In Reply to Gustavo Gutierrez:

"The poor person does not exist as an inescapable fact of destiny. His or her existence is not politically neutral, and is not ethnically innocent. [It is not independent of geography.] The poor are a by-product of the system in which we live and for which we are responsible. They are marginalized by our social and cultural world. They are the oppressed, exploited proletariat, robbed of the fruit of their labor and despoiled of their humanity. Hence the poverty of the poor is not a call to generous relief action, but a demand that we go and build a different social order." Gustavo Gutierrez in, "The Power of the Poor in History"

I totally internalize this quote. Some days I think it is dangerous that I think about an entirely different social order. It is the most radical to be able to imagine something which has never been seen or doesn't exist. 

What if Wal-Mart didn’t sell cat toys because they thought it was wrong that children in the same town were going hungry while people bought toys for animals. Or, what if instead of not selling them, items were ranked by their necessity. If you want to buy a stupid cat toy, instead of 100% profit made on it by the company was %10 back to the retailer and 90% to charity. Items wouldn’t all be need v. wants, but how much need v. want would determine their profitability.  Shoes, clothes, tools, all are necessities, but cat toys, and $400 toys for individual backyard playgrounds? We have plenty of playgrounds and people need to learn to share. If you really want that ridiculous personal backyard playground or metal John Deere collection, you should have to be responsible for the social inequality that is the consequence of your wealth. It isn’t that things shouldn’t be created, made or sold, but they should have a much more transparent consequence. In my new social order, in my head, that is where I am going.  

I can imagine  a world where that gatekeeper who answers the phone at a “service” agency actually wants to help me live in a house and keep my job. And they would know how to do it. There isn’t a “no” in this world where people care. Our conversation wouldn’t be “I can’t help you” but “this is really horrible, can I help you think of some alternatives together.” Even on the phone. With a stranger, at 10am on a Friday. I can imagine that when bad days happen for individuals, there is a business plan that doesn’t penalize individuals, but rather is organized to fill that gap and be sympathetic to it. 

This would mean business has to maintain “fat” but not at the top in the bank account, but be over-staffed on the line. It does mean more time on teaching diversity of positions to employees, which is not a “well oiled machine” because it isn’t specialization. It is the opposite of industrial organization, in ways. I do think people want to do this, but they don’t know how, or maybe the person in charge of this change is busy with the crisis of what wedding dress her daughter is going to wear, but for whatever reason, it isn't happening when people want it to happen.


Is to think outside the box dangerous? It makes it hard for me to be "professional" some times because I really want to be angry at inequality. I am angry with comments like "the poor will always be with us" because they concede there is no solution and don't think about solutions, just continuing with out asking questions about why. I am angry. Anger can be a positive motivator to get me out of bed some days. I have to get up and fight a war on the poor. But some days I also have to ride around with those who maintain the problem and try not to make them do less, but show get them to do more of the good they are doing.


*sigh*