Potential cost of losing safe harbor

I was once assured I would always have safe harbor should the need arise. I never anticipated needing it but it was reassuring to have that in the background... but now I've retreated and it seems the promise is full of holes.

Really bad time all around. I feel under attack from all sides in my not safe retreat and it's triggered a resurgence of dangerous thoughts... I consciously did not make certain purchases today with the realization I may never have the opportunity to use them. There's no physical retreat when those you love, your safety net, are the attackers.

So be gentle with those you love. Words can be incredibly effective weapons. They can validate or undercut in ways physical weapons can only dream of.

As Shakespeare wrote, 'She [they] speaks poniards, and every word stabs.'

I've been rubbed raw and my psyche can only handle so much battery. I am in a dangerous place not because I am in physical danger but because my emotions are swinging like a pendulum and the people around me seem to be triggering the worst of emotional extremes. I don't know what I might do to escape.

Update: Semi-good news... a found a temporary retreat. It's not a complete solution but it will get me out of a situation which destabilizes me.

Update: Confirmation I was right... my not so safe harbor has become toxic. I've been informed the situation would be no different if former safe harbor were arranging my funeral. Good thing I have a temporary escape planned for tonight.

Update: I'm staying with friends. They are literal life savers. Now I need to put all the needed functions of modern life into place and get a new job. I don't know what will happen along the family situation. It probably won't be a permanent rift but the divided definitely widened from my side.

What does this mean?

Carly Fiorina recently said this about Hilary Clinton:

“Hillary Clinton must not be President of the United States because she does not have a track record of accomplishment, because she lacks the candor and transparency that the are so necessary to leadership, and because she will pursue a set of policies that crushed possibilities and the potential of this great nation.”

I am not particulary fond of Hilary Clinton but I wanted to focus on the last clause of her statement: “…policies that crushed possibilities and the potential of this great nation.”

‘Possibilities’ and ‘potential’ are common political speak buzzwords so what I really want to ask is what they mean to Carly Fiorina.

What is your position on the DREAM Act? Deporting undocumented children eliminates all ‘possibility’ of achieving ‘potential.’

Do you think it is time to increase the minimum wage? Or is it wrong for businesses to not provide their workers any ‘possibility’ of achieving their or their families’ ‘potential’?

And what about social programs like SNAP? The ‘possibility’ and fear of hunger would stunt anyone’s ability to achieve their ‘potential.’

Do you support Obamacare? After all, for many diseases, access to the only ‘potential’ treatments is through health insurance covered care.

Do you believe in subsidized or free higher education? And public school privatization? And school testing? The loss of educational 'possibilities' has long term consequences for societal 'potential.'

I could go on... and on... and on... but this getting depressing…

Power corrupts #4

The corrupting influence of power is not limited to police. Apparently prosecutors are also immune from the poor exercise of their might and judges cooperate, hand in glove, to protect them from being charged with misconduct.

Faith in the Bush family

How sincere are the religious beliefs in the Bush family? George W. Bush and Jeb Bush were raised Episcopalian but converted as adults to other denominations; the former to United Methodist, the latter to Roman Catholicism. My impression has been that they both converted at the request of their wives and not for political advancement. But that still leaves open the question of how sincere their religiosity is... especially in light of their party affiliation and its strict adherence to blantantly expressed Christian religiosity.

Which is better?

I know... I'm over thinking and taking childhood silliness too far but this is my stage to rant...

It's been a thing lately: Disney Princess drawn to different proportions. I seen this posted at multiple sites - they purportedly show these princesses with 'normal' waistlines. The latest version aims to show 'plus-size' princesses. But Cinderella and Pocahontas would never been plus-size. Cinderella was neglected and most likely underfed so don't expect her to be plumply perfect. Pocahontas is/was a Native American subsisting on either a hunter-gatherer or 'primitive' agriculture diet. Neither of these life styles proffers sufficient calories to become 'plus'-sized.

So which is worst for children...
-unrealistic top heavy princesses with pencil thin waists?
-'normal' princesses?
-'plus'-sized princesses which do not reflect their reality?

One thing I have personally noticed... I do not watch television and not comparing myself against perfect TV bodies has been positive for my self image.

Power corrupts#3

Beware of cops...
"...police routinely hid exculpatory evidence from prosecutors and judges..."

Apparently it was (and possibly is) common for Detroit police to use snitches and informants to prosecute accused murderers in exchange for lighter sentences and other rewards. With a built in incentive to tell the police what they want to hear, informants take advantage of any opportunity to elevate their decidedly poor conditions. The combination of witness testimony and hiding of exculpatory evidence results in accused criminals being convicted of crimes they did not commit.

These actions of the part of the police degrade the trust between police and the public. With each breach of practice, public confidence in the integrity of police work takes another hit. Criminal acts by police makes me wonder if the prison barbed wire restrain the real law breakers.

Power corrupts #2

There so many instances of police abusing power imbalance that to post about every instance would practically be a full time job... but two recent reports (here and here) really make you wonder who is the criminal. Cops are human; that some are bad is not surprising or unexpected. What's disappointing is good cops overlooking the bad behavior. Bad cops force good cops into a catch-22: treat the bad cops as the criminals they are (arrest and charge them with crimes) or avert their gaze when a colleague in a blue uniform does something illegal. Unfortunately for many people, preserving police culture is a higher priority for most police.

Update:... just hours later... see here for another case.

How do you get around that...

It would appear Ted Cruz wants to president of the United States... the problem is he was born in Canada, which, as it happens, is not part of the United States. So how will he work around the pesky little problem of Article 2, Section 5 of the Constitution which states:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

He is by definition not a natural born citizen at the tender age of 44, not "...a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." It doesn't take a fancy law degree to wig out that little nugget.

Update: According to a report at NPR, Ted Cruz is a 'natural born citizen'. His mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth. 'Natural born Citizen' has never been define by the Supreme Court but there seems to include (1) birth on U.S. soil and (2) born to U.S. citizen parent(s) - essentially citizen conferred in utero.

Trust again, this time police

Most of us would like to think that the police persons are trustworthy and restrict their actions to within the confines of the law and they would not lie under oath! But two recent reports of lying by police bring this into doubt... police in Brooklyn lied about being assaulted by a teenager
and a case of both police and prosecutors lied about witnessing a man assaulting a police officer. It makes me wonder...

-Are police are trained to lie? And further, does their training correspond to the demands of their job?
-How often do police lie and under what circumstances - personal, professional, under oath, white lies? How does this compare to the general population?

With police misconduct high on the public radar, this is the time to discover, reflect and reform if needed.

Not pot, not kettle

I just came across a transcript of Bill O'Reilly implying that Christiane Amanpour's critique of Benjamin Netanyahu's recent speech to Congress is not worthy of 'trust' (after all she 'was raised in Iran until age 11'). When it comes to the issues of journalistic integrity and trustworthiness, Bill O'Reilly could not have chosen a worst time to raise these questions. Considering his less than truthful recounting of his reporting career highlights (see here, here, and here), he's not the pot calling Amanpour's kettle black... that would equate the quality of his work to hers. He's the bits of blacken cooked on debris flaking off the pot calling the kettle black. It's a wonder that his audience is so blind to his Forest Gump tendency to insert his manufactured personality into the historically relevant moments.  Forest Gump is a positive force that Bill O'Reilly could only aspire too.