The 12 Step Program for purging America of Trumpism -

We have seen 12 step programs written and proposed for a variety of social situations beyond Alcoholism and other chemical substances. I submit yet another version of the 12 step program for ridding America of the vestiges and soiling of our culture from the era to be known historically as Trumpism.

Step 1 - We admit we have allowed Trumpism to permeate our culture in very negative ways that lead to making our governance unmanageable.

Step 2 - We agree that it will take a power greater than that we are currently deploying to restore sanity and put our nation back on course as a respected world leader.

Step 3 - We must decide to turn our focus and our intentions over to the people of this nation who desire to instill policies and action that serve the greater good.

Step 4 - We must pursue and share a deep searching and moral inventory of ourselves as a nation that has stepped off the path of integrity.

Step 5 - We must admit to a higher power, ourselves, and each other the exact nature of the error of our ways.

Step 6 - We are entirely ready to submit to the act of removing all these defects of character.

Step 7 - In a spirit of national humility, we ask each other for forgiveness for our shortcomings in 
our joint effort to remove them.

Step 8 - We must make a list of nations and classes of people we have harmed, and resolve to make amends to them all.

Step 9 - As we make amends to those who have been harmed, we must do so in a manner that does not risk causing new our worse harm.

Step 10 - We must continue to be vigilant in taking inventory of our harmful ways, and promptly admit when and where we are wrong.

Step 11 - Through any means that improves our conscious awareness of our social responsibility to each other, we must resolve to arrest any future potential of any manifestations of Trumpism to grip our nation again.

Step 12 - From the conscious awakening by following and practicing these steps, we continue to share this message with future generations, and to practice these principals in all our affairs.

I think I am starting to get it....

I am referring to the dogged intent by Trump supporters to see him as some kind of answer or solution to my view of domestic and world problems that need solutions.  In order to "get it", self reflection and examination are required.  Brutally so!

I am part of the population that to a significant extent believes that part of the Obama appeal was his being payback for Bush Jr.  I believe he was somewhat of a natural response to the Bush/Cheney travesty because appearances were that Obama was the opposite in may regards.  And I believe that there are a lot of Americans who regard Trump to be much the same where Obama is concerned.  But there is much more to this than just that.

When I climbed on the Obama wagon in 2007 (and I will reveal I was never on the Hillary bandwagon during their primary season) part of my thinking was that I knew I did not want to see a redux of Bush/Cheney.  The other part was equally directive for me.  I wanted to believe that all the promises and stated intentions Obama put out were doable and he would get them done or die trying.  If I had viewed this more objectively, I would have tempered this belief with the question, "When in the history of this country did any president actually ever come close to doing that?"  The correct answer is "never" if you need help.  But I was prepared to give Obama support and the benefit of doubt for clearly trying hard regardless of actual outcome.  I had black friends tell me back then they did not believe Obama was who I thought he was, but I was not about to listen to any of that.  How or why would they know that?  Because they and he were black?  I still don't know the answer to that, but that doesn't matter now, either.

I could make my own personal list here of the frustrations that I heaped upon Obama during his first term, but that is not relevant for the current purpose either.  These frustrations affected the level of my support in 2012.  In 2008, I donated to his campaign several times, something I had never done before.  I also volunteered at the KC headquarter office on election day, also a first for me.  I was  one of those "dialing for votes" callers.  In 2012 I voted for him, and that was all.  The good feelings about him were long gone, never to return.  I like the man a lot as a person, but today I do not believe he was probably the president America really needed.  Just my own take on that, nothing more.

So, to finish this point, I clothed Obama heavily, and probably unreasonably, in the mantle of my own desires, intentions, pet issues and concerns, etc.  He could not possibly have completed my agenda for him, even if he agreed with all of it.  And I think in that regard, I am probably not very unique as an Obama voter.  I have had enough conversations over the last 7 years with kindred souls to come to that conclusion.

I do not think the election of Obama led to over the top gloating on the part of those of us who were relieved that Bush ideals and policies were going to shoved out the door, but maybe some of my own bias is showing through in that respect.  However, I can say I was feeling very satisfied early on.  And I was dismayed at the attitude of the anti-Obama crowd.  To my observation, they had no reason to feel about him as their attitudes and words displayed.  I could not understand how blindly and easily they accused Obama of doing or planning actions that were never on the agenda.  Obama was never going to take away their guns.  He did not raise their taxes.  Their accusations about the Obama administration regarding any increases in the national debt were wrong when subtracting all spendings related to the wars Bush and Cheney started.  The anti-Obama crowd was just plain committed to hating him for any reason the could invent.

And now we appear to have Trump on the horizon, and I see the process starting all over again.  Where Obama was the anti-Bush, Trump will be the anti-Obama.  The difference is that I am now on the other side of the ledger.  I do not harbor the attitude of hatred, because that never moves the needle in any positive direction.  Never has, never will.  But I get it now.  I can better understand the experience, even the trap, of allowing myself to get caught up in the act of predicting, imagining, believing a host of future events and outcomes led by Trump that hopefully will never happen.  I admit I have no desire to yield to or move into the Trump camp. Where I liked Obama the man regardless of my perspectives on his efficacy as president, Trump is a man I do not like or respect, and have little if no faith in his capacity to lead this nation where it needs to go.  I stated earlier that I questioned whether Obama was the right person for the job at hand.  I feel certain that Trump definitely is not, and he has not ever been sworn in yet.  Only sworn at.

The only positive note I can add to this is, if I turn out to be totally wrong about him, we all win.

The Correct Outcome

It's the correct outcome -- Does it seem like America has gone over the edge?  Weekly mass killings in unlikely places, gun sales breaking records everywhere in the country, seemingly complete inability of government agencies and institutions to command respect and maintain order.  Is this the new normal?

Is it the correct outcome?  Yes.  Is the right outcome?  Of course not.  But what should we expect?  America has been working toward the current state of condition for a long time.  At least since the Reagan presidency.

Thanks to the Reagan budget cuts, tens of thousands, perhaps millions, of people suffering from mental illness have been "reintegrated back into society" instead of being housed in treatment institutions.

We have continued to engage in foreign wars nearly non-stop since World War II.   Young men and women come back from this traumatic experience with many ailments and diseases, then we often deny them care and treatment after they return.  So we have mentally ill veterans living hopelessly and homeless all over the country.

We have grown the poor population faster than any other group of citizens.  So economic depression and the disappearance of the middle class has reached alarming levels.  Higher education has escalated to become unaffordable to more and more American families. It is reported that over 600,000 Americans declared bankruptcy specifically due to medical bills they could never pay.  This is compared to a couple of dozen other developed countries that reported zero instances of the same.  The working poor are not provided medical coverage in their low paying jobs and they cannot afford to buy it, even with the ACA program.  So this is an expected outcome.

So again, we are experiencing the correct outcome for the investment, or lack of it, in our national social status.  Should we be surprised at this?  Definitely not.

Would we be surprised and disappointed that a tree growing up from planting Apple seeds does not yield pears?  That would be considered insane.  So why would we be surprised about the social ills we live with every day?  They come, after all, from the seeds we have sown for the past several decades.

What to do?  Can we create a better bandaid?  Do we need to pass another law?  Do we need to eliminate the second amendment from the constitution?  Or close that dreaded loophole in regard to gun shows?  How about healthcare savings accounts?  That'll warm the hearts of the average Walmart or McDonalds employee!

Thinking and thoughtful people know what needs to change in order for us to be a safer, friendlier, more compassionate nation.  But most of those people do not choose to run for public office or choose public service jobs for careers, it seems.  Who can blame them?  They have children to raise and educate and that costs more every day.  We do not take very good financial care of our teachers, social workers, and other people who would be inclined to dedicate their lives to serving others.  So the best and brightest look elsewhere for their means of support.  If that does not somehow change, where is the current state of affairs going to lead us?

Flash Mobs for Political Impact

“How many people do you think are here?”, asked the local news reporter at the site of the event?

“Wow, there must be well over 1000! How did this happen?”, replied her camera man as they prepared to file a report about what they were witnessing.

The scene was at the official headquarters of Darrell Issa, the California republican congressman.  A flash mob of over 1000 young people were there to voice their disapproval of the congressman’s position on global warming.  The huge assembly of millennials were very vocal and energetic, but peaceful and respectful of the property they were occupying.  But there was no doubt in the mind of any observer that they were upset, focused, and dedicated to communicating clearly their anger at how tone deaf their congressman seemed to be to his constituency.

The crowd represented a demographic that could not be sold on the idea that if they were unhappy, just wait until the next election and vote Issa out.  They were old enough in spite of their youth to know that option rarely produces actual results.  They used and responded to the tools of their time and understanding, namely social media.  The word spread in a flash that this protest rally was going to happen.  They also knew that the practice of swarming a home base site of a legislator would be impactful, and was probably something that should happen repeatedly and not just once.  They mobilized early enough in the day that the congressman’s staff were still at work in the office. 

It was noticed by all who were close enough to see that the staff inside the building was lined up in the windows with worried, if not panicked, expressions on their faces.  And of course they were all either talking on their cell phones, snapping pictures, or texting as fast as their fingers could move.  This was working!  A new and effective method of political expression was being born on the spot.  Was their finally hope of being heard by the elitist government officials?

Tune in to your local news channel and see what is being said.

Did this actually happen?  No, but it really could, couldn’t it?  And it really should.  We all know the people can take back their power if the really want to.  The technology of today can go a long way toward supporting those who choose to make a difference and communicate that the status quo should not feel safe and secure any more.

What Do They Really Mean?

We are already rapidly becoming inundated with presidential political campaign programs, pundit commentary, solicitation phone calls, unsolicited postal mail, and email spam. And the election is well over a year off. Does anything anyone is saying today really matter enough to invade our daily lives to this extent so early? I doubt many would answer yes to that question. But I am going to try to do my part to bring some perspective to this ever longer silly season for the purpose of helping us all remember that what we hear from so many sources is often not even close to meaning what our language definitions have supposedly taught us to understand.

First, I am providing a link to three party platform drafts of the major political organizations that take the time, trouble and expense to select and appoint delegates and host conventions in some major city in the nation. There are more party classifications and organizations than this, but most of them are very loosely organized, if at all, and most of them have such small memberships that they wield virtually no influence in the national political arena.

I have actually slogged through each of the party platforms listed in the following links. It was painful and not very informative. If one endeavors to measure the platforms against actual performance and conduct, it very quickly feels like a complete waste of time. Add to that fact that there are a lot of pages in two of the three (the Libertarian platform document is mostly just a brief bullet point list), enough in fact that each platform document is loaded with contradictory statements. Do the authors actually read these things and contemplate what they have written? On could make a pretty convincing argument that they must not bother to proof or review their rambling, ambling draft very carefully.

But if you care or dare, here they are, based on what they claimed they cared about and planned to do as of the 2008 political season.

American Political Party Platforms:

Republican Party Platform

Democratic Party Platform

Libertarian Party Platform

Now, then, if you made yourself suffer through all of that cloudy reading, and I certainly cannot blame you if you decided not to, take a little time to ponder the following definitions, extracted straight from the dictionary. You will find that if you study these definitions in context with how they are used in political writing and discussions, you will consequently be better informed and equipped to evaluate and often wisely refute much of the prattle you will be reading and hearing leading up to November 2012. It will become frustratingly clear that liberties are routinely taken with all these words in ways that are not even close to what they mean. I would guess that self-identifying conservatives might ponder a little more carefully how they choose to be regarded if they take to heart the full meaning of that term. Who would want to be considered a stick-in-the-mud sort of person who doesn’t want change no matter the circumstance?

I also want to believe that anyone who studies the definition of the word liberal would surely hope that the characteristics it implies are far more positive than not. I would think most anyone wants to believe they are regarded as the kind of individual who values freedom, is supportive of positive change, recognizes the importance of progress in the development and growth of any society, for some examples. According to the definition of ‘liberal’, if you believe all that, you are one! I hope that doesn’t hurt your feelings.

Taken literally, a self-avowed conservative would want regulations and restrictions that represent the current status quo and often were the product of the very political operatives they claim to identify with and support, and liberals would advocate eliminating and removing as many of them as possible due to their interference with personal freedoms! Does that sound line what is being touted by either group today?

So once again, read the definitions over, and look them up yourself to satisfy any concern that I might not have presented them accurately enough.

Definitions of words and terms commonly used in political writing and conversations:

CONSERVATIVE –

Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

CONSERVATISM –

The disposition to preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.

LIBERAL –

Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by government protection and civil liberties.

LIBERALISM –

A political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

LIBERTARIAN –

Advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty, maintaining the doctrine of free will.

INDEPENDENT –

A person who votes for candidates, measures, etc., in accordance with his or her own judgment and without regard to the endorsement of, or the positions taken by any party.

Now that you are at least as wise and informed as this author on these matters, let’s review a few notable incongruent ideas. I have made a point of observing the conflict between the claims and actual conduct of individuals who insist they strongly identify with any specific political ideology. The most glaring examples seem to relate to the extreme inverse relationship between demands for freedom and independence compared to the broad and deep dependencies these same individuals embrace in their daily lives.

For example, the louder the demand for rugged individualism by some, the more likely they are on the receiving end of numerous entitlement programs for their livelihood and survival. Farmers who claim to be conservatives are receiving huge subsidies from the government to keep their farms financially viable. People carry signs at demonstrations with nonsensical slogans such as “Tell the Government to keep its hands off my Medicare”. Politicians who claim to support and advocate for conservative social policies are themselves on the government tit to the point of scandal with their own designed retirement plans, medical coverage, etc. Most of these people do not seem to listen to their own voices; otherwise they would surely recognize the inconsistencies in their words. Or, maybe not.

An important concern that we should all share is that if the people we allow to lead and manage our government do not even bother to use language precisely and correctly in their proclamations about what should be our future course for the greater good of the nation, how can we then arrive at sound decisions regarding who best can serve the national need and do the work they are charged with completing?

I for one think it might be time to call them out when they are perched on their stump in the midst of their lofty orations and ask them to share their understanding of these key defining terms sprinkled throughout their rhetoric. Of course, that means that I will have to commit to being present where they make appearances that we commoners have access to. And then I need to take the lead in raising my hand and asking them on the spot to explain what they mean when they say “conservative”, or “liberal”, or any other term that is supposed to be a platform definer.

I’ve never done that before…probably time I did. Hope to see you there.

The best actor training, right here in Kansas City!

Have you ever thought you might enjoy acting in front of a camera? Do you have to make professional presentations in front of groups, or even make speeches to crowds? Would you find it beneficial to lose your self-consciousness when the spotlight is on you for any reason?

If you answered yes to any of those questions, you might want to consider taking on-camera actor training. This is very different from stage acting and has many useful applications for those who are or want to be in ‘performance’ roles of any kind.

Did you happen to notice that in the questions above I left out the obvious, that being your friends ever told you that you should ‘be in pictures’? I left that one out on purpose. Don’t listen to your friends. They are telling you that for all the wrong reasons, none of which have anything to do with learning the craft of acting. Because if you think acting is all about how you look, you need to pay more attention to TV commercials, movies and TV programs. Every look you can imagine is represented there.

If this idea is interesting to you are in luck if you live in or near Kansas City. One of the finest acting studios in the nation is located right here! It is called Commercial Actors Studio (CAS) and it is owned and operated by none other than Brian Cutler and his wife Jill. If Brian’s name doesn’t ring a bell, visit IMDB and it will start clanging for you.

Brian is a lifetime actor and he studied many years under Charles Conrad, one of the most acclaimed acting teachers in the profession. The Conrad method is uniquely effective and this Kansas City studio is one of only two in the nation that features it. The other studio is in the LA area and is operated by Steve Eastin. Steve also trained in the Conrad school for many years and happens to be a close personal friend of Brian’s.

CAS fees are very reasonable. Brian wants dedicated students to be able to afford the training, so he keeps the cost within reach of almost anyone who is has a job. If you decide to check it out and give it a try, he encourages you to come by and visit a class to watch the process. If you enroll, leave your ego home when you come. It won’t be welcome or happy there. Just come ready to learn, have fun, work hard and learn a new discipline that just might open some wonderful new doors for you that could lead to positive changes in your life beyond anything you can imagine. It won’t be easy, but if it was everyone would be doing it, wouldn’t they?

How many nukes is enough?

The following is excerpted from article in KC Star published 12-7-09, author Kevin Collison. Topic was recognition of receipt of the Malcom Baldridge award for excellence in innovation, the highest award given by the POTUS for performance and excellence.

"Honeywell operates the Kansas City plant for the National Nuclear Security Administration and U.S. Department of Energy. The facility, which employs 2,700 people, supplies 85 percent of the non-nuclear parts that go into a typical nuclear weapon.

The sprawling complex was originally built as a World War II defense plant, and plans are under way to build a 1.4 million-square-foot replacement campus at Botts Road and Missouri 150 by 2012.

“This is a very proud moment for Honeywell,” said Dave Cote, chairman and CEO of the corporation, which is based in Morristown, N.J. “Our employees are committed to doing a superb job every day … receiving the highest honor for organizational innovation and performance excellence is validation of this work.”

Let’s try to look at this from several perspectives. To list them, there are the viewpoints of the city fathers, the military industrial machine, the financial community, the U.S. D.O.D, the Honeywell shareholders, and finally the currently employed and future hires. This group could be considered the cheerleading squad.

The U.S. government currently stockpiles about 5000 nuclear weapon devices of various configurations and designs, down from a peek inventory of over 23,000 before the disarmament treaty of 1992. We have also been told by multiple sources over the last few decades that it would take only a fraction of that stockpile to complete obliterate the planet and render it uninhabitable by our species. If we never manufacture another single nuclear WMD again, we will still always have the power and resources to end life for our kind anywhere or all over the planet as far into the future as can be imagined. Can we all agree that as of this very moment, the moment you are reading this, that we have overproduced these devices that are only intended for a single purpose, that being to kill huge numbers of humans in seconds, to an absurd extent? Does that idea stretch our thinking capacity?

As the article excerpt above boasts, an even more ‘sprawling complex’ than the existing one is about to be constructed to replace the relic now in operation. To do what? We need this? We can afford this?

The commonly accepted efforts to rationalize this by the cheerleader group tend to go something like this:

“The tax revenues to the community to support schools, roads, infrastructure, countless small business will be a wonderful boon to the city!” – City fathers

“It is vital to our national safety and world defense position that we continue to develop and produce state of the art weaponry and maintain constant vigilance against today’s world threats!” – D.O.D spokespersons

“Honeywell is excited about this wonderful new growth opportunity for our shareholders and we are looking forward the value and equity it will contribute to their ownership!” – Honeywell P.R. spokespersons

“This is a much needed shot in the arm to the Kansas City area economy. Thousands of businesses and citizens will benefit and prosper from this great enterprise!” – Financial community

“These will be great paying jobs with great benefits! We will be much more likely to buy nice houses, cars, and build college savings for our children!” – Current and future workers

Anyone or all of these statements have positive merit on the surface. What could possibly be anyone’s objection to more jobs good paying jobs, more national protection, major economic shot in the arm, better city infrastructure and on and on? Isn’t that what the city fathers and chamber of commerce work hard to acquire for any city every day?

But aren’t we ultimately fooling ourselves? From a very myopic viewpoint these benefits might come true, but do the benefits truly exceed the true costs? If the gross product value of this specific enterprise were redirected to countless other existing social problems wouldn’t that ultimately serve everyone far better?

Clearly I am approaching this issue from the perspective that there is no possible justification stockpile and maintain such large quantities of nuclear WMDs or the spare parts needed to keep them at the ready. I am calling on everyone in the community to just give some serious thought to how such decisions are made and ask you if this is really the best way to build our city’s economy and future? I’ve not heard anyone ask questions of this type regarding this specific project.