And that, Miriam, is one very good explanation of your statement
regarding your "religious values".
About the same time you were going through your battles with the
adoption system, a fellow in Vancouver, Washington, a blind man, well
educated and employed in a better than average federal job, and his
equally educated sighted wife, decided to adopt a blind child. And as
luck would have it, a Vietnamese agency had just such a baby. As it
turned out blindness was the baby's least problem. Despite the many
health issues, this couple decided to keep their new baby at home and
raise her themselves. This went on for several years, draining both
their bank account and their energy. Finally, following the breakup
of their marriage, the young blind and profoundly retarded daughter
was placed in an institution. Today she is alone, since both her
adopted parents have died. I suppose that the "trick or treat" of the
adoption agency did give this baby a better life than the one she
would have had otherwise.
But somehow it seemed disingenuous on the part of the adoption agency.
The ripples caused by their failure to disclose all of the health
complications, certainly added to the stresses and ultimate divorce of
the parents.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/12/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So, I'll tell you how that categorization of Ethical Culture in New York as
a religion was a positive. We were trying to adopt Melanie, at the time,
Dang-Thi-My-Lan, a toddler in an orphanage in DaNang Vietnam. It had begun
as an independent adoption, a baby in an orphanage, a family on Long Island.
But then the adoption industry convinced the government of Vietnam that all
adoptions by American families should be processed through licensed adoption
agencies. The adoption agency which had connections with the orphanage where
Melanie was living, was represented by an Australian nurse named Rosemary
Taylor. Rosemary did not believe that a child should be adopted by a blind
couple if a sighted couple was available. In fact, sighted couples were not
standing on line to adopt half black Vietnamese toddlers, but undoubtedly,
one might have been found. As far as I was concerned, this child whose
picture I had, was my child, and I spent hours of effort and hundreds of
dollars that we didn't have back then, in phone calls, trying to find a way
to get that child from DaNang to Wantagh, Long Island, where we lived. It's
a long, complex story, but eventually I found the Holt Adoption program
which had begun functioning in Vietnam and which, in fact, was probably the
agency that was responsible for ending the independent adoptions there, to
take our case. Now Holt had a long history, having begun as an Evangelical
Christian agency processing adoptions from Korea during the Korean war. But
at the time that we were trying to adopt Melanie, Holt had a brief period
during which its religious orientation had become more liberal. Its director
was actually a very impressive, intelligent minister, very rational
sounding. But the adoptive parents with whom they were willing to work, had
to be a member of a religion. It didn't matter what religion, but no non
believers were allowed. What to do? That was when I discovered that the
Ethical Humanist Society to which we belonged was classified by New York
State as a Protestant religious organization. In order to be acceptable to
the agency, I had to write something about our beliefs plus identify our
religion. I wrote an honest little essay about my values, never mentioning a
deity, and quoted the State's definition of the religious organization to
which we belonged. Holt did process the adoption and they did protect our
right to adopt when the Vietnamese government questioned a blind couple's
right to adopt.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 10:24 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Free Lunch for Everyone
Agreed. Since I certainly take broad liberties with our "Perfect English
Language" myself, I find that the best way to clarify what a person means is
to ask them. And I am not adverse to offering, unrequested, my reasons for
why I have the reactions I do have to certain words. I'm more interested in
having a conversation, rather than fussing over whether I use too many
commas...of which I've been accused. Not on this list, thank Heaven, but by
my "Creative Writing"
instructor at Hadley.
In my earlier years, when raging Testosterone ran my life, I held great
admiration for the ability of Kenneth Jernigan to cut down his opponents
through the use of language. But one fine day, during a general session of
our State Association of the Blind, while Jernigan was busy cutting me to
ribbons, I realized an important fact.
President Jernigan was certainly demonstrating his great ability as a Master
in the use of Smoke and Mirrors, but he was not winning the approval of the
hundred or so people sitting before him. These were my family. I could
have burped and they would have cheered. Well, maybe that's stretching it a
bit, but in my bumbling attempts to explain my position, our members
understood that I was speaking for them, while Jernigan was merely
demonstrating his power. He could have won the day if he'd come off his
high horse and "talked" with me, asserting his reasons while "understanding"
mine. But his nature was to win. And winning was done by cutting the
opponent to little pieces. And Jernigan won that "debate", but lost the
support of our organization.
And now I see that I'm way off whatever set me off in the first place, so,
with more cammas than I need, I'll go put some eggs and toast to good use.
...Oh yes, I meant to say thanks for explaining your use of "religious".
Carl Jarvis
On 5/12/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I used the word, "religious" because it's more than an intellectual
position. I'm emotionally commited to the values I hold and also, I
was a member of the Ethical Humanist Society of Long Island or, (the
movement is traditionally called), Ethical Culture which is, in New
York State, classified as a religion. It is, in fact, inaccurately
classified as a Protestant religion which is truly dumb because it
evolved from the Reformed branch of Judaism. But at any rate, it takes
no position on the existence of God and its emphasis is on the
practice of Judeo/Christian values. The difference between it and the
Ssecular Humanist movement is that it has congregations, religious
leaders, Sunday school for children, and Sunday morning meetings while
Secular Humanists do not. I know that Marxist have an aversion to the
word, "religion", given the history of religion and how traditional
religion functions. But one can use the word differently from its
traditional meaning.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran
Bailey (Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 10:56 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Free Lunch for Everyone
I would not call it religious. That is capitulating to the religious
claim that it is they and only they who have a monopoly on morality.
Secular morality has a long tradition and religion is not the least
bit necessary for a well worked out morality.
On 5/11/2017 6:19 PM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Well Miriam, if you call it your "religious nature", I won't argue.
But all of my talk about dreams of future life, was done tongue in
cheek. For sure I would not force those released inmates to build
walls around the Billionaires if they really wanted to build bridges
or weed flower beds.
Now as for the Flint water...that's another situation. Here these
folks are, still unable to drink the stuff that comes out of their
faucets, and the city is planning to slap leans on them if they don't
pay back water bills, even though the product being delivered is
damaged goods...I wonder if that might be a possible way of
cancelling the bills?...but while these fine citizens could well be
shortening their lives through the use of contaminated water, the
Billionaires go about drinking clear, fresh water. They bathe in
pure water. They go for a dip in clean, clear water. They even put
clean, clear water on their lawns and gardens and flush their toilets
with it. No, my Jarvis Values say that these people deserve to be
forced to use the Flint water for the same length of time that the
Flint citizens use it.
The Jarvis Values would also enable Slum Lords to live for years in
the same rotten buildings they currently own and rent out to the poor.
Oppressors need to be held responsible for their deeds. I believe
this because, despite my wildest wishes, there are people who will
never learn to respect other humans. Catch them conning folks out of
their possessions and they will simply look for a better scam.
And as far as my being vindictive, remember, on email lists we can be
whatever our little hearts desire. But if I get wound up from time
to time, and start yelling, "Off with their 'eds!" the real flesh and
blood Carl has never put vindictive action to his vindictive words.
I've never hit anyone...well, I have given each of my two oldest
children a single spanking, but even falling down drunk, I have never
spent much time plotting and planning on how I'd "get even" with
those who've "hurt my feelings". So what I most likely am is the
old, toothless Tiger.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/11/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You're more vengeful than I. I don't want to imprison anyone, nor do
I want to give them tainted water to drink. I just want them to live
like everyone else and no one should be imprisoned or drink tainted
water. I decided today that I am probably a religious person which
is why I don't fit anywhere. But I'm not a member of any recognized
religion. It's just that I have these values about which I feel
very strongly. You know that problem your having at the Hanford
Nuclear site? Well, back in the 70's, this investment guy came to
the house and he was talking about various tax free municipal bonds
in which I could invest. I had money that I'd been earning from my
adoption work. Fred and I sat and talked with this guy who had been
recommended by one of the rehab teachers whom Fred supervised. The
guy talked about these bonds for two nuclear projects in Washington
State, which paid very high interest, part of which was federal, but
somehow, it was tax free. Fred, who always felt that as blind
people, we were left out of the real financial opportunities because
we earned so little in relation to everyone else, wanted me to
invest in those nuclear projects. I thought about it for, perhaps, 2
seconds, and said, "no". I didn't want to have anything to do with
developing nuclear energy. The guy never told us that it was
actually nuclear weapons which I hear now that it was. Fred was
furious. Many elderly people invested money and then the projects,
or one of them, failed financially. People lost a ton of money. Now,
I hear there was some kind of nuclear accident. The only thing that
prevented me from losing money was my religious nature.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 11:54 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Free Lunch for Everyone
I can certainly go with your dream, Miriam. Still, I do like the
idea of former detainees happily building walls around the palatial
estates. We can also take away their money, for sure. We would
send out Meals on Wheels with standard K Rations, and Flint,
Michigan water. But I really do like the idea of the Billionaires
being forced to live out their lives isolated in their own ill gotten
homes.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/11/17, M Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'd just take away all of that money from the very wealthy,
immediately and their multiple dwellings. All of that money would
go into the pot from which everyone would have a decent income, and
it would certainly be more than $15 an hour.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 10:52 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Free Lunch for Everyone
Now here's an idea I can go for. A three hour work day and free
money.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
Still, there's good food for thought in this article. And whether
I've ever said it or not, I do dream dreams of a Peaceful, Clean,
Healthy, Happy Future. My dream world is one without national
borders. A Land of sharing and Caring for all Life.
What keeps my dream a dream, is the interference by the
Billionaires who profit so much from violence and destruction. A
first step in turning my dream into reality is to open the prison
doors and put these folks into decent housing, and give them good
paying jobs, cleaning up the Land and rebuilding the inner cities.
One of their tasks would be to build walls, a favorite topic of Donald
Trump's.
These walls would be built around the estates of the Billionaires.
The gates would be guarded in order to ensure that the occupants
could never move about the Land that they had been destroying for
so many years. They would be cut off from any communication with
one another.
They could live in their ill gotten luxury until they died, at
which time their estates would become public parks...except for a
very few that would stand as examples of how a few people exploited
the multitude. We would all wander about the lush surroundings,
shaking our heads. Then it would be off to the beaches, riding our
Antigrav Riders, that use no fossil fuel, and float in the air so
we no longer need roads.
And there's so much more to imagine in that wonderful dreamland.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/11/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
'Utopia for Realists' author Rutger Bregman argues that if you
give people a basic income with no strings attached, they will
make better decisions, work more, cost the state less in the areas
of things like health care and incarceration, and be happier. (photo:
Ulrich
Baumgarten/Getty)
Free Lunch for Everyone
By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
10 May 17
Can Americans handle the new book 'Utopia for Realists'?
The first thing you notice about Utopia for Realists, the new book
that argues that money should be free and a 15-hour work week
sounds about right, is its tone. Writer Rutger Bregman is
cheerful, optimistic, imaginative, welcoming, funny and economical
– the opposite of most of our political books, which tend to be
fulminating, accusatory, combative and narrow-minded, and all of
these things across far too many pages.
Bregman is Dutch, which will be a strike against him on these
shores, and then there is the matter of his politics, which seem
designed to infuriate the entire spectrum of current American
thought. He is for open borders, which will make him an Antichrist
to the Trump right, and he speaks warmly of neoliberalism, which
will make Sanders liberals cringe.
At the same time, the entire thesis of his book seems aimed at the
tepid incrementalism of mainstream Democrats, who reflexively
dismiss all big ideas as "politically unrealistic" and the work of
"purity testers." He will have few natural allies on this side of
the Atlantic, which may be one of the reasons his international
bestseller hasn't been reviewed in very many of our major
newspapers yet.
But Bregman's book is both a fun read and a breath of fresh air to
anyone who lived through the ghastly experience of last year's
presidential election season, which turned into an angry
referendum on the relentless narrowness of American politics.
Utopia for Realists is a book that argues, with humor and
sympathy, that we've all suffered from forgetting how to dream of
a better world. "We inhabit a world of managers and technocrats," he
writes.
"Political decisions are presented as a matter of exigency – as
neutral and objective events, as though there were no other choice."
American writers continually made the mistake of trying to
understand the upheavals of last year in terms of the usual
left-right explanations of the world, instead of looking at more
basic criteria.
People everywhere were depressed and bored out of their minds.
They craved something new. Polls consistently showed that people
in both parties were unhappy with their choices and wanted a new
direction, almost irrespective of what that direction was.
People wanted big ideas and big dreams, but Democrats and
Republicans both have been trained to imagine the future not as a
better place, but one filled with horror and destruction. On the
right, the fantasy future is overrun by benefit-devouring
immigrants with scabies, while for the left the next decades are a
hellscape filled with toxic greenhouse gases and overfished oceans.
What I saw on the campaign trail last year was an electorate so
desperate for big dreams that they turned to lost paradises of the
past.
Donald Trump promised to build walls to reverse the onslaught of
multiculturalism and send us back to a Fifties nirvana that never
existed – he literally promised Happy Days and even had Scott Baio
as an opening-day convention speaker.
For Democrats, meanwhile, the most exciting future was presented
by a septuagenarian socialist reintroducing the New Deal to young
voters.
Even a mildly radical idea like free college aroused not just
derision but anger among "responsible" thinkers in both of the
major parties and in the punditocracy, ostensibly the place where
we play with ideas in this country.
Bregman argues that we are where we are because a century of
bummerific experiences with utopian ideas – fascism, communism,
Nazism, to name a few – have left us imagining that "dreams have a
way of turning into nightmares"
and that "utopia is a dystopia." This has left us with a world
where "politics has been watered down to problem management" and
"radical ideas about a different world have become literally
unthinkable."
Even liberalism, Bregman argues, has become pessimistic, an
ideology that is "all but hollowed out," with young people trained
to "just be yourself" and "do your thing." That's probably an
overstatement and a cliché. But there's probably also some truth
to the idea that a lot of the controversies about safe spaces are
the end result of a new emphasis on trying to make the individual
feel maximally safe and accepted within the larger context of a
world we've unconsciously come to accept as essentially unchangeable.
Government, too, Bregman argues, has mostly given up trying to
make a better world, and has instead focused on policing it
better. "If you're not following the blueprint of a docile, content
citizen,"
he writes, "the powers that be are happy to whip you into shape" –
with control, surveillance, repression.
The welfare state is where Bregman sees the ultimate perversion of
the utopian instinct. It's become "a grotesque pact between left
and right," in which conservatives have spent a generation making
sure people getting aid are punished and villainized as lazy and
work-averse, while progressives have used public assistance as a
way to lever more control over the lives of poor people who aren't
trusted to make the right life choices. Anyone who has covered the
way the remains of the welfare bureaucracy works knows this is
true, that we have made receiving any kind of aid to keep yourself
or your children alive a humiliating, intrusive experience, one
that invites an army of inspectors into your home, who examine
everything from how many toothbrushes you have in your bathroom to
whether your Facebook page shows you're spending your time wisely.
Bregman thinks we should just give people money, no questions
asked, and let them sort it out. His prescriptions are humorously
simple. He quotes economist Charles Kenny, who notes "the reason
poor people are poor is because they don't have enough money." And
he tells the fascinating true story of that time that Richard
Nixon – Richard Nixon! – tried to implement a law guaranteeing a
basic family income for all Americans.
The story is one of those classic absurdist tales of history.
Nixon's brain led him to this idea by means of some bizarre
accident – he apparently thought "Tory men and liberal policies"
are what "changed the world," and saw the plan as the ultimate
marriage of conservative and progressive politics, something that
would make his name ring out
forever: Richard Nixon, guarantor of universal dignity.
But of course aides who hated the idea (including one who was an
Ayn Rand
fan) pushed him away from the plan, and it morphed into yet
another plan to castigate the lazy poor by forcing them to work.
Later in the Seventies, the idea vanished altogether thanks to
another classic political reason – a typo, which mistakenly showed
that experiments in this area revealed a 50 percent higher divorce
rate, which naturally led men to worry that guaranteeing women a
basic income would leave them with no reason to stay home. Years
later it turned out that basic income experiments had shown no
impact on the divorce rate.
One of the reasons the welfare state is so unpopular in America is
because every aid program ends up being income-dependent. You
can't qualify for aid here until you're poor enough, but we treat
the poor as work-averse parasites with bad judgment who have to be
monitored round-the-clock. But studies abroad show that the
countries with the most universal programs are the most successful
and engender the least hostility. "Basically," Bregman writes,
"people are more open to solidarity if it benefits them personally."
Bregman's basic ideas are pretty simple. He thinks (and many
scientists agree with him) that if you give people a basic income
with no strings attached, they will make better decisions, work
more, cost the state less in the areas of things like health care
and incarceration, and be happier and feel less humiliated,
scared, and insecure. He quotes Woody Allen, who pointed out that
"money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons."
He also argues pretty forcefully that working longer hours makes
us less productive and also more unhappy. At some point in the arc
of industrialized countries, we end up working more and more hours
just so we can acquire more and more stuff we don't need. More
relaxing, less working and consuming – that's where we should be
looking. So he proposes a 15-hour work week. I'm sure people here
will hate the idea.
And who knows, maybe none of it works in practice. But what's so
interesting about modern America is our hostility to the mere idea
of trying to create an easier and happier life. We're a country
that was once rich with social experimentation, from the Shaker
colonies to Brook Farm to Oneida to New Harmony to the Fourierist
experiments to the Octagon community of vegetarians to a long list
of others, many of them amusingly crazy, who tried to use the
accident of plenty as an excuse to build a better way to live.
Now we don't really even try, and mostly just scream at each other
on the Internet. That doesn't seem like it will get us there.
Maybe free money and a three-hour work day won't, either, but it
sure seems like it would be more fun to try.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
