Not Quiet Enough – Eminem’s Storm

Hey Eminem,

Storm not quiet enough?
You still singin’ hate stuff?
All that bitter candy-ass fluff
That Nasty taste of losin’ It
Why can’t you just swallow It?
Why you gotta wallow in It?
Just because you didn’t win It?

Why you all too mad?
Is your life all so bad?
What’s ‘at really about?
Breakin’ bad & hidin’ out

Down in that bunker of a studio
You just hear what’s on the radio
You heard what you were told
You bought what you were sold
Asked no questions about It
Just sang curses about It

Uploadin sore-loser gripes
Trippin over stars & stripes
No one buys nice words no more
Poison pays it forward low score
Keepin’ the meter ru-runnin’
Stackin’ up those Benjamin-ins

Oh say can’t you see
America can dis -agree
It’s not white OR black
Can’t take what is done back
Asterisks are not heaven’s stars
Stripes are not our prison bars

Playin out borrowed words of-color
Grinnin’ on color magazine covers
How can you real-world real-life correlate?
With your mind & your mouth stuffed so full of hate?

 

Advertisements

Take Time Off from Politics – Flowers for Las Vegas Before Pointless Witch-hunts

Today, Stephen Paddock, a deluded, deranged, depressed, millionaire, from a small town in Nevada committed suicide in a Las Vegas hotel.  Tragically, beforehand, he tried to take 600 people with him.  He shot 586 outdoor concert-goers from his hotel window, before shooting himself.  He killed 59 people and wounded another 527 in the worst mass shooting in US history.  The grief and pain of the victims and thousands of loved ones is unthinkable, and indescribable.

President Trump showed true class in his address to the nation.  His speech held not one shred of politics, only honest compassion for the victims, their families, and friends.

Meanwhile, the political wolves began to howl partisan slogans, about gun control.

Gun control?  How about a CDC campaign against prescription hatred addiction and vitriol overdoses?

Hayley Geftman-Gold, CBS vice president and senior counsel, posted on Facebook: “I’m actually not even sympathetic [because] country music fans often are Republican gun toters,” and, “If they wouldn’t do anything when children were murdered I have no hope that Repugs will ever do the right thing.”

This is heartless, dispassionate, disregard, of death, pain & suffering, in Las Vegas.  She dismissed empathy for the victims and families of the tragedy.  This is a frightening manifestation of a widespread mental illness – ideological, borderline-personality, “left-supremacism.”

Here is a scary question: How many “friends” does she have on Facebook?  She must have felt safe posting her feelings to them.  Who would share, or be sympathetic to, such a soulless, sociopathic viewpoint?

CBS quickly disowned and fired her.  But she and her madness are not gone.  If anything, she now has more free time and a lot more anger, to power her rhetoric and spread the word.   I shudder to think that people with similar beliefs are kneeling next to me in church.  The harm their hatred does is pernicious, poison in the spiritual air we breathe.

She needs our prayers too, to heal herself and her “friends.” But not before we pray for the souls of the dead, and the hearts of the living who mourn them.

Puerto Rico Dilemma – Distribution Chokepoints Plague Every Catastrophe

Distribution is the barrier to helping Puerto Ricans recover from the aftermath of two major hurricanes, Irma & Maria.  Natural disasters (e.g. earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions, etc.) always block the means and ways to relief.  The lack of airfields limits aid delivery to large helicopters; for areas open to water, boats that can land on beaches.

The Island of Puerto Rico’s infrastructure is destroyed.  Ships waiting in harbors will do no good if they cannot moor and unload; mountains of needed supplies piled on docks and airfields will do no good without roads, trucks, and drivers to get them where they are needed; generators and powerplants at full capacity will do no good without transmission lines, power stations, and power lines; without power, fuel for generators and vehicles is largely unavailable; thousands of volunteers and military will do no good if they cannot get to the victims.

Waiting for aid might not be the best strategy for the stranded; it might be better if they could move to locations that offered food, shelter, medical aid.  Travel is difficult, but unless transportation becomes available, walking is better than starving.  It may be more effective to transport people out, than moving enough support to the afflicted areas.  In addition, when supplies are delivered, the transport must return to its origin; it could carry refugees.

Puerto Rico’s infrastructure was built to meet the needs of the 3.4 million residents and 4 million plus tourists per year.  They do not have the capacity to repair/replace everything at once.  Complaining and blaming will not change that quickly.

Addressing humanitarian needs (water, food, medical) is priority one.  Restoring power to enable equipment and transportation is priority two.  Opening roads, ports, and airfields is priority three.

Allowing more ships to clog the harbors, adding more soldiers to crowd the capital while they wait for transport, will not help.

Top needs:  Helicopters, generators, bulldozers, and fuel are the hardware; pilots, engineers, drivers, and equipment operators are the software.  Let’s focus on these first.

Trump Ignores “Face” at Our Peril – North Korea Not Like NYC

If America desires influence in Asia, we must understand the sensitive parts of their cultures, that may not be as sensitive in ours.

President Trump’s aggressive, public, verbal attacks on North Koreas may play well in the USA, but they are more harmful and dangerous in Asia than most Americans think. Regardless of how you see Kim Jong -un, he is Asian; you must take Asian culture into account.

Asian culture developed the concept of “face” over thousands of years. A person’s “face,” sums up their standing in all parts of life; it is much more important than our concept of reputation; it is who they are as a person.

Most average American’s discovered Asian culture in World War II.  We were confronted with totally foreign, Japanese ideas and customs, including seppuku, the noble term for honorable, ritual suicide by samurai (the term familiar to most Americans is, hari-kari, a term used by Japanese commoners.).

Decades later, we are motivated to observe Japanese etiquette socially, and in business; we are challenged to understand what “face” means, and how it works.  “Giving face,” “losing face,” and “saving face” are extremely important in every part of daily life.

“Giving face” means acknowledging, honoring and giving credit to another, while minimizing one’s own importance, and deprecating one’s role in the matter with humility.

“Losing face” means being, publicly slighted, criticized, ridiculed, or humiliated. The caustic, demeaning language Americans commonly tolerate could evoke suicide among some Asians sensitive to “losing face.”

We only recently see such sensitivity among youth immersed in social media.  “Shaming,” and “cyberbullying,” are examples of the new American version of “losing face.” Ironically, Facebook is a big part of this phenomenon

“Saving face” means recovering positive standing, dignity, and honor with offsetting actions and expressions; for example, smoothing over mistakes, and minimizing losses.  In  “face” culture, even adversaries seek to give tokens and acknowledgements that do not dishonor each other.  Bragging or ridiculing are considered ignoble, vicious, low-class breaches of etiquette.

President Trump and Kim Jong-un have lost face, in the eyes of many Asians and Americans.   Both have established “low-face” reputations already.

Kim Jong-un is feared, more than respected, as a man who would assassinate rivals, and punish those who would embarrass him, or challenge his godhead.

Donald Trump is disrespected for his feral attacks, predictable, public taunts, and churlish name-calling.

The brash, threatening exchanges, threats, and personal, demeaning attacks, slash at the “face” of these vainglorious, egoistic adversaries; the use of “Rocket Man,” and “dotard,”are examples of the escalating, vulgar, and unforgivable personal affronts they have exchanged.

Both men must somehow find a face-saving way to end their disputes, or they will escalate without reason.

First, they must clear the “face” board; no more personal attacks, minimum admissions of error, and tolerable acceptance of blame.

Second, they must engage in building trust and agreement, without losing face.  For the most part, that means letting diplomats forge whatever agreements it will take to tamp down this “monkey dance,” and reduce the threat of nuclear havoc.

Third, they must give and save face to hold agreements in place.

 

Loyalty Is a Treasure – Disloyalty Is a Travesty

I grew up with four younger siblings.  You can imagine the constant turmoil and conflicts.  Really, what we experienced was trivial, but at the time, it seemed extreme.  Despite the changing levels of love, we were a family.  We could have our problems, but they stayed our private business.  Any threats or harm from neighborhood kids were an attack on all of us.  We took care of each other, and never disparaged a family member in public.  That is loyalty.

Loyalty can be a problematic virtue; it is a persistent, sometimes painful promise, and devoted commitment.  We possess our loyalties; we call them my friends, my family, my profession, my church, my team, our party, our country. We are ashamed or proud of them. We take risks or bear burdens for them.

Families expect it; organizations demand it; countries foster it. We expect loyalty in return.

People may forfeit our loyalty by asking us to set aside good judgment, “justifying” unethical conduct, or persistently violating our trust or shared values.

“When an organization wants you to do right, it asks for your integrity; when it wants you to do wrong, it demands your loyalty.”

Public disloyalty is a terrible betrayal; it says the worst about the betrayer.  Private quarrels, confidential problems are not disloyalty, they are getting along with people who share your values.

President Trump’s public criticism of Attorney General Sessions is embarrassing to our country and to his administration.  The crass nature of his publicized complaints violates and weakens the loyalty of his followers when loyalty is at a premium.  This was not a slip, no stealth recording; it was a New York Times interview, tweets, and press statements.  I am aghast at the whole spectacle.

Jeff Sessions was one of the most vocal supporters for Donald Trump during the campaign.  Why would Trump stab this powerful ally in the back over an act of integrity in recusing himself in the Russia/Clinton controversies?  Why this sad, rude, self-sabotage when so many important promises are waiting to be fulfilled?  I cringe when I think of how this will stain his presidency, and cripple the trust of his supporters.

Is it Important to Know the Sources of Truth? – Henry David Thoreau, Yes and Know

Maybe it has always been this way, but why does it seem so vital to associate an insightful aphorism with a famous person?

“Truth strikes us from behind, and in the dark, as well as from before and in broad day-light.”

Who wrote this? Henry David Thoreau.  Beautiful in its truth and simplicity.  But what if some insignificant playwright put these words on Thoreau’s lips in his play?  Would it be less insightful?

There is a plague of mis-quotations, mis-attributions, and quotation mills, (e.g. brainyquotes.com) who do nothing to verify what people add to their sites.  I see these un-researched and inaccurate quotes used by people of incredible ability because the Internet makes it easy to be wrong and believe you are right.

When I first started seeing these “quotes.” and discovered how few were accurate, I spent months trying to raise the alarm about quotes attributed to Albert Einstein, Gandhi, Winston Churchill, and other notable historic figures.  Even after blazing the trail to truth, people shrugged and continued their reliance on provably unreliable websites.

One personal experience, before the current craze, happened to me in Colorado, while I was on a month-long “Chautauqua” through the Rocky Mountains.  A friendly lady gave me a bookmarker with a quotation from Henry David Thoreau.  “Many men fish all their lives without ever realizing that it is not the fish they are after.”  Very touching and insightful, but a misquote by a writer, Michael Baughman, who wrote it in his book A River Seen Right (Lyons Press, 1995) p. 156.

He apparently paraphrased something Thoreau wrote in his journal, January 26, 1853:

“It is remarkable that many men will go with eagerness to Walden Pond in the winter to fish for pickerel and yet not seem to care for the landscape. Of course, it cannot be merely for the pickerel they may catch; there is some adventure in it; but any love of nature which they may feel is certainly very slight and indefinite. They call it going a-fishing, and so indeed it is, though perchance, their natures know better. Now I go a-fishing and a-hunting every day, but omit the fish and the game, which are the least important part. I have learned to do without them. They were indispensable only as long as I was a boy. I am encouraged when I see a dozen villagers drawn to Walden Pond to spend a day in fishing through the ice, and suspect that I have more fellows than I knew, but I am disappointed and surprised to find that they lay so much stress on the fish which they catch or fail to catch, and on nothing else, as if there were nothing else to be caught.”

I wonder, if today, this aphorism captures our current, self-absorbed culture?  Maybe today, the “fishing” is taking “selfies” and exposing every aspect of people’s experience and perspective on the Internet.  They get noticed but not notorious, or famous, or even infamous.  They become suicidal when virtual phantoms express disdain and scorn.

Everybody seems to be fishing for something, but what do they really want and why?

What they may really want is proof, and acknowledgment that they exist and have a value, and a meaning.  Why do they want it?  Maybe the disintegration of family, neighborhood, community leaves a void they cannot fill.  Maybe this secular dissociation leaves people feeling empty, afraid, and alone.

Could it be that what they really want is what families and churches used to provide:  love and belonging?

Would You Die to Save Your Family? – Extraordinary Measures Ruin Families

Most people say yes, when asked if they would die to save even one member of their family.  There are different kinds of saving.  The medical costs of extraordinary measures to preserve vestiges of life in terminal patients are also extraordinary.  Who wants their family members to die?  Anyone?  Of course not.  WE don’t want to die either, but we will die, even though we don’t want to think about it or admit it will happen to us.

The emotional storm which comes with the prospect of death of a loved one more than fogs intellect and reason.  The brain chemistry alone prevents most people from thinking clearly.  People die despite our wishes to the contrary.  The fear, hysteria, anger, confusion, and grief renders any normal person witless.

Historically, death, by itself, did no direct harm to the survivors outside of losing the income that person produced.  But things are vastly different in 2017, when death, especially delaying inevitable death can kill the surviving family financially.  And what is life without money in our society?

But, no one thinks of this when they rush to the hospital, or hear the pronouncement that their loved one has a terminal condition. Doctors do not describe anything as terminal any more.  They use euphemisms provided by insurance companies and lawyers to give doubt and hope to the family, even though the doctors are pretty sure of the outcome.

Family members ask, “what is the prognosis?”  The only answer that is forthcoming comes when the patient is dead.  Cannot get around that one.  That is the least threatening to the families’ financial welfare.

The threat arises when “extraordinary measures” keep the body warm, even though the soul has moved on.  This penchant to “heat the meat” is driven by at least four factors: 1. Doctors do not like patients to die; 2. Families do not like family members to die; 3.  Medical technology can sustain the semblance of life with heart and lung supplements; 4.  The billings are huge.

The other side of “billings are huge” is medical bills are staggering, devastating, unpayable, and strangely enough, not the obligations of the patient, but of his “estate,” which means his family.  How many families have an extra million dollars lying around to cover giant bills?  Except for exempted items, most families lose everything and have to declare bankruptcy.  Sad but true, what the insurance company will skillfully avoid paying lands on the grieving spouse, children, parents, or whoever would be a beneficiary of his estate.

The only approaches I have heard to dealing with this threat are:

  1. Amazing, triple-source, health insurance
  2. Multi-million-dollar life insurance
  3. Planning and legal documents

I can only point you to the issues.  It is up to you to do the research and planning.  If you have not considered this issue, consider yourself warned.