Professionalism in Politics

 It wasn't all that long ago that Americans were freaking out over the POTUS wearing a tan suit.  Cries across the land of "unpresidential" "unprofessional" and even "tacky" echoed from the purple mountain majesties and the fruited plain.  

Maybe it's because I'm nonpartisan, I saw nothing wrong with the tan suit.  I thought it made a nice change from the usual navy or black, a bit of individuality in a cookie-cutter profession, but ultimately I'm more invested the the POTUS's policies and character.   

Today I'm sure I'm not the only one wishing for the tan suit scandal. Not because of how the current POTUS dresses, but because of how he and many of our elected officials are behaving.  I'm not talking about what these people say and do in private, or even in a casual public moment.  I'm talking about official communications (and yes, that includes the social media of any given office.)  

Partisans are quick to point out that the other party forced a dementia patient onto us.  Some nonpartisans suspect said patients were put into place by "handlers".  But dementia is not so much a question of professionalism as it is a question of capability.   So I'm going to ignore that question. 

It upsets me that two of the most common current political catchphrases -- ones used by professionals -- are FJB and FDT.  Imagine walking into a job interview and saying that about the other applicants.  Imagine telling the interviewer mean things about the previous holders of the position.  Smear campaigns used to be the most unprofessional thing they did... not any more. 

Politics has always been an ugly thing.  But up until 2016 (yes, I'm beating that dead horse again) everyone put on their company manners.  Profanity, especially words that get bleeped on TV, would be career suicide.  But now... slogans like FDT and FJB are shouted in the streets.  

I don't want a POTUS who looks like he just mowed the lawn, but I'd prefer that to one who acts and sounds like a frat boy.  Or something worse.  

Nomenclature

Recently, the National Parks announced that the name of Clingman's Dome would be officially changed to its Cherokee name.  Most of the signage and news articles refer to it as "Kuwohi (formerly Clingman's Dome)".  That's a good method of helping people adjust to the change.  I like that it nods to the name most of us know the peak as, while reminding us of the new/old name.  

It was hardly the first time a geographical feature reverted to a native name.  A mountain in Alaska was named Mt McKinley from 1917 to 2015.  Its native name, Denali, was reinstated by Barack Obama, for most of the same reasons and to much of the same objections.  

*One of the first things Donald Trump did upon starting his second term as POTUS was change Denali back to Mt McKinley.  (Most of his first term was spent trying to undo Obama's work, so I assume this is just more of the same.)  With an executive order, not a Nomenclature Committee. 

He also decided our southern shore sits on the Gulf of America.  It's been the Gulf of Mexico for at least 400 years.  The gulf is not the exclusive property of the USA and no other nation agreed to this change.  Judging by my Facebook feed, I'm not the only one who finds this laughable.  But I digress.*

Changing or giving an official name to a geological feature is not an action taken lightly.  Nomenclature is important.  There is a long and exhaustive procedure involved.  I'm okay with properly made changes.  That said, I am like most humans in that the names I've always known them as will remain in my brain.  

The Powers That Be can change the official name.  But this conversation will happen:  "I saw a bear up on Kuwohi."  "Where?"  "You know, Clingman's Dome."   As long as everyone involved knows what you mean, I don't see an issue.  

Being "Woke"

 One thing I notice a lot lately is people complaining about TV shows and movies "going woke".  I can understand the complaints to a point.  If the work is historical, changing the demographics of the characters can drastically reduce the engagement of an educated audience.  Gone With The Wind gets a lot of hate for racism, but change any of Scarlett's demographics and the story does not work in a historically accurate setting.   

 I've opined in previous blogs about diversity for diversity's sake.  Tokenism is another term for it.  I think this is what a lot of the complainers are referring to. As writers are building the world of their fiction, diversity can happen naturally, as it does in the real world.  It doesn't need to be shoehorned in.  

There are shows I think of as having diversity for diversity's sake.  I just don't watch them.  If asked why I don't watch them, I would avoid using the word "woke" because that's become perceived as the cry of the -ist or the -phobe.  

All "woke" really means is aware of social injustice.  Not everyone who is woke is a fanatic about it, seeing the KKK around every corner.  Not everyone who feels a show or movie is diverse for the sake of diversity is a hater.  People, talk to each other.  Communicate in a respectful manner.  You might learn something. 

(And some of these fictional worlds were woke from the get-go, there was no becoming or going about it.  Just saying.)  

Observations, Unconnected

It's that time of year.  Prom Season.  What do you associate with Prom?  Romance? Expense? Dancing?  How about sex and guns?  From the look of social media (and even one politician's campaign ad) it's become the norm to meet your daughter's Prom date with a gun.  Far too many people seem to see this as acceptable.  I've even seen this nonsense applied to everyday dating.

Mind you, I'm not talking about the jokers.  Let's get that out of the way.  We all fear our children being hurt and most of us joke about what scares us.  But the joke is lost on a certain demographic.  Some of us still believe a virgin daughter is still a valuable commodity and not a person.  Some of us never teach our daughters about these things and then wonder why they aren't safe.  Some of us even think sex on Prom Night is some kind of obligation.

I would say "And they vote" but they probably don't. They do, obviously, breed.

****

If you were born before 1967, you're a senior?  I'm pretty sure 50 qualifies as middle-aged.  Or did the definition of that change, too, like "entitlement" and "white"?  An entitlement is something you're entitled to, that you've earned, or at least it used to be.  I can remember a time when the only white people were those with ancestry in the parts of Europe that didn't touch the Mediterranean.  Italians, Spaniards, and Greeks were a category in and of themselves.  There used to be a distinction between biological sex and "gender".

I understand, and have even argued in defense of, the evolution of language and Common Usage.  Maybe I'm just showing my age (apparently I'm a senior) but those things are supposed to happen slowly.  Day-to-day conversations between people speaking the same language shouldn't require a translator.

Mind you, I really don't care how you label me.  White, old, female, whatever.  I shrug at you.  But stop confusing me!

****

And my last unconnected observation for the day: Stop assuming the worst about total strangers and mere acquaintances.  If I see one more person fumbling to explain they meant no offense to someone who won't listen...  Jeez.  Seriously.

Owning My Weakness

That meme is going around again.  The one that says people suffering from Depression are not weak. What's so wrong with being weak, anyway?  The thin crust of ice that forms on a puddle is weak, but it is beautiful.  Everyone has a weakness.  We can all learn to work with our weakness, to compensate for our weakness.  It's rather like an architect putting arches in to strengthen a cathedral ceiling.  Which is - what's the word - oh, yeah, beautiful.

We don't see memes that say "people with diabetes are not weak".  Why is Depression any different?  I think it's because of ignorance.  The old chestnut about every one gets depressed - OK, next time you catch a cold, just put on more clothes.  Everyone gets cold.  Mental illness cannot be willed away any more than physical illness can.  Who would claim that a chronic physical illness is something we fake for attention?

My specific diagnosis is Dysthymia - a Depressive disorder.  One of the problems caused by this weakness is poor memory.  I've learned to write things down and to use mnemonics.   I'm too weak emotionally to have a healthy romantic relationship, so I don't date.  I accept my weakness, I built around it, and focus on my strengths.

Most mental illness is caused by a combination of brain chemistry and past events.  I'm not going to get into the details of my own case.  It is sufficient to say it runs in my family and it doesn't just manifest as Depression.  A lot of mental illnesses share symptoms with, or are diagnosed right alongside, Depression.  Sometimes Depression is a symptom.

You cannot understand a person's illness unless you have suffered from it yourself - and even then, there is a limit to how much you can understand.  I've known lots of addicts and cancer patients. I've known other Dysthymics. But I can only identify with them for part of the struggle because it's different for everyone.

Speaking as a person with Depression...  Yes, I am weak.  But I own it.

My Problem With Anarchy

I have, among my friends and family, a handful of Anarchists.  They run the spectrum from the ones who live by the Non-Aggression Principle to the ones who would be okay with rioting in the streets and burning down government buildings.  Like so many other schools of thinking, there are a million subcategories.  Anarchy, for the purposes of this blog, is defined as a lack of government and an anarchist is someone who believes that would be a good thing.

My issue with Anarchy really does boil down to definitions, so bear with me while I supply a couple of others.  Government: The governing body of a community.  Govern (verb): To conduct policy, actions, and affairs of.  Strictly speaking, according to these definitions, a mother is the governor of her child.

I am aware that the scenarios I'll be using are fictional.  I've chosen them because the characters are very realistic, and act as I believe nonfictional people would in similar situations.  The scenarios in question?  Lost and The Walking Dead.

Lost gives us the ole desert (actually jungle) island story.  When it becomes evident rescue is not coming, what do they do?  They look to a leader.  Jack makes and enforces policy.  He decides what actions the survivors will take.  He even handles "affairs" like another man's refusal to turn over medical supplies looted from the wreckage. These people are dropped into a totally anarchist (no government) situation and one of the first things they do is appoint a leader.  A government, by the definition given above.

The same thing applies to The Walking Dead.  Thanks to a zombie apocalypse, the characters are living in anarchy.  So what do they do?  Look to leaders:  Shane, Rick, Hershel, Gareth, Dawn, Deanna, Negan, Ezekiel, Gregory, some whose names escape me.  Every one of them makes and enforces policy for his or her community.  Every one of them decides the actions of the larger group.  Every one of them deals with "affairs" like whether or not to merge groups.

Going from there, it seems to me that nonfictional people would do the same.  Yes, there would be the loners like Lost's Sawyer who are a community unto themselves. But humans, for the most part, are social creatures.  We group.  We look for guidance, for leadership.  Thus my problem - anarchy is not the natural state of the human being.

Small, local government is the natural state of the human being.  The United States of America got its name from that very notion.

The Brains of The Young

Got into a discussion the other day, if you can imagine such a thing happening to me.  The topic at hand was the apparent homosexuality of a Disney character, but it rapidly became about something very different.  The other party insisted repeatedly that children are not capable of understanding homosexuality.

I've been a very hands-on aunt for most of my life.  My minions count in the dozens.  I've never come across a subject that children could not comprehend on some level.  You "dumb it down" for them, but they are capable of understanding.

Recently, I explained the transgender thing to a child.  I "dumbed it down" to having a girl brain in a boy body.  His head did not explode and he now understands the basic issue. We do have to be careful with our terminology - lesbians don't just love women, it's the getting-married kind of love.  We don't want little Suzie to decide she's clinically depressed because sometimes she feels sad.

Something else I've noticed about children is that they are more receptive to difference.  Race or religion are good touchstones here.  At a park, the kids all run and play together and it's no big deal if this one's a different color or that one won't eat a ham sandwich.  In fact, a conversation about those differences might start - thus they learn something about each other.  Adults could take a lesson.

It infuriates me that people so readily dismiss the brains of the young.  I have to laugh at some of the things I read in parenting magazines because otherwise I'd cry.  So much of that advice is stuff I've always done, without effort.  "When in the park, talk to the child about the various animals and plants you see."  WHO NEEDS TO BE TOLD THAT!?

Note I did not mention my position on having a girl brain in a boy body, or of wanting to marry a member of the same sex.  That all is really beside the point of this post.  The point here is simple.  Children are not stupid.  Simple, yes, but not stupid.

Protesting vs Rioting

Well, this election has brought us to a new low in American behavior.  I didn't vote for the man, I've never liked the man, but guess what?  He is the choice, apparently, of The People.  Some civilized folks are talking of petitions and abolishing the Electoral College, which I can get behind.  Work within the system to change it - that was the intent of our Founding Fathers.

However, these civilized folks seem to be a minority.  My social media is full of decidedly uncivilized stories.  "Not my President" says the same people who scorned folks for saying it four years go.  Those who did support the President-Elect are dancing around like four-year-olds singing "nanner nanner boo boo".

I"m not going to repeat my speech about checks and balances.  I'm not going to bother to tell you he can't kick down the Oval Office door like Bill Cosby's dad and repeal standing laws on a whim.  I'm just exhausted from saying it.  What I am going to do is define a couple words for the media.

A protest is peaceful.  A riot is not.  The moment a "protester" hurts another person physically or damages property, they become a "rioter".  The two words are not synonyms, and they certainly do not change definition because the reporter agrees or disagrees with their position.  If I go stand in public with a big sign, I am not a rioter just because you don't like what my sign says.  If I beat up people and break windows, I am not a protester just because you think I have a point.

Protesters do not physically attack folks that disagree with them.  Protesters do not bust things up and set things on fire.  Protesters might yell insults, they might jump to conclusions about you based on your appearance (Who doesn't?), but when they cross that line and do physical harm, they stop being protesters.  They become rioters.

About rioting...  what do these people hope to accomplish?  Has anyone even had their mind changed by getting beat up or having their house burned down?  Oh, they might seem to, but they don't.  They get mad.  KKK visits in the 1860s led to race riots in the 1960s.  And the Civil Rights Movement - which, since it was civilized, did bring change.

OK, I'm putting away my soap box now.

Labels

Back in my day, the same people we now say have Social Anxiety were simply Painfully Shy.   When I was hospitalized for Dysthymia (a form of Clinical Depression), I explained it to my grandmother with the catch-all "Nerves".   So have we, as a society, become weaker or stronger?  Some say a medical diagnosis is better, that we've come to understand things better.  Others call it the rather vulgar "pussification" of society.  Honestly, I don't think it matters.

To me "She has Social Anxiety" isn't much different than "She's painfully shy".  Either way, it means I'm going to give her some space and let her deal as she feels best.  My grandmother went to her grave saying I had "Nerves" - a term that would cover a myriad of today's medical diagnoses.  They say hers was a simpler time, and at least in this area, they are right.  "Nerves" meant the person has trouble dealing with life, but that they weren't a danger.  Come to think of it, that would cover Social Anxiety...

Coloreds become Blacks become African-Americans, because for some reason the earlier terms become offensive.  (I am deliberately ignoring certain words, which were/are almost always used as insults.  I've known folks to use those words innocently, but they were rare - and usually ignorant.)

Political labels change, too, as the parties evolve.  The same party that fought giving the freed slaves rights after the Civil War is the one today championing their descendants. Theodore Roosevelt, the man behind the National Parks, belonged to the party that today puts money over nature.

I can't refer to myself as fat without people freaking out.  Guess what, folks?  I'm not quite five and a half feet tall and I average 200 pounds. You can use whatever label you like, but it has the same definition.

But I digress.  Why do we feel the need to update our labels?  My first example, I think, comes from the notion that a medical diagnosis is more likely to be respected.  Words are symbols, and maybe they become tainted by association with folks who use them cruelly, like the swastika and the Rebel Flag?

Political Subtleties

Before I met my friend, my experience with Anarchists was limited to those who call for a violent overthrow of the government.  My friend patiently and respectfully explained to me that Anarchism, like all ideologies, has subdivisions.  Those I had known are not representative of the large majority - most Anarchists practice what they call the Non Aggression Principle.  They based their belief on the very idea that, if left alone by government, people will be able to live peaceably and help each other out voluntarily.  The few jerks who won't will end up effectively banishing themselves.

Yet we see people freely slap the label Communist on Bernie Sanders.  Communism and Socialism are closely related, yes.  Both fall under the same ideological umbrella.  Yet there are the same sort of subtle differences we find in Anarchism.  Communism is to Socialism what those Violent Over-throwers are to Anarchy.  They are the fanatics.  

Fanatics exist in every group, be it political, religious, racial, sexual....  Islam has ISIS, Christianity has WBC...  It is wrong to assume your neighbor Abdul wants to chop off your head because you ate a ham sandwich.  It is wrong to assume Pastor Smith wants gays executed.  I know Catholics who see birth control as a matter of conscience and accept the idea of abortion under certain circumstances, feminists who are happily married to men and even have children, lesbians who don't hate men and even raise straight children of both sexes.

If you are a member of any group (and who isn't), the proper response to an ignorant party is not to attack them.  On any level.  My own personal experience with Fanatic Anarchism might be "anecdotal evidence" and therefore a logical fallacy, but you aren't going to get anywhere by insulting me.  I am willing to be convinced - said friend can vouch for that - but only by a respectful discussion.  

And if you expect me to see subtle differences, you need to be willing to see them as well.  Or you are guilty of a logical fallacy of your own, as well as of being a hypocrite.   

Perception and Racism

My nephew-in-law is a black man.  He's been dealing with racism for his entire life, and now he sees it where it may not exist. I can understand this, as I do the same thing with Welfare.  If he and I were standing in line at the grocery and the cashier was rude to the food-stamp-using black person before us, we would jump to different conclusions.

Another example, from fiction.  Professor Slughorn is surprised by a student who was born to Muggles - non-magical people - excelling in his class.  Harry Potter, angry, responds with "One of my best friends is Muggle-born and she's the best in our year."  The first few times I read this, I thought Slughorn was in the wrong.  But what if his surprise came, not from the bloodline, but from the notion that a Muggle-born has no exposure to magic until the age of eleven?  Imagine a child raised with no exposure to music suddenly becoming a virtuoso!

I'm sure there are many others, but I'll get to the point.  We do not know the motivations of strangers. The cashier in my first example could have been rude for any reason - maybe even just be a rude person.  When I was a cashier in a grocery, there was a woman who came in regularly.  She always tried to buy twice as much food as she had money for.  Every time.  Had I been rude to her, it would have had nothing to do with her race or method of payment.

I had a chat the other day, with a ten year old, about "The N Word".  He said that sometimes people use it to mean "friend".  One woman I knew used it the way I use "Black".  Some folks use it as they do the term "White Trash"- but for black folks.  But the problem is, the perception of it as a slur is simply too strong, so I told the kid to never use it.

The same is coming to apply to the word "Redskin".  I've read lots of historical documents where that word was used simply as a synonym to "American Indian".  Clearly, having it used as the name of a sports team is intended as a compliment.  Those who the term applies to need to pull a Hermione Granger (back to Harry Potter) - she embraced the wizarding slur "Mudblood" as a badge of honor.  Basically... "Damn straight I'm a Mudblood.  Mudbloods are awesome."  It's too late, I fear, to save the N word, but the R word still has a chance.  

I'm not going to tell you racism doesn't exist.  We do, though, need to keep a calm head about our own perceptions.  That guy cut you off in traffic, not because you are a different color, but because he would have cut off his identical twin. That lady who tells you that your half-black children are beautiful means well, even if she is kind of ignorant.

Come to think of it, this advice applies to life in general.  Don't assume to know why people do things.  I bet everyone reading this has a different take on why the stick people family on my truck is huge.  Some of you, those who know me best even, might be wrong.

The Evolution of Language

There was many years ago a hoax that someone won an election with the following speech: "Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism with his sister-in-law, he has a brother who is a known homo sapiens, and he has a sister who was once a thespian in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy." 

The mindless masses did not bother to find a definition for these words, according to the story, but simply believed they must be something vile.  The saddest part of all this is the fact that it could happen.  Currently, the politicians and the media are tossing around the word "entitlement" as if it is something a freeloader gets.  That is not the definition of the word.  An entitlement is something you have earned, something you are entitled to.  Freeloaders are not entitled.  The SSDI check I get each month is an entitlement.  The welfare check you get temporarily while between jobs is an entitlement - you paid your taxes, didn't you?  

There is a phenomenon called Cultural Language Shift, which I've heard used to excuse this misuse of the word.  Cultural Language Shift is the way in which languages evolve.  For example, the word celibate originally meant unmarried.  Usually, the unmarried were chaste.  The two words - chaste and celibate - came to be seen as synonyms.  However!  This is brought about by the proper usage of the words in question and takes decades, if not centuries.  

The use of "entitlement" is not a case of Cultural Language Shift.  It is a case of mindless masses believing an extrovert is someone harmful to society.  It is the linguistic version of passing on an urban legend.  "This is the what was meant" is no different from "That's what I heard".   

And while I'm at it, literally does not mean what most of y'all think it does.  

Let's talk about sex

My niece saw a woman breast feeding in public and her reaction was less than enlightened.  I have no problem with breast feeding in public, for two reasons. One, providing nourishment is the primary role of the breast.  It is why mammals have breasts.  Any secondary purpose is just that - secondary.  Skin can provide sexual pleasure, but societies that insist on covering every bit of it are considered backward and even sexist.   Two, it is unfair to women to make them cover what men can flaunt - even men no one wants to see.  A breast is a secondary sexual characteristic - medical definition there - just like the beards and body hair men have.  (Yes, I am advocating that women should be allowed to be topless in public.)

Of course, this hypocrisy isn't limited to the breast-feeding debate.  Or even to breasts themselves.  Our entire culture is obsessed with sex.  Look at our advertising, our pop culture, even our Snobby Literature.  (Read some Shakespeare.  Damn!)   But then look at our real life.  Children are not allowed to have a penis or a vulva - they have cutesy names for those parts like "PeeBug" or "Lolly".  We explain, in simple terms at first, how digestion and breathing work, but sex is taboo.

How many molested children could have been saved by the simple knowledge that these are ADULT actions, and therefore should not be done to or by kids?  We teach them to report "Bobby punched me" or "Suzie stole my allowance", but not this violation.  Because we don't want our children to know about sex.  That's just plain stupid.

I am a prude.  I think you should wait for marriage.  I regret having had sex.  That said, I also know that the sex I had did not kill me or even make me sick. What passes for Sex Ed in most schools is a lesson in biology followed by IF YOU HAVE SEX YOU WILL GET AIDS AND DIE. We don't teach Driver's Ed by screaming IF YOU DRIVE YOU WILL WRECK AND DIE.  In every other area, we teach moderation and caution.  This can be done with sex.  It is not the job of the schools to teach morals or religion.  If you don't want your child to have sex for moral or religious reasons, it is your job to teach them that.

I'm also a borderline nudist.  But that's a whole 'nother blog.

Religious Dilettantes?

From "The Ancient Cliff Dwellers of Mesa Verde" by Caroline Arnold: "Religion was part of the everyday experience and influenced all aspects of Anasazi life." 

That line struck me as funny.  A religion is a system of beliefs, after all, and should influence all aspects of your life and be a part of your everyday experience. If it doesn't and isn't, it's not really a religion.  Not yours, anyway.   

Religion in this sense is not defined by where or how you worship, by the name you call your god, or even by the label you allow society to put on you.  I know lots of "Christians" who fornicate and see no sin in it. "Catholics" who use birth control despite the Church's prohibition.  "Mormons" who drink coffee or soda pop.   Your true religion is not inside a building or a book or some other person.  If you think it's a sin and you still do it, that is the true hypocrisy.  You will answer for it, to yourself if to no one else.  

You rise in the morning and go about your day. Certain ideals are more important than others.  There are things you feel you must do and things you feel you must not do. That is your true religion, no matter what label you or society puts on you.  And it does influence all aspects of your life and is a part of your everyday experience.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go outside and hug a tree.