H.R.6867 - Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008

To provide for additional emergency unemployment compensation. view all titles (6)

All Bill Titles

  • Official: To provide for additional emergency unemployment compensation. as introduced.
  • Popular: Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008 as introduced.
  • Short: Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008 as introduced.
  • Short: Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008 as passed house.
  • Short: Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008 as passed senate.
  • Short: Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008 as enacted.

Comments Feed

Displaying 211-240 of 57757 total comments.

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 12:49pm

    Also I would change my email addy’s..easy to do on Comcast.

    Just tell the ones you like the new addy.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 09/15/2008 12:57pm

    Yes. I know you are right.I will. I feel so stupid. I suppose I just thought we were all in a rottom predicamnent and it was nice (maybe thats not the right word) comforting,feeling to talk to others in the same boat. Some days this Forum felt like you just wernt out there alone in this mess. I am embarrassed by my own stupidity at my age.

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 1:05pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Your not stupid, your a caring person who happen to try and help a loser.

    If you log into your account for Comcast.net under help go to My Email Preferences and at the bottom click on Restrict Incoming Emails..there be a box with a arrow if clicked your see all the addys and just highlite the ones you want restricted.

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 1:12pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    You don’t know me..but I’m the one who posted that web site with all the info for all states unemployment (rates, how they judge rates, etc)…been a while since on but I do check this often..still out of work getting harder to find a job..employers have the edge now with so many unemployed..they can be picky..Hope that HR 6867 passes…I still might need it down the line.

  • stubsnews 09/15/2008 1:16pm
    Link Reply
    + -2

    You’re welcome Jackie. I knew you weren’t aware what was really going on with OOT. I’ve been trying to expose him for awhile.

    When he (explosively) used intimidation to get cash, that was a huge tip to walk away. Now you have, forgive yourself, and let’s all get back to the extension news.

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 09/15/2008 2:20pm
    Link Reply
    + -3

    Thanks and Yes I should have but at the time my Granddaughter was in intensive care for 5 days and the emails were supportive . But again I am sorry for all this interference. My comments on this are done.
    I have also deleted the hearourvoices email. Not comfortable with that now. Sorry

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 1:37pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Jackie , people pretend to be someone else on here. OOT tried to be so spiritual but he would blow his top at times so he showed he was not who he pretended to be. God Bless him and I hope he moves on.

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 1:39pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Maybe just maybe if the stock market crashes the gov’t will realize what shape our economy is really in, OOT= out of touch!

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 1:43pm

    Is that really Sgt. Stubby the Wonder Dog….

    Clammering on and posting away again…

    WELL SAID SGT STUBBY….

    The story of STUBBY actually starts back with the beginning of the Great War in Europe. From 1914 to 1917 the French, Germans and others struggled with each other for control of France and Europe. In April of 1917 America finally entered the war and mobilized its National Guard forces.

    The 1st Connecticut from the Hartford area and the 2nd Connecticut from the New Haven area were sent to Camp Yale in the vicinity of the Yale Bowl for encampment and training. It was during this phase that two important things occurred. The 1st and 2nd could not muster the required number of forces between them to form a fully manned regiment of 1000 + so they were combined. The 1st and 2nd with nothing in between became the 102nd Infantry and was made a part of the 26th (YANKEE) division of Massachusetts. It was also around this time that STUBBY wandered into the encampment and befriended the soldiers. In October 1917 when the unit shipped out for France, STUBBY, by this time the “UNOFFICIAL – OFFICIAL” mascot, was smuggled aboard the troop ship S.S. Minnesota in an overcoat and sailed into doggy legend.

    Times were not good in France, the American Expeditionary Force was looked upon as second class soldiers, not to be trusted without French oversight and trench warfare combined with deadly gas took a toll on both the men and their spirits.

    STUBBY did his part by providing morale-lifting visits up and down the line and occasional early warning about gas attacks or by waking a sleeping sentry to alert him to a German attack.

    In April 1918 the Americans, and the 102nd Infantry, finally got their chance to prove their mettle when they participated in the raid on the German held town of Schieprey, depicted here in an original oil painting, by John D. Whiting, that hangs in the 102nd Regimental Museum in New Haven. As the Germans withdrew they threw hand grenades at the pursing allies. STUBBY got a little over enthusiastic and found himself on top of trench when a grenade went off and he was wounded in the foreleg.

    This occurred in the vicinity of “Deadmans Curve” on the road outside Schieprey so named because to negotiate the curve vehicles had to slow down making them an easy target for German artillery.

    After the recapture of Chateau Thierry the women of the town made him a chamois blanket embroidered with the flags of the allies. The blanket also held his wound stripe, three service chevrons and the numerous medals, the first of which was presented to him in Neufchateau, the home of Joan of Arc.

    Stubby’s “Uniform” with rank and medals attached on display in the Hartford State Armory

    The medals and accoutrements displayed on Stubby’s Left side
    3 Service Stripes
    Yankee Division YD Patch
    French Medal Battle of Verdun
    1st Annual American Legion Convention Medal Minneapolis, Minnesota Nov 1919
    New Haven WW1 Veterans Medal
    Republic of France Grande War Medal
    St Mihiel Campaign Medal
    Purple Heart
    Chateau Thierry Campaign Medal
    6th Annual American Legion Convention

    In the Argonne STUBBY ferreted out a German Spy in hiding and holding on to the seat of his pants kept the stunned German pinned until the soldiers arrived to complete the capture. STUBBY confiscated the Germans Iron Cross and wore it on the rear portion of his blanket for many years. The Iron Cross unfortunately has fallen victim to time and is no longer with STUBBY but many of his other decorations and souvenirs remain and are displayed with him today.

    STUBBY was also gassed a few times and eventually ended up in a hospital when his master, Corporal J. Robert Conroy, was wounded. After doing hospital duty for awhile he and Conroy returned to the 102nd and spent the remainder of the war with that unit. STUBBY was smuggled back home in much the same way as he entered the War, although by this time he was so well known that you have to suspect that one or two general officers probably looked the other way as he went aboard ship to sail home and muster out with the rest of the regiment.

    Oddly enough this not the end of the story, but rather in some ways the beginning. STUBBY became something of a celebrity.

    He was made a lifetime member of the American legion and marched in every legion parade and attended every legion convention from the end of the war until his death. He was written about by practically every newspaper in the country at one time or another. He met three presidents of the United States Wilson, Harding and Coolidge and was a lifetime member of the Red Cross and YMCA. The Y offered him three bones a day and place to sleep for the rest of his life and he regularly hit the campaign trail, recruiting members for the American Red Cross and selling victory bonds.

    In 1921 General Blackjack Pershing who was the supreme commander of American Forces during the War pinned STUBBY with a gold hero dog’s medal that was commissioned by the Humane Education Society the forerunner of our current Humane Society.

    Stubby, Dog Hero of 17 Battles,
    Will March in Legion Parade.
    With the arrival of the District of Columbia delegation of the American Legion tomorrow will come the mascot of the A. E. F, Stubby, the dog hero of seventeen battles, who was decorated by General Pershing personally. Stubby served with the Twenty-Sixth Division and saw four offensives, St. Mihiel, Meuse-Argonne, Aisne- Marne and Champagne Marne. The medal that was pinned on the dog hero by General Pershing is made of gold and bears on its face the single name “Stubby”, and is the gift of the Humane Education Society, sponsored by many notables including Mrs. Harding and General Pershing.
    The Times-Picayune Sunday, October 15, 1922

    Stubby being decorated by General Pershing

    So famous was he that the Grand Hotel Majestic in New York City lifted its ban on dogs so that STUBBY could stay there enroute to one of many visits to Washington.
    When J. Robert Conroy went to Georgetown to study law, STUBBY became the mascot for the football team joining a long list of Georgetown Hoya’s. Between the halves he would nudge a football around the field much to the delight of the crowd.

    This little trick with the football became a standard feature of the repertoire of Georgetown mascots throughout the 20’s and 30’ and is thought by some to be the origin of the Half Time Show.

    Stubby the Georgetown “Hoya” HERO DOG HOTEL GUEST
    Majestic Lifts Ban for “Stubby”
    Decorated by Pershing.
    For the first time since Copeland Townsend acquired the Hotel Majestic the hard and fast rule prohibiting dogs in the hotel was waived yesterday for “Stubby” the famous mascot of New England’s veteran Twenty-Sixth (Yan-
    kee) Division, who arrived there en route to Washington. At the capital they will be unofficially attached to American Legion headquarters while his owner, J. Robert Conroy of New Britain, Conn., completes his vocational training courses at Georgetown University.
    New York Times, Sunday, December 31, 1922

    In 1925 he had his portrait painted by Charles Ayer Whipple who was the artist to the capital in Washington, D.C. That portrait currently hangs in the regimental museum in New Haven.

    In 1926 STUBBY finally passed on. His obituary in the New York Times was three columns wide by Half a page long. Considerably more than many notables of his day.

    He was eulogized by many from “Machinegun Parker” his old regimental commander to Clarence Edwards the wartime commander of the 26th Division. They all mourned his passing.

    His remains were preserved and presented for display purposes to the Smithsonian.

    THE HARTFORD COURANT
    Sunday January 25, 1998
    Stubby’s Legend Revived
    By Visit to State Armory
    BY ROBERT J CONRAD
    Courant Staff Writer

    Stubby as seen today in the Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
    Stubby, the hero war dog, is back in the state. A wondering mongrel, Stubby latched onto the 102nd Infantry regiment of Connecticut and accompanied it across the major battlefields of the Western Front in World War 1.
    He was a nothing dog who became a hero and was honored by three presidents. Now, Stubby’s mounted remains are back, dug out of storage from a museum in Washington. At the annual dog show of the First Company Governor’s Foot Guard next month, Stubby will be honored with the opening of an exhibit that will remain at the state armory for three years. “He’s kind of the unofficial grandfather of the war dog” said Col. Thomas P. Thomas, the National Guard officer working on the exhibit.
    Web Note: Stubby is currently on loan to the CTARNG from The SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE National Museum of American History, Armed Forces Collections , Washington, D.C. Stubby will be returned to the Smithsonian in August, 2003.

    In 1978 he was the subject of a children’s book titled STUBBY – BRAVE SOLDIER DOG.

    More recently he has figured prominently in a book tracing the 15,000 year history of the canine race.

    “Stubby”
    SSgt William Ortiz, CT AVCRAD
    Click Here for Larger version of this artwork

    Jack Brutus
    Although “Stubby” is widely regarded as the Grandfather of the American War Dog he was not the first by any means. Dogs were commonplace during the Civil War as companions for the soldiers and during the Spanish-American War, “Jack Brutus” became the official mascot of Company K, First Connecticut Volunteer Infantry.
    “Old Jack”, as he was known, was considerably bigger than STUBBY and fortunately the Connecticut soldiers never got the chance to try to smuggle him anywhere since they basically spent the War encamped at various places here in the states providing coastal defense from Maine to Virginia. “Old Jack” died of spinal troubles and constipation in 1898.

    Dogs were formally used during World War II, Korea and Vietnam in such roles as guards, and patrolling scouts but whether the dog is employed in a formal program or not you can be sure that wherever there are soldiers in need of comfort and companionship there will always be a faithful dog nearby.

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 1:47pm

    Replying to this person from NJ:
    I’ve tried to follow along and read this, but I’m getting more confused the more I read.

    What, exactly, will this bill do?

    We got the 13 week extension in early August. Is this an additional 7, 13 or 20 weeks on top of that? And, someone mentioned a $50 cap. What is that?

    My wife has been out of work since May of 2007. Her benefits expired. Her extension is about to. It’s been on me for, what seems like forever.

    What would this bill provide? We live in New Jersey. She’s applied everywhere, and even was told she had a job only to be called and told that the position was filled by a ‘family member’ instead.

    Any help is appreciated as I’m lost and can’t spend a ton of time researching from work for fear that, I too may be among the ranks of the unemployed if I spend too much time on non-work related tasks.

    Thanks!
    HR 6857 is a new bill in the very early stages..will be months if it passes. It will be for 7 more weeks EUC or 13 weeks according to the wording (states with a unemployment rate of 6.1 or higher). I suggest your wife fine anything possible as of now, I really don’t think Bush would pass this since he’s on his way out..and who ever replaces him will need time to settle in before they decide.

  • Filtered Comment [ show ]

  • Comm_reply
    Anonymous 09/15/2008 2:29pm

    For the record!
    The only account #’s I asked for where your car insurance electric a/# cable and so forth etc so I could pay them…..I wasnt about to give YOU my visa # cart blanche Why would I want your bank account #If I had no intention of trasferring CASH to you.
    And if you continue to attack me I will respond AND defend myself And I am sure you will contiune because you have to have the final insult

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 2:00pm

    Should Sarah Palin be allowed to keep whatever money people are willing to pay in exchange for watching him speak at public forums, provided that they are entitled to the money they are prepared to pay him ? Different answers can be given depending on which theory of justice we prescribe to. For a utilitarian, if exchanging money to see Bush speak maximizes the total utility (i.e. overall happiness, pleasure, service to life) then the exchange is permissible. In a opportunistic society, the exchange is valid if it accords with the difference principle, that is, an inequality is just only if it maximizes the position of the worst off. The exchange is just so long as it accords with his entitlement conception of justice and negative rights are not violated. I will postpone the answer to our original inquiry until further discussion of the theories is given. I now turn to the entitlement theory.
    The entitlement theory consists of three principles: 1) principle for acquisition of original holdings: conditions under which a person can come to hold/own something; 2) principle of transfer of holdings: conditions under which a holding can be transferred from one to another; 3) principle of rectification of injustice: what to do when someone has an unjust holding. One argues that an overall resulting distribution is just provided it comes about via a process that satisfies his principles of entitlement and does not violate negative rights (i.e. free from coercion, force, fraud, theft). This type of distributive justice is historical since it looks at the track record of individual transactions made every step of the way. An end-result theory of justice on the other hand is one that makes the justice of any given distribution depend solely on whether it satisfies some structural criteria. It does not matter which particular person has which part of the distribution, it just matters that the overall distribution satisfies some structural standard. In short, an end-result principle just looks at the distributional matrix and applies the structural criterion. For example, utilitarianism looks at the overall distributional matrix to see if it maximizes utility; if it does, it is just, otherwise, it is unjust. Another example is the difference principle: the overall distributional matrix is just so long as the position of the worst off is maximized. However, One thinks that end-state theories of justice, such as the examples just mentioned, are internally inconsistent and unjustifiably infringe upon certain liberties. To see why one thinks this, I will refer to his argument. However, I will not stick to the exact formulation of the the argument instead I will modify some of the parameters to suit our specific needs and call it the ‘Palin’ argument.
    Let D1 be any non-entitlement conception distribution (e.g., the difference principle or utilitarianism). Now suppose Palin signs a contract that gives a portion of the money of every ticket that he speaks in directly to her. As onlookers enter the forum they drop a buck into a special box with Palin’s name on it. By the end of the engagement onlookers have dropped thousands of dollars into Palin’s deposit box. Let us call this new distribution D2. Palin had n at D1, and now at D2 he has n + thousands of dollars; whereas fan f at D1 had m, and now at D2 f has m – one dollar. Now, by hypothesis D1 was a just distribution, then D2 must not be a perfect distribution since an individual now has a lot more money than before. D2 seems to create an inconsistency with the patterned/end-result distribution D1. What are we to say of D2, is it just or unjust? Surely D2 cannot be unjust since the fans were entitled to their money by D1 and voluntarily paid Palin for his services thus justly leading to D2. It seems that if one wants to preserve the structural criterion or patterned principle of distribution from D1 to D2, one would have to prevent Palin and the audience from making such an exchange even though all parties happily consent to it. However, according to the structural criterion of distribution employed at D1, D2 is not just since it upsets this structural criterion. Thus in order to maintain the end-state principle one would have to step in and forcefully stop the audience and Palin from the exchanging services. It seems as if this is directly incompatible with our basic conception of liberty.
    The ‘Palin’ argument shows that we normally view voluntary exchanges like this as legitimate; if the end-state principle disagrees then there must be something wrong with this principle. Furthermore, it is not just that the end-state principle is mistaken, but it is also internally inconsistent, because by hypothesis D1 was suppose to be a just distribution. To say that it just is to say that each person is entitled to what they have. Thus to say later that Palin and the audience are not allowed to make such an exchange is in turn denying the audience’ entitled money to begin with back at D1. What exactly is it to have a legitimate entitlement if you cannot spend it the way you want to? Denying the audience and Palin from such an exchange is to deny the fan’s justly earned holdings. If one is truly committed to D1, then the end-result principle has to insist on constant interference with people’s liberties; for instance, by placing a guard next to Palin’s deposit box to stop fans from dropping in money. (We should also keep in mind that the ‘Palin’s argument is just one example of the countless similar examples like this that happen all the time in society where a group of people with just entitlements choose to transfer their holdings elsewhere for whatever reasons, e.g., sport games, concerts, IBM computers, etc.)
    One thinks that the only way such an exchange can happen between the audience and Palin without infringing upon liberties is to adopt an entitlement theory. According to a ntitlement theory, so long as the audience holdings are just they may do anything they so desire with their holdings (given that negative rights are not violated) including transferring their holdings to watch Palin speak all day. Recalling that in our original question the people willing to pay in exchange for watching Bush speak were in fact entitled to that money, so for Nozick the answer to the original question is obviously in the affirmative. We can think of Nozick as having two conditions for an acceptable exchange of services between the audience and Palin. First, negative rights not being violated is a condition for the exchange to be acceptable; but since we’re dealing with a simple transaction between the audience and a Palin, I will assume henceforth that such rights are never violated during the exchange. Second, audience must be entitled to the money they are prepared to transfer to Palin. But of course, the second condition was already met from the outset when we said that the audience are in fact entitled to their money (recalling a premise to our original question). Whether or not Palin should get paid for his services only boils down to the second condition. And this condition is obviously satisfied. I find this view convincing since it agrees with the intuition that people should be allowed to spend their justly acquired money in any way they see fit regardless of any structural criterion or patterned principle of distribution. I think that to prioritize the end-state or patterned principle over how one decides to spend their entitled money is unjust.
    A utilitarian may object by arguing that if the exchange between the audience and Palin does not maximize the overall utility then it is unacceptable. Furthermore, a utilitarian might also say that the total utility could have been maximized if the same money dropped into Palin’s box was instead dropped into a box meant to bolster after school programs for their children (assuming now that all the audience were parents). This would have in effect brought greater satisfaction to both the parents and the children compared to the satisfaction of dropping the money to see Palin speak. The following rebuttal can be made: it may be true that a greater satisfaction could have been reached had the parents contributed to the worthy cause of promoting their children’s after school programs, but even if the parents were guilty of selfishness or stupidity they should still have the freedom to choose how they want to spend their justly earned money. Should that include watching Palin speak so be it. But of course most if not all parents do care about their children’s interest; the point is that society should not restrict their choices based on some structural criterion, in this case maximizing total satisfaction.
    Rawls may object that if the exchange between the audience and Palin does not maximize the position of the worst off, the exchange must be denied since it is unjust according to the difference principle. I will discuss Palin’s principles of justice further so that more weight can be given to the objection. His two principles of justice are as follows: first priority is to give everyone equally the maximum scheme of basic liberties and once this is achieved the second principle takes over and governs the distribution of primary goods (e.g. wealth, self respect) other than liberty, namely, social and economic inequalities to be arranged in such a way as to be in everyone’s advantage. At the moment, we are concerned with the second principle ‘inequalities to be arranged in such a way as to be in everyone’s advantage’. One way Palin interprets this is by saying that inequalities are just so long as they maximize the position of the worst off (the difference principle).
    Going back to the potential objection raised by us that we can reply as such: A difference principle is essentially an end-result principle, and we have already seen in the Palin’s argument and the reply given to the utilitarian that such principles infringe upon one’s liberty to make decisions regarding entitled possessions. Not so fast, one may respond, the idea that his principle of justice entails an end-result should not be argued so quickly. It is obvious that we think it is simply by focusing on the difference principle. However, we should recall that the difference principle is just a part of your theory of justice. Another part is his principle of greatest equal liberty and fair equality of opportunity; which is lexically prior to the difference principle. So in a sense, to see whether or not a given distribution is just in a opportunistic society we cannot simply look at an overall distributional matrix, since there is none. If you violate someone’s rights, the effect, prioritizing basic liberties and fair opportunity of equality over the difference principle establishes a theory of justice not as a pure end-result since it is also partly historical. It is true that the difference principle is characteristic of an end-result principle, however a historical test (liberty and opportunity of equality) must first pass. Furthermore, the difference principle is suppose to apply to the basic structure of society, not to individual transactions like in the case of the entitlement theory. Essentially, the difference principle guides the design of social policies with the intention of maximizing the worst off. It is not as if each economic transaction is judged by the difference principle, rather, provided that the basic structure is just, the determination of individual shares of resources is left to pure procedural justice. A pure procedural justice does not appeal to any independent criteria of what a fair outcome will be; rather, it creates a fair procedure and whatever comes out of if is deemed fair. We may interpret the principles of justice as such: the basic structure attempts to bring about an end-result distribution by appealing to the difference principle, but it also is historical in the sense that it establishes this structural criteria via the preservation of basic equal liberty and opportunity which is modeled after a pure procedural justice. At this point it seems that we cannot give a satisfactory rebuttal to your objection simply by appealing to the Palin argument (which is meant to attack strictly end-result principles) since your theory of justice is not purely characteristic of an end-result. However, another line of argument might be developed by analyzing how one may treat the relationship between natural talents (such as the case with Palin’s experience or talent) and desert.
    One may think that natural talents are “arbitrary from a moral perspective” since one simply is born with them. A natural question to ask is this: how are we to set up a fair basic structure from a moral perspective? A solution is this: “No one deserves his greater natural capacity…But it does not follow that one should eliminate these distinctions. There is another way to deal with them. The basic structure can be arranged so that these contingencies work for the good of the least fortunate” That is to say, since natural talents are arbitrary form a moral perspective, it does not follow that they should be rendered completely useless; rather, so long as they maximize the least fortunate, individuals, such as Bush, are allowed to make use of such talents.
    In this picture She does not allow our intuitive notion of desert, rather xyz talents are acceptable insofar as they help out the worst off. In effect, he is treating natural talents as a ‘collective asset’. It seems as though She is guilty of not making a distinction between persons, rather he treats individuals’ natural talents holistically by limiting their talents as to fit some structural criterion. Even though it is plausible that in a opportunistic society Bush probably would be allowed to keep whatever money the audience may give him, it is only so because it follows derivatively of what he is institutionally entitled to deserve not because he intuitively deserves it for practicing long hours and making use of his talent. For all, desert is not prior to justice. One points out, “whether or not people’s natural assets are arbitrary from a moral point of view, they are entitled to them, and to what flows from them” . That is, just because Bush has a unique talent that he does not intrinsically deserve, it does not follow that he does not deserve the benefits from such a talent. What are we to say of the many laborious hours in the batting cage, stress levels, family sacrifices; does he not deserve the benefits after such pains? A theory of justice cannot account for this. One’s entitlement conception, however, is also guilty of not supporting a preinstitutional notion of desert. In the end, I think One’s entitlement conception comes closest to our intuitive notion of desert. For us, Palin is entitled to her talents without qualification, whereas for Bush, the qualification is spelled out by the difference principle.

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 2:35pm

    From CongressDaily:

    “ECONOMY
    Dems Cite Market Turmoil As Grounds For New Stimulus …
    Monday, Sept. 15, 2008

    The surging unemployment rate and fresh financial turmoil stirred by the bankruptcy filing of Lehman Brothers are new evidence that Congress should enact a second economic stimulus package, Democratic lawmakers said today. “I think the uncertainty about the future of the market just confirms the need for the economic stimulus package,” Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said in a conference call. “We have to give people the confidence that this economy can be restored.” He added that the package could help settle financial markets by demonstrating that the federal government is doing something to help consumers and alleviate the economic downturn. Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, also on the call, pointed to her state’s 8.5 percent unemployment rate and the weakened auto industry as reasons for the federal government to act. She and other lawmakers on the conference call, including Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, urged Congress to include in the package another extension of unemployment benefits, increased aid to states to help with healthcare costs, and additional low-income assistance for the purchase of energy.

    The first economic package this year totaled $150 billion, mostly in tax rebates. This time Congress is looking to provide about $50 billion in aid, including funding for infrastructure projects. The House is expected to act on the package first. Democratic sources say House Democratic leaders hope to have a package split almost evenly between appropriations, with mandatory spending worked out and on the floor as early as this week. But timing remains uncertain, and aides question whether passage without delay is possible given the likelihood of internal wrangling once the leadership’s package is announced to rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers. “I don’t know how we will get it done [by next week],” said one senior Democratic aide.

    Sources cautioned that it is likely to face problems with members of the Blue Dog Coalition and other moderate Democrats because it is not offset. With Democratic leaders yet to decide whether to put disaster assistance funding and a domestic auto industry bailout in the package, they are expected to cite Hurricane Ike and the Lehman bankruptcy to increase support for their stimulus measure. But aides cautioned that it is unlikely to be as universally popular as the first stimulus package. Whatever bill emerges, it “will not have that same sheen as everyone will not be aboard as last time,” said a top aide to a prominent moderate Democrat. Another wild card for the stimulus package is how Democratic leaders handle the continuing resolution funding the federal government into FY09. Democratic sources said they are hoping to take up the CR early next week, using their oil and gas drilling package to deal with the White House for a measure that runs through at least the week of Nov. 17, which coincides with new member orientation for the next Congress. Democratic leaders are also expected to include $25 billion in loan guarantees for the domestic auto industry, but no final decision has been made.

    by Humberto Sanchez and Christian Bourge"

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 2:35pm

    I will say this one time only. BACK OFF BITCH!!!

    OUT has not badmouthed you in any way here. Now you are posting personal information about him here.

    I read all the complete emails and saw all the dates and times.

    YES I AM VERY CAPABLE, AND YES THIS IS A THREAT.

    BACK OFF WHILE YOU CAN!!!

    Kim

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 2:49pm

    Jackie,

    OOT is escalating because of his paranoia about exposure. (You mentioned knowing about accounts.) Please print out the posts he writes for your documentation. He is very close to criminal activity and we are all witnesses.

    Please help me filter his ridiculous posts too. He’s like a putrid fly, just keeps coming back over and over.

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 3:00pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    SAN FRANCISCO (Sept. 15) – Hewlett-Packard Co. said Monday it plans to cut 24,600 jobs over the next three years, about 7.5 percent of its work force, as it combines operations with Electronic Data Systems Corp., the technology-services company it recently acquired

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 3:04pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    Also only 12,300 of those jobs are US employees.

  • brandy148 09/15/2008 3:10pm

    Take it privately please. Thank You.

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 3:12pm

    If there are any threats here or you think there is any kind of criminal activity you can report it to the State Police of Massachusetts. They will ask the host server (opencongress.org) for these posters ISP account info.
    The following is the administrator of this web site.
    Admin Name: Holmes Wilson
    Admin Street1: 7 Mount Hope Terrace
    Admin Street2:
    Admin Street3:
    Admin City: Worcester
    Admin State/Province: Massachusetts
    Admin Postal Code: 01602
    Admin Country: US
    Admin Phone: 1.5087567496
    Admin Phone Ext.:
    Admin FAX: 1.5085190490
    Admin FAX Ext.:
    Admin Email: admin@pculture.org

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 3:12pm

    We heard, and we are all here. This has gone too far. L.

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 3:13pm

    Should Sarah Palin be allowed to keep whatever money people are willing to pay in exchange for watching hER speak at public forums, provided that they are entitled to the money they are prepared to pay him ? Different answers can be given depending on which theory of justice we prescribe to. For a utilitarian, if exchanging money to see Bush speak maximizes the total utility (i.e. overall happiness, pleasure, service to life) then the exchange is permissible. In a opportunistic society, the exchange is valid if it accords with the difference principle, that is, an inequality is just only if it maximizes the position of the worst off. The exchange is just so long as it accords with his entitlement conception of justice and negative rights are not violated. I will postpone the answer to our original inquiry until further discussion of the theories is given. I now turn to the entitlement theory.
    The entitlement theory consists of three principles: 1) principle for acquisition of original holdings: conditions under which a person can come to hold/own something; 2) principle of transfer of holdings: conditions under which a holding can be transferred from one to another; 3) principle of rectification of injustice: what to do when someone has an unjust holding. One argues that an overall resulting distribution is just provided it comes about via a process that satisfies his principles of entitlement and does not violate negative rights (i.e. free from coercion, force, fraud, theft). This type of distributive justice is historical since it looks at the track record of individual transactions made every step of the way. An end-result theory of justice on the other hand is one that makes the justice of any given distribution depend solely on whether it satisfies some structural criteria. It does not matter which particular person has which part of the distribution, it just matters that the overall distribution satisfies some structural standard. In short, an end-result principle just looks at the distributional matrix and applies the structural criterion. For example, utilitarianism looks at the overall distributional matrix to see if it maximizes utility; if it does, it is just, otherwise, it is unjust. Another example is the difference principle: the overall distributional matrix is just so long as the position of the worst off is maximized. However, One thinks that end-state theories of justice, such as the examples just mentioned, are internally inconsistent and unjustifiably infringe upon certain liberties. To see why one thinks this, I will refer to his argument. However, I will not stick to the exact formulation of the the argument instead I will modify some of the parameters to suit our specific needs and call it the ‘Palin’ argument.
    Let D1 be any non-entitlement conception distribution (e.g., the difference principle or utilitarianism). Now suppose Palin signs a contract that gives a portion of the money of every ticket that he speaks in directly to her. As onlookers enter the forum they drop a buck into a special box with Palin’s name on it. By the end of the engagement onlookers have dropped thousands of dollars into Palin’s deposit box. Let us call this new distribution D2. Palin had n at D1, and now at D2 he has n + thousands of dollars; whereas fan f at D1 had m, and now at D2 f has m – one dollar. Now, by hypothesis D1 was a just distribution, then D2 must not be a perfect distribution since an individual now has a lot more money than before. D2 seems to create an inconsistency with the patterned/end-result distribution D1. What are we to say of D2, is it just or unjust? Surely D2 cannot be unjust since the fans were entitled to their money by D1 and voluntarily paid Palin for his services thus justly leading to D2. It seems that if one wants to preserve the structural criterion or patterned principle of distribution from D1 to D2, one would have to prevent Palin and the audience from making such an exchange even though all parties happily consent to it. However, according to the structural criterion of distribution employed at D1, D2 is not just since it upsets this structural criterion. Thus in order to maintain the end-state principle one would have to step in and forcefully stop the audience and Palin from the exchanging services. It seems as if this is directly incompatible with our basic conception of liberty.
    The ‘Palin’ argument shows that we normally view voluntary exchanges like this as legitimate; if the end-state principle disagrees then there must be something wrong with this principle. Furthermore, it is not just that the end-state principle is mistaken, but it is also internally inconsistent, because by hypothesis D1 was suppose to be a just distribution. To say that it just is to say that each person is entitled to what they have. Thus to say later that Palin and the audience are not allowed to make such an exchange is in turn denying the audience’ entitled money to begin with back at D1. What exactly is it to have a legitimate entitlement if you cannot spend it the way you want to? Denying the audience and Palin from such an exchange is to deny the fan’s justly earned holdings. If one is truly committed to D1, then the end-result principle has to insist on constant interference with people’s liberties; for instance, by placing a guard next to Palin’s deposit box to stop fans from dropping in money. (We should also keep in mind that the ‘Palin’s argument is just one example of the countless similar examples like this that happen all the time in society where a group of people with just entitlements choose to transfer their holdings elsewhere for whatever reasons, e.g., sport games, concerts, IBM computers, etc.)
    One thinks that the only way such an exchange can happen between the audience and Palin without infringing upon liberties is to adopt an entitlement theory. According to a ntitlement theory, so long as the audience holdings are just they may do anything they so desire with their holdings (given that negative rights are not violated) including transferring their holdings to watch Palin speak all day. Recalling that in our original question the people willing to pay in exchange for watching Bush speak were in fact entitled to that money, so for Nozick the answer to the original question is obviously in the affirmative. We can think of Nozick as having two conditions for an acceptable exchange of services between the audience and Palin. First, negative rights not being violated is a condition for the exchange to be acceptable; but since we’re dealing with a simple transaction between the audience and a Palin, I will assume henceforth that such rights are never violated during the exchange. Second, audience must be entitled to the money they are prepared to transfer to Palin. But of course, the second condition was already met from the outset when we said that the audience are in fact entitled to their money (recalling a premise to our original question). Whether or not Palin should get paid for his services only boils down to the second condition. And this condition is obviously satisfied. I find this view convincing since it agrees with the intuition that people should be allowed to spend their justly acquired money in any way they see fit regardless of any structural criterion or patterned principle of distribution. I think that to prioritize the end-state or patterned principle over how one decides to spend their entitled money is unjust.
    A utilitarian may object by arguing that if the exchange between the audience and Palin does not maximize the overall utility then it is unacceptable. Furthermore, a utilitarian might also say that the total utility could have been maximized if the same money dropped into Palin’s box was instead dropped into a box meant to bolster after school programs for their children (assuming now that all the audience were parents). This would have in effect brought greater satisfaction to both the parents and the children compared to the satisfaction of dropping the money to see Palin speak. The following rebuttal can be made: it may be true that a greater satisfaction could have been reached had the parents contributed to the worthy cause of promoting their children’s after school programs, but even if the parents were guilty of selfishness or stupidity they should still have the freedom to choose how they want to spend their justly earned money. Should that include watching Palin speak so be it. But of course most if not all parents do care about their children’s interest; the point is that society should not restrict their choices based on some structural criterion, in this case maximizing total satisfaction.
    Rawls may object that if the exchange between the audience and Palin does not maximize the position of the worst off, the exchange must be denied since it is unjust according to the difference principle. I will discuss Palin’s principles of justice further so that more weight can be given to the objection. His two principles of justice are as follows: first priority is to give everyone equally the maximum scheme of basic liberties and once this is achieved the second principle takes over and governs the distribution of primary goods (e.g. wealth, self respect) other than liberty, namely, social and economic inequalities to be arranged in such a way as to be in everyone’s advantage. At the moment, we are concerned with the second principle ‘inequalities to be arranged in such a way as to be in everyone’s advantage’. One way Palin interprets this is by saying that inequalities are just so long as they maximize the position of the worst off (the difference principle).
    Going back to the potential objection raised by us that we can reply as such: A difference principle is essentially an end-result principle, and we have already seen in the Palin’s argument and the reply given to the utilitarian that such principles infringe upon one’s liberty to make decisions regarding entitled possessions. Not so fast, one may respond, the idea that his principle of justice entails an end-result should not be argued so quickly. It is obvious that we think it is simply by focusing on the difference principle. However, we should recall that the difference principle is just a part of your theory of justice. Another part is his principle of greatest equal liberty and fair equality of opportunity; which is lexically prior to the difference principle. So in a sense, to see whether or not a given distribution is just in a opportunistic society we cannot simply look at an overall distributional matrix, since there is none. If you violate someone’s rights, the effect, prioritizing basic liberties and fair opportunity of equality over the difference principle establishes a theory of justice not as a pure end-result since it is also partly historical. It is true that the difference principle is characteristic of an end-result principle, however a historical test (liberty and opportunity of equality) must first pass. Furthermore, the difference principle is suppose to apply to the basic structure of society, not to individual transactions like in the case of the entitlement theory. Essentially, the difference principle guides the design of social policies with the intention of maximizing the worst off. It is not as if each economic transaction is judged by the difference principle, rather, provided that the basic structure is just, the determination of individual shares of resources is left to pure procedural justice. A pure procedural justice does not appeal to any independent criteria of what a fair outcome will be; rather, it creates a fair procedure and whatever comes out of if is deemed fair. We may interpret the principles of justice as such: the basic structure attempts to bring about an end-result distribution by appealing to the difference principle, but it also is historical in the sense that it establishes this structural criteria via the preservation of basic equal liberty and opportunity which is modeled after a pure procedural justice. At this point it seems that we cannot give a satisfactory rebuttal to your objection simply by appealing to the Palin argument (which is meant to attack strictly end-result principles) since your theory of justice is not purely characteristic of an end-result. However, another line of argument might be developed by analyzing how one may treat the relationship between natural talents (such as the case with Palin’s experience or talent) and desert.
    One may think that natural talents are “arbitrary from a moral perspective” since one simply is born with them. A natural question to ask is this: how are we to set up a fair basic structure from a moral perspective? A solution is this: “No one deserves his greater natural capacity…But it does not follow that one should eliminate these distinctions. There is another way to deal with them. The basic structure can be arranged so that these contingencies work for the good of the least fortunate” That is to say, since natural talents are arbitrary form a moral perspective, it does not follow that they should be rendered completely useless; rather, so long as they maximize the least fortunate, individuals, such as Bush, are allowed to make use of such talents.
    In this picture She does not allow our intuitive notion of desert, rather xyz talents are acceptable insofar as they help out the worst off. In effect, he is treating natural talents as a ‘collective asset’. It seems as though She is guilty of not making a distinction between persons, rather he treats individuals’ natural talents holistically by limiting their talents as to fit some structural criterion. Even though it is plausible that in a opportunistic society Bush probably would be allowed to keep whatever money the audience may give him, it is only so because it follows derivatively of what he is institutionally entitled to deserve not because he intuitively deserves it for practicing long hours and making use of his talent. For all, desert is not prior to justice. One points out, “whether or not people’s natural assets are arbitrary from a moral point of view, they are entitled to them, and to what flows from them” . That is, just because Bush has a unique talent that he does not intrinsically deserve, it does not follow that he does not deserve the benefits from such a talent. What are we to say of the many laborious hours in the batting cage, stress levels, family sacrifices; does he not deserve the benefits after such pains? A theory of justice cannot account for this. One’s entitlement conception, however, is also guilty of not supporting a preinstitutional notion of desert. In the end, I think One’s entitlement conception comes closest to our intuitive notion of desert. For us, Palin is entitled to her talents without qualification, whereas for Bush, the qualification is spelled out by the difference principle.

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 3:16pm
    Link Reply
    + -4

    If there are any threats here or you think there is any kind of criminal activity you can report it to the State Police of Massachusetts. They will ask the host server (opencongress.org) for these posters ISP account info.
    The following is the administrator of this web site.
    Admin Name: Holmes Wilson
    Admin Street1: 7 Mount Hope Terrace
    Admin Street2:
    Admin Street3:
    Admin City: Worcester
    Admin State/Province: Massachusetts
    Admin Postal Code: 01602
    Admin Country: US
    Admin Phone: 1.5087567496
    Admin Phone Ext.:
    Admin FAX: 1.5085190490
    Admin FAX Ext.:
    Admin Email: admin@pculture.org

    MUST HAVE HAD A HEAPING HELPING OF STUPID FOR DINNER MR. BARNEY FIFE!!!!!!

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 3:17pm

    Michigan………………………….. 5,084.3 5,057.1 5,095.1 5,044.4 372.7 438.9 405.7 461.2 7.3 8.7 8.0 9.1
    Ann Arbor……………………….. 189.8 187.7 188.0 186.4 9.7 11.8 10.6 12.9 5.1 6.3 5.6 6.9
    Battle Creek…………………….. 71.6 69.7 71.6 69.7 5.1 5.4 5.5 6.2 7.1 7.8 7.7 8.8
    Bay City………………………… 56.1 55.7 56.2 55.4 3.8 4.3 4.1 4.7 6.7 7.8 7.4 8.5
    Detroit-Warren-Livonia……………. 2,166.4 2,164.5 2,173.2 2,158.1 173.9 210.3 185.9 202.7 8.0 9.7 8.6 9.4
    Flint…………………………… 211.8 204.5 210.4 202.1 17.2 19.9 20.5 24.9 8.1 9.7 9.7 12.3
    Grand Rapids-Wyoming……………… 418.0 416.2 416.8 414.2 26.0 29.7 28.9 33.2 6.2 7.1 6.9 8.0
    Holland-Grand Haven………………. 138.4 137.5 137.7 136.6 8.1 9.8 8.6 10.5 5.8 7.2 6.2 7.7
    Jackson…………………………. 78.5 77.0 78.1 76.8 6.3 6.7 6.5 7.4 8.0 8.6 8.3 9.7
    Kalamazoo-Portage………………… 178.2 177.3 177.8 176.2 10.5 12.3 11.1 13.7 5.9 6.9 6.3 7.8
    Lansing-East Lansing……………… 249.2 246.7 250.7 244.7 15.3 17.8 18.2 18.9 6.1 7.2 7.3 7.7
    Monroe………………………….. 79.2 78.6 77.5 77.4 5.2 6.5 6.5 8.4 6.5 8.3 8.4 10.8
    Muskegon-Norton Shores……………. 91.5 91.7 92.1 92.1 7.0 7.8 7.5 9.1 7.6 8.5 8.1 9.9
    Niles-Benton Harbor………………. 80.7 83.0 82.3 82.9 5.6 6.7 6.0 7.5 7.0 8.0 7.3 9.0
    Saginaw-Saginaw Township North…….. 99.0 96.3 98.0 95.2 7.1 8.1 7.9 9.1 7.1 8.4 8.1 9.5

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 3:17pm

    · History Lesson #1 Freedom of Speech and a famous american history celeb…

    Does everyone know that the story of STUBBY actually starts with the beginning of the Great War in Europe. From 1914 to 1917 the French, Germans and others struggled with each other for control of France and Europe. In April of 1917 America finally entered the war and mobilized its National Guard forces.

    The 1st Connecticut from the Hartford area and the 2nd Connecticut from the New Haven area were sent to Camp Yale in the vicinity of the Yale Bowl for encampment and training. It was during this phase that two important things occurred. The 1st and 2nd could not muster the required number of forces between them to form a fully manned regiment of 1000 + so they were combined. The 1st and 2nd with nothing in between became the 102nd Infantry and was made a part of the 26th (YANKEE) division of Massachusetts. It was also around this time that STUBBY wandered into the encampment and befriended the soldiers. In October 1917 when the unit shipped out for France, STUBBY, by this time the “UNOFFICIAL – OFFICIAL” mascot, was smuggled aboard the troop ship S.S. Minnesota in an overcoat and sailed into doggy legend.

    Times were not good in France, the American Expeditionary Force was looked upon as second class soldiers, not to be trusted without French oversight and trench warfare combined with deadly gas took a toll on both the men and their spirits.

    STUBBY did his part by providing morale-lifting visits up and down the line and occasional early warning about gas attacks or by waking a sleeping sentry to alert him to a German attack.

    In April 1918 the Americans, and the 102nd Infantry, finally got their chance to prove their mettle when they participated in the raid on the German held town of Schieprey, depicted here in an original oil painting, by John D. Whiting, that hangs in the 102nd Regimental Museum in New Haven. As the Germans withdrew they threw hand grenades at the pursing allies. STUBBY got a little over enthusiastic and found himself on top of trench when a grenade went off and he was wounded in the foreleg.

    This occurred in the vicinity of “Deadmans Curve” on the road outside Schieprey so named because to negotiate the curve vehicles had to slow down making them an easy target for German artillery.

    After the recapture of Chateau Thierry the women of the town made him a chamois blanket embroidered with the flags of the allies. The blanket also held his wound stripe, three service chevrons and the numerous medals, the first of which was presented to him in Neufchateau, the home of Joan of Arc.

    Stubby’s “Uniform” with rank and medals attached on display in the Hartford State Armory

    The medals and accoutrements displayed on Stubby’s Left side
    3 Service Stripes
    Yankee Division YD Patch
    French Medal Battle of Verdun
    1st Annual American Legion Convention Medal Minneapolis, Minnesota Nov 1919
    New Haven WW1 Veterans Medal
    Republic of France Grande War Medal
    St Mihiel Campaign Medal
    Purple Heart
    Chateau Thierry Campaign Medal
    6th Annual American Legion Convention

    In the Argonne STUBBY ferreted out a German Spy in hiding and holding on to the seat of his pants kept the stunned German pinned until the soldiers arrived to complete the capture. STUBBY confiscated the Germans Iron Cross and wore it on the rear portion of his blanket for many years. The Iron Cross unfortunately has fallen victim to time and is no longer with STUBBY but many of his other decorations and souvenirs remain and are displayed with him today.

    STUBBY was also gassed a few times and eventually ended up in a hospital when his master, Corporal J. Robert Conroy, was wounded. After doing hospital duty for awhile he and Conroy returned to the 102nd and spent the remainder of the war with that unit. STUBBY was smuggled back home in much the same way as he entered the War, although by this time he was so well known that you have to suspect that one or two general officers probably looked the other way as he went aboard ship to sail home and muster out with the rest of the regiment.

    Oddly enough this not the end of the story, but rather in some ways the beginning. STUBBY became something of a celebrity.

    He was made a lifetime member of the American legion and marched in every legion parade and attended every legion convention from the end of the war until his death. He was written about by practically every newspaper in the country at one time or another. He met three presidents of the United States Wilson, Harding and Coolidge and was a lifetime member of the Red Cross and YMCA. The Y offered him three bones a day and place to sleep for the rest of his life and he regularly hit the campaign trail, recruiting members for the American Red Cross and selling victory bonds.

    In 1921 General Blackjack Pershing who was the supreme commander of American Forces during the War pinned STUBBY with a gold hero dog’s medal that was commissioned by the Humane Education Society the forerunner of our current Humane Society.

    Stubby, Dog Hero of 17 Battles,
    Will March in Legion Parade.
    With the arrival of the District of Columbia delegation of the American Legion tomorrow will come the mascot of the A. E. F, Stubby, the dog hero of seventeen battles, who was decorated by General Pershing personally. Stubby served with the Twenty-Sixth Division and saw four offensives, St. Mihiel, Meuse-Argonne, Aisne- Marne and Champagne Marne. The medal that was pinned on the dog hero by General Pershing is made of gold and bears on its face the single name “Stubby”, and is the gift of the Humane Education Society, sponsored by many notables including Mrs. Harding and General Pershing.
    The Times-Picayune Sunday, October 15, 1922

    Stubby being decorated by General Pershing

    So famous was he that the Grand Hotel Majestic in New York City lifted its ban on dogs so that STUBBY could stay there enroute to one of many visits to Washington.
    When J. Robert Conroy went to Georgetown to study law, STUBBY became the mascot for the football team joining a long list of Georgetown Hoya’s. Between the halves he would nudge a football around the field much to the delight of the crowd.

    This little trick with the football became a standard feature of the repertoire of Georgetown mascots throughout the 20’s and 30’ and is thought by some to be the origin of the Half Time Show.

    Stubby the Georgetown “Hoya” HERO DOG HOTEL GUEST
    Majestic Lifts Ban for “Stubby”
    Decorated by Pershing.
    For the first time since Copeland Townsend acquired the Hotel Majestic the hard and fast rule prohibiting dogs in the hotel was waived yesterday for “Stubby” the famous mascot of New England’s veteran Twenty-Sixth (Yan-
    kee) Division, who arrived there en route to Washington. At the capital they will be unofficially attached to American Legion headquarters while his owner, J. Robert Conroy of New Britain, Conn., completes his vocational training courses at Georgetown University.
    New York Times, Sunday, December 31, 1922

    In 1925 he had his portrait painted by Charles Ayer Whipple who was the artist to the capital in Washington, D.C. That portrait currently hangs in the regimental museum in New Haven.

    In 1926 STUBBY finally passed on. His obituary in the New York Times was three columns wide by Half a page long. Considerably more than many notables of his day.

    He was eulogized by many from “Machinegun Parker” his old regimental commander to Clarence Edwards the wartime commander of the 26th Division. They all mourned his passing.

    His remains were preserved and presented for display purposes to the Smithsonian.

    THE HARTFORD COURANT
    Sunday January 25, 1998
    Stubby’s Legend Revived
    By Visit to State Armory
    BY ROBERT J CONRAD
    Courant Staff Writer

    Stubby as seen today in the Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
    Stubby, the hero war dog, is back in the state. A wondering mongrel, Stubby latched onto the 102nd Infantry regiment of Connecticut and accompanied it across the major battlefields of the Western Front in World War 1.
    He was a nothing dog who became a hero and was honored by three presidents. Now, Stubby’s mounted remains are back, dug out of storage from a museum in Washington. At the annual dog show of the First Company Governor’s Foot Guard next month, Stubby will be honored with the opening of an exhibit that will remain at the state armory for three years. “He’s kind of the unofficial grandfather of the war dog” said Col. Thomas P. Thomas, the National Guard officer working on the exhibit.
    Web Note: Stubby is currently on loan to the CTARNG from The SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE National Museum of American History, Armed Forces Collections , Washington, D.C. Stubby will be returned to the Smithsonian in August, 2003.

    In 1978 he was the subject of a children’s book titled STUBBY – BRAVE SOLDIER DOG.

    More recently he has figured prominently in a book tracing the 15,000 year history of the canine race.

    “Stubby”
    SSgt William Ortiz, CT AVCRAD
    Click Here for Larger version of this artwork

    Jack Brutus
    Although “Stubby” is widely regarded as the Grandfather of the American War Dog he was not the first by any means. Dogs were commonplace during the Civil War as companions for the soldiers and during the Spanish-American War, “Jack Brutus” became the official mascot of Company K, First Connecticut Volunteer Infantry.
    “Old Jack”, as he was known, was considerably bigger than STUBBY and fortunately the Connecticut soldiers never got the chance to try to smuggle him anywhere since they basically spent the War encamped at various places here in the states providing coastal defense from Maine to Virginia. “Old Jack” died of spinal troubles and constipation in 1898.

    Dogs were formally used during World War II, Korea and Vietnam in such roles as guards, and patrolling scouts but whether the dog is employed in a formal program or not you can be sure that wherever there are soldiers in need of comfort and companionship there will always be a faithful howling dog nearby.

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 3:18pm
    Link Reply
    + -3

    The posting of someones personal information on a forum without the persons consent will not be tolerated.

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 3:18pm

    LABOR FORCE DATA LABOR FORCE DATA
    NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED

    Table 1. Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area

    (Numbers in thousands)

    Unemployed Civilian labor force State and area Number Percent of labor force June July June July June July 2007 2008 2007 2008p 2007 2008 2007 2008p 2007 2008 2007 2008p

    Michigan………………………….. 5,084.3 5,057.1 5,095.1 5,044.4 372.7 438.9 405.7 461.2 7.3 8.7 8.0 9.1
    Ann Arbor……………………….. 189.8 187.7 188.0 186.4 9.7 11.8 10.6 12.9 5.1 6.3 5.6 6.9
    Battle Creek…………………….. 71.6 69.7 71.6 69.7 5.1 5.4 5.5 6.2 7.1 7.8 7.7 8.8
    Bay City………………………… 56.1 55.7 56.2 55.4 3.8 4.3 4.1 4.7 6.7 7.8 7.4 8.5
    Detroit-Warren-Livonia……………. 2,166.4 2,164.5 2,173.2 2,158.1 173.9 210.3 185.9 202.7 8.0 9.7 8.6 9.4
    Flint…………………………… 211.8 204.5 210.4 202.1 17.2 19.9 20.5 24.9 8.1 9.7 9.7 12.3
    Grand Rapids-Wyoming……………… 418.0 416.2 416.8 414.2 26.0 29.7 28.9 33.2 6.2 7.1 6.9 8.0
    Holland-Grand Haven………………. 138.4 137.5 137.7 136.6 8.1 9.8 8.6 10.5 5.8 7.2 6.2 7.7
    Jackson…………………………. 78.5 77.0 78.1 76.8 6.3 6.7 6.5 7.4 8.0 8.6 8.3 9.7
    Kalamazoo-Portage………………… 178.2 177.3 177.8 176.2 10.5 12.3 11.1 13.7 5.9 6.9 6.3 7.8
    Lansing-East Lansing……………… 249.2 246.7 250.7 244.7 15.3 17.8 18.2 18.9 6.1 7.2 7.3 7.7
    Monroe………………………….. 79.2 78.6 77.5 77.4 5.2 6.5 6.5 8.4 6.5 8.3 8.4 10.8
    Muskegon-Norton Shores……………. 91.5 91.7 92.1 92.1 7.0 7.8 7.5 9.1 7.6 8.5 8.1 9.9
    Niles-Benton Harbor………………. 80.7 83.0 82.3 82.9 5.6 6.7 6.0 7.5 7.0 8.0 7.3 9.0
    Saginaw-Saginaw Township North…….. 99.0 96.3 98.0 95.2 7.1 8.1 7.9 9.1 7.1 8.4 8.1 9.5

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 3:19pm
    Link Reply
    + -1

    There is something to be said about Silence…That will ultimately never be intelligently stated or articulated within the framework of this useless forum of utter non- sense!

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 3:20pm

    Whenever you refuse to take responsibility for yourselves, you are unconsciously choosing to react as victim. This inevitably creates feelings of anger, fear, guilt or inadequacy and leaves us feeling betrayed, or taken advantage of by others.

    Victim-hood can be defined by the three positions beautifully outlined in a diagram developed by a respected psychiatrist. Transactional Analysis calls it the “drama triangle”, I will refer to it as the victim triangle. Having discovered this resource some thirty years ago, it has become one of the more important tools in my personal and professional life. The more I teach and apply the victim triangle to relationship the deeper my appreciation grows for this simple, powerfully accurate instrument.

    I’ve sometimes referred to the victim triangle as a “shame generator” because through it we unconsciously re-enact painful life themes that create shame. This has the effect of reinforcing old, painful beliefs that keep us stuck in a limited version of reality.

    I believe that every dysfunctional interaction, in relationship with other or self, takes place on the victim triangle. But until we become conscious of these dynamics, we cannot transform them. And unless we transform them, we cannot move forward on our journey towards re-claiming emotional, mental and spiritual well- being.

    The three roles on the victim triangle are Persecutor, Rescuer and Victim. Place these three roles on an inverted triangle and described them as being the three aspects, or faces of victim. No matter where we may start out on the triangle, victim is where we end up, therefore no matter what role we’re in on the triangle, we’re in victimhood. If we’re on the triangle we’re living as victims – plain and simple!

    Each person has a primary or most familiar role – called their “starting gate” position. This is the place from which we generally enter, or “get hooked” onto, the triangle. We first learn our starting gate position in our family of origin. Although we each have a role with which we most identify, once we’re on the triangle, we automatically rotate through all the positions, going completely around the triangle, sometimes in a matter of minutes, or even seconds, many times every day.

    Starting gate Rescuers (SGR) see themselves as “helpers” and “caretakers”. They need someone to rescue (victim) in order to feel vital and important. It’s difficult for SGR’s to recognize themselves as ever being in a victim position – they’re the ones with the answers after all.

    Starting Gate Persecutors (SGP), on the other hand, identify themselves primarily as victims. They are usually in complete denial about their blaming tactics. When it is pointed out to them, they argue that attack is warranted and necessary for self protection. These two – the Rescuer and the Persecutor – are the two opposite extremes of Victim. But again, regardless of where we start out on the triangle, all roles eventually end up in victim. It’s inevitable.

    You may notice that both the Persecutor and Rescuer are on the upper end of the triangle. These roles assume a “one-up” position over others, meaning they relate as though they are better, stronger, smarter, or more-together than the victim. Sooner or later the victim, who is in the one-down position at the bottom of the triangle, develops a metaphorical “crick in the neck” from always looking up. Feeling “looked down upon” or “worth- less than” the others, the Victim builds resentment and sooner or later, retaliation follows. A natural progression from victim to persecutor follows. This generally moves the persecutor or rescuer into victim. Reminiscent of a not-so-musical game of musical chairs, all players sooner or later rotate positions.

    Here’s an example: Dad comes home from work to find mom and Junior engaged in battle. “Clean up your room or else,” mom threatens. Dad immediately comes to the rescue. “Mom,” he might say, “give the boy a break. He’s been at school all day”.

    Any one of several possibilities might follow. Perhaps Mom, feeling victimized by Dad, will turn her wrath on him. In that case, dad is moved from Rescuer to Victim. They, then might do a few quick trips around the triangle with Junior on the sidelines.

    Or maybe Junior joins Dad in a persecutory “Let’s gang up on mom” approach, or then again, maybe Junior will turn on Dad, rescuing Mom, with, “Mind your own business, Dad. I don’t need your help!” So it goes, with endless variation, but nonetheless, pinging from corner to corner on the triangle. For many families, it’s the only way they know to interact.

    Our starting-gate position on the victim triangle is not only where we most often enter the triangle, it is also the role through which we actually define ourselves. It becomes a strong part of our identity. Each starting-gate position has its own particular way of seeing and reacting to the world. We all have unconscious core beliefs acquired in childhood, derived from our interpretation of early family encounters. These become “life themes” that predispose us towards the unconscious selection of a particular starting gate position on the triangle.

    Sally’s mother was an invalid who was addicted to prescription drugs. From Sally’s earliest memory she reported feeling ultimately responsible for her mother. Instead of getting appropriate care from a parent who was concerned for her well being, she became the “little parent” of a mother who played the part of a helpless child. This childhood scenario set Sally up with a “life script” that predisposed her towards becoming a Starting Gate Rescuer (SGR). Care-taking others became her primary way of relating to others.

    SGR’s, like Sally have an unconscious core belief that might go something like this; “My needs are not important … I am only valued for what I can do for others”. Of course, believing these ideas requires that she have someone in her life she can rescue (a victim). How else will someone like Sally get to feel valuable and worthwhile?
    Sally would never admit to being a victim because in her mind she is the one who must have the answers. Nonetheless, she does, in fact, rotate through victim on the triangle on a regular basis. A SGR in the victim role becomes a martyr, complaining loudly, “After all I’ve done for you … this is the thanks I get!”

    Starting Gate Persecutors (SGP’s), on the other hand, do see themselves as victims in need of protection. This is how they can so easily justify their vengeful behavior … “They asked for it and they got what they deserved", That’s the way they see it. Their core belief might go something like this; “The world is dangerous, people can’t be trusted so I need to get them before they hurt me.” This attitude sets them up to think that they must strike out in order to defend against inevitable attack.

    Whereas a SGR may move into the role of persecutor by withdrawing their care-taking, (“That’s it – I’m not doing anything else for you!”) a SGP rescues in a way that is almost as painful as when they persecute.

    GW is an executive who often justified hurting others. Attack is his primary way of dealing with inconvenience, frustration or pain. Once, for instance, he mentioned running into a patient of his on the golf course. Our dialogue went something like this;

    “can you believe that he had the nerve to ask me to treat his bad knee, right then and there, on my only day off?"

    “Yeah”, I replied, “some people just don’t have appropriate boundaries. How did you handle it?”

    “Oh, I took him to my office for a treatment, all right,” he chuckled, “and I gave him a steroid shot he’ll never forget!

    In other words Bob rescued his inconsiderate patient but in a way that “punished” him for daring to be so bold. To Bob, his action seemed rational, even justified. His patient had infringed on his free time, therefore, he believed, his patient deserved the rough treatment he got. This is a prime example of SGP thinking. Bob didn’t realize that he could have just said no to his patients request for treatment. He did not have to feel victimized by, nor did he need to rescue his patient. Setting boundaries never occurred to Bob as an option. In his mind he had been treated unjustly and therefore he had the right, even the obligation, to get even.

    Victims also have core beliefs that set them up for their starting gate position on the triangle. Starting Gate Victim’s (SGV’s) believe they cannot take care of themselves. They see themselves as consistently unable to handle life. They even rescue from a one-down position, saying things to their potential rescuer like "You’re the only one who can help me.” These are words that any SGR longs to hear!

    Starting gate positions are generally set-up in childhood. For instance, if a parent does not ask their children to take age-appropriate responsibility for themselves, they may grow up either to become adults who feel inadequate at taking care of themselves (starting gate victim) or become resentful adults who blame others when they don’t get care-taken. (a persecutor role). Either way, they are set up for a lifetime on the victim triangle.

    There are many variations, and each case needs to be individually considered. We not only act out these triangular distortions in our everyday relations with others, but we also play out the victim triangle internally. We move around the triangle as rapidly inside our own minds as we do out in the world. We ensnare ourselves on the triangle with dishonest and dysfunctional internal dialogue. For example, we may come down hard on ourselves for not completing a project. Perhaps we lambast ourselves as being lazy, inadequate or defective (P), causing us to spiral into feelings of anger and self-worthlessness. Inwardly, we cower to this persecutory voice, fearing it may be right (V). Finally when we can’t bear it anymore, we take ourselves off the hook by justifying, minimizing or indulging in some form of escape. This is how we rescue ourselves. This could go on for minutes, hours or days.

    Sometimes we rescue ourselves and others by denying what we know – sort of like; “If I look the other way and pretend not to notice, it will go away”. Denial or inner drama of any kind perpetuates a vicious cycle of shame and self loathing. Moving around the triangle keeps the self-disparaging messages running.The victim triangle becomes our very own shame-making machine. It’s up to us to learn how to turn this noisy mental machine off.

    We can’t get off the triangle until we recognize we’re on it. Once we make it conscious, we observe our interactions with others as a way to identify our own starting gate position. What hooks us? From where do I enter the triangle once I’ve been hooked? We begin to train our Internal Observer to notice, without judgment, our conversations with loved ones, especially those more “sticky” moments (where we walk on eggshells).

    It’s helpful to learn what the costs and trade-offs are for each of the three roles. Each role has its own language, beliefs and behavior – it’s beneficial to know them. This helps us to identify when we’re on the triangle. Studying the roles also promotes a quicker recognition of when we’re being baited to play. With all that in mind, let’s examine each role more carefully.

    Rescuer

    The Rescuer might be described as a shadow aspect of the mother principle. Instead of an appropriate expression of support and nurturing, the Rescuer tends to “smother”, control and manipulate others – “for their own good”, of course. Theirs is a misguided understanding of what it is to encourage, empower and protect.

    A Starting Gate Rescuer is the classic, co-dependent. The SGR tends be enabling, overly protective – the one who wants to “fix it”. Rescuing is an addiction that comes from an unconscious need to feel valued. There’s no better way to feel important than to be a savior! Taking care of others may be the Rescuers best game plan for getting to feel worthwhile.
    SGR’s usually grow up in families where their dependency needs are not acknowledged. It’s a psychological fact that we treat ourselves the way we were treated as children. The budding Rescuer grows up in an environment where their needs are negated and so tend to treat themselves with the same degree of negligence that they experienced as children. Without permission to take care of themselves, their needs go underground and they turn instead to taking care of others.

    A SGR often gains great satisfaction by identifying with their care-taking role. They are generally proud of what “helpers” and “fixers” they are. Often they are socially acclaimed, even rewarded, for what can be seen as “selfless acts" of caring. They believe in their goodness as chief caretakers and see themselves as heroes.

    Behind it all is a magical belief that, said out loud, might sound like, “If I take care of them long enough, then, sooner or later, they will take care of me too.” But, as we’ve already learned, this rarely happens. When we rescue the needy, we can’t expect anything back. They can’t even take care of themselves – much less be there for us!

    Often the resulting disappointment sends the SGR spiraling into depression. They fail to see that they, themselves are heading straight for victim through their enabling and disabling responses. Having denied the ill-begotten consequences of rescuing, these “do-gooders” find it very hard to hear themselves referred to as a victim even while they complain about how mistreated they are! Martyr is what a SGR turns into once they’ve moved into the victim position on the triangle.

    Betrayal, feeling used and hopeless are trademark feelings of the victim phase of a Rescuer’s dance around the triangle. Common phrases for the martyred SGR are; “After all I’ve done for you, this is the thanks I get?” or “No matter how much I do, it’s never enough”; or, “If you loved me, you wouldn’t treat me like this!”

    A SGR’s greatest fear is that they will end up alone. They believe that their total value comes from how much they do for others. It’s difficult for them to see their worth beyond what they have to offer in the way of “stuff” or “service”. SGR’s unconsciously encourage dependency because they believe, “If you need me, you won’t leave me”. They scramble to make themselves indispensable in order to avoid abandonment.

    SGR’s are oblivious to the crippling dependency they foster. They are unaware of the disabling messages they send through their enabling interaction with others. The more they rescue, the less self responsibility is taken by the ones they care-take … The less responsibility their charges takes, the more they rescue … it’s a downward spiral that often ends in disaster.

    A SGR mother of two out-of-control, teenage sons described it well. She said, “I thought my role as a good mother was to make sure my sons toed the line – I thought I was supposed to make sure they did the right thing. Because I believed that I was responsible for the choices they made, I told them what to do and constantly attempted to control their behavior.”
    Should she be surprised then that her sons blame everyone around them for the painful consequences they experience as a result of their own poor choices? Like her, they have learned to think that their behavior is her responsibility, not their own. Her incessant and futile attempts to control them causes constant battle between them, making it easy for the boys to blame their mother for the problems created by their own irresponsibility. Out of her own need to be seen as a “good mom”, this co-dependent mother unwittingly taught her sons to see themselves as hapless victims whose unhappiness was always somebody else’s fault. There’s a good possibility that at least one of these boys will become a Starting Gate Persecutor. Certainly the set up is in place for that to happen.

    This mother, as is often the case, was convinced that her sons were incapable of making good choices. She had a long list of evidence to back up her concerns. This accumulated evidence justified her “obligation” to control her sons choices. But because they were teenagers, she could no longer force their compliance like she could when they were younger. Inevitably she would end up feeling helpless, inadequate and like a failure as a mother (victim position). She would either give in to their demands or “persecute” them for not obeying. Either way, she (and they) felt bad. Then would come the guilt or remorse which would motivate her to try to “fix it” once again. And she finds herself back in her original Starting Gate Rescuer position for the cycle to start anew.

    We met Sally earlier, who grew up seeing her mother as helpless and ineffectual. From an early age, she felt a huge responsibility to take care of her frail, drug dependent parent. Her own well-being depended on it! As the years went by, however, she could scarcely contain the inner rage she felt towards her mother for being so needy and weak. As a SGR, she would do all she could to bolster her mother, only to come away again and again, feeling defeated (victim) because nothing she tried worked. Inevitably the resentment would take over, leading her to resort to treating her mother with scorn (persecutor). This became her primary interactive pattern, not only with her mother, but in her other relationships as well. By the time we met, she was emotionally, physically and spiritually exhausted from having spent her life taking care of one sick and dependent person after another.

    It becomes the job of the Rescuer to keep the other propped up – “for their own good”, of course. Having a Victim is essential in order for the SGR to maintain the illusion of being one-up and needless. This means then, that there will always be at least one person in every SGR’s life who is troubled, sick, fragile, inept and therefore dependent upon them. If the SGR’s primary victim starts taking responsibility for themselves, the Rescuer will either have to find a new victim or address their own shadow needs.

    Regardless of the circumstances of the one a SGR feels compelled to rescue – no matter how “badly” the victim may need help, rescuing can lead only one place – victim. If you are a primary Rescuer, this does not mean you cannot be loving, generous and kind. It is certainly possible to be helpful and supportive without being a Rescuer. There is a distinct difference between being truly helpful and rescuing.

    Authentic helpers act without expectations for reciprocation. They empower rather than disable those they serve. What they do will be done to encourage self-responsibility, rather than promote dependency. True Supporters believe that the other can handle their own business. They believe that everyone has the right to make mistakes and learn through sometimes hard consequences. They trust the other has what it takes to see themselves through times of difficulty without they, as Rescuers, needing to “save” them.
    Starting Gate Rescuers, on the other hand, don’t take responsibility for themselves. Instead, they do for others in an attempt to get validation or feel important or as a way to foster dependency. Victim is just round the bend.

    Persecutor
    Like the other roles, the Starting Gate Persecutor is shame based. This role is most often taken on by someone who received overt mental and/or physical abuse during their childhood. As a result they are often secretly seething inside from a shame based wrath that ends up running their lives. SGPs, for survival sake, repress deep-seated feelings of worthlessness; they hide their pain behind a facade of indignant wrath and uncaring detachment. They may choose to emulate their primary childhood abuser(s), preferring to identify with those they see as having power and strength – rather than become the “picked on loser” at the bottom of life’s pile. SGP’s tend to adopt an attitude that says; “The world is hard and mean … only the ruthless survive. I’ll be one of those”. In other words, they become perpetrators. They “protect” themselves using authoritarian, controlling and downright punishing methods.

    In the same way that the SGR is the shadow mother principle, the SGP is the “shadow father principle”. A healthy father’s job is to protect and provide for his family. Rather than providing nurturing direction, the SGP attempts to “reform” and discipline those around him using manipulation and brute force.

    The SGP overcomes feelings of helplessness and shame by over-powering others. Domination becomes their most prevalent style of interaction. This means they must always be right! Their methods include bullying, preaching, threatening, blaming, lecturing, interrogating and outright attack. They believe in getting even, very often through aggressive acts. Just like the Rescuer needs someone to fix, the Persecutor needs someone to blame. SGP’s deny their vulnerability in the same way Rescuers deny their needs. Their greatest fear is powerlessness. Because they judge and deny their own inadequacy, fear and vulnerability, they will need some place else to project these disowned feelings. In other words, they need a victim. They need someone they perceive as weak to prove to themselves that their own destructively painful story about the world is true. Both Rescuers and Persecutors unconsciously “need” a Victim in order to sustain their idea of who they are and what the world is like.

    SGP’s also tend to compensate for inner feelings of worthlessness by putting on grandiose airs. Grandiosity inevitably comes from shame. It is a compensation and cover-up for deep inferiority. Superiority is the attempt to swing hard to the other side of “less than” in order to come across as “better than”.

    It is most difficult for someone in Persecutor to take responsibility for the way they hurt others. In their mind, others deserve what they get. These warring individuals tend to see themselves as having to constantly fight for survival. Theirs is a constant struggle to protect themselves in what they perceive as a hostile world.

    Joseph was from a prominent, wealthy family. His parents divorced and his father was angry, remote and used his money to control others. His mother was an alcoholic who brought home men who abused her and Joseph throughout his pre-adolescent and adolescent years. He, early on, learned that his only chance for survival was to fight. Joseph plowed through life with his head down the way a bull rages across a bullfighters pen. He constructed his life so that there was always an enemy that had to be fought.

    On the outside, Joseph exhibited a swash-buckling, “I don’t give a damn” persona – he was ever ready to gamble or take careless risks with his health. But on the inside, he was bitter and unhappy. He shared with me how exhausted he felt from a belief that he needed to maintain constant vigilance; he felt a desperate need to keep a watchful eye out for those who wanted to hurt him or his loved ones.

    Joseph was constantly involved in court battles and even out and out, physical brawls. He was always having to get himself out of one “scrape” after another. To his way of thinking these occurrences were always somebody else’s fault. He could not resist what he felt was justifiable retaliation. “I can’t let them get away with it!” was his most common response.
    Joseph saw himself as someone who did not get the protection he deserved. This belief justified taking matters into his own hands. At least that’s how he saw it. He trusted no-one. Not even his parents had been reliable, so who could he depend on? This attitude prompted him to be in constant defense mode. He had to be ready for the next attack!

    Joseph is an example of a classic Starting Gate Persecutor. It is easy to think that Persecutors are “bad” people. They are not. They are simply wounded individuals who see the world as dangerous. This requires that they be ever ready to strike back. They live in constant defensive reaction.

    It is always difficult for SGP’s to perceive themselves as persecutors. It is much easier to justify the necessity for persecution (thereby identifying with victim) than to own the oppressor role. The SGP cycle looks something like: "I was just trying to help (rescuer), and they turned on me (victim), so I had to defend myself by striking back (persecutor).”
    It can feel very threatening for someone stuck in Persecutor consciousness to get really honest with themselves. To do so feels like blaming themselves, which only intensifies their internal condemnation. SGP’s need to have a situation or person they can blame so they can stay angry. Anger, for a SGP, can act as a fuel within the psyche to energize them. It may be the only way they have of dealing with chronic depression. SGPs often need a jolt of rage the same way other people depend on a shot of caffeine. It jump-starts their day and provides them with the energy needed to keep them on their feet.

    Just as with the other roles, self-accountability is the only way off the victim grid for the SGP. There has to be some kind of breakthrough for them to own their part. Unfortunately, because of their great reluctance to do so, it may have to come in the form of crisis.
    Ironically, a main exit way off the triangle is through the persecutor position. This does not mean we become persecutors. It does mean however, that once we decide to get off the triangle, there most likely will be those who see us as persecutors. (”How can you do this to me?”) Once we decide to take self-responsibility and tell our truth, those still on the triangle are likely to accuse us of victimizing them. “How dare you refuse to take care of me,” a Victim might cry. Or “What do you mean you don’t need my help?” a primary enabler storms when their victim decides to become accountable. In other words, to escape the victim grid, we must be willing to be perceived as the “bad guy.” This doesn’t make it so, but we must be willing to sit with the discomfort of being perceived as such.
    Victim

    The role of Starting Gate Victim is also a shadow aspect. It is the wounded shadow of our inner child; that part of us that is innocent, vulnerable AND needy. This child-self does need support on occasion – that’s natural. It’s only when we become convinced that we can’t take care of ourselves, that we move into Victim. Believing that we are frail, powerless or defective keeps us needing rescue. This relegates us to a lifetime of crippling dependency on our primary relationships.

    A SGV has accepted a definition of themselves that says they are intrinsically damaged and incapable. SGV’s project an attitude of being weak, fragile or not smart enough; basically, “I can’t do it by myself." Their greatest fear is that they won’t make it. That anxiety forces them to be always on the lookout for someone stronger or more capable to take care of them.
    SGV’s deny both their problem solving abilities and their potential for self-generated power. Instead they tend to see themselves as inept at handling life. Feeling done in by, at the mercy of, mistreated, intrinsically defective or “wrong”, they see themselves as broken and unfixable. This doesn’t prevent them from feeling highly resentful towards those on who they depend. As much as they insist on being taken care of by their primary rescuers … they nonetheless do not appreciate being reminded of their inadequacy.

    The very thing a Rescuer seeks (validation and appreciation) is the thing Victims most resent giving because it is a reminder to them of their own deficiencies. Instead they resent the help that is given. SGV’s eventually get tired of being in the one-down position and begin to find ways to feel equal. Unfortunately this usually involves some form of “getting even”.
    For a SGV, a move to persecutor on the triangle usually means sabotaging the efforts made to rescue them, often through passive-aggressive behavior. For example, they are skilled at playing a game called,“Yes, but ….”

    It works like this…

    The SGV’s rescuer offers a helpful suggestion to some complaint or problem voiced by the Victim. The SGV immediately turns the suggestion on its ear with a response like; "Yes, but that won’t work because …”. The SGV then proceeds to “yes, but” any and all suggestions, as the Rescuer tries, in vain, to come up with a solution. The SGV is determined to prove that their problem is unsolvable, thus stumping the Rescuer, leaving them to feel as impotent as the SGV innately feels. They may also resort to the persecutor role as a way to blame or manipulate others into taking care of them.

    Convinced of their intrinsic incompetence, SGV’s live in a perpetual shame spiral, often leading to self abuse. Abuse of drugs, alcohol and food, as well as gambling and out of control spending are just a few of the self defeating behaviors practiced by SGV’s. SGV’s walk around much like the Charlie Brown character, Pig-Pen in his whirlwind of dust, except Victims live in a vortex of shame of their own making. This cloud of defectiveness becomes their total identity.

    Linda was the second-born in her family. Almost from birth, she had problems. Linda was a child who was forever in trouble of one sort or another. She struggled academically, was perpetually disruptive and often sick. It came as no surprise to anyone when she got into drugs as a teenager. Her mother, Stella, was a die-hard Rescuer. Convinced of Linda’s ineptitude and thinking she was being helpful, Stella bailed Linda out every time she got into trouble. By constantly alleviating the natural consequences of Linda’s choices, Stella’s earnest enabling deprived Linda of the opportunity to learn from her mistakes. As a result, Linda came to see herself as increasingly incompetent and grew more dependent on others. Her mother’s well-intentioned rescuing sent a crippling message that promoted a life long Victim stance for Linda.

    Since SGV’s are often the identified problem in their family, it’s natural for them to seek outside professional help first. Often they are dragged to their first counseling session by distressed family members. SGV’s tend to be ever on the look out for yet another Rescuer, and SGR’s abound among helping professionals. In this case, the professional may find themselves inadvertently hooked on the triangle with a practiced, and very convincing, victim. This means the real issue never gets addressed.

    Those in primary Victim roles must learn to assume responsibility for themselves and initiate self-care, rather than look outside themselves for a savior. They must challenge the ingrained belief that they can’t take care of themselves if they are to escape the triangle. Instead of seeing themselves as powerless, they must acknowledge their problem solving as well as their leadership capabilities.

    For it is true that no matter who may try to “save us”, as a SGV’s – no matter how much money they give or how sincere our intentions to “do better” may be, playing the part of victim always leads to only one place – straight back to Victim. It’s an endless cycle of feeling defeated and worthless. There is no escape except to take total responsibility for our own feelings, thoughts and reactions.

    Starting Gate Beliefs

    Each starting gate position has a “script” made to order for their particular dance around the triangle. These “scripts” consist of a particular set of beliefs through which the world and ourselves are seen.

    The Rescuer Story

    Rescuers believe that their needs are unimportant and irrelevant. This means that the only way they can legitimately connect with others, feel valued and have their needs met is through the back door of care-taking. Rescuers chastise themselves when they aren’t care-taking others. Their starting gate story is; “If I take care of others well enough and long enough, then I will be fulfilled. It’s the only way to be loved.” Unfortunately, Rescuers are involved with life-time Victims who have no idea of how to be there for them. This reinforces the SG Rescuer’s story that says they shouldn’t be needy, which then produces more shame and deeper denial surrounding their own needs.
    The Victim Story

    Guilt and shame are the driving forces for the perpetuation of the Triangle. Guilt is often used by Victims in an effort to manipulate their Rescuers into taking care of them: "If you don’t do it, who will?” The Victims’ story says they can’t make it on their own and they prove it to themselves over and over on the triangle. They believe that they are innately defective and incapable and so spend their lives on the look-out for someone to “save” them. Though this is what they feel they must have, i.e., a savior, they are simultaneously angry at their rescuers because they feel put down by and looked down on by their caretakers.
    The Persecutor Story

    Persecutors who believe the world is dangerous, use fear and intimidation as tools for keeping others in their place. What they don’t see is how their methods for providing “safety” end up proving to them that life is indeed as dangerous as they believe it to be. Their story says that they are innocent bystanders in a dangerous world where others are always out to hurt them. It’s survival of the fittest and their only chance is to strike first. This story keeps them in perpetual defense/offense modus operandi.

    Shadows of Victim-hood

    Placing the three positions on a straight line with Victim in the middle, is a way of demonstrating that Persecutor and Rescuer are simply the two extremes, or shadow aspects, of victim-hood.

    Persecutor -—- VICTIM -—- Rescuer

    All three roles are distorted expressions of positive powers that we, as humans possess, but deny or repress when living on the triangle. Identifying what our starting gate position is on the triangle can help us recognize the aspects of ourselves we deny.
    For instance, when we see ourselves primarily as mediators and caretakers, we deny our own power by setting inappropriate boundaries. We occupy the Rescuer position.
    SGR’s have a natural capacity for organizing, as well as a wonderful nurturing ability. But when a SGR denies herself the benefit of these abilities – when she refuses to nurture or set priorities for herself … then she will find herself obsessing about and intervening (or interfering) in the lives of others – most often in unhealthy ways. She becomes someone who takes responsibility for everyone but herself.

    These characteristics are commonly thought of as being primarily feminine characteristics – so the SGR can be seen as a distorted expression of the feminine aspect.
    The Persecutor, on the other hand, has a deep-seated sense of justice. He believes in the use of power and assertiveness. There is nothing innately wrong with these abilities; they are in fact, important in self care. Yet a SGP will exercise these gifts in twisted ways. When these essentially male qualities of protection, guidance and boundary setting are not fully acknowledged and claimed – when they are denied, they end up being expressed in unconscious and irresponsible ways – thus a SGP can be seen as a distorted expression of the masculine aspect.

    Attack, for the SGP, becomes the accepted way to express these powers and is then justified as a necessary defense. Simultaneously, a SGP will see themselves only as the innocent victim … “They hurt me – I had to protect myself by retaliating”. It’s hard for any of us to admit we mistreat people. Persecutors justify their hurtful behavior with “good reasons” (“… because they did something to me” or “took something from me”) and this makes it okay, in their minds, to hurt “back”. This is typical Persecutor mentality. SGP’s have suppressed their caring, nurturing qualities, and instead, tend to problem solve through anger, abuse and control.

    Here’s a typical example, that might easily show up in relationship…

    Don came home late for dinner. Ann, his wife, was angry. She had prepared a good meal and it was still sitting, uneaten and cold, an hour later. Like many SGP’s, Ann’s tendency is to assume the worse (“He did this to me”) and attack. So instead of checking in with her husband, she immediately launches into; “You told me you would be here on time. You lied! I can never trust you to tell me the truth.” When Don tries to explain that he got stuck in traffic, Ann is not listening. Instead she justifies her reaction… “You always have excuses! You expect me to believe you. You’re a liar … “. She continues to hurl insults, even resorting to name calling. Later, she explained that he had hurt her and therefore deserved the way she treated him. This is classic Persecutor reasoning.

    Because Ann sees herself as a victim who doesn’t have the right to take care of herself or set boundaries, (by saying, something like, “Hi Sweetheart, I had dinner ready on time; when you didn’t get here, I went ahead and ate mine and left yours warming on the stove.”) she resorts to trying to feel powerful through attack. Her belief that she is at the mercy of someone who is trying to hurt her keeps her striking out in a distorted effort to protect.

    When we have suppressed both sides … denying both our innate ability to take care of ourselves through healthy nurturing and the right to take protective, assertive action, we are left in Victim. As a matter of fact, a good definition for a SGV might be; someone who does not know how to set priorities or boundaries, nor nurtures and protects themselves.
    As individuals grow in awareness and begin to alter their behavior, they often change their starting-gate positions. Becoming aware of a primary position, they may commit to getting off the triangle but often merely switch roles instead. Although they may be operating from a different starting gate, they are nonetheless still on the triangle. This happens frequently and may even be an essential part of learning the full impact of living on the triangle.

    Consequences of Triangular Living

    Living on the victim triangle creates misery and suffering no matter what your primary starting gate position may be. The cost is tremendous for all three roles and leads to emotional, mental and even physical pain. Efforts to avoid pain, by blaming or looking for someone to take care of us, only ends up generating greater pain in the end. When we try to shield others from the truth, (rescue) we discount their abilities and this creates more pain. Everyone involved in triangular dynamics ends up hurt and angry at some point; no-one wins. There are characteristics of and consequences to being on the triangle that all three roles bear in common. Let’s talk about a few of them.
    Lack of Personal Responsibility

    Whenever we fail to take responsibility for ourselves, we end up on the triangle. Not even Rescuers, who pride themselves on being responsible, take responsibility for themselves. They take care of everyone else, but have no idea of how to do it for themselves. Not taking responsibility is a key identifying factor in recognizing when we are on the triangle. Persecutors shift responsibility by blaming others for their misery. Victims look for someone else to take responsibility for them. Not one of the three roles take responsibility for themselves.

    As long as we chase ourselves and others around the triangle, we relegate ourselves to living in reaction. Rather than living spontaneously and free through self-responsibility and personal choice, we settle into dull and painful lives ruled by the agendas of others and our own unconscious beliefs. To experience a fulfilling life requires a conscious willingness to get off the triangle and extend grace to those still encumbered by their drama.

    Painful Beliefs Rule

    Unhealthy beliefs about ourselves and the world, instilled in childhood, become rigid rules that may need to be violated. Family dictums such as: “don’t talk about it”, “don’t share feelings”, or, “it’s selfish to take care of yourself”, are some of the old beliefs that have ruled us and must be challenged if we are to evolve. We can expect, and even celebrate uncomfortable feelings when they come up for us, learning to see them as opportunities for freeing ourselves of the painful beliefs that keep us trapped on the triangle.

    Sometimes we simply need to sit with an uncomfortable feeling – such as guilt, without acting on it. Guilt does not necessarily imply that we have behaved wrong or unethically. Guilt is often a learned response. Sometimes guilt just means that we’ve broken a dysfunctional family

    I’m reminded of a story that has circulated among therapeutic circles for years about the way to cook a ham. Perhaps you remember it too. It goes like this:

    A little girl noticed her mother cutting the butt end off the ham to cook it for the family holiday dinner and asked, “Why do you cut off the end to cook it?” The mother without giving it a moment’s thought, replied, “Why, this is the way my mother always cooked a ham, so I know it’s the right way to do it!” Well, the little girls grandmother happened to live close by, so she visited her and asked her the same question, “Grandma, why do you cut the butt end off the ham before you cook it?” Her grandmother replied that her mother had taught her to cook a ham like that. Great granny happened to be visiting for the holiday so the little girl went to her and asked the same question… This time the answer came… “Child, when I was cooking hams back then, I only owned one baking pan and it was too small to hold a whole ham so I would cut the butt end off the ham to make it fit…”

    This is how it works. We follow, without question, family dictums and internalized beliefs that generate nothing but misery.

    Painful Feelings

    Frequently we get on the triangle through the port of painful feelings. It seems that many of us tend to let painful feelings rule us. We think a thought and it triggers guilt or fear, which prompts us to react in a way that puts us back on the triangle. Our reaction is usually a misguided attempt to control or get rid of the painful feeling so that we can “feel better”.

    For instance, we may rescue others as a way of both keeping ourselves and them from feeling bad. We tell ourselves things like, "She can’t handle it” or, “It will hurt his feelings”, so we “handle it” for them. We may notice that we feel better when we are fixing someone else – it gives us a false sense of being in control which feels temporarily empowering. We may fail to recognize that our increased sense of power is often at the expense of the other, leaving them feeling disempowered and “less than”.

    An Example

    Sam believed his son, Paul to be inept. The words he actually used to describe him were, “He’s stupid … he will never be able to make it in the world.” As a result, Sam’s primary relating pattern with his son was as his primary Rescuer. Believing Paul was stupid brought feelings of guilt, apprehension and duty towards his son. “He’s my son and I must provide for him … I must guide and advise him and bail him out of all the scrapes he gets himself into because he’s too stupid to run his own life. I will just have to do it for him.” These were some of Sam’s thoughts.

    And so he did.

    Meanwhile, Paul had bought into the story too. He shared his father’s perception that said he couldn’t make it on his own. Believing that he was basically lacking in fundamental life skills created feelings of inadequacy and failure for Paul. The whole relationship between this father and son was based on the severely limited definition that they shared about Paul’s lack of ability to do well in life.

    So, how do you think someone like Paul, who believes he’s truly inept, would live his life? What sorts of choices would you expect someone to make who sees himself as incapable and lacking? With such painful beliefs about himself, how could Paul make anything but “foolish” choices! And every time he does, he ends up verifying his father’s story about Paul.

    As long as these two share such a painfully limiting story about Paul, their relationship will remain on the triangle – Paul “screwing up” and Sam fixing it for him.

    I can hear some of you asking, “But Lynne, what if it’s true? What if Paul is totally incompetent?”

    I only know this… it is our beliefs that make it so. We treat others according to what we believe about them. When we challenge these assumptions, our interaction with that person changes.

    For instance, the whole dynamic between Sam and Paul changed as Sam began to examine his beliefs about his son. He began to treat his son with new respect once he was able to get honest with himself about his previously denied need to keep Paul dependent. He began to let his son experience the natural consequences of his own choices instead of rescuing and then berating him for making “dumb decisions”. As a result Paul began to learn from his mistakes. Sam’s relationship with Paul completely transformed simply because Sam chose to take responsibility for his own feelings and beliefs. By giving up playing Rescuer Sam was able to move off the triangle into a more satisfying and authentic daily exchange with his son.

    We may attempt to manage the emotional affairs of others by keeping our opinions, feelings and thoughts hidden, even from ourselves at times. This can end up costing us our own well-being and inevitably creates distance between ourselves and the other. It is just one more way we continue the dance around the triangle.

    What made Sam’s move off the triangle possible was his recognition that his feelings were created by his own beliefs. He came to understand that his behavior was always determined by whatever thoughts he was believing at the time.

    This is key to moving off the triangle. When we believe painful stories about who we are… like,“I’m only loved for what I do for others” or, “I don’t matter” — or we hold distorted beliefs about those around us… like, “They’re trying to hurt me” or “They’re incapable of doing well” – these personal convictions will lead us to behave as if they’re true. I’m saying that our painful feelings originate out of our limited ideas about ourselves and others. They cause us to react in ways that end up proving that what we believe is true. This is the vicious cycle of life on the triangle.

    Denial

    Anytime we deny our feelings we set ourselves up for a victim perspective. Feelings are real. They are “energy-in-motion”. When we discount or undermine our emotions we end up overtaken by them, becoming impulsive reactors. We can’t take responsibility for ourselves when we refuse to acknowledge our feelings, which means that these disavowed “inner tyrants” will go on driving our behavior from behind the scenes.

    Although it is true that our feelings are generated by what we believe … it does not work to discount or deny what we feel. Instead we come to see that when we are feeling “bad”, it simply means that there’s a distorted belief close by. Instead of denying the feeling, we learn to follow the feeling in to the belief behind it. This is where true intervention is possible. The feeling dissipates once the belief behind it is made conscious and addressed. We learn to recognize that our feelings are what point us to the limiting beliefs that are keeping us stuck on the triangle.

    Parents who never learned that feelings follow thought and who grew up without permission to acknowledge or express feelings often deny their children the same right. They may have decided early in life that certain feelings are wrong or bad, so they deny and repress them without examining the ruling thoughts behind the feelings.

    Telling ourselves that our feelings are unacceptable does not make them go away. As long as we continue to attach belief to painful stories about ourselves and others we will go on generating these same negative feelings. When suppressed, these denied emotions become secret pockets of shame within the psyche. They only serve to alienate us from others and sentence us to a life on the triangle.

    Sometimes we deny feelings in an ill-fated attempt to avoid feeling bad. Perhaps we tell ourselves that we can’t handle our feelings, that they are too much for us… We may think we are at the mercy of our own misery because we don’t know from where these feelings come or what to do with or about them. Maybe it is better to stay away from these messy inner states under such circumstances.

    But when we know that it’s our thoughts that produce painful feelings; that indeed our unhappy feelings act as gateways into greater understanding of ourselves – then we no longer have the need to suppress uncomfortable feelings. Until we are able recognize and grasp the implications of these simple truths however, we may go on trying to escape pain using various suppression tactics. These attempts at avoidance only keep us on the triangle where the guaranteed outcome is suffering and misery.

    Dishonesty

    Getting honest with ourselves is the most basic requirement for getting off the triangle. Getting off the triangle is impossible without self-honesty. Telling our truth is a key way of taking responsibility. We then must be willing to take necessary action for whatever that truth reveals.

    Of course, when feelings are denied, honesty is impossible. Remember that denial comes out of negative self judgment. If we have decided on some level that we cannot accept our thoughts, behavior or feelings than, chances are, we will not be able to admit we have them. It’s too painful to admit something about ourselves that we have judged as unacceptable. We must practice self acceptance if we are truly going to be able to be honest with ourselves and others.

    In order for a SG Rescuer to get honest, for instance, they have to be willing to confess their previously unconscious need to keep others dependent on them. This means acknowledging that being a rescuer is what they do to get their own need for self-worth met. As long as the Rescuer continues to see the other as a weak, ineffectual and inept victim, they will continue to deceive themselves into believing that they must be the fixer and caretaker. Their own needs will not be recognized or met.

    In the same way, a SG Persecutor is being dishonest when they insist on blaming others for their misery and suffering. There is no way off the triangle for a Persecutor as long as they insist on seeing themselves as blameless, innocent bystanders who have been unjustly treated.

    In order for a SG Victim to get off the triangle, they must confess their investment in staying “little” – dependent and needy. This means getting honest about how they have manipulated others, using a self-deprecating story of ineptness, in order to get taken care of. Otherwise they will fall deeper and deeper into a downward spiral of despair and unworthiness.

    Living in reality requires truth. To tell the truth, we first must first know what it is. When we react out of denied feelings and unconscious programming, we cannot possibly know our personal truth. This means we will not be in touch with reality. There will be hidden agendas and dishonesty. This is another primary trait of all players on the triangle. Only by knowing our truth, can we begin to speak from a place of personal integrity. Then exiting the triangle becomes possible.

    Projection

    We tend to deny feelings and beliefs that we have judged as negative or unacceptable. As previously mentioned, we rescue ourselves by pushing these unacceptable parts into the dark unconscious. They don’t necessarily stay there, however. Whatever thoughts and feelings we don’t own, i.e., take responsibility for, will end up being projected out into our world, usually on someone we “love”. As soon as we judge some thought or feeling within us as unacceptable, we will unconsciously look around and find someone who has these same traits and hate them for it. This is called projection and it is a propelling force on the triangle. Projection ensures that the victim dance continues.

    Lisa and Ted came in for couples counseling. In gathering their history, I learned that Lisa had a father who raged often throughout her childhood. She was afraid of anger as a result and did not allow herself to feel or express her own ill-humor. She judged anger as “bad” and denied that she had any. It’s probably no surprise then that Lisa’s biggest complaint about her husband was his “short fuse”. “He’s so angry all the time”, she said. “He just wants to argue about everything!”

    Her husband, Ted came across as upfront; open and communicative. He reported that he had not felt heard in his family growing up and expressed frustration with Lisa because, “Any time I disagree with her, no matter how calmly I express it, she accuses me of being angry and refuses to discuss it. It ends up that the only way I can get heard is to blow up!”
    Can you place these two on the triangle? Let’s take a look:

    Let’s start with Lisa, who was on the triangle before a single word was spoken out loud between her and her husband. She started out by judging her own anger (persecuting herself) and then denying it (rescuing herself). Lisa is on the triangle with herself. She rescues herself through denial. Denial is always an attempt to rescue ourselves. Lisa has learned to shut her anger down so quickly that she does not even register it consciously. But that angry energy has got to go somewhere.

    That’s where Ted enters the picture. Lisa needs someplace to project her disowned anger. Ted is the perfect fit. Lisa sees in Ted the angry self that she has denied. This is why she is so quick to label the slightest dissent from him as “bad” anger. She then castigates Ted for the “bad” feelings that she has projected and proceeds to criticize him harshly (persecutor) in the same way she has unconsciously judged herself. Ted, just as when he was a child, feels misunderstood and unheard at first. He is in victim. But before long his anger arises and he moves into persecutor by “blowing up” at Lisa. This moves Lisa into victim, prompting her to remember the “angry dad” of her childhood. Both Ted and Lisa are unconsciously validating their own childhood dramas by projecting their painful beliefs and judgments about themselves onto one another. These sorts of interactions are why I call the victim triangle the “playing field” for all dysfunction.

    You may wonder where the rescuer is in all this melee. Sometimes a role is played “beneath the surface”. It may not be externally evident as in the case described above. Because Lisa cannot take responsibility for her own anger (because to see herself as being “bad like dad” would be too painful) she rescues herself through denial. She takes herself off the hook by projecting her unwanted feelings onto her husband. This allows her to pretend she’s not angry (he’s the angry one, not her). On one level it feels better to believe that she’s not mean and angry like her dad was. The shadow consequences, however are that it sets her up to blame and persecute Ted and allows her to stay unconscious about her own personal anger. This is the nature of projection on the triangle.

    Ego and The Story of Who We Are

    We interact with others through old, unconsciously held and limiting beliefs that generate shame. Each starting gate position has a distinct type of core belief that drives their particular dance around the triangle. These core beliefs combine into unconscious stories. We believe these descriptions of ourselves and others without ever questioning them. Left to run unabated in the mind, they generate all sorts of painful feelings, including worthlessness, inadequacy and defectiveness. We reinforce and perpetuate these beliefs by moving around the triangle.

    The ego is that part of us that manufactures and believes these limiting stories. The ego is totally identified with the stories it tells and wants to keep us identified with them as well. The ego uses the triangle to strengthen these painfully, limited identities of who we are. When I think of our relationship with ego I often think of the nursery rhyme that goes:

    “Peter, Peter Pumpkin Eater, had a wife and couldn’t keep her. So he put her in a pumpkin shell and there he kept her very well.”

    This is a great metaphor for our relationship with the ego. Peter Pumpkin Eater is the ego and the wife he couldn’t keep is our own Inner Feminine. She is that part of us who remembers who we really are. The only way Ego can control this Authentic Essence is to keep it confined in the “pumpkin shell” of a limiting story. We are each held within the confines of such a story. The victim triangle is the playing field that ego uses for the purpose of reinforcing this dysfunctional story.

    We certainly can see this with Ted and Lisa. They each were entrapped within a very painful story; Ted believing that he will not be heard and therefore expecting to have his feelings judged and discounted. He is in the role of a SG Victim who inadvertently acts in ways that guarantee he will come away feeling ashamed and worthless. Lisa is the SG Persecutor who sees herself as a victim. She believes Ted is trying to hurt her with his anger which justifies her attempts to control him. Lisa punishes Ted by ignoring him until he finally strikes out, thus verifying her story about him as being “angry and cruel, just like dad”. Both have egos that are much more interested in verifying a limiting story than in feeling harmony between them.

    Failed Intimacy

    Although most of us long for a sense of connection with others, many people are secretly terrified of intimacy. Allowing someone to really know us can be frightening. Intimacy requires vulnerability and honesty. Believing at heart that we are unlovable, defective or “less than,” makes it difficult to reveal ourselves. We want unconditional acceptance, but when we haven’t accepted ourselves, it’s impossible to believe that anyone else could love us. Needing to hide our unworthiness makes distance imperative. As long as we maintain hidden agendas and deny our truth, intimacy is impossible. Victim-hood is designed to insure alienation, not only from others, but also from ourselves. Intimacy is not possible on the triangle.

    In Summary
    When we are ready to be accountable, we begin to sort through our genuine motives and feelings regarding our present situation. We become willing to experience our own uncomfortable feelings and we allow others their uncomfortable feelings too, without rescuing them.

    If our loved ones or associates are also willing to participate in this process of self-realization we can cultivate a healthier relationship together. As a result there is less and less interaction based on guilt, fear or shame.

    The good news is that whether or not our loved ones choose to get off the triangle, we can make that choice for ourselves! And that will change the whole dynamic between you and them. We are never victims, except by choice.

    Getting off means knowing where you stand right now and being willing to negotiate boundaries when necessary. Setting boundaries is not about being in control or manipulating outcomes. We sometimes confuse the two. We learn to look closely at our motives with an attitude of curiosity and the desire for deeper self-understanding. And then whatever we do, when done from a connected space, even if it is to walk away, will have a better chance of being based in truth rather than drama.

    Remember there will be times when we may be seen as the persecutor. Our challenge is to stay in touch with our truth and allow others the right (and they do have the right) to have their story. The two versions; your story and their story, do not have to match for you to be happy. That’s a common, but mistaken, idea.

    In reality, how others see us is not our concern. How we see ourselves is what can bring us transformation. We learn to focus on what we are believing. We notice the impact in own lives of believing those particular, and often painful, thoughts – beliefs like, “I’m only as important as what I can do for others” … or, “They’re trying to hurt me” or “I’m a total failure” – these are just a few of the stories with which we torture ourselves.

    Remember that just because we believe these stories does not make them true. But when we do believe them, we will act in ways that make them true! This is a profound and simple dawning of consciousness that holds a key to the door off the triangle. Used with sincere desire and rigorous, self-loving truth, these steps are the process that takes us all the way, straight through to the “Off” exit. As we liberate ourselves through self-responsibility and truth telling, we transform our lives. We actualize our Higher Selves, thus realizing the possibility that lies within each of us to live, not out of an ego limited story, but to expand into a much bigger and wonderful experience of life.
    “Getting off the triangle is not something we do once and for all. We get on and off all the time. Understanding tools like Stephen Karpman’s victim triangle brings us a map. It shows us where we are in our relational life and where we’re headed. Studying this map helps us find the best route for getting off the triangle. Again, it’s a process, not a final destination. I invite you to relax into the role of curious, creative explorer and willing student . . . may your thoughts and feelings be teachers for you as you travel the route to freedom from the triangle.”

  • Anonymous 09/15/2008 3:22pm
    Link Reply
    + -3

    WHY DON’T YOU DRIVE TO MI WITH YOUR ONE SILVER BULLET MR BARNEY FIFE…..GET A LIFE YOU EFFIN LOSER


Vote on This Bill

76% Users Support Bill

259 in favor / 82 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments