So you see, Miriam, that is one advantage of having one vote per
person, and only one voting person.
We, Cathy and I, have one vote each. "What books would you like
next?" says my Love. "How's about something by Chris Hedges?" say I.
"Here's one you'll enjoy. It's by Dean Koontz," she smiles sweetly.
"Oh, sure", say I, knowing how this democracy works.
Seriously, I do read widely, but for pleasure reading we do the
Thriller Circuit. And for the most part that gets my mind off the
real Thriller we are currently living through. But there is so much
of it being ground out of the grist mills that it does get a broad
reading. And there is far too much trashing of people, and far too
explicit sex and sexual deviance. To my way of thinking, there is a
correlation between what reading and viewing material turns us on, and
how we interact with one another. Respect seems to be on the cutting
room floor. Every day we see examples of adults disrespecting one
another. Trashing. Cursing. Crowding in. Maybe after we rid
ourselves of all the Male Predators, we can focus on those who shove
their way past us in checkout lines and on the roads. And after that,
maybe those who go about conning elderly folks whose minds are no
longer safe to allow out on their own, but who have no one to turn to.
I have a list of those we'll need to call out before we can call
ourselves the "Land of the Free" again.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/14/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You might try reading different kinds of books. (smile). To begin with, I
don't like short stories either. I've read only a very few books of short
stories, only when I know that the author is excellent and I think I'll be
missing something wonderful if I don't read the book. I much prefer longer
books. But I never read suspense or murder mysteries, not unless one sneaks
up on me when I'm not looking.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 8:53 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her origin
story
Yup. It's a case, as Thom Hartman would say, of The Good, The Bad and the
Very, Very Ugly.
An old, most likely dead, professor of mine back in the mid 50's said, "I'm
an optimistic Pessimist." Well, I'm just the opposite. A Pessimistic
Optimist. My Default position is one of bubbly, chatty, Big Fluffy Dog
Happiness.
But when we have times like the present, where so many people are being
murdered or maimed pointlessly, rage rises up in my chest.
Currently Cathy and I are reading an anthology of short stories. I once
upon a time loved short stories, but now find them too abrupt. I like to
get into a good novel and wander around for days. But this book of short
stories is chocked full of violence. Spies, espionage and counter
espionage, and vivid descriptions of gutting and brain matter being
splattered all over my egg salad sandwich. We read novels where the hero is
tracking some serial killer. A fellow who loves to rape and mutilate any
and all comely young maidens. And all I think is how all this violence and
mayhem is contributing to the shaping of our nation's future.
And so from time to time I just get goosey loosey, and then turn off and
turn on my favorite group, Moody Blues...who, by the way, were just voted
into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame! And High Time, too!
When I really feel my optimistic base line getting out of whack, I put in my
favorite CD, Moody Blues at Red Rock. It never gets old.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/14/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sorry, "joke", wasn't the correct word. Maybe I just meant that you
could refer to it in a light tone, just like the other day, Bob said
he was, "a horney guy", in a light tone. I did say to someone the
other day, that I think that every blind person is an angry person,
although not every blind person recognizes his or her anger. Yes
certainly, there have been cosmetic changes. That's why we had a Black
President and why Amy Goodman has to say, in her reporting, "the N
word", rather than quoting what the cop actually said which was
"nigger". But the cop still says what he said in the 50's and he
still shoots unarmed black men. We still have black ghettoes and we
still have a cold war with Russia, even though Russia isn't a
Communist country anymore. The US is still supporting coups in Latin
America, and on and on.
Miriam
Miriam.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 2:22 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her origin
story
While I agree with much of what you wrote, Miriam, I would protest the
use of the word "Joke" when referring to my personal exposee. What I
write in a light vein is not to joke about my past, but to attempt to
explain how different our Male Attitudes were some 50 years ago. Yes,
I agree that ours is still a White, Male Sexist, selfish culture. But
it is not the same White, Male, Sexist selfish culture that we lived
in back in the 50's, 60's and 70's. Just as an example, when my first
wife and I married, she would have been mortified to have even thought of
keeping her own family name.
She could not buy anything on credit without my consent. We could not
include her income when we bought our first house, "Because your wife
might get pregnant and have to quit working". In most churches,
Catholic and Protestant alike, women wore head coverings while men entered
bare headed.
There were so many open ways of keeping women in their place. And the
same was true with Black and Brown citizens. At least by making some
changes in our laws, those who can afford to, have the ability to
force discrimination that once were accepted. But your post goes hand in
hand with my point.
Until we are able to put in place a society with People as its bottom
line, we will simply go on doing the cosmetic stuff and hoping we can
hold onto our few gains.
Finally, back on the word, "joke". What I write on this and other
lists may appear to be frivolous, but inside my own private world I am
one Hell of an angry White, Blind Man.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/14/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Conditions aren't different now than they were then. We are a sexist,
racist society. We worship wealth and scoff at intellectdualism. We
are a nation that favors white, Christian, wealthy men. But over the
years, we've managed to camouflage the reality with cosmetic changes.
The powerful have kept the majority silent by giving them a President
whose father was born in
Africa and by providing a great deal of distraction with reality TV,
pretend luxury like overcrowded cruises with inferior food and
entertainment, and smart phones, and constant terrorist or pretend
terrorist incidents so they would have a scapegoat.
The beauty pageants were a tool with which to socialize women so that
they would accept male domination. Beauty pageants and all of those
movies with glamourous women. All of us born female, grew up
believing that we were unworthy unless we could meet , or at least
approximate, the standards of beauty that those pageants represented.
Nothing has changed. Hillary Clinton had to have beautifully dyed and
coiffed hair, perfecdt makeup, beautiful clothes, in order to run for
the Presidency. None of that was necessary in order for Bernie
Sanders to run. All of us born female who are physically disabled,
not particularly attractive, or aging, know that no matter how
capable or intelligent we are, our value is diminished in this
society. But if we are young and physically attractive, then we are
automatically prey to the men who surround us. Even those men who do
not have money and political power, are physically stronger than we
are, and they have social power, power that we don't have.
We have all been socialized to accept these sexual dynamics. Those of
us who rebel, are seen as bitter, angry, poor sports. Carl can easily
joke about his past sexual exploits on this list. That is a male
prerogative. It is not something that a woman would do, even if she
had a similar history in relation to men. Back in the late 60's, we
called it sexual politics. It is so pervasive, so ingrained, that men
are unaware that it exists, and women, find various ways of dealing
with it. The women who voted for Trump and Moore, have been
completely overwhelmed and corrupted by it.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 11:08 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her
origin story
Even "back then" in my days as a Womanizer, actually as a Floundering
Member of Womanizer's Anonymous, back in 1962, I came to believe that
such pageants as Miss America and Miss Universe, were contributing to
our sexist attitudes by approval of such parades. That year, 1962,
the year my eldest daughter was born, I watched for the last time the
exhibition of shapely young women attempting to become America's
"most perfect" woman.
Back then, if my faltering memory is correct, about half the women
watched the Pageant and half were disgusted. Men, in the company of
other men, mostly enjoyed gawking at the shapely young women. They
looked in a way that would have had them swinging and screaming at
any young man looking that way at their own daughters or wives.But in
the company of the woman folk in their families, they mostly said
that beauty contests were a foolish waste of time.
But to compare how men behaved back then with how we claim to behave
today...with those notable accused Sexual Predators being called
out, is like debating whether Notre Dame's "Four Horsemen" of bygone
years could be better than their counterparts today. Or whether Joe
Lewis could have beaten Jack Dempsey. Conditions are different and
it will always be like comparing apples to oranges.
While I applaud those women who, in the face of all the crap thrown
in their faces, come forward to reinforce the fact that we have
always been, along with being racist, we have always been a sexist
society.
Our culture, which is built upon a bottom line of profit, creates the
atmosphere for Power Tripping. That bottom line of Profit has some
rewards other than simple wealth. Wealth buys privileges. One of
those privileges is dominance over those beneath you in the pecking
order created by our worship of Capitalism. Despite the
brave(foolish)talk, there are no Level Playing Fields in a
Capitalistic society. Socialism is a sign of weakness.
Women's bent toward mothering, which they extend to their community
is tolerated by the macho men. Rugged individualism still rules
men's minds.
Even though the powerful men in the Ruling Class band together, they
sneer at efforts by working class members to organize unions, or to
provide comfort to those less fortunate than themselves.
So yes, we should thank those women who stand up for respect and
decency, but we should understand that this is just one part of the
struggle on the road to an all inclusive society. And the only way
to have that society which respects all its members is to change the
form of the society we now live in. Otherwise, no matter how often
we push new benefits through congress, those Powerful Bottom Liners
will find ways of destroying them, even as they profit from them.
Talk all we want about "reforming" the Democratic Party, and
certainly we must do what we can to take power away from our
Corporate Masters, but that will only be a short term fix. Down the
road, like it or not, a major social change must take place.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/14/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Back then, and remember, I was alive back then, women were not heads
of corporations either. A woman's purpose was to support her man, to
do the housework, to raise the children, and to do volunteer work if
she were wealthy enough to half household staff. Back then, a woman
was supposed to be flattered if a man made sexual advances, whether
or not she liked the man. And back then, women entered beauty
pageants so that she could be judged according to her appearance and
sexiness, and what followed from that was expected. 30 of 40 years
later, if one joins a beauty pageant in order to have one's physical
appearance judged, even if it's dressed up by adding on other
capabilities like piano playing, one has willingly entered the horse
show, just like way back then.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank
Ventura
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 3:07 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her
origin story
Miriam, back then women were too smart to want to be president; only
me were that foolish.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Miriam
Vieni
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 10:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her
origin story
Harry never mentioned any women, did he?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 9:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump just handed Gellibrand her
origin story
The way Jaws reads her name, Gellibrand sounds a little like some
brand of grape spread. But I'm not going to stick my nose out on
this next election.
Not after reading all the signs wrong in the last presidential fiasco.
I think I'll stop right here. I'm in a funky mood and not feeling
very productive.
The System is broke and is crying for fixing. But all the "fixers"
are gone fishing.
Old Harry Truman once told reporters that he figured there were more
than a million American Men who could be president. The big puffed
up political cream puffs postured and pouted and snorted. How dare
that Haberdasher devalue our mighty presidency by such blasphemy as
telling the world that this great office could be handled by over a
million men.
So enter Donald Trump. Old Harry is chortling in his grave.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/13/17, Frank Ventura <frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
See:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-life-stevens-we
d n e sday-kirsten-gillibrand-women-rising-1213-story.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-life-stevens-we
d n e sday-kirsten-gillibrand-women-rising-1213-story.html
=
The gist of the above article is that Trump is hand picking
Gellibrand as his opponent for the 2020 presidential race. He may
be a sleazy fascist but evidentially not stupid. She is running
from a very weak position. Other than Obama and JFK senators don’t
fare well in presidential elections their voting record is always
tough to explain off and congressional approval ratings are at an
all-time low. She is also a woman and women don’t fare well in
presidential races. She is from a Northeast blue state and they
also don’t fare well with the heartland and the southland. The
fourth major problem with her candidacy is that she has chosen
Trump’s predatory behavior as her flagship issue. As we just
experienced in the Alabama election white women have basically said
they don’t care as long as the predator is a republican. Another
mystery card in the deck is what would happen if Trump decides not
to run for reelection? Could she even make a ripple with a
republican candidate that isn’t a predator or maybe even a female
republican candidate, Sarah Palin, Candalisa Rice, etc.? If I was a
far right republican and I wanted to pick an opponent she may be a good
choice.
Frank
