The Problem with Post-WWII American Housing Development

Prior to WWII, towns and cities were designed the old-fashioned way.   The city founder or leadership laid out the streets and, increasingly after the early 1900s, created zoning to control what was built where.   Even suburbs started in the same way, as small, self-contained, towns on the outskirts of a city. 

After WWII, with the development of the Interstate Highway System, the process changed drastically.   Before, as a town or city grew, the new residential and commercial districts were an extension of the existing infrastructure network, with everything centered on the city center and local neighborhoods.   Now, with new highways to and out of cities, the surrounding countryside was opened up to large-scale development geared to commuters, separated from the city's infrastructure.. 

These new developments, plopped down most often in what used to be a farm field, had no direct connection with any existing town or city, nor was such a connection needed since now everyone used a car for all transportation.   Whether it was getting to work, going shopping, going out to eat, or any daily task, no one outside of the old cities or towns used public transport, let alone walked.   If a family had 3 adults and children of driving age, it became the norm for the family to have 3 cars, since each person needed a car to get about. 

Long gone were the days when I was a child living in a small suburb of Reading, Pennsylvania.   I walked to school and everything within a mile or so.   To get downtown, I took the bus.   My mother did the same; she used the bus for all her shopping downtown, food and otherwise. And she continued that till her early 90s. 

The question is, why didn't post-WWII developers develop new towns in the old manner, with a core of shopping with residential areas surrounding, all connected with sidewalks as well as streets?   Or if a smaller development, walkable with at least a real general store (not a convenience store) and public transportation into the town?

The answer, I fear, is a very simple one.   It is much more economical and simpler to build a Levittown or modern-style development consisting solely of housing duplicated over and over again, rather than planning a town with all of its infrastructure and commercial needs.   Commercial development became a specialty of its own with shopping malls totally separated from housing development, again geared to the automobile. 

The answer in other words is money.   Developers are not interested in what is best for a community, they are only interested in making the most money as quickly as possible.   And since there seemed to be no hesitation on the part of city-dwellers to move to these new isolated and sterile developments with their spanking-new homes and lawns, they could do as they wanted,

And so we have ended up with a nation of smaller or larger developments, all dependent on the car, all with no or virtually no services contained within them and disconnected from the towns or cities in the area except by highway.   When you look at Google Earth, not just in the NE megalopolis, but everywhere, even the Florida Keys, this is what you see.   

In the process we have not only allowed the destruction of precious nature and good farmland, but we have changed the way Americans live, the way they buy food and shop, the way they get to school, and the exercise they got naturally just by going about their daily tasks. 

We also have created sensory impoverishment.   The sensory vitality of local diversity and being part of nature, has been replaced by the technology driven homogeneity of people and the numbing sameness of chain stores and big box stores with their constantly intrusive music and the mega-parking lots that surround them. 

Let me give you an example of the sensory vitality that used to exist.   When I was growing up in the 50s, while there were two smaller chain grocery stores downtown there was a locally owned grocery that harked back to a previous age.   They roasted their own coffee and so when you walked into the shop your senses were greeted by that wonderful smell, as well as the sight of all the wonderful home-made things they were selling. 

But most of all, there was the year-round farmers market where my mother did most of her food shopping. At its peak in the 50s the market had hundred of stalls, with your choice of green grocers, butchers, poulterers, fish purveyors, and specialty foods.   My mother over time found her favorites and they always greeted her by name with a smile.   

Accompanying my mother to the market was a treat because of all the people milling about, the different stalls with their beautifully displayed goods, and all the different types of people who manned the stalls – different ethnicities, different religions (the Amish and Methodists were present) with accompanying different clothing and speech patterns.   

In addition to the food markets, there was an abundance of locally-owned stores downtown that provided just about any product that one could possibly need.  And they were usually staffed by the owner(s) who provided a very different ambiance and social interaction than one gets in a modern chain store.

And then there was the nearness of nature everywhere.  We were no longer of the land, we did not work it, but farms were all around us, and hills and other forested areas were there within walking distance for us to explore.  We were walkers; or we used public transportation; the automobile was only used when necessary.  For example, my father was a salesman who covered the county, so a car was a necessity for his business.

It was a real, enriching, sensory experience.   What does a child have today?   A bland sameness in his environment and only his screen to stimulate his senses. 

All of these modern ways of development, together with the omnipresence of technology, has resulted in a debasement of the human experience.    While we are not yet automatons, we are fast approaching that state, cogs in a vast machine that is our economic and social system.   

Not only is this not the way things were as recently as 60-70 years ago, this is not the way things had to develop with modernity.   Nothing about modern improvements necessitated the removal of so much quality from our lives

But almost no one, neither local officials nor consumers, seem to care..  

The Pledge of Allegiance in the Mouth of Trumpists Is Mendacious

When Trumpists recite the Pledge of Allegiance, what meaning does it have?  The pledge has always been aspirational in that its description of our republic, while rooted part in fact and part in folklore, has never reflected the reality of our country.  

Today, when Trump and his supporters recite the pledge, the words are for liberals mocking, so opposite to Trump's vision, and to the reality that the poor, people of color, and even the middle class face every day of their lives.  

We all know the words of the pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of American and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Let's start from the end: "with liberty and justice for all."  For the third of our countrymen who are either poor or people of color (the poor - 12.4% or 42 million; people of color - 27% or 92 million - there is substantial overlap of the two categories), there is very little liberty and justice.  And if Trump is elected it will get even worse as he has no regard for liberty and justice for all.

Liberty means having the opportunity to pursue life, to pursue your dreams.  But for this segment of our citizens, there is precious little opportunity, starting from the brutal fact that they don't have true educational opportunity, and without that there is no way forward.

Justice means both justice in courts of law and social justice – that people are treated fairly, with equality.  While the courts may treat the poor and people of color fairly, they experience little social justice, either in that they are treated with inequality in many forms of government action, or in the fact that the enforcers of the law - the police - do not treat them with equality.  It is ironic that so many Americans – Trump supporters – complain that the government favors the poor and people of color with its largesse, whereas the truth is quite different.  Yes, there are many programs that focus on these groups, but that is far from telling the whole picture.

"Indivisible."  Our country is more divided, and more deeply, than at any time in our history, with the exception of the Civil War.  In the past, regardless of regional or class differences, people felt we were all Americans and all came together in moments of crisis.  We were able to agree to disagree.

Today, because of Trump, that is no longer the case.  The two almost equally divided halves of this country do not agree to disagree.  Each side feels the other is traitorous and a danger to the country's future.  There is frequent talk of civil war in the future.  It is only because of the strength of Mike Pence's commitment to the Constitution that this country was not plunged into a constitutional crisis on January 6, 2012, which could easily have turned violent, with military intervention.

And what meaning does "one nation under God" have?   It is true that 74% of Americans report that they believe in God.  But what does that mean?  Even in the "born again" Evangelical heyday, when kids wore wristbands that asked, "What would Jesus do?" believers did not act as Jesus would have acted.  It was a sad farce.  It would unfortunately be more accurate to say that, in reality, we are a God-less nation.  That money and greed rule, not God.

We are a nation that has lost its way, even the imperfect way that we achieved in the 20th century.  Even before Trump, our social fabric, our social contract, was coming undone.  It started with Reagan.  But under Trump's influence, half the nation has become the captive of fake news (ironically they call the real news "fake").  They have become believers of the "big lie" promoted by Trump.  For them, there is no commonality with liberal Americans or people of color or the poor.

Where we as a country go from here I wouldn't hazard a guess.  My feeling though is that we will survive, that Trumpism will go the way of other aberrations as a new generation comes of age.  I certainly hope that is the case.  America was once justifiably a light to other nations and the downtrodden of the world.  It was never perfect, but it was a lot better than most places on Earth.  

I hope that the day comes when that is true again and the Pledge of Allegiance has regained real meaning. 

Trump's Provable Lie

Donal Trump has finally given this country a gift:  he has lied - made a baseless claim - about something about which there can be no question that he has lied.  Everyone, even his most ardent supporters, will have to agree that he has lied.

Recently, Trump claimed in a post on his Truth Social online account that Nikki Haley was not eligible to become president because her parents were not U.S. citizens when she was born.  He did this by reposting an article from @gatewaypundit based on constitutional interpretation by @paulingrassia making this claim.

What a perfect example of misinformation and how it becomes viral in social media.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens."  Thus children born in the U.S. of a parent or parents who are not U.S. citizens are nevertheless U.S. citizens.  PERIOD.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  Nikki Haley is a "natural-born" U.S. citizen and thus eligible to be president.

The post refers to the 12th Amendment, but the 12th Amendment stipulates how the Electoral College works.  It has nothing to do with citizenship.

Trump may claim in the future that he was just reposting this article.  No, by reposting the article with no caveats he endorsed it and thus it became a statement of his.  Or he may say, "I'm not a legal scholar; I don't know."  Well, it is the responsibility of anyone, certainly someone running for President, to check facts before broadcasting them.

Most of Trump's lies are not so easily proven to be lies.  But here you have the clear, unambiguous wording of the Constitution.  It is not a matter of interpretation.

He should be called on this.

And yes, I'm back.  I don't know how often I will be posting, but I have spent time in the "wilderness" and have no more craving for the acknowledgment of others.  My faith is absolute; there is no more fear.  I am just sharing my opinions, my thoughts.

Fear v Faith, and Why I Am Taking a Hiatus From Blogging

If you've been reading this blog, you will be aware that spiritual practice is an essential part of my life as I observe the state of the world and comment on it.   I watched a powerful video recently in which Latoya Okela taught that the spiritual struggle comes down to fear v faith.   And that fear is stronger than faith.   Therefore, we must double down on our work to find absolute faith.   (To define what I mean by "faith" is to complicated for this post.   If you are interested go to my Buddhist website, noted below, and read some posts on faith. )

And we must find that faith within us, not just say to ourselves that we have faith.   The latter has some value, but I can guarantee based on my own experience, that if there is a shred of doubt within you about your faith, that the mind will assert itself and take control. 

Everything that we think, say, or do that causes us suffering is at its core a function of fear.   Even insecurity, which I have written is at the core, is based on fear.

I must face it.   You must face it.   Everyone must face it.   And the only way to finally overcome fear is through absolute faith.   Without that faith, all effort to free oneself of fear by embracing it, having compassion for it, saying "Not me!" or any of the other means I have suggested in my posts will not work.   Because some part of you, regardless how small, does not really believe in your faith and therefore your efforts lack the force of faith.   

I have learned to be dispassionate in my reaction to things that had previously caused anxiety, nothing pushes my buttons, and I thought that meant fear was no longer there, but I realized one recent morning in my meditation that it is; it just doesn't express itself in the obvious way. 

I have written several posts on faith in my Buddhist blog, www.thepracticalbuddhist.com, and they remain of value.   But I have realized that there is a hole in the dyke of my faith.   And it is because of that hole that I keep on experiencing situations in which my mind asserts itself and controls my actions, which I always am surprised at and share in my posts.   

Usually I have dug deeper into my trauma and found something I hadn't been aware of before.   But that's not the problem.   The problem is the hole in my faith.   Bach wrote a famous hymn, "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God."  The same can be said of faith.   But if your faith has a weak point, it will crumble and not protect you, just like a fortress that is built on a weak foundation. 

So I need to work on making my faith absolute. 

For that reason, this will be my last post for some time.   Why?  I have discovered that this blog and other writing of mine has been my mind's way of showing that I am right, that I have knowledge, and gaining the acknowledgment and respect of others.   It is a craving of mine. 

This is an example of the weakness of my faith.   If it were absolute, I would not crave the acknowledgment of others.   It would not be a driving force in almost everything that I do. 

In one of my books, I said, after going through a list of suggested actions, "just do it."  And that is the case here as well.   And so I will stop feeding that craving until I find that my faith is absolute. 

The Census Race and Ethnicity Questions Don't Work – Change Them

Today, we, meaning the United States, commonly use the following categories to classify a person's race, both in the census as well as countless documents:  white, black or African American, American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, or Pacific Islander.  There is a separate question that identifies someone as Latino or non-Latino, since one can be Latino and either white or black or brown; it is thus not a racial category.   Note, however, that if a Latino is of Central or South American Indian descent, there is no race category that fits.   They are stuck with using "some other race." 

People would be surprised, and white supremacists shocked, to learn that the U.S. Census defines "white" as "A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa."  People who are Middle Eastern or North African are thus categorized as "white" by the Census.  This is based on the classic definition of "Caucasian" used when the first racial categories were established in the 1700s.  At some point afterwards, "white" was often used instead of Caucasian.

Clearly, "white" does not mean what white supremacists and people in general think.  

But beyond that fact, the classification of "white" is a misnomer in another, obvious way.  "White," even if confined in many people's mind to mean of European descent, covers a broad range of skin colors from the pale skin of northern Europeans to the darker tones of southern or Mediterranean Europeans.   Many "whites" are also thus people of color in the broadest sense. 

Why then this term, "white?"  One could say that the change recognized that the science behind the phrase "Caucasian" was debunked a long time ago.   I suggest, however, that it became common usage because it simply and graphically expressed the difference between and superiority of people of European descent compared with the people they colonized.    White is pure and in stark contrast to color.    

Since much of the justification for the global colonial enterprise was based on racial superiority, the stark difference between white and all other categories served its purpose.    Also, the categories are interesting in that if you were white, it didn't matter what your ethnicity was – you were superior.   On the other hand, if you were black, it didn't matter what your ethnicity was, you were inferior.  Likewise, if you were Asian, it made no difference what your country of ancestry was, you were inferior.. 

This post does not pretend to have any impact on racism, because racism has nothing to do with semantics or logic.   Instead, the post has to do with how the government collects data on people, which ultimately influences how we, the average person, categorize people.   

The government can change the way it classifies people.  The OMB had proposed changes to the race and ethnicity questions for the 2020 Census, but they were overruled by the Trump administration.

But although those proposed changes would have brought more nuance and coherence to the resulting data, combining race and ethnicity in one question, we would still have been left with the use of the category "white."  Given that "white" is not a word that is descriptive of the people in that category, in effect the government is saying that if you're not black, or Asian, etc, then you're white; you're not one of them.  This is not helpful from any rational perspective.

Why then does the government keep using the term?   I suspect because it is embedded in so many documents and the minds of so many.   

But beyond this question of semantics, why does the government still have a question that seeks to identify race?  Race theory has been thoroughly debunked and discredited.  We need to get everyone away from the idea that race impacts, in and of itself, what becomes of people.  What does impact people's future is the culture that they come from and remain part of, and the way people react to it.

There is precedent in the current Census questions to make the switch from race to culture,  We use the category "Asian" and "Pacific Islander" not because that is their race or country or identifies where they were born, but because of their ancestry and their culture; how they self-identify.

Black or African American is of data value not because it defines one's race, but defines one's culture.  So we wouldn't lose any valuable data by making this switch.  Also, practically speaking, many racists are really more against blacks because of their perceived culture than the color of their skin.  Their blackness is just an easy, short-hand, way of registering that prejudice. 

It would also solve the awkward situation of Latinos who are not white or black but of Indian stock having no race category that fits them. .

I would therefore suggest that we say what we in fact mean when referring to "whites," and use the term "European-American" instead of  "white."  There is no white race or culture.  There is a European culture.  People who are Middle Eastern or North African should have a separate category, as was proposed, not European. 

While I dislike categories like "Italian-American" because we are all American, for this purpose I think it is valid because someone's culture is a hybrid of the country of ancestry and the United States.   We are all Americans, but from a cultural standpoint, we are all hybrids.   Thus I would use the term "European-American."

I recognize that there are many subcultures for each of these cultures.   There is, for example. no one black or Asian culture.    Through cross-referencing other census data on an individual's education, location, SES, and country of ancestry, a rough approximation of the subcultures should be able to be gleaned.

Recognizing that culture is really the defining factor, not race, in what people make of their lives is also important because it makes clear that regardless one's race, it is your cultural habits and perceptions that are determinative of your opportunities and future.  Making this change is thus empowering, because each person can change their culture, or aspects of it; they cannot change their race. 

It is past time for the Census to stop gathering information on race, which is of questionable use, and instead to focus on information about a person's culture which is more determinative.

 

An Epidemic of Troubled Children. Why?

We read in the papers about the rising rate of suicide and other emotional problems among teenagers.   People point to societal causes to explain what is happening, but while those factors have an effect, that is not the real problem.

We have seen articles questioning the role of parents in mass shootings.   These articles focus on parents not observing or acting on signs that their sons are radicalized.   But while this is often true, that is not the real problem,

The uncomfortable and inconvenient truth is that every troubled child, boy or girl, is troubled primarily because of the way they have been raised, the interactions they have had first and foremost with their parents as well as with siblings, their peers, and the world around them. 

It's not that most parents don't love their children and show them affection and attention.   It's that parents have their own problems and needs, their own distractions, and so they both cannot provide their young child with the love and attention he or she needs and they often react to their child out of anger, short temper or stress, for example calling the child bad, or stupid, lazy, or other pejorative phrases. 

This interaction, this accumulation of life experiences by the child, results in him or her feeling insecure and not good about themselves, feeling fear and anxiety.   This is the beginning of a life pattern that grows and deepens, like a cancer, until if the hurt is deep and bad enough, the child becomes a sociopath, capable of inflicting the harm caused by a mass shooter. 

But these children who commit mass shootings are just the tip of an iceberg, of an alarming problem in our society.   They are the extreme case of an epidemic of children who feel insecure, who don't feel good about themselves. 

I see this every day in the elementary and middle schools where I teach.   Children exhibit behavior problems which are not part of the natural process of growing up or experiencing new hormonal urges.   These are problems which are well established in these children by the time they reach school age and continue to deepen.   

It is no exaggeration to say that in a class of 20 children, there are typically only one or two who are well balanced and obviously feel good about themselves.   And by that i don't mean that they feel they are great or special, better than others; I mean that they simply feel good about themselves, they are comfortable in their skins. 

Why is this happening?  The problem is that child raising in our society has been a case of insecure parents raising insecure children who become insecure parents who raise insecure children who  . . . 

To some extent, this has perhaps always been the case, but it has become much worse since the industrial revolution and then in modern times as parents have become involved in work or activities which are not fulfilling and leave them stressed, as money and material things have gained importance, and as technology has separated human beings more from each other rather than brought them together.  This problem exists in all strata of society, whether rich or poor.

The result of the prevalence of this insecurity is that we see increasing violence and dysfunction at all levels of society – in the home, workplace, politics, and the international arena.   When people argue or act out, it is their inner child who is arguing or acting out,

Children are our future.   A child is a fragile, vulnerable person. From the moment the child leaves the womb, and even before, a child is deeply and permanently impacted by his parents’ moods and actions, as the young child is totally dependent on those around him for sustenance and nurturing. 

Every child has the potential to live a happy, wholesome, constructive, and fulfilling life regardless of their intelligence, ability, or looks.  There is no such thing as a "bad" or "stupid" or "ugly" child.   Every child deserves a happy life; that is their birthright.   

And so, it should be parents' primary responsibility to raise their children in a way that fosters in them the feeling that they are secure in themselves and happy.  We must protect children's psychic health.   But where do we start when only a happy, secure parent can raise a happy, secure child?  Are we in a cycle that cannot be stopped? 

I believe the answer is that it can be.   It requires first that parents understand the impact they have on their children.   Few parents intend to harm their children, but most in fact do, despite loving them.   It's a fact of life.   The point is not that parents should feel blame; the point is to be aware of your impact.

Second, it requires that parents take active steps to improve their own security and happiness.   These include (in brief): smiling mindfully, cherishing each passing moment, accepting ourselves/cultivating a compassion heart, accepting life, and staying grounded.   This does not require therapy, but it does require commitment and discipline because the control of our mind over our actions is great.

When parents have stepped back from the mental forces that grip them, they are able to stop and ask themselves, "Is what I am about to do or say good for my child's sense of well-being," as opposed to being on auto-pilot or doing whatever comes naturally based on their own childhood or their situation in life, be it their work, family or relationship with themselves. 

Parents cannot control what their children experience in the world out there.   But they can assure that their children are raised with a sense of self that will protect them from being damaged by the abuses they will inevitably face. 

Will the Real RINO Stand Up?

Trump and his allies have been extremely effective at changing the meaning of words in the minds of their supporters.   Thus, for example, "fake" news came to define any news from sources other than Fox News, Trump, and his allies.   While just the opposite was in fact true. The fake news is what came out of their mouths.   The other news was the truth. 

The same is true for the way RINO has been applied.   It has become the epithet for any Republican who disagrees with the Trump mantra. 

In fact, it is Trump and his allies who are truly RINOs – Republicans in name only.   Because what they stand for is not an expression or outgrowth of the traditional policy positions of the Republican Party nor what the Party has stood for during its history. 

The question that every American must ask is, how has Trump been able to so successfully manipulate the minds and hearts of the Republican base.   And we're talking not just die-hard Trump supporters, but almost the entire Republican voting base, as has been shown in recent polls regarding the "truth' of the stolen election claim. 

There are multiple reasons.   But two predominate.   The first is that a large block of these  voters,  formerly Democratic working class voters, carried huge grievances against the Democratic Party because they felt the Party had failed them and was more concerned with the plight of Blacks.   And so when Trump came and vociferously championed their cause, they supported him and continue to do so, even though he has not improved their lives in any way and actually has often acted in ways contrary to their interests. 

Second, the existence of Fox News and right-wing alternative media sources.   Before the advent of cable TV and the internet, everyone in the country got their national news from the Big 3 networks, which were solidly middle-of-the-road, nonpartisan, in their approach to the news.   The national nightly news anchors were respected by a broad spectrum of Americans.   Someone like Trump with fringe ideas could yell and scream all they wanted, but no one would hear them because their voice wasn't amplified by news coverage. 

Now, everyone watches the news that fits their beliefs.   And so Republicans watch Fox News and those on the far right have their internet outlets that fan their beliefs.   These media not only amplify the voice of Trump and his allies, but they give them credibility by mouthing their positions as their own.   The combination of their faith in Trump and their faith in their chosen media outlet makes the "fake" news phenomenon possible. 

Trump once said that he could shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue and he wouldn't loose any voters.   That is not only probably true but it shows how far the brainwashing of Republicans has gone and that Trump is well aware of his power. 

There is nothing that I can imagine happening that will shake the trust of the vast majority of Republicans in Trump and his allies.   Even after Germany's loss in WWII, most Germans did not renounce their faith in Hitler.   They did not turn on him.   I fear the attachment of most Republicans to Trump lies in this same vein and they will never abandon him.