis.

“Volkswagen Porsche”

I find “Volkswagen Porsche” to also be somewhat encouraging.  He explains that he and his wife have always saved, so they are not so “stuck”.  He, like “Discounted Salmon” guy, has made changes; he sold two unused motorcycles.  AND he does not drive the most impressive of supercars, only the lower end Porsche, the one he considers to be on the Volkswagen end of the line.  I wonder if he gets $7,500 worth of enjoyment from his Trump National Golf Club membership?  And what about his $7,500 for the gun club membership?  Maybe he could choose only one club membership and save $7,500? Just a thought.  Or how about the $30,000 annual fee to belong to the “peer-learning” group, the members of said group most having a net worth of 10 million dollars?  At 58, is he getting, or does he even need, that much learning?   Maybe he could start his own learning group and make the fee, say, only $15,000.  I imagine he would get some takers.  Also, just a thought. 

This man and his wife are apparently very generous to charity.  And yet, I ask myself if the dogs, Zelda and Duke, could also “cut back” their expense from $17,000 a year to only $16,000, what could that $1,000 savings do for those in need?  Look at the impact our minimal savings have had in benefitting children.  What if each of the guys in this article gave $1,000 a year to help children?  How many little lives could be improved? 

“Crushing Setback”

I think this guy, “Crushing Setback,” did not get the same amount of print as several of the other interviewees.  That’s probably a good thing.  The small amount was more than enough for me.  He explains that, “For many people of wealth, they’ve had a crushing setback as well.”   He goes on to describe his feeling of “…paralysis that does not allow one to believe that generally things are going to get better.”  It is always helpful to connect with people who have experienced the same difficulty/disappointment/challenge in life.  Maybe this gentleman could go to the nearest unemployment office and speak with those in line who have also gone through that crushing setback.  Or, then again, maybe those in line might think he should have easily been in a position to be so well prepared so as not to have HAD to experience any setback.  Yeah, on second thought, maybe he should stay home. 

Before I write about the last two men and their frustrations, let me make several things very clear.  We call it “full and fair disclosure”.  I work in the financial industry so I have seen this lack of responsibility; this inattention to income and expenses.   I once had a co-worker tell me he NEVER thought about expenses.  He was a conscientious worker but he charged just one of his clients $7,000 a year!  The client was NOT a millionaire, by the way.  I am sorry, but the guy about whom I speak didn’t do any better job than anyone else.  And I have never personally felt any of us should consider charging anything other than what was fair, adjusted to the actual amount of work we do in a year.  Expenses impact income, which impacts what is charged to a client.  To me, a simple concept. 

In complete fairness, I also saw the opposite.  I saw guys who were not workers.  If they charged a client $700 a year it would be way too much for the amount of actual work done.  (I say guys only because most of the time there weren’t too many women.  Sometimes I was the only one). 

A second thing I should disclose.  I have always been for regulation of the markets.  People speak of the market as if there is some intelligent “force” that the market has that will ultimately result in it all working out well.  In fact, I once heard a president talk about “the magic of the market”.  There is no magic.  The market consists of people investing and divesting monies.  And when any enterprise involves people, there is the potential for manipulation, greed and corruption.  In fact, as a brief aside, I have struggled to understand why so many Christians in this country buy into this philosophy of a totally unregulated market.  Do we not run around saying ALL men have sinned?  And don’t we say we should not worship idols?  To believe that the market is anything other than what it is seems to me a naiveté that is dangerous.  AND it further baffles me because we have now seen the results of inadequate regulation, haven’t we? 

For years I have also been opposed to financial institutions getting larger and larger.  It has always seemed good sense NOT to put the decisions that have the potential to ultimately affect the finances of so many in the hands of so few whose first job it is to make a profit.  I have always thought that doing so leads to two important factors on which we must all depend:   that those few people are first of all ethical and principled; and secondly, that they are good at what they do.  In my opinion, many, including the men I am commenting on, are living examples of what happens when both ethics and competency are lacking. 

Let me set aside the issue of fairness and what I see as ethical behavior for a moment, with the thought of approaching this question from a more objective perspective.  We protect people in other important ways.  We protect people’s written or other creative works.  Students found guilty of plagiarism are subject to expulsion.  And it goes without saying that plagiarism in the professional world has serious consequences.  We simply do not allow this type of stealing.  We protect people’s inventions.  Patents protect them so there is no infringement by others.  We give people the legal right to protect their homes and property.  If we see all of these types of protections as fair and right, then does it not follow that we would protect the savings and retirement dollars of employees and investors?  Why would we not protect that which represents the hard work, diligence, and responsibility for self that these dollars signify?  If we protect the relatively few with copyrights and patents, why would we not protect the many? Failure to provide protective regulations does not follow a logical pattern of thought that I can see.   

The last thing I want to make as well understood as I know how has to do with what I am NOT saying.  I am NOT saying these guys are horrible.  I am totally convinced that I would like them if I met them.  I’d walk away thinking they are nice guys.  What I am saying is that it is easy to get lost in life.  It is easy, especially in our society, where I think we hear a lot (Actually too much, in my opinion.) about prosperity.  And if a parent loves her/his child, it is easy to want too much for them.  It takes discipline to say no, both to our children and to ourselves.  And that really isn’t anything we hear about very often, is it?  So, I’m not saying I don’t understand how life can get confusing, muddled, off track and overwhelming at times.  I’m just sharing a different point of view and some conclusions based on what I have seen.

Now I come to the last two guys I will write about.  Let me call them “Misunderstood” and “Poor Me; I’ve Got The Flu”.  I am unable to decide which one offends me more.  It’s a toss up. 

Mr. “Misunderstood” contends that “People who don’t have money don’t understand the stress.”  And he goes on to illustrate an example of that stress, “Could you imagine what it’s like to say I got three kids in private school, I have to think about pulling them out?”  He drives his point home by asking, “How do you do that?”  What can I possibly say?  The only conclusion I can come up with is that this man has allowed himself to become so self-absorbed and prideful that I think he is speaking sincerely.  He truly doesn’t comprehend how anyone could pull her/his children from private school.  AND I think he is genuine.  He does not grasp  why people without money don’t appreciate the stress he and others experience.  If this is an example of the American dream, shame on us! 

And poor Mr. “Poor Me; I’ve Got The Flu”.  He explains so succinctly, “Yes, terminal diseases are worse than getting the flu…But you suffer when you get the flu”.  You notice I describe this man as poor; as in deserving sympathy or being deficient in some way.   And I do see him as exactly that, poor, for a couple of reasons.  First, he is a college professor so he must have innate intelligence.  But he has taken that intelligence and guided it by self-interest and condescension.  I find his analogy of terminal illness and the flu not only insensitive and therefore highly offensive, but also illustrative of lack of thought, at least any depth of thought.  He is correct, if you get the flu, you can be very sick.  BUT you have no reason to believe that you will not recover.  You might truly feel like you are going to die, at times, but deep down you are waiting for a few days to pass, knowing you will, in fact, recover.  How different that is for the person who is getting sicker each day, not better.  AND that person knows s/he will not recover.  There is most likely no hope.  Furthermore, if someone, especially someone with intelligence and earning a quarter of a million dollars a year, gets this financial flu, it is totally self-inflicted.  How, you ask?  By designing a lifestyle that was BEYOND her/his means.  I heard years ago that we should put a cap on our lifestyle; that we should live BELOW our means.  I thought that was an excellent idea.   If this gentleman had been living at least WITHIN his means, he should have no financial distress.  Especially considering that the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau reports the MEDIAN, not average, household income to be $49,445.

I doubt our friend Dorothy would appreciate the professor’s analogy either.  She just found out within the last week and a half that she has breast cancer.  Her chemotherapy began on Friday.  She is already very fatigued.  I feel quite sure she wishes the doctors had told her they were going to deliberately give her the flu, rather than to have received the news she did. 

Yeah Ellen!

March 3, 2012

Yeah Ellen!

It is almost 5:30 Saturday morning.  I’m tired so I wasn’t going to get up until about 6:30 today.  But once I was awake I felt like there are things worth getting up and “fighting” for, so to speak.  Taking a stand is rarely easy or convenient, so here I am. 

We saw a television commercial last night with Ellen DeGeneres.  She is trying to return something to a store.  When asked why, she explains, “It’s a skort.”  Unfazed, the man behind the counter asks for her receipt, which Ellen does not have.

Now switch to ancient Rome.  The streets are jammed.  People are everywhere.  There is a counter of some kind beneath a portico.   A woman, wearing her toga and laurel wreath, steps up to this counter with a return.  The man behind the counter asks the reason for the return.  The woman begins an explanation, saying it isn’t the right size.  The color is wrong.  It doesn’t have a zipper.  The man who must be convinced to let the woman return this toga is bemused and begins saying "zipper?" 

This causes an aside from the toga returning.  An exchange of pronunciation attempts and corrections follows.  I believe the woman gets confused and her pronunciation now sounds like that of the gentleman behind the counter.    

Then there is that dreaded request for a receipt.  The woman doesn’t have it.  As if that weren’t bad enough, somewhere along the line is this return effort, a second man behind the counter has become involved and also insists on a receipt. 

In frustration this Roman woman contends “This is crazy!”  She turns to the crowd and, thinking they need to be as indignant as she, begins to rile them up by repeating, “This is crazy!”   The crowd responds. 

It’s at exactly this point when JCP’s new logo of a square box appears.  And I think the web site address is shown and Ellen’s name is there as well.  I don’t know for sure because I was both laughing and cheering Ellen on. 

Even if there had not been controversy because the “traditional American family values” mothers were incensed that Ellen was chosen as the JCP spokesperson, this would be a commercial that should win an award.  It is creative.  It uses Ellen’s comedic talents perfectly.  It clearly gives the advertising message that returns to JCP are without hassle.  AND, unlike many commercials, even good ones, the viewer remembers what product/company is being advertised.  But the fact that it is so outstanding makes you feel like there is some fairness and justice.  Yeah Ellen!  The commercial’s only negative is that the One Million Moms will have real difficulty finding anything that corrupts their children.  But then again, hatred sees what it wants to see, so I am probably wrong about that. 

Oh!  Let me interrupt myself and tell you about Ellen’s response to the One Million Moms.  Allan found it for me, knowing I would love to watch it for myself.  Ellen explained that she rarely responds to her haters, but that in this case, her haters are her motivators.  (Love it!)  She goes on to clearly and definitively state the values she stands for:  honestly, equality, kindness, compassion, treating others the way you want to be treated, and helping those in need.  Wow!  Oh wow!  No wonder those mothers didn’t want her speaking for a department store!

You know what I wish?  I wish the commercial could automatically appear on the personal computers of the One Millions Moms.  They turn on their computers this morning and there it is.  I know, I know.  That is not right.  But it is honest.  And I am trying to be ashamed of myself.  Really I am. 

In fact, I am so sincere in wanting to be ashamed, I will give it more thought as I drive to JCP for new towels we need.  We DO need them.  Seriously.  We do.  And who knows?  Maybe giving JCP my business will be just what I need to make me ashamed of myself.  I’ll let you know. 

February's Savings For The Children

I love it, of course.  We saved $99.70 this month for “my kids”!!  How cool is that?  We’ll round the check to $100 and send it off right away. 

Just like last month, if the purchase was taxable, I added the applicable sales tax for the amount saved.   So here’s how we did it this month:

$22.60 savings from one grocery store by taking advantage of weekly sales and buying on Thursdays in order to get the senior discount for which Allan qualifies.

$32.73 from another grocery store.  Although it offers no senior discount, they have some good weekly sales.

$2.60 by getting McDonald’s senior coffee and Wendy’s 5% discount for seniors.

$9.72 saved on a blouse Allan saw on sale and came home with as a surprise.

$3.00 savings by using a coupon for Pepperidge Farm cinnamon raison bread.  That worked great.  I like cinnamon raison bread but rarely buy it.  I think it is just too costly at $2.99 for a small loaf.  I can make it in my bread machine or by hand, either of which is fun.  Anyway, instead of just getting the loaf for free, the store credited the bill with the penny to give me the full $3.00 for the coupon!

$21.40 savings on the purchase of a wireless printer. 

$7.65 on flowers to make an arrangement for the new screened in porch.  I bought when the flowers were 40% off.

At the beginning I spoke of how much we saved for “my kids”.  I’ve noticed that I now refer to them as such.  When we are out I tell Allan not to let me forget to record the savings for “my kids”.  If deciding to give something up, I say I will give the money to “my kids” instead.  Amazing how quickly and easily something can become personal, in a good way, if we let it!

When I post this I am going to see if I can have a running total of the 2012 savings along the side of the blog, like I have the list of books.  (This reminds me I have a lot of books to add to that list when I get the time.)  If it is not there, I’ll keep working on it until I find out how to do it.

So, to summarize, we have saved $298.49 YTD.  Last month’s check resulted in $1,180 of benefit to children and families here at home and the world over!  Like I said, how cool is that?

PS  Well, I managed to add the lists of savings and benefits along the side.  But I can't figure out how to make the titles smaller or make the numbers be in color.  For now, I'm just happy I got the important part added!