The Poverty Trap

by Ruth A. Sheets

Poverty is the lack of sufficient resources necessary to meet basic needs for oneself and one’s family.  Estimates of the number of people living in poverty in America vary, but they run from ten to twenty-five percent depending on the definition used.

Americans are very uncomfortable talking about poverty.  The topic was hardly mentioned during the 2012 campaign.  If such a large portion of the population is in a particular group, it would be expected that the subject would come up often as the votes of this group would be courted.

The votes of the poor are not courted as the votes of members of a particular religious group, ethnicity, race, or social group are courted.  The reason, poor folks are not expected to vote.  And, if they do, their vote is assumed.  The white poor are Republican and the minority poor are Democratic.

Lately, bills have been introduced in state legislatures to even further limit sufferage of people in poverty through voter I.D. laws.  This is just one of many ways of keeping poor people from complaining about their situation. 

Republicans and some others would have us believe that people are poor because they want to be.  They are too lazy.  They don’t work hard enough.  They don’t know how to take care of what they have.  They don’t manage money well.  You know all the lines. 

Most people don’t realize that poverty is a trap.  Once caught in it, a person or family can rarely get out without significant help.  Then, if they do get some help, they are called “takers” in a tone of voice that communicates very effectively the esteem in which they are held. 

People in poverty see the material goods everyone is expected to have, so they work impossible hours at spirit-breaking jobs to acquire those things for themselves and their kids.  They are told that education is “the way out,” but their schools are places that no one with money would want to enter on a bet.

Because people living from paycheck to paycheck cannot accumulate much money at a time, they fall victim to appallingly unregulated predators like Rent-a-center,” check cashing companies, sub-prime lenders, and housing rental agencies.  These companies charge extraordinary fees which keep those who are already desparate, in permanent debt, in substandard housing, if they have a home at all. 

Some Americans like to claim that the United States is the best at everything.  Well, I don’t know if we are the best at poverty, but we are pretty good at it.

Home of the Brave?

by Ruth A. Sheets

The last five words of the National Anthem are “the home of the brave.”  I know that the poet was specifically referring to military courage, but I suspect that most Americans, whether or not they have a military bent, would like to see themselves as brave.

Lately, I have been thinking a lot about courage.  It seems to me that it does not take courage to do what everyone else in your group is doing.  You get support of numbers.  If it is a popular action or stance, it’s even easier.  You’ll even be given the words to say.

It doesn’t take courage to be racist in America even if you call it something else.  A knee jerk hatred of President Obama or blaming poor people for their condition and plotting to cut programs which enable them to survive is not brave.

It doesn’t take courage to oppose all tax increases, even small rate raises for the richest among us,  because we Americans don’t seem to mind getting a lot and not paying for it.  We buy the myth that anyone can “pull themselves up by their bootstraps.”  We allow ourselves to be convinced that the wealthy just worked harder and smarter than anyone else, so deserve all they have.

It doesn’t take courage to filibuster these days in our Senate because you don’t even need to show up.  Most of the time, no one knows who even brought the filibuster.  All business can be blocked by Senators who don’t want anyone to know who did the blocking.

It doesn’t take courage to stand up in front of the media claiming that the way to protect our kids in school from gunmen is to have armed teachers and guards in all our schools when you have a powerful lobbying organization behind you.  No one who counts in your world will tell you just how stupid that idea is.

So, where is courage in America these days?  I have been despairing for some time, but I find that when I look around, courage shows up in all kinds of places.  The sad part for me is that those places don’t seem to include government, whether local, state, or federal.  A current fashion seems to be sowing fear wherever possible.  Then, folks in power, usually conservatives, legislate to relieve those invented or exaggerated fears to increase their own power.  Where is the courage in that?

Courage is people who are willing to take risks for folks who at that moment cannot help themselves.  If we are indeed the “home of the brave,” we need to be out there standing with and for those who need us to help them overcome.                               

What’s with Men These Days?

by Ruth A. Sheets

Most of the legislatures throughout the country now are male dominated.  After the 2010 election when disgruntled Democrats and others sat home in some sort of protest that everything they had wanted did not come to pass, we women found ourselves under attack.

There has been a lot of talk of a “war on women,” and it appears to me that this talk has it right.  Male legislators push through bills that restrict nearly everything related to women and control of their bodies.  Sometimes, they do it as Virginia’s Governor has, when people’s attention is focused on something else (the fiscal cliff).  Now, in VA, not only do women who want to choose abortion have to go through an ultrasound first, the clinics where they can have the abortion safely performed are facing laws to modify facilities which have nothing to do with safety, provision of information, or quality of care.  The goal is to shut down the clinics, of course.

What are the jobs most under attack by Republicans as costing too much and not worth the cost? Teachers and other government workers (jobs where women predominate).   Most governors back down from cutting and limiting support for police and fire fighters and other higher-level workers, predominantly men.  Interesting!

There have been a few victories for women and their supporters.  At least three major anti-women candidates were defeated in November.  Women have again begun to pay attention.  More women than ever before are serving in the US Congress.  All these are positive, but certainly not enough.

It seems that men are getting more scared of women than ever.  Perhaps it is that they see women moving forward in most jobs.  Women have passed men in number at most colleges and universities, including programs for training ministers.  Women are proving competent and creative when it comes to business.  Do men in power fear they will have to share that power with the other half, the half they were brought up to see as inferior because their primary task is raising children, and we know how much our society values its children.

What do we women do?  Well. . .  

we stay alert to what is going on,  

we fight where we can,

we support each other, , 

we keep demanding reproductive rights no matter the obstacles, then we break the law if we have to, 

we work to help talented women keep abreast of the skills in their field while they take some time to get their/our kids off to a good start,

we try to get progressive and moderate men on our side to see that making life better for women benefits them too,

 

Let’s get radical in 2013.

A Worthy Resolution

by Ruth A. Sheets

I am currently in my 18^th year teaching in one of the poorest school districts in the state of Pennsylvania.  Poverty and its implications are a constant shadow which my students and their families must face every day.  Parents here try to get for their kids all the things that other kids have:  iPhones, Droids, X-boxes, etc., even if it means a big financial sacrifice.

What I know from being here is that having things, even the things that more wealthy people have, does not necessarily provide the advantages one might expect.  Learning how to text, access FaceBook anywhere, and playing “Call to Duty” may provide something of a common language, but the drive for success as determined by the society at large does not necessarily accompany these shared activities for poor children.

I have very intelligent, creative students who could match ability with anyone.  Despite the daily challenges just to get through, they must also find time to babysit for younger siblings, help out older relatives, volunteer in their churches.  These tasks are not rated highly as extra-curricular activities.  They often take a lot of time and effort.  They rarely win points on college applications, if a student even feels worthy of going to college. 

Our district has cut out nearly everything that enhances life and builds self-esteem.  That is, except sports.  Basketball and football are big, so if a student has athletic ability, there are options.   Music and the arts, even though all kinds of research shows high value in these areas for students are now gone.  There is some effort to get private funding to add these as after school activities, but where does that leave those baby-sitting, elder care-giving, volunteering students?  They still miss out.

People on the outside looking in think of poverty as a personal choice, a desire to be lazy, a lack of commitment to a job, to be a “taker” as many Republicans would call it.  Not true, of course, but if the society can keep this understanding of poverty alive, it means that little or nothing has to be done for poor folks.  Teachers can be blamed for low test scores.  Parents can be blamed for not taking care of their kids properly.  Mismanagement of cities and school districts can be blamed for a lack of resources.  No one has to really look at poverty and what it actually does to individuals, communities, and societies.  No restructuring is required.  No middle or upper class people will be expected to address poverty and their role in it.

If people understood poverty even at its most basic level, the “Fiscal Cliff” nonsense would not even be looming.  The tax loopholes would have already been closed.  The wealthy would be paying their fair share.  Capital gains would be properly recognized as income.  Businesses would be striving to produce quality products and not be dumping their junk in poor communities, the quality of the environment in poor neighborhoods would not be permitted to deteriorate.

To rethink poverty is too much work.  There are no instant fixes.  We need someone in power with courage to reimagine what we as Americans can do to seriously eliminate poverty .  This is a worthy New Year’s Resolution, but whose resolution?

Good Guy with a Gun?

by muon

Yesterday another fatal shooting occurred not far from where I live. I don't know if the victim was a good guy or bad guy by the NRA's Wayne LaPierre's standards. I just know he was a 24 year-old man and left behind a family. The shooting took place in an alley surrounded by rowhouses that had children in them. At least 10 shell casings were found at the scene. We're talking Wild West here, with only house windows between the gunplay and innocent kids.

I'm certain George Zimmerman thought he was a good guy with a gun. He wasn't. He was a murderer. So was Michael Jock, who evoked the Stand Your Ground law after shooting an unarmed man in an argument about pizza.

The policemen I know (and I know quite a few) would all rather NOT have "good guys with guns" on the street. The only thing that separates a good gunslinger from a bad gunslinger is a quick judgment call before pulling the trigger. In that half second, they appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner.

With that thinking, in our society, they're ALL bad guys.

Quit Talking

by muon


After the last week, I'm sick of the word "meaningful." Everyone's saying we need to have a meaningful conversation about gun violence. That we need meaningful change. Meaningful action. The NRA says they'll make meaningful contributions.

So far, all most people in authority have done is to bandy the word "meaningful" around, as if that makes everything all better.

I was going to write this blog after my anger over the latest mass shooting died down a bit, but I realized today that I don't want to lose this anger. I don't want anyone in America to lose their outrage and frustration. I want us to outshout all the "meaningful" rhetoric and make sure that, this time, something gets done.

No one in this country needs to own a military grade rifle. No one needs ammunition clips that hold more than five bullets. Hunters wouldn't use these weapons any more than fisherman would use torpedoes. Anyone saying they need to own these types of weapons or that much ammo is mentally ill on some level.

All guns should be registered and their owners licensed for each class of weapon owned, just as we all have to do with our motor vehicles. The license should require a competency test, same as a driver's license does. Weapon insurance needs to be mandatory, as car insurance is. If a gun owner wants to sell a weapon, he and the new owner need to get their butts in to see a notary, to transfer the title legally. It ought to go without saying that background checks need to be done before licensing and registration. That means no gun shows and no internet sales of either weapons or ammo.

Sales of more than one gun a month and of suspiciously large amounts of ammo need to be tracked, just as we do drugs like Sudafed.  People who enable others to commit gun violence by providing firearms need to be held accountable, no matter whether we're talking about someone who buys guns to sell to felons, or parents of potentially violent mentally ill children, like Mrs. Lanza, who stupidly brought military grade weapons into her house.

We need to do more than prevent mass shootings. As horrific as they are, many more people become victims of gun violence every day. In the past two months in my hometown, we've had shootings or reports of gunfire nearly once a week. Another report just last night.

I'm sick of hearing all the excuses why we can't do anything to reduce incidences of gun violence. I'm sick of the whole American attitude that we can't do anything to stop the gun lobby. If you're going to spout insensitive nonsense about gun rights and Stand Your Ground and how none of this would happen if everyone carried guns, then you're part of the problem, and I for one will shout you down.

This week, Senator Feinstein was the only one I heard stand up and say, in effect, "This is what I'm going to do," when she promised to reintroduce her assault weapons ban. That's what's needed. Not platitudes about meaningful this or meaningful that. Not people who sit around waiting for everyone else to do something. We need people willing to get things started.

Call or email your elected officials and tell them to quit talking and start acting. Find your representatives here.

Brains! (Liberal vs. Conservative)

by muon

I read an article a few months ago, the gist of which is just now hatching into share-able graphics on social media. The article told of 13 different scientific studies that show how people calling themselves liberals and people calling themselves conservatives have pathological difference in the brain. (You can read about the studies on the ABC News website.)

Liberals tend to have larger anterior cingulate cortexes, associated with tolerance to uncertainty. Conservatives have larger right amygdalas, the area that governs sensitivity to fear. Conservatives avoid self-harm. Liberals are usually more concerned with harm to their group. Liberals focus on progress and are more likely to take risks to find better ways of doing things. Conservatives will stick to the status quo if it's comfortable for them and poses no immediate danger.

What none of the studies showed was how these two different kinds of brains evolved (yes, I mean evolution. If your sensitivity to fear makes you tremble at that word, better stop reading now). My theory is that families who never had to find creative solutions for their problems probably developed conservative brains.

Say your family has had wealth for generation after generation. Your ancestors could always rely on money to feed, shelter and clothe. They could pay someone to fight enemies. They could buy immediate solutions to problems as they came along. Your family never had to figure a different way of doing anything, and they, of course, never wanted their way of dealing with life to change. But they became very fearful of having their wealth taken from them, because it was their only means of survival.

My family were always great jury-riggers. When you can't afford to buy the means of survival, you have to creatively adapt or die. Duct tape was invented for families like mine. And while our stop-gap measure was buying us more time, we could be planning how to fix the problem for the long-term, in the most cost-efficient way. We have less fear of uncertainty, because we've dealt with it on some level each day, for generations.

Now, I'm not saying that all rich people are conservative. I think that families who have taught creative thinking to their progeny, and passed the teaching down through the generations, are the ones who have developed liberal brains. But I believe ultra-conservatives, either now or at sometime in their families' past, have probably been the "haves" of society, in some way. If not by money, then by strength or charisma or whatever. They never needed to learn adaptation, and so became fearful of it, and fearful of losing their special "have" at any moment.

Then again, if you don't believe in evolution, I guess God simply created conservatives and liberals physically different. So get over it, and quit trying to inflict your fear-mongering right amygdala on society. Or some liberal is apt to get out his duct tape.