Gina Harris's Blog, page 12

Going deeper

Last week I wrote about feeling that I needed to write letters to more companies:

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2025/02/check-in-with-yourself.html 

It surprised me. Letting companies know that they had lost my business for political reasons felt morally important, but I doubted that it would be that effective.

I assumed that it would be a way of clarifying my thoughts or maybe reinforcing my assertiveness, which is fine. I didn't expect much beyond that.

As I do it, it seems to be important in two different areas.

One is just a matter of better understanding.

To figure out which additional companies to write to, I took another look at the previous lists. These related to companies contributing to the inauguration and companies going against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

For entities backing down from DEI, some of them are government entities. While it should seem shocking that Public Broadcasting Services and the Smithsonian would back down, they may not really have an choice not to. 

That doesn't necessarily mean not communicating, but is there a different way to do it? Can it be understanding and encouraging?

Also on that list is the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There are strong indications that white supremacists have been infiltrating the FBI as well as local police forces, so I don't doubt at all that there are people there who are into all the white supremacy they can get.

They have also investigated white supremacists and sometimes been helpful.

Is there something to say? Would it draw unnecessary surveillance? I don't know, but I will think about it.

Hey look! An article about the FBI investigating white supremacists infiltrating law enforcement on PBS.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement   

It's older, but talk about convergence!

In addition, looking at the donations to Trump's inauguration, the most common amount was $1 million, sometimes $1 million each from the company and from the CEO. However, there are other companies that donated $250,000, where it seems likely that they could have easily donated the full million. Is that a passive aggressive insult? Something resented but that feels necessary to avoid retribution?

I don't know that I can find clear answers, but I am clearly going to need to be doing more searching and trying to understand.

It fits in my wheelhouse.

The other thing is that I have been feeling that I need to post the letters I write. 

Maybe that relates to the article I mentioned Tuesday, about Amazon sales and stocks falling, but them attributing it to shoppers finding lower prices elsewhere. What if it is more boycotting but they don't know? Then more people need to tell them.

Which means I want to try and encourage more people to do so. If capitalism is what we're doing, then corporate decisions have consequences. The people can decide to punish corporations doing bad things.

The way that feels right to do this at this time is posting a letter on Facebook daily until I am done. I will start next week. 

It may give other people ideas. It will probably evolve as I do it more.

That's been the pattern.

Related posts:

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2025/03/perspective.html  

Valuing people

This is a combination of three things, so may be disjointed.

One is that -- of course -- while Republicans are dismantling the government, leftists are criticizing Democrats. The criticism is for only wearing pink and holding signs during Trump's address, even though they were asked to do that and there are people made at them for that too

While it is possible that the people who requested those actions are not the same people criticizing them, the trend of always having more to say about Democrats than Republicans holds. 

(Also, it's weird that Al Green got expelled when Joe Wilson didn't. Almost like there is some kind of double standard.)

I know I say this all the time, but if all you have is criticism and you are directing it in the safest possible direction, I remain unimpressed and uninspired, just irritated.

You can't aggravate people into agreeing with you. Even if that could work, if that resulted in a bunch of people who wanted the same things but did not have any experience in constructing them, that's still not very useful. It's better than glee in wanton destruction, but not enough.

Back to thinking about boycotts, I know I have some writing coming up about withdrawing somewhat from capitalism. Something that makes me remember goes back to the mid-90s, though I don't know that things would be any better today.

One of my coworkers was in this group that was bartering services. She offered house cleaning, and she wanted a massage. There was a masseur in the group, but he thought his service was more valuable than hers. He thought she should clean the house three times for his one massage.

I don't know what current house cleaning rates are. A cleaning might cost more than a massage, but the cleaning almost certainly takes longer. Obviously, you can clean your own house in a way that you cannot give yourself a massage, but given his demands, he obviously was not interested in doing so. That should give it some value right there.

I promise you that while you may not need certification and licensing to clean houses they way you do for massage, it is not unskilled labor, especially if you want your house to actually be clean.

As it is, my mother did clean houses. She charged low rates for many years, and her clients were fine with that. Only one of them ever thought of giving her a raise over a ten year period. They weren't bad people, but they were satisfied with the service they were getting and the rate they were paying; why change? Except that as people who were better off financially they had more power. It also made them far less likely to think about what it was like to not have that power.

Finally, yesterday I read an old conference talk, "Until Seventy Times Seven" by Elder Lynn G, Robbins, April 2018.

He mentioned a physics professor he had at Brigham Young University, Jae Ballif:

After finishing each unit of the course, he would administer an exam. If a student received a C and wanted a better grade, Professor Ballif would allow the student to take a modified exam covering the same material. If the student received a B on the second attempt and was still unsatisfied, he or she could take the test a third time and a fourth, and so on. By allowing me numerous second chances, he helped me excel and finally earn an A in his class.

He wanted to be on the side of the students.

That was very interesting to me for two reasons. 

In my studies now, part of instructional design is seeing what is needed for the students to learn. If the schedule is the same for everyone, but their learning pace is different, you will have students who don't really learn the concepts and just get further and further behind.

(Personally, I went through pre-Calculus, but it did not go through me.)

I think about it more because when you have conservatives trying to take over the school boards, one of the things that really offends them is that students can complete assignments late and re-take tests and still get credit, as if re-taking tests and catching up from behind is not more work.  

While I haven't known most of the candidates personally, I do know one of the voters who was very angered by that. She went to BYU.

It happened at your own school, lady! 

Part of her frustration was that it bothers her that less attention is given to her "gifted" daughter -- like sometimes she gets a good grade but there are no comments to tell her why it is good. Then these kids who aren't even on schedule still get to pass, possibly at a rate that means that they actually learn the content rather than never catching up.

That sounds like a failure of compassion, and it is, but it is also something that is supported by a scarcity mindset. There is competition for resources. If someone is going to lose it has to be these other kids. If they are more likely to come from poorer households, and if by complete coincidence they happen to have darker skin, well... this is a big part of DEI being the current enemy.

I also agree on the importance of positive feedback, but if we do not give teachers endless resources then it may be more important for them to focus on helping the students who are not up to speed yet get there, rather than stroking the ego of the parents of the kids who are at the head of the class.

(I could spend a lot more time on gifted programs, but this is already a long post.)

What I do know is that as long as we prioritize the ability to feel superior and dominate, in our own ways we are not that different from Trump.

Also, as long as I am being repetitive...

DOMINATOR CULTURE! 

Perspective

Much as expected, the economic blackout Friday did not have much impact. In fact, Forbes reports that their sales numbers Friday grew:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kirimasters/2025/03/02/amazon-defies-economic-blackout-as-sales-climb-during-boycott/

Yes, I suspect some MAGA driven people did in fact shop extra that day.

Before you get too discouraged, there is another trend happening:

https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/amazon-shares-tumble-almost-8-frankfurt-2024-08-02/ 

Overall, Amazon sales are declining. As a result, their stock is losing value.

The article attributes it to consumers choosing lower prices, but I question that. If you do a comparison, Amazon frequently has the lowest prices.

I think there might be more people deciding not to shop at Amazon at all. That's been our household strategy.

The thing that is missing is that I haven't sent that letter yet. If we are boycotting Amazon because of Bezos' manipulation of The Washington Post, they should know that.

If many people are boycotting because of that -- or because of other political machinations or anti-union practices or so many logical reasons -- they should know that.

I know I keep going back to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, but it was such a clear example. 

Yes, they stopped riding the buses, and that had an economic impact. However, there was also clear communication with the bus company and clear demands about what would end the boycott.

There was also a civil suit, Browder v. Gayle, that went all the way up to the Supreme Court, ultimately confirming that the law of the land was that segregation on public transportation was unconstitutional. 

Often Brown v. Board of Education is seen as the case overturning Plessy v. Ferguson, but that Plessy was related to public transportation. 

(Brown was two years earlier, and the law was relevant, but did not change the transportation practices in many places in the South, clearly.)

Also, fairly frequently now people will mention Claudette Colvin when talking about the boycott and Rosa Parks; what may not get mentioned is that Colvin was one of the plaintiffs in Browder.

The point is that making change requires cooperation and patience and perspective on those needs as work comes from many different directions over time. Something quick and symbolic may briefly give you a good feeling, but is not likely to effect change.

Protests get attention, but they need to be backed with other pressures. 

That being said, there are proclamations being made that are clearly unconstitutional regarding right to protest. If you get arrested for protesting or wearing a mask while doing so, that could create grounds for a court case that could prove valuable as part of the overall effort.

I wish we had a better Supreme Court, but that's just one part of a much larger problem.

If it has not become obvious yet, a lot of these posts are really more about getting your head in the right space than about the specific actions you take. The better your understanding, the easier it should be to have clarity on what you can and should do. 

Related posts: 

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2025/02/right-action.html 

Ghosts, especially hungry ones

Ghosts was kind of where it got started, and that's an obvious one, right?

The most obviously belonging one was When the Ghost Screams: True Stories of Victims Who Haunt by Leslie Rule.

Rule covers several haunted places with short accounts. Often there are not many details, and sometimes that seems to motivate some overwriting. The stories are still pretty interesting, they are told with empathy, and I have seen compensating for a lack of details by overwriting done much worse (most recently in J.B. Fisher's Echo of Distant Water). 

Others were part of other reading lists, but hey, there's "ghost" in the title; let's go for it!

Sadly, most of my complaints are here. 

Again, sometimes you think you have some complaints, but then you find something much worse.

In The Ghost Map by Steven Johnson -- from my pathology list -- it is a really great book, but then in the epilogue he starts wandering all over the place, not sticking the landing. 

However, in Ghosts of Vesuvius by Charles Pellegrino -- from my Italy list -- he is wandering around all over the place, finding lots of good information but also bringing in lots of things that seem unrelated and pointless, except maybe you need to know he has been in submarines and knows James Cameron. That did not make the book better.

So I can recommend The Ghost Map, though maybe skipping the epilogue. I cannot recommend Ghosts of Vesuvius.

Now, even if it is not a traditional ghost story, the inclusion of "ghost" in the title probably indicates that there is something about death or haunting. Those two featured massive death from cholera in London and even more massive death from volcanic eruption in Pompeii and Herculaneum.

Sometimes just two deaths is enough. The death of his daughter and then his wife sends Neil Peart on the road by motorcycle in Ghost Rider. 

I am always interested in the subject of grief, but this came from a list of rock memoirs where I decided to read six and have currently gotten through four of them.

As it is, even though grief is the motivation for the trip, the book is really more travelogue, especially with what he ate and drank and what the weather was like, and how much he looks down on the other travelers, which I did not love. 

I know he eventually remarried and had another child before dying; I am glad for the healing he had. I am not sure that there is really insight other than that keeping yourself busy could be good. 

I found more insight with similar loss in Joan Didion's The Year of Magical Thinking, but that could also be personality.

While I was at it, I checked out Ghost Rider Epic Collection: Vol 1 Hell on Wheels I had plans to read other books in the series, but I found it pretty terrible. I know the movie gets razzed a lot, and maybe it was the adaptation, but it could be the material.

Bad choices can drive drama and that's important for ongoing series, but do all of the choices have to be so stupid? 

There was one other comic that came up: Hungry Ghost by Victoria Ying. 

It was already mentioned as part of the graphic novel reading for last Asian American Heritage Month:

https://sporkful.blogspot.com/2024/08/graphic-novels-for-apahm-2024.html

I saw it mentioned in an article and thought it looked interesting. When I looked it up in the library there were some other results that I had to check out. 

The Hungry Ghost of Rue Orleans by Mary Quattlebaum and Patricia Castelao

Bob's Hungry Ghost by Geneviève Côté 

The Hungry Ghost by H.S. Norup

Technically these are all for younger readers, with the first two being children's books and Norup's book being for middle grades.

Bob's Hungry Ghost is the cuter of the two children's books, though both are fine and neither is too scary. Ultimately both are about adjusting to new situations, with initial reactions consisting of either eating everything or sulking (but in a restaurant). 

Emotional regulation is important.

For the older books, the hunger is a little less benign. 

In Ying's work, Valerie has an eating disorder that is tightly bound to her mother, but it doesn't really make the mother a villain either. There is a journey to hard realizations. There is a death -- of Valerie's father -- making some things harder, but all of the haunting comes from the living.

Norup's book has an actual ghost. Fortunately, Freja -- recently arriving in Singapore from Denmark -- finds people who can tell her more about ghosts, including that such a young ghost will more likely be hungry from having missed out on so much in life. As many mysteries as there are about this ghost's life and death, Freja has mysteries of her own, and grief that she still has to face.

Those two were completely different books, but both worked for what they were.

Check in with yourself

I have been thinking about this post for a few reasons.

One is that I keep referring to your intuition or inspiration or what works for you in posts, but that does not always come easily. We are given many reasons to doubt ourselves. 

When you do know yourself -- understanding your weaknesses but also believing in what you do and achieving comfort with your own combination of integrity and imperfection -- that's a beautiful thing.

In addition, I keep getting new thoughts on something I am doing, getting more insight along the way.

Not completely unconnected, I found that I was not doing enough in one of the potential action items I have been blogging and posting.

The "potential" is right there. Even though they were all reasonably small and achievable things, it would still be completely understandable that no one would have to do all of them, including me. Plus, for me, a lot of them were things that I was already pretty good about.

I need to write to more businesses. 

I had thought that notifying Amazon and Google that I would not be using them anymore and a thank you letter to Costco would be enough.

I started feeling that I needed to go back and recheck those lists and write to more businesses. Then I could start learning ASL.

Well, if that's what I should do, then that's what I'm going to do.

Thinking about these, a lot of them circle back. The first one was thinking about what you want; this last one is thinking about what you want to (or feel you should) do.

Thinking about someone you are glad to have in your life and finding something good about a difficult person... those are not completely unrelated, though the differences are important.

Plus, that thinking about someone mentioned maybe taking them soup; that totally goes with the service one.

That's how we do it. We take the information we have, look deeper and choose action, and then we repeat that process as we learn and experience more. 

I am learning constantly. I suspect I could have phrased Tuesday's better by the way some people responded. Even though Julie inspired me yesterday, I discouraged her. I didn't mean to, and I am still participating in the boycott, but what she immediately heard was that nothing works.

No, but most of it doesn't work easily.

In the immediate future, what this seems to mean for me is that tomorrow while I am not buying anything, I will also be writing letters to businesses I will not patronize anymore, or who have disappointed me, or to whom I have something to say.

Beyond that is figuring out what kind of posts are happening in March. The February ones were all fairly simple; is it time to get more complicated?

(Plus start learning ASL.)

If you are still with me, maybe it makes sense to look over the list and see if there is something next there. 

Potential action items:

Think about what you want.Think about someone whom you are glad to have in your life and tell them.Get acquainted with your local leadership and bookmark their pages.Write to a company you use about their policies.Learn sign language.Obtain and wear KN95 masks.Pick something you find interesting and learn more about it.Locate and acknowledge a good quality of someone you find difficult.Do something for someone.Pause before you post.Think about a time when you failed but could live with it.

Finally (at least for February), choose the next action that you will take. 

Related posts:

https://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2025/02/one-story.html

Right action?

If yesterday's post was about thinking before you post, today is about thinking before you act.

It is not what I initially planned on posting, but there was a brief discussion this morning about the proposed buying blackout on Friday. Julie had read a post about it potentially hurting small businesses and questioning whether it really makes a difference.

For me personally, I am sure I will not be buying anything Friday; that's usually a pretty safe bet. 

A lot of the information I have seen about the proposed blackout is focusing on large companies that have supported Trump or rolled back their DEI efforts. I have seen Amazon, Target, and Wal-Mart mentioned, as well as Best Buy and a more general prohibition against fast food and using credit cards.

The post Julie read pointed out that if you do your normal shopping on Thursday or Saturday, not doing it on Friday won't be effective.

If everyone in the United States truly did not shop on Friday, I do believe companies would notice that. I am also sure that's not going to happen.

Some people will intend to, but forget about it or realize they need something or get hungry and only have time for a drive-through. 

There will be people who haven't heard about it, or who did hear but didn't think it would be effective.

Also, there are lots of Trump supporters and DEI haters. Some of them are passionate enough that they might drop extra bucks at the Target just to show whose side they are on.

This is not me encouraging you to buy anything or discouraging you from participating in activism, 

It is a reminder that change isn't particularly easy. 

This current situation was years in the making. 

Increasing concentration of wealth has made it harder to effectively exert economic pressure and white fragility has been weaponized. The roots of that have been in our country for a long time, but if we look at Lee Atwater's Southern strategy and Reagan's tax cuts and firing of air traffic controllers, we have been heading this way for over forty years.

If there is something easy you can do, that's great, but expect more hard things.

Wonderfully, many of these changes may include things that are ultimately better, more rewarding, less expensive, and healthier.

You should still expect a few hiccups along the way.

Personally, part of my ability to maintain a positive attitude has been accepting the inevitability of failure. Not always, but inevitably sometimes. 

Then I keep trying and sometimes succeeding. 

Being realistic and still caring is a key combination... something about serenity, courage, and wisdom.

Potential action item: Think about a time when you failed but could live with it. 

Wrong question, wrong answer

This is in response to a post people are sharing with a plan attributed to Warren Buffett:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hometown-buffett/ 

I am not saying that Buffett didn't say it. Context is important.

This was essentially a quip made by Buffett when asked about a debt ceiling conflict and potential government shutdown back in 2011. 

People are angry at many things and Buffett is perceived to be good with money, so I get the impulse to share it. I also found the share really annoying.

The Snopes article mentions an encouragement to share (twenty times in the posts I was seeing) which may be part of why it was getting so much traction. 

Now consider the guilt trip of those "most-people-won't-share-will-you" or "only-true-patriots-will-share" posts... does anyone really miss chain letters where you were promised good or bad luck? Why are we still doing this?

I admit I initially thought it was made up. False pairings of people and quotes is pretty common on the internet. I didn't think it seemed likely because generally the smartest financial people don't worry too much about deficits and debts on the government side.

As a quip it makes sense, especially in the context of a debt ceiling showdown. 

Additional context we should remember is that Republicans harp on debt and deficits because they want an excuse to not help people. Republicans never find it a reason to cut defense spending. W's response to inheriting a balanced budget from Clinton was tax cuts for the rich. Debt ceiling showdowns started after that. So, let's remember our history here.

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/ 

As it is, theoretically any deficit is being eliminated right now by the cost-cutting measures of the DOGE team. 

Any thinking person knows that the chaos being caused by these thoughtless and destructive cuts will lead to very expensive harm and needs where it is uncertain how they will be met. Regardless, I feel pretty comfortable saying that right now executive overreach is a far more pressing issue than congressional gridlock. I wish there was more opportunity and will for congressional resistance, but that's another story.

Let's just say that congressional gridlock was the issue; there have certainly been times when it was.

Would locking out all the bums be the answer? Regardless of how anyone voted or what legislation they produced? 

Under current circumstances, that will probably get you a lot more Trump supporters. There are so many more of them, and voter enfranchisement has taken so many hits. 

Think about some of the remarkably unqualified people that have been elected in recent cycles; is it really possible to believe that just eliminating every sitting member -- regardless of record or affiliation -- is going to result in a better configuration?

No! It is going to take organization. It is going to take people paying attention to how elections have impact and making choices that will benefit all of us.  

Sharing jokes can be great, but Buffett's quip was not shared as a joke. It was shared as an action item. It's purpose was to tap into a real anger and frustration, but it does so in a counterproductive way.

It may not seem like it matters that much, but I'm going to keep harping on this exhaustion thing. People only have so much energy; don't take up their time with junk.

Republican talking points tend to be things that make you go "Yeah!" not "Hmm. That idea has possibilities."

We don't need more thoughtless reactionaries. I am positive about that.

Potential action item: Pause before you post.

Spooky Season: The Movies

Sometimes -- usually because I think about two books with a connecting word in the titles -- I may base a reading list on that.

That's where the "daughters" reading list comes from. The "trauma" one involved looking up "grief" too, though that list has some related by content but not title words. 

There are various ways books get connected in my mind, but that is one of them.

Last year I started thinking about Halloween, which is pretty normal for me. There were books that related, but also books that had "ghost" or "witch" in the title, whether it was relevant or not. 

Actually, there were some "daughter" books that fit into it too.

I decided reading those books in October was a great idea; next year I would do all the books with "monster" in the title. 

Time happened; I have finally finished the ghost, witch, and monster books and am ready to start writing!

I have written about trying to watch a different Halloween movie each year, so that may be the easiest entry point.

Of course, two years means two movies. 

For 2023 I watched Death Becomes Her (1992), and then The Lost Boys (1987) for 2024.

Well, The Lost Boys was pretty familiar. I had read the novelization many times and seen the play, but there are always things that are different when you are actually watching it. 

The novel didn't make it clear how cowardly the Frog brothers were. I mean, I get that it would be scary, but that plus their eagerness to put down Laddie did not reflect well on them. 

I expected Death Becomes Her to be funnier, but the humor there was quite cynical. I did appreciate Bruce Willis' arc.

This would not be much of a post, except two of the books relate at least partially to movies: 

Monsters in America: Our Historical Obsession with the Hideous and the Haunting by W. Scott Poole

Monster Theory: Reading Culture, edited by Jeffrey Jerome Cohen

I was initially too hard on Poole. I disagreed with how he was referencing Ann Rule, I thought he was missing some relevant points for themes he chose, and the conclusion ended up being very weak.

However, as someone who does not like horror, he made me seriously consider watching at least a couple of horror movies based on what he said about them.

If I do, they will be Candyman (1992) and The People Under the Stairs (1991). No promises. 

I am committed at some point to watching The Host and Parasite, for Bong Joon Ho. That's because I believe they have greater points, the same reason that I watched Get Out and Us for Jordan Peele.

Part of the credit I have to give Poole is that he made those movies seem relevant and meaningful.

The other credit I have to give him is that while there were times when I found his book frustrating, I did not find it boring and irritating, a big problem with the Monster Theory book.

When I was searching for it at the library I saw another "Monster Theory" book. I thought maybe I should check that out too. Maybe it would be interesting.

Maybe it is interesting, but I will have to read a lot more books before I am ready to gamble on that.

I suppose one of the keys would be seeing if there are similar authors. 

There was one pretty interesting article on Icelandic revenants by William Sayers and a very well-written article on "Vampire Culture" by Frank Grady, but it was a really long slog to get there. Both of those were in the last section, though I guess that is better than starting out great and then everything going downhill.

One of the really interesting things about Grady's article was that it made me think that Anne Rice stole from Michael Talbot's The Delicate Dependency. Grady didn't say that; some things just sounded very familiar.

Interview With the Vampire was written before The Delicate Dependency, but it sounds like the familiar parts Grady mentioned were from later novels by Rice that came after Talbot. I think that's interesting, but not interesting enough to read her novels.

At least not this year.

Help someone

I have previously referenced seeing online behavior from Trumpers that is very antisocial.

This includes putting laughing emojis on stories of abuse, swarming over positive stories with contradictions (Portland is completely burned down!), and attacking any statement from a Democrat leader with accusations of lies and corruption.

(The last part is also pretty leftist, if we are still tracking similarities.)

Previously when I have mentioned it, that has been more because of the lack of information that goes into it or the hypocrisy; if you are happy about "King" Trump, you can't have cared about the constitution that much, and not only is Portland not burned to the ground but the people asserting it the most are far from here and wouldn't really know.

The other thing that has occurred to me is that your life has to feel really empty to do that.

When the masking questions and comments came in, I did have to spend some extra time answering and administering and deciding how to handle things that had a surface friendliness. 

I also took pauses in that because I was making dinner or hanging out with my family or reading. I am not always online.

When I am online, of course I get caught up into doom-scrolling or watching videos or playing Solitaire sometimes. For the most part there is intentional use of time for homework or friendship or things that interest me.

There is too much in my life to get solely caught up in cheering on my (corrupt and hateful) team. I really don't have the time. 

Maybe that's reversed; maybe because I don't have the time I can't get too caught up in some things. 

I am frequently dismayed by how quickly time passes and how long some things take to get done, but there appears to be an upside. I can't remember the last time I was bored.

I was thinking of that issue; what can you do if your life seems empty and meaningless? 

What if you don't like yourself enough, so you need to glom onto someone more powerful for satisfaction?

The obvious answer is service to others. Then you have purpose. Then you are doing something.

That isn't just rewarding; it's empowering.

Thinking about that doom-scrolling, it is so easy to feel angry and hopeless, but whom does that serve?

I will be posting about this more in the Sunday blog, but I have a strong desire to fix everything so that everyone is happy and comfortable.

That is completely beyond my power. 

I can make someone's day easier. 

I can do something.

There are so many options.

Lately things I think about more include homelessness and the elderly. Yes, I have been thinking about those as separate issues, but I recently watched a documentary, No Place to Grow Old, and you can combine those concerns too.

https://www.noplacetogrowold.com/ 

If I look at Blanchet House, I can find continuing volunteer opportunities, ways to contribute one-time, and opportunities for different kinds of donations.

https://blanchethouse.org/

If I wanted a similar focus but more religious, I could find opportunities through Union Gospel Mission:

https://ugmportland.org/ 

If I wanted to search in my area, I could enter my zip code into https://www.justserve.org/.

It was through a one-time project found there that I have been exposed to opportunities to help with foster children:

https://everychildoregon.org/ 

There are so many options. With most, not only are you helping and taking action, but you are also finding other people who are committed to helping. 

That can make it easier to feel hopeful.

You don't have to complicate it. Maybe this weekend you will just take someone cookies, or cook a double portion of dinner and take it to someone, or organize a coat drive or become a tutor.

It is possible to help.

Potential action item: Do something for someone.

Credit someone

This week is really about avoiding becoming a Trumper. (Or possibly a disgruntled Leftist. There are similarities.)

You have probably noticed the ignorance and malice. There are some other, less obvious factors, like the refusal to acknowledge that someone on the other side might have a conscience or be right about something.

You can love someone and know when they are wrong. You can find someone really annoying but know that they are right (that could be part of what made them so annoying).

In times like these, the other side is so cartoonishly awful that it becomes harder to see their full humanity. It is still very important.

In what I believe will be the only good thing that I will ever have the ability to say about Trump, I think eliminating pennies and even nickels can be fine.

https://www.thenewstribune.com/money/get-rid-of-pennies/

I want to add all of these caveats, like that idea came from someone else, but it is actually practical; credit where credit is due.

I don't think that one is going to come up much, but there are others that are more important.

One thing that is painful about my father is that when I try and find good memories, I keep finding things that happened because of him, but for which he wasn't present, or where he didn't play a strong role, or where it was something that wasn't even that bad but there were hints of problems that would come.

It is frustrating for someone that I love and who played such a large role in my life.

Perhaps it is more helpful that I can also see reasons why it was easy for him to be that way. I can find compassion for him.

There is a lot of emotion involved for family, and there is a lot of everything with this administration; it may be easier to start with smaller issues.

Maybe there was a coworker whom you didn't really like, but they were a good worker. 

Maybe there was a teacher who gave you a hard time, but they also showed you what you could do.

Maybe there was a really grumpy basketball coach who also really cared.

Maybe there was a governor who did not govern well, but the prior work he did previously on health plans was really valuable.

Maybe a president who was terrible nonetheless met a crisis with soberness and dignity, which you would think is the least anyone could do, but we have seen someone do less now.

This is not in any way suggesting a tolerance for abuse; you can love someone and distance yourself too.

The point is that when you are looking at a policy or idea or conversation, your analysis is not determined by your feelings for the person.

I like you, but this is a terrible plan.I do not like you, but you are right.  Many points between and betwixt and scattered all over the map.

The point of it is to not be hopelessly stuck in a partisan battle, but there are other advantages too.

Love that requires not admitting the other person's weakness is a fragile love. When you know a person's flaws and still love them, it is stronger.

Plus, you will of course have your own flaws and times when you are wrong.

Potential action item: Locate and acknowledge a good quality of someone you find difficult.