The Granting of Justice

Some women are sometimes granted justice - Olympic team gymnasts in this case - at least justice in the form of their criminal abuser going to prison.  Numerous articles have appeared today.   As a trending topic it is certainly something all decent people can celebrate!   I do question the supposed wisdom of including the video of the impassioned pleas of the offender for forgiveness which are included in much of the coverage.  It tends to create sympathy for the individual whose stated criminal charges are associated with 130 people, including children. The victims deserve better.

I will be commenting here on much more than this particular victory.  And also, without detracting from the victory, I have to say that imprisonment does not do much to address the personal trauma the victims have experienced since their abuse, but at least it prevents the abuser from engaging in further  opportunistic abuse.  And at least, for a time, it probably has the effect of other abusers in the same career field putting any potential criminal behavior on-hold.  We can certainly hope so.  It may also encourage those who have been harassed and/or assaulted to actually report the problem, if only because it may contribute to preventing others from being abused, similarly.  As such, it is a victory for decent people everywhere.

Work related sexual harassment and assault consists of a demographic of victims for whom justice is more likely to be possible, as compared to familial abuse, date rape, and crimes of varying degrees as a result of far-reaching collusion.  That is not to say that the perpetrator in the Olympic gymnasts' case was not protected by a network of like-minded people in collusion within varied fields, like medical, higher education, and government.  How could so many crimes have been perpetrated for such a long time otherwise?  However, work related crimes are oftener prosecuted than those which are not work related. 

Licensed professional people (like m.d.s) who commit crimes and violate their professional ethics are one subset of those who abuse and harass in the work place. The nature of the organized work structure includes strict professional standards which actually state and expect no harassment and abuse of patients or co-workers.  So when a problem does occurs, especially if it targets more than one person, it is more likely to be handled instead of ignored IF it is reported, and IF it is handled carefully as it should be once there is awareness of problems.  These are both big "ifs". 

Catching a suspected offender in the act at the workplace (or anywhere else) while our system of justice is upheld, by extending the right an alleged perpetrator has to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, certainly becomes a skilled balancing act which mandates many variables being objectively and skillfully applied.  When that does happen, sometimes there is justice.  The potential for justice often depends on the skill and ethics of the human resources people along with the values of the business and those tasked to do the hiring.

I, myself, had problems long ago in the past with m.d.s but as far as I have been able to ascertain, rather than being gender related harassment they were almost entirely related to the ethical problems allowed which are innate to an institutionalized "illness industry".   Later, I was also fortunate enough to have been seen by several trustworthy m.d.s  who, as it happens, are integrative medicine m.d.s, before that also another few who were not totally dictated to by a for-profit nationally unstandardized system of health care. 

I did have a problem with two unethical m.d.s who crossed the line, years ago, one being totally inappropriate behavior from a male physician, and a decade earlier the other being an unacceptable choice that was made for me without my knowledge and without my approval which was not the female physician's choice to make for me.  But unless the same people did the same to other women, also, who would want to have reason to believe it?  So, I said nothing because I knew it would not do anyone any good to report it given the organizational and enabling structure involved, and my relative place in it.  The point is, once again, about victims of abuse maintaining silence - often for very long periods of time.

People wonder why women remain silent for years even decades - and some, forever.  As usual the short simple answer is because of the trauma that was experienced which not only includes what happened but the fear of retribution if it is reported.  For good reason reporting it is expected to do nothing but further traumatize because of making the incident public and being reacted to as if the offender is without blame, because that has been a nearly universal first response to reporting incidents of a sexual nature. Simple?  No.  But as simply as it can be stated while covering all the bases. 

People also wonder why, after so long, women would decide to speak up.  That has everything to do with wanting to prevent others from being harassed and attacked and with finally feeling strong enough emotionally to be able to report the problem.  And in some cases we speak up because it will help bring perpetrators to justice who have gotten away with perpetrating crimes for a very long time. 

The length of time between an incident and the reporting of an incident has everything to do with the extent of complex trauma, not necessarily the intensity of trauma which varies from person to person over time, but the complexity of it in the way it affects personal and professional life and future opportunities. 

Future opportunity is a variable not often spoken of because it is too easy for people to assume a woman invited the behavior as a way of trying to secure future opportunity, or her 15 minutes of fame which could bring her opportunity, or to try to secure the opportunity of a tidy monetary reward, or to ruin someone's career by leveling bogus charges without reason.  Unfortunately, some women actually do fit that profile.  Like men with little or no ethics, such women are also perpetrators, as enablers, of the criminal harassment and abuse that is committed against other women. 

So frequently what remains unspoken whether or not crimes are reported, is the potential for a victim to be put on a list by an offender - a list of people who are to be excluded and marginalized from having opportunities.  Being listed is a sure indicator that what the offender is part of is an informal  large and powerful network of like-minded ill-intended supporters.  Being listed actually happens whether or not there is reporting, but has potentially worse repercussions when something is said.  Being listed is also not without damaging repercussions to the people the person being listed cares about, particularly family and close friends.  The fear of that threatened extortion is one is one of the most significant ways perpetrators gain and maintain a victim's silence. 

Although the fear about possible damage to those one cares about is a strong motivator of silence,   there is also the matter of unwarranted guilt if something bad does happen to anyone a person cares about whether or not it is connected to the criminal incident one has experienced.  Sometimes there are clear indications it was, other times, not.   The fact is that an extensive network can and does do "peripheral damage" whether or not an incident is reported.  Often it takes years before victims of the crimes perpetrated understand more fully the parameters of the damage done and how it was enabled.  And then it becomes a matter of feeling secure enough within a group of which they are part, to have a reasonable expectation that they will be protected from further harm, before being  able to allow themselves to report a crime - fearful still of repercussions.

I know, because I said something.  I mentioned something within a legal environment in a somewhat innocuous and unofficial way in relation to a less offensive injustice.  And of course even though it was not an officially filed report I was further traumatized, like many have been, by the institutionalized system in place to protect sexual assault and harassment offenders and their supporters, initially and repeatedly, while their intended victims are treated as if it was they who invited the perpetrators to commit the crimes.  It is part of a system that is insidious, dependent upon and enabled by collusion. 

When one is listed after experiencing a criminal violation, it is a sure indicator of an admission of guilt to the intended victim, if no one else, that a crime did occur and that it was the result of collusion and is being protected by those in collusion.  The extensive damage from being listed (i.e. an organized effort to prevent opportunities of all types), is often not identified as such by victims except in retrospect even when having been told it would happen.  The less one knows about the evil that motivates crimes of collusion, the longer it takes to understand damage done because of collusion.  And of course any type of similar behavior one experiences later in life is a trigger which sets off the same morass of suffering that was initially experienced due to the incident which caused trauma - a typical PTSD response.

Because of the unwarranted obstacles and resistance put in place in their lives which are associated with the active prevention of opportunity based on having been listed, it often takes a long time for victims to understand that collusion existed and continues to exist as the origin of a plethora of difficulties plaguing their lives which have no rational cause or reason for happening.

When listing is recognized early on and addressed directly to the perpetrator, being listed then becomes a form of extortion considered by offenders to be negotiable.  The offender then might further offend by offering to provide opportunity rather than deny it, based on whatever the perpetrator dictates as "cost".   Many women are totally unaware of that dynamic because of not being able to create a safe opportunity to directly confront the perpetrator, even when interaction with the perpetrator continues to occur.  But some eventually do recognize they have been listed as they start to recognize the collusion which is at the foundation of ongoing victimization.   Of course collusion is not at the foundation of all sexual harassment and assault.  But it is a part of more incidents than most recognize or are willing to admit after they become aware that collusion, at some level, enables sexual offense oftener than not -  enables many types of crimes, actually.

A person who is the victim of sexual offense may or may not ever understand the extent of the collusion and all that is involved in it, and she rarely knows the majority of people enabling all aspects of it.  It is a system which extends to all type of crimes that are committed, not only those crimes of sexual harassment and assault specifically directed at women. 

It is possible to understand the who, what, why, when, where, and how of collusion in any context to some extent, based on a combination of clear evidence and sloppy circumstantial evidence which, if pursued, can lead to real evidence; and when adamantly not pursued is as close as some will ever get to an admission that knowledge of guilt exists.  But when the breath and depth of a network is suspected, investigated, and understood, it does nothing to diminish the original trauma that was experienced and often increases it, instead, causing delayed CPTSD.  At that point it is truly understood to be dangerous to speak up.  Often it is not uncommon for despair to lead to any number of self-destructive attitudes, behaviors, and choices. 

It is not always easy to recognize that destructive behavior could be the intended outcome of the crimes committed; that organized networks protect those who commit the crimes and are networks of people addicted to the strong negative emotions generated by the victims which continue to be generated well into the aftermath of criminal incidents.   Those who have the strength to refuse to engage in self destructive behavior are the lucky ones, but they also challenge the intent of obsessed victimizers.  They also are considered more of a challenge and are often put further into harm's way.  The only relief from being criminally targeted in some way or another, again and again, is when someone tasked by the ill-intended victimizing network of colluders to do further damage, cares enough to not do so, and/or speaks up about it, for whatever reasons.  Sometimes that choice is without repercussions for that individual of apparent integrity, other times it is not.  The purpose associated with the intent of the perpetrator who targeted the original victim might  determine that.

Given the reality that is associated with crimes of collusion, it is a near miracle whenever justice prevails.  There is always untold and unknown damage to many more people than the victim, in the wake of the network of like-minded individuals who protect the offenders.  When an offender is publicly offered up as a token scapegoat for prosecution, unless the public pressure stays on the institutionalized system to shine a light on the extent of the individuals within the informal but well organized networks supporting the offenders, it does not stop except temporarily during reorganization of such a  network.  Informal networks consist of like-mind people, across and within large corporations, organizations, and institutions of many types, who are people that intentionally support the abuse that occurs.  Their supporting staff at the work place often unwittingly helps to logistically enable the abuse.

Look no further than the well-organized criminal system of slavery (sexual and otherwise) that is still being perpetrated worldwide, to understand the nature of the problem of networks in collusion which do exist and function unsuspected and undetected under the radar because good people who do know and/or suspect ill-intent, say nothing.  The encouraging of willing participants, and the forcing of unwilling participants to engage in sexual misbehavior, health damaging drugs (illicit, prescribed, and wrongly prescribed), plus all the associated crimes, increases the breadth and depth of the problem which in its most extreme forms eventually can lead to armed conflict.  It might be on an individual criminal basis, or on the block gang style, or up to and including wars between nations and/or ideologies. 

Those dedicated to superimposing extremely controlling and abusive political ideologies can be the most insidious enablers because of their hoped for personal gain of an eventual position of status and power within the organizational structure of the ideology, so they become puppets  intent on victimizing anyone who they even vaguely imagine might not support their personal intent and efforts.  A narcissistic type of toxicity motivates them to work hard to try to invalidate and gaslight those unwilling to converted to their ideology but when it comes to collusion they are several levels removed from the actual perpetrators, their puppet-masters whose crimes they enable - some naively oblivious to what their dedication to personal gain, enables.  The puppets, too, often find themselves to be unexpected victims. 

The effort to superimpose political ideologies always includes some type of armed conflict being precipitated which depends on the extent of the network of collusion and the collective negativity that, due to crimes committed, builds up to huge proportions, over time - a negativity that is worshiped by the ill-intended who hope to gain the damaging energy of it through their violence which is intended to deprive as many as possible of as much as possible for the benefit of their own malicious desire to claim exclusive ownership and control of others and their skills, talents, and resources. 

Many of the sex crimes that go unprosecuted, about which victims are silent, have been politically motivated at some level, from the personal level, to the collusion of those whose efforts are dedicated to superimposing a political ideology.  Most people understand sexual offense to be of a personal nature intended to offend and damage.  Sometime that is exactly what it is.  Oftener than not the cause is more complex and those doing the deeds are not always aware of the ways in which they are like cogs in the wheel of a network of crimes being perpetrated at many levels .  Those who know a criminal offense has been politically motivated  will rarely speak up about the details in any ways which could easily identify the perpetrators and their network of colluders.

When considering there could be, and knowing there will be worse consequences for speaking up, women with a lot to lose prefer to not invite further disaster and trauma, so remain silent.  The harassment and assault that happens to women of all ages, sometimes from childhood, onwards, is not because we are collectively naive, foolish, and inviting.  Far from it. The more trusted the people and institutions that protect those involved in the collusion of accessing the energy of fear, terror, even love that they lust after from new victims  . . . every strong emotion involved that is experienced by victims . . .  the more the damage remains hidden, except to the victims. 

The victims who live with the damage, daily, are often able to successfully rise above the damaging spiritual effects of it - until triggered by something that threatens further damage, and requires  recovery - again.  It is a cycle triggered by abusive words and actions from anyone, especially if anyone is repeatedly abrasive.  And it is true across the board no matter the group being targeted as victims.  Such are the long-lasting effects of criminal actions due to collusion which make undeserved perpetual victims of women because of gender.

Consider an extensive varied network of individuals some of whom function within and are harbored, unknowingly, within huge corporations, the health care industry, universities, domestic governments, and international governments.  Ill intended individuals protected by people who are part of that network can call on like minded individuals within any one of those industries as needed, sometimes all of them, for protection from crimes committed which they have instigated or committed.  Those in collusion do not even have to ask because they know they are protected by their network.  Though it sounds like "organized crime", it is network crime which is less structured, more under the radar, and based on unwritten "standard operating procedure" among those who perpetrate the crimes. There are few words to describe it other than collusion and Machiavellian.

In cases of far-reaching collusion, the big picture is the amazing  lengths people will go to in collusion which is almost always also exploiting, in some way or another also to the people who are actually finagled into doing the criminal deeds often with promises of both protection and opportunities  They are then actually provided both - as rewards for succeeding at perpetrating their assigned crimes.  It is a way men gain entrance into their own notorious old boy networks, though all are not as insidiously criminal.  And by extension the same process applies to the ways in which women gain entry into their less notorious, often more ruthless, old girl networks. 

A friend has drawn attention when commenting on the overlooked complexity of violations that target women, to three types of women, two of which are complicit in enabling the abuse of other women.  It is useful to be able to recognize: 1) the women who are "the willing players", 2) the women who are "the second level enforcers of sexism, misogyny, and harassment", and 3) the women who are "the true victims".   They mirror the same three types of men.  Of course there is a fourth group relatively removed from self-identifying or being identified as any of the three, and as removed from many of the associated problems experienced by those in the three categories.  These are often a large majority of good folks, too many of whom believe that victims have invited their own abuse.

I suggest the possibility that some of the problems targeting women occur somewhat unintentionally when the primarily hedonistic willing players, and the enforcers of sexism, misogyny, and harassment who are both men and women, stray further outside the boundaries of the type of people they are willing to be, to get what they want out of life.  Though they are often the type of people finagled and duped into collusion at the lowest level, that of actually physically committing the crimes, in some cases their personal philandering or their willing cooperation is a matter of miscalculation, instead.  When that is the case and they are not part of a tightly knit web of abusers who are enabling and perpetrating crimes plus providing protection for one another, then the misdeeds of the finagled dupes are more likely to be apprehended.

But many men and women whose actions and intentions put them into category one (the willing players) and two (the second level enforcers of sexism, misogyny, and harassment) are simply intent on victimizing because the networks of collusion that have called on them, who they can call on for protection, are so extensive they know they can get away with their own personal victimizing as well.  Thus the crimes committed against women become more complex to understand, and they unravel in a messy and complex way when it comes to cause.   Silence about any criminal behavior or support of it enables the behavior of the category one and two people without objection, whether their own actions are personal and motivated by animosity or malice, or are due to collusion with those whose agendas they do not fully know. 

I suggest the many of the additional fourth group of people which consists of decent men and women, also suffer from the effects of the problems created by unethical and/or criminal behavior which have resulted in making victims of others, especially folks from within their own ranks. Yet, when they know about the victimization, they remain silent - perhaps to avoid victimization, the same way victims remain silent to try to further avoid victimization of themselves and those about whom they care. 

It is understandable that people remain silent for any number of reasons both those who know of the victimization and those who have been criminally exploited.   It can be self sacrificial to not remain silent.  It is also courageous to not remain silent, whether one names names or more simply names incidents.  Either way, by not remaining silent the courageous bring deserved credibility to the "me too" collective, and for those part of it who may be able to experience justice or healing, or both. The predominate benefit of not remaining silent is that it makes sexual harassment and assault more difficult for those who would be perpetrators of it - be they individuals or in collusion, thus more women will be spared the damaging traumas.

It really is true that the problem lies with good people saying and doing nothing when they know about wrong-doing.  Everyone is initially timid about retribution when having second thoughts about making themselves into potential targets by reporting wrong-doing.  That holds true in the entire range of violations of any type toward anyone, whether it is reporting of violating neighbor noise that interferes with the quiet enjoyment of one's home, or much further afield like the reporting of violations documented by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). 

There is no doubt about the fact that courage is required to be able to speak up when one knows of a problem - as a victim or as a bystander.  Bystanders also include those to whom either the victims or perpetrators may have confided about what happened.  But as a confident, without permission from the victim to speak up, it is additionally difficult to do so.  Violating the confidence of anyone is extremely difficult to do especially when it could have unintended negative consequences to that person, oneself, or others.  A person who tells someone else of a crime, in confidence, knows enough to expect negative consequences about anything that is not kept in confidence, but still trusts that nothing will be said.

What recourse do we all have, other than reporting crimes?  It seems some consider it to be silence within the bigger picture which is associated with a profusion of seemingly insignificant individual incidents in the scheme of all things which happen for no reason.  But at some point when we reconsider the collective nature of the incidents, and the number of individuals involved in enabling them, and how they are all interrelated, it becomes vary clear that the only recourse is to find the courage within oneself to report crimes from whence the negativity originates and spreads like ripples in a pond which are always traced back to those who have been criminally exploited who are then blamed for having been victimized.  The courageous chose to speak up and make a good difference anyway - as it always has been. 

Courage is required to live life to the fullest at the highest level of functional consciousness in the temporal world, so are ethics.  This is a fact of life, untold to many.  Until the principles and ethics of courage are routinely and repeatedly taught to all from a very young age, as a natural inclination that is a character trait all people are expected to knowingly and actively embody and apply as required (and these characteristics are always required). then the problems will continue unchecked as informal networks of ill-intended evil-doers, across large and varied organizations, increase their strength. 

If this sounds like a battle between good and evil, well . . . it is.  Whether or not one views the understanding of good and evil from the perspective of organized religion, it must be understand that the nature of the battle is not limited to a religious perspective.  Contrary to what some folks want to believe, neither specific denominations, branches, schools of any religion, nor organized religions in general, have a franchise on knowing what constitutes good and evil or what, within any given context, constitutes good and evil behavior.  The knowledge, as instinct, is actually innate to the human species.  The battle is between the collective weaknesses and collective strengths of human nature and how each individual applies those, in context, with intent for good or evil outcome. 

Most simply, justice prevails when good wins, sometimes as justice in the here and now through application of law people have agreed to abide by, by virtue of where they live - laws  at every level at which they are formulated and applied from local to international.  Agreed upon laws among people are for the purpose of instructing us in the ways we are all expected to peacefully interact with one another respectfully, and in respectable ways, as religions and philosophies universally encourage, so as not to victimize others in favor of personal greed, the desire for which has the potential to manifest in many negative ways.  A number of laws are formulated primarily to instruct people who have had no other instruction about living life successfully without being totally self-centered and thoughtless in controlling ways to other people. 

Barring the absence of justice in the temporal world in which the injustices have occurred, justice then prevails throughout subsequent life times, in association with karmic debts that accumulate when agreed upon laws are not applied to put an end to injustices and the far-reaching reverberations they perpetrate in the here and now.  Good does prevail and justice is done in favor of everyone - eventually - in one way or another.  We can choose in life whether to be a part of the problem or a part of the solution.  And we do harm to more than ourselves when we do not choose to be a part of the solution.

Considering the big picture, either we fail as a species or we succeed as a species based on humanities collective instinctual understanding that individuals are expected to choose to thrive without victimizing one another.  I dare say that our instinctual understanding and our abilities as a species, together, are at the foundation of what makes us human.  Being fully human to the extent of our capabilities as a species, is a complex many faceted objective consisting of far more variables than we are, collectively, currently addressing. 

Not the least of these variables which benefit the human species, including benefiting posterity in sempiternity*, is in an individual's choice to refrain from violations that would victimize anyone within the parameters of a population's given environment, and the environment's capability of supplying all those who domicile within its confines with the basic necessities which allow for living a healthy life physically, emotionally, and spiritually. 

Humanity as a whole needs to recognize that the choice to not violate others - the right everyone has to not suffer from violation by others - is no longer a choice that applies only to one's own home, tribe, city,  or nation.  It applies to all of humanity who live on our planet . . . and beyond.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*sempiternity - It is a word new to me.  I intended to use "perpetuity", to suggest an endless quality, but it didn't seem to fit properly.  So I actually looked up perpetuity, and listed as a synonym was sempiternity a word with which I was unfamiliar.  However, when looking up sempiternity the definition was more precise saying that sempiternity indicates within time, and contrasted it with eternity which indicates outside of time.  It seemed fortuitous to find a word I had never seen nor heard, previously, which  is precisely the meaning I intended to convey in the context used, given our temporal world exists within the construct of time and that within the construct some things seem endless, even though bounded, eventually by the construct of time within which they exist.  It is a word not used frequently which is worth sharing.

Linus Pauling - a Scientific Hero of the 20th Century and Beyond

Linus  Pauling did not graduate from high school.  Yet his body of work is some of most important of the 20th century.  He was awarded the Nobel Peace prize for his work on the effect the neutron flux and carbon 14 produced by atmospheric atomic testing had on populations.  Previously he had been awarded the Nobel prize in Chemistry.  He is one of the magnificent four who received the Nobel prize twice and remains the only person twice decorated with a Nobel Prize not shared with anyone else.

My father was the parent who was patient about answering questions then suggesting how to learn more when questioning became tedious, or when we reached an impasse due to the limits of his knowledge or the limit of his interest in the topic.   But the most meaningful conversation my mother ever had with me was about Linus Pauling and Vitamin C, in 1954 shortly before I started first grade.  At that time Pauling had recently been awarded  the Nobel prize in Chemistry.  The occasion of this conversation centered on Mom having started to give me an ascorbic acid tablet every morning.  They were so sour!   I couldn't swallow them so she convinced me to chew up the tablet because she said it would prevent me from getting sick - that Linus Pauling's research for which he had earned a Nobel Prize, proved it. 

For some reason this really rang true with me - perhaps because I had just recovered from a cold and didn't want another anytime soon.  But, also, Mother had spoken to my intellect!  So from that time forward I enjoyed chewing up my very sour ascorbic acid tablet each morning.  Mother had succeeded in getting me to do that without corporal punishment because she had connected Linus Pauling's research "about atoms of vitamin C" and how they would keep me healthy, with my recent "discovery" of atoms while listening to a radio program about the discovery of Atoms!  Atoms.  Wow!  The radio program said in ancient Greece atoms were said to be the building blocks of everything, then went on to tell the history of their discovery and structure and composition (at that time).  It was the first time I recall being truly fascinated and energized, at home, about learning.  Only the epiphany of learning to read at school would soon compare. 

I have consistently taken extra vitamin C daily since the day I learned of Linus Pauling.  It would be accurate to say that Linus Pauling was a childhood hero of mine because, to my mind, the work he did as a scientist kept me healthy.   But I really did not know much more about him until 25 years later when an amazing opportunity presented itself to attend his autobiographical lectures, a series of four free lectures open to the public that Linus Pauling presented at a local university in the early 80s.   Clearly his research had actually made him a hero in the field of science - a highly intelligent hero with a humble demeanor.  It was so refreshing to listen to him tell the story of his life's work.  He emphasized how all of his scientific work led back to his original research into the crystal structure of vitamin C!  As far as heroes, childhood and beyond, I realized at that time that I had chosen well.

• Beyond Vitamin C: Linus Pauling's Legacy and Current Research
  The first part of the video is fascinating biographical information.  The second presenter goes into detail about some current orthomolecular research.  (It becomes a bit tedious when he is talking about research with rats.) Approximately an hour.
  
  "The potential health benefits of vitamin C may be Linus Pauling's most famous legacy among the public, but the Oregon State University graduate and two-time Nobel Prize winner is better known among scientists for deep insights into chemistry and its application to medicine. The May 13, 2013 Corvallis Science Pub lecture focused on little-known highlights of Pauling's life and on how scientists are applying his findings today."

• Conversations with History: Linus Pauling
  "In this 1983 interview, Nobel Laureate Linus Pauling joins U.C. Berkeley's Harry Kreisler for a discussion of the role of scientists in the peace movement."
  
  This particular conversation is a discussion of the role of scientists in the peace movement.  It occurred near the time I attended his lectures  in the 80s.  It is interesting to listen to Pauling thoughtfully speaking of his experiences and offering his opinions.  The video provides a lot of good insight into "the cold war" dynamic for those who didn't experience being born into and growing up during the Cold War era.  It would have been so wonderful to have had classes taught by Linus Pauling.  Listening to and  learning from Linus Pauling in the lectures I am grateful to have been able to attend was easy and uplifting - a real joy.  
• Linus Pauling Online Oregon State University Special Collections & Archives Research Center

What! Spelling and Grammar of a "Corporate" Federal Agency?

Today when I read e-mail news from a government agency I became quite aggravated, initially, about a misspelling.  I'm not so bad about misspellings and terrible grammar of other origins, even though when I happen upon them I often envision my 9th grade English teacher shaking her head and reminding us that correct spelling and excellent grammar carry much more weight than we might imagine.  I agree! 

Since elementary school days I have considered both to be the norm.  One day not long after school started I came home from first grade and corrected Mother's grammar.  Big mistake!  She made it very clear to me that she did not appreciate the correction, so it never happened again.   However, correct spelling and good grammar continued to remain important to me which of course was reinforced throughout school years as it was, and I hope still is, for everyone.

Are correct spelling and proper grammar no longer considered to be important?  I am not referring to texting language and abbreviations, or feature articles that include slang, cliches, idioms, or unique phrases used illustratively, when I ask this.  However, I do think we should be able to expect "modern standard English" to be used, not only academically and in textbooks, but also  in newspapers and periodicals, as well as in written material sent around by government agencies.

In question, here, is a 27 October e-mail from National Service News which was sent around by govdelivery.  The subject: Combatting the Opioid Epidemic.   National Service refers to Americorps and Senior Corps.  The links in the e-mail connect to an "official" tumbler blog, not the government website.  

Strike one:  "combatting"!

Additionally, the description of the government agency states:  "The Corporation for National and Community Service is the federal agency that engages more than 5 Million Americans in community-driven services."  

Strikes two and three: "the corporation" and "5"!  

Three strikes and I have became officially aggravated!  I now have pertinent questions and comments. Spelling aside, for the moment, apparently the National Service federal agency is now being referred to as a "corporation".  What!?  The e-mail, blog, and government website all now describe the government agency as a corporation! So, when was it decided, and by whom, to start referring to federal agencies as "corporations"?  Bad enough the postal service is some sort of government/corporate hybrid which interferes, from time to time, with it being accountable.  But if that has also been the fate of the National Service federal agency, then there is a story which needs telling. 

This is no small matter.   We need to be asking how many other government agencies are also now being labeled as corporations.  There are huge differences between corporations and government agencies - especially when it comes to accountability, employment, and budgetary matters which are rightfully of concern to  "we, the people".  In actuality, history has proven countless times that not protecting corporations and government from one another is as destructive as not protecting religion and government from one another.  This IS no small matter.

And of course the grammar issue remains while raising the question of whether it is due to incompetency or a lack of supervision and quality control.  That "combatting" is spelled wrong jumps out at any reader!   And that numbers under 10 need to be spelled, renders the "5" a glaring mistake as well.

Spelling and grammar are the fundamental underpinnings of clear communicating.  As precarious as government has seemed most of the year, it would be a real treat to be able to expect the stability of correct spelling and good grammar from government agencies!  Even moreso* we need an accountable explanation of facts about the rationale of the National and Community Service government agency being referred to as a "corporation".                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*moreso - A grammatical conundrum?  Not necessarily.  Context matters.  There is no precedent to justify "more so" in this context, therefore "moreso" is used.  Admittedly, moreso may be a somewhat archaic term.  For fun, I like to use such terms periodically.  (^_^)

UNM awarded $7 million for integrated behavioral health thrust

28 September 2017

UNM awarded $7 million for integrated behavioral health thrust.  “TREE Center” to optimize interventions statewide

Best of luck to a commendable effort,  but there will be challenges.

“The research team will study how social determinants, including historical trauma, adverse childhood experiences and the combined effects of poverty and discrimination, affect behavioral health, Cacari Stone says.”

Even so it is not always possible to know the spiritual strength that some children have been graced with that enable them to survive the worst of their problems without becoming pathological in some way, themselves.   Statistical labeling based on conjecture can be limiting.  And when children are warned to not talk about what goes on at home, particularly to school counselors because they will get into big trouble at home if they do, then that skews understanding and labeling based on statistics and conjecture.  When people who have experienced these traumas as children are working on the project as adults, their experience and insight is immeasurably useful, but not necessarily universal.

“If the research is successful, it will make a measurable impact in preventing or reducing youth suicide, alcohol and drug misuse, and depression in vulnerable populations, while improving access to behavioral health services.”

It can only be useful when facts are known.  Again, the warnings from home to remain silent loom large.

“It also will provide an opportunity to grow a diverse scientific workforce through training new investigators and building leadership capacity from under-represented minorities, she says.”

The kids who need it most may not talk, even though it might be obvious to adults what they are experiencing.  And trying to encourage them to can make them feel like lab rats because they know the will suffer more at home, in the extended family, and community if they do talk than if they do not . . . at least until they are adults and away from the circumstances.  Even then it may not be possible for some to discuss because some things simply can not be medicated and psyched away, especially when it is the spiritual realm that needs to be addressed and doctored, but not with the typical organized religion approach.

creating good energy

We must move beyond identifying, feeling, and feeding off of the good energy of others in life, into being responsible for creating and manifesting good energy, ourselves.  This is something people must learn and relearn throughout life - every time devastating pain is experienced.  Aaron Doughty is a young man who does an excellent job of schooling us about creating and manifesting good energy in this video "5 Things to Give Up to Raise Your Vibration".  He includes a transcript on the forgiveness section.  And he shares good energy.  

From the mid 70's onward I was awake and learning to take personal responsibility for creating and manifesting good energy in my life, after having lived through a "dark night of the soul" from a crime being committed against me in 1970.  The person responsible for enabling the crime (also enabled by others), additionally, told people I had committed a crime I had not committed and never would have considered committing.  It created a long-term damaging ripple effect, as had been intended.

It would have been lovely to have a video like Doughtry's which has the potential to make such a process easier.  However, there is something to be said for learning to get through the obstructions of "the dark night of the soul" on one's own with very little trustworthy guidance other than one's own faith.  Doing so is certainly an exercise in becoming well acquainted with and learning to love the divine best self through the developing and deepening of personal faith.   The light at the end of the tunnel  is such a welcome relief and it comes in the form of encountering friends at that point who are also at the point of forgiving, healing, and enabling those around them to do the same.  These are the people who also do not have negative control issues, their joys abound, their lights are shining too.  You are all a safe haven for one another.

Manifesting good energy is such a wonderfully divine gift to be given and to be able to joyfully share.  But it can never be taken for granted.   It requires constant maintaining throughout life, and from time to time a lot of intensive labor, in some circumstances, which goes far beyond personal soul searching.

The "monkey wrench in the works" which is not covered in the video (because it is about manifesting GOOD energy in one's own life) is the reality of the influence of difficult "attachments".  Two particular types of attachment can create damaging difficulties, including ill health, because we have to work so hard to stay positive and not deplete ourselves of good energy in doing so:

1. The "difficult" people in the work place, who intentionally create negativity but do not ever change for the better, are impossible to avoid - enough.  It can become  necessary to change jobs to move beyond a constant exhausting struggle against sinking to damaging dysfunctional energy levels.

2. Most difficult can be family members who are not "awake" - yet - and who lean towards being self-destructive if not worse.   Part of the difficulty is that hope springs eternal, particularly when its hope about good outcome for family when there is nothing that can be done without becoming dysfunctional oneself.  It is work each must do for and on oneself.

These difficulties demonstrate the vital need to be able to become financially independent doing work one loves. And that requires some sort of vocational and/or academic education which creates opportunity for that work.

I want to add a little personal insight about forgiving, too, in addition to the treatment of it in the video.  Forgiving for damages done is not always easy.   I have schooled myself with a background knowledge and understanding of many religions, and the process lead to developing faith informed by religions.  I find that what comes to mind regarding the need to forgive is always a Christian verse from Luke 23:34:  "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

I have learned that when I need to forgive, I can not do so until experiencing the grace to first ask for forgiveness for those I must forgive.   Sometimes it happens immediately, sometimes it requires years of work.

Do yourself a favor and give a listen to what Aaron has to say in his uplifting video.

Whatup? 這是怎麼回事？ Quoi de neuf? Что происходит? ¿Qué pasa? كيف حالك؟

Wondering is an energetic process vital to the human
experience of the soul residing in the body, biologic.

Another large earthquake coincides with a hurricane . . . there is sure to be some interesting speculation in the fields associated with these types of events regarding the  repeated intersection of these two types of events.  Earth is going through something, but then we have all known that for a while, haven't we!   That we are all in it together (sort of like Noah's ark) and that we know, but do not know, can boggle the mind!
 
At one point transformation becomes destructive to the limits holding it back. But paradoxically until those limits are reached at critical mass, they are not breached and there is no transition, only a build up of potentially destructive energy. My intent is not to be cryptic, however speculating about the unseen but known of, always seems a bit cryptic. 

Some one posted the graphic, above, on Facebook the other day.   It brought to mind the difficulties I have had from time to time with some people being convinced I am off the deep because they wanted to consider that what I have to contribute to the discussion from my own perspective, is irrelevant.  That happens to everyone, periodically, often rudely, to some more than others. This little gem of a graphic sort of clarified that issue for me.  I could easily say that the problem is we are not from the same tribe - meaning that the way we approach understanding of life on this planet seems too divergent to want to make sense of the others perspective.  But that is the easy way out which is no way out at all because it superimposes unnecessary limits of understanding on everyone. 

I have long approached learning about and understanding the world around us in terms of how energy behaves. With some folks its biology, with others its the whole spectrum of the human experience. With me it is energy (physics) which I find fascinating and which  leads the way to better understanding of the world around us. 

Of course none of us learn from only one perspective.  When our perspectives intersect in whatever combinations they are unique to each of us, is when it gets interesting!  However, without making an effort to understand the unique combinations that are others perspectives, some only want to denigrate and defame other people simply because they arrived at similar conclusions via different paths.  The problem is in how we view the different paths others are following which in some ways differ culturally, perhaps because of different religions, nationalities, levels of education, career fields, ages, native languages, or more generally the combination of each persons varied life experiences. 

The cultural differences that some allow themselves to be uncomfortable or alarmed about, can be and are stereotyped in both negative and positive ways. Whatever it is that causes caution with respect to presupposing disagreement, is probably associated with a lack of familiarity of cultural differences which apparently creates trepidation about the possibility of what another might say.  Perhaps the caution is about not wanting to react to someone "different" in a way that might offend or be misunderstood.  Or, perhaps the individual with trepidation is, more simply, a bigot through and through but would prefer to not advertise the fact by over reacting to someone he or she labels as less than equal to themselves.  That certainly throws a monkey wrench into any works - and  is outside the scope of coverage of this topic!

So!  There are a few things to think about and rise above when interests coincide among folks with differing perspectives from which they have come to understood the same subjects.   Because, so many are so sure and so quick to point out that their understanding is better or best - as if comprehensive understanding is an either or thing, with only one right answer, and they have it, but it must be jealously guarded from anyone else being given credit for it!   However, in reality, sharing what is known from a variety of perspectives of understanding is the only way to combine the necessary details that lead to comprehensive understanding - to the critical mass of  understanding necessary for breaching any brick wall associated with any topic which is an obstruction to everyone in reaching the answers, enlightenment, and transformations that we all seek.

So . . .  I get it now.  I understand that  I am enamored of energy!   Nope, I haven't taken leave of my senses, don't have a screw loose,  am not certifiable.  Energy!  It is that invisible seemingly formless "stuff" the universe is so full of which pops into and out of elusive particles.  Sometimes it merges into something detectable, if only briefly, then eventually some of it coalesces into complex forms that eventually coalesce further and become galaxies full of solar systems.

Consider, for instance, the first microbes on earth. What spectacularly unique energetic process happened that resulted in life on earth . . . or did life originate out there in the great beyond before reaching earth?  Somewhere, at a specific moment, there was an energetic processes, as cause, that became the effect of life.  Biologists identify life in terms of biological processes. But I want to know how the process can be described in terms of energy's behavior!  I want to know this about everything - any process, not only life. 

I get it now, that all those other folks enamored of energy are my people, my tribe.  And anyone who does not like that can take their picnic short of a few sandwiches  somewhere else!  Or, stay because everyone's picnic is short of something which someone else brought extra of to share.   We all benefit from sharing thoughts with one another after having followed  different paths which have lead to arriving at the same place of wondering.  We each have our own worthwhile insights to contribute to a variety of subjects.

Wondering is an energetic process in which we all engage.  It is vital to the human experience of the soul while residing in the body, biologic.

Why Are Identity Theft Efforts Being Allowed to Continue

How many have become intolerant of the same repeated trash being dumped into their lives through a series of unreasonable facsimile identities being superimposed, replete with accompanying assumptions, conjectures, and accusations which bear little or no resemblance to anything one has said or done?  If so raise your hands high; raise your voices long and loud. 

Do the on-going identity theft efforts responsible for the problems ever stop? They could, IF the people creating the problems were to be apprehended.

This time mailboxes have also been broken into, not only in the neighborhood, but throughout the area, even throughout the entire city on an ongoing basis according to the post office.  And of course mail was stolen.  Where I live the days of the postal carrier bringing mail to the door are long gone - well, more precisely they never started.  However it is not that way everywhere in the city.   The locked neighborhood mailboxes in this area each serve approximately 12 households.  The problem is that they have always been seen as an invitation to be broken into by the criminally inclined. 

The post office has installed new boxes but has not yet issued keys after two weeks time.  Nor were people notified of what had happened, nor were we told we could pick up mail at the post office, nor were we told our keys would not work and that new keys would be issued . . . . but not in the foreseeable future.  Nor are phone numbers to the branches readily available.  Only packages are being delivered.  I learned all of this when I managed to catch the mail carrier who had delivered a box to my door, before he got away!  Talking to him gave rise to my sympathy, actually, due to his "deer in the headlights" look. Very clearly I was only one of many who had managed to catch him to ask about the problem, before he made good his get-away after leaving a package at the doorstep!

Sure, I had tried to call the local branch when I found the mailbox vandalized.  However, The same 800 number is given for all branches, nationwide, and anyone calling it ends up connecting with a call center in the region of India.  A call back is offered, but it requires listening to several menus and responding to choices that do not cover the reason one is calling.  Pushing 0, to cut to the chase and connect with a person too early in the process, before recitation of all the menus, does not work.  Instead, it requires starting over and listening to several menus before 0 actually does work!  And the call back?  Expect it between 35 and 55 minutes.  I got mine at the 40 minute mark from a young woman with an East Indian accent who provided a bogus number for my USPS branch.  Called it and it was a non-functional line.   Nice feature, the USPS callback -  but an untrustworthy useless time waste.

Because the community mailboxes serve the purpose of inviting crime, it would be less costly for USPS to do house to house delivery.  Thankfully, in our neighborhood there is little or no likelihood of dogs running loose to interfere with mail delivery.  So why not door to door?  The post office says vandalism of the boxes and theft of the mail are running rampant yet remain unchecked, without the city, county, or state doing anything about it.  But mail theft is only one aspect of the many problems associated with identity theft attempts.  

There is also a relentless, pervasive vicious electronic effort.  Only the NSA used to have the equipment and skill available for easily reaching into people's lives, invasively, with electronic surveillance.  These days the smart t.v. you watch is smart enough to be watching you!  And anyone so inclined can learn to easily and illegally access and monitor the information of other people through use of their own electronics, like phones and computers, which can be used to access entire home networks through the phones and computers of other people - an identity thief's paradise.  Do not even let me get started about the overwhelming quantity of scam phone calls which the dysfunctional government do-not-call list no longer stops!   If you answer and speak, scam callers record your voice to try to use for their identity theft attempts.

Clearly there is a need for law-abiding skilled investigators, with ethics and people skills, to deal with the problems of identity theft efforts.  Stopping the culprits before they succeed at doing more damage to more people has become mandatory.  Are those investigators who are on the job lacking in skill, or ethics, or are they themselves not law abiding?  Or is it a combination of any or all of these problems?  Or, something else too.

Years of getting it wrong, after extraordinarily long periods of time spent "investigating" the same problems, and the same people, repeatedly, are an indicator of 1) the investigators having been misdirected and/or 2) a need for competent investigators. Repeated investigating for endless periods of time result in what folks targeted by identity theft experience as unwarranted additional invasiveness and harassment.

Reasonable people have to wonder if both the identity theft efforts and/or the investigative  problems that do not get to the origin, stem from application of activities allowed by the patriot act, which so many have forgotten remains in effect.  It was intended to root out terrorism by making increased invasive surveillance of citizens easier, like obtaining of personal information without a judge's approval,"sneak and peek" searches not revealed until "later" whenever "later" might be.  It also enables indefinite detentions of immigrants.   There have been portions removed, reinstated, or reinstated under a different name.  The Department of Justice presentation soft peddles what it actually does that is objectionable: The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) and some portions are questioned by many as being unconstitutional.  The ACLU is more direct about it: Surveillance Under the Patriot Act.  It says terrorist activities discovered by it's use are between 0 and 1 percent.  The Wikipedia entry provides more details than either the ACLU or DOJ websites.   Oh, how Herbert Hoover would have loved the Patriot Act!

When investigation after investigation of identity theft, ad nauseum and seemingly ad infinitum,  repeatedly goes down the wrong path with no results, then clearly there is a misdirection problem. And clearly the misdirection originates with those who intend to benefit from being an obstacle to the investigations.

The amount and extent of repeated apparent misguided investigative efforts of identity theft, together with investigative incompetency, have become astounding.  Because of the breadth and depth of ongoing efforts that never get to the sources of the problem, could part of the problem be that they are government directed cases apparently motivated by someone, somewhere, wanting to blame crimes on people who bear no responsibility for them, thus endless surveillance occurs rather than getting to the bottom of the actual identity thieving?  Is part of the problem surveillance by governments of other nations?  Are identity theft efforts being carried out by citizens or residents of other nations which make investigating them more complex?  Because the problem of identity theft is so resistant to solution, these are all questions that need to be asked about variables that could muddy the waters and make investigating identity theft problems more difficult to trace to the source. 

Identity theft is much more ill-intended pervasive and dangerous than merely trying to get access to the bank accounts of other people. Bottom line, the many facets of long-term investigations are all experienced as ongoing harassing invasiveness by people whose lives are repeatedly being targeted for months, sometimes years at a time by identity theft and investigation of identity theft.  Clearly there are prevarications somewhere in the investigative processes which lead to problematic investigations.  They throw the proverbial monkey wrench into the works.   Prevaricating can not be allowed to continue to do ill-intended damage. The sources of it must be identified so an end can be put to the crimes, attempted crimes, and lengthy unproductive investigations.

being #42

A Facebook friend posted a graphic of the results of one of those fun little quizzes that are so prevalent on FB.  But the result of the "Who Secretly Loves You" quiz was mean!  Her photo and first name were displayed along with the statement "Sadly, no one loves you."  Of course she was unfazed and undaunted by the result.  It is, after all, entertainment.  Someone else commented about doing the quiz also, with the same results - often the outcome of any quizzes - along the lines of the assigning of a "guilt by association peer group" 😎.

But what was the point of a mean result?  Maybe to draw attention to the quizzes?  The quizzes are intended to be mindlessly entertaining fun, aren't they?  Even so, the results are not usually mean.  So what was supposedly entertaining about that one?  The result does not refer to any particular type of "love", like romantic, caritas, friendship, parental, universal . . . ad infinitum . . . but that particular quiz is not the point of this comment.

There is also a post going around about something that has been on my mind, of late, associated with the abuse of the field of psychology, particularly by advertisers - but in actuality  anyone trying to sell something, including selling an ideology like the efforts of religious and political ideologists who are extreme zealots and want to forcefully superimpose their views onto others.  (There is rarely a fine line between sharing information about the battles we choose, and trying to "convert" others to embrace our views.  When we know other folks have not done their own research and drawn their own conclusions about an issue, it is foolish to want to "convert" anyone who has no reason for considering an issue to be one of personal interest.  But that is an issue beyond the scope of this comment.)  The post going around in the paper and online is speculation about the motivation behind these harmless seeming entertaining little FB quizzes.  Essentially, the article and video concluded what we already know, that these little quizzes are not necessarily intended to be as entertaining and harmless as they may seem to be, because: 

1) we give - access to our feed and our contacts and whatever personal information the makers of the quizzes can glean in their efforts to manufacture profiles, by conjecture, about us and our contacts;

2) we provide - those who create the quizzes with information about ourselves which they use to extrapolate what is then sold as a lot of psychological profiles based on their quizzes; quizzes which use transparently classic psychology models to label and categorize people; models that supposedly dig into the subconscious in an effort to use what is hoped will be discovered as subconscious weaknesses in people to be exploited (as if folks do not routinely do their own digging into the subconscious to the extent of having mastered control over it, while continuing to toss out whatever trash is found upon further reality check self-inspections);

3) we help - the quiz makers fulfill their profit-making purposes via their labeling and categorizing of people to create profiles they sell to advertisers . . .  or anyone else who is buying (e.g. political parties, religious organizations, governments -foreign and domestic, maniacal despots, you name it . . .  😎 );

4) we get - huge amounts of spam e-mail and scam phone calls because the access to information about us and our contacts has been sold.  

Even so, sometimes the quizzes are fun - sometimes!  My own life has been an open book for decades (of course not by choice - it felt extremely invasive at first because it was ) but I know when doing a quiz that I am not revealing anything about myself that is "secret" or "hidden" from myself. (Yes, I actually know myself better than anyone else does, and have since pre-teen days many decades ago.)  Although, clearly there is much about me, and everyone else being entertained by the quizzes, that is apparently hidden from those who write the quizzes, and do the profiling to sell to all bidders.  Their profiling is based on a combination of what we self-identify through answers to quiz questions, and whatever other information that taking the quiz has provided permission for them to glean from our feeds, likes, comments, and contacts.  The profiling also aims to establish the old favorite "guilt by association" as part of the profile being sold.  This is nothing unusual.  Cell phone apps do all the same profiling and selling.  When we use them our privacy is non-existent, although any type of over-the-air access renders privacy compromised, anyway - another topic beyond the current scope of this one.

But why make it easy for those whose intent is certainly not selfless, nor as harmless as we might want to assume, even if it is momentarily entertains us?  I usually delete the quiz website from my FB Apps section after doing one - more precisely after starting or finishing one because I start more quizzes than I finish.  Usually I do not choose to finish a quiz after a question or two is presented of limited choices I would not make, for example a group of garish irritating colors being offered among which one is asked to choose the most "appealing", or only subjective choices that skate over the edge of being ethical  with there being no choices resembling ones I might consider making. 

I figure if the people who create the quizzes want to categorize others for their purposes (profit-making from information mining) then if they are not willing to try to do it with at least minimal accuracy, I'm outta there after the second question which offers no acceptable responses!  Hasta la vista baby . . .  I'm gettin' outta Dodge . . . .  😎.

So!  Who is #42?  And what does #42 have to do with Facebook quizzes?  Well, he is a bold little critter with moxie who needs to be set free from being a captive rat in a maze, literally, and provided with a forever home as a pet, imho.  (Click on the caption below for #42's story.)

"Asshole Lab Rat Really Screwing With Scientific Study"

I like #42's approach to being a lab rat which demonstrates a well-known quantum mechanics phenomenon, an observer effect which means the creation of "opportunities" to observe changes the outcome of what occurs - sort of like when we have fun doing the little psych test quizzes. 

The take away?  If you want to know about someone, ask that someone directly.  Don't skulk around sleuthing and trying to make lab rats of people for profit, by employing transparent psychological testing and asking everyone else under the sun, except the person of interest - as if that person does not know or would not be honest about self.  Most people know best about themselves, I know I do.  And  most people, including myself, have no interest in misrepresenting themselves, even less in being misrepresented by others.

So, I leave you now, smiling and thinking about which fun little quiz to take next.  Hmm . . . . maybe one about past lives - if the questions provide good choices.  Past life quiz results are always so interesting . . .

To be Silent or to be Irritating . . . that is the Question

"To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?" 
Hamlet, Act III, Scene I

It is an age-old concern.

I, for one, am tired of being cheated then being forgiving and silent about it whether or not individual problems are resolved.   My old policy was to give only good credit where good credit is due. My new policy is to also give negative credit when and where it is due - publicly - whether or not the problem is satisfactorily resolved.

Dishonesty and cheating are an increasingly much larger problem at many levels.  They have filtered down, increasingly, to the personal level as well.  If we do not disclose the dishonesty and cheating of organizations (e.g. businesses, non-profits,  government) when they choose dishonesty, then our silence is the same as acceptance and encouragement.  It does not require much silent "encouragement" for deceit to run rampant in any organization, to the point that it becomes wide-spread corruption the enabling of which is often found to be dependent entirely upon unwritten s.o.p. for the purpose of deniability.

In addition to the fact that the internet makes it easier to call out unethical practices so that more instances are known by more people, there is also an increasing problem that has lead to more corruption, everywhere, partly because folks who can afford to be cheated find it more convenient to pay a few cents, or dollars, or hundreds or thousands of dollars more . . . rather than to take the time and make the effort to quibble about it.   For example, everyone has experienced the ongoing strategy of prices increasing, while amount and quality of products and services decrease.  Why is that?   How about because customers are too busy to quibble about a few ounces or shoddy service; or because something is less expensively and more easily tossed or replaced than exchanged or repaired even if on warranty. 

The strategy of price gouging is used repeatedly, consistently, and successfully because those using it are profiting at the expense of everyone when some can afford the convenience of ignoring the problems, which leads to the convenience of choosing to pay a little more to avoid prolonged time-consuming bickering about issues associated with unnecessary price increases and decreases in quantity and quality.  But "a little more" is highly relative.  "A little more" in every aspect of one's life slowly creeps into everyone's reality and adds up to eventually become an overwhelming amount in the lives of many folks.  Look at the history of increasing health care costs for an overwhelming example of that which affects almost everyone more than it should and destroys the economic responsibility, in terms of personal accountability, of too many people.

Cheating by businesses and employees at all levels of government occurs - across the board - increasingly.  If we do not call-out the various small problems of dishonesty, manipulative misleading, and cheating when it is more trouble than it seems worth to bicker about it, then it is considered to be silent approval by those engaging in the wrong-doing.  Then it encourages the belief in businesses and those who are paid to be "public servants" and to have the constituencies best interests in mind, that the entire public and/or constituency is ignorant, easily fooled, and mislead.  In fact, that belief becomes actuality when we do not all speak up about being wronged every time we are wronged, including when the wrong is righted and the outcome is as it should be.  It is tempting to assume that because the majority of people are parents these things are understood.  Is it possible that many folks really are so naive as to not understand that the longer adults are allowed get away with believing they are empowered to behave like naughty misguided children, the longer they will behave like naughty misguided children - some at the two year old level, some at the permanent adolescent level or anywhere in between?

It is a fact there is a lot of public grousing for good reason, and also a fact that people really get tired of rampant complaining.  Many people tire of their own complaints before anyone else does which results in some amount of self-limiting.  Even though complaining and the complaints of others can be tedious, they can also be encouraging because it demonstrates that people are refusing to remain silent about wrong-doing.  There is not always a fine-line between incessant pressure-releasing dumping or over the top criticism, and the effort to warn other folks to be careful for specific reasons by pointing out dishonesty and cheating (whether diplomatically or not) after it occurs and while doing one's part to stop it. How one says what is said and the spirit in which it is said, makes a difference in that respect.

It has become a matter of necessity that we must overcome the dishonesty and corruption all together, or experience increasing erosion of all that is good in life as it continues.  We all need to find our own most effective ways to do so with the minimum amount of annoyance to others.  Being irritating can not be completely eliminated, but it can be minimized.

I, for one, am going to continue to warn others about deceit which I personally experience, and know has occurred in businesses and government, as I hope others also choose to do - all of us in the least annoying ways possible to ourselves and other folks (except the offenders).  We have to depend on one another to do so or the few squeaky wheels set themselves up to be mercilessly harassed.  "Speaking truth to power" is how some refer to it - a catchy slogan and the point of it is understandable. However, I simply do not like equating deceit with power because I do not consider those who deceive to have actual "power" regardless of all the trouble, death, and destruction that is the  intentional result of deceit.  Wrong-doers only have power when we give it to them by being silent and allowing them get away with wrong-doing.

Unless one is very affluent, remaining silent about deceit will eventually overwhelm all aspects of  life.  The least affluent among us suffer first, most, and longest because of it.  But in reality it also  eventually catches up to the very affluent too who take longer to  understand the problems when they are people of integrity who are not causing the problems.  Ultimately, none of us has it better than our least common denominator - the most disadvantaged folks who need the most assistance because of equitable opportunity having been withheld.  Not everyone who is disadvantaged makes bad choices and engages in self-destructive behavior.  But those who do, especially when turning to crime, lower the bar of the least common denominator for all.  It is a far-reaching societal issue that is a symptom of a lack of adequate and appropriate foresight in our nation's elected and appointed leadership, along with their collective disregard for the welfare of others - including posterity.  Such attitudes eventually permeate entire populations when a nation's leaders, collectively, refuse to transcend greedy self-interest instead of doing their best to make choices that provide equitable quality of life for all.

We all need to do our best to offer warnings , as deserved, about what is dishonest rather than to complain, argue, obfuscate, and refuse obnoxiously to communicate about what we don't like because it might not, or does not happen according to the way we prefer - an attitude that creates "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" which eventually causes everyone to suffer.  No one has a franchise on knowing best about everything all the time.  No one.  I call b.s. on anyone who stifles civil communication and/or refuses to civilly communicate because of believing otherwise.   Do you?

Followup about the Response to Rabbi David Godis' Article

This is an addendum to the article which can be found in the archive, at left, of 26 February 2016, entitled "Major American Jewish Leader Changes His Mind about Israel".

Although Rabbi David M. Gordis is a highly respected person within any American community, that hasn't stopped the ideological political zionists from, in their own words, dumping "disingenuous gobbledygook" on him because of his article.  I can't say how much BS was dumped on him because of it, but I will comment, here, on one article as an example, and provide a link to it.

There is a 15 July 2016 article online entitled "Israel and American Liberal Jewry: The Real Reasons for the Rift" by Martin Sherman.  The ludicrous comments would almost be funny if they weren't intended to be so denigrating.. 

Approximately a third of the way into the article after bemoaning who he tells us are the  miguided Jewish youth of America, he gets to work on "perverse" Godis with this bit of whimsy:

"[. . .] the moronic — and often self-contradictory — lament by David Gordis [. . .] as to Israel’s alleged moral degradation [. . .]"

Then under the heading of "Totally detached from fact & reason" we find another zionist lump of coal: [Any use by me of the singualr term "zionism" on my part refers to the stategic movement that is ideological political zionism.] 
"[. . .] Gordis then goes on to elaborate on his abstruse indictment of Israel today  [. . .]"

Next, an even more illustrative zionist lump of coal:
"[. . .]  Then in a wild diatribe, totally divorced from any semblance of reality, he blares: [. . .]"

Next: 
"[. . .] This is merely a small sampling of how intellectually dishonest the derogatory drivel of Israel’s “liberal” detractors has become. [. . .]"

And another
"[. . .] This narcissistic hypocrisy was aptly exposed in a perceptive piece in a Washington Post blog by David Bernstein, professor of Law at George Mason University. [. . .]"
Sherman then he goes on to quote Bernstein who falsely suggests Israeli Arabs are living the good life.  That may be true compared to their brothers and sisters in occupied Palestinian Territoty (oPT), but it is not true compared to Jewish Israelis.

Then we get to the heading "Beneath the disingenuous gobbledygook" where he finally comments about Israel occupying Palestinian Territories, where he wants to firmly trounce "disenchanted 'liberal' Jews" who denigrate Israel because of "Israel's interaction with the Palestinian-Arabs across the pre-1967 Green line (a.k.a. the 'Occupation')"

"Interaction"? And he isn't joking.  Please. Not wanting to call the occupation what it is, an occupation, does not make Israel's "interaction" with Palestinians in oPT (like instances of genocide in Gaza) any less criminal.  But of course his purpose is to criticize Gordis' for speaking the mild truth he did speak, which did not include comments about the Gaza genocides.

Then Sherman moves on another flight of fancy with:
"[. . .] wildly irrational in terms of its internal logic [. . .]"

Another doozy from Sherman "[. . .] unswerving doctrinaire zeal “liberals” cling to the perilous prescription of touting tyranny  [. . .]" as his article segways into seemingly putting Godis in the position of carrying the banner for the parade of "American Jewish liberals" he repeated trots out to criticize, without identifying any by name, of course - other than to suggest they are American Jewish youth.

And of course he would be remiss if he didn't trots out this one: 
"[. . .] But if US 'liberal' Jews frown upon the coercive measures that Israel is compelled to use against the Palestinian-Arabs, were they to apply the same criteria to their own country, they would have good reason to feel even more disenchanted.  [. . .]" which is the launching into  of a verbal attack on U.S. - for doing Israel's evil in the region (without saying as much, of course), as if he doesn't know that a the reality of the zionist problem the American Jews he finds faults with, actually recognize.

Then under the heading of "Expose and inform", as he nears the end, he shows us that he wants to keep his credibility as an ideological political zionist, by trotting  out the obligatory poor Israel card which he does with this passage: 
"[. . .] Sadly, Israel has done inexcusably little to harness the facts to rebuff the attacks on its democratic credentials and has allowed imperative coercive actions to ensure the security of its civilians against an implacable foe, to be portrayed as racist brutality. [. . .]"

Who can not refrain from a brief chuckle at the foolish, predictable irony of his infuriating words that lose touch with reality?  Of course, there is not only "little" done by Israel, but absolutely nothing Israel can credibly say or do to make its actions any less "brutally racist" against it's unarmed "implacable foe" which repeatedly results in Israel's  "imperative coercive actions" primarily in the form of attacks on the most vulnerable - the women and children, and very young children, who Israel allows settlers and soldiers to harass, hurt, maim, and kill, jail and torture, all in the name of its lawless alleged "democracy", and "security".

Then in conclusion Sherman, too, criticizes Israel - by saying Israel does not fulfill its "obligation to aid pro-Israel advocacy on university campuses".   Well let's hope that trend continues.  It is likely too because some University campuses have become more astute about identifying blatant bigotry than they once were, after their students made an issue of the actuality of Israel's shenanigans being bigoted, lawless, murder (including by American citizens who are also Israelis living in illegal settlements in oPT - a can of worms most avoid with a 10 foot pole, but shouldn't).  Thus University campuses are no longer as tolerant of the prevaricated, twisted-truth hasbara pro-Israel advocates want to spout on their campuses in efforts to justify  Israel's criminality. 

So, needless to say, there have been unpleastant reverberations from the ideological political zionists in the form of vicious efforts to give Gordis grief because he had the courage to mildly, I repeat "mildly", point out the problem of the Israeli government's ideology of political zionism even though he didn't label it as such.  I hope do those who have cheered on David Gordis' change of mind and heart about Israel's criminal duplicitous ways have chosen to be there for him as his support system to fend off the zionist BS.

The Matter of "Territorial Imperative"

"MEANWHILE : Does Territoriality Drive Human Aggression?"  The question is the title of a 14 April 1999 article by Steven Levingston (@SteveLevingston) and International Herald Tribune (the genealogy, DNA, evolution of IHT), posted online at the New York Times opinion page.   It is worth reading,, currently, because it addresses an always pertinent issue.

Anyone who has a problem understanding the current pertinence might try substituting, "Syria" (or Iraq, or Palestine) for "Kosovo", and substituting "the M.E." region for "the Balkans".  Or "Sudan" (or Rwanda) and the region of "East Africa" could be substituted; or Viet-Nam (or Korea) and "SE Asia"; "Afghanistan" and "NW Asia"; "Germany" and "Europe";  . . . the list goes on.  Most are sure to find at least one conflict of familiarity to substitute, if necessary, because of it having occurred during a time of paying attention to the interrelated global complexities of the causes and effects of armed conflicts.

But, first consider if there is an answer to the question "does territoriality drive human aggression".   I think we can consider it to be an easy and simple answer - that being "yes". 

Does anyone really imagine that territoriality does not still drive human aggression?  Unfortunately, there is paltry evidence to suggest otherwise.  Co-existing peacefully by sharing space and resources, equitably (repeat - EQUITABLY), remains the lesson to be learned by our species.  Many species of animals have clearly learned the lesson but, demonstrably, the human species has not.

When herds of the human species want to increase the contiguous extent of their territory, with the intent of increasing the space and resources which they control, they do so with the intent of subjugating or annihilating the inhabitants.  The lawlessness of refusing to respect the rights of others as much as our own rights, is visible at all levels from local bullying to global conflict.  

Clearly, human herds have yet to learn how to co-exist equitably and peacefully.  However, it is not as if human herds are unaware of how to do so.  Instead, simply put, it is a matter of a willful disregard for other herds (including non-human species) which embraces the intent of either subjugating them, as the "merciful" option no matter the extent of it's cruelty, or annihilating them through short-term genocides (most often deadly armed attacks of many types), and/or long-term genocides which in addition to short-term instances of genocide also embrace a larger variety of slower means to the same end. (often many forms of health-eroding deprivation and/or pollution).

Demonstrably, many of the human herds find it to their advantage to "divide and conquer" by fomenting unrest as a way of encouraging resident herds to annihilate one another.   Then they swoop in to make the territory their own by subjugation and/or annihilation of it's remaining inhabitants.  Of course when resident herds call on other herds from outside their regions, it complicates matters by making acquisition more of a gamble for the herd wanting to expand control of adjacent territory.  It creates a paradox which, over time, could potentially result in a much larger prize of more territory , or, instead, a potential loss of much more than the territory of immediate interest. 

Acquiring territory is always a very high-stakes gamble.   Gambling is another weakness of human herds which seem unsatisfied with enough, or in mathematical terms with being "equal to".  Instead they want "more than" solely for the purpose of personal exploitation intended to result in wealth by control of, and limiting of other herds' access to resources.  Clearly,  co-existing peacefully by sharing spaces and resources, equitably, without doing so because of either subjugation or annihilation, remains the lesson our entire human species still needs to demonstrate has been learned and is being successfully applied.

Regardless of the claims of some human herds who believe they are civilized and/or religiously motivated in their subjugating and annihilating endeavors, subjugation and annihilation  are neither civilized, nor religious in the sense of being spiritually enlightened and evolved.  Neither subjugating nor annihilating is the way to demonstrate that the lesson has been learned of co-existing peacefully by equitably sharing space and resources, regardless of any justification used as an excuse for using them as the means to a desired end.

The passage of time, in terms of millennia, in which the same problems continue occurring, seemingly indicates there are resistant problems that plague our species.  Consider those of our species who demand recognition as leaders for the purpose of acquiring the power of decision making for other individuals, collectively.  They do not take a turn serving for the purpose of fostering peaceful coexistence between and among herds but, instead, compete viciously to further the goals of their own personal greed at the expense of whatever human herds they believe they can succeed at scapegoating.  Greed - that problem, alone, indicates our species has a resistance to learning anything that interferes with the addiction to greed.  As such, the human species does not seem to be nearly as intelligent as it likes to imagine it is.

Additionally, leaders in government whose self-interest is their over-riding reason for being recognized as leaders, along with their appointed side-kicks, and the elected leaders who are tasked to represent constituent needs, are all often given too much power as leaders.  Too many are willing to give up their own power of personal decision-making, as individuals and as members of their herds even when, as individuals, we are all recognized by agreed upon law as being empowered to provide input which must be considered in the decision making processes at all levels of government.  Simply put, our laws entitle us to contribute our opinions to government decision-making but too many of us don't do it.  Not accepting the right and responsibility of self-governing by contributing to decision-making - that problem, alone, indicates a resistance to learning why free-will is acknowledged as empowering individuals to contribute to collective decision making.  As such, the human species does not seem to be nearly as intelligent as it likes to imagine it is. 

The article reminds us there is much work for everyone to do when it comes to the as yet unsolved problem of territorial imperative.  Once more, if there is a problem understanding the current pertinence of the 1999 article, then simply substitute a conflict and region of familiarity.  Because, the foundational problem is simply a matter of the same repetitive problems of unfettered human weaknesses often motivated by greed coupled with the weakness of clinging to sacred ignorance, which are occurring within the same region - our home our planet - throughout the decades, centuries, and millennia during which time the various herds of our species have had ample opportunity to truly thrive by learning to co-exist together, equitably.  What does it say about collective human intelligence when, after untold millennia, human herds continue to fail in that respect?