Monday, March 27, 2017

Update: Humanoid Encounter Terrified Witness - RV Report


 Oh boy.  Remote viewing kicks in here and we discover a completely reworked perspective on the whole ET phenomena.  That many entities are essentially under some form of compulsion and exhibit scant free will.

We also seem to have a larger narrative regarding the reptilians and their possible client races as well.  All this is a new interpretation and an expansion well beyond the select sightings we have had.

This is a potentially rich narrative and suggests a hierarchy imposed that connects all interacting with the Earth realm. We had already suspected multiple alien bases on earth all deep inside the crust itself which actually makes complete sense.  We will do exactly the same when we set up properly on any other planet or moon.

This way they can operate independently of the Earth life zone and well they should.

Obviously a lot of the sightings made are simply accidental.  After all, it can be no trick to go outdoors for these folks, just for curiosity or pleasure.  I have seen both.  Here we seem to have 'slaves' which i use advisedly stumbling out into someone's back yard.  How often does this happen.



Update: Humanoid Encounter Terrified Witness - RV Report 

 Monday, March 13, 2017 

Surprise, AZ Humanoid Encounter RV Report

Approximately one year ago, I received an inquiry from an elderly woman in the Phoenix suburb of Surprise, Arizona. She witnessed 2 humanoid beings standing outside her bedroom window a few days before Christmas 2015. Her report included most of the information from the incident...though there were a few personal notes that I had redacted.

I presented this case to the readers and other investigators as a means of gathering additional data and knowledge about these beings. The witness was extremely alarmed by the incident and desperately sought answers.

The larger unknown being, as described by the witness

My colleague and friend Deleece Cook, along with her RV group, conducted a session on the Surprise, Arizona encounter and recently released the findings below:

Remote Viewing Session – Phantoms & Monsters – Ref Surprise, Arizona 2015


Viewer: Deleece Cook
Date: April 2016

CASE: Phantoms & Monsters 

Session for: LON STRICKLER

Report Date: February 10th 2016

Date of Occurrence: Days prior to Christmas 2015

Location: Surprise, Phoenix, Arizona USA

Latitude: 33.629234
Longitude: -112.367928


33° 37' 45.2424'' N
112° 22' 4.5408'' W

RV Impressions: I am focusing upon the beings that were described in the case. My RV  psychic impressions are recorded below – the ‘Message’ are the words given to me. The ‘Interpretation’ is the expansion of the message:

The emotional dialogue I receive.

There were 3 windows open:

I think this relates to 3 portals - One of the portals is damaged - A building with a broken window or entrance.

There were 3 Identities (figures) originally:

One of the Identities is hurt or/and missing.

There is a deep sense of separation about this situation.

There is a deep sense of abandonment.

There is a deep sense of disconnection.

A search is in progress – they are searching for something, and they are being searched for.

The seeking of sanctuary:

Outcasts and Refugees – Workers - slaves unsure of what to do in their situation.

Male Energy:

They are male energized.

They have a sense of self.

They are related but not the same.

They have a sense of what being afraid is - maybe it’s more a sense of being unsure – this is not a familiar feeling they are experiencing.

A change in the Hierarchy:

A power challenge and a change in their previous environmental civilizational structure – new rules – aggressive searching – new duties to perform without instruction.

Unknown territory:

Out of their natural environment - New lands and new opportunities. They are pioneers - they are trying to leave. They are having trouble adjusting to a new place.

They came to look for one thing – but they are looking for another:

There is a very important aspect here – the ‘Very Important Purpose’ that they are supposed to looking for is not what they are doing when the lady saw them. I will explain the VIP in a diagram (below) – this is new ground. They are in a ‘predicament’ which I think has been outlined above – they are lost/unsure and are looking for food – but I think food means medicine in this case.

They are not in the place they are supposed to be:

They are out of their realm – yet they persist because they are ‘programmed’(?) to proceed – but they do not know how to exactly – they think/know they are in the wrong location – but they investigate for their needs – orders.

They are members of a team:

They are doing their part to play in this bigger agenda – but their part is important. There is more than one team trying to do the same thing. There is a race mentality here – both a ‘competition’ and a ‘species’ race. 

Evolution ascended/ascending:

Advanced beings? Evolved beings? This may have more to do with the VIP drawing/diagram. I get the words “Higher Codes.”


These Identities were not a danger.


There is a very strong sense here that tells me of a code or a classification called ‘RED DNA’ or ‘ReDNA’ or ‘R.E.DNA’ – it is not known of. 

There seems to be some form of research going on with this REDNA/ReDNA/R.E.DNA but it is done in secret and maybe done in an underground scientific facility.

It does not seem to be originally from this planet, but it is now (if that makes sense).

It takes the form of a type of sequence similar to a chemical algorithm.

I have drawn it for you – though I have no idea if what I saw is the actual sequence or if it is just a close impression of what it looks like scientifically – or maybe some genome map. 

Something about the 2 entities tells me that they have unwittingly given up this information (they know no better). The information is not important to them, nor do they know the relevance of it.

I see a man (human) working on this ReDNA/Red DNA/R.E.DNA – dark hair, white coat though he looks as if he is from the era of the 50’s/60’s/70’s.

This research may be from back then – but it is now very prevalent for some reason – I think it’s ‘discovery’ is trying to be manipulated for weaponry – but it has more to do with human body, and comes from it or is entwined within it.

The words I get are:

Rare – Pure – Astounding – recalcitrant (meaning it has its own will? Or they are finding it hard to control or manipulate further – maybe it refuses to be changed by its own will – maybe it is the ‘will’)

Further note on the ReDNA/Red DNA/R.E.DNA: 

I Googled the words and there are some pages regarding genetics – though it is out of my realm, none specifically called it RED DNA or ReDNA or R.E.DNA.

The pages I saw also showed some type of protein binders – some of the examples related to insulins and I wondered if the woman has a history of diabetes or blood sugar or is insulin intolerant (or something like that).

The picture of the sequence was very clear and I have drawn it for you. It is attached below.

To add:

I also see a corporate building – top floor – lots of glass windows – windy outside – afternoon – a young man is in the open-plan office looking at a computer screen constantly checking it for updates – he seems agitated and impatient. He is in daytime, what he is looking at and checking on (on) the screen is in night time. He is wearing a white shirt, pants, a nice belt. He reminds me of the scientist from the 50’s/60’s/70’s that was mentioned above. I’m not sure if this young man is related to the scientist or is actually the same person (time manipulation) they look very similar. There are others in the office working, both men and women. It is a large corporation but only has 11 workers in it – they are human.

The sequence:

This is what I saw – in these colours I have drawn it in.

The other thing was this sequence was overlayed on the top of a piece of granite or polished grey rock – like a casket top.

The Witness:

(Personal information redacted in order to maintain privacy)

NDE - OBE: There was something that happened that night to the woman/person beyond just seeing the Identities. I am not sure the person believes that they saw this – like it’s not real? Metabolic imbalances and high rates of pulses.

I am grateful to Deleece for conducting this session. She was not provided with any background information, other than what was included in the original post. This is why I was not involved with the RV session.

Much of her interpretation on the witness was spot on. I also suspected a possible OBE.

If you remember the 'David Eckhart' case, he described various humanoids / alien entities (including humans) being used as slave labor in massive underground caverns located on Earth. As well, many of these humans were used in experimental capacities, as observed by David at another facility he was taken to by his non-human (Reptilian) handler during an abduction. Is it possible that these particular humanoids were escaped 'slaves' who accessed a 'portal,' and eventually made their way to the surface?

The scientific human interaction may also be a link to D.U.M.B. laboratories and/or joint (alien & human) facilities theorized to exist throughout the world.

I had previously reported on an investigation at the Liverpool College of Technical and Further Education (TAFE) Liverpool, NSW, Australia, conducted on Saturday February 13th February 2016 by Deleece and APPI – Australian Paranormal Phenomenon Investigators.

NOTE: Deleece is currently involved with the Lancaster Co., Pennsylvania UFO/ unknown being investigation that Butch Witkowski & myself are working on. A remote viewing session on this case is imminent. Lon

*Update: A well-known RVer told me today, after I forwarded the link to this post: "I am no longer surprised when people say they have seen phantoms/ETs - I would be surprised if nobody saw them. There is so much more going on with ETs visiting/living here alongside us, both our dimension and interdimensionally."

How Communism Became the Disease It Tried to Cure

 Hierarchy and the Big Man has been the ban of all governance attempts throughout history.  What is worse is that this is rarely understood at all and there is little attention paid to alternate experiments. 

Thus all reform attempts and reform is inevitable under big Man rule, end up simply reproducing the same structure.  Democracy has partially relieved of us of some of this simply by the expedient of creating defacto term limits of one sort or the other.  Unfortunately democracy was never a economic system.

Thus we get the promotion of economic schemes and a natural grab fro power.  Our own world has seen this hierarchy system actually bypass the power structure and fasten on to the Civil Service with the expected difficulties again arising.  Thus the phenomena of the electorate driving in a legitimate reformer have ample experience with such structures.

The problem is that reform is necessary globally and the only true reform will have to use the Rule of Twelve to eliminate poverty globally.   That will be generational in application and scope.but once accomplished it will allow the human population to  completely Terraform Terra..

How Communism Became the Disease It Tried to Cure
From Radical Revolutionaries to Privileged Bureaucrats

The great German sociologist, Max Weber (1864-1920) offered an understanding of the evolution of socialist regimes in the twentieth century from revolutionary radicalism to a stagnant system of power, privilege and plunder, manned by self-interested Soviet socialist office holders.

Max Weber, in his posthumously published monumental treatise, Economy and Society (1925), defined a charismatic leader as one who stands out from the ordinary mass of men because of an element in his personality viewed as containing exceptional powers and qualities. He is on a mission because he has been endowed with a particular intellectual spark that enables him to see what other men do not, to understand what the mass of his fellow men fail to comprehend.

But his authority, Weber explains, does not come from others acknowledging his powers, per se. His sense of authority and destiny comes from within, knowing that he has a truth that he is to reveal to others and then knowing that truth will result in men being set free; and when others see the rightness of what he knows, it becomes obvious and inevitable that they should follow his leadership.

Certainly Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) fit that description. While many who met or knew him pointed out his either non-descript or even unattractive physical appearance and presence, most emphasized at the same time Lenin’s single-mindedness of being on a “mission” for which he had absolute confidence and unswerving determination, and due to which others were drawn to him and accepted his leadership authority.

Surrounding Lenin, the charismatic, was an array of disciples and comrades who were called and chosen, and saw themselves as serving the same mission: the advancement of the socialist revolution. As Weber says:
“The . . . group that is subject to charismatic authority is based on an emotional form of communal relationship . . . It is . . . chosen in terms of the charismatic qualities of its members. The prophet has his disciples . . . There is a ‘call’ at the instance of the leader on the basis of the charismatic qualification of those he summons . . .”
The “chosen” group renounces (at least in principle, if not always in practice) the material temptations of the worldly circumstances, which the goal of their “mission” is meant to overthrow and destroy. And, this too, marked the often conspiring, secretive and sometimes Spartan lifestyle of Marxist revolutionaries. Max Weber explained:
“There is no such thing as salary or a benefice. Disciples or followers tend to live primarily in a communistic relationship with their leader . . . Pure charisma . . . disdains and repudiates economic exploitation of the gifts of grace as a source of income, though to be sure, this often remains more an ideal than a fact . . . On the other hand, ‘booty’. . . whether extracted by force or other means, is the other typical form of charismatic provision of needs.”
But once the charismatic and his followers are in power, a transformation soon occurs in their behavior and relationship to the rest of the society. Now it becomes impossible to stand outside of the flow of the mundane affairs of daily life. Indeed, if they do not immerse themselves in those matters, their power over society would be threatened with disintegration. Slowly, the burning fervor of ideological mission and revolutionary comradeship begins to die. Said Max Weber:
“Only the members of the small group of enthusiastic disciples and followers are prepared to devote their lives purely and idealistically to their calling. The great majority of disciples and followers will in the long run ‘make their living’ out of their ‘calling’ in a material sense as well . . . Hence, the routinization of charisma also takes the form of the appropriation of powers of control and of economic advantages by the followers and disciples and the regulation of the recruitment of these groups . . .

Correspondingly, in a developed political body the vassals, the holders of benefices, or officials are differentiated from the ‘taxpayers.’ The former, instead of being ‘followers’ of the leader, become state officials or appointed party officials . . . With the process of routinization the charismatic group tends to develop into one of the forms of everyday authority, particularly . . . the bureaucratic.”
I would suggest that in Max Weber’s analysis we see the outline of the historical process by which a band of Marxist revolutionaries, convinced that they saw the dictates of history in a way that other mere mortals did not, took upon themselves to be the midwives of that history through violent revolution.
But as the embers of socialist victory cooled, such as in Russia after the Revolution of 1917 and the bloody three-year civil war that followed, the revolutionaries had to turn to the mundane affairs of “building socialism.” Building socialism meant the transformation of society, and the transforming of society meant watching, overseeing, controlling and commanding everything.

Self-Interest and the New Socialist “Class Society”

Hence, was born in the new Soviet Union what came to be called the Nomenklatura. Beginning in 1919, the Communist Party established the procedure of forming lists of government or bureaucratic positions requiring official appointment and the accompanying lists of people who might be eligible for promotion to these higher positions of authority. Thus was born the new ruling class under socialism.

In the end, the socialist state did not transform human nature; human nature found ways to use the socialist state for its own ends

Ministries needed to be manned, Party positions needed to be filled, nationalized industries and collective farms needed managers assigned to supervise production and see to it that central planning targets were fulfilled, state distributions networks needed to be established, trade unions needed reliable Party directors, and mass media needed editors and reporters to tell the fabricated propaganda stories about socialism’s breakthrough victories in creating a new Soviet Man in his new glorious collectivist society.

Contrary to the socialist promises of making a new man out of the rubble of the old order, as one new stone after another was put into place and the socialist economy was constructed, into the cracks between the blocks sprouted once again the universals of human nature: the motives and psychology of self-interested behavior, the search for profitable avenues and opportunities to improve one’s own life and that of one’s family and friends, through the attempt to gain control over and forms of personal use of the “socialized” scarce resources and commodities within the networks and interconnections of the Soviet bureaucracy.

Since the state declared its ownership over all the means of production, it was not surprising that as the years and then the decades went by more and more people came to see membership in the Nomenklatura and its ancillary positions as the path to a more prosperous and pleasant life. In the end, the socialist state did not transform human nature; human nature found ways to use the socialist state for its own ends.

The system of privilege and corruption that Soviet socialism created was explained by Boris Yeltsin (1931-2007), the Russian Communist Party member who, more than many others, helped bring about the end of the Soviet Union and an independent Russia in 1991 that at first tried democracy. In his book, Against the Grain (1990), Yeltsin explained:
“The Kremlin ration, a special allocation of normally unobtainable products, is paid for by the top echelon at half its normal price, and it consists of the highest-quality foods. In Moscow, a total of 40,000 people enjoy the privilege of these special rations, in various categories of quantities and quality. There are whole sections of GUM – the huge department store that faces the Kremlin across Red Square – closed to the public and specially reserved for the highest of the elite, while for officials a rung or two lower on the ladder there are other special shops. All are called ‘special’: special workshops, special dry cleaners, special polyclinics, special hospitals, special houses, and special services. What a cynical use of the world!”
The promised “classless society” of material and social equality was, in fact, the most granulated system of hierarchical privilege and power. Bribery, corruption, connections and favoritism permeated the entire fabric of Soviet socialist society. Since the state owned, produced and distributed anything and everything, everyone had to have “friends,” or friends who knew the right people, or who knew the right person to whom you could show just how appreciative you could be through bribery or reciprocal favors to gain access to something impossible to obtain through the normal channels of the central planning distributive network for “the masses.”

And overlaid on this entire socialist system of power, privilege and Communist Party-led plunder was the Soviet secret police, the KGB, spying, surveilling and threatening anyone and everyone who challenged or questioned the propaganda or workings of the “workers’ paradise.”

Communist Contradictions and the End to Soviet Socialism

It all finally came to an end in 1991 when the privilege, plunder and poverty of “real socialism” made the Soviet system unsustainable.

It is not an exaggeration to say that everything that the Marxists said was the nature of the capitalist system – exploitation of the many by a privileged few; a gross inequality of wealth and opportunity simply due to an artificial arrangement of control over the means of production; a manipulation of reality to make slavery seem as if it meant freedom – was, in fact, the nature and essence, of Soviet socialism. What a warped and perverted twisting of reality through an ideologically distorted looking glass!

It all finally came to an end in 1991 when the privilege, plunder and poverty of “real socialism” made the Soviet system unsustainable. Indeed, by that time it was hard to find anyone in any corner of Soviet society who believed, anymore, in the “false consciousness” of communist propaganda. The Soviet Union had reached the dead-end of ideological bankruptcy and social illegitimacy. The “super-structure” of Soviet power collapsed. (See my article, “The 25th Anniversary of the End of the Soviet Union.”)

In 1899, the French social psychologist, Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931), looked at the, then, growing socialist movement at the end of the nineteenth century and the soon to be beginning twentieth century, and sadly said in his book, The Psychology of Socialism:
“One nation, at least, will have to suffer . . . for the instruction of the world. It will be one of those practical lessons which alone can enlighten the nations who are amused with the dreams of happiness displayed before their eyes by the priests of the new [socialist] faith.”
Not only Russia, but also many other countries in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America have been forced to provide that “practical lesson” in the political tyranny and economic disaster that socialist society, especially in its Marxist permutation, offered to mankind.

It stands as a stark demonstration of the disastrous consequences when a society fully abandons a political philosophy of classical liberal individualism, an economic system of free markets, and an acceptance of self-interested human nature functioning within a social arrangement of voluntary association and peaceful exchange.

Let us hope that with this year marking the one-hundredth anniversary of the communist revolution in Russia mankind will learn from that tragic mistake, and come to realize and accept that only individual liberty and economic freedom can provide the just, good, and prosperous society that humanity can and should have.

Queen Victoria's Modernity

It is hard to imagine Queen Victoria as an exuberant young Women but she was.  Her great achievement though was longevity.  This more than anything ended the rule of the crown over affairs of state.

It had not been acted much on since George III but that was only a generation past and he had gone crazy in his last years.  And his heirs had not been up to it if i remember correctly.  Victoria was up to it but formalized a gentle approach that turned out to be very agreeable indeed to the flux of ministers.  It actually expanded support for the Crown.

Queen Elizabeth has continued this tradition as has all the others since.  Yet she has the institutional memory none of her ministers can command...
Queen Victoria's Modernity

Eileen L. Wittig
Sunday, March 12, 2017

I decide what is the future,” 21-year old Queen Victoria angrily informs her husband, Prince Albert, in the sixth episode of Masterpiece Theater’s Victoria. It sounds like a pretentious, condescending, and just plain wrong thing to say, but she had no idea how right she was.

We don’t usually relate her reign with progressive trendsetting. Today we use the word “Victorian” to identify overly fussy wallpaper or overly scrupulous etiquette and morals that cry out for relaxation. But think of when she ruled: she reigned from 1837 to 1901, a period of astonishing economic, technical, industrial, and cultural transformation for the entire Western world. Her influence became a guiding voice for progress, not a reaction.

Perhaps it's time to revisit the person who has an entire era named after her.

So perhaps it’s time to revisit the person who has an entire era named after her. This show is just the thing to help. The first season of Victoria only covers the first two years of her reign, but it’s enough to establish the fact that Queen Victoria did arguably more for the United Kingdom and the British monarchy than her three or four immediate predecessors, or her successors. She certainly did more for women’s suffrage, even more so than Queen Elizabeth II.

So many traditions we now accept as doctrine were actually begun by Victoria a mere 150 years ago – a fraction of the time the British monarchy has existed, and far more recently than I, at least, assumed would be the case.

Here are some traditions we can credit to Queen Victoria, who no doubt had no idea just how extensive her influence over the future was, as portrayed in Victoria.

Buckingham House

We associate the royal household with Buckingham Palace now, but when Victoria became queen it was simply “Buckingham House,” and the royal family had its official residence at Windsor Castle. The original structure of Buckingham had been built by 1703 for the Duke of Buckingham and bought (probably just taken) by George III in 1761 for his wife, Queen Charlotte. Over the following decades, it was built up until it became the huge building Queen Victoria decided should be renamed as a palace, rather than a house. She took up residence there so she and her court could spread out – she wanted to be further from her manipulative mother and those who influenced her – and to get away from the noise of the city of London.

Nearly every monarch changed residences before Victoria went to Buckingham.

If you’ve watched The Crown, you’ll remember when Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip were hoping to stay at their home in Clarence House, which is still used as the Heir Apparent’s place of residence. Elizabeth was strongly opposed by her secretary, who informed her that it was “tradition” to live at Buckingham Palace. Perhaps if Elizabeth had known that this tradition was only three generations old and that nearly every previous monarch had changed their place of residence, she could have won that argument. Let There Be Light?

When Victoria took the throne, gas lighting was just starting to become a mainstream thing. Her Head of Household and former governess, Louise Lehzen, decided she wanted to bring “economy” and “modernity” to the royal household, and chose to begin with the lighting. Buckingham Palace was, of course, lit entirely by candlelight. To give some idea of what that would’ve been like: filming Victoria required 12,000 candles. They only filmed eight episodes, and they were only lighting a few rooms at a time, depending on what scenes they were filming. So it’s easy to see why Lehzen wanted to replace the candles with the latest gas technology.

It was a great idea, but the technology was still too new to catch on. Installing it meant taking apart the walls, revealing an unknown rat infestation that was as horrifying to watch as you’re imagining. As Victoria’s steward Penge said, “This is what happens when you interfere with nature.” Obviously the answer is to get rid of all the rats, instead of carrying on as before and pretending it’s all fine, but for some reason, his argument convinced a lot of people. Apparently, it simply wasn’t natural to have gas light.

However, the gas lines were installed in a few rooms in an attempt to make it work. But employees in the palace didn’t know how to work it, and they burned their hands trying to light the gas. In the end, Lehzen decided that in this case at least the old way is the good way, and Penge is left to smugly order new candles.

Married in White

It’s highly unusual in Western culture for a woman’s wedding dress to not be white now. It’s said to be highly traditional, highly symbolic, and special because it’s difficult to keep clean (or was, before washing machines and drop-off dry cleaning became widely available). But it’s really just a fad that began with Queen Victoria and never stopped.

The white wedding dress is not symbolic or even very traditional: it's a fad that began with Victoria and never stopped.

Before Victoria’s wedding, brides simply wore the nicest dress they had. Fabric was very expensive before the Industrial Revolution, and most women couldn’t afford a new dress for their wedding day, let alone a fancy one. In fact, white had historically been reserved for the opposite occasion – mourning. Royal wedding clothes were the robes of State, heavy and cumbersome. Victoria didn’t want that and decided she wanted to get married in a white dress, because she wanted to. Her decision sparked a trend, and 150 years later, we’re still carrying it on.

The trend became even more historical after the 1960s. Before that, wedding dresses were white, but cut in whatever dress style was popular at the time. After the 1960s, wedding dresses became longer, fuller, and fancier. In a word, they became more Victorian.

The Transportation of the Future

Throughout the sixth episode, Victoria and Albert fought about whether or not locomotives should be allowed in England. In the scene where Victoria declared her ownership of the future, Albert had just returned from a clandestine visit to her political enemy Robert Peele to see the “locomotive” Peele had running on his property. Victoria had been against locomotives from the beginning, citing the inevitable disruption to the land that the railways would have to cross, and she was furious that he would risk his life riding the machine (which would both leave her alone and possibly leave the throne open to her unpopular uncle in the case of her dying in childbirth), and attempt to support something she doesn’t want.

"This is the future!" Victoria yelled from the locomotive car.

However, after taking a couple days to think about it all, Victoria decided it was only fair to see and test the thing for herself. So she went off, very very pregnant, to Peele’s. Locomotives were still very dangerous, and childbirth was still very high-risk, so Peele, his train engineer, and Victoria’s ladies-in-waiting were all extremely concerned for Her Majesty and the heir she was carrying. But she waved them all aside, even though she was clearly very scared herself, climbed on board, and instructed the engineer to start the train. At first she was terrified to be moving so rapidly, but Victoria’s fear quickly turned to exhilaration as she waved at anyone she passed and marveled at the machine’s ability. Albert, meanwhile, heard his wife had gone off to try the locomotive, and ended up running beside her train carriage for a bit (locomotives weren’t nearly as fast then as they are now, and Peele’s small, private train would’ve been even slower). He called up to her, asking what she thinks, and she yelled back, “This is the future!” Needless to say, locomotives were brought to England and used throughout the country.

The Modern Kitchen

While Victoria and Albert were deciding the future of transportation in Great Britain, there was an arguably more important side story being carried out in the kitchens of Buckingham Palace: the invention of the “bombe Victoria,” a kind of Baked Alaska. Victoria’s Chief Chef and Maître d’Hôtel, Charles Elmé Francatelli, was an artist of a chef, and he knew it. One of the first celebrity chefs, he wrote several cookbooks filled with his own inventions, was known for his elaborate sugar work and confections, and was generally wasted on the English queen and her German husband, who preferred plain food to his couture French cuisine.

Francatelli ended up leaving the royal household after only two years, and went on to work for private aristocratic clubs, marketing himself as the Maîre d’Hôtel to Her Majesty the Queen, continuing to act as the creative genius behind the food trends of the day, transforming food from mere sustenance to an experience, making high-quality foods accessible, and bringing flavorful recipes previously kept for the rich to the middle classes via his cookbooks.

Royal Births

There was a practice in England (and other countries) to have a crowd witnessing royal births: midwives, ladies-in-waiting, and members of court – including the men. The idea behind it was to make sure nothing untoward was done to the mother or the baby, and to ensure that if the baby was born stillborn, it wouldn’t secretly be replaced with another, live baby to falsely continue the royal line. Victoria didn’t know about this practice until she herself was in labor and looked up to see a couple dozen men standing around talking and joking and watching her. As the first Queen of England to ever give birth, Victoria finally had the authority to announce that she would give birth without the court watching her.

“What are all those men doing there?” she asked Albert. “Apparently it is the custom, in case there is a substitution,” he responded somewhat apologetically. Victoria was having none of it, of course, and immediately said, “Tell them all to go away!” Victoria was undoubtedly not the first English royal woman to wish the crowd would leave, but as the first Queen of England to ever give birth, Victoria finally had the authority to do away with the custom. She did allow the Home Secretary to stay, and this became the new custom until Elizabeth II was due to give birth to Prince Charles. After his birth at Buckingham Palace, royal babies were born at St. Mary’s Paddington hospital. Much improved over the old way.

Just Beginning

There are many other examples of Victoria determining the future as well: postage stamps were first introduced in England with her approval, and she made her country realize that a Queen could be monarch, wife, and mother all at once. As her rule extended into the late 19th century and even into the 20th, she started dozens more trends and introduced hundreds of things. But since Season Two of Victoria isn’t out yet, those will have to wait.

5 Union Rules That Are Ruining Transportation

Here again, we need to rethink our whole concept of work rules.  I do think that the four hour shift system can work in this environment.  First off, a significant fraction of employees will actually be working two shifts in a row. The heavy shifts are essentially 600 through 1000 and 1500 through 1900.  This is where surplus manpower are needed.  Yet they naturally dovetail other potential full time jobs.  Most retail starts late when the customers are actually at work.  And most hospitality work also starts after the supper hour.  There is no lack of alternate employment.

Better yet, short shifts can and should earn a premium as well, easily afforded when you lose dead time.

As posted before there is excellent reason to work around a four hour shift environment for many tasks including providing a sustaining shift for the unemployed.  This provides an automatic bid for all labor.

5 Union Rules That Are Ruining Transportation 

Sunday, March 12, 2017

Some have argued that union work rules, not wages and benefits, are the real problem with labor unions at America’s transit authorities. It turns out that this is something that transit advocates don’t like to talk about. It’s an uncomfortable subject for two reasons: 1) urban planners and unions have an ideological affinity, and 2) it’s hard to lobby for increased subsidies for transit when you admit that you’re making poor use of the money you already have. 

Trying to force an eight-hour workday on transit is problematic.

But despite planners’ reticence to talk about the problem, it needs to be addressed. Throwing money around is what governments do best, and while it might be an easy solution to problems in the short run, the money is running out. Some will surely quibble that we can afford to raise taxes and do more deficit spending, especially for something as vital as transit, but whether or not that’s true, the fact is that voters are increasingly doubting that it is, and so politicians are going to become stingier about doling out money for transit. 

Anyway, the most obvious area for savings is in actual wages and benefits, but many mainstream conservative and libertarian publications have written a lot about this issue, so I want to focus on inefficient work rules. These are rules that are written into union contracts hashed out in a political process, and management doesn’t have the authority to overturn them. I found surprisingly little on the issue in the academic literature, but there’s plenty on it in newspapers. Here’s a round-up of the major issues that I found with various American transit unions. The list is by no means comprehensive – either of all the cities that have these problems, or even of the different types of problems – and I encourage people to share any knowledge they have on the subject in the comments.
So, without further ado… 

1. Mandatory eight-hour workdays and no part-time hiring. This one may surprise some since the eight-hour workday is one of organized labor’s most prized achievements, and indeed it works out well with most workers. But transit isn’t “most work,” and trying to force an eight-hour workday on it is problematic. Transit service has huge peaks during the morning and evening rush hours, so when transit agencies are forced to schedule workers for eight-hour shifts (or longer with overtime), some people end up sitting around doing nothing for part of each day. With train and bus operators, this leads to them doing nothing during the middle of the day when there aren’t as many routes to run. (At San Francisco’s Muni, there are apparently six divisions where drivers spend more time waiting for assignments than they do actually working.) With maintenance workers, it means people being scheduled for work during at least one rush hour per shift, during which they don’t have access to tracks and can’t really work. And, of course, management often isn’t allowed to hire part-time workers to solve this problem. [Berkeley Planning Journal, SF Bay Guardian, SF Weekly, NY Daily News, City Journal

2. Seniority. Unions are run on seniority, and people who have been with the union longer often get to pick what work they do. A commenter from Portland explains: 

Here in Portland, being a train operator (MAX or Streetcar – WES is staffed by employees of the shortline railroad on whose tracks the service run, not by TriMet employees) is considered a “senior” position; one that bus drivers with seniority may aspire for. Given that operation of trains is a different set of skills than operation of a bus – does this state of affairs make sense? By the same token, it’s frequently the case that experienced bus drivers (with lots of seniority) get to choose the easiest assignments – and frequently will pick suburban social-service routes; leaving the inexperienced drivers to haul crushloaded inner-city busses through rush hour traffic. Easier work assignments are frequently considered a “perk” of seniority. In the (nonunion) private sector one frequently observes the reverse – more experience and skill (and more pay) implies more difficult assignments. [Market Urbanism comment

And then, of course, there are the infamous problems with escalator repair in DC’s Metrorail stations, which according to Unsuck DC Metro’s threepart series, are also the result of a seniority system. The “pick” system lets the most experienced employees choose which escalators they work on (or at least the general area), and they often pick the stations whose escalators are in need of the least amount of repair, leaving the really bad escalators to the less-experienced workers. \

3. Tons of time off and little-to-no advanced notice required. Here’s someone who claims to be an operator with Muni, San Francisco’s public transit authority, who’s actually defending Muni workers’ sick day allowances: 

I wonder where the one shift in six missed numbers come from. I am a Muni operator, and I certainly don’t miss that much time. I don’t have enough sick or vacation hours! I also wonder if that includes training/retraining time. The absenteeism rates are higher than for office workers, but there are some crucial reasons. As my wife (a high school teacher) pointed out, if she goes to work with a cold, she can still function. She can give her students desk work and try to relax a bit. If I work with a cold, an unexpected sneeze can kill someone. Working in transit ops requires full attention every second you’re moving. There isn’t an opportunity to zone out, massage your temples, take a coffee break. So our sick policies are a little looser than office workers are. How loose? I can call in sick three times a quarter (Jan-March, Apr-Jun, July-Sept, Oct-Dec), up to five days at a time, for a total of ten days a quarter without consequences. Mind you, I don’t have forty days of sick time a year! If I go over any of those limits, then I have to have doctor’s notes clearing me to come back to work and I can’t work any RDO (regular day off overtime). I have never been on the sick abuse list, and most of the operators I know who have been were there because of some family emergency. 

We are expected to show up for work. All this reminds me of the miss-out kerfluffle from several years ago. (Muni operators don’t have to call in – they just don’t show up!) What the public wasn’t told was that I could (and still can) be charged with a miss-out if I am one minute late to work! I start today at 11:43 am. If I’m there at 11:44… 

In addition to the unusually large amount of sick days, the way that the work rules handle operators missing work is problematic. Because workers don’t even have to notify management when they’re sick, the run is often delayed, and when someone is finally called in to do the job, they have to be paid overtime to do it. [Streetsblog SF

4. Cross-utilization of labor not allowed. Some of the aforementioned problems (especially the constraints of the eight-hour work day) could be mitigated if workers were allowed to do other tasks, even menial ones, when they’re not needed with their primary job, but union contracts generally disallow this. Drivers can’t take tickets or work in information booths while they’re not driving, and maintenance workers can’t do either of those things or operate trains when they’re not able to work on the tracks. [Berkeley Planning Journal

5. Overtime abuse. Overtime is already given out very liberally to unionized transit employees compared to private sector jobs, but one trick that they use at Muni to “monetize” their overtime is to call in sick on a day you’re scheduled and then work a day you’re not scheduled, for overtime pay, which you get even though you haven’t worked 40 hours that week. In the case of DC’s Metro employees, pensions are calculated based on the highest four years of income, which gives workers incentives to wrack up tons of overtime in order to boost their (already very generous) pensions. [SF Weekly, GGW

…So, there you have it.

Saturday, March 25, 2017

An artist replaced the men in these classic Westerns with women.

A curious bit of work and also revealing.  Through it we discover a lot regarding our natural conditioning.  Women trying to take on the mannerisms of man acting out a traditional position are challenged by the unusual.  We see plenty of men playing women in theater but not so much the other way around.

There is a lot more here than meets the eye and it deserves study.

All good and worthwhile.  may even have value for marketing..  

An artist replaced the men in these classic Westerns with women.

Evan Porter

When Felice House moved to Texas from Massachusetts, she quickly fell in love with "Western" culture.
House, a painter and artist, moved to Austin to study for her master's degree before becoming an assistant professor of painting at Texas A&M University.

At first, the culture shock was fun. House says she quickly became infatuated with the Western genre: the outfits, the cowboy boots, the music. 

"But when I actually got around to watching Western movies," she adds, "I was horrified by the roles for ... anybody except white men basically."

The stoic renegades played by John Wayne, James Dean, and Clint Eastwood stood in stark contrast to the helpless damsels they shared the screen with. The empowered and the powerless.

House had spent much of her career painting women in ways that clashed with media representations, so she decided to tackle the male-dominated Western genre.

She put out a call for models and was quickly overwhelmed with women who wanted to participate.

All images by Felice House, used with permission.
House says many of the models already knew which iconic cowboy they wanted to portray.

Virginia Schmidt became "Virginia Eastwood."

Then there was "Liakesha Dean."

And "Rebekah Wayne."

House first photographed the models in Western getups, then painted from the images she captured.

She also says practicing the facial expressions and body language was the hardest part for the models.

"Women are kind of trained to make coy, approachable facial expressions," she says.

Turning these women into iconic and powerful heroes meant stripping away any remnants of the "sexy cowgirl" trope.

The paintings themselves are larger than life. Roughly 1.25 times larger, to be specific.

"When you see them in person, people are surprised by the scale." People aren't used to women towering over them, House says.

And that's exactly the point. House wanted to start a conversation about who is assigned power and how we view it.

In that sense, the timing couldn't have been better. "Issues with gender and power in the U.S. are kind of in the forefront of people's minds, " she says.

In the very beginning of the project, House says she simply digitally clipped one of the models heads and put it on John Wayne's body.

"It looked ridiculous," she says with a laugh. "But then I thought, what if I could find a way to give this same sense of power [that iconic male heroes have] to women?"

With a brush and a few massive canvases, she managed to do just that, and she hopes it'll make a few people think differently about how we define who can be a hero.

In the meantime, and despite her criticisms of the films of yesteryear, House says pop culture is getting better at representing women. Projects like this one definitely help.

After all, it was John Wayne himself who once said, "Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday."
There was an error in this gadget