Where Relocation Begins

 

     We decided on a small-ish apartment in downtown Bellingham on State Street. The rent is nearly half of what we would have been paying if we had stayed in Seattle. 

     Perhaps the strangest part of this dislocation/relocation is a socially sanctioned mechanism called EDRA, created by the Seattle city council in 2022. It stands for Economic Displacement Relocation Assistance. 

     What it amounts to is that we were paid by the city via our landlord to leave Seattle. It has been determined by the powers-that-be that we should be paid for the anguish and disruption this has caused us---to the tune of $7,000. (I guess they figured that a monthly rent times three would cover the majority of costs.)

     But let me tell you, after living and rooting myself in a city for 42 years, I no longer believe there is any amount of money that adequately recompenses my husband and I for the loss of proximity to our friends and family---the most cherished people in our lives. 

     Such is the world we live in, that every event must, at some point, be related to a dollar figure. It is how we have all been taught to think. And make no mistake about it----

     THIS HUMAN THINKS IT SUCKS. 

     Let's face it. At heart I am simply not a capitalist. There you have it. 

     There may be a happy ending to this story, but that has yet to be determined.

Housing Crisis Hits Home in Unexpected Ways

     

              SURPRISE! I'M BAAAAAACK! Sorry, no more craft cocktails, no more face masks. But you could say the masks are coming OFF! 

               What follows is the story of our search for housing that fits our needs and budget. It has been a rude wake-up to the reality of the housing crisis. Of course, it is only a crisis if you are the one living through the process of dealing with it. Those already making payments on mortgages with rates below 6% already have that well behind them. But those days are long gone.

                In nine years of living in our apartment we have seen the rent double. A couple years earlier, we knew the time was coming when we’d have to start looking for other places to live. In August 2022 we made three consecutive offers on apartments at the same condominium association where some friends of ours live. It would have been great to be so close. Someone else always got the nod. We decided to give that effort a rest.

                My husband was still working and we had some time to think about it. By December the next year with employment suddenly ended, we had to reignite the work of finding a new place to live. The latest rent increase was going to be 20%, and to buy ourselves some time we extended the lease to June 2024. We had never had a difficult time finding another place to live, but 2024 is a very different year.

                Now that we were on the cusp of retirement, we decided to cast a net wider than the Seattle area. We looked at the offerings from the north end of suburban Seattle to Bellingham. (That included Everett, Mt Vernon, La Conner, etc.) The PNW feels like home to us since we’ve been in Seattle for 42 years. I focused the scope of my search along the I-5 corridor. I looked at senior housing, and places offering the infamous LIHTC program. More on that later.

                In previous years we had considered Bellingham as a good choice for relocation when the time was right. As I scoured the offerings across all types of housing, I learned first-hand about the limitations of what is available under the rubric of “affordable housing.” For example, I was informed by Whatcom county housing authority:

                Unfortunately, as a married couple, your household is only eligible for our 1-bedroom waitlists which I suspect is why you were rejected.  When a 1-bedroom waitlist opens, you will have to log back in to your online portal account and resubmit your application to each waitlist while it is open.

                I couldn’t let this go, so I asked again to make sure I understood the basis of their reasoning.

                Recently, we put in an application on an open waitlist but were rejected because we were requesting a two-bedroom apartment. I just want to clarify this point. Is it true that HUD will not allow a married couple/household to be eligible for a two-bedroom apartment? Is that true for every property that uses your program?

                This is correct; a married couple according to our policy would be allocated at the most a 1 bedroom voucher or unit as determined by the program applied for. Should there be a medical need for an extra bedroom we of course can work with you to verify this and accommodate as needed, this would apply to all of our programs administered.

                In fact, according to HUD rules, a married couple is considered “over housed” if they were to be granted a two bedroom apartment. (I wonder if snoring is considered a medical need for another bedroom. ?  😂 )

                I lurched forward in my quest and checked in with a local Seattle community land trust. It offers a model for housing that I have often admired. But wait, not so fast.

                They had a townhome available for purchase at an amount I felt we could afford. We offered them a 36% down payment in order that our monthly payments on a mortgage would more likely be within our means. They wanted eligible households to have an annual income of at least $69,000. I was hoping that with a larger down payment we could offset that to accommodate our reduced income. We technically had enough funds to purchase it outright. But they were adamant about their requirements and rejected our application. I have to say that was a shock. We had to prove possession of every penny we owned. They would have seen that even with reduced income from paychecks, we had enough access to cash to make it work. Apparently, they didn’t think so. This is when my head explodes if I think too much about this particular scenario. We suspected that we didn’t fit their criteria for reasons having nothing to do with sources of money. Maybe two people together don’t qualify as a family.

            Getting shagged by SHAG

                The last straw was when we got on a waiting list for an apartment in Bothell at a SHAG location called Boulevard Place. SHAG = sustainable housing for ageless generations. Cute, huh? We were told in December of last year that it could take up to six months for an apartment to become available. That is, within the tax credit program reserved for about twenty percent of their units. Then in March there was an opening and we began the lengthy paperwork process once again for the LIHTC program. This stands for Low Income Housing Tax Credit. It is administered by the Washington Housing Finance Commission. And as you can imagine, its rules are stringent.

                We were confident that our situation would clearly fit within their stipulations for being below 60% of AMI (area median income). I work part-time and my husband’s income from unemployment for the allotted six months would not put us over the limit. We presented our documents in-person and were soon told that we made too much money. The first words out of my mouth were:

                “That’s not possible.”

                Weak justifications ensued. But what we soon came to understand, much to our disbelief, was this: When an unemployment claim is opened, it is considered as such for a year. Even though the payments to the recipient stop at the end of six months, the claim lingers in an “open” status. So the idea is that there could be circumstances that cause funding or job acquisition to occur.

                This is how it was put to us:

                The guidelines of the LIHTC program indicate we are to calculate 52 weeks of unemployment if the individual is currently receiving unemployment benefits, which he appears to be based on the letter he provided from the ESD.  An unemployment claim is considered open for an entire year (52 weeks) even though benefits are only paid for 26 weeks.

We had a very similar situation recently and I confirmed with WSHFC (the monitoring agency) that we are to still to include the entire 52 weeks of benefits.

I know this is hard for our applicants to understand but it is the rule under the LIHTC program.

If they do not meet the qualifications with including 52 weeks of unemployment, then they are not eligible for a tax credit unit.

                We were told we could consider a market rate apartment. We said our good-byes.

            Bellingham or bust

                No more would we consult the charts for income limit restrictions at various points along the spectrum of AMI. We would have to work within market rates and hope for the best. We looked online. We set up appointments. We spent a couple days in Bellingham and did a few walk-throughs. And as the fates twisted, we found ourselves juggling two offers! We’ve already said yes to one, but we will go back and look at the other before deciding where to land.

                The story is not over yet, but ….

                Wait for the next installment.

**   On another topic: If you review previous posts, you will notice grey boxes where once I had links to the books I mentioned on Amazon. Well, Amazon decided to disable these references because obviously they weren't driving any traffic to the books!!! So my blog gets the grey box treatment where a functional piece of code once existed. I refuse to apologize for corporate bad behavior. I have very little readership, but I do love books. It's not my fault no one clicks through to the corporate overlords! 

 

Tips and Tricks for Staying at Home

In these times of the constantly shifting social experiment, my household has discovered a few things to make life a little sweeter. I can't promise this is the path to the easy button, but you'll have to read on and decide for yourself.

All this staying at home business has led me to try out a few ideas in the way of making cocktails. This is not my usual area of expertise. Using just what I knew we had on hand I came up with a new cocktail recipe that I have dubbed:

the Marcella

It goes like this:

1 1/2 oz. vodka
3/4 oz. triple sec
the juice of half a lime
3 dashes of old fashion bitters (I used Fee Brothers brand.)

Pour over ice.

I originally made it without the bitters and it was just OK, but the addition of bitters improved my perception of it as libation I actually wanted to drink.

I suppose you could substitute gin for the vodka and rename it for yourself. Why not?

Next up, a foolproof carpet stain remover technique. Years ago I consulted a book by Linda Cobb, the queen of clean. So I am here to tell you her advice really works.

You only need two ingredients: club soda and shaving cream. Who knew, right? Use as minimal an amount of the shaving cream as seems necessary for the job and don't scrimp on the clear bubbly stuff. Dab, dab, and only a slight agitation from rubbing, and with patience and many circular motions you will probably find that many stains will come out using this technique. I used it on an old white wine stain, on bone-colored carpet.

Lest you think I'm a boozer....well, what's the point of talking you out of that opinion. Never mind.

In the meantime, contemplate the awesome power of our beautiful planet as you sip your special beverage. Here is a hummingbird nest in our spruce tree. She visits us on a regular basis, and we like to think she is at peace with her choice of home and the humans with whom she shares the environs.

Take care, be well, and I'll see you as we emerge from our cocoons. ~~MVO

A Breath of Sea Air

Way north of my city, in the upper reaches of the Salish Sea is Hornby Island. I have never been there, but I hear it is a magical place. Here the great cycles are recorded. This video is a wonderful revelation to us urban dwellers who so rarely have the opportunity to witness the immensity of the natural world.

Orlov revisited

In my last review, I didn't include some salient points about the Orlov book that should at least be mentioned as they pertain to how his thesis holds together.

I skipped over chapter four, but it is crucial in understanding what he refers to in the harm/benefit analysis. If the power and control of the technosphere is to be diminished, he suggests that we need to hold as our standard the health of the BIOSPHERE.

But allow me to digress here a bit. Back on page 67, or there about, I read some passages that I can't get out of my mind. It is not that I remember them verbatim, but that I remember the essence of their meaning, and that is what has left a lasting chill.

Part of the control that the technosphere wields in getting people to adhere to certain beliefs, and thus behaviors, is the idea that we are becoming (or have already become) a global culture. This implies that as we think and act we follow along ever more converging paths of socially accepted behavior. Social media, for example, nearly demands it. If you have the courage to speak your mind, are you waiting to be struck by someone else's observation that you have not followed in line with the accepted world view that is now part of the popular meme? (I have often found this to be true, and as such deleted my Facebook account, for all the good it will do me!)

We have left behind centuries of previous forms of social organization that gave our lives definition and meaning. We understood our place in society through the boundaries of family, tribe, folklore, geographical location, city-state, nation-state, etc. Now, it seems we are swimming in a soup of humanity that is held together with the perfidy of imposed ideas. This is most evident when examining the vitriol that comes in response to political correctness.

In order to be inclusive of others our language use and behavior needs to conform to ever morphing sets of criteria. The intention is to acknowledge and correct a previous expression of prejudice or dismissiveness of individuals defined by the groups to which they belong. But by trying to erase the boundaries of these groups, regardless of how they are named, we are effectively asking others to join in where they may not want to go.

Not everyone wants to be identified with humanity as a whole. And so what you get is an ocean of identity politics and all the folks are clamoring to stake their claim in the please-acknowledge-me-I-matter territory.

I do not place myself on the political spectrum anywhere near the right end, and yet, I despise political correctness as much as any of those torch-bearers. And that is where the chill sets in.

If you have that many people in your society feeling dispossessed, underappreciated, unrecognized, and thwarted in their attempts at self-actualization, stirring the soup with platitudes of inclusion is not going to achieve your aims.

If we want to create a society that values the lives of all its participants, we cannot afford to ignore the fears and insecurities of those who bellow and scream obscenities. This is a horrifying realization. We are all guilty of writing off those who we are convinced will never listen to us, and that brings us up to NOW.

If we don't start bringing down the walls between us, the technosphere will continue to perpetrate its memes in order to conglomerate us and denigrate self-definition by any other means than the perceived, acceptable one. What we have lost in the meantime is any definition of basic, essential humanity--the idea that love confers value on all. That's it. Not language, not policy, not coercion. We need a vision of what love is, so we can know what it is like to extend it for ourselves as well as others. Our society, through capitalism, and other features, blinds us to the possibilities that matter most. Can we ever believe that the only possibility that matters is love??

💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓💓

Critical Thinkers Need Apply: A look at Orlov

If you go searching for works that answer interesting and urgent questions, you may be most rewarded by the writing of Dmitry Orlov. But I will warn you, don't expect a comforting narrative laced with platitudes or pablum. You are not in that territory.

In his book, Shrinking the Technosphere: Getting a grip on the technologies that limit our autonomy, self-sufficiency and freedom, Orlov taps into the zeitgeist like a needle biopsy and shows you the cultural molecular structure in new and disturbing ways. The aim of his book is to discuss the ways in which our civilization has become enslaved by the new, technologically advanced, more efficient methods in which we conduct our daily lives.

By page 70 you may be thinking: This is beginning to sound like one very elaborate, but well-argued conspiracy theory. Nonetheless, it is challenging to dismiss the author's reasoning behind the layers of control wrested from our direct influence. For example, these are the characteristics of our state of adherence to the demands of the technosphere:

• it overcomes its natural limits, (conquest of nature)
• wants to control absolutely everything
• technologize everything
• put a monetary value on everything
• demands homogeneity
• wants to dominate the biosphere
• controls you for its own purposes
• demands blind faith in progress

Any of this sound familiar? Its only alternative to infinite progress is the apocalypse. It always creates more problems than it solves. 

Reading this book sheds some very discomfiting light on the degree to which our society is structured around ever increasingly demanding technological involvement. Orlov develops his narrative from many varying layers of historical and cultural analysis. In chapter three he references Ted Kaczynski, a cultural critic of some very prescient acumen. Had he turned his fervor to something other than bombing people, alas, he might have made a convincing revolutionary.

Chapter four is the harm/benefit analysis. I admit I got lost in this section. But his most fascinating illustration of how people can inhabit their world using nature-like technologies is in chapter five. Here he brings his observations to a personal level. Having grown up in Russia in the 60s and 70s, he experienced wilderness and homesteading in a way few North Americans would relate. Especially interesting was his description of the Russian stove and what it would look like to survive in Siberia using essential skills with tools for hunting, fishing, building, gathering. You get the idea. 

Chapter six addresses the need for restructuring society so that we do not, in fact, further destroy the biosphere. It takes a look at the ways in which we live under the parasite load of what he calls bad political technologies. These are structures that enrich, empower and protect special interests and privileged elites at the expense of the rest of society. They set the stage for injustice, exploitation, poor social outcomes, economic stagnation, mass violence, civil war and eventual political disintegration. Their forms of control are found in: 

• the medical industry
• higher education
• prison-industrial complex
• automotive industry
• agribusiness
• financial
• organized religion
• the legal system

So how do we shift to using good political technologies? We need ones that work to improve everyone's welfare, and build on previous successes to increase social cohesion and solidarity. While Orlov's work may not have answers, it is still a mighty provocateur's playbook. It will give you more than enough for reflection when he specifically points to recent attempts at regime change across the globe. Also, he is not one to shy away from taking a position. (p. 182)

"Nonviolence is nothing more than a tactic. It can even be used to promote violence by rendering a population defenseless in the face of aggression, in order to provoke a massacre and then use it for political aims, as was done by Gandhi, who preached nonviolence to Hindus, profiting politically when they were then massacred by moslems."

If you get this far and are still fence sitting, chapter seven will elucidate the milieu even further. Here he talks about social machines described as: (p. 189)

"...a form of organization that subordinates the will of the participants to an explicit, written set of rules, that is controlled based on objective, measurable criteria, and that excludes, to the largest extent possible, individual judgment, intuition and independent spontaneous action."

Ouch. I think I've been in that room before! The author doesn't pretend that extracting ourselves from these strictures of society will be painless, but I do appreciate that he reminds the reader of the flimsy premise underlying so much of our social glue (for lack of a better term). (p. 201)

"As society degenerates, social machines degenerate with it, and in spite of all the efforts at surveillance and automation, people find ways to survive. And if this requires throwing some monkey wrenches into the works, then more and more people will start doing just that. At some point it will become evident to all that most of the social machines have become so degraded that they are mere relics--empty shells maintained for the sake of appearances--while all of the decisions are made outside of them by actual humans applying their individual judgment to situations to which no written rules need apply."

The last two chapters, Wresting Control, and The Great Transition, offer ways of examining one's own life for clues of escape. Orlov, himself, has decided that living on a boat has provided him an acceptable level of freedom.

So dear reader, 2019 has most definitely been the year of I'd-rather-not-think-about-it books, but think we must, and I am grateful for the folks who have written the books of my last three reviews. They are brave and clear-headed individuals, the kind that I would like to figure into my Dunbar number. (Don't know this reference? Read the book!) As always....looking for my tribe. Ciao.

Discovering People from whom I want to hear more

I just discovered Nancy Neithercut.

I already love her and here is potent proof why:

Rethinking work in the 21st century

The danger of using superlatives for describing one book is when you read the next one, and find it gives you a verbal bear hug every bit as strong as the previous one. Nonetheless, the joy is all mine in reading the latest contribution from Ellen Ruppel Shell. The Job: Work and its future in a time of radical change  (2019) As I was reading it I couldn't help but think: I wish this was the book that I had been able to write five years ago when I was deep into my own story (see left side bar link). It acts as a perfect sequel to the musings from my slim volume.

Shell is a professor of journalism from Boston University. She has provided her thesis with an enviable depth of research that, at last, has given her subject the gravitas it deserves. Chapter 8 in particular made me feel vindicated in a way few other authors have articulated. Mind the (skills) gap elucidates the fantasy of widely available stable, living-wage jobs, and characterizes this wishful thinking as "toxic alchemy." This truth alone, makes it harshly obvious that if the poor have no choice but to take any job they can get, then they are participating in the precarious, low-wage jobs that keep them poor in the first place. Perfectly stated this way:

“Because it incentivizes more people, no matter their skills, to accept any job they can get, it reduces the need for employers to create better jobs, or to open up better jobs to people closed out of them, people who may lack credentials or a certain pedigree but who, like Susan and Leroy, are willing and able to work.”  “The idea that a lack of skills is preventing many people from working their way out of poverty is wrong,” Edin said. “‘Skills’ is a smokescreen for other things.”

Also:

"This "skills gap" finding was so widely quoted that it became a sort of cultural meme. But other than the say-so of employers, there was little if any evidence to support the vague and slippery claim."

We are often told that the future is an open field for those educational concentrations involving science, technology, engineering and math, but she reports that the supply of STEM graduates is 2 to 3 times larger than demand. Even Paul Krugman has coined the term "zombie idea" to indicate beliefs that have been "repeatedly refuted with evidence and analysis but refuse to die."

This ruse does not escape the notice of grads:

 “Smart students preferred not to invest their hopes, efforts, and intellectual capital in sectors that no matter the hype dumped workers at the least provocation, sometimes only to replace them with cheaper workers, whether they be domestic or from abroad.” 

Then in Chapter 11, The Finnish Line, when you are good and ready for some solutions, Shell delivers with a truckload. Finland certainly wasn't on my radar, but putting it there was a welcome education. We are introduced to Pekka Pohjakallio, whose firm is rethinking work for the 21st century. In contrast to how most Americans conceptualize the urgent call to innovate, here a more realistic version prevails.

 “The innovation bubbles up most often when the brain is relaxed and deep in thoughts beyond the particular problem at hand—that is when we seem to be least productive.”

“Reflection is what makes most of us more efficient, not less, Pohjakallio said, “But we are given no time for reflections because it’s impossible to measure, and impossible to bill against. We are constantly fixated on the ends, not the means, and that holds us back. If we really knew what was valuable, many of us might easily be able to accomplish what needs to get accomplished not in ten or twelve hours a day but in four.” 

If you are hungry, even starved, for hearing about methodologies that function at human scale this book doesn't disappoint. In fact, it elevates the reader's potential to believe that improvements are possible. Shell refers to our current system as our nation's work disorder, and rightly partners with those who predict it will not be solved by technology, but by a change in the rules.

And it gets better: 

Chapter 12, Abolish Human Rentals. In this chapter Shell makes clear that the very basis of our interactions binding us to forces of commerce create in us a violation of what would otherwise be an equalized sense of duty to each other, collectively.

“Regarding ourselves as “human rentals” makes it more difficult for us to make meaning of our work, for the very reason that we are human and therefore subject to certain assumptions, including what social scientists call the “reciprocal obligation.” In employment context, the reciprocal obligation involves a psychological contract between employers and employees--the implication that each party will work together for mutual benefit. Employment at will essentially breaches this implicit contract: since it allows employees to be fired for almost any reason, or no reason at all,…”

In every subsequent passage and chapter the author never backs down from revealing every layer of sham contrivance made for the advantage of the employer. And then, in Chapter 14, Homo Faber, I came across an explanation I've wanted to hear for a seriously long time.

“For nearly a century, corporate social responsibility was subjugated to--and some argued legally trumped by--a fiduciary duty to make shareholders as much money as possible. This duty--later articulated by Milton Friedman--was first made law through the case of Dodge v. Ford Motor Company in 1919, in which Henry Ford was overturned in his effort to employ as many men as possible so as to spread prosperity (and presumably demand for his cars). Oddly the ruling also thwarted Ford’s efforts to lower the price of his cars, and to raise wages. The Michigan Supreme Court declared that Ford shareholders must take precedence over the needs of employees and even customers. Over time, through both law and custom, the concept of “shareholder primacy” became the default position for all publicly held companies.”

And in this last chapter as much as I could agree with the author, I still had questions I would have loved to invite her to answer. But to prevent this review from going on indefinitely, I'll leave you not only with a hearty recommendation to read it for yourself, but also one last necessary quote:

“Growing efficiencies was a fixation of the industrial age. It’s a fixation we can no longer afford. We must quell the GDP fetish, a metric that overvalues work of the sort that brings outsized profit to the few and underrates and even fails to measure what matters most--work of intrinsic value to those who do it and to those who need it done. …”

 Amen!

The Human Game: all bets are off

If you read only one book in 2019, let it be this one: Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?  by Bill McKibben This four-part narrative frames the continued existence of the human species as a collective game played on a board, the earth, in a cosmic casino. If you shy away from topics that focus attention on the toll our existence is having on the planet, then you'll definitely have to bear the discomfort. But I heartily invite you to withstand the blows. Our continued ignoring of the increase in climate change has forced the game to two imperatives: 1) keep it going and 2) keep it human.

McKibben gives the Koch brothers and their advocacy groups credit for "committing treason against an entire planet," and for supporting the denial of climate science. These manipulations have prevented us from developing solutions formed from political will. But there is plenty of blame to go around and Silicon Valley moguls are equally deluded through their embrace of the ethos promoted by Ayn Rand. This is a bizarre allegiance considering that Rand's political beliefs represent "...toxic overshoot of a natural and appropriate reaction to the totalitarian threats of the blood-soaked twentieth century." 

As if the geological force exerted by human existence wasn't enough, part three, The Name of the Game will leave you positively unnerved. Here the focus is on the progenitors of artificial intelligence, and the logical consequences of its unregulated development. McKibben posits that genetically altering humans before they are born will only rob human life of meaning.

"Sometimes we need to engineer ourselves: hence Prozac. But you can stop taking Prozac. You can't turn off the engineered dopamine receptor. That's you, and you will never know yourself without it. As climate change has shrunk the effective size of our planet, the creation of designer babies shrinks the effective range of our souls." 

Before reading this section I had only a cursory understanding of the reach of AI (artificial intelligence). But McKibben deftly illustrates its capacity to make irrelevant human life as we know it. The promoters of the technology seem to have weird obsessions for lengthening lifespans indefinitely, and as he notes:

"A world without death is a world without time, and that in turn is a world without meaning, at least not human meaning."

Just when you can't handle one more bit of bad news, part four is called: An Outside Chance. The stakes couldn't be higher, ecological hell or post human meaninglessness.

"If we are to build the political will to deploy renewable energy fast enough, we'll need a bulldozer for reshaping the zeitgeist. That's the job of movements." 

It is the method by which the active many can overcome the ruthless few, but clearly:

"You can't spend your entire life building movements--almost by definition they burn bright and then burn out." 

We have it in us to take the steps to save ourselves because the human game is a team sport and our impulse is toward solidarity. Even with its final hopeful message, I found this book a sobering work to digest, but the writing is so timely and the style so plain-spoken that its urgent message cannot be ignored. Now if only those titans of industry got it, too.

The World Desperately Needs Us But NOT Online

Today is Wednesday, January 27, 2016 and the good ol' Seattle Times has given me the best excuse to make a decision to stop blogging.

So let's get right to it. What was on the pages of the Times this morning?

It was the confluence of two different but somehow related stories that really caught my attention. On A2 the headline reads: Panel urges all U.S. adults be screened for depression. Then, on B1 the headline reads: Mayor Ed Murray defends actions on homelessness.

There is something about that A2 headline that kinda makes me laugh. If you've been paying attention at all to how people feel these days about the prospects for their lives, do you really think screening them for depression is going to unearth anything valuable? If it is not obvious by now what would drive the average person to be depressed, confirming the fact won't change a damn thing.

It is a newspaper article after all so they're required to get quickly to the bottom line: lost productivity cost an additional $23 billion in 2011. Lost? I don't think so. You may have picked up on the fact that the productivity of an American worker is not reflected in his wages but in the profits sent much further up the food chain. Nothing is lost. We're just bumping up against the limits of corporate greed by seeing the toll it takes on people whose only ambition is to work for a living.

Perhaps the strangest statement came at the very end. The task force gave the recommendations a grade of B based on how much clinical evidence there is to support their findings, a rating that should provide coverage for the screenings under the Affordable Care Act.

So let me get this straight: If theses folks all agree that the depression situation is bad enough, well, gosh, then if we rate it as above average in severity and importance then at least the govmint will pay for us to tell folks, uh, yup, you're depressed all right.

...But dang! Please don't start abusing stuff or gettin' in trouble cuz darn it, you just won't be productive enough.

Please take this pill instead. NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEXT! 

It turns out even the mayor of our fair city has reason to be depressed these days. The Times tells us: Seattle will spend about $50 million in 2016 to combat homelessness, but Murray said the city can't solve it unless it receives more help.  

I'm not always a fan of Ed Murray, but I will say he appears to know what he's talking about when he says:

It's about the fact that we don't fund mental health. It's about the fact that we're in a national heroin epidemic, he said. It's about the fact that income inequality has made it hard for some people who work to sleep anywhere except in a tent in an illegal spot.

Both of these articles make it abundantly clear that we have plenty of experts who know exactly how to identify the causes of problems. Unfortunately, even when these problems are at the peak of crisis the main cry is always that somehow there isn't enough money to deal with them. As long as we believe this we will suffer the consequences. There is enough money in the world, its just managed by people who control way too much of it. You do know the difference between a billion and a million, right?

At times like this I am often reminded of the adage that in this world there is always enough for human need but not enough for human greed.

My human need is to step back from time spent online so that I can better attend to the matters of real life. I've allowed myself to get so caught up in the things that bring us all down. It takes time away from what I might be doing to bring my loved ones and I back up. Redirecting the only energy I've got is pretty important business.

I've loved blogging, but I'm just one more voice in all the noise that we're drowning in. I'd like to see what I can do besides "pushing electrons" as my darling husband puts it.

So it is with a sense of relief and fairly drawn conclusion that I bid a very fond farewell to The Twenty-First Century Citizen. I appreciate any and all who have read my meandering thoughts and chimed in or even just smiled.

Hang in there. Be well. Love your peeps.

Writing the never ending story

How do you know when the book is finished?

Earlier this year someone advised me that maybe I was too hasty in wanting to finish the production of my book.

More editing, more revisions. I realized that I already knew my energy was spent. If I had forced myself to go through more rounds of revisions, I would have created a different work, but would it be better?  Everything in me said: No. I'm done.

For better or worse, my book became its present form from that decision. I realized that so many of the things I touched on, especially in chapter five and the epilogue, could have been expanded and made more elaborate. That would have taken more time, effort, ruminating.

Ah, rumination. It is what cows and goats do. When you have multiple stomachs it comes easy. I only have one and I have to save it for current nourishment. I can only be an expert in how to manage my own life. I look to the experience of others to see if anyone else is doing it better or smarter. The people I mention in the book are prominent in the area known as "thought leadership." It is a useful term.

It is difficult to describe or explain that sense of knowing that the finish line has been achieved. To give you a Hollywood metaphor, it is similar to when George Bailey, after having seen life in Bedford Falls without his presence, realizes he still wants to live.



He tells Clarence that he wants to live again. "Please, God, I want to live again." At the invocation of the deity, it begins to snow and Bert shows up to take him home.

The events described in the book changed me. Some for the better, some definitely for the worse. Some tendencies I already knew I had were made deeper and richer, but not in a good way. I've mixed a sort of gallows humor with all the characteristics of a classic misanthrope. Even as I think the human species is worth saving, I think it shouldn't be. I'm kind of beginning to see why the major world religions believe in a god oriented toward punishment. If I were god, I'd say we're long over due for a plague of some sort. But wait, you could argue we are in multiple global ones right now, and we just don't see it. But all that is just mind play at the moment.

I want to get back to real life. Even though it may be economically hindered, it is still mine, and I'll take whatever I have left of it. I'm ready any time, Clarence.

The Quest 2016

Today's response prompt asks:

What I most need to tell myself about 2016 is....

Relax.

You already know that you're connected with the people who can help you piece the puzzle together. You are not alone. Your work will become as visible and embraced as you want it to be. I'm willing to support you. Are you willing to support me?

No question will go unasked. No question will go unanswered.

May there be laughter along the way.

Cave woman in the information age

This morning someone encouraged me to blog about why I self-published my book. I'll tell you why.

After making a few attempts at writing a marketing piece, a proposal, and an author's bio, I had to step back and reflect.

Do I know what I'm doing? Am I any good at this? No. It makes me feel like an impostor, and that has nothing to do with self-esteem. I esteem myself just fine, I just don't think I do this marketing thing very well.

I think the reason for that is because I associate marketing with spin, and with lies, or at least half-truths. So what can I do? I can talk about my book, and why I wrote it, and what I was trying to accomplish from having written it. I know, you may be saying, but Marcella, that IS marketing.

OK. Granted. But the truth is I fear there will be rules to follow that I don't know about, and if I try this thing called marketing then it is clear to me that I will break ALL OF THEM.

Then I will be found out as the newbie, and that silly person who has that special blend of confidence and naivete that we call gumption--the kind where they pat you on the head and say, Aaww, how cute, you published a book all by yourself, aren't you a clever girl.

Good grief. See where this is going? It is already laughable, and I want to be a serious author, dag nab it!

So I'm going to step back again and see this from a distance. I live in a time in history that allows me access to certain miracles of mass communication. That's how I think of self-publishing. It is all very new to me. I am a completely self-taught participant. It has been a lot of work, but also a lot of fun. I have absolutely no background in traditional publishing and no contacts in that world. I wouldn't know where to begin the process of presenting myself to a publisher. I have no particular authority or expertise; I have no readership, no author platform. Approaching any publishing house, I would come armed only with a manuscript of unknown quality just like thousands and thousands before and after me.

It's not difficult to see how easily intimidation like that works within a single mind, let alone so many others who want to publish their work. The only difference is that I gave myself permission to do so. Yep. That's it. I just did it because I really, really wanted to. I have the same needs for self-expression as most people do. For me, self-publishing the book is just like that cave woman dipping her hand in red pigment and pressing her palm against the wall. Living in the information age just means not having to wait to be discovered by some wandering shepherd.

I'm willing to wait for all the souls wandering the internet.

Epigraphs and anticipation

As I eagerly await this Saturday's event, I'm on a continuous path of imposing organization to my physical environment. Just as I think entropy is going to overtake me, I come across a piece of paper on which I wrote something that I thought was important. Today's finding comes from the wonderful Barbara Ehrenreich:

Never wallow in your troubles; despair must be kept private and brief. This is typical advice, and I've tried to follow it as much as humanly possible. The drawback of being intelligent and well-informed is a dangerous inability to think your despair doesn't matter. Even if you come to the conclusion that ultimately you can do very little about it, you must still, at least, consider the source of it carefully enough to understand the real root.

This is from her autobiography, Living With a Wild God. I have since come across many other quoted sentences that didn't make their way into the book, thoughts from Dmitry Orlov, Chris Hedges, and so many more. It seems there is no end to all the things that might have made their way into the book. The endless process of picking and choosing what to include and how to weave it into the narrative kept me busy for two years.

Now with the launch of my book I'll have to construct conversations around why I did it and what the hell I thought would come of it. At least, I'll have to think about how I might like to answer some of the more typical questions that will arise. As with so many unanticipatable events, I'll probably just open my mouth and start expounding on whatever is forefront in my mind at the moment. I've been living this topic for so long it isn't difficult just to begin. Where it goes from there--Who knows?

There is a certain relaxation you can experience when you realize how worn down you are. Like an old river rock, you've been battered by the endless stream of water washing over you for so long, that now your edges are gone, the surfaces are smooth, you are perfect as an egg, naked, raw, and unmistakable. This is what I aspire to be.

I have no ulterior motives left. Sitting with a certain emotional honesty is all that matters in the end. No one's truth is greater than you're own. We show up so that we can stand in witness with others who are willing to be there with us and if we're lucky they'll say: Yeah, you know, I think I see your point. I still think I would have done it differently, but to each his own....

And so ends this stream of consciousness for today.

Book signing!

Hello my precious, infrequent readers,

(That is only fair; I'm an infrequent blog poster.)

Just wanted to let you know that if you find yourself in the north end of Seattle on the evening of Saturday, November 7th, please consider stopping by the Kerf International Gallery.

Why?

I will be participating in an opening called Thirty women over Thirty. In this case, the art is my recently self-published book, Fallout from the Workforce: Living in a post-career world and the people who teach us.

I met the gallery owner, Dave Felker, this year.
He has taken this little spot in the Wallingford Center (1815 N. 45th St., to be exact), and turned it into a showcase for artists of all kinds. The fact that he invited me to launch my book during the opening of this exhibit tells you a little something about how welcoming he is to creative folks of all stripes. He has a genuine desire to help people bring their work to a wide audience.

Please consider joining us at 6:00 p.m. Saturday, November 7th. I'll be there signing books, fielding questions, and talking about my work.

Hope to see you there.

Fallout from the workforce

October begins with the publication of my book Fallout from the workforce.

I'm experiencing a numbed silence that comes from so many mixed emotions that I feel suspended in this tiny, but significant moment. Lately, I've been excited at the thought of returning to blogging after taking such an extended time away from it to finish the book.

If you decide to read it, here's what you'll find.

Life as a member of the contingent workforce gives you a front row seat to the freak show of the job search industry. Steeped in appeals to prove value in a shape shifting labor market, the author turns her klieg light questioning to the world of the unemployed. Trying to avoid despair in the wake of a dead end career, she listens to the stories of other seekers. She then concludes what she has long suspected: the unspoken, unrealistic expectations of the American hiring machine thwarts the intentions of the men and women still seeking to control their connection to work.

Fallout from the Workforce is a story of self-discovery in combination with critique and analysis. The author brings together the stories of job seekers, and filters through a mass of conventional work search advice, finding wisdom in unexpected places. By piecing together the counsel of contemporary philosophers and psychologists she unearths a newly formed world view.  The remedies to the conundrums she presents are at times ancient in their origins and novel in their approach to understanding the pressures of the contemporary workplace. The ramifications of a tech-driven world while still not well understood for their magnitude of disruption, ultimately leaves this story an unending one. The phenomenon of the Great Recession, rather than being a temporary glitch, has been a destroyer of business-as-usual for millions. Fallout from the Workforce acknowledges the many thinkers of our time trying to steer us out of this period and toward the evolution of society. They lead us to a place where all can thrive as we pass through even greater disruptions to come.


There will be LOTS more commentary on this topic in weeks to come. Meanwhile, dig in! Leave a comment. Get busy. See you in cyberspace. Ciao.

The first quarter of a new year

I can't believe how long it has been since the last time I posted anything on my once vibrant blog.

In the intervening months I have moved to a new neighborhood, accepted a part-time job, and made a few new friends. Much is the same, but I have a more nuanced sense of what aging feels like now. That is a topic for another day.

There is a lot about my current situation that is very good, and on the days when I can recognize that fully, I am grateful as a person should be.

I recently finished reading Barbara Ehrenreich's autobiography, Living with a wild god. She is one of my favorite writers. She makes the craft seem effortless. My own efforts feel sporadic and choppy. I am forever having to piece things together and inject additional context just to make my thoughts stick together properly on the page.

My complaints as well as my praise are much the same as in previous years; however, I have a new person to add to the praise column.

His name is Guy Standing and I recently discovered him on that font of video recordings, YouTube.

All you need do is key in his name and choose whichever one suits the time you have available to watch it. He is spot on.

Go. You'll see what I mean.

Just another teaser

It was a long and fruitful summer. At last I've turned the corner on a chapter that marks a very significant turning point for my book.

Here is another snippet:

Again, I’ve raised more questions than I’ve answered. I’ve looked as far as I can go from a computer screen. I’ve dropped hints, made suggestions, and sneered at human foibles when overwhelmed by the absurdities. In the process of performing this mental exercise I’ve had the opportunity to expose some nagging thoughts. I’ve tested them out to see if they were reason enough to think that my fate hinged on their existence. I have since reasoned that the answer is—no. I am guilty, though, of giving some of them too much power over my state of mind. How else could I write about them so passionately? Dang. Another question.

One can stand and stir the pot for only so long. Sooner or later the fire dies, the pot grows cold, and I have to pull off the witch’s hat and look elsewhere for better incantations. The next chapter represents an oasis of contemplation far from the polarized monologue of the fate of capitalism. It is in some of these proposals that I find the greatest source of understanding, if not solace, for my long-wandering heart.  

Neglected for all the right reasons

The title of this post pretty much sums up how I feel about my absence from writing for TFCC.
You may remember that I'm writing a book. I am slowly making progress, but there are now multiple related activities grabbing my time and attention. This will no doubt continue for quite some time.
Here is a tiny snippet from the first chapter:

It is as if going to work was the glue that held you together. Without the certainty of having to get out of bed, go someplace, and throw yourself into some task, pieces of you would start to break off like an ancient glacier calving at the edge of an ocean. What you used to know to the smallest detail would now become reabsorbed into an undefinable body of water. What you didn't know is that no matter how far that glacier recedes, the land mass beneath remains an untapped ecosystem that you've been led to believe no longer exists or can’t be revived. But spring always comes as day follows night and you learn how to withstand the passage of time without losing solid ground.

My hope is to finish this work by the end of the year. That said, it is highly unlikely I will be posting again any time soon. Thanks for checking back in from time to time. I will forever be....the twenty-first century citizen.


Yours truly,
M. C. Van Oel

Sightline schmoozefest

Today I was invited to an event at Sightline Institute. The topic of conversation for this event next month will be climate change. The email touted conversations and social connections as the way to begin creating change.

As a member of the Sightline community, you're part of a web of connections that make Sightline so effective, and that ultimately leads to change. 

I hope they're right.

Perspective Shift

This afternoon as I was working in the home office. The distracting whirr of the local leaf blower guy grabbed my attention as it usually does. This offending noise has been an ongoing situation. I have yet to figure out how to deal with it effectively. The guy can only shrug and say it is his job. This time he pulled out his cell phone and called the company he works for and allowed me to have my say with his employer who was surprisingly well versed in the city's noise abatement stipulations. She was far more defensive than she needed to be. I knew I was beat.

So what does this have to do with a climate change think tank? Follow the breadcrumbs.

We've got this lovely, noisy, energy-swilling device created to make work lighter. The device is manufactured because ostensibly it is filling a need in the marketplace. However, the work is nothing more than collecting leaves and moving them to trash bins. This is typically done with a rake. As I have personally discovered, with big jobs this is accomplished quite neatly with collecting the leaves onto a blue tarp, pulling up the corners of the tarp and hauling them to the proper dumping site. Good, clean work done efficiently with human energy.

Inject machinery usage, multiple energy requirements: electricity, oil for parts etc., and the noise pollution in a densely populated neighborhood, and what do you get?

You get some wiseacre, yours truly, left wondering why abandon the rake?

And again, what does this have to do with the good-hearted think tank?

Well, if I'm going to be encouraged to chat about the current state of climate change action, this is what I need:

• I need a say in revising this version of human "progress" with machinery usage.
• I'd like to have a conversation with the management company that only knows me as someone who complains.
• I'd like to convince this guy to be concerned about his hearing that he will soon be losing. He doesn't wear ear protection. I'm not kidding; you can hear this machine from two blocks away.
• I'd like to know if the wasted energy use and human impact explanations are understood.

Every human interaction, every expenditure of extracted industrial energy is open to scrutiny. Presumably this guy is getting paid for his labor. I am certain that the 45 minutes he blows leaves would be more effectively used raking. He simply shows up and does his "work" and there is no measure of effectiveness for the effort taken to redistribute leaves. (That's right. He doesn't collect them or dispose of them later. He just blows.) He gets a paycheck and so the economy is happy, but everything else suffers and continues unseen.

Allow me to be effective in one tiny area of life and I'd gladly show up to schmooze about how humanity can save itself from climate disasters--one leaf blower at a time.