Legal distinctions of difference--DRAFT

I choose to be the unquestioned and irresponsible master of my hands, during the hours that they labour for me. But those hours past, our relation ceases; and then comes in the same respect for their independence that I myself exact. --Mr. Thornton, manufacturer, from North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell, 1854

Times have changed since these words by a fictitious industrial era capitalist in mid-nineteenth century. No doubt such sentiments have been expressed before and after, not just in literature. However, today this older business norm seems to have little relevance.

When off the job, and even before one is hired for a job, one's "character" is surveilled for fit, to wit whether or not there are words, deeds, images and/or affiliations unacceptable; and if any deemed (small) transgression gray or black in all available records be found, there is no job secure, nor forgiveness. This is the new turn in discrimination--making legal distinctions of  difference in order to homogenize.

The old boys' club or one's career-path network has functioned in the same ways. Not long ago the letter of recommendation from reputable references carried some weight. One can now access more easily and quickly threads beyond the bother of the selected-for-special-purposes webs we weave and posted pieces of paper that we have to consume and verify.

Electronic information and communications technologies, as well as increasing public surveillance, prevent assessment of one's total worth as individual and productive socioeconomic asset. We now discriminate using personal/social flaws. Capitalism has brought us this: Business and the body politic have such unwavering and arbitrary standards, often not transparent, that the all-too-human individual has no chance to reach, some would say survive, without conformity to some something set by the lucky, entitled elite in charge.

So it seems the Mr. Thornton, objectionable enough as irresponsible master, must surrender today to investigations exceeding the limits of whether or not the most qualified and able to perform is chosen, and in spite of experience and relevant qualifications, advancement goes to the most acceptable candidate. Mr. Thornton's irresponsibility would trap today.

We must have the least objectionable in our employ to avoid incident where our benefactors and buyers can raise any qualm--relevant or not--to our goods/services proffered. "They'll make a fuss." Profitable (conformist) relationships with the market and society trump* all other factors.

And there are plenty of ways to make a fuss. Too many, God forbid. No, heaven forbid. No, Mammon forbid, or his duly, self-appointed representatives here in society, data-driven sentries at the gates of where individuals aspire to be.

No, no, that won't work. We are slaves to Mammon and the systems he devises to exact the most for the least from those who are paid to do a job in a way that analytics and the controls informed by them. . . . you get the picture.

Am I correct in the assessment? Of course not. We live also in a contentious age where the loudest opinion rules, and each is entitled to have an opinion (uninformed idea or belief deemed good, true, beautiful, applicable to everyone (else)). The human values and humanist tendencies of earlier times, as well as scientific sweat and tireless efforts by the more knowledgeable and skilled to establish what reality is in any given case, have been  suppressed or silenced and, sadly, not even inculcated in the young as a part of a set of civil society skills with which to guide the self and the collective forward. Sound bytes, in place of informed and thoughtful discourse, stand today for insight and ethics and depth of understanding.

Ah, age brings out the complainers, doesn't it? The more one experiences, the more one sees the ironies, inconsistencies, deceptions, hypocrisies, and of course other flaws, which like summer flies are impossible to chase away much less get rid of. Old guys always say they can't believe what the world has come to. And because this is an old saw, no one pays much attention to what the elders offer. And other fogies nod in agreement and sit back and doze. There is no saving them; why bother?

All of which leaves me reading nineteenth century novels from gutenberg.org and wondering if the times today are at once the same and very different as for those who came before.

No, no. Our age holds the greatest challenges at which it appears we are failing miserably to meet and manage for the betterment of man-, er, humankind.

(Old men. Grumblers yesterday. Same today.)

I ask in sincerity, though, is it such this time for the first time, because in profit-driven societies have we created something quite peculiar in history? Have we complexified ourselves  . . . or maybe simplified, that is reduced, our notion of human nature to a degree that we are lost beyond repair, beyond individual agency, beyond the respect for each other's independence albeit with flaws, a standard I myself still insist for me?

_____
* Except it seems in the case of the individual with the same name as the one who holds the "the suit declared to rank above all other suits for the duration of the hand"--CONFORMITY writ large, thankfully or hopefully just for a limited time.

Socialism redux, DRAFT

The secular doctrine I have and advocate is to elevate beliefs and opinions with refereed, evidence-based information and knowledge in a process of civic dialogue. (The only religious doctrine is to live and let live.) Thus two with different opinions can then develop together a shared reality on which to base action and policy, the participants, of course, remaining open to further refereed, evidence-based information and knowledge--research--and the willingness to not compromise relationship in the process.

Writing and reading is an app for change.

Otherwise, one tries to convince the other with biased garbage and rhetorical diversions. This is a waste of time and hot air. "Well, in my experience, etc." Hogwash. Your experience (reading or otherwise) cannot be replicated for an-other to a degree that it will bring them to agreement with you--a strategy proven it does not work.

To take some point of possible disagreement (a button someone else pushed for you ) and follow it through the rabbit hole to get at refereed, evidence-based information and knowledge resulting in a shared reality takes effort and bracketing what one already "knows" and believes. Difficult stuff, but sometimes worth trying if the issue is important to the parties.

So for the moment, subsequent to the prior post, the only one I think important for a brief introduction is socialism. (The Green New Deal is akin to this, but must remain separate so that we don't get too confused.) Further to my own experience, which I have related previously here with regard to socialized healthcare, let's take the bailout of US farmers, or most recently big business such as the airlines. Isn't subsidizing banks and airlines socialism? a form of state participation in ownership? The guy who holds the promissory note is the real owner. (You don't own your house, for example, if you have a loan against it.) And if the subsidy is not a loan, well that is the owner putting more capital into the business. (More capital by the way that does not come from the beneficiaries of the business, but that is another story the short version of which is big brother issues to a selected business for our collective benefit. Sounds like a more extreme form of socialism when considered in this way.)

Social Security: socialism in that the government pays me more than I put in for my retirement. I live on that, on the beneficence of the state, and if taken away, I am homeless and in this day/age unemployable. What to do? Keep Social Security. Don't mess with it. I like this socialism as do all those on the benefits side of the program.

Americans if covered by health insurance are subject to the whims of those who hold the purse open or closed for payment in time of needed care. The big brother insurance company holds your very  life hostage to their ways of protecting and increasing profits to their owners/shareholders, not to mention their top executives.

The profit motive in the matter of health and medical care is inappropriate, 'cause health is the primary duty of life, and sometimes we all need some help. From where if not from big brothers? The Affordable Health Care Act is socialist measure that still protects the other big brother, insurance companies, as it asks those who can pay must. We have our cake and eat it too, but the taste for some causes some wince because of a label misapplied, socialism.

No, no. It is not the individual's choice to get sick and his or her responsibility to have acquired the resources necessary today to get well. Is there any one person you can think of who is justifiably "disabled" such that acquiring the resources to get well accident/illness strikes is just not in the cards, never was, and not in any way realistic? Deny reality to any degree and it might come back and bite you, and you'll have to go to the hospital for wincing or whatever sometime in your life. This is just a conjecture I admit, but in my experience true more often than not.

I believe America lives on bits and pieces of socialism and its cruel adversary, bad capitalism. Bad capitalism is the current state of our i-culture. Capitalism is bad when no money is left on the table for the next owner, and there is no room any longer for being a good corporate citizen, and, worse, not knowing the health and environmental effects of your new product or service before release to the consumer, or the world.

I invite refutation in whole or in part. Remember to bring refereed, evidence-based information and knowledge so that we can discuss in civil fashion with a view toward shared reality and the responsibilities we together will have to take with any of our future actions or policies. Decisive action and policies stick till consequence trickle down and are felt for good or bad, although money doesn't seem to down. Why is that?

I am a socialist, DRAFT

In the 1980s I lived in Vail, Colorado. I was a property manager. I worked hard, led a healthy outdoor lifestyle, plus had each of my children live with me and attend high school, graduate and then go on to college. Those were happy, lucky and treasured years.

During that time I  dreamed about how to return eventually--if not before--to living abroad as I did briefly in my 20s. Europe and foreign cultures and languages fascinated me, although I have never proved much of a foreign language speaker. I subscribed to newspapers from New Mexico, a state I perceived like no other in the US, more foreign than any other in the union; I read The Economist magazine weekly; I pored through issues of the International Herald Tribune--a daily that overwhelmed me sometimes . . . I could not keep up. Even took French and German lessons. Basically I couldn't get enough of what it must be like living in a foreign land but residing in place in my own.

During those Vail years, I observed the tea leaves, or crap shoot, of the American healthcare system, a system for profit, not so much about health. I clearly saw that other countries, even Eastern Bloc countries, had a more humane outlook about healthcare services, and living life, than such was obvious in my own country, something I was somewhat aware of in my 20s when residing and working in West Germany (Munich).

Then at the end of that decade, the 80s, I saw how to return to Europe and do good work, something more meaningful than serving wealthy people who didn't really need me, my skills, my interests. Others elsewhere needed expertise I had. I decided to make the leap into the known unknown, live in a former communist country and exist as others did while at the same time contributing what I could, if what I had was wanted and useful. If I didn't have the advantage of the advanced technical medical expertise at hand, for a healthy price, in America, and was in danger of pain and death without the latest, most advanced care, why, all those living there lived and died as they did, or would. I could do the same. Why did I need what my own country had available if most of the world, I thought, lived without whatever that was?

Because of necessary ongoing care after my first heart attack in 1992, today I have health records in six languages, the first/oldest of which is in French. Under care abroad I got first hand knowledge how the French approached serious problems like mine. Two and two makes four, then and now--reading about something and experiencing it delivers more certain knowledge.

To cut to the point. I would not be able to take the six medications required daily for my health maintenance in the US because of cost. Socialized medicine gives and has given me a lease on life with almost no lease payments. My meds cost me about a dollar a month. And three hospitalizations? I paid nothing for excellent care. None of the dreaded nightmares of socialized medicine have I encountered in all these years (going on 25), except perhaps in Italy, a westernized country, and according to WHO, with almost the best healthcare system in the world, a claim I (still!) strongly question. (Again, Italy is different kind of country and another story.)

While on leave in the US during the last twenty-five years and  just before I left to live as we do here, our touted system cost me half my life's savings, in the tens of thousands of dollars. Part of that money lost was for the same procedure I had had at the same hospital two or three years before by the same doctor. Not elective but absolutely necessary heart surgery. The insurance company had no mercy because I didn't call ahead for approval.

I am a socialist, at least as far as healthcare is concerned. I am a socialist in that the state pays my required fair share (about $100 per month) toward health insurance because I am a poor pensioner by local standards. I am a socialist because I get to ride free as a senior on public transportation in Prague. And what else? I accept the authoritarian approach to the current health crisis in today's world (2020). And I do what they tell me. They have approached the problem by anticipation and preparation and a populace that every day helps to solve problems by volunteerism, and humor. I am not afraid of socialism if by what we mean is that the state takes care of some necessary stuff to live and get along in a civil society--e.g., education, healthcare, generous vacations for regeneration, etc.

Believe this propaganda at your own risk.

Those in the US can continue to fight over a socialism they don't understand much less know the definition of . . . because "The Constitution says it’s okay to shoot socialists, a GOP state legislator contends" in Montana (Washington Post, Monday, February 3, 2020).

What a country! Shoot 'em if they have a different view than you do. Solves the problem quick and easy . . . open gun stores during a pandemic because it is an essential service/business? Give me a break.

Living Estate Sale by Owner*

Ad copy for your use.

Living Estate Sale by Owner

"fair market prices for really good shit"

[date, time, place]

Not an auction. No haggling. Mint condition, in working order, unique and one-of-a-kind items. No trash, no junk. Art, antiques and more. Treasures that you can find nowhere else! Come one, come all. First come, first served. Collectors' items. Cash and carry. No buyer's remorse. Guaranteed--what you see is what you get. Price as marked. No returns. From the very small to the very large, from the inexpensive to the most. Gotta see this stuff and find just what you were looking for, or what you weren't looking for and now can't exist without. Ranch table lamp of rusted iron? Got it. Antique outboard motor? Got it. Tools? Of course. Handcrafted weather vane of horse and buggy suitable for barn or bedroom? Sure, and why not? Handmade harness for washing your pocket poodle? Why doesn't everyone with a dog in a purse have one? Gotta get here and snag a deal. Won't last long. At the end of the day, owner must move on, close up shop and has to run all the way to the bank before he kicks the bucket. Help him out.

Prepared by Word-of-the-Day Salvation and Redemption services, a non-profit church for the overly burdened souls of color on this earth. You being a whitie of some pinkish color with treasures 'nd to some--trash. . . in the name of Gypsy, THE God is Us All.

Respectfully,
Pastor I. M. Free

_____
* Intended reader is a close relation, seemingly consummate hoarder.