Add One Word, Create Equality

The basic categories of life are family, community (including religious and political activities), jobs, and education. If adults add one word to each of those categories, we can create more equality between all sorts of groups.

Add the word “work”.

Family work includes parenting, housework, cooking, shopping, and caregiving, etc.

Community work includes individual, small group, or organizational volunteer work.

Job work includes anything that creates income, wherever or whenever it occurs.

Education work includes any adult learning inside and outside the classroom.

The idea that adults do work for their education highlights the work children do. Children are workers when they are in school. For a factory to produce anything worth producing, it needs several elements in place:

Safety

Technology

Equipment

Resources

Qualified personnel

To become job workers, community workers, and family workers as adults, all children need safety, technology, equipment, resources, and qualified personnel in their schools.

Using these four categories and adding the word work, “stay-at-home mothers” are family workers.

Parents may alternate between family work and job work or do both simultaneously. The work is simultaneous when they operate businesses from their homes or take their children to their workplaces.

Childless adults who take care of aging parents alternate job work with family work.

Adding the word “work” to what we do for our families makes family work equal in importance to job work.

Adding the word “work” to what we do for our communities makes community work equal to job work.

Adding the word “work” to education makes education work equal to family work, job work, and community work.

Seeing everyone as workers gives everyone positive identities for the work they do in each category. The time we spend on each category of work will change as our life circumstances change. All of it is still work. Society could not exist if one of these categories disappeared, so workers in each category are as important as workers in all of the other categories.

Adding the word “work” to each category as you go about your daily life means creating more equality for yourself. You can use “working” as well:

“I’m job working until 3:00, then I’ll be family working the rest of the day.”

People who don’t want you to be equal may object. Respond by adding the word “work” to the situations and roles in their lives. Giving equality to other people opens doors to serendipitous success for you.

Update

I wrote about adding the word “work” to situations. One woman who likes the idea added the word “work” to a role — wife work. Leslie Brown is project manager for Omada Marketing and does everything I described — family work, education work, job work, community work. Within each of those situations are a variety of roles. Any role has work to it, so adding the word “work” to all roles creates equality between roles within a situation.

© Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)

Copyright 2017
All rights reserved.

Updated April 1, 2019.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Victims On The Left, Victims On The Right

Validation: to make valid; substantiate; confirm

Some people enjoy being victims. People seem to express their enjoyment of being victims by publicly announcing that they are victims. Public announcements provide what I call victim validation. Victim validation gives people feelings of importance as validated victims. Validated victims expect other people to pay attention to their victim needs and take care of their victim needs. Because they feel that publicly announcing their victimhood makes their needs more important than anyone else’s, validated victims feel entitled to ignore everyone else’s needs.

Validated victims blame other people for all of their problems and complain about other people hurting them. Unfortunately, validated victims are everywhere, including the political left and the political right.

Victims on the Left

One example from the political left is Terry O’Neill, President of the National Organization for Women since 2009. I am not a member of the National Organization for Women, but I did sign up for emails. NOW President Terry O’Neill sends out emails to “hundreds of thousands of contributing members and more than 500 local and campus affiliates in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.” I disproved those membership claims, so we don’t know how many people receive the emails. NOW’s claim about the number of members has changed since I disproved its claim of more than 500,000 members.

This email from O’Neill perfectly illustrates victim validation:

Subject Line: Haterade
September 13, 2014
Terry O’Neill, NOW via mail.salsalabs.net

10:53 AM (1 hour ago)

to me

Dear Paula,

 I’m sure you’ve heard by now, but this week NOW called on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to resign his post. Since we released that statement, it has been a whirlwind of press and action.

You might have seen or heard me on MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC or ESPN – or any of a dozen other media outlets. But if you saw me, that means the trolls did too; all week, we’ve been getting barraged with hateful comments via phone, email and on Facebook and Twitter.

Nestled in there — often hidden in the muck — are voices of solidarity. These voices wish us luck in our endeavor, many identify as football fans or activists working in their communities – all agree that we must end the epidemic of violence against women.

Contribute and help us continue our work!

Sure, some of the trolls use the old quip of demanding that I “make them a sandwich” – not the first time I’ve heard that one! I’ve been accused of being “off my rocker”.

The truth is, though, almost all of these comments have been outright and aggressively misogynistic.

 Since I became president of NOW, I’ve received a regular stream of hate mail. Sadly, it just comes with the job. But knowing I have your support makes all the difference.

So a warning to the trolls: We will not deviate from this path. I know that we can change our culture – which is so permissive of violence against women — and change our laws, simultaneously.

How do I know that? Because we’re the National Organization for Women and this what we do – especially with supporters like you.

Thank you for all you do,
Terry O’Neill
President, National Organization for Women

P.S. Thousands of you have already shown your support by signing our petition demanding that Roger Goodell resign. Can I count on your continued support with a contribution today?

Blaming and complaining over and over again, just in this one email. O’Neill clearly feels sorrier for herself than she feels for women who live with domestic violence. She never acknowledges the men who live with domestic violence. She does acknowledge that hate mail “just comes with the job.” Though she made the choice to take a job that comes with hate mail, O’Neill still feels more victimized than women who are victims of domestic violence. Never mind the male victims.

Did O’Neill validate her victimhood on ”MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC or ESPN — or any of a dozen other media outlets”? I don’t know. I have better things to do than watch the President of the National Organization for Women demonstrate the fine art of validating victimhood.

Victims on the Right

One example from the political right is a commenter to online articles in local newspapers. This is a much smaller audience than O’Neill’s audience. The commenter and I both live in Wisconsin. She is a Republican. I am a Democrat.

I exchanged comments with this commenter in several discussions. Two discussions illustrate her desire to be a validated victim. Both were political discussions. Several newspapers have written articles about how Wisconsin is doing worse under Governor Scott Walker. For one discussion, I provided this list of online article titles for everyone reading the comments to see:

“Surprise! ‘Pro-business’ policies hurt state economic growth”
Michael Hitzik
Los Angeles Times
May 6, 2014

“State Employment Trends: Does a Low Tax/Right-to-Work/Low Minimum Wage Regime Correlate to Growth?”
Bruce Hall
Econbrowser
April 22, 2014

“Declining Private Employment in Wisconsin, Sideways Trending in Kansas”
Menzie Chinn
Econbrowser
July 17, 2014

“Revised and Updated Data Indicate Minnesota-Wisconsin Economic Activity Gap Increases”
Menzie Chinn
Econbrowser
April 1, 2014

“Right vs. Left in the Midwest”
Lawrence R. Jacobs
The New York Times
November 23, 2013

The commenter wrote these two comments to me:

“California is a disaster. You should quit posting.”

“Yes, Paula Kramer. You should quit posting when you say CA is doing better than WI.”

She included the link below with her second comment:

“California’s Economic Collision Course: Immigration and Water”
Thomas Del Beccaro
Forbes Magazine
August 19, 2014

This article was the only evidence she presented in response to me during the discussion.

Because of these two comments, I gave this commenter a nickname: Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me.

In another discussion, I wrote a comment about how Walker’s policies had made life worse for all Wisconsin residents. I included this list of links to online articles:

“Wisconsin ‘right-to-work” critic will expand company in Minnesota
Tad Vezner
St. Paul Pioneer Press
March 10, 2015

“Wisconsin and Minnesota: A One-Sided Political Competition”
Steve Benen
The Rachel Maddow Show/The MaddowBlog
March 5, 2015

“Scott Walker has failed Wisconsin and Minnesota is the proof”
Jimmy Anderson
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
October 22, 2014

“Minnesota economy beats Wisconsin: 7 charts, 1 table”
Paul Tosto
Minnesota Public Radio NewsCut
January 26, 2015

“A Fiscal Tale of Two States: Minnesota vs. Wisconsin”
Menzie Chinn
Econobrowser
September 30, 2014

“Our view: Minnesota is winning this border battle”
ScottRada
LaCrosse Tribune
January 4, 2015

“Walker vs. Dayton smackdown: Which governor has the better economy?”
Louis O. Johnson
MinnPost
February 7, 2013

“Minnesota making our state look bad”
Tom Clementi
Post-Crescent
January 15, 2015

The January 15, 2015 Post Crescent article includes these statements:

“Despite Walker’s claim that we’re “open for business,” Forbes magazine ranks Wisconsin 31st for business; Minnesota ranks ninth. This despite the fact that the American Legislative Exchange Council, the powerful organization that drafts legislation for conservative politicians and is funded, in part, by Exxon-Mobil and the Koch brothers, places Minnesota in the lowest tier of “ALEC-friendly” states and touts Wisconsin as No. 1 for taxes in 2014.

But that number is countered by reality. The median income for a Wisconsin family is some $8,000 less per year than in Minnesota. Forbes places our Minnesota seventh for economic climate and Wisconsin 27th. Forbes also ranks Minnesota second in quality of life and Wisconsin 17th.

Those numbers make ALEC’s numbers a little suspect and raise the question of exactly who benefits from Wisconsin’s No. 1 ALEC tax rating? Obviously, it’s not the ordinary Wisconsin citizen.”

This was the response from Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me:

“Hey Paula: Obama made me give up my Dr. so it’s best to stop talking about what is taken away from you.”

In response to a list of articles about the effect of state government policies on all Wisconsin residents, Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me wrote about herself. She created inequality for me again by telling me to “stop talking”.

Blaming and complaining, Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me validated herself as a victim. She expects other people to be responsible for her needs while she ignores the needs of everyone else. Why should she pay attention to the needs of people she considers her inferiors?

To make sure she knew I would quote her comments, I sent Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me a private Facebook message. I assured her I would keep her anonymous. I also wrote this:

“It’s sad that you don’t see equality as the benefit it is. It’s sad that you don’t understand that creating inequality for someone else means inviting other people to create inequality for you. You and I are equal, ——-. You deserve the same respect I deserve. I deserve the same respect you deserve. You deserve the same respect from other people that I receive from other people. That is why I hope you stop inviting other people to create inequality for you.”

This is part of her response:

“Now I remember, Paula. Your mother tried to kill you twice and you write about it and have trouble still dealing with it. I had a brother that beheaded himself, an alcoholic husband that became a ward of the state, a family member that embezzled, incidents in childhood that may make you shudder.”

For the record, I write about my mother trying to kill me only when I am participating in discussions about abortion, which might be two or three times a year. I do not write about my mother trying to kill me when it has nothing to do with the discussion.

Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me, however, inserted her personal pain into a discussion that was not about personal pain. Perhaps Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me thought those four examples would force me to see her for the validated victim she believes she is. As a validated victim, no one should expect anything of her, including treating other people with respect and equality. Instead, we should tolerate Stop-Thinking-You’re-Equal-To-Me’s blaming and complaining and take responsibility for easing her pain while expecting nothing in return.

What to Do about Validated Victims?

You could tolerate the victims who share your political views, though you shouldn’t expect them to treat you with respect or equality. You could ignore validated victims on both the right and the left. Or, you could use one or more of these four techniques:

Use the term validated victim to them.

Repeat, “Blaming and complaining again?” each time they do it.

Let them know how many times they made the same statement.

Ask, “What are you doing to change the situation?”

I’ve tried the last two techniques with just one person. After one friend made the exact same complaint five times in a row, I told her she had made the exact same statement five times in a row. I told her I needed to hear it only once. Then I asked her what she was going to do about the situation. She told me she might need to say it five times in a row. I told her she could find someone else to say it to. She no longer calls me to blame and complain about anything.

If we all use similar strategies with the people in our lives, maybe we could gradually convince everyone that victim validation is a waste of everyone’s time. Maybe pointing out the common ground between validated victims on the political left and validated victims on the political right would cause enough healthy embarrassment to stop the blaming and complaining. Something along the lines of:

“You sound just like…”

I’m ready to try.

“Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence”
Murray A. Strauss
European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research
July 14, 2007

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)
Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Standards For Success Posters

Girl Grit

Girl Goodwill

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

For a wide ranging selection of articles on feminism and other topics,
see The Zawadi Nyong’o Daily

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As an American, I have freedom of speech.

As a woman, I have the right to express my opinion about anything the National Organization for Women claims to do for women.

In 2016, I started adding the section below to all of my new Feminist Leader blog posts. I also added it to all posts published before 2016.

The National Organization For Women
Silences Women

National NOW has blocked me on its Facebook page. I wrote comments based on my blog posts. All of my blog posts are based on a wide variety of evidence. Much of the evidence comes from National NOW’s website, emails and posts from NOW presidents, and emails from NOW staff members. I use no hostile language, no slurs, no profanity. I do use the phrase “glory addicts” in reference to NOW leaders. I also use “glory addiction”, “glory fixes”, and “a dedicated network of glory addicts”. Dr. Marsha Vanderford (Doyle) identified the glory needs of pro-choice leaders in her 1982 dissertation.

Feminist leaders have been silencing women for decades. bell hooks, Gloria Steinem, Urvashi Vaid, and Naomi Wolf got together for a conversation that was published in Ms. Magazine in 1993. The discussion included why women choose not ta call themselves feminists. Did these four feminist leaders working for women’s equality ask women who choose not to call themselves feminist to speak for themselves? Of course not! The four feminist leaders silenced millions of women by speaking for them without first requesting permission to speak for them.

Imagine a group of women who choose not to call themselves feminists getting together for a conversation to be published in a magazine about why some women call themselves feminists. Would hooks, Steinem, Vaid, Wolf, or Ms. Magazine agree with nonfeminist women denying them the opportunity to speak for themselves? Of course not! Would hooks, Steinem, Vaid, Wolf, or Ms. Magazine agree that nonfeminist women had the right to speak for feminist women without their permission? Of course not!

My feminist leader blog posts provide evidence that feminist leaders still create glory for themselves while relegating supporters to “secondary importance”. Dr. Vanderford used the words “relegated” and “secondary importance” in her dissertation. Eoin Harnett of University College Cork in Ireland used the same “secondary importance” phrase:

“Throughout the ages, women were frequently characterised
and treated as inferior and of secondary importance to men.”

NOW leaders even relegated two of their supporters to secondary importance. The supporters responded to my last two comments on National NOW’s Facebook page with comments supporting NOW. NOW leaders silenced those supporters by removing their comments along with my comments. Instead of creating equality, NOW leaders treat other women the same way patriarchal men treat women:

NOW leaders silenced at least three women on Facebook while posting claims to be creating equality for women. Secondary importance is the opposite of equality, as women throughout the ages could testify.

In-House Rhetoric of Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Special Interest Groups in Minnesota: Motivation and Alienation
Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1982
Marsha Vanderford Doyle, Ph.D.
(Now Marsha Vanderford)
Quoted words on page 350.

“Let’s Get Real about Feminism: The Backlash, the Myths, the Movement.”
hooks, bell, Gloria Steinem, Urvashi Vaid, and Naomi Wolf.
Ms. Magazine.
Vol 4(2) September/October 1993: pages 34-43.

“Multitext Project in Irish History: Movements for Political & Social Reform, 1870-1914”
Eoin Hartnett
University College Cork, Ireland
No date
This project is no longer available online.

Updated April 30, 2017.

Mainstay Memories: With A Few Words, Bystanders Can Help Abused Children

When I was very little, my mother tried to kill me twice. I’ve had PTSD since the first murder attempt. Because my own mother tried to kill me, I came to believe that anyone could kill me at any time for any reason. The terror of someone killing me often occurs in groups of strangers.

I’ve read that people can help abused children by letting them know they are not the cause of the abuse. Nothing explained how to do this. I finally understood how to help abused children during a Toastmasters meeting. Toastmaster Tammy opened a door to my understanding of how another Toastmaster had helped me.

Toastmaster Tammy gave a speech that set a personal record for using uh’s and um’s. (I loved the AH Counter role.) That record is not important. Mistakes do not determine value. Meaning determines value. Toastmaster Tammy’s speech had enough meaning that it changed my understanding of my life.

Toastmaster Tammy spoke about Toastmasters clubs, using the word “welcoming” several times. The repetition of “welcoming” flashed me back to the first time I walked into that meeting room. Toastmaster Mary Jo stood up, shook my hand, and enthusiastically welcomed me to the meeting. Her greeting was so significant that I wrote about it in my journal, using the word “enthusiastically” to describe it. When Toastmaster Tammy used the word “welcoming” in her speech, I realized that I remember Toastmaster Mary Jo enthusiastically welcoming me into a group of strangers whenever I feel anxious about a group of strangers.

Mary Jo gave me what I now call a “mainstay memory”, a memory that gets me through my anxiety about groups. I don’t even have to consciously go back to that night. The memory just automatically comes to me on its own. The memory of Mary Jo comes and the anxiety fades away. My realization about what Mary Jo did for me ended a worry I’ve had since the early 1970s.

I lived in Chicago back then. At the laundromat one day, I started my laundry and sat down to read. To my side sat a little blonde girl, all by herself. A Filipina woman with three little girls came into the laundromat. As the woman did laundry, the girls played. They had so much fun they sort of tumbled around the laundromat. They passed me several times and I started talking to them as they tumbled by.

The little blonde girl sat watching, a sad look on her face. I could see the effects of abuse in her eyes. After the Filipina girls tumbled by and I talked to them yet again, I turned to the little blonde girl and said, “I like you, too.” She sat up straight, her eyes opened wide, the sun came up in her smile, and she ran off to play with the little Filipina girls.

I never saw the little blonde girl again. I wanted to see her eyes again and to see her smile again. I wanted to know if my words lasted past that one day in the laundromat. Because of Tammy and Mary Jo, I know they did. I know I gave that little blonde girl a mainstay memory. I know she repeatedly heard my “I like you, too” the way I repeatedly hear Mary Jo’s “Hello!”

We cannot completely end child abuse, but we can ease its effects. We can do what Mary Jo did for me. Smile and say enthusiastic hellos to children we see throughout our day. Mary Jo’s “Hello!” came into my adult ears, but it was my child heart that felt the welcome. Giving abused children enthusiastic greetings would let them know that someone in their world welcomes them.

My experience proves that the people giving welcomes don’t have to be central to the lives of abused children. My experience also proves that feeling welcome to someone somewhere will give abused children the ability to open up their own worlds. The little blonde girl in the laundromat demonstrated that when she ran off to play with the little Filipina girls.

Prove good intentions by saying hello, smiling, waving goodbye, and moving away. If you have time — as I did at the laundromat — say a few words to spark a smile. Adjust my recommendations to your culture. My worst responses have been stares from children and indifference from parents. My best response was the sun coming up in the little blonde girl’s smile.

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)

Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Torture Or Not Torture: Proof In Experience

Originally published January 23, 2015.

Revised and republished January 20, 2016 after a web host transfer.

Do an Internet search with the words “not torture” and you will find several claims that the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation” techniques do not constitute torture.

I will believe that those techniques are not torture when all the people using the phrase “not torture” give me proof in experience. I want them to prove from their own experience that those techniques are not torture. To do this, they have to experience the techniques themselves and report back to me that they did not feel tortured.

I did not read or listen to any details about the techniques because just knowing about them sickens me. However, I do know some details about the situation.

The standards for proof in experience in this situation mean that all supporters of the “not torture” enhanced interrogations must agree to be…

…taken from their own lives without notice.

…taken to a destination away from their lives.

…prevented from seeing or contacting anyone in their lives.

…softened up for interrogation sessions.

…interrogated in anyway the interrogators choose to
interrogate them for the length of time interrogators
choose.

…kept away from their lives and families for an indefinite
period of time, subject to enhanced interrogation
techniques at any time.

If supporters of the “not torture” enhanced interrogation techniques come back from these experiences and tell me they were not tortured, then I will have to believe them.

I do already have proof in experience from the other side of the situation at Abu Ghraib. Eric Fair is an Army veteran who was a contract interrogator in Iraq at Abu Ghraib in 2004. These are Eric Fair’s words about himself:

“I was an interrogator at Abu Ghraib. I tortured.”

These are Eric Fair’s words about the Senate’s torture report:

“I assure you there is more; much remains redacted.”

Re·dact

To delete or remove (private or sensitive information)
from a document in preparation for publication

The British Psychological Society reported on a study showing that  “regular people” supported torture “…on a desire for payback, not intelligence.”

Support for torture depends on whether people “are told that torture is likely to be ineffective”, of if they are told the suspect is a terrorist, or if they are told that the suspect had actually planted a bomb.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that:

Not once between late 2001 and early 2009 did the CIA’s use
of torture result in intelligence that helped to foil a terrorist
plot. All of the most useful information came from standard,
non-violent interrogation approaches. Furthermore, tortured
detainees frequently made up things in an attempt to get
their torturers to stop.

Even support for a “ticking time bomb scenario”

depends on a ‘highly idealised’ and ‘highly unrealistic’ set of
assumptions being met. Moreover, their finding that people’s
support for torture is influenced by the identity and the
culpability of the suspect shows that the practice is often
endorsed as a form of punishment, not as a way to extract
information.

The Middle East Research and Information Project found that refusing to use torture creates more security.

…torture is ineffective in enhancing security; on the contrary,
states that do not torture (or extra-judicially execute)
prisoners experience substantially less terrorism, and their
counter-terrorism efforts are more effective.

If you want to feel secure from terrorism, then you should insist you’re your government uses effective interrogation techniques. It turns out that the most effective interrogation techniques are humane.

Disclosure was 14 times more likely to occur early in an
interrogation when a rapport-building approach was used.
Confessions were four times more likely when interrogators
struck a neutral and respectful stance. Rates of detainee
disclosure were also higher when they were interrogated in
comfortable physical settings.

If you want to inflict pain on other people, come right out and say it. Just don’t expect the person in pain to give you the information you need to feel secure. When you approve torture, you make it easier for others to harm you because you create less security for yourself.

Your choice is payback or security:

Choosing payback will bring you less security.

Choosing security will bring you less terrorism.

Basing your choice on your feelings suggests unresolved feelings that need to be addressed. Exposing yourself to more terrorism might not be the best way to satisfy the needs behind those feelings.

I’m waiting for the “not torture” volunteers to give me proof in experience.

“American Torture: The Price Paid, the Lessons Learned”
Lisa Hajjar
Middle East Research and Information Project
Summer 2009, Volume 39

“Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program”
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Approved December 13, 2012
Updated for Release April 3, 2014
Declassification Revisions December 3, 2014

“The Humane Interrogation Technique That Works Much Better Than Torture”
Olga Khazan
The Atlantic
December 14, 2014

“I Can’t Be Forgiven for Abu Ghraib”
Eric Fair
The New York Times
December 9, 2014

“Interviewing High Value Detainees: Securing Cooperation and Disclosures”
Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Natalie Martschuk, and Mandeep K. Dhami
Applied Cognitive Psychology
October 17, 2014

“People’s support for torture in “ticking time bomb scenarios” is influenced by their desire for retribution”
Research Digest
British Psychological Society

“Rapport-building interrogation is more effective than torture”
Research Digest
British Psychological Society

“The Ticking Time Bomb: When the Use of Torture Is and Is Not Endorsed”
Joseph Spino and Denise Dellarosa CumminsReview of Philosophy and Psychology
August 16, 2014

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)

Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

6 Nitty Gritty Questions To Ask Sarah Palin

Originally published December 4, 2013.

Revised and republished January 19, 2016

The current dissatisfaction with political professionals (politicians, pundits, speechmakers, etc.) stems in part from the failure of ordinary citizens to set standards of effectiveness for them. Ordinary citizens live the nitty gritty details of life. One standard we could set is the expectation that political professionals talk about nitty gritty details and answer 6 questions about nitty gritty details. Former Alaskan Governor, former Republican vice presidential candidate, and former Fox News Channel contributor Sarah Palin is so bad at talking about nitty gritty details that she is my example for setting a standard of effectiveness for political professionals.

As Republican vice presidential candidate in 2008, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin did an interview with Katie Couric. During that campaign, the worst financial crisis in decades had disrupted world financial markets and the U.S. government had decided to spend $700 billion bailing out the financial system. Couric asked:

“Why isn’t it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families struggling with health care, housing, gas and
groceries? … Instead of helping these big financial institutions that
played a role in creating this mess?”

In 151 words, Palin talked about:

“taxpayers”

“healthcare reform” (twice)

“job creation” (twice, including “umbrella of job creating”)

“shoring up our economy”

“reducing taxes”

“reining in spending”

“tax reductions”

“tax relief”

“trade as opportunity”

“trade sector”

The words “middle-class families” never came out of Palin’s mouth. Political professionals would be effective if they answered the 6 nitty gritty questions of any issue: who, what, where, when, how, and why.

An effective answer from Palin would have focused on

Who

Middle class families and big financial institutions

What

What the bailout money was for

When

The schedule for releasing the money and the
estimated time for financial recovery

Where

“Main Street” versus “Wall Street”

How

How the government could ensure “Wall Street”
spent the money on helping “Main Street” instead
of on self-congratulating celebration trips, as AIG
and Wells Fargo wanted to.

Why

The reasoning behind and/or past examples of
bailing out “Wall Street” rather than “Main Street”
or behind “Wall Street only” rather than “Main
Street, too”

Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin came nowhere near the nitty gritty details. If citizens of the United States insisted that political professionals include the nitty gritty who, what, when, where, how, and why when they talk about issues, interviewers like Couric might start using the same standards for effectiveness in their interviews.

It is always possible that political professionals will not know part of an answer. In that case, they should say they will find out the information and post it on their website with their answers to all of the other nitty gritty questions so their response is complete.

Every topic a political professional addresses would have its own 6 nitty gritty questions. Below are two more topics Palin has spoken about.

Sarah Palin compared paying off the federal debt to slavery. Some nitty gritty questions for Palin on this issue include:

Who

Who was the first president to borrow money from
a foreign country?

What

What activities will American taxpayer slaves be
prevented from doing, since slave owners take
freedom of choice away from slaves?

When

When will American taxpayer slaves be forcibly
taken from their families?

Where

Where will American taxpayer slaves be put up
for sale?

(Who will taxpayer slaves be sold to?)

How

How do you decide which debts mean slavery
and which debts do not? Do homeowners
become slaves when mortgage holders sell
mortgage notes to a new “master that is not
of your choosing”?

Why

Why didn’t you complain about taxpayers
becoming slaves in 2010 when House
Republicans chose “Prince of Pork” Hal Rogers
to Chair the House Appropriations Committee?

Sarah Palin visited Wausau, Wisconsin in late 2013 because of a controversy over religious music during school Christmas concerts. Some nitty gritty questions for Palin on this issue include:

Who

Who thinks the war on Christmas is an
exaggeration?

What

What are your proposals for protecting the “heart”
of all religious holidays celebrated by nonChristian
Americans?

When

When will you talk about the effective way Wausau
community members came together to discuss the
controversy and create a solution before you arrived
in Wausau?

Where

Where is your anger when people “diminish” the
“true meaning” of religious holidays celebrated by
nonChristian Americans?

How

How will you protect the religious celebrations of
nonChristian Americans from Scrooges?

Why

Why did you think Wausau residents would need
to buy your book to follow your steps
“to combat the Scrooges” when the Wausau
community had already settled  the issue?

If people keep asking political professionals like Sarah Palin the 6 nitty gritty questions, they will have to start responding with at least some nitty gritty answers.

“Palin: ’What The Bailout Does Is Help Those Who Are Concerned About Health Care Reform’”
Ryan Powers
Think Progress
September 25, 2008

“400 line up for Sarah Palin book promotion at Rib Mountain”
Lydia Mulvany
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
November 14, 2013

“Bailed-Out Bank Nixes Lavish Vegas Junket”
CBSNEWS
February 3, 2009

“Conservatives Peeved After GOP Taps ‘Prince of Pork’ to Lead Spending Committee”
Fox News
December 10, 2010

“Sarah Palin coming to Wausau area”
Dan Griffin
WAOW Television
November 6, 2013

“Sarah Palin invokes slavery, inappropriately of course”
Jonathan Capehart
The Washington Post
November 15, 2013

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)

Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz Has Left The Room

Originally published June 4, 2014.

Revised and republished January 11, 2016 after a web host transfer.

Below are two reasons I do not donate money when I receive Democratic fundraising emails, even though I am a registered Democrat.

Reason #1

“The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Has Left The Room”

Reason #2

Florida’s Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz sent me a fundraising email saying:

“President Obama sent you an email.

Vice President Biden sent you an email.

Nancy Pelosi sent you an email.

Now I’m sending you an email.

We’re emailing you because this is really important.”

Wasserman Schultz provided no email address for me to respond to her. When I went to her website to send an email, I received this message:

Zip Code Authentication Failed

I called Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz’s Florida office and asked if she or her staff would read a letter from Wisconsin. The staff member who answered the phone told me there was no guarantee because they had to look at mail from Florida first. If Wasserman Schultz is not going to give me a way to respond to her, then she has no business emailing me about anything. I told the staff member I would publish my response to Wasserman Schultz in a blog post with the hope that someone else would read it and say something to her.

Wasserman Schultz insulted me by deciding I was too “intellectually unsophisticated to know what is “really important” without her explaining it to me.

Wasserman Schultz created inequality for me by expecting me to remain silent and passive.

I do not trust politicians who ask for money so they can satisfy their power addiction, as indicated in the emails the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sends out. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has left the room along with all of those other Democrats.

I see little difference between Republican politicians seeking power for the sake of power and Democratic politicians seeking power for the sake of power. My needs fall outside the focus of power-seeking politicians from both  sides.

It is “really important” that politicians pay attention to my needs. Debbie Wasserman Schultz ignored my needs, treated me as if I were her intellectual inferior, and created inequality for me. Wasserman Schultz expected me to accept this insulting treatment without question and send money.

I refuse to donate money to politicians who will use my money to buy ads that say things I do not want said. I need Democrats and Republicans to speak respectfully about and to each other, to identify commonalities, and to identify ways to work around differences. I need Democrats to respect my needs, to respect my intelligence, and to create equality for me before they ask me for money.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz did none of what I need. She is yet another female politician who treats female constituents as unequal.

Time has proved that other Democratic voters feel that Wasserman Schultz has left the room.

“The Arrogance of Feminist Leaders”

“Demand Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s immediate resignation as DNC chair”
Spirituality for Justice
change.org

“It’s Time for Female Politicians to Treat Female Constituents
as Equals”

“What Do Feminist Leaders Have In Common with Outlaw Bikers,
Hierarchical Leaders, Donald Rumsfeld, and the Old Guard of the
Catholic Church?”

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)

Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Has Left The Room

Originally published April 9, 2014.

Revised and republished January 10, 2016 after a web host transfer.

I am a registered Democrat. For a reason I cannot remember, I gave the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) my email address. I receive frequent emails asking for money. The emails reveal that the DCCC left the room I’m in years ago. In my room, I talk to friends and acquaintances about wanting Democrats and Republicans to work together. I talk about the Republican politicians I like. I want Democratic politicians to speak respectfully about and to Republicans so that Republicans learn they can trust Democrats.

The room the DCCC was in when I wrote this blog post was all about taking down Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner. The emails I received frequently said nasty things about John Boehner. Below are several samples:

“Boehner must be tearing his hair out right now.”

“Boehner just got caught red-handed!”
(This one from Nancy Pelosi herself.)

“Boehner wasn’t expecting this, friend.”
(Another one from Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi is not my friend.)

“Boehner is already bragging.”
(Nancy Pelosi)

“This news will make Boehner furious!”

“Boehner surely didn’t bargain for this.”

“…a slap in the face to Boehner’s attempt to hold on to his obstructionist Tea Party majority.”
(This is a mischaracterization of John Boehner.)

“…we could really embarrass Speaker Boehner come this fall.”

“You can bet Speaker Boehner and Paul Ryan are high-fiving in the hallways of Congress over their record-breaking haul.”

“Boehner’s going to hate this.”

“…to hand Boehner’s buddies a devastating defeat.”

“…completely demoralize John Boehner…”

“Speaker Boehner was riding high a couple of days ago, but he’s going to have an absolute meltdown…”

“…a major embarrassment for John Boehner.”

I might be a registered Democrat, but my political goal was NEVER to catch John Boehner red-handed, make him tear his hair out, embarrass him, make him furious, slap him in the face, demoralize him, or give him a meltdown. Those words and phrases are NEVER part of my conversations.

My political goal is for all Democrats and all Republicans to learn to work together to make sure all citizens have what we need to create success in our own lives. The ability of individual citizens to be successful does matter. The mortgage crisis would have proved that to politicians who paid attention. When millions of ordinary people could not pay their mortgages, the financial world came tumbling down. But if the entire Democratic party is focused the way the DCCC emails are focused, then my hope for a better life is doomed.

The Republicans might be sending similar emails to registered Republicans, but I don’t know that. I do know that Democrats are losing elections because they keep proving they are in a different room than voters. Democratic voters on or near the political party fence at times decide that an individual Republican candidate sounds closer to the room they’re in than the Democratic candidate.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is one example. In his second election as Governor, nearly a third of Democratic voters chose Republican Christie. Voters in numbers big enough to swing elections want bipartisan politicians who stay in the same room voters are in. Those voters do not want politicians who leave the room and fantasize about what they could do to leaders from the other party. Governor Christie’s lower approval ratings in the years since the George Washington Bridge scandal suggest he isn’t as bipartisan as he appeared.

House Democrats keep demonstrating that they are intent on satisfying their own needs, not mine. They need to take John Boehner down and they think I need to take John Boehner down, too. I don’t. I need Democrats to spend time in my room instead of closing themselves off in a room by themselves. Right now, I have no hope for a better life with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House for a second time. She offended me the entire four years she was Speaker of the House.

In private, Democrats sound just as bad as Republicans sound in public. Given that sameness, what difference does it make who wins the majority in Congress? If Democrats keep focusing on taking down John Boehner and do win the majority in Congress, they would still be in a different room. Their focus would still be on satisfying their own need to humiliate the other party instead of on satisfying citizen needs for Democrats and Republicans to work together.

Besides writing this blog post, I wrote a letter to my Democratic congressional representative. I included a $3 check. I also sent a copy of this blog post. The letter is below.

Dear Rep. ————-,
Enclosed is a $3 check and a blog post I wrote about the DCCC. Please read the post.

I also sent copies of the post to the DCCC, to Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and to President Obama.

I will send you more money if you do all of the following:

1.  Stop using words and phrases like “howling” and “gang of Republicans”.

2.  Speak respectfully about Republicans both publicly and privately so they have no excuse to speak disrespectfully about you.

3.  Explain what you will do to seek commonalities between Republicans and Democrats.

4.  If you have already identified commonalities, explain what those commonalities are and how you will approach your Republican counterparts to talk about them.

Making those four actions your normal method of representing me will put us back in same room.

I trust you to be creative in finding commonalities, but I’ll give you an example of how I would like you as the politician who represents me to look for commonalities with Republicans.

Many Republicans are pro-life, meaning they support the right of every baby to be born. The most effective way to create a commonality on this issue is to focus on babies. If every baby has a right to be born, then every baby has a right to be born to parents who want him or her. Unfortunately, babies are born everyday to parents who do not want them. Those children endure neglect, abuse, and even murder at the hands of their parents. Focusing on babies turns the discussion with pro-life Republicans to protecting all babies by finding ways to make sure all babies are born to parents who want them.

It will take thought, but I voted for you assuming that you would take the time to think. It will be challenging, but you can challenge any Republican who does not live up to their pro-life claim. Not all Democrats are pro-choice and not all Republicans are pro-life, but I expect you to look for and build on the commonalities.

Sincerely,
Paula Kramer

Generally, the emails from my own representative are far better than the emails from the DCCC. However, I get the least partisan and most respectful emails from New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. Senator Booker is willing to work with Republicans and spoke out against both Republican and Democratic campaign attack ads. Booker’s backers have apparently used some attack ads, though. Hard to say what Booker’s involvement was. However, Booker is still more with me in the room I’m in than not with me.

Letter_To_Democratic_Politicians

Democratic_Power_Desires

“Boehner Fights Back Against Tea Party, Again”
David Welna
National Public Radio (NPR)
February 14, 2014

“A Brief History of Infanticide”
Dr. Larry S. Milner
The Society for the Prevention of Infanticide
1998

“Cory Booker on ‘Nauseating” Attack Ads & More Sunday Talk (Video)
The Daily Beast
May 20, 2012

“Exit Polls”: N.J. Governor”
The New York Times
Election 2013

“Poll: Christie Approval rating at New Low in N.J.”
Courtney Such
RealClear Politics
June 23, 2015

“Rand Paul, Cory Booker Kindle Festivus Bromance Over Sentencing Reform, Ending War On Drugs”
Matt Sledge
The Huffington Post
December 23, 2013

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)

Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

It’s Time For Female Politicians To Treat Female Constituents As Equals

Originally published March 26, 2014.

Revised and republished January 10, 2016 after a web host transfer.

Background On Inequality Between Women

Inequality between females is more common than equality between females. Females create inequality for other females through words and actions of betrayal.

In 1988, I watched Oprah Winfrey betray a female guest on her talk show. I couldn’t understand how Oprah could betray another woman. By that time, I already felt regret for the way I had treated a number of girls and women in my life, but I had never asked myself how I could betray another girl or woman. To figure out why Oprah betrayed her female guest, I wrote my masters thesis about women as television talk show hosts. What I learned from writing that thesis is that every girl in this country grows up learning how to betray other girls. As women we just keep doing what we grew up doing, betraying other women. Betrayal between females creates inequality between females.

I watched every talk show hosted by a woman for about five years (starting before I earned my B.A.). Most of the topics discussed on the shows fell into four repeating themes. I now call those themes the cultural themes of betrayal between women:

Women as mothers

Women and their appearance

Women as deviants

Teenage girls as threats to society

For more details about each of these themes, see Girl Grit.

As young girls, we learn to judge other girls according to these cultural themes of betrayal. As women, we continue to judge each other according to these cultural themes of betrayal. Even girls who grow up to become politicians judge and betray other women because that is what they learned to do.

Every time a female betrays another female, she betrays herself as well. Every time a female holds another female back, she holds herself back as well. Every time a female judges another woman according to the cultural themes of betrayal, she invites other females as well as males to judge her by the same cultural themes. It’s time for female politicians to learn to stop judging and betraying other females so they can begin to create equality for both constituent females and themselves.

Once I understood that I judged other females based on these cultural themes of betrayal, I rethought all of my relationships with girls and women. I wanted to find a way for all girls and women to stop betraying each other and start supporting each other. I found the way when I read Dr. Reg Williams’ four steps for new recruits to be more successful in the Navy. I adapted his steps, then added other steps as I realized their significance for females. Together they are the 12 Girl Goodwill Steps to Success & Equality:

1.  Look other girls and women in the eye and say hello. *

2.  Focus on what you have in common with other girls and women. *

3.  Create connections between girls and women to help them
recognize what they have in common.

4.  Ask questions to understand differences when you must
consider them.

5.  Avoid judging other girls and women *

6.  Avoid making assumptions by asking questions to
understand intentions.

7.  Listen to any other side of the story.

8.  Ask other girls and women for help, but avoid expecting
more than they can give. *

9.  Speak words to give other girls and women confidence.

10. Take action to help other girls and women shine.

11. Make room for other girls and women to share in success.

12. Speak what you want to hear because boys and men will
deny equality to girls and women as long as girls and women
deny equality to each other.

*  Adapted from Dr. Reg Williams
Former Professor of Psychiatry and Vietnam veteran

I read Dr. Williams’ advice for Navy recruits in a Good Housekeeping magazine early in the second Iraq war. The article is buried in a box somewhere in my house. I will post the citation when I find the article.

In an effort to spread the word about girl goodwill, I set up a Facebook campaign where girls and women could tell stories about helping other girls and women succeed. I told a few stories from my own life. Thankfully, I had a number of stories to tell, easing my guilt over the far greater number of times I betrayed other females.

One story is about a woman I had been in a class with during college. She became a television reporter. I emailed her to ask if I could use her name in a girl goodwill story about how I purposefully paid her a compliment early in her career to help her feel more confident. She said yes, but  wanted to have a phone conversation before I wrote the story. Before we could have that conversation, the television station let her go, probably because the station managers decided she had gotten too old and/or earned more money than they wanted to pay. I wrote the story without using her name. The former television reporter accepted what I wrote and published on the Girl Goodwill page without requesting any changes.

Note

Unfortunately, Facebook changed my administrative email address attached my original email address to a different page. I do not know the new email address, so I can  no longer administer that page. Facebook has ignored all my requests to give back my ability to administer my Girl Goodwill campaign.

Background On One Female Politician

I had briefly worked with a woman before she decided to go into politics. We talked about the ingredients for spectacular success and she found them useful. After her successful first election, I sent her an email, reminding her of the ingredients for spectacular success. She said she would remember them. Months later I sent her information about dream team formulas and pointed out which formula would be most appropriate for her to use as a politician. This was her response:

“Thank you so much for your kind words and very helpful thoughts on how I can work effectively for the district. I truly appreciate your words of wisdom and can’t wait to get to work!”

After I launched my Girl Goodwill campaign, I emailed the politician, explaining my campaign and asking if I could use her name in a story about giving her information to help her succeed. This is the response I received from her female assistant:

“Unfortunately, Wisconsin State Assembly ethics rules prohibit the use of any legislator’s name for marketing purposes.”

Marketing: the action or business of promoting and selling products or services, including market research and advertising.

I emailed the assistant back, requesting an explanation of how asking women to tell stories about helping other women succeed and telling my own stories about helping other women succeed was marketing. I received no response.

I felt the female assistant had misrepresented me to the politician. If the female assistant was capable of misrepresenting me, the female assistant was capable of misrepresenting other constituents. The politician could lose votes in future elections. I sent an explanatory letter to another female politician. I never received a response. When I ran into the first politician at a public event, she exuded anger at me.

How did this politician go from appreciating my words of wisdom to deciding I was making an unethical request? The cultural themes of betrayal got in the way.

Note: It might be common for women in positions of authority to see unethical intentions in other women to justify judging them as deviant. See Girl Growl Backfire: An Editor gives Herself an Unprofessional Image.

If you are female, you know a female politician is judging you by the cultural themes of betrayal when she makes a decision about you without asking questions to understand differences, without asking questions to understand intentions, without listening to every side of the story. Two female politicians and at least one female assistant judged me without asking any of those questions. All of these women judged me according to the cultural themes of betrayal. If those three women judged me according to the cultural themes of betrayal, they are capable of judging any other female constituent according to the cultural themes of betrayal.

When women judge other women according to the cultural themes of betrayal, they treat them as unequal. When female politicians judge constituent women according to the cultural themes of betrayal, they treat the women they are supposed to be representing as unequal. What sort of equal representation can constituent women expect from female politicians who use stereotypes to judge them as deviant?

If a female politician judges you as deviant, the questions below will help you let the politician know that you expect her to treat you as her equal. They are my questions to the politician who gratefully accepted the information I provided to help her succeed.  I expect her to treat me as her equal.

The questions are based on the six basic questions to ask politicians. Adapt the questions to your situation. You may not need to use all six of the basic questions.

My Questions

What criteria did you use to determine that stories about women helping other women succeed is marketing for profit?

How did you determine the accuracy of your criteria before you used them to judge me?

Why didn’t you ask for more information about the Girl Goodwill campaign?

Why didn’t you visit the Girl Goodwill Facebook page to see what kinds of stories women tell about helping other women succeed?

Why didn’t you ask to read the story I wanted to write about you?

These are the subjects of the current stories on the Girl Goodwill Facebook page:

Speaking four words to a little girl in a laundromat

Introducing upper class women to lower class women in
a way that gets them talking to each other

Letting a businesswoman know that breakfast meetings
attract more potential clients than dinner meetings

An offer of help after sudden bereavement

Preventing young workers from taking credit for an older
female worker’s insights

Giving a television reporter a boost of confidence

Turning an unemployed woman’s life around by answering
her question honestly

Refusing to continue the cultural themes of betrayal by
using girl goodwill with a woman who intentionally betrayed
me

Giving a woman information to help her succeed in her
new career

Now that you know what the stories are, what product or service does each story market?

What is unethical about my wanting to use your name in a story about giving you information to succeed when the information I gave you is free on my website, with free instructions for how to use it, with more free information about the importance of situational ingredients in creating success?

What am I marketing with free PDF downloads that say nothing about any product or service I offer?

Where will I get equal representation as a voter now that you have judged me as deviant?

How often do you judge female constituents as deviant?

Female Politicians Are Equal Only When Their Constituents Are Equal

When social status changes — including when someone wins their first political election — the new politician’s brain can change. Their social status and wealth grow compared to most of the people they associated with before their election. Their new status and increasing wealth can change their brains. Empathy for the people they saw as equals before the election will disappear if they no longer see those people as equals. Neither female politician felt empathy for my efforts to improve relationships between women. That is evidence that their brains have changed. They do not understand that my equality ensures their equality.

In spite of the judgmental response from the female politician, I told the story on the Girl Goodwill Facebook page anyway. I took out all identifying details. I initiated the action in the story so it is my story to tell. I do not market anything on the Girl Goodwill Facebook page or in my story about giving information to the politician. I told the story because I want girls and women to learn multiple ways of helping other girls and women succeed. Giving step by step information plus real world examples is one way to help other girls and women succeed.

I want the female politician I briefly worked with to succeed. All women should admire her for deciding to make a difference and succeeding on a difficult path. Just as success for any woman makes eventual success for all women more likely, equality for any woman makes eventual equality for all women more likely. The success of the politician makes my success more likely. Her equality in politics makes my equality as a citizen more likely. What all three of the women who judged me fail to understand is that success and equality for me makes success and equality for them more likely. It’s time for all female politicians to create equality for all female constituents, because equality between men and women will follow equality between women.

My Girl Goodwill Advice To Female Politicians With An Invitation For Male Politicians To Pay Attention

All politicians need to be aware of the potential loss of empathy for their constituents. All politicians need to take steps to keep their empathy intact. Follow these steps before making decisions about your constituents, both male and female:

Talk to people before you make decisions about them.

Ask questions to make sure you understand circumstances and intentions.

Investigate other opportunities to gather information about people and/or issues.

Constituents have the power to hire you, which means they also have the power to fire you. Staying hired means making decisions that give your constituents reasons to keep voting for you.

Do you, blog reader, see any marketing in that girl goodwill advice to help female politicians succeed?

“As for Empathy, the Haves Have Not”
Pamela Paul
The New York Times
December 30, 2010

“How Wealth Reduces Compassion”
Scientific American
Daisy Grewal
April 10, 2012

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)

Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Standards For Success Posters

Girl Grit

Girl Goodwill

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

If Mitt Were Willing To Share, Would Ann Have A Cure For MS?

Originally published February 24, 2013.

Revised and republished December 20, 2015 after a web host transfer.

The techniques for heart surgery were invented by a black man who began his surgical research career as a nineteen year old. His whose job experience was carpentry and working as an orderly in an infirmary. Because few people had attempted heart surgery before, this black man with only a high school education invented instruments to make heart surgery possible. Some of his instruments are still used in operating rooms today. Vivien Thomas (yes, Vivien Thomas was a man) grew up in a low income household. Vivien himself received a janitor’s wages from Vanderbilt University while he was working as a surgical research technician. In the 1930s, Vanderbilt paid all black males janitor wages no matter what kind of work they did.

Let’s play a little It’s A Wonderful Life, that Jimmy Stewart movie where the main character learns what the world would have been like if he had never lived. What if Vivien Thomas had grown up with inadequate food, inadequate health care, and inadequate education? What if all of those inadequacies made Vivien Thomas unable to fulfill his potential of inventing the techniques and instruments for heart surgery? Vivien Thomas’s wages were so low that he considered switching jobs to better support his family. What if his inadequate pay forced him to stop working on the techniques for heart surgery and go back to carpentry? How many people in your life (you?) would be dead or never born if Vivien Thomas had been unable to invent the first techniques and instruments for heart surgery?

Someone else would have invented the techniques for heart surgery eventually, but it could have been decades later. Heart surgery would not be what it is today, so more people would have died instead of being saved. If your family has a history of heart problems, you might not have been born.

What if a child who could have grown up to develop the cure for multiple sclerosis did not develop the cure because inadequate food, inadequate health care, or inadequate education prevented the fulfillment of his or her potential?

If Mitt Romney would share some of his millions to make sure children of all colors had adequate food, adequate health care, and adequate education, perhaps one of those children would grow up to develop the cure that would give Ann Romney her health back. Mitt and Ann should hope that it’s not too late for the cure to be discovered in their lifetimes. Keeping money in offshore accounts doesn’t seem to have done much for Ann’s health.

Mitt has to hope his wealthy peers are generous with their money as well so the door opens wide enough for that particular child to walk through. We cannot assume that child has been or will be born in the United States. Vivien Thomas was born in New Iberia, Louisiana where he went to elementary school. He attended high school in Nashville, Tennessee. No one could have decided that the black children of New Iberia, Louisiana and Nashville, Tennessee should have all of their needs satisfied to make sure one child could grow up to invent the techniques and instruments for heart surgery. No one can look anywhere in the country or the world to decide that one particular group of children should have all of their needs satisfied so that one child could grow up to develop the cure for MS.

And while the open door would let that child through, it would also let through children who have the potential to grow up and improve lives in all kinds of ways. What other health problems plague your family?

If you focus on money, all you get is money. If you focus on creating opportunities, you receive the benefits of those opportunities. Why hasn’t Mitt Romney figured this out? Because he was too busy thinking up reasons to justify his claim that 47% of Americans don’t “take personal responsibility” or “care for their lives”?

“In Search of Vivien Thomas”
Damon M. Kennedy, DO
Texas Heart Institute Journal
January 2005; 32(4): pages 477-478

“The Real Truth Behind The 47 Percent – Why Aren’t Those People Paying Federal Income Taxes?”
Rick Ungar
Forbes
September 19, 2012

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)

Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com

Evidence Of Equality: God Creates Homosexuals & Heterosexuals As Equals

Originally published November 20, 2013.

Revised and republished December 18, 2015.

A 20-year-old server at Carrabba’s Italian Grill in Overland Park, Kansas received an outpouring of support after diners refused to tip him. The restaurant patrons did not refuse to leave a gratuity because the waiter provided poor service — in fact, they said the service was excellent. The couple refused to leave a tip because the server appeared to be homosexual. The diners believed the server’s “lifestyle” made him unequal in the eyes of God. Below is the note they left the server, explaining the inequality they saw:

“Thank you for your service, it was excellent. That being said, we cannot in good conscience tip you, for your homosexual lifestyle is an affront to GOD. Queers do not share in the wealth of GOD, and you will not share in ours. We hope you will see the tip your fag choices made you lose out on, and plan accordingly. It is never too late for GOD’S love, but none shall be spared for fags. May GOD have mercy on you.”

In every instance where diners refuse to tip because they believe servers who are homosexual are “an affront to GOD’, the diners are ignoring evidence from God. God creates homosexuals and heterosexuals as equals by giving them equal talents.

Scientists in different parts of the world are finding evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. That means God created the conditions that make some people homosexual. If God created the conditions that create homosexuality, then God wants some people to be homosexual.

Englishman Alan Turing is on at least two lists of brilliant mathematicians, equal to every other brilliant mathematician on the lists. Alan Turing was a homosexual. God created Turing to be a brilliant mathematician. Turing used his mathematical brilliance to break German ciphers during World War II. He wrote two papers that the British government restricted until 2012 because of their importance. King George VI awarded Turing the Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE) for his war service. When God gave Turing the brilliance to break Nazi ciphers, God knew that Alan Turing’s work in World War II would save the lives of heterosexuals and help protect the world from Nazism.

Credit is due to Polish cryptographers whose work laid the foundation for Alan Turing’s work.

Turing is also considered to be the father of computer science and artificial intelligence. When God gave Turing the brilliance to become the father of computer science and artificial intelligence, God knew how important computers and artificial intelligence would become in the everyday lives of people around the world. God knew that Alan Turing’s work would improve the daily lives of heterosexuals.

Even if you choose to ignore the scientific evidence in favor of maintaining a belief that homosexuality is a choice, the evidence that God creates homosexuals and heterosexuals as equals still stands. God is all-knowing, after all. If people choose to be homosexuals, God knows that an individual will choose homosexuality before the individual makes that choice. If Alan Turing chose to be homosexual, God knew it ahead of time and created him as a mathematical genius anyway.

The fact that God created Alan Turing with the world changing talent he had is evidence that God intends everyone else to treat Turing with respect. Since Turing helped the Allies win World War II, everyone who fought with or cheered on the Allies owes Turing their gratitude. Since Turing is the father of computer science and artificial intelligence, everyone who uses a computer and benefits from artificial intelligence owes Turing their gratitude. The bottom link below will take you to a list of the top 30 innovations of the last 30 years. Have a look at the list and see how many are related to computer science.

Diners who refuse to leave tips for homosexual servers specifically because they are homosexual treat their servers as unequal. How are those diners going to explain to God their refusal to treat their servers as equal? How is anyone who refuses to treat homosexuals as equals going to explain their decision to God when the evidence shows that God creates homosexuals and heterosexuals as equals?

Note

Years ago, a relative saw me reading a history of lesbians and assumed that meant I was a lesbian. It is likely that people will read this post and assume that I am a lesbian. I am heterosexual. I wrote this post because I want people of every variety of sexuality to use their God-given talents. I want them to use their God-given talents so that I can use whatever they create to become a more successful human being who happens to be heterosexual.

“5 brilliant mathematicians and their impact on the modern world”
Shea Gunther
May 22, 2013

“Customers Refuse Tip To Server, Leave Anti-Gay Note”
Ellie Hall
BuzzFeed
October 25, 2013

“Did Polish cryptographers crack the Nazi Enigma code before Alan Turing?”
George Dvorsky
io9
October 9, 2012

“The Enigma Machine: How Alan Turing Helped Break the Unbreakable Nazi Code”
Open Culture
January 17th, 2013

“Homo Or Hetero? The Neurobiological Dimension Of Sexual Orientation”
Adapted Medea Release
May 31, 2011

“How Alan Turing Invented the Computer Age”
Ian Watson
Scientific American Guest Blog
April 26, 2012

“The Hundred Greatest Mathematicians of the Past”
FabPedigree
James Dow Allen

“Scientists claim that homosexuality is not genetic — but it arises in the womb”
George Dvorksy
io9
December 11, 2012

“Why Alan Turing is the father of computer science”
Jay McGregor
TechRadar
June 7, 2014

“A World Transformed: What Are the Top 30 Innovations of the Last 30 Years?”
-Knowledge@Wharton
knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu
Nov 17, 2013

Paula M. Kramer
Resource Rock Star (See websites below.)

Copyright 2015
All rights reserved.

Posts on this blog alternate with posts at the link below. Posts for both blogs are published on Wednesdays as they are ready to be published. Time between posts could be weeks.

blog.smilessparksuccess.com

Resource Rock Star Details

speakingfromtriumph.com

smilessparksuccess.com