Some people seem to think that if buildings are made "accessible" for disabled or mobility-impaired people, that the result will be inconvenient for the able-bodied. Nothing could be more wrong. Principles of Universal Design (UD) promote the creation of environments that are easily usable by the greatest number of people, both abled and disabled.
In many cases, a UD approach increases the attractiveness of a space and makes it more convenient for everyone, regardless of physical ability.
For example, think about "rocker" light switches, which were developed to make it easier for disabled people to control the lights in a room. These switches are now considered a design "upgrade" over the old-style flip (or toggle) switches, and most people see them as part of the decor without knowing that they represent accessibility. This is only one example of how intentional accessibility benefits everyone.
Turning a round doorknob can be difficult, painful, or even impossible for people with common conditions such as arthritis, people with neurological conditions that limit hand function, people recovering from injuries, and people who have their hands full of packages. A lever doorknob solves this problem. It can be opened simply by pressing - no need to grasp and twist. If your hand is occupied (or in pain), you can use your elbow. In addition to being convenient, Levers can add beautiful designs and artistic flourishes to home decor.
Some people are reluctant to build ramps to the entrances of buildings, even though ramps make buildings easier to enter. There is a common misconception that a ramp always looks unattractive and detracts from the appearance of the building. Why would a staircase be better looking than a ramp?
Stairways can be dangerous, awkward to use, a barrier for children or others with short legs, miserable for the elderly or anyone who is tired or ill, impossible for some disabled persons, a blockade for strollers, shopping carts, walkers, and wheelchairs, and often quite ugly.
Architects have spent hundreds of years inventing ways to make stairs look good, despite all the problems they present. Stairs have been accepted as the normal way to get from one level to another. We see them everywhere, and have become so accustomed to looking at them, that we don't even notice how inconvenient and unattractive they are.
Some designers even add unnecessary steps to a space to create different levels because of some fantasy that it looks good or that it is a method to organize the way a space will be used. In what world are deliberately-created trip hazards good organization?
Unlike stairs, ramps are accessible to nearly everyone. When intentionally designed as part of a building's architecture, they look natural and may even be beautiful.
Choosing My Religion
I often see people who accuse others of being “fake Christians,” typically because the accused person appears to behave in a way inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus. My understanding is that the only requirement to be a “real” Christian is to believe in the divinity of Jesus. It is certainly possible that many of the people accused of being “fake” actually do believe that, even if they don’t believe they have to do anything about it.
In reality, there are very few people whose daily behavior is 100% compliant with the rules and recommendations of their chosen religion, and this applies to all religions, not just Christianity. If everyone who does not comply with all the tenets if their faith is “fake,” we have a world full of fakes.
Further, it can be very difficult to determine which specific faith someone follows, considering the hundreds or thousands of variations that are connected to every major religion.
Research suggests there are at least 46 prominent Christian denominations, with many more branches, sects, breakaway groups, independent churches, etc., adding up to an estimated 50,000 different flavors of Christian.
Although there are three major branches of Islam, there are many sects, groups, and movements. Some sources indicate that there are at least 73 distinct Islamic followings and traditions.
There are at least three widely recognized branches of Judaism, along with a broader array of different movements, sects, and affiliations. Research does not yield a specific number.
There seem to be three major divisions of Buddhism, along with many sects, sub-sects, communities, and traditions. Some sources indicate at least 1,000 different forms of Buddhism.
Hinduism is commonly understood to have four major denominations, with many different branches, practices, and traditions, often overlapping or including each other.
Those are the five largest religions worldwide, but there are many others. Estimates indicate between 4,000 and 10,000 distinctly identifiable religions worldwide. Most of these are relatively small, regional traditions.
There is a general trend for people to disconnect from religion altogether. No need to fake anything then.
This is how they do it
If you want to think about how "flooding the zone" works, imagine this scenario. Over breakfast, I tell my husband, "This week I'm going to have lunch in Budapest, slap your mother, eat all the donuts I want, slash the tires on your car, fix the leaky toilet, make the neighbor stop stealing our mail, and replace all the doorknobs. By the way, did you know that our roof is too slippery for Santa Claus? It's really dangerous to have a roof like that, and flat roofs are much better. Anyway, there's more coffee if you want it and I'm a lot prettier than your sister."
Hubby isn't sure how to respond, but he knows that lunch in Budapest is unrealistic and our mail hasn't been stolen. The comments about the roof sound crazy, but in the meantime, hearing that I might fix the leak makes him feel hopeful. "Don't you dare slap my mother," he says. I just laugh and tell him that's not what I meant, I'm just going to tell her to stop giving our kids so many cookies and I might have to yell a little. By now, he can barely remember anything I said, except that I mentioned his sister. "What's my sister got to do with it?" he asks. "She bakes the cookies," I explain.
At this point, he's thoroughly confused and doesn't even remember to get a second cup of coffee. Later in the week, when he finds all his tires slashed, he storms into the house, only to find that I've removed all the doorknobs. It turns out that I sold them for scrap metal, and Hubby eventually has to hire a guy to replace them (with plastic ones so I won't take them again). He doesn't even ask me about the tires, which get replaced by insurance. The toilet is still leaking.
More Random Thoughts
I understand pumpkin spice cookies, candy, drinks, even candles. But dish soap?
When I got my first job, it was my understanding that my employer had control over what I did at work. They could implement a dress code, require employees to speak courteously to each other and customers, insist that we be on time, etc. As soon as I left work at the end of the day, my life was my own. I could go where I chose, say whatever I wanted, dress as I liked, etc. When did that change? When did we, as a society, decide that an employer owns a worker's entire life?
I'm old enough to remember when Republicans said that communists were horrible because they controlled what people could say, and encouraged citizens to snitch on their friends and neighbors, and expelled people from their jobs if they expressed even mild disagreement with the regime.
I must be really old, because I can remember when presidents, vice-presidents, and members of congress tried to behave and speak with dignity.
For decades, we've been told, "There are two sides to every story," with the implication that both versions are equally valid (often with comparisons to two side of the same coin). This is utter nonsense. Sometimes there are three, four, or ten sides. Sometimes, there are no sides, just a big blob. Often one of the "sides" is the truth and the others are something else. If you're indoors and a person tells you it's raining outside, while another says it's dry and sunny, you don't think these are two sides of equal validity. You stick your head out to see for yourself.
Lies, Stupid Lies
There are actually better defenses for this, ones that don't require completely letting go of reality. If nothing else, he could use some variation of the "locker room talk" excuse. It wouldn't be hard to say, "This was over 20 years ago, in a different context, and we were all just joking around, and yes, some people probably got carried away and wrote things in poor taste, but it seemed funny at the time." That, at least, could be seen as plausible.
"Privatize It"
The purpose of a government agency is to provide a service. The purpose of a business is to make a profit. When public services are privatized, the quantity and quality of the service is reduced in order to maximize profit.
In a free market, you can leave a business that provides bad products and services. When a business has a government contract, you don't have that choice, and you are paying (through taxes) for that bad service.
Let Them Consider Cake
One of my elementary school teachers told this story.
A woman had three daughters. She was determined to show no favoritism, and had dedicated herself to treating them equally and fairly at all times.
One day, the mother baked a beautiful chocolate cake, and served it for dessert. She carefully cut three identical pieces and gave one to each of her daughters. The first daughter considered chocolate cake to be about as good as any other dessert, so she thanked her mother and ate her slice. Chocolate cake was the second daughter's absolute all-time favorite. She ate her slice with intense enjoyment, and still craved more. When she asked for another piece, the mother refused because it wouldn't be fair to give one daughter more than the others. The third daughter thought chocolate was about as yummy as cardboard. She set her piece aside and asked her mother for something different. But the mother refused because it wouldn't be right not to treat the girls equally.
How often do you suppose these girls felt that Mom was treating them fairly?
Random Thoughts
Illustration: "Such Visions Have...." (1804-20), William Blake What they don't like about "DEI" is "D" - diversity, because that means seeing and hearing people who are different from you. Another thing they don't like about it is "E" - equity, because that means fairness rather than allowing some people to start with special privileges and advantages. They also don't like "I" - inclusion, because making places and institutions accessible might require a small amount of effort, and it would certainly make Diversity and Equity more likely.
One day, the body stops working. Do something before that day.
One place I worked had a big common area surrounded by small offices. The common area had a motion-activated lighting system. If there was no movement for a time, the lights would go out. When some entered the area, the movement caused the lights to come on. Sometimes I'd be working early in the morning or late in the afternoon, when no one else was around. I got used to the area outside my office being dark. But it was really eerie when the lights would snap on and no one was there.
U.S. citizens have always been proud that we don't have to carry "papers" to show at random to enforcers on the street. That will change, as more citizens start carrying papers to avoid being deported in mass raids.
I suspect my fingerprints of wearing out. When I try to pick up small objects, they slip away from my fingers.
If you hire an irresponsible, unreliable, unqualified substance abuser to water the plants, the worst thing that happens is that some of the plants die. Put that guy in charge of national defense and the worst thing that happens is that people die, and wars are lost.
Certain people have fallen in love with the word "tribunal". They don't just want a trial for those they dislike, they want a tribunal! Their posts suggest they believe a tribunal always leads to execution, and they are eager to execute as many people as possible. There are cultists who spend a lot of time dreaming about locking up anyone who ever opposed or even mildly disagreed with the cult leader. They fantasize about killing people, and post messages about longed-for executions. Of course, they want to imprison or kill all Democratic politicians. Their bloodlust extends to Republicans who are insufficiently subservient, and to former trump administration members for reasons I don't understand. I saw one recently, advocating execution for Dr. Deborah Birx, apparently because they hated her scarves.
The ads for prescription drugs and their horrible side effects are fascinating. I particularly like the ads for drugs whose purpose is to fix the side effects from the other drugs.
Most of the drug ads seem to say, "It'll make you feel a little better for a while, but then it'll probably ruin your life and possibly kill you." Kinda like heroin.
What kind of country puts a government monitor into a television network to make sure news and opinions are in alignment with the current regime?
If I were the absolute ruler of a nation, I would want the populace to be generally happy, well-fed, healthy, educated, secure in their homes and communities. I'd want them to feel optimistic about the future. To me, this would be success. If large numbers of people were poor, or if many people felt anxious and threatened, if law enforcement agencies terrified people, if entire communities were unable to recover from disasters, if babies were cut off from health care, if the majority agreed that everything I did was wrong, if people dreaded the future -- that would be failure.
They're Looking at You
"Gestapo men", public domain, Wikipedia
ICE is now a huge military force, with a budget bigger than the militaries of most nations. It isn't part of our national defense. It operates only within this country's borders. It does not track down drug cartels or violent gangs. It isn't looking for bank robbers, rapists, or murderers. It will now be receiving from Medicaid and the IRS information that used to be considered private and confidential. Ask yourself what history tells us about countries that have huge internal militarized police forces with operatives whose identities are concealed, arresting people without warrants, moving them to undisclosed locations, imprisoning people without trials, and accumulating vast dossiers of information on the entire population.
Food Shortages Are Coming
Many Americans are unaware of how much of their food comes from California. They think California is just two or three big cities, and ignore the fact that it is a largely agricultural state, supplying nearly 70% of the nation's fruits and vegetables. If the Republican regime succeeds in its goal of destroying California's agriculture, the entire country will experience shortages and higher prices. In addition to providing your fruit and veggies, California produces about 20% of U.S. dairy products and about 80% of the country's fresh cut flowers. If the workers are driven off, tons of valuable food will sit in the fields and rot. Imported fruit, already expensive, will experience extreme price increases driven by tariffs.
Random Thoughts
Big Fishes Eat Small Ones, 1556, Pieter Bruegel the Elder
If an envelope that comes in the mail says "Important information" on the outside, that's a sure sign that it is extremely UNinmportant.
Here's one of those things I see on TV that is so unlike real life I start yelling at the screen. A person comes home at night, enters the house or apartment. It's dark, but they don't turn on the light! They wander through the dark house into the kitchen for a drink (still in the dark) or into the living room to just sit on the couch in the dark. If it's a crime show, there's a killer lurking in the house who ambushes them in the dark. Or some unpleasant person from their past (with remarkable burglar skills) is in the house and surprises them with sarcastic remarks. Or their roommate has already been murdered and they stumble over the body in the dark. In any case, why didn't they just turn on the damn lights?!!?
People keep saying, X is a distraction from Y. But, really, they are doing both X and Y because those are both things they want to do. Doing everything all at once is not a distraction, it is a strategy to overwhelm us.
I just don't understand the mentality that looks at uber-rich people and says, "We need to give these guys more money."
If a religion can be damaged by someone's disbelief or satire, then it is too weak to benefit anyone.
Imagine the mind of someone who wants to make poor people poorer, hopes to see more children die, looks forward to increasing the number of homeless people, wants health care workers to be unemployed, and likes the spread of infectious diseases.
Random Thoughts
Someone who really believed in "America First" would want America to be first in education, to have the finest and most prestigious academies and universities and the most well educated population. Wanting America to be "First" would mean wanting excellent public education available to all.
It is horrifying to me to see how often "peace officers" are unable to control their emotions and will start screaming and using threatening body language toward civilians over trivialities or imaginary incidents.
What kind of country turns the military against its own citizens? What kind of government arrests people for asking questions?
Someone who really believed in "America First" would want America to be the healthiest nation. That would mean making great health care accessible to all. It would mean supporting medical research, having excellent hospitals, employing the best professionals, educated here and recruited from abroad.
There were countries I didn't visit, because they were dangerous for tourists. Now I live in one.
Someone who really believed in "America First" would want us to be first in science and technology. This would mean promoting excellent public education, encouraging universities and industries to perform high-quality research, and attracting the best minds both from home and abroad.
Someone who really believed in "America First" would take pride and pleasure in our great national parks and public lands. This would mean embracing the responsibility to care for and preserve our unique natural resources, keeping them safe now and for the future.
Death Without Dignity
Think about these matters for a minute.
We are all encouraged to have a will - a document that directs how our property will be distributed or disposed of after we die. A person's right to control their property, even after death, is legally recognized and traditionally honored.
Most societies consider it important to treat the dead with respect. That includes, not only a deceased person's property, but also their physical remains. Desecration of a corpse is considered especially detestable. Abusing, mishandling, or improperly disposing of a corpse carries both civil and criminal penalties.
When it comes to organ donation (using a person's body and its parts after death), once again, we are encouraged to express our wishes prior to death. If a person has not given permission for their organs to be used by other people, then it is illegal to use those organs. In some cases, family members are permitted to grant permission ater the person's death, but, in any event, it remains illegal to take organs, or to use a body in medical research or experimentation, without proper permission.
Traditionally, grave robbing - taking a body out of its grave - is considered a particularly vile crime. In times past, professional grave robbers would supply freshly dead bodies to medical schools where they were dissected for the purpose of teaching anatomy and surgery. This practice was widely condemned, and laws were enacted to control the acquisition of cadavers and to ensure that bodies used in medical education would eventually receive a dignified burial or cremation.
Unfortunately, we now find ourselves living in a society where some people are no longer allowed the respect and dignity that comes with making one's own choices regarding the handling and use of the body after death. Specifically, there is a trend to treat women as less than fully human, a lower caste of beings who do not enjoy the same rights as men when it comes to basic decisions regarding their own bodies. For some time, there have been persons openly advocating for the use of female corpses in bizarre medical experiments. Until recently, one might expect that a woman, just like a real person, could choose to grant - or not - permission for her body to be used in research and experimentation, and that, in the absence of such permission, her remains would be handled and disposed of in accordance with her and her family's wishes. In the year 2025, this is not true.
A woman who happens to be pregnant at the time of death may end up as a sort of living corpse, her body connected to machines that force some of her organs to continue functioning, so that her body can be used as an incubator for the nonviable fetus that, under normal circumstances, would have died with her. This has just been done to the remains of a woman who did not give permission for organ donation or medical research, against the wishes of family members who wanted her to be treated with dignity.
As it happens, in this case, the mad-scientist experiment seems to have succeeded, in that an extremely premature infant, weighing less than two pounds, was extracted from the woman's body and placed in intensive care. Infants delivered at this stage have about a 10% chance of survival and, if they survive, are likely to face severe medical problems.
They May Be Aiming at You
So-called "non-lethal" weapons are really just "less lethal", and law enforcement terminology now acknowledges that.
Rubber bullets aren't bouncy rubber. They are metal with a rubber coating, intended to be very painful and knock someone down. They can blind you permanently, give you a concussion, damage major organs, cause limb injury requiring amputation, and may cause death.
"Bean bag" bullets do not use the bean bags you're familiar with. Instead of beans or plastic, the bags are filled with metal balls! They are supposed to be aimed low, to hit the legs or feet, but cops usually aim for the torso or head. These will always knock you down, and can cause very severe injuries, leading to permanent disability or death.
Tear gas is deployed in grenades or cannisters that emit the gas as a spray or mist. If you are hit by the cannister, it can cause serious injury or death. The gas itself is extremely irritating to mucous membranes. It causes coughing, difficulty breathing, throat pain, eye pain, and temporary blindness. It may trigger asthma attacks. In some cases, it can cause permanent damage, including death. Tear gas is considered a chemical weapon and is outlawed in international warfare, yet police in the U.S. are allowed to use it on civilians.
All of these weapons are used to injure, maim, and "accidentally" kill unarmed citizens. If you are struck by any of these projectiles, get medical help as soon as possible, even if you think your injury isn't serious. You can have a concussion or internal injuries that aren't immediately obvious.
We need laws that restrict the use of these weapons against unarmed persons, and we need the ability to hold police accountable when these weapons are abused -- such as deliberately aiming for the head, shooting people in the back, firing on children or disabled persons, attacking pregnant women and elderly folks, etc.
This Movie Gives Me Nightmares
Such a ghastly scenario is too gruesome for most horror writers. Even Mary Shelley, the creator of Frankenstein, only envisioned dead bodies being rebuilt with spare parts so that they could be brought back to life.
In recent times, there have been occasional suggestions from researchers or politicians that brain-dead women or women in persistent vegetative states could be used as surrogates, or "fetal containers" for couples using IVF, or for fetuses transferred from women seeking abortions.
Now think about zombies.
Horror movies and TV shows portray zombies as angry dead people who have come to life, or people infected by a bizarre epidemic, who relentlessly attack the living, often with an appetite for brains. But the original zombies were less spectacular. They were dead people reanimated through voodoo, who were used as slaves.
It's happening now. Without consent, and against the family's wishes, a brain-dead woman is being used to incubate a fetus. If this horrifying procedure results in a live birth, there is a good chance the baby will face serious medical problems and disabilities. But that won't stop the mad scientists from trying it again.
What we are seeing is the zombification of women's bodies.
- Suggestion to use brain stem dead women's bodies for surrogate pregnancies sparks huge backlash
- Zombification Process
- Sponsor of Georgia abortion ban spared trauma of watching brain dead loved one carry fetus
Whose Body Is It, Anyway?
Imagine this. A young man falls ill, experiencing some kind of seizure, or perhaps a stroke, that releases blood clots into his brain, ultimately causing his death. His brain is not functioning, and the attending physician has declared him dead. However, because he was connected to life support equipment in the hospital, some parts of his body are still functioning in a machine-like way.
An examination reveals that his testicles are still producing viable sperm cells. A state agency notifies the hospital that the man must not be disconnected from life support, even though the local medical board officially confirms that he is dead. According to a recently-passed state law, destroying or discarding potentially viable gametes is "equivalent to terminating human life" and carries heavy penalties. The hospital is required to maintain the man's body and to retrieve the sperm.
The man was single, and there is no one in his family who wants to use or preserve his sperm. In fact, his family members have refused to give permission for any further medical treatment, and have requested that the life support equipment be removed. State officials suggest that the sperm can be frozen and stored at a sperm bank, although it is unclear who would be responsible for the costs involved. Further, without the man's consent (impossible to get at this point), the sperm cannot be used in a fertilization procedure. State legislators introduce a bill that would make "orphaned or unclaimed gametes" wards of the state, to be donated as directed by state health officials.
In the meantime, the man's dead body continues to be operated by machines, using resources that otherwise would go to living people in critical condition whose lives might be saved.
Sounds crazy, doesn't it? But is it any crazier than artificially maintaining a dead woman's body so she can be used as an incubator?
- Hospital tells family brain-dead Georgia woman must carry fetus to birth
- Georgia woman’s plight reveals anti-abortion forces’ endgame
- Dear America: women’s bodies are not state property
Vanishing Health Care
Around 20% of Americans rely on Medicaid for their health care coverage. Depending on the location, it may be somewhat more or less than that. Medicaid covers 41% of births and about 60% of nursing home patients.
Even if you don't use Medicaid, because you have good insurance or you are able to pay out of pocket, Medicaid affects you. How? The clinic or hospital where you get your treatment depends on those Medicaid payments. If those patients disappear, the facility can't afford to stay in business and continue to provide your care.
This is an even bigger problem if you live in a rural area or an underserved town. There already aren't enough doctors, and if the hospitals and medical practices are forced to close because they lose Medicaid, there will be none. You won't enjoy driving 300 miles to get routine care in a far-off city. and if you have a heart attack, 911 can't send an ambulance that doesn't exist to take you to an emergency room that closed two years ago.
Random Thoughts
Savonarola's execution in the Piazza della Signoria, painting by Filippo Dolciati (1498)
Spiro Agnew was born too soon. He had to take bribes quietly, and eventually it cost him his job. If only he could be a part of today's Republican administration, he'd probably be put in charge of the Treasury.
If I wanted to make a big impression on an 8-year-old, I'd have a huge parade with fancy cars, guys with swords, prancing horses, and marching camels, lots of camels.
Sometimes, all I want from the people around me is to just stop talking.
According to the ACLU, "U.S. citizens do not have to carry proof of citizenship on their person if they are in the United States." Further, federal agents do not have a legal basis to suspect someone of an immigration violation just because of their race or ethnicity (or having an accent, or speaking a language). Even so, in light of current events, it may be a good idea for people of certain demographic groups to have proof of citizenship with them.
There were countries I didn't visit, because they were dangerous for tourists. Now I live in one.
If you just want to use the restroom, and a fascist demands you "prove" your gender, what should you do?
a. tell him "you first"
b. invite him to join you in a stall
c. call 911 and report him for invading the ladies room
d. sing "I Enjoy Being a Girl"
What kind of country has a special police force, with no restrictions on its power, that can arrest and detain anyone, anytime, without explanation?
Flooded
"Flooding the zone." They throw so much stuff at us, we are overwhelmed, unable to prioritize.
What should we deal with first? People kidnapped in broad daylight by masked thugs? Insane policies that make international trade nearly impossible, and cause prices to skyrocket? The end of life--saving medical research? Laws that prevent women from voting? The end of food safety? The destruction of national parks? Deliberate starvation of poor children? A president who openly takes bribes? People imprisoned, without trials, in foreign countries? Our personal data handed over to who-knows-who for who-knows-what purposes? Book-banning? Competent public employees fired, replaced by unqualified sycophants or by nobody? Deliberate erosion of air traffic safety? Lost access to health information? The erasure of historical records? Rising death rates for women and infants? Attempts to make dissent a crime? Arresting public officials for doing their jobs? Threatening judges? Extorting law firms? Representatives of the president blatantly lying to the public about everything? The end of product safety? Reporters afraid to report? Elected officials afraid to speak up? All the other nightmares I haven't listed here?
There is so much, it can have the effect of paralyzing people, because they just don't know what to do first. That's the idea. They want us frozen in place, unable to take action. One reason for flooding the zone is to present us with so much terrible stuff, that even if we do fight back, we won't be able to stop all of it, and many things will get by us.
It's like being attacked simultaneously by army ants, locusts, Hitchcock birds, and zombies. Some of them are going to slip through the cracks.
Tariffs Are An Outdated Concept
The original idea behind imposing tariffs on imports goes something like this:
- People are buying cheap foreign products instead of American products.
- This is bad for American businesses, and for the economy in general.
- If we make foreign goods more expensive, people will stop buying them.
- Adding a tariff (tax) to imports will make those foreign goods so expensive that people will buy American products instead.
Of course, it's never quite that simple. This doesn't take into account the possibility that other countries will put tariffs on American goods, or that there may be reasons why people buy the foreign products even with the tariff. It doesn't take into account that American companies will decide to raise their prices, so their products become just as expensive as the imports. There are many possible complications.
The world today doesn't operate like it did back in the 18th century. Because the economy operates differently now, the old tariff theory just doesn't fit in the modern world.
Many - perhaps most - of those American companies actually use a lot of imported products. Their machinery and tools may come from other countries. They may be importing certain parts or raw materials. When the price of foreign products goes up because of tariffs, it creates higher costs for American businesses. They may be forced out of business because they can't afford to purchase more expensive materials. Or they may go forward, but they have to raise their prices because of the tariffs, and now they can't offer a lower price than the imported products.
Tariff of 1790
Tariff of 1792
Tariff of 1930
Beyond the Peter Principle
In their 1969 book, The Peter Principle, Laurence Peter and Raymond Hull described how people working in organizations tend to rise to a level of incompetence.
A guy who is very good at his job gets promoted. The new job may require some skills that weren't part of his previous job. He may or may not have those skills, but if he is able to master the new position and make a good impression, he is likely to get promoted again. Again, the skills needed for the new position are likely somewhat different. If he is good at that job, he'll get promoted again, If this continues, the guy will be finally promoted into a job that is completely beyond his ability. His incompetence means that he won't be promoted again, so he stays in that position, performing poorly.
According to this theory, hierarchical organizations eventually become filled with, and run by, people who just aren't very good at what they do. The Peter Principle is expressed as: "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." Its corollary is: "In time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties."
These principles are on very public display in our government's current administration, which has carried them to an extreme level in which incompetence does not prevent people from being further promoted, and may even be the reason some people of low ability are placed in positions requiring knowledge, skills, and experience that they lack.
Incompetent people in positions of authority feel threatened by those whose competencies are significantly greater than their own, and will, whenever possible, expell them and replace them with incompetents with whom they feel comfortable
A guy who is very good at his job gets promoted. The new job may require some skills that weren't part of his previous job. He may or may not have those skills, but if he is able to master the new position and make a good impression, he is likely to get promoted again. Again, the skills needed for the new position are likely somewhat different. If he is good at that job, he'll get promoted again, If this continues, the guy will be finally promoted into a job that is completely beyond his ability. His incompetence means that he won't be promoted again, so he stays in that position, performing poorly.
According to this theory, hierarchical organizations eventually become filled with, and run by, people who just aren't very good at what they do. The Peter Principle is expressed as: "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." Its corollary is: "In time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties."
These principles are on very public display in our government's current administration, which has carried them to an extreme level in which incompetence does not prevent people from being further promoted, and may even be the reason some people of low ability are placed in positions requiring knowledge, skills, and experience that they lack.
Incompetent people in positions of authority feel threatened by those whose competencies are significantly greater than their own, and will, whenever possible, expell them and replace them with incompetents with whom they feel comfortable
Wounded
This is a summary of my research into "U.S. presidents' injuries and wounds." This includes adulthood injuries before, during, and after the time in office.
- Thomas Jefferson – Dislocated his wrist when he jumped over a fence; it wasn’t set correctly and caused pain the rest of his life.
- James Monroe – Suffered a life-threatening wound in battle during the Revolution; the bullet was never removed. In later life, he injured his wrist falling from a horse.
- Andrew Jackson – Before becoming president, survived bullet wounds when dueling or brawling, experienced lifelong pain.
- Franklin Pierce – During his military service, was injured in battle when his horse tripped and fell on him.
- Abraham Lincoln – Assassinated, shot in the head.
- Rutherford B. Hayes – Shot in the arm during a Civil War battle. Later injured when thrown from a horse.
- James Garfield – Assassinated, shot in the arm and side.
- Grover Cleveland – After a secret operation to remove an oral tumor, he suffered depression and apparent poor health the rest of his life.
- William McKinley - Assassinated, shot in the chest and stomach.
- William Howard Taft – Experienced relatively minor injuries due to several random accidents.
- Theodore Roosevelt – Survived assassination attempt, shot in chest. Seriously injured in a traffic accident that killed his bodyguard.
- Herbert Hoover – Suffer fractured vertebrae in a bathtub accident
- Franklin Roosevelt - was left permanently paralyzed from the waist down after diagnosis of polio.
- Dwight Eisenhower – Suffered a serious knee injury and infection while playing football. Re-injured the knee several times playing various sports.
- John F. Kennedy – Assassinated, shot in the head and neck. Also: Had been wounded while serving in WWII, received Purple Heart.
- Richard Nixon – While campaigning (1960), his knee was slammed by a car door, causing serious injury and infection, leading to chronic deep vein thromboses.
- Gerald Ford – Injured when an elevator door malfunctioned. Tripped and fell several times, extent of injuries (possible bruises or scrapes) unknown.
- Jimmy Carter – In his 90s, needed a hip replacement after a fall, then suffered a cut and black eye from a second fall, and a pelvic fracture from a third fall.
- Ronald Reagan – Survived assassination attempt, shot in the chest.
- George H.W. Bush – Prior to becoming president, was injured in WWII when he had to parachute out of his airplane.
- Bill Clinton – Serious knee injury from a fall.
- George W. Bush – After leaving office, suffered a facial cut and bruise when he fell after choking on food.
- Joe Biden – Had a sprained ankle and later a foot fracture, both incurred while playing with his dog. Experienced a couple of minor falls that did not cause injuries.
- donald trump – while campaigning, survived an apparent assassination attempt, claimed to have an injured ear.
Sic Semper Tyrannis - Maybe
This is a summary of my research into "What finally happened to some of history's dictators and tyrants?"
Pol Pot (Cambodia). Sentenced to life in prison. Died of heart failure, age 73. His widow remarried.
Joseph Stalin (Soviet Union). Remained in power, experienced years of poor health, died of cerebral hemorrhage, age 74.
Benito Mussolini (Italy). Trying to sneak out of the country, he was recognized and shot to death, age 62, along with his mistress, age 33. The crowd displayed their bodies, suspended upside-down.
Adolf Hitler (Germany). Defeated in war, he and his wife committed suicide, ages 56 and 33. Their bodies were burned.
Francisco Franco (Spain). Remained in power. After a period of ill health, died of natural causes, age 83.
Idi Amin (Uganda). After several coup attempts and violent conflicts, he fled the country and settled in Saudi Arabia, where the royal family supported him. He died of kidney failure, age 77.
Fidel Castro (Cuba). Facing health problems, he retired. After a period of declining health he died, age 90.
Juan Perón (Argentina). After a violent coup, he spent 18 years in exile, then returned for a 3rd term. Facing much opposition and in failing health, he had a series of heart attacks and finally died, age 78.
Gaius Caesar “Caligula” (Roman Empire). Assassinated in a plot involving the army and the senate, age 28.
Mau Tse Tung (or Mao Zedong) (China). Remained in power, although in poor health. Died after major heart attacks, age 82.
Nicolae Ceausescu (Romania) He and his wife were tried for genocide, found guilty, sentenced to death, and executed by firing squad, aged 71 and 42. The execution was videotaped and televised.
Queen Mary “Bloody Mary” (England). Remained in power. Died of natural causes, age 42.
Maximilien Robespierre (France). The members of the National Convention turned against him and ordered his arrest. He attempted suicide, seriously injuring his jaw with a pistol shot. He was executed by guillotine to the cheers of the crowd, age 36.
Muammar Gaddafi (Libya). After the fall of his government, he was on the run with a small group of loyalists. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for crimes against humanity. After a NATO bombing attack on his convoy, he was captured by a militia and died violently, age 68.
Saddam Hussein (Iraq). His government fell after a U.S. military invasion. After hiding for several months, he was captured, tried for crimes against humanity, and found guilty. He was executed by hanging, age 69.
Ferdinand Marcos (Philippines). Ousted by a revolution or coup, he fled to Hawaii with millions in cash and jewelry. He died of natural causes, age 72. His widow returned to the Philippines and remained influential in politics.
Augusto Pinochet (Chile). Voted out, he moved to the U.K. He was arrested on charges that included genocide and terrorism, but was released on medical grounds. He returned to Chile and was granted immunity from prosecution, plus financial support. He lost his immunity and was indicted for many crimes and placed under house arrest, but was never tried. He died of natural causes, age 91
Kim Jong Il (North Korea). Remained in power. Died (probably natural causes) age 71.
Chop it Down and Sell It
Some people do not see any beauty in nature. They do not understand why people will line up and pay a fee to visit a national park or nature preserve. These materialists look at a landscape and think about its potential to be used for monetary gain. Can the trees be chopped down and sold for lumber? Can the hills be scraped away and mined for precious minerals? Can the river be diverted for sale to farmers, or used as a dump for factory waste?
This inability to value or appreciate nature's beauty and wholesomeness is often accompanied by an inability to appreciate the arts. These guys don't read books, attend concerts, or visit museums. Most of us derive pleasure from beautiful and interesting creations, contemplating works of art, listening to music, reading engaging stories, seeing a skillful performance. The materialists are strangers to emotional or intellectual pleasure. For them, there are only two kinds of pleasure. One is ego gratification, which may be derived from receiving other people's attention, admiration, and obedience, or from acquiring material possessions, which they see as the only real measure of human worth. The other pleasure they recognize is physical: sex or goal-oriented sporting activities that emphasize individual achievement rather than teamwork, like golf or trophy hunting. Those activities also provide ego gratification.
These materialists do not perceive human beings as having value, except to the extent that they have wealth or can be used to create wealth. Workers, as a group, have value because their labor generates wealth for the employer. The individual worker is not of much value, but is disposable and replaceable. People who are unable to generate wealth for the master class, such as retired or disabled persons, are seen as completely valueless. Young children are valued for their potential as future workers. More and more, the materialists look for ways to turn children into workers at younger and younger ages, setting up systems to remove kids from school and place them in physically demanding jobs.
The materialists' ideal world is one in which they are universally recognized as superior beings and they have complete dominion over everyone and everything they see.
Random Thoughts
Prophecies of Apocalypse (ca. 1861), Raphael’s Almanac
Wastefulness, destruction, and vandalism are not traditional conservative values.
Rudeness and vulgarity are not traditional conservative values.
Many who label themselves conservative are the kind of people their genuinely conservative predecessors would have found disgusting.
Once upon a time, the world could count on America to be American. No matter who the president was, or who got elected to Congress, we knew who our allies were, and they could count on us. We knew who the bad guys were, and we were on the side of the good guys. And then...
Here's an idea for a law that will never pass. Require the top executives of industrial corporations to drink the water where they dump their chemicals.
I am so tired of women's stroke and heart attack symptoms being labeled "atypical". No! Women are half the human population. Our health issues are a normal part of human life. Our symptoms are typical. Start calling men's symptoms atypical, because they aren't the same as those of normal women.
Terrorists want the population to be frightened, uncertain, and constantly on edge. It's working. Millions of seniors and disabled people are terrified of losing their financial support; whole communities fear that their neighbors will be disappeared; anyone with investments is on edge, expecting a crash any day now; people in general are outraged to see history purged from government websites; veterans are losing their jobs or expecting to lose them; families are stunned to see parks closed; and everyone is reeling from rising prices, the threat of government-sponsored identity theft, despair over the end of medical research, and the realization that we are now ruled by a regime that defiantly ignores the will of the people and would gladly see us all die.
Because MONEY is more important than anything else.
"Avarice" (1904), James Ensor
National parks are popular! They actually bring in more money than it costs to run them. Yet the Republican regime wants to kill them. Why? They want to trade the public good for private gain. The plan is to sell our natural resources to ruthless industrialists, to be torn apart, mined for minerals, drilled for oil, and stripped of lumber. Creepy rich guys will pay a lot to be allowed to shoot all the animals. The Grand Canyon is huge. It would be a great place to dump toxic waste.
None of the money generated by destroying our parks and other agencies will be used to benefit Americans in any way. Old people will still be robbed of Social Security and Medicare. Research to cure diseases will not be funded. Disaster relief will not be provided after storms and fires. Laws that protect our food, water, and air will not be enforced. Schools will be closed. Children will not be fed. Medicaid will disappear. Even weather forecasting will be stopped.
Where will all that money go? Will it be refunded to taxpayers? No. Will some helpful programs be re-opened? No. Instead, there will be more ad campaigns praising Dear Leader. An irresponsible billionaire will get more government contracts. Dear Leader and his buddies will spend even more time using government-owned planes to fly off to resort vacations. They will hire more private soldiers to guard them from contact with the public. Wealthy Republican donors will buy more yachts, do more golfing, and have more fancy parties.
The sole purpose of the Republican regime is to create permanent damage in exchange for the temporary gratification of the oligarchs. A billionaire's lifestyle will not be improved or harmed if his net worth goes up or down by hundreds of millions, but seeing it go up on paper makes him feel better for a little while, and that's a good enough reason to make sure our grandchildren never walk in a forest or see an eagle.
But What's In It For Me?
Every chance they get, Musk, trump, and their closest buds try to demonize "NGOs". NGO just stands for Non-Government Organization, or what we Americans usually refer to as a "nonprofit", like the Red Cross, Samaritan's Purse, or Save the Children.
These guys claim that nonprofits are all corrupt and are stealing money to enrich their leaders. Musk has even claimed that organizations feeding starving children are criminal. This is because Musk and trump simply cannot believe anyone would want to do good things for other people. They believe the only reason to do anything in life is to make money. Healing the sick, feeding the hungry, making the world a better place in some way -- these ideas just don't make sense to them.
Whatever they do, they're only in it for the money, and they assume other people are just like them. "Those charities must be stealing the donations," they think. "That's what I would do."
Telling them that they should support a program that cures disease is not persuasive, unless there is a way for them to profit from it. Telling them that cutting a program will cause suffering and death is not persuasive, because they do not believe human lives (other than their own) have value beyond the ability to generate profits. Once you understand this about them, the bizarre-seeming things they say and do are easily explained.
The Greater Good
I turned on the TV this afternoon and saw the last 45 minutes of "Saving Private Ryan".
It occurred to me that most of this movie is probably incomprehensible to Comrade Krasnov, who simply can't understand why people would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. To him, there is nothing greater than the fulfillment of his own desires, the accumulation of wealth, the exercise of power in the service of petty grievances, the feeling of nasty satisfaction obtained from being able to destroy an entire nation.
A film like that is no doubt also meaningless to Musk, who is ignorant of American history, oblivious to patriotism, and unable to identify with people who want to help others.
After his life is saved, Private Ryan is advised that he should try to deserve what his comrades did for him, and he takes that to heart, striving to live a righteous life, to be a good man. Krasnov and Musk don't feel obligated to make such an effort; in their minds, they are entitled to have all life on earth sacrificed for them, simply because they have "good genes".
Ancient History
Caligula Appointing His Horse Incitatus to the Consulship, unknown author, 1616–1669. Source: The Art Institute of ChicagoThe Roman emperor Caligula ruled for only four years before he was assassinated. Caligula was hated by the Roman people, and historians hated him, too. The tales of his madness and misdeeds are likely exaggerated, and sometimes invented, just to show what a monster he was.
In any case, it seems true that he was mentally unbalanced. He declared himself a god. He spent a fortune on his palace and put up statues of himself. He forced the Senate to watch him dance in the middle of the night. He passed laws to keep people from looking at his bald spot. He mocked and insulted people. He was also a sadist. Among other things, he sometimes locked up the food supplies so the population would starve. He really made politicians mad when he announced his plan to appoint his horse to the Senate, making it clear that he thought an unqualified beast could do just as good a job as anyone else.
His unpopularity reached its peak, and officers of his own Praetorian Guards conspired to kill him. Led by a man Caligula had mocked for having a squeaky voice, they stabbed him to death and then declared his uncle Claudius the new emperor. That's how they did impeachment in 41 A.D.
To this day, Caligula is remembered as a cruel, narcissistic, depraved tyrant. Unqualified political appointees are sometimes compared to Caligula's horse.
'
Let's Make a Deal
I asked Grok, Elon Musk's AI chatbot, "What are the characteristics of a person who is good at making deals?"
This was the answer.
A person who excels at making deals typically possesses a combination of interpersonal, strategic, and intellectual traits. Here are some key characteristics:
Strong Communication Skills: They articulate ideas clearly, listen actively, and adapt their language to suit their audience. Whether negotiating terms or persuading someone, they know how to convey value effectively.
Emotional Intelligence: They read people well—picking up on cues like tone, body language, or hesitation—and adjust their approach accordingly. Empathy helps them understand the other party’s needs and motivations.
Confidence: They project assurance without arrogance, inspiring trust and credibility. This allows them to hold firm on key points while remaining approachable.
Preparation and Research: They come armed with facts—knowing their own bottom line, the other party’s likely priorities, and the broader context (market trends, competitors, etc.). Knowledge is their leverage.
Adaptability: They think on their feet, pivoting when negotiations shift unexpectedly. Rigid dealmakers lose; flexible ones find win-win solutions.
Patience and Persistence: They don’t rush or buckle under pressure. They’re willing to wait for the right moment or push through resistance to get the best outcome.
Strategic Thinking: They see the big picture—anticipating objections, planning concessions, and knowing when to walk away. Every move serves a purpose.
Persuasiveness: They frame their offers in ways that appeal to the other side’s interests, making it hard to say no. Storytelling or highlighting mutual benefits often plays a role.
Integrity: While they play hard, they don’t burn bridges. A reputation for fairness keeps doors open for future deals.
Resilience: Rejection or setbacks don’t faze them. They learn from losses and come back sharper.
Think of someone like a seasoned entrepreneur or a diplomat—say, a Chris Voss type (the ex-FBI negotiator) or even a fictional Tony Stark. They blend charm, wits, and grit to close the deal. Does that paint the picture you’re looking for?
Can You Translate That, Please?
Some countries have more than one official language, in recognition of languages spoken by indigenous people or different ethnic groups within the country, or because a particular language is seen as useful for communicating with large numbers of people and with representatives of other nations.
There is no requirement that individuals use the official language for personal conversations. For example, French is the official language of France, but when my husband and I traveled there, we spoke English to each other in public (and sometimes to local people, if they spoke English). Nobody yelled "Parlez Français!" at us, and we didn't get arrested or deported. Our experience was similar in Germany, where the official language is German, and in Italy where it is Italian (although I do speak a little Italian, which seemed to please people).
Some countries have ten or more official languages, and may also try to accommodate many additional languages and dialects used by different groups, as well as whatever it is the tourists are speaking.
We're Here to Help Ourselves
The potential improvements that would benefit most organizations are usually things that are noticed by people familiar with the current workflow, people who know what is being done and what the outcomes are. In any case, suddenly eliminating half (or three-fourths or a third or a quarter) of the employees would not improve productivity. And, even if removing some employees would increase efficiency, only someone who knows what tasks are being done, and by whom, could correctly decide who to let go.
The same concept applies to reducing the budget. An outsider might arbitrarily declare, as some sort of eccentric guiding principle, that everyone should just stop ordering office supplies, or that nobody should ever spend more than $5.00 on pencils. In many offices, people may be wasting paper or overwatering the plants. Nevertheless, only someone who actually works there can see what is necessary and useful, and what is wasteful.
If I wanted to improve efficiency and economy in an organization, I would take some time to work with the people and help them to identify areas for improvement. If I wanted to completely destroy an organization so that it could not fulfill its purpose, I would send in an angry clown to just fire half the staff for no reason, and I'd take away the operating budget and order a halt to all normal procedures.
Random Thoughts
After a while, there were so many mass shootings, the news media lost interest in reporting them. I expect that's going to happen with plane crashes, too.
I'm so tired of all the entities that want me to download their app just so I can shop / read the article / get past the popup. I don't need 5,000 stupid apps all over my phone!
King Charles I of England believed in the "divine right of kings", meaning he thought God want him to rule. When he was put on trial for treason and other crimes, he claimed that no court had jurisdiction over him. He was found guilty and executed.
I miss the days when U.S. presidents used to at least pretend to have dignity.
"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.” - John F. Kennedy, January 20, 1961
Firing large numbers of people doesn't just affect the fired workers. It doesn't just affect their families. It affects all the small businesses around their homes and workplaces. Fire 500 people, and that's 500 people who don't need to get anything drycleaned any more, 500 people who aren't stopping for coffee on the way to work, who aren't going to that little deli for lunch, who won't impulsively stop to buy flowers on the way home, 500 people who aren't able to pay for daycare now, who won't go to the car wash every week, who can no longer afford the farmer's market on the weekend, who won't be replacing the old couch after all, who start cutting their own hair instead of going to the salon, who decide to cut back on Christmas presents this year.
When I was a kid, I learned not to give bullies what they want. If you comply with them, they come back for more. If not, they go away.
Trickle-down Misery
Fire 500 people, and that's 500 people who don't need to get anything drycleaned any more, 500 people who aren't stopping for coffee on the way to work, who aren't going to that little deli for lunch, who won't impulsively stop to buy flowers on the way home, 500 people who aren't able to pay for daycare now, who won't go to the car wash every week, who can no longer afford the farmer's market on the weekend, who won't be replacing the old couch after all, who start cutting their own hair instead of going to the salon, who decide to cut back on Christmas presents this year.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)