Cindycated Shawcross

Former President Carter Speaks Out About Racism

On September 15^th, Former President Carter made a statement in reference to Joe Wilson’s outburst “you lie” and the mood of some of the opposition to President Obama saying that he felt “…an overwhelming portion of the intentionally demonstrated animosity toward Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he is African-American. I live in the South, and I’ve seen the south come a long way, and I’ve seen the rest of the country, that shared the south’s attitude toward minority groups, particularly African-Americans.” Nevertheless, racism “still exists and I think it has bubbled up to the surface because of a belief among many white people, not just in the south but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It’s an abominable circumstance and grieves me and concerns me very deeply.”

Now, despite the white house essentially dispatching Carter’s statements, there is a heated debate over the issue of race which, unfortunately, is detracting from Obama’s intense efforts to do his job as president and, in particular, to pass healthcare reform. But, the comments by Carter are shared by many in America, both minorities and non. Everyone agrees that the “debate” in this country over policy issues have “coarsened”, but the way in which that “coarsening” has manifested is what many minority leaders, as well as Americans of all persuasions are calling “racist”.

Examination of this election cycle illustrated Carter’s point. During Obama’s campaign for the presidency we saw images and comments that many called “racist” like a California GOP group putting Obama on food stamps surrounded by images of fried chicken and watermelon; where conservative groups sold “Obama Waffles” showing Obama, on the cover in an Aunt Jemima style box with yet another image of Obama wearing Islamic headdress on the bottom of the box. Carter and other pundits have equated Joe Wilson’s “outburst” as the tip of the iceberg in a climate that has shown protesters and Congressional leaders questioning Obama’s legitimacy through the “birther” movement, as a non-citizen and as an illegitimate president; where people are crying out “we want our country back” implying that Obama is not one of them. The examples of overtly racist rhetoric and threats against the life of President Obama are too many to enumerate here, but they are clearly unlike anything we have ever seen in history.

The debate during Obama’s presidency, especially during town hall meetings on healthcare, have only served to widen the divide. When referring to the types of behaviors, signs, and arguments (like that of Joe Wilson) aimed at Obama, Carter put it well when he said, “Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care,” he said. “It’s deeper than that.”

Most recently, an outcry from conservatives over Obama’s Presidential address to American students again raised questions about race. Many news sources were criticizing the President for “indoctrinating” children with a socialist agenda before they had even heard the speech. Lowell Wolff, Administrator for Community Relations and Planning for Fargo Schools said there were many calls from concerned parents even before the speech aired; some of which he described as “intense”. Wolff pointed out that the school system is a publicly funded entity headed by the president, and noted that the scuttlebutt over the speech actually presented many “teachable moments”. He noted that activists requesting that the president’s speech not be aired could be equated to “censorship”, and asked “Does not the president also have the right to free speech?”. Ironically, after Obama spoke, he received many calls by parents which felt all school children should have been required to watch the speech.

Fargo School Superintendent Rick Buresh stated that although there were calls protesting Obama’s speech, he did not sense that any were specifically “racially” motivated adding that he felt that many people were simply misinformed and thought Obama’s speech had something to do with healthcare reform. Commenting on President Carter’s observations on race, Buresh stated that he felt much of the sentiments were a symptom of a “hypersensitive public in a highly charged political climate”. The Fargo school system did give teachers the option of showing the speech to students if it fit into the curriculum and/or the students’ schedules, and according to school officials, many students did get the opportunity to watch the presidents speech. Superintendent Buresh stated that after seeing the speech he found nothing objectionable about it; that in fact the schools strive to send the same message the president gave to students and that it was great “to have the president of the United States reinforce that message”.

John Strand, serving on the school board said he was pleased that “there was no roadblock in Fargo that would prevent student bodies from viewing the speech”, adding that it was a sign of respect to the presidency that Fargo made this choice when others were choosing to censor the speech. Although Grand Forks and East Grand Forks schools did not air the speech, they did give teachers a choice to show the speech to their students in the future. However, most school officials interviewed were really caught off guard and quite surprised by the reaction to a simple presidential address. Superintendent Buresh said, “We are in a very polarized media climate”, and “maybe this a part of our new reality”

As a growing Latino population continues to gain political representation; and while the minorities in America continue to call for equity, even in our own Fargo-Moorhead area, politicians seem oblivious to the political suicide that they are courting by polarizing our country over the issue of race. My 16 year old daughter, Sara Siqueiros, said it best when she complained that she had not had the opportunity to watch the presidents address to students and that Latino and other minority children need to see minorities in leadership that they can look up to. She added, “You know mom, America thought that we passed the ‘big test’ in showing we are not a racist nation by electing Obama as our President. But it is how we respect him throughout his presidency that is the real test”. Out of the mouths of babes…….

The Reasons Why I Should Stop Asking for Healthcare: And Other Things I Learned About the Public Option in Washington DC

Picture of Sen. Al Franken at Breakfast before our Conference

I was recently in DC representing People Escaping Poverty Project (PEPP), at a conference co-hosted by Reps. Peter DeFazio (OR) and Tom Perriello (D-Va.) with speakers including Congressman and triple Board Certified (in Internal Medicine, Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, and Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology), Dr. Steve Kagen, (D-Wisc.), House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and attended by at least 36 congressional staffers. The Democratic members came to support a report released by the Center for Community Change and the Center (CCC) for Rural Affairs on rural communities’ attitudes toward health care reform. Moderating the event was

Washington Post writer Ezra Klein

who talked about the “true cost” of healthcare reporting that:

The average health-care coverage for the average family now costs $13,375, according to Kaiser [Family Foundation’s 2009 Employer Benefits Survey]. Over the past decade, premiums have increased by 138 percent. And if the trend continues, by 2019 the average family plan will cost $30,083. Washington Post, Ezra Klein, staff writer (Sept. 20, 2009) from “You Have No Idea What Health Costs, If You Did, You Might Just Want Real Reform”

The report issued by CCC highlighted stories from people across many rural states. see http://www.statefairstories.org ). According to the report, entitled “Sweet The Bitter Drought: Why America Needs Health Care Reform,” 82 percent of rural counties are classified as medically under-served areas. Medicaid and Medicare accounted for 60 percent of revenues in rural hospitals. Furthermore, during 2006, twenty-five percent of family farmers with insurance reported debt from medical expenses. There is a seventy percent chance that if you are a rural American you are under-insured or uninsured than if you are from urban America.

Those who spoke at the conference, like myself, talked in detail about how people in rural communities are facing the same problems the rest of Americans in the country face with access, affordability and quality of coverage; that we in rural America also suffer the same level of damage to our local economies due to the crushing burden put on small businesses, entrepreneurs, small companies, farmers, and the self-employed. A poll of rural communities showed overwhelming support from all rural states for a public option. But being from ND, I already knew all of that and had already heard time and again from its people; how healthcare costs had broken them; how they lost a loved one because they couldn’t continue coverage; how many of them don’t even have healthcare. After listening to the speakers and the members express their support, I walked out of the conference with a feeling of hope.

Unfortunately, when I visited my own member’s office (Sen. Conrad) and listened to many of the members of the Senate finance committee that evening on C Span, I was left with quite a different impression of our healthcare future. Sen. Conrad’s staff did explain that he would not support Sen. Rockefeller’s amendment which had a pubic option because it tied costs to Medicare reimbursement rates, and this would hurt North Dakota. However, Conrad did not vote for Sen. Schumer’s amendment either which also contained a public option and did not tie rates to Medicare. Although the Senator’s Aids (both in Fargo and DC) repeated that the Senator was “focused” on healthcare reform and acknowledged the problems with the current system, I could not get a response from anyone as to why the Senator could not support a public option. I was told by one aid in DC that there are not 60 votes for a public option, but Conrad’s “co-op” has nowhere near 60 votes either, so this left me quite confused about what the Senator will do to help people desperate for healthcare coverage in North Dakota.

I decided to look for answers elsewhere. As I listened to others on Capitol Hill while in DC, and later on C Span and on talk radio and TV, I realized that despite all the pleas, the common sense, and the overwhelming support for a public option in healthcare reform, there were some very frightening arguments in opposition.

Here is what I learned. Apparently, there are dozens and dozens of reasons why we should not pass a healthcare bill with a public option. To be fair, I cannot do justice to all the arguments I have heard, but here are some of them:

More Fraud And Abuse

If you thought that only the insurance companies can gouge you (and commit fraud against federal government programs like Medicare and Medicaid) – but you

would be wrong! If a “government run” option becomes available to people, that system could also possibly be abused by people who may lie about who they are. Of course this is conjecture, but the opposition supposes it could happen. Essentially, the message is that fraud and abuse of the “system” will still be there – but insurance companies won’t be the only ones perpetrating it if a public option passes.

More Cost

When Joe Wilson felt compelled to scream “You Lie” at the president during his joint address to the houses of congress on healthcare, he wasn’t the only one who was thinking it. Most republicans and a small number of democrats also agree that Obama’s promises were false; especially when it comes to the cost aspect. Obama did promise that not a penny would be added to the deficit to fund healthcare reform. But, as I listened to the opposition, I found that insurance companies wil

l be required to offer - - across the board - - a minimum of services and benefits (even for the cheapest of plans). This, many argue, will inevitably raise the cost of premiums for all. But wait, there’s more! Employers who are now not giving you raises because of exorbitant healthcare premiums will not be the only ones suffering. That is if you have a job or insurance to begin with, I’m assuming.

Unwanted Government Intrusion

Employers who otherwise did not offer insurance will now have to buy insurance. That’s going to cost them money they could have used to pay you more money! Instead of money, you will only have your health.

People who otherwise didn’t have insurance as small business owners, or self-employed persons will now be required to have health insurance. Subsidies will help people afford the insurance but there will still be costs that these people were not making before. So, if you wanted to spend your life without ever once having to see the inside of a doctor’s office, even if your life depended on it - - there go your rights!

And companies who purchased “Cadillac” plans for their executives would be taxed on any fancy “extras”. Won’t that discourage the wealthy to be healthy? What is even worse is that there will be a “cap” on how much insurance executives can

earn! You may live longer due to having better healthcare coverage Americans, but you won’t be able to enjoy it on the mediocre wages you will earn (especially if you were insurance executive)!

Your Current Coverage Won’t Exist Anymore

If a government run option is available, opponents argue that no insurance company in the public sector will be able to compete with the low low prices of the government run plan. Therefore, in order to keep insuring their employees, employers will switch to the government run plan and the plan you had – which you were probably happy with, won’t exist anymore. Essentially, the government will

become the “Walmart” of insurance, offering discounted prices that no “mom and pop” insurance company will be able to beat. Pretty soon, all the small town insurance store fronts will be closed and the big government giant “public option” plan will be the only player in town.

In essence, the fear is this: a public option could affect capitalism, could raise your premiums, could decrease your coverage, and might lower your wages. For those of us without a job or health insurance, these fears are moot. But for the many Americans who still hold on to their jobs, and have insurance through their employers, these fears could just sway them to oppose a public option.

Your Healthcare Will Be Rationed

Opponents of healthcare reform realize that with all Americans (or at least most) being able to finally access care – there will be a run on hospitals and clinics. There will be so many people, and so few doctors to treat all these new people that healthcare will have to be rationed. Again, this is an assumption, but a scary one. I was already aware of rationed care by health insurance companies – who currently decide what treatment is covered, who is covered, for how much, and for how long. So, I’m not sure who to be more afraid of, the insurance companies who are rationing my care or the “possible” rationing of care that is supposedly going to take place if a public option is passed.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 20 percent of Americans did not have health insurance in 2008, and Americans are loosing their jobs at an estimate rate of between 14,000 and 23,000 per day! So, if most people get their healthcare through employment, being unemployed puts thousands into the category of the non-insured daily. For those of us without adequate coverage or without insurance of any kind – there is no rationing. There is nothing. We just die. How many? Well, one study (by the Urban Institute) estimates 137,000 Americans died between 2000 and 2006 because of a lack of health insurance. The same study projects that between 2008 and 2010 another 7 million will lose their insurance. If job losses reach 10%, then it is estimated that another 6 million will lose their insurance. All tallied that would be 50- 60 million uninsured and un-cared for Americans.

What Do We Have to Lose?

After seeing arguments and fears of opponents of a public option, I have to say – I’ve seen scarier “B” list horror flicks. Nothing really scares the heebee-jeebees out of you more than being uninsured and sick, or dying. That is the type of fear that faces nearly a quarter of Americans daily (for those who are uninsured) and nearly all Americans who are under-insured or stripped of a stable financial future by exorbitant healthcare costs. So, even though the opposition’s fears are scary, they pale in comparison to the lump in your breast you cannot have checked or the ultrasound you can’t afford that will tell you if cancer has spread to your lymph nodes; the fear of leaving your children orphaned or watching someone you love die because they’re too poor to afford insurance in our sick-care system. The fear of dying trumps all else. So, what can we lose by adopting the public option?

As a country, adopting the public option means we will “lose” uninsured people. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that when fully implemented (healthcare reform legislation proposed in H.R. 3200) the number of uninsured nationwide will fall from 51 million to 16 million. In North Dakota, the number of uninsured would drop from 74,000 to 16,000 (a 78 % decline!). So, except for covering uninsured people, the distribution of insurance coverage would essentially remain largely unchanged under H.R. 3200 for North Dakota. In other words, people happy with their healthcare plans would keep what they already have and be unaffected. All those new insured persons will generate new revenue for ailing North Dakota hospitals and decrease the losses for uncompensated care. The

public option would, according to CBO, literally save North Dakota hospitals millions. Although Sen. Conrad has proposed a co-op plan he hoped would gain bi-partisan approval CBO assessed that co-ops will not work saying that “[T]he proposed co-ops had very little effect on the estimates of total enrollment in the exchanges or federal costs because, as they are described in the specifications, they seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country or to noticeably affect federal subsidy payments” (emphasis added).

I believe North Dakotan’s are smart enough to see through the thinly veiled

arguments to scare us out of fighting for our own lives…..but I’m not flinching. We’ve already lost too much to stop now. Contact your members and let them know how you feel!

Tom Perriello (D-Va.)

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.)

Dr. Steve Kagen, (D-Wisc.)

Getting it Right: The Census and Why You Should Make Yourself Count

Census workers will soon be taking to the streets to gather information about America’s demographics. This information is crucial to state and local governments for funding purposes; important to identifying needs for services, trends, and business practices. But, for Latinos, the Census has historically been greeted with skepticism and fear. And rightly so; history has shown that information gathered in the Census about minority populations has led to misuse in the form of disenfranchisement to voters; targeted character assassination of ethnic groups; Internment Camps, mass deportations and more.

However, the consequence of undercounting and lack of representation of the true make-up of communities is underfunding. Lack of funding has already hit hard in our F-M region and the six-figure loss in funding usually hits already underfunded communities when it hurts most. Lack of funding goes hand in hand with a decrease in accessibility to a myriad of social services; underrepresentation of minority groups and creates a cloak of invisibility for already disenfranchised groups. Clearly, the approach of fear of the Census is not the answer. Some minority groups are even calling for boycotts of the Census – again anticipating the worse. But having disenfranchised and under-counted minority groups, like Latino’s doesn’t just hide them from unwanted government intrusion and abuse; it just continues to deprive them. As a Latina, this concerns me because it deprives Latinos and organizations who serve them from knowing the numbers of their potential clients. It deprives Latinos of the knowledge of each other; perhaps even isolating communities of color, and preventing them from networking and gaining access to services.

Not knowing the numbers of their own population, Latinos are depriving themselves of community and support. Latino’s are also depriving themselves of equal representation in local and national government, school boards, jobs, business practices, legal assistance, and – perhaps most importantly – policy making.

I remember when the census worker came to my house when I was a little girl. I translated for my parents what the census worker said for us to do. I could feel the fear my parents had about giving this complete stranger private and confidential information about the most intimate details of their life and livelihood. For many of the questions that my parents couldn’t comprehend the reasoning for, or the wording of - - the census worker did not leave it to our interpretation, instead telling us what we should answer according to the worker’s perception. This is a crucial point, because in the process of being “counted” and identified, we were also being told, not asked, who we were. Self identification is essential to a “free” person and even the current census form does not clearly identify Latino’s as a “race”. Instead, anyone of Mexican-American decent is counted as “Caucasian” of “Mexican American ethnicity”. So, what is the harm in that? Well, if you ask a Latino whether they consider themselves Caucasian, most will immediately say “NO”. However, through a treaty, all Latino’s are “Caucasian” and unless you relinquish your right to self-identify as some other race, your only option is to mark that you are a Pacific Islander, Native American, or African-American. Many who cannot stomach the options will write in “Mexican-American” in the “other” category. However, this doesn’t matter, because technically – Mexican-American is not your race, but your ethnicity so again – you are back to being Caucasian, whether or not you identify as one or enjoy the benefits and access to services of those who recognizably “look” Caucasian.

The fact is, there are many issues that Latino’s need to be involved in if they want change. A wise friend of mine once said to me when I was at a crossroads in my career, “Well, you can be one of the people complaining about the institutional problem, or you can be part of the institution and work at changing it from the inside”. So far, fearing the Census, however merited, has not served Latinos well or any minority group for that matter. Furthermore, the apathy and paranoia over Census participation has hurt the communities which we live in. Although most Latinos steer clear of seeking assistance from community agencies for a variety of reasons (ranging from being stereotyped, cultural conditioning to seeking support from church or family; or fear of government intrusion) the communities in which we live thrive or suffer based on the funding they receive from the private and public sector. And the quality of life we help to create in our communities extends beyond working, paying taxes and caring for our families. It requires us to be responsible and responsive to improving the communities where we live so that the education, services, roads, and governments that represent us and serve us are top notch; not just for us, but for our children, our neighbors, our extended families, our community services, and those generations who will follow us.

Having said all that, people do need to arm themselves with complete information and have the opportunity to ask questions and receive reassurance of their concerns; find out how to apply for jobs within the census, and find out how the census will affect their community and agencies serving them. That opportunity is here!

Education, discussion, and reforming the Census process for future generations are all essential to an effective Census count. However, for many communities like Latino’s, the local news or for-pay newspaper is not their main source of information; it is word of mouth. Information meetings that will address concerns for traditionally undercounted and underrepresented communities will be held so that people can ask city leaders, census workers, and other key minority leaders for answers and change. Attending these information meetings is crucial to addressing the issues with the Census.

The Fargo-Moorhead 2010 Census Public Education Training and Conference will be held on October 24, 2009 from 10:00am-3:00pm at the Fargo Public Library (102 North 3rd St). People Escaping Poverty Project (PEPP) is taking the lead to form a regional Census Coalition that will work together to coordinate Census outreach activities and involve organizations and communities in one of the most significant and historic Civic Engagement efforts of the new millennium: Census 2010! Community members, organizational representatives, government representatives, and the media are encouraged to join us at the October 24^th Leadership Training that will be supported by the D.C. based Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund and the Main Street Project of Minneapolis, MN.

The Conference is free.  Please RSVP to duke@pepp.org or call PEPP at 218-236-5434 for More Information. For organizational information please contact:
Steven Renderos (952-594-9263) / steven@mainstreetproject.org
Duke Schempp (218-236-5434) / duke@pepp.org
Yoke-Sim Gunaratne (701-526-3000) / ysg@culturaldiversityresources.org
Erica Swanson (202-263-2859) / swanson@civilrights.org

The Raul and Zach radio show on 1100 AM (Friday from 8:00 – 9:00 pm) will feature a panel ready to answer questions and dialogue about the upcoming census count. Be sure to tune in and call in with your concerns. Panelists will include:

Cindy Shawcross

PEPP Board Co-Chair

Hannah Garcia

Minneapolis Complete Count Committee

Duke Schempp

Executive Director, PEPP

Steven Renderos

Media Justice Organizer, Main Street Project

Cathy Montoya

Senior Program Manager, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund (LCCREF)

Letter to the Editor re: Town Hall Meeting in Casselton, ND - Fargo Forum

I went to this town hall meeting and was the first to speak to Sen. Dorgan on the issue of healthcare reform. Even though Sen. Dorgan began by marveling at how North Dakotan’s town hall meetings are not like those being sensationalized in the media; the meeting itself took a negative turn. The people who show up at these meetings  - - whether organized paid dissenters or not - - are disrupting the democratic process. Those who calmly raised and waited their turn to speak, raised their hands and didn’t scream, boo, and act like an uncivilized mob went mostly unheard. Those who waived papers, threw them on the floor, shouted out comments/questions and acted rudely were allowed to speak ahead of those who waited and behaved. Where is the justice in that? I personally recognized many of the people at this town hall meeting who were there to share their concerns and questions with the Senator — people on both sides of this issue. Yet, their voices were drowned out by those of the unruly. And the news reports that evening both on TV and in print did not accurately represent the tenor of the meetings. There were just as many, if not more, people at the town hall meeting in favor of healthcare reform and access to affordable healthcare for all. However, I did not see that angle of the story represented in the news. T

If the Senators and Representative for North Dakota allow themselves to be intimidated by such tactics, they will be making a grave mistake. Those of us who are going to these town hall meetings and behaving civilly and with respect are not silent or powerless. We are just not rude. And we WILL be expecting our representatives to do right by everyone in North Dakota, not just those who shout the loudest expletives.

Sincerely,

Cindy A. Shawcross.

The Homeless Save Homes: The Gladys Ray Shelter Gives Back

Fargo-Moorhead has seen better days. The two cities grinded to a halt after being pummeled by out of control flood waters and non stop snow storms. But this community is no stranger to flooding or other forms of adverse weather. This is - - after all - - North Dakota and Minnesota we’re talking about.

What is even more remarkable than the toughness of the people of this area is watching them come together in times of adversity. And no one knows adversity better than the homeless of Fargo-Moorhead. At the Gladys Ray Shelter located at 1519 1st Avenue South, many of the residents were helping with the flood fighting efforts. Russ, a guest advocate at Gladys Ray Shelter, expressed awe with the efforts he saw. “It really was inspiring to see so many of “Our Guys” returning each night after devoting their entire day to the sandbagging effort and immediately requesting 4 or 5 a.m. wake ups so they could get right back to the fray the next day”.

Jay (not his real name), just one of the many guest at the Gladys Ray Shelter who volunteered to help in the flood fighting efforts, said that he put in over 100 hours over an eight day period. He worked filling sandbags at the old sanitation building, at the Fargodome, and then bringing water and helping feed volunteers and workers with the Salvation Army. He recounted the pride he felt after having volunteered: “Today the captain of the salvation army group that I was working with told me that I should get an award for what I did. My comment to her was, ‘the only reward I want is the opportunity to do this again’”.

I found the efforts of Jay and others like him at the Gladys Ray shelter surprising and ironic, given that they - - who are homeless - - made such efforts to help save homes for other people. But Jay saw it differently, “I’m looking at it like this. The City of Fargo provides us this shelter and the volunteering gave me a chance to give back to the community because the City of Fargo is giving to us.”

Gladys Ray Executive Director, Jan Elliassen wasn’t surprised either. “It certainly doesn’t surprise me”, she said, “So often when we talk about somebody and how they may be experiencing homelessness, they are pegged as homeless and they lose their identity. They just become homeless and people forget that they have families and they feel like they’re part of a community too. Not having a home doesn’t mean you don’t feel like your part of a community. It doesn’t mean that you don’t feel like its your responsibility to get out and help and do whatever you can to make sure that “home” – the community being home – stays safe”.

Gladys Ray guest advocate, Russ, echoed this view saying, “Well, who are the homeless really? They are of course people, just like you and I- Sons, Fathers, Daughters, Mothers…How many paychecks away from homelessness are those who find it so easy to judge those in less fortunate circumstances?” and he added “The irony is that a disproportionate percentage of the homeless are veterans- whose present circumstances are a direct result of the psychological and or medical traumas sustained while serving their country; or Native Americans – who as a culture have been consistently swept under the rug so-to-speak and de-humanized. The case could be made in both instances that neither of these groups have ANY reason to care about “the system”, yet there they were fighting to save that very system with no reward; and in many cases in lieu of working a paying day labor gig”.

Elliassen explained that whether or not the homeless of our community or the Gladys Ray Shelter have been embraced by the community, the homeless of our community are still going to stand up and help keep this community safe because they are all invested in keeping the community safe for everyone as well as themselves. “Also, it speaks to the staff’s ability to provide a place for them where they can rest, be safe, and have access to whatever they might need to (clean up, take care of wounds, etc). The staff makes sure that they’re taken care of”.

Elliassen applauded the efforts and competence of her staff noting that “They made sure that shelter was open every day when it was supposed to be no matter how many people showed up, they made sure that they were able to find a place for everybody to sleep”

And that’s not all they provide. According to Elliassen, Gladys Ray doesn’t just provide shelter to the homeless, it gives them dignity and a sense of community. “Being a person that stays at the shelter, there is a sense of community right within that shelter. Which in turn, I believe, makes you feel like a part of a larger community. So often people think that the folks that are homeless and stay in the shelter don’t appreciate the fact that they have a safe place to stay. A place where the staff will treat them with respect and where everybody around them is expected to be respectful. I believe a number of the folks that stay there (Gladys Ray) definitely feel a sense of community and they feel connected to the people around them.”

And it seems that Elliassen is correct about the shelter’s impact on the homeless. Jay expressed the level of comfort that he felt at the Gladys Ray Shelter. The people here are laid back. They like to joke around. The staff has been a blessing, especially Russ. He’s among one of many of the staff members here that is actually willing to sit down and listen to you if you have a problem or if you just want somebody to sit and joke around with. The staff are really excellent people. I couldn’t ask for better people to be around”.

And Jay also learned a lot about the strength and resilience of the people of the Fargo-Moorhead area. Recalling his work with other volunteers, he noted how upbeat people were, “Most of the people seemed pretty happy, which was a little bit surprising given the situation. Fargo has a lot nicer people than I thought it would, given it’s a pretty decent sized city.”

Yes, Jay, I agree. It is astonishing to find such goodness coming out of such a tragic situation. But it seems that in situations like the one facing Fargo-Moorhead, we manage to come together and get to see the good in our community. Jay offered this, “It’s nice to see the people come together because under normal circumstances you don’t see it. I like the fact that it brings together not only our culture but other cultures too. I’ve seen a lot of German people out there, lots of Africans, lots of Asians, etc…mass cultures coming together and helping out the community”.

And the hope is that we’ll remember these times when we’ve stood together to become a tighter knit community. Russ, guest advocate added, “Our homeless citizens proved beyond a doubt that they are very much a part of the Fargo-Moorhead community, and I have high hopes that we as a society will respond positively to their efforts”.

WHAT WOMEN WANT: MASLOW DIDN’T HAVE A CLUE

It is obvious to me that Maslow was a man when I studied the hierarchy of needs and the order in which he set them up. I can agree with the general premise that “people” have certain needs and that without fulfillment in one area, they can’t achieve fulfillment in another. However, the order which Maslow claims “people” need these things is questionable to me as a woman. The first glaring controversy is that “sex” is listed as one of our first needs of “survival,” or physiological needs. The major flaw of the hierarchy of needs is that it ignores the difference between woman and man. It discusses needs essential both to men and women without addressing how those needs are prioritized by the different sexes. Maslow completely left women out. In order to consider the needs of women, Maslow would have to rearrange the hierarchy of needs differently for women and for men.

For example, I’m willing to concede that people need sex, even women. But, there is no way in hell that it is in the same category of “survival” needs like breathing, food, sleep, water, shelter, etc. No way! I almost wonder if this was Maslow’s sneaky way of convincing women everywhere that MEN needs sex and that this is a “survival” need. “Honey, I know you’re pissed off at me but I NEED to have sex. I need it the way I need air and food!”

But, assuming that we as a society take into account this “male” need for sex, then we HAVE to include woman’s need for intimacy and communication in that first rung of needs. Sooner or later (usually sooner rather than later) in a sexual relationship a woman NEEDS intimacy and communication. Women prefer to have it BEFORE the sex. It is as essential for women as is security of the family and body. Women with child bearing in mind would have deep reservations with trusting the care and safety of a child to someone they themselves cannot trust emotionally. In fact, if it were not for the fact that Maslow put sex on the first rung of needs, the discussion would be quite different for a Woman. Women can have intimacy without the sex, although men seem to have a harder (if not impossible) time with that concept.

I instinctively know that without the so-called “intimacy” that sex affords us with men, we’d likely have none. This is not because intimacy cannot be achieved by other means, but simply because men have chosen sex as their preferred (and in some cases ONLY) method for achieving intimacy. In fact, there are many tales of romantic and intimate love between two people that never involved sexual contact. Men refer to those as “chick books” or “chick novels” or “chick flix.” So, intimacy as a woman understands intimacy—is a myth as far as men are concerned. No thanks to Maslow.

So, I’m left wondering… is it impossible for women to seek communication and intimacy with their male partners while putting sex LAST simply because of some Maslow-dictated “biological NEED?” Or have men simply latched onto this theory and become lazy sex addicted junkies supported by their peers in science and sociology —like Maslow—threatening us women into the belief that if we don’t put out, men will drop out. I believe as woman we should debunk this myth of Maslow’s and (short of having him excommunicated for his blunder) simply have a woman correct this mess by publishing something appropriate and inclusive.
What we need is the woman’s perspective injected into this argument… and perhaps a WHOLE NEW pyramid of hyerarchy. JUST FOR WOMEN! One that acknowledges OUR needs as women—needs that are essential for health and function as well as survival. A pyramid that acknowledges that sexual intimacy (which in Maslow’s pyramid doesn’t appear until the third rung) has to exist FIRST in a relationship with a woman. That sex without intimacy is not a priority for many women because it lacks security, safety of health and well being and other more important essentials. A pyramid that recognizes that intimacy takes WORK.

I believe up to now, this has been pondered by any estrogen laden brain many a time. However, the reason why it has not yet been done is pretty clear. We live in a man’s world. Men not only want to continue to live in their fantasy land of easy one-liners about how they “need” sex. They prefer to continue in the comfort of this sex excess and sloth, they don’t want anyone pointing out other methods of “intimacy”—a concept now alien to the post-Maslow generation.

If men continue to believe that “sex” is a priority on the order of breathing, eating and excreting, the romance in the lives of their partners are dead for sure. What person wants to hear that regardless of the intimacy in a relationship, sex (sans the intimacy) is still required as much as food and air? There are many ways of achieving intimacy with others, and men need to explore these outlets and practice them to become proficient and comfortable with their use. Rather than a booty call, maybe they should purchase a Hallmark card, call a friend, or eat a pint of Häagen-Dazs! Regardless of the options, a solution should be rendered. Women deserve a pyramid that puts our need for intimacy FIRST.

For Valentines day this year, forget the roses and chocolates boys! Get her some intimacy instead!