Category Archives: Deep Questions

Walking Dead.

Deep Questions, grief, human behavior, memorials, political commentary, psychology, social commentary, sociology, Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

 

A moment ago, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie presented his portion of the 2:00pm EST press conference, following the deadly commuter train crash in Hoboken.

During his speech, he declared:  “The silver lining? Only one fatality.”

And, furthermore, “due to injuries caused by debris”.

A woman died. A woman, whose name has not yet been revealed, pending notification of next of kin.

Her only defense: standing on the platform, waiting for the train.

Soon, we may be permitted knowledge of her identity.

And, perhaps there will be a retrospective of her life, aired by the media.

But, a word, please.

The world of statistics. Those who live within it are to be pitied. Theirs is a realm of calculated loss, some mumbling about “the greater good”. Oh; and, a mentality that is fed by tactic and strategy.

This is a war mentality.

It is not civic minded. It is not compassionate. The value of human life is reduced to a numerical equivalent, like the toluene levels in drinking water. Acceptable, or not. One death, equating to some notion of Acceptability.

I suppose we should all thank our God that we were not standing on that train platform at 8:45 am this day. And, we might pray for the family who lost a beloved sister, daughter, perhaps mother.

I know that, at my own mother’s death, she lay in her own bed in her own home, the sun streaming in to receive her soul. As for those to whom her death was merely a calculated, statistical risk, who administered the treatment protocol that did nothing to save her life, I wonder how long ago their own souls left their bodies.

The walking dead. They are among us.
.
.
.
© Ruth Ann Scanzillo  9/29/16    –  All rights those of the author. Thank you.

littlebarefeetblog.com

FEAR.

Deep Questions, Deep Thoughts, human behavior, love, slum culture, social behavior, social commentary, Uncategorized, , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

By now, every civilized person who has ever been to a counselor or read a self help book knows: the emotion behind anger is fear.

Fear drives anger.

And, anger is usually expressed as aggression.

Hence, aggressive behavior is fear-based.

.

Sometimes that fear is rooted in a need to protect self, or those loved by self, or things owned and treasured by self.

Other times, that fear is rooted in a perceived threat to power or control.

But, fear is at the root. And, the consequent behavior is: aggression, sometimes brutal.

.

Enter the system of control in place to enforce laws intended to maintain order.

If there is fear driving a threat to a loss of that system of control, those in place to enforce its laws will behave aggressively.

The result: police officers, on the offensive. Ready to use their power, aggressively.

.

I believe that, in America, white police officers are afraid of black people, and black people are afraid of white police officers. Now, fear drives both. And, the behavior of both has become aggressive.

Those with official power behave aggressively; those who feel powerless behave passive-aggressively. Both are simply afraid of the other.

.

In America, white people who are afraid of black people were taught to be afraid of those they do not know. Black people were taught the same thing. Many white people who actually know black people, and many black people who actually know white people, have established trust one with another. And, even love.

And, I was taught that perfect love casts out fear.

.

Jimmy Carter should be consulted, and others like him should be running our country. Individuals with genuine compassion for the downtrodden, the powerless, and the fearful.

We need to start over. As simplistic as it sounds, we need to dig up our forgotten ability to pour out authentic love for one another. If we do not, we are doomed to destroy ourselves.

.

And, all because of being scared to death.

.

.

.

© Ruth Ann Scanzillo  9/24/16       Please share. Thank you.

 

 

 

“Wherefore Art Thou, Comey?”[edited] (yes; now I know what “impunity” means, and even how to spell it).

civic commentary, Deep Questions, political commentary, psychology, social behavior, sociology, , , ,

 

*Note to prospective readers:  This post was published shortly after the Oversight Committee Hearings on Hilary Clinton’s emails. A couple days later, for a number of reasons, I pulled it; however, given today’s press release, I am moved to re-publish. Readers may (and, will) draw their own conclusions.

******

Watching the Oversight Committee Hearings, I can’t help but think – and, who is with me, here? :

Why is it that, every time Comey is questioned ( at times with remarkable candor and clarity and logic and penetrating insight by more than one Representative), he makes frequent declarations that attempt to dogmatically assert his motivations. But, these assertions sometimes contain bold disclaimers regarding, well, the very things he actually did! And, when he is pinned, he hands off responsibility to another entity, with equal fervor insisting that said entity should claim responsibility for specific act.

Why does he passionately assert that he and his organization (the FBI) are committed to non-partisanship, possessing no “inside the beltway mentality”, when the facts suggest precisely otherwise?  Why does he declare: “If I did that, it would be  [ the very thing about which he is accused ]!” (But…..that….IS  what he did!)

Is this whole show intended to render some kind of cosmetic legitimacy to his actions, to leave in the hearts and minds of oblivious Americans some sense that the issue has been “officially” addressed so that it can be put to bed?

Because, to my ears and eyes, this is what is really happening: Committee Representatives are asking all the right questions, laying out sound and solid arguments. THEY are making the case!  But, what will the outcome be? Will Comey ever, throughout the course of these proceedings, ever bow to any of the arguments or questions they present? No!  He’ll just prove to those in power that he can hold up under an inquisition. There he goes again: “It is my intent to treat everyone fairly; my goal is to aspire to [ this] . ” He will only prove that he knows how to skirt and/or neutralize any question that, when actually answered, would indict his actions.

This reminds me of that other legal loophole that one finds within the creative property licensing industry. Agencies declare that they “do not accept unsolicited material.” This is their legal position. In this way, should some dumb bunny send a screenplay without being invited to do so, said created work can, in fact, be eagerly devoured, parsed out, and completely marauded with impunity. In short – no legal case can be made against the agency, because said agency “does not accept unsolicited material.” See what ahm sayin’, heah?

So, FBI Director Comey sits before his accusers, his investigators, all of whom are defeated even before they open their mouths. All of this, in the interests of “preserving public perception of our system of justice.”

I call bull puckey.

The sticky kind.

I do, your Honor.

Anybody share my perceptions, in any small part? Please – weigh in. I have all day.

Thank you!

.

.

.

© Ruth Ann Scanzillo  7/7/16   All rights those of the author, whose name appears above this line. Thank you for weighing in, using the Comment option below.

littlebarefeetblog.com