When Blue Skies are 'Too Blue': Reprint

The Pandemic has given all of us some time to reflect and in doing so, some interesting questions have popped up. Now 10 weeks into researching and writing a book on nutrition and human health, I noticed the extremely blue skies during a slightly volatile winter.  The sky was just "too blue" for early March and it made me wary.  Blue skies belong in deserts not East Coast rural farmland. Was I finally losing my perspective after a year at home or is this nagging feeling that something is wrong worth looking into?

I suppose I started noticing the sky after my granddaughter was born. Always fascinated by clouds and stars myself, I hoped that she would come to Grammie's and sit on the back stoop and imagine what the clouds were.  But as i dreamt of those days, I got a funny feeling that might never be possible.  I hadn't seen actual CLOUDS in a while--you know, the kind that move across the sky and blot out the sun for a few brief moments only to travel on as quickly as they had come. Regardless of what the weather predicted, the skies here were overcast or completely clear.  The few times that the fluffy, white variety made an appearance, they were low on the horizon and never high up in the sky.  What had happened to the clouds that I knew as a child?  What did that mean for the long summer ahead?  What did it mean for the environment that depended on them? 

I had stopped listening to the panicked news reports of greenhouse gases causing global warming a long time ago.  I did not doubt there was something out there that was wrong with the environment but I knew carbon dioxide gas was not the cause of the heat wave that would hit every July nor did it keep my car windows from icing over for several months in the winter. 

 My education as a kid had been a good one.  As a child of the Space Race when the term STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics) was first coined, a good understanding of science was one thing I had been given.  Following that with a college education that included physical science, sociology, psychology, microbiology and human growth and development, I knew the mass of a carbon dioxide atom  was not large enough to hold heat for very long.  To further punctuate the misguided nature of greenhouse gases, conduction of heat required sustained contact between molecules  and gas molecules did not touch each other often enough or long enough to do that.    As a farmer/ gardener, I had experienced the difference between soil temperature and air temperature every March.  Planting could start when soil temperatures reached 55 degrees even when air temperatures were much lower.  The sun warmed the Earth, not carbon based gases.

But if greenhouse gases weren't destroying the clouds as computer models said so, what was causing this phenomenon.  More importantly, why did no one realize that without clouds, the suns rays would not be reflected back into space where such radiation could do little harm. 

Surely, science had not become that ingrained into computers that people did not realize that clouds had a vitally important role in redistributing moisture and minerals around the globe.  As beautiful as they are, clouds perform a major cleaning process in the environment by taking high concentrations of mineral compounds (gaseous) and with water as a kind of glue, returning them to farmland and vegetation far away from where cities produce the nasty smog.  

As I was pondering the science that was so simply taught to me in elementary school, I wondered if people understood why greenhouse gas theory was wrong and why blue skies were not a good thing to have.  It had been fifty years since the Clean Air Act of 1970 was passed, had they been taught something different than what I had been taught? 

I gave one more look into the bright blue and cold Spring sky and realized this was a concept I needed to research further.  What had happened to the clouds? And sadly, why was noone concerned about their disappearance? 

Questions Every Person Should Ask About Environmental Policy

This article is posted to complement the release of the author's first book, 

Air Pollution's the Answer!.  NOW Available on digital and print platforms.

The ability to ask questions and, more importantly, the need to ask them is a kind of intuition that comes with age, not just individually but culturally.  As we carry phones that are capable of answering our every unknown, the idea that the human race does not know how to ask a question will have readers clicking the next page as quickly as a finger tap.  But, had a few more questions been asked and fewer judgements been made, what is now called Environmental Policy may not have even needed to be an issue. 

Education, as defined by something more than the ability to read a public notice or write your name, has only been around for a century or so and was never intended to create a world of college graduates.  Recognizing that people were easily victimized without a basic education, new settlements and poorer communities saw to the opening of a school as soon as was physically possible.  Only when conformity became a workforce necessity did government finally get into the education debate.  The ability to think independently and ask questions did not work well in the days following the industrial revolution. Employers needed workers with common knowledge and common beliefs.  In 1917, the Smith-Hughes Act would be the first in a long line of education bills that would standardized what American workers needed to know and value.   While those skills have turned the country into a great economic power, they have also contributed to a country divided by misinformation, political grandstanding and distrust.  Climate change is a direct response to a society that was taught to conform not to think. 

In some respects, the country has regressed into a different kind of illiteracy. With the advent of the computer, it has become the god to which all questions are asked.  It tells us what is fact and as long as the computer says so, the information is never questioned.

Before an answer can be found for climate change, the public must question its faith in the computer and the value of its information.  People must ask questions and expect more than copied and pasted answers.  Here are three questions about environmental policy that can, and should, be asked. 

Why is infrastructure always the answer? 

The Great Depression was a horrible time in this country, both financially and environmentally.  The steps taken by Presidents Roosevelt and Truman had never been done before but put the country to work while giving it something people didn't know they needed.  The goal of infrastructure, then and now, is two-fold: to put people to work and to build something that is not necessarily needed. How does the conversation change when someone asks a different question?  What do we have to show for all this infrastructure? 

 As FDR and Truman laid out the plan to put people to work, we can only imagine the discussions. 

FDR to Adviser:  And who will be responsible for the upkeep on all these CCC projects?

Advisers: Once the economy is back to "normal" there will be more than enough tax revenue to keep things in good shape, Mr. President.  What we are doing here is top-of-the-line.  These improvements will last for decades and bring huge amounts of revenue into the states. They will be so proud of what we have given them that they will be happy to keep them like new!

FDR: Well then, since that problem has been solved, Let's get on with it!

Of course, that isn't how things worked in the end. Every locality and state is grappling with the cost of maintaining parks, highways, drainage projects and utilities that it neither asked for nor had any experience in managing.  Yet, the practice of hiring cheap labor to do back-breaking work is an institution the American workforce may never overcome. 

Environmentally, what is it that is needed here?  For most, if not all of its history, the United States as chosen to go bigger rather than better.  More land, more  jobs and more people have been the goals. Environmentally, those areas which were the most successful are now hurting the most from its environmental cost.  Should Americans trust the rhetoric like the illiterate public it once was or should it ask a lot more questions of our elected representatives, expect them to have a basic education in something other than economics and the law and require the infrastructure to be compliant with the environment not the other way around? 

In the eighty-five years since WWII ended, has the goal been to grow the economy or build something just because it could be built.  Hard and inflexible substances such as steel and concrete go against the environment which is constantly changing.  How will the environment respond when we again try to mold it to human expectations?

Why is the principle of global warming called "greenhouse gases"?

Did you know that the man who is credited with developing "greenhouse gas theory" did not invent the greenhouse, nor does it appear that he ever owned one?  So why would a person who had no experience with a greenhouse decide to call his work on radiation "greenhouse gases"?  Moreover, what would make him draw such sweeping conclusions that are now used to predict the end of Earth as we know it? That is a good question and one that the computer and internet never seem to address. 

Much like now, greenhouses in the mid 1800s had one purpose and only one purpose, to grow plants when the weather did not allow it to be done outdoors.  For the average person, it did not matter how it worked but that lemon trees could be grown in the dead of winter as a cure for scurvy and that orchids and other fresh flowers were always available to decorate the homes of the wealthy.  Additionally, medicinal herbs were grown as birth control, laxatives and immune boosters long before today's natural food trend became big business.

But, to the scientific community, particularly those who studied sunlight, the greenhouse presented a puzzle to be solved.  Anyone who tried to explain how the greenhouse worked named their theory "greenhouse something". Just like the company who markets the candle in the image above to get customers to buy this product over others, the word "greenhouse" was used as an attention getting device. The competition in the scientific world was great, even then, and the use of such a word had just as much weight as the brand Apple had in the 1970s. Multiple scientists worked on similar findings which became the basis of our knowledge of heat instead of climate.   It is only because of the internet and people believing what is on it that greenhouse gas theory has morphed into something that is different than the study of sunlight.  Just because one scientist concluded that three gases held heat does not mean they are causing the planet to warm up and die.  Climate change is real but if carbon dioxide, ozone, and water vapor had really been to blame, the planet Earth would have died eons ago. 

Could Green Energy and its policies be responsible for shifts in climate?

Once the idea of carbon-based gases is thrown out as a cause, what could possibly be to blame?  Yes, human population has tripled in the last fifty years but there is no indication that population alone would cause such changes.  Even without people, the number of animals producing carbon dioxide far out number mere humans.  Could it be that, instead of finding the answer, leaders are reacting to fear rather than fact.  Is it that fear that is causing climate change?

How many times have harmful treatments been used as ways to “cure” a problem?Dunking and stoning of women seen as witches was common to cleanse their souls.  Cutting off hands to stop stealing or blinding because a man looked at the wrong woman did not stop either behavior.  It might be the use of leeches that fits this scenario the best.  Common two centuries ago, using leeches to drain bad blood out often continued until the patient could not restore itself and died.  Could it be that modern science by going after and removing gases is using the same concept on the atmosphere? 

Discussions of what needs to be done to ward off climate change have become unbelievably scary. Reducing carbon dioxide would jeopardize our food supply, turn our landscaping and yards to dirt even with rain and lead to massive starvation. 

As Americans are we willing to let this happen all because we trust computer models more than practical knowledge gained by asking questions?  I hope not. 

The Emotional Toll of Patience: Could Gun Violence Be Linked to Bad Customer Service?

It has been 48 hours since I asked an online customer service rep to address a problem with the company's website. The details are not really important but suffice it to say that this is not that different from a half dozen or more other interactions I have had in the last year or so. Since resolution of my problem does not seem likely to come anytime soon, my choices are to write about it or take it out on those around me.  My family is ever so grateful I have elected to spout off in writing, 

 The question so many in America fail to ask is what happens when someone does not have a more socially acceptable outlet through which to vent a growing level of frustration? Do we as a public even understand how frustrating our economy is?  Is violence a "gun" problem or a "lifestyle" problem?  It might be time to look at violence in this country as something more than a second amendment right.

Unapologetic Stubbornness

From the President all the way down to the fast food worker who cannot seem to get your order straight, there is an unapologetic stubbornness that makes it difficult to not feel angry. Patience may be a virtue but it looks like procrastination when addressing a problem.  The first amendment gives citizens the right to express an opinion--not to assume that opinion is more valuable than others and not for other viewpoints to be sidelined because it isn't profitable. With politicians taking a stand of division, why would businesses, medical staff, and even families feel the need to solve a problem rather than to dig in their heels and wait  until the other party gives in.  if a coin has two sides then more than likely a problem has two sides as well. How many times have worker's been killed on the job because of a simple issue that was not handled well? How many times did a shooting take place at a family gathering because an old wound had never healed?  Is it worth being right if it causes someone's death?

 Accountability Avoidance

 Have you ever noticed that customer service personnel are willing to help as long as it means putting the blame on someone/thing else?  The Internet company encourages buying a new router even though they know the problem is over booking customers. The drug company that treats side effects with yet another drug. Then there is the return policy for a company who says to throw merchandise away instead of sending it back.  Don't customers just pay for that waste in the end?  Another example is using blanket "terms of use" clauses to add surcharges and unauthorized services to a medical or repair bill. "You signed the agreement, ma'am."  Who wouldn't feel betrayed when treated poorly by licensed and trusted companies?

Poor Training/ Lack of Skills

Of all that is written here, the lack of training and skills for those in customer service positions is concerning.  Given a script to follow instead of training and knowledge about what they are talking about, service representatives have to be in the position of being harasses by people who just want answers.  Companies do not seem to understand that, even if the situation is resolved, the lack of confidence in these representatives leaves an impression of poor quality. There is no substitute for good communication and it cannot be faked with a script provided by the legal department.  This goes for email blitzes as well as mail ads.  The cost to business is high when customer servie is poor. 

 Artificial Jobs Stimulation

Since Truman used jobs and infrastructure to provide work for families during the Great Depression, this political move has been the go-to battle cry for everything from high immigration to climate change.  As long as government promotes jobs as the answer to all ills, there will never been enough jobs to quell the country's irrational fear of less than full employment. Rather than support a knowledgeable and skilled workforce that is well paid, the country seems to prefer a world of inefficiency, poor quality imports, and low paying wages.  Is there any real difference between one burger joint and another?  Do we really need another brand of green beans in the grocery store? Do workers really want to pay a third of their wages to support a for-profit medical community that seems to rely on one more drug or test?   

How much does all of this contribute to the level of public anxiety when a full time job does not provide enough money to cover the bare essentials?  People resorted to gun violence in the 1800s when businesses pitted one group of workers against another. Do leaders really think the American people are not as frustrated now as they were then?  Even back then, people understood that when life was secure and relatively free of frustration, gun violence became a thing of the past.  That did not come from police presence, gun controls or community patience, it came from creating a lifestyle that worked for everyone. 

As long as the media and politicians stir the pot with emotional rhetoric and support for its one-size-fits-all practice of adding jobs to the economy, the violence in this country will continue.  No amount of mental health care, gun control or patience will hide the insecurity and frustration that many Americans feel toward what is happening in daily life.  Past solutions may have worked in the past, but this is not the past and it shouldn't be treated as if it were. 

Removing the Bandage: Why America Cannot Move On From its Past

 There are some things that just come with age.

One of those well-developed, hard-learned lessons is knowing when to let go of the past. It is regrettably a level of maturity that Americans have yet to attain. 

As Memorial Day begins a string of "national" holidays that will take residents into the religious season, the sad reality of these special days is that, to many, they have little or no meaning. For a country that claims the level of patriotism it does, how can its citizens not understand the significance of days that speak of its history? What is it that makes Americans avoid the good, bad and ugly of its past while expecting accountability from its government and those who had nothing to do with the events or their outcome? 

Like a wound that is allowed to fester instead of heal, America continues to pick at the scab with deliberate purpose to keep the healing process one that is slow and painful.  As long as Americans choose to nurse their wounds instead of moving past them, this land will never develop a national personality that embraces all races, religions and demographics. 

As children, each of us can remember a time when a skinned-up knee or bad cut seemed to defy healing. Bandages were decorated with colorful characters and patterns to make the reality of the damage less frightful. Even disguised by friendly images, the covering grew more dirty and sticky until the chances of infection became more dangerous than the wound itself.  This is how America deals with its history. 

In real life, bandages need to be removed every so often so that sunlight and air can allow them to heal.  That doesn't happen in this country.   What is it that keeps America from ripping off the bandage, tending to the wound so that it heals and proudly displaying the scar as a time when something was learned about life? Here the prognosis is always one of permanent damage and long and expensive recovery. 

In the same way children fight to keep the bandage on, Americans avoid learning from their past for one reason--FEAR! Fear of what might be under the bandage, fear of what it might take to treat it and fear of how big the scar might be on the face of a nation that is still young, vibrant and at the top of its game.

The difficulty in bringing this country together within a single purpose has always been the same--a population of people who came here because it appeared free of rules and oppression.  Difficult, if not impossible to manage, any country founded by those focused on individual opportunities, freedom of choice and non-conformity in thought will experience growing pains. Nowhere in the narrative of this country's "melting pot" image is a desire for individual accountability and social responsibility mentioned. Even after 230 years, America has the mindset of a teenager whose citizens have yet to learn they cannot have the benefits of adulthood and the a child-like view of responsibility at the same time.   By removing the bandage, accepting conditions as they are and letting the wound heal, Americans give up leverage over government officials who are only concerned about winning the next election.

The Founding Fathers understood that the Constitution needed to focus on the collective, not the individual. The document specifically opens with a pledge to create "a more perfect Union." It then explains the government's place in order to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty"--not for some but for all.  It would only take three and a half years for strong individuals to require the Bill of Rights be added to elevate personal freedoms over the welfare of a new country.  

Who is to blame for American reluctance to mature and move on?  The answers are many.  

First there are those who expect government to solve their problems.  They are members of every political party, race and religion. They can be found in every income bracket and age range. Some vote but some do not. Some serve their country in the military while others fight for social justice. With a mindset that claims historical events impact opportunity, people cry "foul" when they are unable to meet their goals simply and quickly. They have not yet reached a level of maturity that government's provisions for opportunity are not equivalent to insuring success.  At one time or another, all Americans have found themselves in this place if they are honest with themselves.

Leaders that focus on the Bill of Rights and not the original Constitution make up the next group.  From the President down to the most respected citizen in an unincorporated town of less than 100 people, their tendency is to take the path of least resistance. Give those who protest  what they want rather than stand up to do what is best for all.  Like a parent that is tired of dealing with a fussy child, they reward immaturity by giving in to the temper tantrums of small segments of the country. Such leadership wins votes but causes discord because the majority is left to overcome the obstacles which now make the job harder. As happens with the small child, the tantrums only get bigger and more difficult to control with the child learning a very hard lesson as it ages.

Finally, it is the rich and famous who feel it is their place to enlighten the country by explaining what should benefit the whole. Former presidents and first ladies, talk-show hosts and entertainers, and even royalty from another country feel it is within their right to tell working America what is important. They are even paid millions of dollars by advertisers or campaign donors to objectify causes and people in need.  When was the last time these people purchased clothes from a thrift store because it was a way to stay within a budget, rather than accept government assistance?  In the world of celebrity causes, there is little respect for those who live responsible, socially aware and respectful lives. Good people are pushed aside to make room for those who pick at the nation's scabs so that their wound is validated rather than cured. 

There is no room in the America of the future for pot-stirrers and co-dependents who weaken society instead of strengthening it. It is time to agree to disagree and respect the opinions and differences of others rather than profiting from them.

On this Memorial Day, every American has the ability to look at a hurtful past and deal with it on an individual level. Protestors, elected officials and those who create pod-casts as if they were sermons delivered from a pulpit cannot stop an individual from coming to terms with history.  The country that was founded on individual thought and choice is going to need to be the example for those who feel they hold influence over those who live here.  When individuals decide to come together there will be no stopping this country from becoming something that will benefit us all. 

 

"Please Sir, Forgive the Birds!" - A Look at American Values

 With the long lock down of Covid-19 behind us for now, it was a welcome addition to a retired woman's routine to go to the local greenhouse to get seed for the garden and plants for the front porch. The trip was long overdue but the cool Spring weather had delayed it by a week or so. I had no idea that this trip would be such an eye-opening experience.

As patrons milled around the stands of herb, vegetable and flowering varieties, two men jabbered like old hens without any concern for who overheard them. There were comments about not being able to find the "right" variety and objections about how cool the weather had been. Jabs about the government and gas prices ramped up the rhetoric.  One half of the duo seemed uncomfortable with the conversation's direction and asked questions in what seemed to be an attempt to steer the dialogue into safer territory.  The louder, more animated man would have none of it.  

By now it was just my husband and I and the two men weaving through the racks. That was when I realized that America's brush with death had not been quite as earthshaking as it perhaps had needed to be. America's values were still a bit off. 

"If that was my car, I wouldn't be able to drive it until I had washed it!" came a clearly upset male voice from behind the rack of plants. "Why don't people take care of their cars? That's just a terrible way to treat a car."

Too busy to really pay much attention to the object of  the man's disgust, it was not until I returned to our car and my husband directed my attention to the bird poop, covered front hood that I made the connection. 

The target of the man's disdain had been an otherwise well-maintained, practical, twelve year old SUV that had been a recent purchase as a "retirement" upgrade.  The tires were good. The paint was in warm brown that hid most dirt. The windshield was clear and the tags up-to-date.  A half dozen large white blobs that washed off in the next rain shower, had caused someone to judge me harshly.  Nothing more. 

On our way home, my husband and I lightened the mood by creating sharp comebacks that could have been lobbed at the critic. 

"Please Sir, forgive the birds. I'll have a talk with them when I get home!" was my husband's favorite. 

As someone who uses a cane for both mobility and sight issues, my comments were a little less jovial. 

"Oh, I apologize. I will be sure to park it away from the store so customers like yourself will not have to see it. It won't take me that much longer to walk to the store."

OR

"I just can't wash the car like I use to. My doctor is afraid I will fall. I guess I will just need to stay home until I can get it washed."

Sadly, this isn't an isolated incident. Nearly every recent venture into a public place has included some type of interaction that made me wonder if returning to society was worth it.  

Recently, a fast-food outdoor dining experience had a custodian start up conversations about politics and religion based on one simple question, "Where are your from?"  Then there have been the awkward phone calls from dental and medical offices trying to get us "back on the schedule" even during the peak of Covid-19 deaths. Were they concerned for my health or their practice? Strangest of all is the assumptions people make based on appearance or a single comment.  America is still a country of strong opinions and little room for compromise. My way or the highway seems to remain the unwritten motto of American culture.

Do any of us REALLY want to go back to NORMAL?  I will readily admit that I have a strong value system and am not afraid to express my opinion. It would be difficult to be a writer without clear insights, no one has to read what I write.  But, after years of experiencing a sense of loathing from people for minor infractions such as my voting preference or seeing a different path than the same one traveled for generations, it's time to say enough is enough. The idea that everyone except us live without some level of disrespect and prejudice is a fallacy promoted by those who benefit by dividing communities. 

Diversity does not mean being friends with everyone or giving up personal values to adopt others.  It means common civility and respect, while adopting a sense of decorum that does not put total strangers on the defensive with every spoken word.  

With mask mandates and social distancing guidelines being dropped across the country, it will be interesting to see if Americans value their neighbors more now then they did eighteen months ago.  Unfortunately, ss long as bird poop on a car is considered a character flaw capable of strong emotional disgust, this country will never be what it claims to be. 

If Humans Were Ships: A Lesson in Positive Thinking

****Yet another post that has been waiting its turn in my draft folder.  

For several years--to be honest since the late 1960s--the US has had this mindset that if you think something will turn out in a positive way, then it will do so. Some may pray for it. Others wish on a star or do good work so karma smiles on them. Even others write in journals about all the things they want to accomplish. But, is it as simple as thinking positively? Can mankind simply float above the bad and not let it inside? More importantly, should mankind ignore and resist the bad in this world but feel comfortable allowing it to  support society as they #StayUp?

 

My first experience with the topic of Positive Thinking came in my teen years through a Presbyterian minister by the name of Norman Vincent Peale.  His message, written in his book: The Power of Positive Thinking, was so uplifting that, from the very conservative viewpoint of the Presbyterian Church, he was considered a "cult".  And yet, what I remember was a message of  of self-improvement and action, not blind optimism, marketed guilt or self-recrimination.

 

The image posted above came from Facebook and is NOT a Peale quote. It was shared by one of the few people I have accepted as a Facebook "friend". I care a great deal about this person and consider her a true friend. But what alarmed me about this quote and her use of it was the air of isolation and separation that came with it. Too often, those who regularly share such quotes miss how off-putting they can be to others who are looking for a real human connection.  Could it be that Twitter, Instagram and Facebook have replaced quality human interactions and created a population that would rather rise above injustice instead of developing relationships that remove it from the world?  

 

Looking at what would happen if humans were ships might be eye-opening.
 

Like people, each ship is unique - canoes look nothing like clippers and aircraft carriers greatly overshadow the lowly rowboat.  In the same way, each vessel has a different purpose.  The canoe is not effective on larger bodies of water and the aircraft carrier would serve little practical purpose if taken for a lazy afternoon of fishing. Maybe a bit more tongue-in-cheek of a description than called for but, people who toss out "positivity" may not always look past the emotional impact of their statements to see the flaws in them. Like boats, people come in all shapes and sizes. They also have different needs in order to be functional. 

 

Water is not the only thing that allows a boat to float. Before a boat can float, it has to be built. In this regard, shipbuilding and becoming an adult have many similarities.  

 

For thousands of years, shipbuilding with wood was an art that included attention to detail, a wise choice of materials and life-long maintenance. Positive outcomes came from hard work and concentration not positive thinking alone.  Like parents, teachers, coaches and the media who support children with little more than dreams and good feelings, boats that are built with poor materials and a lack of attention fail to perform well.  Positive thinking is not enough to keep a poorly constructed boat from taking on water. But, social media and popular culture continue to put undo pressure on the young by giving them platitudes rather than skills and strong relationships.  As any shipbuilder knows, a good design requires a vessel to have the strength to handle the pressure put upon it.  It also requires an observant captain and a supportive crew to steer it through a storm.  Does modern culture provide such support for individuals or does society opt to #stayup from what is happening while tossing out emojis, tap-n-go comments and virtual hugs as if they were life preservers?

 

Today, public impression dictates that news outlets, politicians and celebrities publish socially conscientious podcasts and charitable messages for those in need. In this way, those who make the news appear in-tune with those who financial support them without need for action or commitment. More often than not, their messages promote one race over another, one career as being more valuable then another, children as heroes one minute and victims the next, and mental health as something tragic but left to medication and therapy. Who really benefits from these messages?  Such a question is appropriate particularly when these news makers alienate so many in the process.

 

ironically, this post will end with three quotes from Normal Vincent Peale. Like so much of what is available on the Internet, many of his quotes have been abridged or handpicked to fit public discourse.  However, if one looks long enough, or has a fifty-year of hard copy of his work, it is possible to see that Peale was not into self-recrimination but advocated a pro-active lifestyle that was not based on rhetoric, protest or legislation. 

 

The first quote was picked to remind us that government cannot legislate positive race relations. The second is a reminder that social awareness initiatives may be sending a message of hopelessness and the last is a reminder that only in Disneyland does "Wishing on a Star" have a happy ending.  

“Getting people to like you is merely the other side of liking them.”
– Norman Vincent Peale

“Any fact facing us is not as important as our attitude toward it, for that determines our success or failure. The way you think about a fact may defeat you before you ever do anything about it. You are overcome by the fact because you think you are.”
– Norman Vincent Peale

“Action is a great restorer and builder of confidence. Inaction is not only the result, but the cause, of fear. Perhaps the action you take will be successful; perhaps different action or adjustments will have to follow. But any action is better than no action at all.”
– Norman Vincent Peale

 

It's Time to Use the "R" Word.

After being a news junky for the better part of the pandemic, I am finding my news feed a bit disturbing these days. After all, the pandemic is reportedly waning, right? This post has been languishing in my draft folder for more than two years. It has been one of those topics that a writer knows has value but isn't sure about the timing.  Today, it was time for it to be finished.

What do you think the "R" word is? Did you expect to see some off-the-wall rant that spewed venom against one ethnic group over another?  Did you click on the link to support or defend against what this writer had to say?  If any of these things happened then the timing of this piece is right on target. 

Two and a half years ago, the country was reflecting on the deaths of Aretha Franklin and John McCain.  An off-year election was coming in November and the rhetoric was as emotionally charged as it ever was.  

For a brief few weeks, with news agencies and events honoring these two American icons, the definition of "respect" was front and center in the minds of more than a few Americans. That is the "R" word on which this post is written.  If you are looking for a explanation as to how RACISM relates to that topic, please keep reading.

Franklin sang of R-E-S-P-E-C-T during a time when many populations felt used. At the other end of the spectrum, McCain lived a life based on his own strong sense of respect for others and the office to which he had been elected and reelected.  Franklin rallied the underprivileged. McCain called out the powerful to be responsible for all who lived in this country. Both of these people stood for the same quality by being a voice of reason. To the contrary, today's citizenry seems to have little understanding of what respect is and how it is attained.

With the Internet more inclined toward marketing ideas and products for gain than being a source of accurate and reliable information, it is understandable that there is confusion about what Civil Rights legislation is really all about.

In those days, there was a great deal of concern about how such legislation would be interpreted. Critics read that hesitancy as a desire to keep certain ethnic groups from achieving equalility. Instead of looking forward fifty or a hundred years, those in favor of the law never considered it would bring about an even wider gap in equality. 

To help understand the difference between what Civil Rights legislation says and what it does, it helps to look at how alcohol use is legislated.  

The assumption is that people are fined for "drinking" alcohol or in the cause of civil rights for being a racist.  Neither is the case.  Citizens can be fined for having an open beer bottle in a moving car or having a blood alcohol level over a set limit. They can be charged for driving erratically or causing a disturbance that impacts others. They cannot be charged with drinking alcohol, just like citizens cannot be charged with being a racist. Using the term has no legal effect.

In 1968, lawmakers knew that there was no way to legislate RESPECT but there was every way to legislate RACISM -- Yes, I said that right.  There are multiple ways to bring about RACISM and inequality through the use of legislation.  More institutionalized than actual racism, the mindset of today's younger, educated and socially conscious lawmakers have been raised on legislated custom designed racism to the point they cannot even see how it is returning this country to an ugly and disturbing time. 

Civil rights legislation, in very simple terms, only says that discrimination is illegal. It does not mandate equality, fair treatment and most of all, respect. Even the Constitution does not guarantee equality for individuals, just a place that is just, tranquil, safe and free.  Lawmakers who profess that the legislation is capable of changing human nature are guilty of gas lighting voters.

In the same way that state and local governments quickly passed statutes following the Emancipation Proclamation, special interest groups across the country used similar tactics after the passage of civil rights laws. This time it was not to restrict rights but to enhance the rights of some over others.  If the law allowed special treatment, then it was not discrimination. Soon there would be a flood of legislation giving preferential treatment to all manner of conditions.  From restoring voting rights to criminals and accommodating select physical and mental differences to sensitivity training and all kinds of financial assistance, a whole generation of people cannot understand why equal under the law does not translate into respect and acceptance by those who do not qualify for aid.

By putting every cause, every need, and every injustice in the hands of government, our country was robbed of the chance to develop long lasting, respectful relationships that crossed economic and ethnic lines.  Every legal maneuver was one more reason to avoid those who got help.  Community kindness and concern now had rules and citizens could be held accountable in the court of public opinion if they were not generous or tolerant enough. The best alternative was separation.  LIke the mother who calls out every child for bullying their child, government has unwittingly cleared the playground of those who would otherwise have welcomed the interaction.

Racism is not systemic to the average America.  It is systemic in the colleges, universities, courts and governments that sanction and promote these policies which do not align with the basic tenets of the Constitution. Again, the Constitution does not guarantee opportunity or prosperity, only that government will provide a place in which it is possible.

The Federal government of the United States has a long history of taking what belongs to one group and giving it to another.  At the time of the Civil War, a largely illiterate population made it easy to hoodwink freed slaves and ravaged Southerners.  Now the Internet and social media make the process of controlling the message a touch away. Reconstruction was an "R" word that was touted as time that would be good for the country. In reality it was anything but good.  

Racism is the "R" word that is now being used to distract voters from looking a bit too close and asking a few too many questions.  Only when Respect is the "R" word that is used most often will there be a chance for the United States to finally be the country it should have been long before now.

When Skies are Too Blue

 

The Pandemic has given all of us some time to reflect and in doing so, some interesting questions have popped up. Now 10 weeks into researching and writing a book on nutrition and human health, I noticed the extremely blue skies during a slightly volatile winter.  The sky was just "too blue" for early March and it made me wary.  Blue skies belong in deserts not East Coast rural farmland. Was I finally losing my perspective after a year at home or is this nagging feeling that something is wrong worth looking into?

I suppose I started noticing the sky after my granddaughter was born. Always fascinated by clouds and stars myself, I hoped that she would come to Grammie's and sit on the back stoop and imagine what the clouds were.  But as i dreamt of those days, I got a funny feeling that might never be possible.  I hadn't seen actual CLOUDS in a while--you know, the kind that move across the sky and blot out the sun for a few brief moments only to travel on as quickly as they had come. Regardless of what the weather predicted, the skies here were overcast or completely clear.  The few times that the fluffy, white variety made an appearance, they were low on the horizon and never high up in the sky.  What had happened to the clouds that I knew as a child?  What did that mean for the long summer ahead?  What did it mean for the environment that depended on them? 

I had stopped listening to the panicked news reports of greenhouse gases causing global warming a long time ago.  I did not doubt there was something out there that was wrong with the environment but I knew carbon dioxide gas was not the cause of the heat wave that would hit every July nor did it keep my car windows from icing over for several months in the winter. 

 My education as a kid had been a good one.  As a child of the Space Race when the term STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics) was first coined, a good understanding of science was one thing I had been given.  Following that with a college education that included physical science, sociology, psychology, microbiology and human growth and development, I knew the mass of a carbon dioxide atom  was not large enough to hold heat for very long.  To further punctuate the misguided nature of greenhouse gases, conduction of heat required sustained contact between molecules  and gas molecules did not touch each other often enough or long enough to do that.    As a farmer/ gardener, I had experienced the difference between soil temperature and air temperature every March.  Planting could start when soil temperatures reached 55 degrees even when air temperatures were much lower.  The sun warmed the Earth, not carbon based gases.

But if greenhouse gases weren't destroying the clouds as computer models said so, what was causing this phenomenon.  More importantly, why did no one realize that without clouds, the suns rays would not be reflected back into space where such radiation could do little harm. 

Surely, science had not become that ingrained into computers that people did not realize that clouds had a vitally important role in redistributing moisture and minerals around the globe.  As beautiful as they are, clouds perform a major cleaning process in the environment by taking high concentrations of mineral compounds (gaseous) and with water as a kind of glue, returning them to farmland and vegetation far away from where cities produce the nasty smog.  

As I was pondering the science that was so simply taught to me in elementary school, I wondered if people understood why greenhouse gas theory was wrong and why blue skies were not a good thing to have.  It had been fifty years since the Clean Air Act of 1970 was passed, had they been taught something different than what I had been taught? 

I gave one more look into the bright blue and cold Spring sky and realized this was a concept I needed to research further.  What had happened to the clouds? And sadly, why was noone concerned about their disappearance? 

Pharmacy Deserts: Inequality or Lifestyle Choice

 Several years ago, I was privileged to attend the 65th National FCCLA Convention (Family, Career, and Community Leaders of America). As a state advisor that year, my state officer and I enjoyed a week of hard work and fun times in downtown Chicago. For many of the 5,000 or so participants, it was an exciting to see a part of the US that differed tremendously from their own home towns. Quite similar to the Country Mouse/ City Mouse fable, it was a learning experience even for those with some travel under their belts. 

All of us have adopted different habits and hobbies during the pandemic and one of mine is reading headlines.  Notice I said 'headlines' and not 'news'.  There is something telling about the author in the headline.  Is it to shock the reader into opening the link or is it just general information that might be reported by a dozen different news outlets? The headlines that cause me the most concern are the ones that claim inequality without any understanding the community they are describing. 

Certainly, our time in Chicago that year, and the years we have gone to Washington, San Diego, Orlando and Nashville have been eye opening for these young people.  But, what about all those city dwellers who have only experienced country life from the balcony of a resort hotel or ski lodge.  Just like the City Mouse and Country Mouse, journalists and bloggers who sit in their 12th story apartments have little direct knowledge of what the situation really is. 

Today, the headline that caught my eye was proclaiming great concern over "pharmacy deserts".  It made so little sense to me, I had to wonder if it was a typo.  But, alas, the term was correct at least as far as it goes.  

'Desert' has become the new descriptor for anything that is more than a few blocks away or not available on demand. When you live in a place where distance is not measured in blocks, you have a different meaning for the word - convenience.  The time has come for writers and those in communication fields to evaluate news on more than just convenience and immediacy. 

During that week in Chicago, it was a thrill to be able to have four restaurants, a shoe store, grocery store and deli and an emergency clinic all within a short jaunt.  But the vast majority of the US population does not live in such a world and to claim we are disadvantaged, disparaged or treated unequally is not a failure of the system but a failure of some who think everyone must live the same.

The reality is that, most of us choose to live in a situation where we have to wait for things. We learned long ago that if we needed and wanted it immediately, there were ways to get it and if we couldn't get it, it was probably because it wasn't available.

What those who judge do not understand, is that rural communities might not be the first on the list, but they will make quicker use of the vaccine when it arrives and have fewer snafus along the way. The state of West Virginia has already proven that with one of the highest rates of vaccination in the country. 

It has been a testament to the American spirit that while our national government continues to be divided to the extreme, people have creatively addressed the challenges of this pandemic to make it work in spite of leadership.  While some worried about naming a community that didn't have a pharmacy, nurses and doctors figured out how to transport vaccines and get them to patients in a timely fashion. All without Facebook posts and 6 o'clock news coverage. 

The people who do will make this work even if the people who lead are in the way. 

 

The Computer and Customer Service

 

For the first time in over a month, I am not worried about running out of heat.

Oh, I haven't gotten a new furnace or changed suppliers or even gotten an emergency delivery, although we did call a few days ago . I have just learned how the computer thinks.

The revelation didn't come from the company or a short blurb on the news, it came from listening to a disgruntled customer with another company in another part of the state. The computer said she needn't worry either. In her case, a delivery before being nearly empty was considered bad business.

So, I got out my manual, did some quick math and found out the computer was right, I had nothing to worry about. Well, at least until the point when the computer was wrong. Do you suppose the computer knows the dog door sticks when it is windy? Surely it understands the

upstairs storm window is broken this year and then there is the weather to consider. Hmm, maybe I will worry after all.

The shift to computer directed efficiency is not a bad one. The disconnect is when staff cannot step into a customer's shoes and explain how it works. Unfortunately, such breakdowns in customer service are commonplace in many computer dependent businesses.

My love affair with computers started in the late 1970s and I have owned one for all of those 40+ years. Computers are not the issue here. Somewhere along the line, we started to believe the myth. Computers cannot think, resolve customer complaints or put business policy into simple language. Moreover, blaming human inefficiency on a computer is like blaming the hammer for hitting your thumb.

It's time to remember that a computer is merely a tool. It cannot correct our mistakes or create customer loyalty – only knowledgeable human communication can do that. Perhaps businesses need to sacrifice efficiency and think like a customer instead of the other way around. Expecting customers to do the sacrificing has never seemed like a good business plan.