HOW TO WIN THE 2016 ELECTION – Don’t Repeat the Nevada Democratic Convention Debacle!

by Kevin L Miller

It’s a gorgeous May in South Central PA, where I have been truly enjoying the preparation and planting of my 16 large raised vegetable beds, while reading and listening with increasing alarm to reports of the sudden split of the Democratic Party into two factions, following the disastrous Nevada State Democratic Convention on Saturday, May 14, 2016, in Las Vegas. Yesterday I planted a lot more tomatoes, okra, zucchini, melons and eggplant on our acreage that is closer to our Trump-loving neighbors here in the woods. Then I devoted yet another hour to reviewing many different videos of the Nevada Democratic Convention debacle. Google “Nevada Democratic Convention videos” and look at any of them that are not edited by conservative organizations. The footage has gone viral and leaves no doubt that the establishment Democrats in Nevada royally screwed the Bernie Sanders constituency.

The result is that the emerging division between Bernie’s Social-Democrats and Hillary’s Centrist-Democrats has suddenly deepened and polarized, so that hundreds of thousands of Bernie’s supporters are now shouting “Hillary NEVER! Bernie FOREVER!” They will NOT vote for Hillary now, and this puts the nation and the world in peril of a Trump presidency, which would be, quite simply, the beginning of the apocalypse. How did we get to this sorry state? The Democratic Party establishment lacked the imagination to recognize and embrace the mushrooming revolutionary movement within their ranks. Instead, Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and the establishment, dug in their heels, lectured and scolded the Sanders campaign and supporters, and ultimately misused all their rules in an attempt to silence and subdue the Social-Democrats. This is not the way to heal wounds and achieve reconciliation.

All it took was one filmed and well-documented State Democratic Convention (it happened to be Nevada) to inflame and enrage the Social-Democrats, and the party split in half — or nearly so. At this point, the division may be 3/5 Centrist-Democrats vs 2/5 Social-Democrats. Of course, that split would be enough to cause Democrats to lose the election to Donald Trump, and the schism will likely become closer to 50/50 as the election season rolls on, especially after the impending spectacle of the Philadelphia Democratic Convention which promises to be cataclysmic.

To be clear, no one can condone the behavior of either faction at the recent Nevada Democratic Convention. All reasonable people certainly condemn the implied death threat phone calls made by a few extreme Sanders supporters to Democratic officials, and deplore the fist fights that reportedly may have broken out on the floor of the convention. Violence is never the answer. Never!.. BUT… after watching the videos of the abusive antics of Chairwoman Roberta Lange on the floor of the convention, and reading the accounts of the repeated massacre of Robert’s Rules of Order and the convention’s own rules, any rational person has to understand the rage and profound frustration of the Social-Democrats at that event, and the subsequent bitterness.

In Nevada, the Democratic establishment met secretly, without consulting the Social-Democrats, and changed the rules before the convention. They brought the rules change to the floor for a “Yea or Nay” vote, before a quorum was present. On the videos, when the Nays clearly had it, the very shrill chairwoman, Roberta Lange, nevertheless gave it to the Yeas. When a standing vote count was properly called for, she refused. When a point of order was called, she ignored it. When one of the Social-Democrats politely petitioned the chair for the time to read their minority report, the chair denied them that right, after also ignoring their petitions. Then a slate of 64 contested Sanders delegates was rejected, against the screams of the crowd. And finally, the chair, discarded Robert’s Rules of Order, moved abruptly to adjourn amidst the roar of NAY, and did so, slamming the gavel down on the podium and storming off the stage, which was protected by a line of gray-uniformed big burly armed police who looked for all the world like the Gestapo. The screaming crowd was instructed to leave immediately. These videos have to be seen to be believed. The Democratic establishment’s behavior was completely outrageous, out of line, and undemocratic. While no one can condone any threats or violence perpetrated by the Sanders supporters, anyone who reviews the videos and written factual accounts will completely understand the frustration and rage of the Social-Democrats.

One video records Barbara Boxer’s presentation to the convention. A personal note here: I’ve always adored Barbara Boxer. She looks wonderful, by the way — never better — and her hair and outfit at the Nevada convention were magnificent. She now adds a beautiful, magnetic presence to her obviously superior intelligence and substantive professionalism. I can’t help speculating that she may be positioning herself for a VP nomination. But her approach to the raging convention after Roberta Lange and convention officials had already enraged the Sanders constituency, was NOT cool: “I’m a Hillary supporter. We have the votes! We have victory! Yay!… (loud booing from the crowd) Keep on booing, and boo yourselves out of this election!” It gives me NO pleasure to report this, because I have always been an enthusiastic Boxer supporter. I attended one of her fund raisers at a wealthy private home in southern CA many years ago and met her and bought one of her T-shirts, which I wore proudly for many years. I have very recently mentioned her name several times as one of my personal choices for VP. But she handled this very badly. Basic psychology tells us that such an approach is not the way to win friends and influence people. And it is emblematic of how far the Hillary-supporting Democratic establishment has to go to get to a place where they can reconcile with the Bernie Sanders people. This is NOT good! This approach is exactly the way to hand the election to Trump and kick off the apocalypse. “Yay!…” as Boxer would say.

What is fascinating about our current election is that in the three remaining candidates we have the whole political spectrum. On the extreme right is the fascist authoritarian tyrant Donald Trump. On the far left is the Social-Democrat Bernie Sanders. And smack dab in the middle is the Centrist-Democrat, Hillary Clinton. At this moment no one has any idea who is going to win the general election, because it now appears that all three of these figures are going to remain on the public stage right through the November election, although one of them, probably Bernie Sanders, will not be an official candidate. He is going to get very close to the Democratic nomination, and his supporters will say that he would have won it, if the Democratic primary system had not been rigged and the many super-delegates, pre-selected and pre-committed by the Democratic Party establishment, precisely to prevent an insurgent like Sanders from succeeding. It is likely that Senator Sanders will continue campaigning for a grass-roots political revolution right through the election, in order to keep pulling Hillary Clinton to the left and win in principle if not in fact. The louder her supporters demand that Bernie leave the stage, the larger his crowds will grow.

So, how does anyone WIN this election? Well… If the factional rancor continues as it is developing now, all Trump will have to do to win is sit back and laugh while the Democratic Party splits in half. Democrats have to hope and pray that it is not too late for the Democratic establishment to make nice and offer concessions to the Social-Democrats, or all of us are going to suffer the terminal illness of a Trump presidency. First of all, people like Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer and Debbie Wassermann-Shultz, true liberals in the Democratic establishment, need to STOP lecturing and scolding Bernie’s campaign and his supporters and address them with the respect and deference due a huge constituency within their party, rather than treating them like naughty children who are being disrespectful to their parents’ authority. You can’t reconcile with somebody by berating them.

Then, frankly, the Hillary Clinton campaign needs to co-opt Bernie’s revolution and take away any reason for his supporters to resist them. The Democratic establishment should remove Debbie Wasserman-Shultz from the equation, because she has become a lightning rod in this conflict. They need to reign in the authoritarian voices within their ranks, and they need to change the rules around super-delegates, allowing them to be apportioned according to the popular vote, rather than committed in advance — in many cases long before Bernie ever declared his candidacy. Then Hillary needs to simply adopt Bernie’s playbook, lock, stock and barrel, exactly the way her husband Bill did with all of his opponents to win elections. He proved it works! Finally, after adopting all of Bernie’s positions, Hillary needs to offer him the VP slot on the ticket, whether he takes it or not. If these things were to happen, Bernie and his supporters could declare victory, and Hillary would win the election and send Trump back to his gilded Manhattan cage. There is still hope, if the Democratic establishment can grow the balls and imagination required to to embrace Bernie’s revolution.

But, let’s face it… That’s not likely to happen. It’s not human nature. And although Bill Clinton is probably a highly respected voice within his wife’s campaign, I doubt that she or her operatives have what it takes to see that they need to do exactly what he did to win elections, and steal all the thunder from the opponents by co-opting their messages and swallowing them whole. No… the rule of the day is dogmatic polarization, whereas Bill Clinton’s co-opting tactics require vision that goes far beyond compromise. It is very likely that the Democratic establishment will circle the wagons and become even more authoritarian and abusive with the existing rules, in the mode of the chair of the Nevada Democratic Convention. This will enrage and drive the Social-Democrats even farther away from the established Democratic Party and any hope of supporting Hillary in the general election. The Philadelphia Democratic Convention will now inherit the once-predicted fate of the Cleveland Republican Convention, and become an absolute madhouse of rage and conflict. The Democratic Party will emerge badly damaged and split. And Trump is likely to win the election. The END!

P.S.: By the way… I have not changed my mind. I voted for Bernie in the PA primary, and I am still supporting him and his positions. But if Hillary, or Daffy Duck, or a fence post, wins the Democratic nomination and remains the strongest alternative to Trump in the polls, then I will vote for that alternative that has at least some chance of defeating Trump and averting utter global disaster. But there is now some slight possibility that even if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination, she may not emerge by election day as the strongest candidate against Trump. Anything can happen now. A Trump presidency would be an unmitigated disaster for the U.S. and the world. The Democratic Party establishment must step back and get real about the heroic surgery they will now have to perform if they are to heal the gaping wounds within the progressive electorate body, and win this election.

 

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO MAKE A COUNTRY GREAT?

By Paul M. Lewis

A number of people have recommended to me an article written by the brilliant, conservative-leaning intellectual (graduate of Oxford and Harvard), Andrew Sullivan, published in the most recent edition of the New York magazine, entitled “Democracies End When They Are Too Democratic.” Its subtitle goes on to say, “And right now, America is a breeding ground for tyranny.” In it, Sullivan makes a convincing case for the notion that over time democracies become almost too democratic, what he calls hyper-democratic, and as such they tend to implode on themselves. Within that context, he goes on to quote Plato, who tells us that “tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy.”

Although Sullivan nonetheless still maintains that democracies are wonderful places to live, he says—no doubt, rightly so—that nothing lasts forever. Indeed, the excesses of democracy are all too often seen in the passions and the tyranny of the mob. The Founding Fathers did what they could to temper this, but over time such protections have eroded away. As an example, just look at the untrammeled chaos, the blind furor of the zealots in the current primary season. Sullivan refers to this as “last stage political democracy.”

The excesses of social media, seen on Facebook and Twitter and elsewhere, are further examples of unregulated democracy. If it were not so, why would China, and other repressive regimes (North Korea also springs to mind) want to limit, or even forbid, its access? The web itself has virtually no monitors, no elite experts who can serve as intellectually legitimate analysts to correct errors, or to call a lie a lie. Either that, or there are so many claiming to be experts that, in the end, no one knows who is legitimately so, and who is not; there is no longer anyone to modulate people asserting themselves or their pet ideas, or to say, “No, what you are claiming is misleading, untrue, even immoral.” Hyper-democracy, in other words, seems to bring us to the point of what might be called hyper-equality, wherein the thoughts, feelings, and opinions of each person are sacrosanct (we are all equal, after all) and automatically asserted to be on the same level as those of everyone else, no matter how unskilled or inexpert they may be. Where then is judgment, circumspection, logic, prudence, let alone wisdom? As a result, we get a presumptive Republican nominee for the highest office in the land in Donald Trump, who is the very epitome of uncouth, uncultured, uneducated, even unprincipled, self-aggrandizement. In other words, the brashest, to say nothing of the richest, gets to speak the loudest and rises to be the leader of the pack. As Orwell said so presciently back in 1945, speaking, ironically, about communism, “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

As brilliant an essayist as Sullivan is, and as thorough and insightful an analysis as the article provides (I highly recommend that it be read in its entirety), it seems to me that virtually any political system can ultimately devolve into tyranny, and that democracy is no more susceptible to doing so than any other. I suppose it could even be asked: how many other forms of government are there, aside from democracy itself and tyranny? Just look at two of the other largest and most powerful countries of the world, Russia and China. Nobody would accuse either of them of ever having been hyper-democratic, as much as Russia may have made a few tentative steps toward democracy once communism fell. There is little doubt today that each is caught up in the throes of an increasingly repressive dictatorship. Indonesia can be cited as another example of a country that went through the horrors of the tyrannical Suharto regime, only to emerge briefly and hopefully into the light of democracy, having elected Joko Widodo (aka, Jokowi) in 2014; sadly, however, he now appears to be leading his country back towards a form of hyper-religious rigidity, if not outright dictatorship. Virtually all of the promising Arab Spring movements toward democracy, too, have surrendered to dictatorship and tyranny. Gen. el-Sisi in Egypt, as just the latest example, has taken away most of the rights of civil society that hopeful democrats had, not so long ago, thought to be within their grasp. And look what happened in Libya once the hated dictator fell, with help from the democratic west. Can it be said that the tyranny of a dictator was any worse than the tyranny of warring clans, or the horror of an emerging ISIS? The point once again is that these, and many other countries that could be cited, collapsed into oppression and subjugation, not out of a context of hyper-democracy, but out of either the chaos of their own recent history, or a long-standing predilection toward autocratic rule.

My fear is that people generally—no matter what form of government they live under—have a built in penchant, even a longing, for a “big daddy” who will take control, rule their lives, and tell them what to do and when to do it. All too often, we want to be relieved of the burden of having to think, analyze, and make difficult decisions on our own. This may especially be so when the world becomes even more complex and confusing than it normally is, or when outside factors over which most of us truly have little or no control, things such as the globalization of the world economy and even the terrible effects of the ever increasing warming of the globe, come into play. When this happens, people become desperate for plain, simple answers, ones which they either do not want to parse out themselves, or which they feel themselves incapable of grappling with. They want relief from the burden of needing to live in a more or less constant state of questioning, uncertainty and unpredictability. When such times come about, the Trumps of the world rush in to offer surety, decisiveness, and an ability to get things done now, not after endless dithering and debate, while democracy makes its slow, messy, erratic, moody, and unpredictable way forward. The supporters of Donald Trump, like those of Xi in China, or Putin in Russian, or Jokowi in Indonesia, or Erdogan in Turkey—many others could be added—want certainty in an uncertain world, and are all too willing to go along with the scapegoating of disempowered minorities by way of easy explanation.

As simple as it sounds, it takes a lot to live with ambiguity. It takes a kind of centeredness within oneself, a sureness of who one is, and a belief that this identity will not change, no matter what happens out there in a disordered and topsy-turvy world. But that is not easy. Many of us (myself included, I admit) are not all that comfortable with change; we find it unsettling, disconcerting, and unnerving. But the world is, by its very nature, variable, fluctuating, inconsistent, an unpredictable place in which to live.

Still, while all of this may certainly be true, it does not relieve each of us of the responsibility of facing the world head on, whether shivering in our boots, or cursing with all our might against the vicissitudes of ill-starred fate. Donald Trump, with his simplistic promises of making American great again, and pointing a finger at whoever his latest scapegoat may be—criminal illegal aliens stealing our American jobs, or terrorist Muslims hiding behind every bush, ready to pounce on an innocent and unsuspecting populace—will not be able to rescue us, no matter how much anyone may want him to.

Democracy, even with all of its flaws and failings, and its all too human tendency toward chaotic imperfection, is still always better than dictatorial tyranny. And if, as Sullivan notes, hyper-democracy can be a gateway to autocratic totalitarianism, then so be it. If this is the case, it’s up to each of us to prevent that from happening. Who else is there to do it? If we can learn to be more comfortable with ambiguity, and take on a little more responsibility for informing ourselves and making things right that have gone wrong, then maybe we don’t need someone out there to do that for us.

Maybe America already is great, not because Donald Trump asserts that he can make it so, but because we, the people—you and I—are capable of taking on the task of responsible self-government. In the end, it’s up to us to make some mature decisions and not opt for the easy fantasy of an imperious and domineering generalissimo, riding in to deliver a hoped-for, if ever illusive, rescue. It’s our choice and, with hard work and determination, we really are capable of making democracy work for all of us, no matter what late stage our political life may find itself in.

ELDERCARE – Can’t We Do Better?

by Kevin L Miller

Recently the well-respected “full service” retirement community where my parents are living into very old age, asked me to participate in their “customer satisfaction survey,” which turned out to be a perfunctory and shallow questionnaire about surface appearances rather than the real life experiences of the residents. Our family has found it absolutely essential to provide a family member advocate and caregiver on campus for eight hours per day, at least three or four days per week. Even with our involvement, major medications are missed, essential dietary guidelines are violated, and doctors’ orders are violated or overlooked. But those problems are minor in comparison to the heartbreak our parents are experiencing due to being separated after 68 years of marriage. So, I wrote a letter to the retirement community in order to give them real customer feedback and ask them, “Can’t we do better?”

IMG_4198

Why am I writing to you?

Yesterday one of your research associates called to interview me for your Customer Satisfaction Survey. As the son of two prominent residents, and friend to many others in that community, I have been very involved in advocating for my parents’ care and quality of life over the last several years. This experience has challenged me to think deeply about the issues you are facing in serving my parents’ needs, and some challenges you and the entire eldercare system, along with associated medical and living services, will have to grapple with in the future to offer eldercare to the next generation target markets, which may have very different circumstances and needs. I indicated to your interviewer that I would be happy to offer a much longer, in-depth interview by phone or in person about these expanded observations and implications. She invited me to write you a letter. So here it is:

1. Life-long lovers & companions separated after 68 years of marriage… How can this be right?

Seven months ago in August our family gathered in my parents’ large independent living apartment at the retirement community to celebrate their 68th wedding anniversary. Even then, we knew that a week later Dad would have to move into the skilled nursing facility (which the residents call “the hospital”) because he has advanced Parkinson’s Disease. The combination of Mom’s presence, family help, and in-home unskilled aides was no longer sufficient to safely and effectively care for him. So, on Aug 31, 2015, after 68 years of marriage, our parents were separated.

Before that day Mom had never lived alone for even one day in her life. Dad lives for her, and since his move into skilled nursing he has not stopped asking to return home to be by her side. Despite serious health issues of her own and great difficulty walking, Mother spends every morning and afternoon with Dad. I am there full time, three days per week. Other family members and large numbers of friends visit frequently. But our parents are heart-broken. Dad feels that he has fallen into a “trap from which there is no escape,” and our entire family is engaged in a constant racking of our collective brains to try to find a better solution. So far we have failed.

Could your retirement facility lead the way to innovate new models of eldercare that would allow couples to remain together even when they each develop very different kinds of care needs?

Confession and apologies

Here I must confess and apologize for the fact that I have precious few answers or solutions to offer regarding these very difficult challenges. But I think my family and I do have some sense of the kinds of questions that are important to ask at this juncture in the history of American eldercare, and more to the point, at this stage in your institutional mission. These are questions about what people need and where it hurts. They are questions that point to an evolving society and economy with rapidly changing requirements. How will you and other eldercare institutions survive the tsunami of change that is coming? The question above about separating life-long lovers is one piece of the puzzle. Here are some other questions:

2. How can you maintain the highest possible quality of life and sense of autonomy for residents after they become physically invalid, lose their short-term memory, and/or succumb to dementia?

Dad lives in the present moment with no memory of the recent past, but he has a strong mind in many other ways. He frequently asks where he is and does not understand why he cannot be with Mother. If he had the ability to retain a basic understanding of his current situation, it would be so helpful, but he can’t.

Yesterday I finished reading aloud to Dad and Mother his entire 242-page autobiography about the part of his life that he DOES remember — his excitingly active life and brilliant career as a minister, college professor, dean and vice president in four colleges, and eventually president of a Los Angeles university and finally president of Bethany Theological Seminary. It’s a riveting book. Everyone’s life is a riveting book! Dad is lucky. He has family with him for four hours every day and many other visitors come as well. I notice that the others on his ward seem to receive very few visitors. Some sit in their wheelchairs in the hallway, eyes glued to the locked entrance, hoping to see a familiar face, or figure out a way to escape. Many are abandoned and alone. Dad is dissatisfied with his current situation, but many of his neighbors are hopeless and bitter. Again, Dad is one of the lucky ones.

How can eldercare institutions raise the quality of life for all residents, including the less fortunate abandoned ones?

3. How can your excellent staff be empowered to enrich the lives of the residents?

All the residents in Dad’s “hospital” ward live in a beautifully appointed warehouse where they are tended by very kind, well-meaning, efficient and even loving staff members who do not have enough help to give each individual the attention s/he deserves. Some of these staff members are really stellar: The head nurse is a saint — always smiling and generous, no matter how much chaos descends upon her. Several certified nursing assistants are like that too. And one big guy is truly wonderful with our Dad who says of this gentle giant, “We pall around a lot. I like him.” One day when  he came to Dad’s room to walk him to supper, he asked Dad if he was ready to eat. Dad replied, “Yes, but I’d rather sit and talk with you.” Of course, that’s not possible. The gentle giant is constantly in demand with way too much to do. And this is only one of his two full-time jobs, which suggests that he may not be paid well enough for the heroic services he renders.

It is worth noting here that, while the full-time staff is simply excellent, there are not enough of them to fulfill the service demands of such a large institution, which is often forced to hire outside contractors — both skilled nurses and unskilled aides — who do not know the residents or their needs. I have talked to some of these substitute contractors, and they report that they do not receive any orientation or instruction but are thrown directly into assignments without preparation of any kind.

Could your institution expand its wonderful full-time staff? Could some kind of orientation / instruction be offered to outside contractors if they have to be called in to fill gaps? I’m sure the contractors are well-meaning and hard-working, but nobody can do any job without some form of preparation.

4. How can communication & information exchange become seamless in the eldercare system?

When we had to move Dad from their independent living apartment to the skilled nursing facility, my brother and I sat down with your very responsive administrators to discuss Dad’s special needs — key among them, a “soft mechanical diet” of pureed foods and thickened liquids to prevent aspiration which is one of the chief causes of death among advanced Parkinson’s patients. They agreed, but the news somehow did not get to the skilled nursing staff. We had another meeting a week later to underscore the fact that the soft diet and thickened liquids are imperative. Even six weeks later, when an outside contractor nurse was on duty and tried to give Dad regular thin liquids, I discovered that the requirement for thickened liquids was not on his chart. She checked! It wasn’t there. We added it.

During the same period when Dad was moved to skilled nursing, Mother was rushed from the retirement community to the city hospital four times in six weeks, and twice hospitalized. If I or another family member had not been there to brief the emergency and hospital teams on the specifics of her condition, they would have been working blind with little information about her recent medical history, episodes, and general condition. She also has short term memory problems now, and besides, when she was taken to the hospital, she was not in any condition to answer any questions at all.

After her last hospitalization, Mom was released to the short-term skilled nursing facility on your campus, where she stayed for nine days. I found out near the end of that period that somehow, her Coumadin medication specifications had not followed her to the hospital and then to short-term skilled nursing, and they had stopped administering this very important heart condition medication!

Is there a way to be a lot more comprehensive about detailed communications and information exchange among the various wings of the eldercare and healthcare systems?

What other forms of communication and information exchange could be added to the current regime to enhance the quality of life for all residents and their loved ones and caregivers?

5. How will eldercare institutions appeal to rapidly changing future target markets?

I know that there are lots of conversations going on about this question throughout the eldercare world, because the administrations of these institutions see a tsunami of change coming: Boomers have not been able to save for retirement as successfully as their parents did, and often have very different hopes, needs, and expectations about the whole nature of retirement than did the Greatest Generation. Indeed, we Boomers tend not to think of ourselves as “retiring” but as transitioning to a new lifestyle in which we will have the opportunity to fulfill new missions and realize some of the dreams we were not able to pursue during our professional years. We tend not to envision ourselves in a standard retirement community, because that model looks limiting and narrow to us. Many of us want something that seems more like the “real world” and less like what I have called “The Disneyland of Death.”

We wish our American society might wake up and understand how much experience, expertise and, yes, wisdom, we have acquired over a lifetime of hard work, and value what we have to contribute. In short, many of us want to be more fully integrated into society instead of being cordoned off in beautiful warehouse facilities for the elderly. We know that we have a lot to offer and we intend to do so. As I think about my own very diverse group of friends, I believe they would ask questions like these:

  • Where is the diversity in retirement communities? Why are there no Black, Asian, Hispanic, or Gay, residents? Why don’t the campus demographics look more like the rest of America?
  • If I lived there, where would I make my huge sculptures and paintings?
  • How would I be able to build rooms onto my dwelling? I can’t live without building things!
  • Where would I rebuild my race cars and work on my motorcycles?
  • How could I start my new cottage industry and sell my products?
  • Where would my rock band practice for many hours every week?
  • How could I keep all of my animals and plants?
  • How could I have a garden and put up a pantry of canned and preserved foods?
  • The doors to the independent living apartments are locked at 8:00 pm! How am I going to have a night life and bring guests home if I can’t get in after 8:00 pm? I’m NOT a child!
  • What if I want to host a seminar or symposium or a big family reunion or a political rally or a church event and have lots of guests for a whole week?
  • Can my spouse and I stay together even after our medical needs diverge?
  • Will my same-sex spouse and I be accepted in this retirement community?
  • I haven’t saved enough money for retirement. Do you have any options for me?
  • How can I retain control and autonomy over my own life all the way to the end and be allowed to die the way I want to die? I insist on the most fulfilling death possible for me.
  • Can I stay at home with access to increased healthcare and other services?
  • I don’t want to live in an “old folks home,” but I know I’m going to need some kind of help. What are my options? Aren’t there any other models of eldercare that I can consider?

Potential Next Steps and an Offer

As previously advertised, this letter contains lots of questions and not many answers. However, aren’t some of the solutions implied in the questions? I think they are. And if you pose these kinds of questions to a diverse group of stakeholders – your own administrators, staff, independent contractors, suppliers, residents, their families, prospective customers, and outside experts – in a multi-day ideation session, you will begin to hear some innovative concepts for new and exciting approaches to eldercare.

This is clearly beyond the scope of your current survey, but if you are interested in taking a next step toward exploring new forms and approaches to your products and services for the future, my brother and I have been offering those kinds of ideation programs to Fortune 500 companies and other institutions for well over 25 years, and we would be glad to be of service. Some of our team would stay out of content to facilitate the innovation session, and others would sit with the participants and offer ideas to add to the mix. Of course, your decision-makers would make the final selection of a set of ideas to develop for further consideration.

Finally, if your administration would like to discuss any of these questions, ideas and proposals further, please feel free to respond to this letter or give me a call. I wish you all the best in your survey. I am confident that current residents will respond very positively. The themes explored in this letter are primarily focused on how to appeal to future target markets.

Sincerely, — Kevin

Post Script: Two staff members acknowledged receiving my letter, but no further discussion of the letter was pursued. I continue to wonder, “Can’t we do better?”

“RED,” A PLAY ABOUT MARK ROTHKO BY JOHN LOGAN

By Paul M. Lewis

When the curtain goes up on John Logan’s play “Red,” we see Abstract Expressionist artist, Mark Rothko, sitting in a chair in his studio, smoking a cigarette. He is facing the audience, staring at something in front of him. We come to realize soon enough that this is one of his paintings (another is actually visible to the audience directly behind him). For anyone not familiar with Rothko’s later paintings—and the play mainly deals with these works of the 1950’s—they are iconically large canvasses consisting of juxtaposed floating colored rectangles on a darker background. Those referenced in this play are exclusively red and black.

Rothko’s newly hired young assistant, Ken, enters and stands behind him, ignored by the painter. After a few moments, we realize that Rothko does know Ken is there. Without even a glance in his direction, the painter asks him: “What do you see?” Ken, who is clearly in awe of the great man, much his senior both in years and in experience, replies innocently enough: “Red.” And the play is off and running.

The production my partner and I went to see recently took place at South Coast Repertory in Costa Mesa, CA, although we had already seen another version at the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles a few years ago. Both productions were very well done, with the actors in each playing off their individual strengths and idiosyncrasies—greater forcefulness or anger in one portrayal of Rothko, more subtlety and intellectuality in another; youthful energy and verve in the part of Ken in one iteration, while more of an emphasis on innocence, morphing into maturation, in the other.

There is much discussion of the concept of red in this drama. Logan portrays Rothko as challenging his new helper to understand more deeply what is meant by the color, both in terms of its physical manifestations, as well as its psychological implications. Is there even any such a thing as red—simple red? Or is it, as Rothko points out, better thought of as: “plum-mulberry-magenta-burgundy-salmon-carmine-carnelian-coral?” I suppose he could have added crimson, lobster, ruby, cherry, vermilion, cardinal, cuprite, and so on, as well. The point being that, to an artist, the über-category of red is of little use as an honest, visual description of the almost endless possibilities of physical reality.

Rothko and Ken then go back and forth in naming other categories of red that relate more directly to the feelings and emotions that the color can represent: passion, wine, lipstick, apples, rust on the bike on the lawn, an albino’s eyes, atomic flash, the Russian flag, the Chinese flag, the Nazi flag, red light district, red tape, rouge, viscera, flame, Santa Claus, blood, slash your wrists, and on and on. Slowly, Ken—to an extent our stand-in as audience members—begins to get the feeling of what Rothko means when he paints with “red.”

But there is also black. Big blocks of color that are again not merely of one hue, but are composed of browns and umbers, endless underpinnings of multifarious earth tones. We see coal and we see night; we see darkness and the symbolism of race, prejudice, bigotry and bias; the absence of light, the Stygian world, mourning, and of course death itself. But we also see the Cosmos, filled with light and only seemingly black because it reflects off of nothing, or nothing that registers with us at least.

And what happens when red and black are juxtaposed? There is an immediate play of one off the other, such that our eyes see what both is and what is not there. Logan has Rothko expound on the concept: “Look at the tension between the blocks of color: the dark and the light, the red and the black and the brown. They exist in a state of flux—of movement. They abut each other on the actual canvas, so too do they abut each other in your eye. They ebb and flow and shift, gently pulsating. The more you look at them the more they move…They float in space, they breathe..Movement, communication, gesture, flux, interaction; let them work…They’re not dead because they’re not static. They move through space if you let them, this movement takes time, so they’re temporal. They require time.”

Of course time is needed. Because we are talking about physical manifestation, about the world as it appears to us, as we live in it in our bodies, and this cannot be experienced except temporally. It’s there for now, but gone in another moment. We are here for a second, and then disappear again into the endlessness of Cosmic energy, only to come together once more in some other form. Matter cannot be created; neither can it be destroyed. It simply is, and can be perceived only by those whose very form has been cobbled together by its own seemingly random interaction. The subject matter of the play has to do with the nature of art. But if art is both a reflection and an enhancement of nature, a highly idiosyncratic while at the same time universalized vision thereof, then it is in that sense also a play more generally about the full panoply of the human experience.

Rothko, the man, was not without his flaws. He was arrogant, bombastic, argumentative, contentious, prideful, jealous, domineering, and conceited. He was so full of himself and lived so hermetically, so much in his own head, that he eschewed nature as being too messy. But he was also highly sensitive, energetic, insightful, intellectual, emotional, fearful, depressed, and of course ultra-talented. Given all this, the play may not be for everyone. If you don’t like long discourses on art, or contentious dialogue between master and apprentice, or Abstract Expressionism for that matter, this may not be what you might choose to spend your hard earned money on.

But if you are interested in exploring what art is, that elusive, fragile, delicate, phantasmagorical mix of the real world—whether it be paint, or canvas, or light, or clay, or physical movement, or words, or sound, or whatever the medium—and something else, some ultimately indefinable ethos of the human spirit, something pointing beyond humanity to another level altogether even more subtle, exquisite, elegant, refined, eternal, spiritual, if you will, then “Red” was written for you.

Also thrown front and center into the mix are questions of Rothko’s politics. We are reminded in the play of his social-revolutionary youth. His anti-establishment leanings did not sit well with gallery owners, museum curators, or even some of the rich who ultimately bought his paintings. One of the major turning points in the play, in fact, has to do with his struggle over the commission he received to paint murals for the famous—and famously rich and exclusive—Four Seasons Restaurant located in the new Seagram Building in New York City, for which he was paid handsomely (more, we are told, than any other commission in the history of modern art). In that sense, we are back once again with the conflict between light and dark, between artistic integrity and commercialism, idealism and money; we might even say, between red and black.

The family of Marcus Yokovlevitch Rothkowitz (his original name) moved to Portland, Oregon in 1913, when Rothko was only 10 years old, having fled the Cossacks and the pogroms of the old Russian Empire. Logan has him describe the neighborhood as a ghetto, filled with “thinky, talky Jews.” He was, of course, also himself in life both “thinky” and “talky.” He understood what it was to be the outsider, and he knew fear, tension, and the everlasting interplay of the opposites. Logan portrays how Rothko saw that movement was essential to growth, that the son succeeds the father, the apprentice takes over from the master, and that one art movement must kill off its predecessor (as much as he hated it, and railed against it, when Pop Art came to displace Abstract Expressionism).

Rothko will be remembered as a master of this tension, of strain and stress and the push-and-pull that so utterly enthralled and mystified him. I will not reveal how the play ends, except to say that it does so with an answer to a question. Although my own preference might have been to allow that question to hang in the air, unanswered, for us all to contemplate.

Rothko is famous for having said: “If you are moved by color relationships, you are missing the point. I am expressing the big emotions—tragedy, ecstasy, doom.” Who can fully plumb such questions? Can art, or even a great artist like Mark Rothko, ever reveal to us what is, in the end, indefinable, unfathomable, and ultimately unanswerable?

 

 

 

 

 

 

BERNIE or HILLARY… or BOTH?

by Kevin L Miller

I just read a quote from Robert Reich (secretary of the treasury under Clinton) about the current choice between Hillary and Bernie, that I find insightful:

“This election is about changing the parameters of what’s feasible and ending the choke hold of big money on our political system. I’ve known Hillary Clinton since she was 19 years old, and have nothing but respect for her. In my view, she’s the most qualified candidate for president of the political system we now have. But Bernie Sanders is the most qualified candidate to create the political system we should have, because he’s leading a political movement for change. The upcoming election isn’t about detailed policy proposals. It’s about power – whether those who have it will keep it, or whether average Americans will get some as well.”

Hillary has been saying that Bernie is an idealist who cannot possibly accomplish his goals, while she is the hard-nosed pragmatist who knows the system and how to get things done. Well… She’s right. She IS the system, so she should certainly know it by now. But the system doesn’t work. Politics doesn’t work anymore. The environment is in the toilet. Climate change is threatening the very survival of all life on earth. The top 20 richest Americans hold as much wealth as the bottom 50%. The entire established social contract is anachronistic and broken and leading us to destruction. As Hillary is suggesting, we may have very little chance of changing the fundamental workings of society in a way that might save us, but don’t we have to TRY at least?

Bernie photo

Hillary is way more presidential than Bernie. No doubt about it. She knows how to evade reporters’ questions and appear unperturbed under fire. Bernie doesn’t look like any president of the USA that I’ve ever seen, and that’s exactly what I like about him. He just tells the plain unvarnished truth as he sees it, and those pronouncements from him have not changed in 30 years. By contrast, Hillary’s positions seem to reverse with every shift in the breeze, according to what is politically expedient, whether you want to talk about the KXL Pipeline, gay marriage, foreign trade, or you name it. We cannot trust that her positions today will still be the same tomorrow, because they certainly don’t sound like what she was saying yesterday. How can anyone trust a leader like that?

I was already a big fan of Bernie for years before he announced his intention to run for the nomination. I remember writing to friends many months before he declared, that I wished he would run, and they indicated that they didn’t really know who he was. Almost nobody knew who he was, and a lot of people who did, considered him a joke. He started with terrific odds against him and has risen to tie Hillary in the Iowa polls and beat her handily in the NH polls. And he has done this without a political PAC or dark money or giant Wall Street contributions of any kind, but with very small donations from millions of Americans. This unlikely candidate… this frumpy, grumpy, gravel-voiced, bald-headed, unpolished Jewish social democrat who will not compromise the truth… has already proven that he can beat the odds with his unconventional tactics. If he can do that, then maybe… just maybe… he can also lead the masses in changing the system enough to give humanity a fighting chance at survival.

Bernie-Sanders-jpg

For me the choice is clear. I’m voting for Bernie’s idealism in the primaries. Obviously, if Hillary wins the nomination, I won’t have any choice but to vote for her in the general election, because turning over the nation and the world to a President Trump or Cruz would spell the end of all hope. But I’ll feel a whole lot better about our chances if we inaugurate Bernie as our next president, because I am confident that he will do everything in his power not to sell the masses to the highest bidder, and put all of his energy into moving us toward sanity and survival. If we can’t vote for that, then we’re in very big trouble. And besides… the majority of major polls are showing that Bernie would beat Trump and Cruz by a much wider margin than Hillary. Voting for Bernie in the primaries turns out to be the practical thing to do.

Let’s be practical and vote for the idealistic candidate — Bernie! — Peace, – Kevin

 

 

BERNIE OR HILLARY: WHAT DO THE HEAD AND THE HEART HAVE TO SAY?

By Paul M. Lewis

Next Monday, the 1st of February, 2016, we begin—and here, you choose how best to characterize it—either: 1) the democratic process of selecting a candidate from each party to run for the presidency; or 2) the giant circus act, including legions of clowns and endless pratfalls; or 3) all hell breaking loose. Also known, of course, as the Iowa caucuses. And soon after that, on Feb. 9th, we will get the results of the first actual primary voting, when New Hampshire holds its election.

I’ll leave it to another time to wonder about the sagacity and utility of the whole process of selecting candidates, of why two states with so few people and so little diversity get to set the stage for the debate (note that Iowa is 92% white, and New Hampshire is 94% white—hardly a reflection of America as a whole). More important and germane for the moment is the question of who the candidates actually are. But I also won’t bother—for now anyway—with the Republicans, as I consider them to be virtually a lost cause. Does it matter if Trump or Cruz wins in either of these places? The former is a blowhard of a buffoon, who touts overly simplistic answers to complex and weighty questions of policy and practice, while the latter presents himself as a rigid and doctrinaire authoritarian, with frighteningly xenophobic and jingoistic tendencies.

That leaves me with Hillary and Bernie to think about. And as a lifelong Democrat anyway, it’s only right that I do so. I will admit to having not paid as much attention to the contest as I should have, indeed, as much as I have done in years past. My partner and I have been preoccupied for months with matters of family, specifically with eldercare and its endless and enervating demands of what is best to do, how it should be paid for, and if what’s provided, in the end, really is sufficient. But this too is a topic for another time.

The question remains, am I for Hillary, or for Bernie? And how should I reply to the endless requests for money I’ve gotten on my email every day without fail from both the Clinton and the Sanders campaigns. So far, I have to admit, I haven’t donated a single dollar.

So, how to respond, especially when I fear that I haven’t done enough of my homework yet to feel as though I’ve fully plumbed the ins and outs of either of their policy positions? Of course, I know in a general way who is who, and what they more or less stand for. Hillary is the middle-of-the-road candidate, pragmatic and practical, who knows how to get things done, and who isn’t too afraid to crack a few heads along the way. While Bernie is more the ideologue, a guy who doesn’t shy away from calling himself a socialist, almost a dirty word in American politics—or at least so it has been up until now—and who stands for lots of things that I like, such as a single-payer healthcare system, the breakup of too-big-to-fail banks, free higher education, etc.

But Hillary poses a question about Bernie that is not irrelevant: if elected, would he be able to work within the system, especially if, as seems likely, at least one of the houses of Congress remains in Republican control? And if both are under GOP domination, he would be stymied on virtually all counts. Of course, the same question about ability to work with a Republican controlled Congress could be posed in regard to Hilary, as much as she apparently thinks she could do so, or at least that she would not be so utterly shut out by the Republicans as he (perhaps its own dubious and uncertain assumption).

To an extent, I’m beginning to feel as though this is coming down to a debate between the head and the heart. I have to admit that my own more pragmatic side leans a little bit toward Hillary. I keep hearing that nagging inner voice of reason, so-called anyway, saying things like: “Bernie would never be able to pull in that vital one-third of people in the general election, the Independents, who will ultimately decide the race. So why risk voting for him as a candidate and sending those middle-of-the-road voters running straight into the arms of Trump’s shallow and overly simplistic answers, to say nothing of his racism, or to Cruz’s totalitarian extremism?”

The other more idealistic, and dare I say more hopeful, side of me wonders why I shouldn’t vote for a candidate who finally embodies some of the values I have long cherished, but always thought too far outside of the mainstream of American politics. Isn’t this my one chance to do so, maybe my last and only opportunity to side with a guy who has the guts to say what needs to be said, and damn the consequences?

Not that even Bernie is without his flaws, mind you. His take on some issues related to race, for example, leave something to be desired. As the cogent and insightful commentator, Ta-Nehisi Coates, said recently writing for The Atlantic magazine: “Sanders’s basic approach is to ameliorate the effects of racism through broad, mostly class-based policies…This is the same ‘A rising tide lifts all boats’ thinking that has dominated Democratic anti-racist policy for a generation.” But it hasn’t worked, as anyone can see who looks at the still enormous disparity in economic opportunity between the races in this country. As Coates goes on to point out: “We now know that for every dollar of wealth white families have, black families have a nickel…We know that in a city like Chicago, the wealthiest black neighborhood has an incarceration rate many times worse than the poorest white neighborhood.” These are specifically racial, not just class, divisions, and Bernie has not addressed them. Neither has Clinton, it could well be argued, nor any other candidate in the race, for that matter. This is Bernie we’re speaking of, though, and haven’t we come to expect more of him?

But, in regard to Bernie, is it wise to think that the good ought to be the enemy of the perfect? Furthermore, should we even consider questions of pragmatism when it comes to choosing a candidate? If you don’t have somebody you can believe in, someone whom you can get excited about, someone you’re willing to work for, or at very least whose campaign you’re willing to open your wallet for, then what chance does he, or she, have against boisterous and bloviating bigots?

So, this is where I’m at for the moment. I get it that a lot rides on who wins the upcoming presidential race. So much is at stake, from questions of global climate change, to international policy as it relates to Iran, China, Russia, and the Middle East, to immigration, to healthcare, to the economy, and even potentially to new justices for the Supreme Court. More still could be added to this list, big questions having to do with race and class, education and employment, the use or abuse of public lands, and on and on.

So, do I follow my head or my heart? That really is the question. And I have to admit; I don’t know the answer yet. I love much of what Bernie stands for, and I at least like many of Hillary’s positions. But who could win, and who could best govern if they do win? For me, given our odd and dysfunctional primary system wherein the most populous state gets the last chance to vote for a candidate, it may well be a moot point. By the time we Californians cast our ballots on June 7th, it might all be settled anyway. Just in case, though, it’s probably time for me to try to sort this head-heart thing out once and for all. And as soon as I figure out how to do that, I’ll be sure to let you know.

 

HOW RICH DO YOU HAVE TO BE?

By Paul M. Lewis

Only some five or six years ago, it took close to 400 rich people to equal the wealth of one-half of the world’s population. And as astounding as this may in itself be, the numbers that register today go even beyond that. In 2016, the amount of riches held by just 62 individuals equals that of 3.5 billion people in the world combined.

The Gateses, the Buffets, the Slims, and the Kochs of the world are not just rich, they are so super-, mega-, ultra-rich that the money they have could—and to an extent does—bury much of the population of the globe. At these levels, the notion of wealth begins to blur a bit in the minds of most of us. We are no longer talking just about dollars and cents, that is, bills and coins, but instead we begin to enter into the realm of exotic financial tools that expand exponentially what we normally think of as money. For example, derivatives, monetary instruments that allow parties to create contracts between themselves for the purpose of benefiting from underlying assets or options such as futures, are worth far more than mere money, at least as we normally think of it.

The amount of simple hard cash in circulation in the world amounts to something on the order of about 5 trillion dollars. If we consider only that figure, these 62 super-rich men (it is mostly men, not surprisingly) own about 1.75 trillion dollars. However, if we move on to these other ways of valuing wealth in the world, what they are worth is far greater. It’s estimated that the derivatives market alone may be valued at close to 630 trillion dollars. No one knows exactly how much of this kind of wealth the mega-rich own, because it is often held in secret and in accounts that are closed to government scrutiny, and therefore to taxation. But we would probably not go too far afield in guessing that a very large percentage of derivative wealth is held by these same Gateses, Buffets, Slims, Kochs, and so on, and of course in the portfolios of multinational corporations like Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, Berkshire Hathaway, GE etc. Bill Gates alone, the richest individual man in the world, is said to be worth $77 billion. If we take the Koch brothers together (and we know they often act in tandem, at least politically), they are even richer, at a combined wealth of about $80 billion. And if we are talking dynasties, the Walton family of Wal-Mart fame, taken as a whole, is valued at well north of $140 billion.

What are we to make of this kind of wealth, and of the ever expanding, yawning chasm between the super-rich, the middle class, and the super-poor? Most people in the world believe that you get money by working. When I was a boy in the late 40’s and early 50’s, living in an even then dying industrial town in upstate New York, you attended high school, graduated, and then went to work in one of the local factories. My brother worked on an assembly line that turned out radiators for the Ford Company; one of my uncles worked in a local steel mill and another in an Army arsenal that happened to be located nearby as a toolmaker. My mother sold women’s lingerie in Pearl’s Department Store in Troy, New York. She came home with $35.00 a week, and my father, who worked in a sandpaper factory, took home $65.00 a week.

Even in those years, it was not easy to raise a family of three kids on a weekly income of one hundred dollars. But that was, and is, wealth compared to the poorest of the poor, who today subsist on $1.25 a day. Many such people cannot find what we might think of as actual jobs, but live instead on scavenging or begging. If you are lucky enough to have a bit of land, you scratch out a living for yourself and your family through subsistance farming, if the rains come on time, or in the hope that not too much rain comes, and if you can afford a bit of seed in order to plant a crop for next year.

When we consider these figures and the depth of poverty so many people live in, we often think of it in moral terms. And undoubtedly there is a kind of moral framework in which we ought to consider such disparities. Questions of justice and injustice spring to mind. Is it right for such enormities of wealth to be concentrated in 62 men, while billions of people barely have enough to buy a loaf of bread or a bowl of rice?

But as crucial as this viewpoint may be, we must also consider issues beyond justice and injustice. Questions related to the general economy and to politics also arise. When so much money is concentrated in so few people, there is that much less wealth available to invest in the lives of the have-nots (yes, in this sense, it is a kind of a zero sum game). People without resources cannot buy things they need; they cannot purchase food and clothing for themselves, or afford a clean and decent place to live, to say nothing of needed medical attention and an education so that their children will have a chance at a better life than they have had. As such, the cycle of poverty repeats itself endlessly, and the poor not only remain poor, but they become more and more desperate. Additionally, this lack of buying power on the part of so many actually starves the market itself; when sellers are no longer able to move their wares, they stop buying from suppliers, and a downward spiral begins to set in.

Neither do desperate people make for a stable social order. Why should they? Why try to participate in a political system that appears to exclude you, that criminalizes you for being poor, or that ostracizes you from obtaining the bare necessities of life? And while factors like these do not fully explain dissident terrorist groups such as ISIS, they do go a long way toward helping us understand why young men and women feel they have nothing to lose, why they feel hopeless and enraged, and why they may be prone to follow authoritarian demagogues who promise ascendency in this world and reward in the next, if only they will believe, join up, and follow proper orders.

Although the world-wide stock markets and related money markets, where the real wealth is made, have taken a bit of a beating of late, even so they have risen enormously over the last 5 to 6 years. In a similar vein, CEO compensation has increased by more than 40% during that same period of time, while the wages of every day working people have remained either flat, or actually fallen, in real dollars. “The poor,” as one Catholic priest once told me many years ago, “we shall always have with us.”

He was not wrong. There will always be a disparity between people and how much money they have. To a large extent, such disparities are fueled by things like family wealth (those who come from money have a far greater chance of making money), as well as race, class, and educational levels. For better or for worse, these are things we all live with. But if we do not find some way of better disseminating what might be called “wealth opportunity,” if not actual wealth, if we do not begin to grapple with providing people with the chance to earn a living that not only gives them daily necessities, but one they can take some pride in as well, then we are dooming our world to ever increasing instability, insecurity, and terrorism.

In the end, an economy in which less than 1% of the population owns half of the world’s wealth is not merely unfair and unjust, it is also a highly dangerous world for all of us to live in.