What just happened...

So, here's what just happened. All the money was gone or 'spoken for'. We put the last $2 into the gas tank and got a whopping half gallon of gas (I remember when you could fill a big tank for that) in order to get over to the discount store. We had a little left on the EBT card and were out of bread. We got bread and some OJ and a couple of cheap dented cans of veggies and some marked down (almost to a reasonable price) cubed steak in which the green had not progressed very far. We have been completely without any tobacco of any kind for about 3 days now. I don't like it and it ain't easy, but for Melinda it's more than that. Her addiction is stronger, both physiologically and psychologically than mine. She had already gone the 3 days or so, using up the last shreds of the roll-your-own pack someone gave us. She was in pain, to the point of tears. We have about 9 days yet to go before more money shows up...IF the Republicans (infuriatingly enough enough, with Obama's consent) somehow don't manage to cut all disability, Social Security, etc. There was just over $11 left in the bank, 'spoken for' by Netflix. I could not sit here and see my wife, whom I love very much, in tears from the pain, and experiencing nightmares. I went to a store and got some cigarettes.

This means, of course, that when Netflix puts in for their payment it will trigger an 'insufficient funds' at the bank. In turn, the bank will then put an 'insufficient funds charge' on my account of about $30. The net effect is that, when the next check comes, I will have to pay the regular Netflix bill of $10.69 (assuming they have not yet kicked in their new rate of $16), plus the bank charge...in effect we will have paid $30 for 3 packs of cigs. There are those who may think I am not smart enough to understand that this is illogical. Indeed, it is most illogical...BUT it is only one of many illogical things in the scenario and, there are more things to consider than JUST logic. Some of the other things involved...or, at least, that SHOULD be involved in this whole scenario, are kindness and compassion and empathy.

Some will say, just get rid of the Netflix, it is not a necessity, just turn off the Internet, it is not a necessity, just stop with the tobacco, no one has to have tobacco, ad nauseum. It is very easy for some people to declare what is or is not a necessity, especially for other people. Interestingly, how often do you hear anyone say, of the very rich, just stop with the investing, no one has to invest, just stop with the multi-million dollar houses, no one needs more than a simple compact home? I do tend to say that sometimes, but usually get screamed at, as though I had suggested rich people do without oxygen. Of course some people couldn't care less about having a computer and Internet access...that's perfectly fine for them. For other people such things are as vital to their well-being as heart medication.

Our little situation here is one of millions of microcosm examples of different mindsets. It's difficult for me to write about such things because I have to continually jump back and forth between what is and what should be; what would be a reasonable, kind, compassionate and caring world in which all people have the basics of what they need in life, and the actual world we have which is mostly one of overly simplistic and primitive ideas like, "if he don't work, he don't eat". Again, strangely, the logic of this primitive ideology seems to not apply at all to the very rich. "He has $100 million dollars. He doesn't work at anything at all a day in his life, yet he has an enormous continuing income simply because of the fact that he has $100 million dollars." But no one says, "Why should he sit on all that money and still have so much...why should he not only eat but eat very well, when HE doesn't work at anything"? It is a mindset in which people are judged to be inherently superior people by virtue of having large amounts of money...conversely those who have little or nothing are judged to be inherently inferior people.

Everyone knows the scenario... a disheveled-looking guy dressed in dirty and torn clothes walks into a "high-end" (even the language is biased) store and someone immediately comes over to hustle him out. Chances are that no one will ask him anything at all; no one will say "May I help you"? - probably no one will be respectful toward him; the main thing will be to get him out of there as soon as possible to avoid embarrassment to the workers and customers in there. If it is then revealed that this same individual is in fact a very wealthy man, a multi-millionaire; that his appearance was only a prank or joke of some kind, he is then welcomed with open arms, workers compete with each other to see who can better serve his needs and impress him. Why? Is he not exactly the same man as before? Sadly, the answer is no. In a sane, kind, compassionate and caring world, he would indeed be precisely the same man as before. But we do not live in such a world. In our world, it is almost a universal truth that "rich" = "good" and "poor" = "bad".

This is not new. This mindset has been around at lest since biblical times, and surely far longer. Even the Bible says you will always have the poor with you. That is hardly surprising within a monetary system which cannot exist at all without a relative few rich and masses of poor. I found an interesting article in the Daily Kos by a person known only as 'cmhmd' with the title The Poor You Will Always Have With You. I'm in general agreement with the article, though I differ with the interpretation of that statement. From the article:

"Jesus is being lavished with expensive oils, and a member of the group sanctimoniously points out that these oils could have been sold to the benefit of the poor. Jesus notes that we will always have the poor to take care of, long after he is gone. Jesus is actuallyreferencing the book of Deuteronomy, "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land."

That is cmhmd's interpretation of the line "The Poor You Will Always Have With You". My interpretation is that, sensibly enough, someone pointed out, that lavishing expensive oils on the feet of Jesus was basically a waste and could have been better used to help the poor...in much the same way as some people today point out that all the billions of dollars wasted on humongous expensive buildings and rites, and rituals, could be better used to help the poor... The Jesus character, perhaps tasting the corruption of wealth, basically dismisses the poor with the airy comment that, "Oh, there will always be poor people" and goes right on enjoying his oily footsies. Sounds downright Koch-ish to me; or maybe a precursor to the Queen of Mean, Leona Helmsley's infamous quote, "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes"..

There would at least be a kind of internal logic in the mindset that the rich are inherently superior to the poor, if it were only the rich who tout such a notion. Amazingly though, a huge percentage of the poor fall right in line with this bizarre thinking. Now THAT'S propaganda that works! At least a lot of it is. Sadly, a lot of it is also left over evolutionary baggage from our past which might have had merit long ago, but now is only a hindrance to the species. I'll be Bach (in some lifetime).

TRB