INDEX(back to beginning)
ISSN: 1530-5775
February 2010, Vol.12 #2
She walks in the dollar store and is accosted by the smell of dust covering mildew present in most shops hawking the $1 or less items. Her first thought is, should've gone to the discount department store. Oh, but they are so expensive?!? No, she is going to save money. Her list: birthday cards, sanitary pads, bread, and C batteries. Yes, this dollar store actually carries bread. She heads to the cards and immediately thinks "leave now!" as she glances at the out-of-date plastic-sealed greeting cards. They look like they came from a box someone found buried under a defunct Woolworths' store. The box was probably marked "1968-1975 Corny Cards for all Occasions". Each card she picks up is worth than the one before. "You're 10 today and the dinosaur monster is here to wish you a happy birthday." Her ten year old son is into fantasy football, collecting baseball cards, and video games. He would probably think the card was a joke. She rolls her eyes and puts it back. Oh here's one with a cool (really!) zebra on the front. She opens it to find 30-point type declaring: "Here's hoping a very special boy has a very special day in every special way." Forget the 70's, this is straight 80's self-esteem marketing. She decides to try the nephew cards. One has multiple pictures of lighthouses and boats, not what her 25 year old punk nephew would enjoy. Ok, well at least she can get the other items. She heads to the batteries. At first she doesn't see the C batteries and it's her chance to escape to a normal store! Oh, but alas she waits too long and is accosted by an older gentleman, probably with a mental problem. "You think those D batteries any good?" he asks. "I don't know. I usually try to buy alkaline." "Well for a buck, why not try it?" he says. Trying to avoid his gaze, she looks at the batteries and spots the C's. Non-alkaline. But still his words are ringing in her ears. "Why not, for a buck." Actually it's not just in her head, he's saying it again. So she smiles (which is really a grimace) and tosses two packs in her cart. She actually tells the man, "Thanks" and glances over to the bread cart. She can see the store is out of bread. She meanders through the extensive food aisle of the shoppe d'une buck, but finds nothing resembling bread mix or bread of any sort. Then she goes to the feminine hygiene aisle. She questions the smartness of buying pads here, but these are a different brand from the last time she bought cheapo feminine napkins, so she goes for it. She's in deep now. Still she thinks to herself, "Abandon the cart and run!" But no, dammit she's saving money and time. What better combo than that? She will check if the bakery on the other side of town is open when she does her next errand. An hour and a half later sitting at home, she remembers the bread. She never did check the bakery. Well she has an old packet of yeast in the cupboard. She could make bread in her bread machine in time for dinner. She doesn't feel like it, but she drags herself up and to the cupboard. The yeast is only two months expired she tells herself. Two hours later she goes to pull the bread out and is surprised that it has more peaks and valleys than the Rocky Mountains. It just kind of dumps out of the pan. It is dense and smells like old socks. She finds it impossible to cut it for toast to go with the scrambled eggs she is making for dinner. She has a brief flash of insight that she could make something else, or—God forbid—pick up carryout. She dismisses those thoughts before they fully reach her conscious mind and presses on. She scrambles eggs and toasts the few pieces of bread she has left in the other loaf. She puts the "bread" she just made on the table with a knife. She eats one slice of toast and allows the rest for the kids. She isn't satisfied, so tries some of the spongy bread, much to her distaste. Her oldest son, who eats any kind of bread as long as the mold is not visible, doesn't even want any after he tries a nibble.
"It tastes sort of weird," he explains. After having a couple of cookies with her tea to complete her gourmet meal, she thinks back on how much she saved at the dollar store. Let's see, it cost about a dollar and a half for the ingredients that went into the bread, plus the extra money for the other junk she bought. The pads are about as absorbent as a sheet of Kleenex. She will have to buy a box of regular ones. She still has to buy birthday cards. So she's saved no time or money-it wouldn't have cost her anymore at the discount department store. They have 99 cent cards. Plus, she could've bought a loaf of bread. She reflects on this and hopes that she'll remember it next time. On the other hand, going to the local department store would've been too easy and enjoyable and she might have even found something else she liked, and had to write a check. Oh no, not that!
Read this feature from past issues.
SHAME! SHAME! SHAME! I am going to write this now, right now, before it can be perceived as oppressive to the rights of… Who or what? I think that has to be our first question. Grammatically, I would have said: What is a corporation? Now it seems I must reinvent my language skills to include an inanimate who. Let us discuss this question of personhood. It is not a new subject. Over a century ago Mary Shelly concocted a story with that as its central theme. Since then , movies have expanded on the original story by making the act more monstrous and the results more openly anti-social. No matter what was done to the story, though, movie-goers understood the central theme of human conscience. The monster that Frankenstein built was not monstrous because he was quilted together from the parts of cadavers. The original owner of his feet might have been a man who walked through a nearby forest enjoying its beauty. The arms might have come from someone who embraced his children with tenderness. No, the whole was not condemned by the sum of its parts, not even by the brain of a convict. Mary Shelly's story is not about the evil that a group of humans can do. It was about the single element Frankenstein could not transplant from one human to another, or from a group of humans to a monster. It was about humanness itself, a soul if you will. The monster sometimes strove for something higher, but the lesson of Frankenstein's monster is that a human is a singular thing, a being with a body and inside one. So, who is a corporation? The only difference between the monster and a corporation is that a corporation has a goal, a pursuit that is defined by law and transactions. There is no random effort to find meaning, no search for purpose. A corporation is not created in order to experience the creation, as the misguided Dr. Frankenstein did with his monster. It has a purpose from its inception. And a corporation is not prevented from doing good, as long as in so doing it does not damage that primary purpose: to make money.
The individual people who made up the monster, either the corporation or the one animated by Mary Shelly's doctor, are as good or as bad as any other human beings. The result is not the sum of their parts. In spite of basic science and good sense, American law has been moving toward the ultimate result of declaring corporations equal to humans… Well, since the beginning. Dr. Frankenstein's monster was mortal in the sense that after a despicable act it was subject to the outrage of the populace. It could be driven to ground, forced to flee, or killed—depending on which version of the story (book or movie) you choose to follow. One of the features of the corporate monster is its immortality. If none of what I have said here has convinced you that corporations should never become a who, their immortality should strongly make the point. Human beings are persons whose influence is controlled by law and by time. There is no constraint on the time of a corporation. But all of this is moot thanks to five judges, appointed to lifetime terms. The ruling that will finally change our world to resemble those science fiction horror stories we have read and been soundly frighten by is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The original case was only about clarifying the wording of an existing provision of electoral law. It was the Supreme Court that took the activist choice in changing that case to a question of a basic human right, free speech, applied to immortal monsters. The justices ruled 5-4 that corporations cannot be prevented from funding political campaigns and specific candidates. This ruling allows freedom of speech to be equated with money by making speech, particularly political speech and therefore influence, accessible to only a few. Since the purpose of a corporation is to accumulate money, the conclusion that the most money in any electoral free speech will be corporate backed speech is inevitable and backed by history. These problems are not new. As I said, they were anticipated from the beginning of our country, and the legal in-roads to power have been ploughed by corporate entities for nearly a hundred years now. What is different is the broad nature of their rights as laid down by this ruling. Corporations are not only equal in tax law, not only given legal protections of citizenship—no matter how international their operations, but are now legally entitled to our most basic right as citizens. With this ruling corporate entities can no longer be prevented from influencing decision taken by our leaders and this influence has been extended to elections (vote buying is anathema to the democratic process, yet that is what we have here) and to the decisions of elected officials once in office. There is no need for subtlety in using this influence and, even more subversive, nothing to restrain them from the covert use of this power: Action committees or organizations that appear independent can now be fully funded by corporate money. Even some responsible corporations, and some big organizations such as unions, are saying this ruling is scary and that they could have done business just as well without it. Not very monster wants to become human. Murry Hill, Inc., a socially responsible public relations company has launched a campaign to run for Congress. The campaign is satirical, but we have to ask why not? How could we deny any who the right to run for political office in a country that has always prided itself on the saying that any little boy could grow up to be president? Yes, it is still boys, but at least we know that our corporate sponsors are no longer oppressed—even if women are. I watched the State of the Union address the other night and when President Obama came to this question and the camera panned to the nine black-robed judges sitting right there in the front, all I could think was that they should have crawled under their seats in shame. SHAME ! SHAME! SHAME! Ah, but corporations do not feel shame, they pay easily affordable financial penalties for their bad deeds and they don't have children to blush in the face of their parents' monstrous behavior.
Read this feature from past issues.
You can see more by David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com/.
Read this feature from past issues.
If parents are reading any of the good parenting books available today, (and there are hundreds to choose from) you might wonder as I do, why they haven't perfected the art of parenting by now? Why aren't the new theories, new insights, and new understandings producing a generation of healthy, productive, cooperative, happy children? And why are parents still asking the same questions I asked when I was a first-time mother back in 1948? Despite all the good information, it appears that something vital is being overlooked. From my point of view, shaped by my many years of observation and experience as a parent-educator, the best technique cannot measure up in importance to who we are as people. What I mean is this: who we are has far more influence on children than the methods we use to discipline them. This is not to say that what we do is unimportant; it is to say that good techniques have the best results when they are in the setting of a healthy and loving relationship. Instead of asking whether this or that discipline method will work, parents would do better to pay attention to the person who is doing the disciplining. Too often, when I am asked my opinion about a particular technique, it is immediately clear that the parent is looking for a way to change her child. The best way to change a child's attitude or behavior, however, is to change our own attitudes and behaviors. The magic comes when after we have changed ourselves, the children naturally respond in kind. None of us wants to be judged by our behavior alone—especially when we make errors in judgment, or act foolishly. Rather, we want to be accepted and loved regardless of what we do. So when we stop focusing on our children's behavior and focus instead on our relationship with them, all kinds of newness takes place in ourselves and in them. First, it results in a calm atmosphere that relieves the stress for everyone. Then when we believe in the goodness of children, their goodness emerges. And when we have faith in their ability to handle their problems, they measure up. When we show compassion for their struggles with learning how to be mindful human beings, they become mindful human beings. Sure, we want our children to behave properly, achieve good grades, get along with siblings and peers, cooperate with household chores, and have respect for us. But when they don't fulfill our expectations, is punishment or humiliation the way to change them? Think how you would you want your boss to teach you to do your job better. I'd want my boss to have faith in my ability to perform better, I'd appreciate a clear instruction on how to do my job better, and certainly I would like to have my success acknowledged and rewarded with praise. So it is with children. At the conclusion of one of my parent groups in a Baltimore City school, I asked the parents what it took for them to change. Two answers summed it up: it took courage to go to the group in the first place to learn new ways, because it means admitting that their present methods do not work; and it takes courage to give up old ways which are familiar, and go forward into the unknown of new ways to discipline their children. The parents acknowledged, however, that the new ways were not only more effective, but it made them feel good about themselves! None of us enjoys yelling or hitting our children, so it is a relief to discipline children without having to feel guilty when we use harsh methods. The new ways do as much for the children's well-being as it does for the parents'. April marks my one year anniversary of writing the Family Matters column. I hope you have enjoyed the ideas you found there. At the end of each column the editor invites you to email me any questions you'd like answered or topics you would like me to cover. So far, I have had no takers. So let me repeat the invitation. I like nothing better than to interact with people, whether through eye-to-eye contact or email. I want very much to know what you are thinking, feeling, coping with, struggling with, excited about, angry about, who you are, what you do, what interests you, what doesn't interest you, and how you manage each day's pressures. It's clear that you know much more about me than I know about you. Finding out about you would help me write on subjects that have meaning for you. So, email me, tell me something about yourself, and give me some idea as to what you would like to see in Family Matters.
Read this feature from past issues.
Dollar Store from Lisa Hecmanczuk
Shame! Shame! Shame! from Georgia Jones
from David Donar
The Magic of Change with Molly Koch
Brain Food
When the Snow Comes Down in Tennessee
Self Esteem, or Self-Importance?
Understand Emotional Eating
A conversation in Poems
February is Teen Dating Violence Awareness Month from Danielle Joy Linhart
Elizabeth Blackwell from teen author Brittany King
Mysterious Strangers and Other Things You Might Hear
The Goodness and Badness of Organizations
A Review of Kabul Beauty School
Good News Bad News
New Stuff
Your chance to say what you think
Next Time You Eat A Plant...
print this article separately
from Lisa Hecmanczuk
My name is Lisa Hecmanczuk. I am a writer of many diverse pieces that I believe to be of inspirational value to the world today, perhaps especially women. I author short stories in the following categories: Faith, Survival, Romance, Recovery, Family, Humor of Everyday Life, Nostalgia, Nature, Pets, Inner Child, Friendship, and Faith. I also have a collection of poetry and prayers. My works are all meant to provide hope and are written from the heart. My blog is LoveofLifebyLisaHecmanczuk.blogspot.com/.
print this article separately
from Georgia Jones"I am for responsibilities at short periods, seeing neither reason
nor safety in making public functionaries independent of the
nation for life, or even for long terms of years." ~Thomas
Jefferson to James Martin, 1813.
"The principles of our Constitution are wisely opposed to all
perpetuations of power, and to every practice which may lead to
hereditary establishments." ~Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Address,
1809.
print this article separately
The Magic of Change
from Molly Koch
Molly Koch is a wife, mother and activist. She is the author of 27 Secrets to Raising Amazing Children. You can find out more at her two websites, mollybkoch.com and keeptheconnection.org.
I visited youtube to check out a fun cat video a friend sent me, and discovered that there is more to YouTube than I thought. I discovered YouTubeEDU, their educational channel. Wow! The University of California has 15 videos available on climate change, covering topics from "Energy Policy" to "Climate Change and Water Rights". For those interested in health, there are lectures on H1N1 and on "Healing through Dance". All in all, the University of California provides 3,456 educational videos. And that's just from one of the many institutions represented on youtubeEDU. There's even videos from Cambridge University, if I ever want to study abroad.
Videolectures.net and Academic Earth are other resources that have lectures on a wide variety of topics. I checked out "climate change" and discovered 112 videos on academic earth and 11 at Videolectures.net.
Google on the other hand has Google Scholar. There one can search the scholarly literature to your heart's content. Or, to act as your own lawyer in a dispute with a neighbor, one can search the legal opinions and journals for information. For example, I typed in "climate change" and found over 1.5 million references to reports and articles on the topic. That would be enough to help me put my knowledge on a firm scientific basis.
Want to learn computer programming or calculus? Free-ed.net has 300 courses that are free for the taking, including ones on meteorology and on environment and ecology that look like they would give me a great foundation for understanding all that scholarly reading I will be doing on climate change.
So much to learn, so little time. By checking out some of the specialized learning tools available on the internet, the student can learn wherever they are. Join me in learning something new.