The Danger of The Cult of Personality

Richard M. Nixon was president when I was a senior in high school and resigned when I was a freshman in college.  He is the only president who has resigned.  It made for a very interesting era.

At 17, I was not much into politics.  I hadn't even cast my first political vote.  But, I hated this man. Absolutely. Totally.  Just despised him. If you had asked my 17 year old self who knew everything there is to know about the world, I wouldn't have been able to articulate my reasons.  The truth is, I hated him because everyone else I knew hated him and without understanding Group Think, I too, hated the guy. I grew up in Maryland which is historically Democrat in its politics and no one in Maryland liked him simply because he was a Republican!

                                      

Now as an adult, I understand that he wasn't a totally bad president.  He started the end to the Viet Nam war which should have gained him sainthood status from all of us young people. And, he was the President who began discussions and relations with China that has shaped world policy since. If I knew more about politics, I'd be able to tell you what other things he did well. But, I can't. Just like millions of other Americans who couldn't warm up to his cool, peculiar and distancing demeanor, we just hated him because.

Then along come these two beat reporters from the Washington Post who dug deep and ferreted out the story of a lifetime. Theirs is the story that brought down Nixon's White House around his ears. It's a complicated story as things like this are and too Machiavellian for me to explain in this blog. Essentially, it was all about how Nixon's senior staff and he decided to bug the Democratic National Committee headquartered in the iconic Watergate Building.

Woodstein, as they became known, caught this break of a lifetime because of their unnamed source, known far and wide as Deep Throat.  A Washington insider, this man (whose identity was a closely kept secret for over 30 years eventually revealed to be Mark Felt, the Assistant Director of the FBI,) gave them the info because Washington Elite were incensed that the Republicans would stoop so low as to break the law spying on and wiretapping the opposition party.

The resulting book of the entire affair, All The President's Men became required reading. It was all anyone talked about. And it launched thousands and thousands of students into journalism majors because of the unprecedented event and the Media's power to reveal the truth.  Bernstein and Woodward changed journalism and for a long time, we were better off because we had reporters and editors who understand that a free society must have a Media who is non-partisan and continues to day-light the truth. As a Mass Communication Major, I sat through countless hours in class discussing ethics, truth, these two reporters but with very little frame of reference to the political story. If you've never read it, maybe you should. It's thick and filled with things that I don't understand even to this day but it sure is fascinating the way watching an accident on the road is compelling!

At the start of Nixon's second term, he resigned. Seven top staffers were indicted and served jail time for their actions. Since Nixon's VP, Spiro Agnew (a Maryland Governor,) resigned prior because of fraud and tax evasion, that left Gerald Ford as the next President. Poor guy. I remember him as being nice, bumbling, and basically ineffectual. Again, I could be wrong because I was young and what did I really know? However, I clearly remember the celebratory feelings around that resignation. And just like that, a United States President became Personae Non Gratae.

Now years later, Donald J. Trump is the President. Elected despite what the best political pundits and Media reported and predicted. And, just like Nixon, he is despised by thousands and being protested at every turn. He too, is a Republican. His personality is bombastic and large. It makes him difficult to like and warm up to. He's been in office less than 100 days and daily the coverage is about what he's not done, what he's not been able to accomplish. The news is filled with political infighting, not just between the Dems and Repubs which one expects, but even within the Republican Party itself. While the Dems flat-out admit like it's a good thing, that they plan to oppose him on every thing.

How bad is it? Let me put it this way- if Trump walked on water in front of everyone, I'm afraid the media headlines would be, "Donald Trump Fails To Swim!!!"

Full disclosure, I voted for the man. For the soul purpose of not allowing Hillary Clinton to gain the seat in the Oval. Do I love the man? Not at all. Do I think he is the candidate of my lifetime? Only in how bizarre it all is that he's even the President in the first place.

But now as an adult, and a person who follows politics much closer, what concerns me is not the President so much as our reactions to this President. I am very concerned about the Cult of Personality that seems to be the driving force behind news coverage and our behavior.

Are we so shallow that we only want political leaders whose personality we like? Can the person only be considered a winner if they make us feel all warm and fuzzy? Seriously? Would you choose a surgeon that way? If I were to tell you that the only surgeon who could possibly save your life had the bedside manner of Attila The Hun, would you pass because you didn't like him? My suspicions are that you wouldn't.

So why would you hate the President because you just can't stand his personality? Why would you crow with glee when everything he and his staff attempt to do is thwarted by politics? Why would you hope that our President fail? If he fails we all fail.

Yes, he's difficult to understand and is totally unorthodox.  His communication style makes me cringe. Yes, he's a billionaire. He walks in rarefied air that most of us can't imagine. To be honest, so do most of our politicians who are, while not billionaires, certainly quite wealthy. Even President Obama who everyone loves in terms of his personality is an elite worth many millions. But, Mr. Obama has a much easier personality that's simple to like in terms of being a good family man and a loving husband and father.  Here's the thing, though, so is Mr. Trump. His children are extremely successful and well regarded. His beautiful wife is an immigrant now citizen, who was a successful model, speaks several languages, and is a fabulous mother.

Mr. Trump has many life long friends who say he is constantly supportive and loyal. So, in terms of the Cult of Personality, should we dismiss a person simply because we don't think we'd like them personally? Should that be the criterion? Or should we be making that decision based on their qualifications and accomplishments? Wouldn't those be a more accurate measure?

Interestingly enough, this story has another angle proving that everything in history comes around again. A storm is brewing; no telling where it will all end. It seems as if The Trump Presidency is in the middle of a wiretap controversy just like Nixon's. Only this time, it would be Democratic operatives who are playing fast and loose with surveillance of Trump staffers.

And, I can't help but wonder, where are the Woodwards and Bernsteins who genuinely care more about reporting the truth instead of being contemptuous of the guy who holds the office? Are they even there anymore? Maybe not, but the dangerous Cult of Personality is still very evident.

Namaste' Till Next Time,
Holly aka She Who Is Older And Hopes Wiser

Under The Dome

Soaring high above the District of Columbia, at the very top of the Capital Building, the Statue of Freedom has watched since 1863.  She stands on what is called, the Tholus. During the day, one would not notice a change...

...but at night, if you pay close attention, you can see it. Can you tell?

There is a small, but significant difference between these two pictures.

Did you catch it?  While the Capital Dome is illuminated 365 nights a year, the tholus is only lighted when the House of Representatives, or Senate, or both are in an evening session, burning the midnight oil, doing the work of governing.  Well, that's what they say they're doing, even though most of us may dispute how much they ever get accomplished.

I don't know how I've lived this long without knowing this factoid but since I get excited anytime I learn a bit of trivia, I thought you might like to know it, too!

Or, am I the only person who didn't know this?  Did you know? Well, why didn't you tell me?! While most politicians working under that dome don't seem very enlightened or make me feel good...

...the sight of The United States Capital Building always makes me feel good. I feel humble and proud.

It makes me whisper, "God Bless America, her citizens, and those working on our behalf."

Namaste' Till Next Time,
Holly aka She Who Believes In The Light of Democracy

Here We Go Again, Sadly!

Way back in 2009, I wrote a rant entitled A Fox In The White House, which you can read if you click the link.  It covered the, then, Obama administration attempting to shut Fox News out of a series of important press interviews.  It didn't happen, thanks to the massive push back by other press outlets as well as the public when they caught wind of it.

Sadly, here we go again. Last week, the Trump White House got embroiled in a similar story. White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer held a Press Gaggle in his office, which is an off-camera, way more casual, sit-down than a press conference.  At a gaggle, those media outlets attending are more likely to be hand chosen. And it's likely that not everyone who thinks they should be invited will be there. There was no daily press conference held in the Press Room where any with credentials can be included.

Those outlets who weren't included were all supplied with a transcript of what was discussed post gaggle, but that's not really the point. The point is that we should be looking at who was left out. They are some pretty big hitters in the media world:

The New York Times reporter was not asked to attend the Gaggle. Wait!  A major newspaper not invited?!

And, CNN reporters were not included in the gaggle....

...neither was the LA Times included. There were others like the BBC, but let's just concentrate on these three for now.

Hmm, what's the one thing that these three have in common?  They are all pretty liberal in their coverage. And currently, President Trump and his administration are in a battle over their coverage of the White House. When I say battle, I do mean battle.  I've seen contentious relationships between the press and other administrations, but this one takes it to a whole new level.  To be honest, this one being waged by the White House is totally exhausting.

This battle makes the hideous tone of the Press and Nixon White House look like a pre-school tussle over a toy! When challenged, Spicer, later reported that those who were 'excluded'  simply were not part of that day's Press Pool, which changes daily and is decided by The White House Correspondences' Association, not the White House. But still it looks a tad suspicious.

The rest of the Media quickly rallied around those who were left out as they did when Fox was targeted. A petition was circulated. Twitter blew up with the 411. The excluded were defended by the rest of the press. Once again, the press became the news.

Why should you care?  Because the only way for us to continue as a free society is by making certain that all outlets, all angles, of the news are part of the process. Spicer selecting some attendees isn't all that unusual. I admit that as a PR person, I had a list of a few reporters who were fair and easy to work with, whom I would call to pitch a story; that's to be expected. Everyone who works regularly with the Media knows who you can trust and are easy to work with given a choice. But, if what was happening at my organization was breaking news, all outlets were included in the coverage of that news.  Even those not generally positively disposed toward us had access.

No White House administration should ever determine news coverage!  In a free society, you get to decide what news you will ingest!  Those creating the news might think they should decide who will cover it, but the reality is, YOU decide.

And while I really wish you would listen to news sources that are counter to your thinking so you have both sides to consider, at the very least...

...You must have, at your disposal, all versions in order to be free and informed.

Once again, our great system of checks and balances that includes the Fourth Estate, our Media, are actively participating in our civic debate.  You need to as well.

Shame on you, White House, for attempting to have the news covered your way! Even if it's true about the daily Press Pool and you didn't select which sources could attend, the optics are bad for you.

These days, the political leaning of most media outlets is way too obvious for my taste. I believe that reporters and editors need to do a better job of reporting the news instead of being the news. However, liberal leaning or way out on the far right, we're still better off having various news sources from which to pick.

Dear Media with hurt feelings-- let me counsel that if you did your job correctly and simply reported the facts instead of consistently slanting them, you'd be less likely to be left out in the cold.  Just report the news, do not think for me! Give me solid info so I can think for mySelf.

In a way, I'm glad this happened again.  It's a reminder to stay vigilant and OPEN to the other voice. And maybe, just maybe, the owners, editors, journalists will start doing a better job of REPORTING and not COLORING the news.

Namaste' Till Next Time,
Holly aka She Who Listens To Both Sides 

Where To Go And Why It Matters

Right from the top, I'm telling you that these are simply my thoughts.  I truly don't know enough about this lifestyle issue to share facts.  But, writing about it is the way to get my thoughts out on the topic of the president recently rolling back federal regulation, and turning it back to the states, the battle over which bathroom a citizen should use or be mandated to use.

Talk about an over reach of government!  Now they want laws about using a public restroom!!

As far as I'm concerned, this whole controversy is specious. It's not like we have someone standing at the door determining if one has a penis to use the men's room.  Or, if a woman has a vagina in order to gain access to the women's room.

Seriously, if no one is forced to look at your junk while you're in there, then which restroom one feels most comfortable in using is clearly for the individual to decide.

Michael and I disagree on this topic.  He believes that men, e.g. a penis carrying Human should have to use the men's room.; if you have a vagina, you should have to use the women's room.  The whole issue of choice makes him cringe.

Perhaps the confusion is because we're older and more familiar with the labels of gay, lesbian, cross dresser, gender bending, but not as familiar with the concept of Transgender.  Michael feels like Transgender means a person who is, let's say, born a male but 'feels' like they are a woman or a person born a female who 'feels' like they are a man.

I maintain that it's more than that.  There is a vast difference between female and woman.  A vast difference between male and man. It starts with a feeling, yes, but ultimately those who really believe themselves Transgender invest incredible amounts of energy, work and emotion to change their bodies and psyche', presenting to the world their true identity.  It's much more complicated a process than simply a female wearing men's clothes or vice versa.

Again, I remind you that my words here are very simplistic about a life style that is so much more complex.

For me, while I don't really understand what is all the craziness about this restroom issue, I maintain that it is more important and less disruptive for the Transgender individual to use the restroom that is correct for the identity they show the world and not the plumbing with which they are born.

Let me give you an example--  Suppose you and I were out shopping and this gorgeous woman



walked into the restroom with us.  Other than being totally envious of her gorgeousness, the fact that she was in there wouldn't phase us at all.  She'd go to her stall and we'd go to ours.

But, that totally fabulous woman is actually born male.  That beauty is Ms. Laverne Cox who identifies and lives as a woman and works very successfully as an actress.

Now, let's say Michael was on his way into a public restroom and this guy, again totally gorgeous, walked in after him.  However, instead of walking up to a urinal, he steps into one of the stalls available in men's rooms because, let's be honest, sometimes a guy just needs to poop!

Mike wouldn't be suspicious of a 6'2" man going into a stall to do his business.  Except that guy is Casey Legler, a 30 something, born female who works exclusively as a male model! Casey lives life as a man.

Here's my point.....

If Laverne was forced, due to absurdly intrusive laws, to use a Men's Restroom, I believe guys would be highly uncomfortable seeing her walk in.  Just as women would be totally flustered if that hunk, Casey, walked in to use the women's room.

Men don't want women in the restroom (they'll tolerate it at concerts and stadiums when a gal's just gotta go and the line is way too long for the women's room,) and women most certainly have a lot to say about men in the room with them when they're doing their business!  What plumbing they may have hiding under their clothes doesn't cause any issue in comparison to seeing a female where she shouldn't be or a male where he shouldn't be peeing!

If a female who lives life as a man is in a public restroom, I bet my life that (s)he would use a stall, not a urinal.  And, I would bet the same about s(he) who lives life as a woman!  People simply want to do their business in private even when in a public restroom.

Want to limit the drama and confusion?  The easiest way- just hold it till you get home. Or, change them all to unisex. Or, allow who we see to use the one that's suited for the image they present the world.

For those ridiculous enough to take this argument to the extreme, suggesting that without regulations you'll have perverted men who say they identify as women simply to use a girl's bathroom or locker room in order to waggle their penis for all to see, is stupid.  Just as it's crazy to think that a person like Casey would walk in to the boy's for the sole purpose of showing off her vagina.

For those who yell it's uncivilized to have a female in the men's room or a male in the women's room, I'm telling you that it's a lot more disconcerting and confusing to see a woman where she doesn't belong or a man where he shouldn't be!

A truly Transgender individual IS NOT a sexual deviant!  If you have those two things linked in your mind, then do the work to learn the facts!

Anyone who walks into either restroom for the express purpose of  a sexual charge or flaunting their plumbing is an Exhibitionist, not Transgender! Living life as an authentic Human Being is complicated enough without adding this foolish fuel to the fire. Those who truly are Transgender seem to be those Human Beings who exemplify what it means to have courage to live, as my blog title says, "... being a real Human Being."

Being real is not easy and not without risk. Being a REAL Human Being has almost nothing to do with sexual organs. Being REAL is about heart, mind, spirit, soul.

And as far as I'm concerned, your birth anatomy and regardless your self-identify as male or female/man or woman, the only time in a restroom I might raise my eyebrow at you is if you don't wash your hands before exiting! That's what should be against the law in any state!

Namaste' Till Next Time,
Holly aka She Who Wants People To Pee In Peace 

FaceBook Killed My Blog, Then Politics Killed My FaceBook

It would seem that the immediate gratification of communicating with each other via social media platforms has really taken a bite out of blogging.  I guess the chance to reach more people is just too enticing.  But, when I think about the fact that I started Your Mother Knows as more or less a diary or repository for my thoughts, I'm not sure why I've drifted from it.

That's not correct- I drifted from it primarily because I have to invest more energy in my writing here versus the hit and run communication that I do on social media.  Hell, Twitter has been the best editor I've ever worked with because only having 146 characters at my disposal means get to the point.



So, I am back again because I absolutely, at this time, EFFIN' hate facebook.  Or more to the point, I hate the way people are being pre- and post election on facebook.  The amount of hysteria, hate, inflammation, craziness, panic, angst, fear is way beyond even what I experienced with Bush Derangement Syndrome. I'd even venture that if you asked any liberal if they'd take the current President Trump or have back President Bush, they would scream, "Bring George Back To The Oval Immediately!!!" That should give anyone perspective on the current level of crazy and backlash against the new 45th President of these UnUnited States.



As a PR person, I'm fully versed in how it feels to stand in front of a group and make a statement only to be blasted in response.  The ability to stand there, not react, and continue to try and discuss takes years to master.  It is very hard not to take it personally.  I'm proud to say for the most part of my career, I succeeded.  Not that I didn't go back to my office muttering, "ASSHATS!!!!," while slamming my office door.  Hell, I am only Human!

Yesterday I signed off of FB wishing everyone well.  I have had enough!  I am over seeing posts suggesting the end of the world and civilized society.  I'm done with reading things that would make one believe that I'm somehow a hideous Human because I voted for Trump. Or that I am somehow morally inferior to my friends on the left. I am finished with reading, "HAPPY NOW?!," every time someone at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue so much as picks up a pencil.

Here's what I can say to all my fellow facebook posters:

I can be somewhat concerned over some of the news coming from The White House without wishing they would start Impeachment Hearings for the new president.

I can be Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion because of over-broad abortion policies. I can be Pro-Choice and strongly believe tax dollars should not be used to support clinics that provide these procedures.

I can be Pro-Access without having my taxes pay for your birth control. If you use it, pay for it yourself. I paid for mine.

I can be Pro-Birth and not Anti-Woman.

I can be Pro-Life and see the reasonable desire of some to be peacefully freed from the pain of their failed bodies.

I can be a champion of immigration and still believe it should be done within the legal limits the laws of this country have drawn. I can believe that if you are here illegally and have found yourself facing our legal system, you should be permanently deported.

I can be a conservative in regard to spending and rather socially liberal.

I can be a supporter of the Gay and Lesbian community without being a Democrat!

I can wonder about the complexities of Trans-Gender without judging the individual.

I can be white without being racist.  I can vote for a Republican candidate and support Human Rights.

I can multi-task and hold various opinions and like every other Human Being on this earth, I can be more than one-dimensional on any issue you might wish to discuss and debate.

What I am not willing to do is have every single thought or comment I post on my wall used as fodder for people who simply want to pick a fight.

What I am not willing to do is be judged by Liberals or Conservatives.

I am not willing to fill my day with people who want to live with the drama instead of looking at the facts. Or, shout at me if I attempt to respectfully post the facts.

I am not willing to fill my wall with people who do not want to listen to any opinion that varies from their own.

Or, with people who lecture me on my choices.

I am not willing to deal with people who think access to my page on social media means you can say whatever you want to me! I did not Friend you on facebook to fight!

STOP!  Just stop!!!!  I used to be paid to let people blast me for my comments, but I'm not getting paid any longer to listen to your shit!!!!  I call DONE!

I'm to the point of absolutely wanting to slap people, which is about me, not really them.  People are going to be who they are.  And as infuriating as it is to me right now, they have the right to do and say what they wish. If I don't like it, I have to go.  Exercise my options... vote with my feet.  So, here I am back to my blog once more. Why?  Because I'm a communicator and I have a deep desire to reach out and connect with others. Because I am a writer and the need to hone my craft is a niggling itch that never goes away. Because I am a Human Being and need someplace safe to process my thoughts.

Right now, we have a brand new President in the Oval Office.  Personally, do I like the man?  I DO NOT KNOW because I don't know him, personally.  News flash, neither do you!  Do I think I might not want to have him as a personal acquaintance?  Leaning very much toward, yes.  But, then again, if I knew the man personally, I might change my mind.



Because I voted for him, does it mean that I think him the perfect candidate?  NO.  However, as unorthodox as is his personal style of communicating, he didn't keep me up nights worried as much as the idea of Mrs. Clinton sitting in the Oval.  So, I voted my conscience from strictly a political point of view.

My pulling that lever on election day did not automatically turn me into a hater of Immigrants, LGBT, Muslims, Women, The Environment, Climate Change Theory, Little Children, Education, Social Programs, Those In Need, The Poor, and whatever else you might want to throw into the Shit Stew that is currently life in America.  I am the same person.  The very same person.  If you genuinely were my friend before I voted, you should respect me and understand that we don't have to agree on every single thing.

I am adult enough to understand that I do not have to like a person personally in order to understand they might be the best person for the job.  I may hate their personal style, but their resume of success is enough to prove why they are sitting in the seat.  And, even more, I trust in the Will of The American People and our process of government!

But, our world is not the same place.  Instead we now live in a world where the only thing of value is a person's feelings and their right to hurl them at others!  Their feelings are the only thing of paramount importance.  Their feelings; not yours.  We no longer understand the value of taking a measured stand on issues.  We no longer teach the importance of putting what's best for the majority ahead of what we might want as an individual.  We no longer view the world via a Servant's Heart. We do not know what it means to be a good citizen, instead we just want to be emoting bags of FEELINGS!

We have turned social media into a tool for acting out. We don't use it as a platform to learn from each other or where we share common ground.

I cannot abide the hysteria.  Can't abide the complete and total denigration of a man who has been on the job for about two weeks.  Most of us starting a new job are lucky to remember where the bathrooms are within the first two weeks, but can we give the guy whose office is in a complex as complicated as The White House a chance?!  Oh, HELL NO!  We can't be reasonable.  We can't take a wait and see position.  We can't act like Human Beings instead of a mob out to kill The Monster.

And, the war continues with this next chapter of the presidency with the Democrats and Republicans in Washington just as bad if not worse.  The Democrats are going to fight like fiends against any and everything because that's what their base demands.

We certainly can't be civil in our discourse.  We can't discuss with each other.  We cannot listen to each other.  We don't want to think, analyze, garner facts... we just want to react.

We want the toxic feeling of drama coursing through our hearts and minds- living as if our hair's on fire!

But, I don't.  I don't want it even for a few minutes much less Every. Single. Minute. Of. The. Day. as it is currently in Social Media.

I've lost friends, (by that I mean FB friends, which aren't really real.  It's not like the ones who unfriended me ever spent one real-time minute sitting and looking at me while we talk,) because of a man I don't know personally.  I've been unfriended over my civic duty of casting my vote. I've lost friends who got so mad reading comments made by others on my posts, that they decided I am not worthy of their time and energy. Sadly, I have had one or two people who have known me awhile in real time simply turn on me, too. Was it because I baited them or belittled them? Nope; it was because I had the audacity to give them my differing opinion on the posts on their walls.

Concurrently, I had several people message me off facebook basically asking why I tolerate people talking to me as they do.  And that's been my conflict; feeling personally savaged while still attempting to stay true to my core belief that dialogue is the only thing that can save us.  That being open is the only possible answer to our annihilation. But, when a young friend of mine, a guy whose take on the world is pretty solid and grounded, texted me to say that he found me way more tolerant and civil than he could ever be, it started my wheels turning...

Am I allowing mySelf to be abused by others simply because I believe so strongly in the importance of letting people express themselves?  The answer came back, "Sadly, yes."  Eventually I picked being kind to mySelf over the need for others to be crazy on something as inconsequential as a social media platform.

So be it. I'm done with it for now.  Eventually, I may go to see what people are posting about their dogs or their kids. I may want to see what new recipe someone has found and really likes.  But not until I can control mySelf and not want to bitch slap people who have been fucky with me simply because they can get away with it.

For believe me, I don't care how passionately you feel about things, I guarantee that you do not have the courage to be in the same space with me and talk like that.  You wouldn't have the nerve because you'd be looking into my eyes and you could not deny that I am a Human Being standing there being excoriated by you...

...over matters that neither YOU nor I have the power to control.  Over matters which, on the day to day, do not change how you live from the time you wake till you crawl back in bed at night.

...over people whom we will never know personally.  Instead, on a stupid social media platform, you'll lecture me from your moral high ground of superiority about how I should be tolerant of all social issues and people while you are completely intolerant of me or others having any opinion that varies from your own.

Hypocrite.  Let me give you a few minutes to yank that blank from your eye before you start searching for the splinter in mine. I want you to see clearly when you see me. As sad as it might be, I can live without you being kind, for which I've given up all hope. But, I cannot and will not abide people who refuse to be civil when I can simply stop your access to my space.

Namaste' Till Next Time,
Holly aka She Who Is Done With facebook, For Now

Let's Call It What It Truly Is

Last night, viewing the "debate" left me disliking both of these men completely.  This morning I woke up realizing that I shouldn't be simply disliking these two, but instead really direct my mail to the correct address.  I should have the chance to bitch-slap the organization, The Commission on Presidential Debates.  They are morons...not that these two are off the hook for not refusing to participate in last night's forum the way it was set up.

What something is called matters!  Don't hand me a pig's ear and call it a purse!  I know the difference.  So should most people.  Let me be clear:

As defined by Webster's:

debate n :  a contention by word or arguments as the formal discussion of a motion...  b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.

discussion n :  a consideration of a question in open and usually informal debate.

town hall meeting :  from Wikipedia : an American English term given to an informal public meeting derived from the traditional town meetings of New England. Everybody in a town community is invited to attend, voice their opinions, and hear the responses from public figures and elected officials about shared subjects of interest. Attendees rarely vote on an issue or propose an alternative to a situation. It is not used outside of this secular context.

Okay, now that we're clear, let's get back to the ridiculousness that was presented last night.  The second Presidential DEBATE was presented as using a TOWN HALL MEETING  format, where about 80 undecided registered voters were randomly chosen to be on the stage with Governor Romney and President Obama.  The intention was to have these voters ask questions that they wished answered; the questions were chosen in advance by the moderator.   With me so far?

It was supposed to lead to DISCUSSION between these two and the questioners who represent us, in terms of things we feel are important and would like to hear their ideas and notions.  It would give these two candidates the opportunity to more clearly define the differences between their view of the issues.

But, what we got was throw away moments of an American citizen honestly, and with commitment, asking their question only to have these two boobs use them as a springboard to go at each other.  There was no true exchange...no discussion...no respect...no better understanding of the people who were there, either of the people who asked the questions or these two who totally missed the point of the evening.

Shame on the Commission for setting this thing up for big failure in the eyes of any who watched this train wreck.  And, rather than thinking either one of the sparring partners came out the winner, as far as I'm concerned, they both lost.  And I lost an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back.

To my mind, the one who would have come out the winner, would have been the man who was smart enough to give a real rat's ass about, not only the question, but the questioner.  The winner would have been the one who momentarily connected to the man or woman standing there with major nerves jangling at the notion of asking a powerful person a question on national television.  The candidate who would have carried the night would have made that questioner feel important rather than a toss off.

The one who could have truly won the debate last night would have been the man who decided to stop fighting the guy standing next to him and concentrated, instead, on being in true COMMUNICATION with the individual who had asked the question.  The winning candidate would have stayed on the question instead of using it as a weasel hole to launch off into what else they wanted to say instead of answering what was courageously asked of them.

The winner would have demonstrated true care and commitment to being the leader of the free world by giving a damn about the citizens sitting in the circle around them instead of using them as fodder to spew their agenda.

But neither of them was smart enough to forgo their need to beat the other guy senseless and care more about the people.  Which, sadly, is the way most people running for political office at that level behave more times than not.  Especially in a public forum.  Does an individual give up their Human capacity to genuinely LISTEN, and thereby demonstrate the ability to truly care when they go into politics?!  Sadly, it seems they do.

Do I blame President Obama and Govenor Romney?  Not really.  After all, they are being constantly prepped for a DEBATE and this one was called The Second Presidential DEBATE.  No, I blame the Commission for calling it one thing, yet setting up as another thing by staging  it as a TOWN HALL MEETING.  Setting up the citizens on the stage as well as us in the viewing audience to hope against hope that these two men would rise to the occassion of being able to decern and give a damn about the difference.

Stop using the town hall format as a platform in a nation debate!  They are mutually exclusive concepts; set up this way they do not foster better understanding of the candidates.

Today, spokespeople of both parties will be on the news shows and talking head moments crowing about how their guy won last night.  They're all spinning it today.  I should know, I was part of the Spin Doctors as my career.

But the truth?  The real truth?  Both Romney and Obama failed because they were too determined to hammer their ideas and what they thought you should know rather than listen and connect to even one of the citizens who were part of the process with them.  They were too concerned about the smack-down between each other instead of taking the opportunity to show how they could and would genuinely care about the citizens they say they wish to serve.

Simply saying the questioner's name and thanking them for their 'important' question before you launch off on what you want to say instead of answering the question and connecting with them as a Human Being does not constitute truly caring!!!  Don't pander!  We know when you're doing it and we don't like it!!

So, shame on both of them.  Shame on the Commission on Presidential Debates, and shame on the moderator who allowed her bias to slip out too much.  I am, once again, totally disgusted with the political process.

Namaste' Till Next Time,
Holly

I Was Young Once And Liberal

Definition of liberal n :  one who is liberal: as one who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways.

Interestingly enough, in older dictionaries, the definition also includes:  lacking moral restraint.

Am I the only one who had a father who said words to this effect:  "It's easy to be liberal when you're young because you're doing it on someone else's dime!"  I hated it when he would say things like; it seemed so snide.  When I was old enough to begin looking at the world around me; take account of my world view; wonder about the rightness/wrongness of the world, there was more than one occasion when Dad and I simply had to end our discussions with the live and let live philosophy.  The, "we'll have to agree to disagree," rule was often invoked.  But, I'm awfully glad that he continued to spar with me and make me think.  I like to believe that my bright-eyed, optimistic, youthful exuberance for the ability to positively impact wrongs and make change, helped him maintain equilibrium in his thinking.  Maybe even keep him on his toes while we verbally squared off!  At the very least, keep him hopeful that things can always be made better.

My father was never dismissive of my thoughts simply because I was young with less life experience. He told me not to give up on anything I believed was just, right, fair, but he did show me where just wishing something was so wasn't enough to get it done.  Because he didn't treat me like an idiot or condescend, I always gave him the benefit of the doubt.  I recognized his intelligence, wisdom, and deeper experience.  Still, the 70's were a breeding ground for social upheaval and dissonance; the never trust anyone over 30 philosophy was rampant, so our points of view were vastly different on many things.  Not unlike our world today, it gave us lots and lots to discuss and argue.

I believe that my father was one of the best parents in the universe. Even more, he was a mentor.  A strong advocate.  A teacher.  A guide.  He did way more right than wrong in terms of my up-bringing.  However, the one thing I wish he had done better was teach me how challenging it can be in terms of living in the real world.  I wish he had been more open about money and finances.  I wish he had been more forthcoming about the financial struggles our family faced.  How difficult it can be to own and operate a business successfully.  I wish I understood sooner that things just don't happen without someone making sure they happen, like:  The lights and heat are on because someone paid the utility bill.  I ate regularly because someone worked to make certain we had food in the house.  I was blessed with a great education because someone made sure that tuition was paid, or that appropriate financing was secured for the tuition; financing that would have to be re-paid by a person who understood their responsibility to the contractual agreement.

I wish, instead of adopting the usual mind-set of most parents, the one that says "make sure my child always feels safe and secure," he had talked more about the need for someone, somewhere to secure that our world was orderly, our needs were met, because someone worked to pay for it all.

Because conversations like that didn't happen often, I didn't give it much thought.  The inner workings of the need to contribute and understand what heavy lifting it takes to keep your loved ones together body and soul just wasn't something I pondered.  By nature, I am a grateful person, so I always said thanks for things but you can't thank someone when you aren't even aware of the gift.  Know what I mean?

I am still very liberal in terms of my thinking when it comes to the Human condition.  But, as I've grown older and struggle, like most of us with finances and the rising cost of breathing in and out, I'm so not liberal in my thinking when it comes to money, government, or funding what so many now consider their right, their due, their fair share.  I'm just not.

And, I must admit it bugs the hell out of me because despite my best efforts of making sure, "I'll NEVER think like you do, Dad!!!"  Well, here I am.  I'm not Jimmy Dietor, but I sure the hell am Jimmy Dietor's Daughter. So, how do I say what's on my mind now without sounding like a condescending old, F**k?  I don't know...but I have to say it regardless.  So here goes:

We have done our younger generations a serious dis-service.  Our children should be part of  a discussion about our family bills.  It's all right to talk about our monthly expenses and when we're a bit strapped for cash.  It's a good thing to let our kids know when we need to tighten our budget or when we can celebrate better times with a treat for all.

We should have made basic finances, how to budget, and money management a major part of educational curriculum.  We should teach our children to get right with money and understand how it works.  We should stress how each of us needs to invest in ourselves and work toward feeling successful. 

Instead, because we've taught them to expect they should always have everything they want or need without regard how it is paid for, we have raised them to believe they have more RIGHTS than privileges. We now have people who can no longer differentiate between the two.  It's becoming increasingly problematic.  Let's be clear what is the difference:

right n:  Something to which one has a just claim; the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.
privilege n:  A right or an immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor.

A right comes to you simply because you are.  A privilege is something you earn or is given to you out of the generosity of another's purse or belief that you are worthy.  And, while in practice they do seem closely related, they are not interchangeable concepts.

As Human Beings, as Americans, we have very few RIGHTS; those we have are incredibly significant.  Read the Constitution and our Bill of Rights is spelled out.  You will not read any where in it that you have a RIGHT to a life made better or easier and paid for by others.  It simply is not there.  It's not an over sight; it's not meant to be cruel.  It's that the writers of the Constitution understood the concept of manifest destiny and embraced personal freedom to create our lives as we see fit.

We The People! We make up the government.  There's no separate entity, called The Government that has an unending privy purse ready to make your life easier.  When you say The Government should pay for something, you're actually saying, "The people of the U.S., more specifically, the Tax Paying Citizens of the U.S. should pay for my fill-in-the-blank!" It doesn't work that way.  Nor should it. 

When I hear younger people say, "I have the right to health insurance and I'm not asking anyone but the insurance companies to do their part,"  or, "I have a right to affordable education and paying for my college degree shouldn't be something with which I am burdened," I want to ask, "Really?  You don't think you should pay for these things yourself, but you think I should be required to buy it for you?" And how do you think that's going to happen? Companies are profit centered entities.  We can discuss how much profit is too much and whether they should be more service minded and caring; I probably will agree with you.  But, at the end of the day, they are profit driven businesses.  If they don't make money, they don't stay in business.  And, if they are forced, through laws, to pay for your health care, your birth control, your education, or your fill-in-the-blank to which you think you are entitled, those costs will be passed along to others in terms of hidden fees and higher premiums, higher costs and taxes.

At what point does your belief that you have a RIGHT to things for free or at no cost, justify that the price tag be passed along to the rest of us for payment ?!  Or, had you simply not considered it? If there is a bill involved, someone, some where must pay the bill.  Nothing is free.  But, you have to be open and fair enough to wonder who is expected to pay for it if you're not willing.

Recently, a friend of mine said, "If  I see someone hungry and I have enough to share, then I'll share it. The only thing over which I have any real control is myself."  For me, that's true liberal thinking at its finest.  I am liberal enough to want to help everyone in need.  But I am conservative enough to understand that I only have resources to help some and that I can only do so when I have enough to share.  My liberal way of thinking means that I search for ways to help others, but first I must meet my obligations to myself and my family.  At the same time, I'm conservative enough in my thinking to say, "My willingness to help another is my choice; I will not have it mandated through government policy that is too far-reaching and invades my personal space and life!"

I wish we would return to the days when people understood that they need to invest in themselves first before they look to others to invest in them.  Return to the days before we constantly looked for government to take care of us.

conservative n:  marked by moderation or caution.  Relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners.

So after trodding the earth for awhile, here's where my journey has brought me:  If I wish to be liberal in my thinking of Human Beings and  be willing to respond to need when I encounter it, I must be conservative in my views of what I can do and also what I need.  I must be conservative in my view of finances and money so I can meet my financial obligations and help those truly in need.  I must be conservative enough to believe that I have very few rights but am lucky to have privileges.  I must be conservative enough to understand that I must make my own way, and trust that if I do right by others and am liberal in my willingness to help, those good intentions and acts will be returned to me.

Go ahead Daddy....where ever you are, you can laugh.  I get it.  I'm now with you on this topic.  I am finally a liberal conservative; or maybe I'm a conservative liberal.  However you say it, you knew I'd eventually figure it out.

Namaste' Till Next Time,
Holly aka Jimmy Dietor's Daughter

To Answer For Myself

Albert Einstein once said, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." And, that got me thinking about a boss I once had who was able to make the most complex marketing data so easily understood. It was a gift.

Being good with words is a gift I have, but I understand that it can also take me down the unintended Road of Verbosity. Not good. I am now going to practice my willingness to put things simply because this question pertains to me. At the end of this, please let me know if I did an adequate job.

I am asked a lot, "How can you, A Reiki Master, a pagan, lean so far toward conservatism and so far from liberal thinking?" It seems that being philosophically open and into alternative therapies and healing means one must embrace the liberal mind-set. A true misconception.

I am simply not liberal enough to view those around me as being too disadvantaged, unable, or unwilling to reach for more and better. Or, see the world as a mean and stingy place where people who wish to change their circumstances can't work like crazy to change them. I'm not willing to step into a role of knowing better than you do about what is best for you.

I am not so liberal as to think that vast parts of the world or population need to be cared for because they are incapable of doing so for themselves. I'm not liberal enough to think of those with socio/economic hurtles to leap can't get over them unless we remove them. Or that I should force my definition of a better life onto your world view.

I'm not liberal enough to think that life should be fair. And that all of us should have the exact same measure. I'm not liberal enough to think that we should allow our government to mandate that those who have more must give to those who have less. I'm not liberal enough to think I know the rightness of things and that it's my job to make sure I Mama Manage the lives of others.

I am liberal in my view of the fact that there will never be enough love in the world and that all of us should have the right to find love where it is for us. In whatever form it takes, in whatever person we recognize it. I believe in sex as a Spirit given gift designed to give pleasure. I believe that all of us should recognize it as a gift and act accordingly.

I think we should all value ourselves enough to understand what we are doing if we decide to withhold from sex or participate in it. And, that sex is sacred just as we are sacred. Sex is natural and good but, it requires that we act responsibly. I am not liberal enough to think that birth control should be a government mandate paid for by tax payers. If I want the right to chose for myself, my sexual path, orientation and participation, I must also shoulder the responsibility of the healthcare that goes along with that choice.

I am liberal enough to understand that all are my brothers and sisters and that I have the responsibility to help where I can; assist when asked; nurture and mentor; support growth and willingness; care about those who are less fortunate. Do what I can to be of value and service.

I am also conservative enough to understand that all are my brothers and sisters and I have the responsibility to help where I can; assist when asked; nurture and mentor; support growth and willingness; care about those who are less fortunate. Do what I can to be of value and service.

No, your eyes are not playing tricks on you- you did read the same dictates twice. Why? Because these things that liberal folk think of as their defining qualities, are exactly same for those who view themselves as conservative!

Liberal folk aren't better people because they think of others and champion the 'less fortunate'! It's not their wheel house. They don't own this. Conservative people feel the same way. And, that's why I can be a Reiki Master and a pagan in my spiritual orientation and still be conservative.

The difference? I'm okay with the notion that life isn't fair; I don't think it's supposed to be. I think our view of life being unfair can very often be the divine spark or the catalyst to reach for more or develop more, or search for more, or just begin to value ourselves more to believe we should expect better and get better! The first step in beginning a journey toward something!

As a conservative, I am not at war with money. I don't think of it as evil. I respect it for what it is- simply a physical manifestation of energy exchanged. And so, I like money. I want it; to share it and use it; make it; save it; and make it work for me.

As a Reiki practitioner, I understand that in order to become healthy and well, an individual must have a sense of their own power and ability. They can't be passive; they must participate. To be part of a healing process, both the practitioner and the patient must be on equal footing. It's a partnership; it's an eye-to-eye experience. One is not more-than, while the other is less-than.

In order to get a sense of one's personal power and begin feeling empowered to stretch to their full potential, one has to invest in themselves and the process. For most of us, when it comes to services, it's the exchange of money that we rely on.

But, as a Reiki practitioner, I clearly recognize that money is not the only way to do this. If I have a client who doesn't have the cash for their session, I ask, "What is it that you can exchange? What do you have that you are willing to invest for our time and energy?" And, anything that is agreed on starts the process of investing in Self and being an equal.

As a conservative, I am looking for that glorious moment on the teeter-totter of life, when you and I are in perfect balance with each other...that scant second when we look each other in the eyes, and hold things in that remarkable sense of being in equal relationship with each other. The moment is gone too soon as the Earth's gravitational pull sends me downward while you lift up, and then the process is reversed. But for one glorious second we experienced complete balance.

As a Conservative, I want all of us succeed. I want to see all of us realize our potential. I want all of us to reach for satisfaction. Sorry to say Liberals, you do not get the moral high ground on this one.

The difference between a Liberal and Conservative? Being conservative, I understand that it's not my job to define success for you. I understand that I cannot want better for an individual than they want for themselves. AND, I respect the learning path of each individual and the choices they make to either stretch past adversity, or accept it as their due. Being conservative, I hold constant hope that those with less will start their journey toward more, but it's not my job to do the heavy lifting for them.

We are all here to learn. Some of us learn through hardship and despite it. And some of us learn by staying stuck in the middle of it. I can only speak for what I know of my life and how I view things. I can only share my views if you ask me and I can walk the road with you for awhile, but I won't become the road for you to trod.

So yes, I am pagan and I am a Reiki Master and I am gifted and blessed and willing to share those with all. And, happily, there are many out there who feel as I do. I'm not singular in being a conservative and being compassionate. These states are not mutually exclusive.

Did I state this simply enough?

Namaste' Till Next Time,
Holly aka She Who Is Blessed & Conservative