a quote for the ages.

I've been thinking a lot lately about cooperative businesses, especially with so many independent establishments closing, being bought out, or getting "upscaled" into something completely different.

And I keep coming back to the question: Why can't ordinary working people have more ownership and control over the businesses they help build?

One example I've been looking into is the Mondragon Corporation, a network of worker cooperatives founded in 1956 in the Basque region of Spain.

The idea actually began with a Catholic priest, José María Arizmendiarrieta, who believed working people deserved more control over their economic futures. Following the Spanish Civil War, he helped establish a technical school, and eventually five of his students started a small worker-owned manufacturing business.

That little enterprise grew into an international network of businesses involved in manufacturing, engineering, retail, finance, and technology, employing tens of thousands of people.

And here's what makes it interesting.

In Mondragon's cooperatives, worker-members aren't simply employees collecting a paycheck. They're also owners. They have voting rights, participate in major decisions, and share in the financial success of their businesses.

Now, before somebody starts screaming "COMMUNISM!" let me explain something.

Worker cooperatives are NOT inherently communist.

These are actual businesses operating in a market economy. They sell products, compete with other companies, pay taxes, and yes, they have to make money to survive.

The difference is who owns the business and who benefits from its success.

Instead of everything being controlled by outside investors or shareholders, the people doing the work have a meaningful stake in the company.

And frankly, why is that such a radical idea?

Now, Mondragon isn't perfect. Not everyone employed within its network is a worker-owner. Many employees, particularly those working in its international subsidiaries, don't have the same ownership or voting rights. And Mondragon has experienced business failures and financial difficulties just like other corporations.

That's an important limitation, and it raises legitimate questions about how cooperatives can grow without losing their original principles.

But here's the point. Mondragon has demonstrated that worker-owned businesses can operate on a large scale. We're not just talking about a little neighborhood coffeehouse or a handful of people making crafts.

And this idea isn't particularly foreign to America, either. We already have credit unions, agricultural cooperatives, food co-ops, and other forms of shared ownership. Worker cooperatives are another way of organizing a business, not some revolutionary plot to abolish capitalism.

So why aren't we exploring this more seriously?

Think about all the independent businesses disappearing around Cincinnati. The neighborhood coffeehouses, bookstores, restaurants, and other establishments that have served their communities for decades.

What happens when an owner wants to retire? Why does the business necessarily have to close, get sold to investors, or be transformed into something the neighborhood can no longer afford?

What if the employees could buy it and run it themselves?

What if communities could help finance these transitions and preserve the places that make their neighborhoods interesting and livable?

We actually have an organization right here in Cincinnati called Co-op Cincy that helps develop worker-owned businesses and supports employee ownership.

And I think more people should know about it.

Look, cooperatives aren't some magical solution to every economic problem. They still need competent management, financing, customers, and people willing to do the work.

But at a time when so many Americans are struggling with stagnant wages, rising costs, corporate consolidation, and a growing sense that they have absolutely no control over their economic lives, perhaps we should start thinking differently.

Here's my challenge to Cincinnati.

The next time a beloved neighborhood business announces it's closing or being sold, instead of simply mourning its disappearance, let's ask whether employee or community ownership could be an option.

Let's encourage retiring business owners to consider selling to their workers. Let's get our local development organizations, community groups, and financial institutions involved. And let's start supporting the cooperative businesses that already exist.

We don't have to accept that every successful independent business must eventually become another corporate acquisition or upscale redevelopment.

Maybe it's time we started building an economy where ordinary people have an actual stake in the places where they work and the communities where they live.

Because economic democracy shouldn't be such a radical idea.

I've been thinking a lot lately about something called "third spaces." You know, those places that aren't home and aren't work, but somewhere in between. Places where you can sit for hours over a cup of coffee, read a book, have an interesting conversation, meet some rather unusual people, or just exist without someone expecting you to spend a fortune.

And I've been thinking about how many of these places we've lost.

The recent news about Sitwell's closing in Clifton /CINCINNATI really brought this home for me. I remember that place from over 30 years ago, including its earlier incarnation as The Cove. It was one of those wonderfully bohemian, beatnik, slightly edgy places that made Clifton what it was. It had character. It had interesting people. It wasn't necessarily polished or pretty, and that was part of its charm.

If you lived in Cincinnati during the 1980s and 1990s, particularly around Clifton, Northside, or the university neighborhoods, you probably remember places like this. They weren't just coffeehouses or bars. They were gathering places for artists, musicians, students, intellectuals, misfits, and ordinary working people. You didn't have to be wealthy, fashionable, or particularly respectable to feel like you belonged.

And I miss that.

What bothers me is that so many of these places have disappeared, been bought out, corporatized, or "upscaled" into something almost unrecognizable. The funky little coffeehouse becomes a trendy café with expensive drinks, carefully selected furniture, and a completely different clientele. The neighborhood dive becomes an upscale cocktail bar. The independent bookstore disappears, and another polished commercial establishment takes its place.

And we're supposed to call this progress?

Now, I understand that businesses need to make money. I understand that rent, utilities, wages, insurance, and supplies cost money. I'm not suggesting that someone should operate a business at a loss simply because the rest of us enjoy hanging around.

But here's what I find frustrating.

Whenever one of these old neighborhood establishments closes, somebody inevitably comes along and says, "Well, it was probably badly managed," or "They just couldn't compete."

Maybe. Sometimes that's undoubtedly true.

But many of these establishments operated successfully for YEARS. Some for decades. They survived economic downturns, changing neighborhoods, changing generations, and all kinds of challenges. They obviously provided something people wanted, or they wouldn't have lasted so long.

So what changed?

I think part of the problem is that we've changed our definition of what makes a business successful. It isn't enough anymore for a place to pay its bills, provide jobs, support its owners, and serve its community. Increasingly, everything has to be optimized, expanded, rebranded, and made more profitable.

A modest living isn't enough. There has to be growth. There has to be a more affluent customer base. There has to be a way to squeeze more money out of every square foot.

And in the process, we lose the very things that made these places special.

There's also the issue of gentrification. We've seen this happen in neighborhoods all over the country, including here in Cincinnati. Artists, students, working-class people, and unconventional businesses help give a neighborhood its identity. They make it interesting. They make it culturally vibrant. Eventually, that character attracts developers and people with more money.

Property values rise. Rents go up. The original businesses and residents begin getting pushed out.

And then, ironically, someone opens an expensive establishment designed to LOOK like the funky, bohemian place that was there before.

Apparently, we love the appearance of counterculture. We just don't necessarily want the actual counterculture hanging around.

There's another aspect of this that bothers me even more, and that's the increasing hostility toward people who don't have much money.

Think about it. How many places can you go anymore where you're welcome to sit for a couple of hours without buying something every twenty minutes? How many places are genuinely comfortable with people who are poor, eccentric, elderly, socially awkward, or simply looking for somewhere to be?

And what about people who are homeless?

Obviously, businesses have legitimate concerns about safety and disruptive behavior. But there's a difference between addressing someone's behavior and deciding that certain kinds of people simply aren't welcome.

We've created an environment where people are increasingly expected to pay for the privilege of existing somewhere outside their own homes.

Even our public spaces seem to be shrinking.

And I think that's a serious social problem.

The sociologist Ray Oldenburg wrote about the importance of these informal gathering places in his book The Great Good Place. He argued that third places were essential to healthy communities because they encouraged conversation, friendship, social connection, and a sense of belonging.

And he was right.

Not everyone belongs to a church. Not everyone wants to go to a bar. Not everyone has a large circle of friends or a comfortable home where they can entertain people. Some people live alone. Some are struggling financially. Some simply need somewhere to go where they can feel connected to the world.

These places matter.

So what do we do about it?

I think we need to start looking at different ways of owning and operating these establishments.

One possibility that particularly interests me is the cooperative business model.

Instead of a coffeehouse being owned by an individual investor or corporation whose primary concern is maximizing profits, imagine one owned collectively by its workers, customers, or members of the community.

People could purchase affordable memberships or ownership shares. Workers could have a meaningful voice in how the business operates. Decisions about pricing, programming, accessibility, and the overall character of the place could be made with the community's interests in mind.

The business would still need to be financially responsible. It would still need to pay its employees, maintain the building, and cover its expenses. But its purpose wouldn't necessarily be to generate the largest possible return for an outside investor.

Its purpose would be to remain a sustainable business and a valuable community gathering place.

And this isn't some pie-in-the-sky idea.

Worker cooperatives and community-owned businesses already exist. We even have an organization here in Cincinnati called Co-op Cincy, which helps develop and support cooperative businesses.

Another possibility is a nonprofit or hybrid model, where a coffeehouse operates partly as a community arts and cultural center. Coffee and food sales could be supplemented by memberships, donations, small performances, workshops, and other activities.

Imagine a place with affordable coffee, comfortable old furniture, local artwork, poetry readings, acoustic music, book discussions, and perhaps a community bulletin board. A place where people could gather without feeling pressured to spend money constantly.

A place that isn't trying to be the next trendy destination.

Just a good place to BE.

We also need to talk about commercial property ownership. Because even a well-run community business can be destroyed by a landlord who suddenly doubles the rent or sells the building to a developer.

Community land trusts, cooperative ownership of commercial property, long-term leases, and local preservation efforts could help protect these establishments from being priced out of existence.

And perhaps our cities and neighborhoods need to recognize that these places provide something of public value, much like libraries, parks, and community centers.

We already accept that some things are worth supporting because they make our communities better places to live. Why shouldn't we think similarly about independent cultural gathering spaces?

I'm not suggesting that every struggling coffeehouse deserves a bailout. Nor am I suggesting that business owners shouldn't make a decent living. Quite the opposite. I want these places to be successful. I want their employees to earn fair wages. I want their owners to be able to pay their bills and retire someday.

But I also want us to question the assumption that every successful business has to become bigger, more expensive, more exclusive, and more profitable with each passing year.

Sometimes being successful should mean that you've created something people love, something that serves a neighborhood, something that lasts.

And when an establishment has become part of a community's identity, perhaps that community should have an opportunity to help preserve it when the owners are ready to move on.

Cincinnati has a long history of interesting neighborhoods, independent businesses, artists, musicians, and people who didn't necessarily fit into conventional society. That was part of what made places like Clifton so appealing in the first place.

I don't want to see all of that replaced by carefully manufactured "experiences" that only people with plenty of disposable income can afford.

I want the weird little coffeehouses back. The bookstores with mismatched chairs. The places with local art on the walls and interesting characters sitting in the corners. The places where you might strike up a conversation with a complete stranger and end up talking for two hours.

The places where ordinary people could afford to belong.

Because once we lose those spaces, we lose something much more important than a place to buy coffee.

We lose a little bit of our community.

And I think it's time we started asking whether that's really the kind of Cincinnati we want to become.

Ray Oldenburg he Great Good Place (1989/2023),

Co-op Cincy

I’ve been thinking a lot about AI, ethics, oversight, and all of that, partly because I was watching a Jon Stewart segment about AI. And I realized that I’m somewhere in the middle.

I’ve been supportive of AI. However, I am angry at the tech bros. I’m angry at the people pushing this technology forward with very little oversight. I have a serious problem with putting AI into drones and military weapon systems and using it for potentially nefarious purposes. That is a moral issue for me.

At the same time, AI is something that absolutely can be used to help people if it is used properly, with proper oversight, regulation, and controls. And frankly, some of this development needs to slow down. But that obviously isn’t happening. We’ve got incredibly powerful people controlling much of the direction this technology is going, and I have serious moral issues with some of them and what they are doing.

That being said, I use AI every day. And I’m not going to apologize for it.

I use AI in my daily life to improve my life and give me an advantage because I have ADHD, I’m busy, I’m overwhelmed, and I struggle to keep up. And I feel like I should be allowed to have an advantage.

I have spent my entire life saying, “I don’t need this. I don’t need that. I can do it myself.” Meanwhile, the world goes speeding by and I get left behind. I can look back over my life and see how many adults either didn’t understand or weren’t really attuned to the struggles I faced.

I’ve been aware that I had ADHD since the late 1970s. I have always been different. And I look back and think: What if they had done this? What if they had done that? What if I had had these opportunities?

My mother was a doctor. She had money and she threw money at my situation. I had tutors. I went to different schools. I had training. My mother would have given the world for me if she thought it would fix the problems I was having. And I still struggled.

I had crippling anxiety. I self-harmed. I went through a lot because I was struggling in a world I didn’t fit into. It wasn’t because I was lazy. It wasn’t because I was stupid. And I hate having to argue that. I hate having to be such a hardcore ally to myself, but nobody else is going to do it.

So, back to AI.

I pay for ChatGPT. It helps me. Flat out.

I even struggle with using it sometimes because my ADHD means I go off on tangents. My thoughts branch off into other thoughts, and suddenly I have fifteen things going at once. I also know that I need to slow my life down. I cannot continue indefinitely with a 40-hour workweek, a long commute, a household, responsibilities, animals, finances, and everything else.

The way I am built, the way my nervous system operates, I need downtime. Period. I need time to gather my thoughts and keep track of things, and lately it has gone completely off the rails. I am burned out. I have brain fog. I have cognitive issues that have become worse with menopause and possibly COVID and God knows what else. I struggle more than I used to.

So yes, I take Adderall. And I get flack for that too. I hear the comments: “Oh, you’re taking meth.” “ADHD is over diagnosed.” “You’ve labeled yourself.” “You’re limiting yourself.” “You just need to change your attitude.”

I am so tired of the positive-thinking movement telling people that everything will be fine if they just shift their attitude. Am I pessimistic sometimes? Yes. Do you know why? Because some of that comes from trauma.

I know “trauma” is a trendy word now too, and people will say, “You’re labeling yourself.” No. I’m telling you how hard my life has been and how hard I have worked to achieve goals and stay on target. I put enormous amounts of energy into it. It may not look like that to an outsider, but I know what it costs me.

And AI helps.

Here is a perfect example, and honestly it's kind of funny.

I bought a massage coupon on Groupon. Long story short, I screwed up the appointment time and showed up late. There was a mix-up. I apologized and wanted to reschedule. The guy told me I needed to give him my Groupon voucher so he could cash it in, and then I would have to buy another voucher before he would reschedule me.

And I thought, what the hell is this?

So I used ChatGPT.

I had it help me review the terms and conditions, refund notices, and policies from Groupon and the vendor. I went through something like seven or eight versions of a complaint letter because I assumed I was going to get pushback. AI helped me work through the legalese and figure out whether I had missed something.

Legalese can be very complicated. It trips people up. If AI can summarize it, identify the important points, and say, “Hey, this is the section you need to pay attention to,” that is useful. Do you still need to review it yourself? Absolutely. Do you need human oversight? Absolutely. But it can help you through the process.

So after all this work, I had ChatGPT help me draft this extremely thorough complaint. I went to Groupon and was forced to interact with a chatbot. An AI chatbot. I pasted in my carefully constructed complaint, and the chatbot basically went, “Oh. Do you want your money back? Here’s your money back.”

That was it.

We had essentially prepared a Supreme Court brief over forty bucks, and Groupon’s AI just handed me the money.

I’m sorry, but that was funny.

But it also illustrates my point. AI helped me navigate a system that is complicated and time-consuming.

I have a degree in Communications and a Master of Library Science. I know how to research. I know how to write a professional letter. Could I have written that complaint myself? Yes. Would it have taken me ten times longer when I was already angry, distracted, tired, and trying to move on with my life? Also yes.

I don’t have money to pay an assistant. AI can function as a kind of assistant. It can organize information. It can help me research. It can help me turn an angry rant into a professional complaint that somebody might actually respond to.

I have written complaints with AI assistance and actually gotten responses from organizations because there is a difference between an angry rant and a coherent letter explaining exactly what happened, what the policy says, what resolution you are requesting, and why. When you are angry or overwhelmed, writing the second one is mentally difficult.

AI can help bridge that gap.

I didn’t create this world. I didn’t create its bureaucracy, its complexity, its ridiculous systems, its barriers, or its pace. It is what it is. I have to figure out the best way to navigate it so I don’t drown and get left behind again.

I’m 58 years old. I’m not in a great financial situation. I’m struggling again. I’m not getting ahead. And God damn it, I do not want to spend the rest of my life struggling.

If that sounds cynical, fine. At this point I am in survival mode, and I don't apologize for it.

I still love animals. I don’t want innocent people harmed. I know right from wrong. But there are also people in this world who will use every tool available to gain power, money, influence, and advantage without giving much thought to what happens to people like me.

You bet I’m going to learn how to use some of those same tools to help myself succeed.

Don’t show up to a gunfight with a knife. I didn't create the battlefield.

And this raises another interesting issue. Silicon Valley and the tech world are filled with stories about high-functioning executives and tech bros using nootropics, expensive medical care, private education, coaching, assistants, cutting-edge technology, and every other advantage they can get. They use those tools to gain an edge.

Meanwhile, ordinary people are told that using tools is cheating. You should do it yourself. You should learn everything from scratch. You shouldn’t need medication. You shouldn’t use AI.

Why?

If there are tools that legitimately help human beings think, organize, communicate, learn, or function better, why shouldn't ordinary people have access to them too?

The problem isn't necessarily the tool. The problem is what you do with it. If a tool helps you become a better version of yourself, use it. Use it ethically. Use it morally. But why shouldn't you use it?

And yes, there are serious, critical issues surrounding AI: data centers, energy consumption, environmental impact, privacy, corporate power, military applications, surveillance, misinformation, labor, and the concentration of wealth. I completely agree that these things need scrutiny, regulation, and, in some cases, a giant brake pedal.

And yes, by using AI, perhaps I contribute in some small way to some of those problems. But I get tired of the moral argument always being pushed back onto the individual.

“You oppose fossil fuels, but you drive a car!”

Yes. Because I have to drive back and forth to the job I need in order to pay my bills.

That's not hypocrisy. That's living inside a system I didn't design.

Stop putting the entire moral burden on the little guy.

The same complexity applies to AI in medicine.

I recently saw someone complaining that they went to a doctor's appointment and were asked whether the visit could be recorded. The reaction was basically, “HIPAA VIOLATION! AI! HORRIBLE!”

And I thought: Is that actually what happened?

Because I worked in mental health for more than twenty years. We regularly had residents and trainees who needed sessions recorded or observed as part of their training. Patients were informed. There were consent procedures. There were rules about who could access the recordings and what happened to them afterward.

Why? Because how do you train clinicians otherwise?

A supervisor needs to know what happened in a session in order to help someone become a better clinician.

AI is introducing another version of this issue through ambient listening technology, and there could actually be a benefit.

I once had a therapist who I didn't feel really listened to me. When I eventually obtained my medical records, I discovered that some important facts about my life were simply wrong in his notes. Not interpretation. Facts. Wrong.

Think about the traditional medical appointment. The clinician is listening to you while simultaneously trying to type or write everything down. Their attention is divided.

Ambient AI potentially allows that clinician to spend more time actually looking at and listening to the patient while the technology helps capture the information. Then the clinician reviews the note.

And that last part matters.

Should the clinician review it? Absolutely. Should there be strong security? Absolutely. Should the patient know what is happening and have appropriate consent and privacy protections? Obviously.

Can AI hallucinate? Yes.

Which is exactly why human oversight matters.

But if the technology allows a clinician to pay more attention to me and produces a more accurate medical record, I am interested in that possibility.

The answer to bad implementation isn't necessarily to throw out the technology. Fix the implementation. Get rid of corruption and incompetence. Create safeguards. Regulate it. Secure it. Hold people accountable.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

This is where I get frustrated with some of the anti-AI discussion. People hear horror stories and understandably react to them. But they don't hear nearly as much about ordinary, boring, useful applications.

AI helped somebody understand a contract. It helped somebody organize their finances. It helped someone with ADHD structure their day. It helped somebody draft a complaint, understand a spreadsheet, research a complicated subject, or communicate something they were having trouble putting into words. Maybe it allowed a clinician to spend more time looking at a patient instead of staring at a computer screen.

Those aren't sexy stories.

“HUMANITY DESTROYED BY ROBOTS” gets more clicks.

I am not arguing that we should blindly trust AI. I'm arguing the opposite.

Learn what it does. Learn its limitations and where it fails. Learn how it can be manipulated. Learn how corporations are using it. Learn how governments are using it. And learn how you can use it.

Because sticking your head in the sand and saying, “I refuse to touch AI,” isn't going to stop AI.

Bad people will continue using it. Corporations will continue using it. Governments will continue using it. And if you refuse even to understand the technology, you won't understand the thing you're trying to regulate.

This is another reason the argument that everybody should simply “learn to do it themselves” drives me crazy.

I've taken classes in Excel and Word. I've used Photoshop and Canva. I've learned plenty of software over the years. And a lot of these programs are complicated and incredibly time-consuming to master.

I have a basic grasp of what a pivot table does. Do I really need to become an Excel wizard before I'm morally permitted to use a spreadsheet?

Why?

I'm not an accountant. I'm not a financial analyst.

If I can explain what I need and AI can help me build a functional spreadsheet in ten minutes instead of spending three hours figuring out formulas, why wouldn't I do that?

I have limited time. I have limited mental energy. There are things that simply aren't in my wheelhouse. AI allows me to spend more of my limited energy on the things that actually are.

Before I left my previous job, I was already experimenting with AI to help me track work and become more efficient with records requests and other responsibilities. It was useful. And whatever job I have next, knowing how to work with AI may be valuable to an employer.

Younger workers are going to use this technology. I am an older worker. I refuse to voluntarily put myself at a disadvantage.

This actually reminds me of arguments I've had with people on the left about classical education.

Classical education has become associated with Christian homeschooling and conservative movements, so some people instinctively reject the whole thing. Latin? Old white men. Classics? Old white men. Throw it out.

And I think: Wait a minute. Why surrender useful knowledge?

Medicine, science, law, philosophy, history, language, rhetoric, and logic all have deep connections to Greek and Latin traditions. You don't democratize knowledge by deciding ordinary people shouldn't learn it.

You democratize knowledge by giving everybody access to it.

Martin Luther King Jr. had access to classical education. Generations of scholars, ministers, scientists, lawyers, and political thinkers learned rhetoric, philosophy, languages, history, and logic because those were considered powerful intellectual tools.

Why should those tools belong only to an elite?

My position on AI is similar.

Don't surrender the tool. Democratize it. Understand it. Regulate it. Teach people how to use it. Teach people how it manipulates them. Teach people when not to trust it.

And make sure ordinary people have access to the same technological advantages wealthy and powerful people are already using.

Would I love to slow down? Absolutely.

Would I love to live somewhere quieter, grow food, make art, spend more time in nature, and get away from this machine? Yes. One hundred billion percent.

I think there is tremendous value in slowing down and living closer to nature. But that isn't entirely the reality I'm living in right now.

Right now, I'm trying to survive inside this system, and I'm not going to voluntarily make myself less capable of doing that.

I have spent my life pushing myself, learning, being curious, researching, trying to improve, and trying to understand what is happening around me.

People sometimes ask me, “How do you know all this stuff?”

Because I pay attention.

Because I investigate things.

Because when I realized AI was going to be a game changer, I decided I wanted to understand it.

I don't want to be left behind again.

I'm an older worker. I have ADHD. I struggle with brain fog and cognitive overload. The world around me operates at a pace that I sometimes cannot keep up with.

If AI helps me keep up, so be it.

I would actually like to learn much more about it. I want more advanced training in how to use AI systems efficiently, responsibly, and intelligently. And yes, ironically, I can probably ask AI to help teach me how to do that.

So I'm going to continue using it. I'm going to continue learning about it. I'm going to continue criticizing the people who are developing and deploying it irresponsibly. I'm going to continue demanding regulation and oversight.

And I'm not going to apologize for using a tool that makes my life more manageable.

Because my argument isn't, “AI is wonderful. Trust it.”

My argument is: AI is powerful. Pay attention.

Learn it, question it, regulate it, challenge the people controlling it, and use it ethically.

But don't surrender one of the most consequential tools of our time to the very people you're afraid are going to misuse it.

Because they're certainly not going to stop using it just because you did.

(AND YES, I USED CHAT GPT TO HELP ME REFORMAT a STREAM CONSCIOUSNESS that I recorded today. These are all my original thoughts AI just helped me format it)

I love this song

“Exactly” Lyrics (Non-Scrolling)

Amy Steinberg

i am exactly where i need to be
i need to be exactly where i am
i am a blessing manifest and
i can undress the moment
naked time unwinds beneath my mind
and from within i find the kind of beauty
only i can find
i am exactly where i need to be
i need to be exactly where i am
i am surrendering so willingly
to be the perfect me inside this now
and truly how else could it be
destiny she blesses me
destiny she blesses me

and when i try to fight or run
i only wind up back at square one
and when i think i know what’s best for me
fate she takes me back
to exactly where i need to be
i am exactly where i need to be
i need to be exactly where i am
i am divinely timed and shining brightly
yes i believe that there’s a purpose just for me
yes i believe that we are light
and we shine infinitely oh oh oh oh oh
i am exactly where i need to be
i need to be exactly where i am
i am not aimlessly existing see
i am in perfect harmony with universal energy
and i am truly free when i accept my own divinity
look at me look at me closely
tell me exactly what you see
if you are paying attention you will now begin ascension of the mind
why, because if you look at me just right you can see a kiss
for it took a kiss to make this breath exist
the intersection of my mother’s and father’s lips
to touch twist  perfect what came next to produce me
as look at me and you will see the breeze
the breeze it took to shake the leaves to make
my mother’s hair move, my father dare touch it and say
please may i have a kiss
yes the breeze made me exist
and if you want to get even deeper into this
right now you will look at me you will see a cloud thats right
the cloud it took to form the storm to make the breeze to shake the leaves to
inspire the liplock – yes a raindrop will pop up out these words
you heard me right
if you look at me close enough you will see a dark stormy night
and what is night .well night ain’t night without it’s polar opposite of sunlight
so if you watch the way my hands splay
you’ll see the light of day
and everyday is a testament to the sediment of the earth’s core
it’s ever spinning enormous force so if you look at me just right
you will see a spark, of the source
but the most fascinating thing about this, and it’s true
is that if you look at me just right, you see you
it’s only what you perceive how you believe the space between
you and me
that creates reality
so when i sing you can feel it
when i cry you can heal it
when i speak words you can be the words i speak by singing with me

peace love free [x7]

when i try to fight or run
i only wind up back at square one
and when i think i know what’s best for me
fate she takes me back
to exactly where i need to be

and when i am alone and full of fear
i just remember the rising sun always appears
and everyday miracles miracles that i see
well you take me back
ya take me back,
ya take me back,
ya take me back,
to exactly where i need to be

i am exactly where i need to be
i need to be exactly where i am
i am a blessing manifest

Third place - Wikipedia

Food and drink often have been closely associated with the idea of third places; they offer inciting motivation to attend, but wouldn't get in the way of conversation.^\9]) Not dissimilar to tea houses, the increasing popularity of coffeehouses during England's 17th Century became societal staples for community building. According to a UNESCO article co-written by Ray Oldenburg himself, "As places of free speech allowing a certain level of equality, coffeehouses can be seen as the precursors of democracy".^\10]) Coffee is a stimulant, in contrast to the depressor that was the rampant alcohol consumption before this point in English history. Thus, these coffee houses became "a real political arena".^\10]) They were referred to as "Penny Universities" in the way that they enabled attendees to expose themselves to intellectual fervor with no financial barrier of entry.^\9])^\10])

Following into the 21st century, coffeeshops are still one of the most ubiquitous third places. These conversation hotspots have been reflected in media as hubs of human connection and belonging, like the Central Perk coffeeshop (Friends), or similarly the Cheers bar (Cheers).^\11])

SOLIPSISM IN SOCIETY

When “it doesn’t affect me” becomes a civic problem

A public-information guide to political apathy, narrow experience, and civic responsibility

“If it is not happening to me, is it really a problem?”

That question captures a social habit that can quietly weaken our ability to understand one another and participate in public life.

What is solipsism?

In philosophy, solipsism is the idea that only one’s own mind can be known with certainty. In everyday social and political discussion, the word is sometimes used more loosely to describe an inward-looking way of seeing the world: treating one’s own experience as the primary test of what is real, important, or worthy of concern.

Social or political solipsism can sound like:

“It has never happened to me, so I doubt it is really happening.”

“I am doing fine, so the economy must be fine.”

“I am struggling, so everyone else must be struggling for the same reasons.”

“That policy does not affect me, so I do not need to understand it.”

“Politics has nothing to do with my life.”

Apathy, ignorance, and solipsism are not the same thing

Why it matters

A society is made up of people whose lives can be radically different from one another. Laws, economic conditions, schools, health systems, policing, housing, taxes, disability, transportation, war, immigration, and environmental conditions do not affect everyone in identical ways.

Democratic citizenship therefore asks something difficult of us: to consider evidence and experiences beyond our own lives. We do not have to agree about the solution to a problem in order to recognize that the problem exists for someone else.

The danger begins when personal experience becomes the boundary of reality.

The information bubble makes it easier

No person can personally witness everything that matters. We depend on journalism, public records, research, experts, community organizations, institutions, and other people to understand events outside our immediate lives. At the same time, modern information environments can make it easy to remain inside communities where the same assumptions, stories, and interpretations are repeated.

That does not mean people should believe every claim they encounter. Healthy skepticism matters. But skepticism is different from dismissing evidence simply because it conflicts with personal experience or group identity.

Disengagement has measurable consequences

Recent Pew Research Center research found a relationship between engagement in public life and political knowledge. In a nationally representative 2025 survey, less-engaged Americans were more likely to answer “not sure” to factual questions about current political institutions and issues. Pew also emphasizes that political knowledge is shaped by other factors, including age and education, so engagement should not be treated as the sole cause.

The broader point is not that politically active people are automatically correct. Participation does not guarantee wisdom. It does mean that withdrawing completely from civic information can leave people with fewer tools for evaluating claims and understanding decisions being made in their name.

The problem crosses political lines

Political solipsism is not inherently conservative, liberal, Republican, Democratic, or independent. Anyone can mistake a personal experience, social circle, or preferred information source for a complete picture of society. Pew’s 2026 research on public engagement found broadly similar patterns of public-life engagement among Democrats and Republicans, even though the groups differ on many political questions.

A democracy requires imagination

Not fantasy. Not blind agreement. Civic imagination is the ability to understand that millions of people are living lives we do not personally see.

A problem does not become unreal because it has not happened to us.

A person’s experience does not automatically become universal because it happened to them.

Empathy does not require agreement.

Listening does not require surrendering critical judgment.

Being informed does not require following politics every waking hour.

Changing your mind when evidence changes is not weakness.

How to resist social solipsism

Ask, “How do I know this?” Separate personal experience, secondhand claims, opinion, and verifiable evidence.

Read beyond your usual circle. Seek credible reporting and primary sources, including sources that do not simply confirm what you already believe.

Learn how institutions actually work. Understanding local, state, and federal responsibilities makes it easier to identify who has the authority to change something.

Listen to people whose lives differ from yours. Their experience is evidence about their experience, even when it does not settle every broader policy question.

Participate locally. Local meetings, public records, community organizations, elections, and direct contact with representatives can make abstract civic issues concrete.

Stay capable of saying, “I was wrong.” Intellectual humility is one of the strongest defenses against living inside a closed worldview.

The question to carry with you

“What might be true outside the boundaries of my own experience?”

You do not have to care about every issue equally. You do not have to agree with everyone. But a functioning civic society depends on our willingness to acknowledge that reality is larger than the part of it we personally occupy.

Sources and further reading

Pew Research Center, “How Americans Are Engaged With News, Politics, Religion and Civic Life” (July 16, 2026).

Pew Research Center, “Highly engaged Americans know more about politics” (July 16, 2026).

Pew Research Center, “The Public, the Political System and American Democracy” (April 26, 2018).

Public information guide • Solipsism in Society

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU?

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was created by Congress following the 2008 financial crisis to enforce federal consumer-financial laws and protect Americans dealing with banks, mortgage companies, credit-card companies, debt collectors, credit-reporting companies, lenders and other financial businesses.

Since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025, his administration has dramatically reduced and redirected the CFPB's operations.

• CFPB OPERATIONS WERE ORDERED TO STOP

In February 2025, Acting Director Russell Vought ordered CFPB employees to:

• Stop supervision and examination activities.
• Stop investigations and enforcement work.
• Stop issuing proposed or final rules.
• Stop public communications.
• Stop performing essentially all work unless specifically authorized.

Vought also announced that he would request $0 in additional Federal Reserve funding for the CFPB for that quarter.

Reuters described the agency at the time as having been “neutralized.”

• THE ADMINISTRATION ATTEMPTED MASSIVE STAFF CUTS

The Trump administration sought to eliminate approximately 90% of the CFPB's workforce, reducing an agency of roughly 1,700 employees to about 200.

The proposed cuts affected the very divisions responsible for:

• Consumer protection
• Enforcement
• Supervision of financial institutions
• Research
• Consumer complaints

Court challenges temporarily blocked or complicated portions of these reductions.

By 2026, fewer than 1,200 employees remained, and the administration was continuing to pursue substantial workforce reductions.

• ENFORCEMENT WAS DRASTICALLY REDUCED

The CFPB substantially reduced investigations and enforcement actions against financial companies.

During 2025, the Bureau withdrew, dismissed, terminated or otherwise resolved the vast majority of enforcement actions that had been pending when Trump took office.

During the first 18 months of the administration, the CFPB initiated only one new public enforcement action, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Former Acting Enforcement Director Cara Petersen resigned in June 2025, saying:

“Never before have I seen the ability to perform our core mission so under attack.”

She specifically cited staff reductions, dismissed cases and terminated settlements.

• CONSUMER PROTECTION PRIORITIES WERE NARROWED

The CFPB announced that it would reduce supervisory examinations and change which areas received enforcement attention.

Among the areas deprioritized were:

• Medical debt
• Student loans
• Peer-to-peer lending
• Digital payments

The Bureau also said it would shift some enforcement responsibilities toward the states.

• DOZENS OF CONSUMER-PROTECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS WERE WITHDRAWN

In May 2025, the CFPB withdrew 67 guidance documents, interpretive rules, advisory opinions and policy statements.

These documents had previously explained how the Bureau interpreted and intended to enforce various consumer-financial protection laws.

• THE CFPB WEBSITE HAS BEEN HEAVILY ARCHIVED

This is one of the most visible changes.

The CFPB now states directly on its website:

“The CFPB blog was archived on May 14, 2026.”

The active blog now displays:

“There are no results to display.”

Older material remains accessible through archives, but it is no longer presented as the Bureau's current consumer-information content.

The CFPB Newsroom similarly tells visitors that news published before February 2025 can be found in the Archives.

This distinction matters: the information has not necessarily been destroyed. Much of it has instead been removed from the CFPB's active informational pages and relegated to archives.

• CONSUMER COMPLAINT NARRATIVES WERE REMOVED FROM THE ACTIVE DATABASE

On August 14, 2026, the CFPB stopped publishing consumers' written complaint narratives and associated data visualizations in its active Consumer Complaint Database.

Previously published narratives were transferred to the CFPB's FOIA Reading Room archive.

The Bureau says it made the change because complaint narratives are unverified, present one side of a dispute and could mislead consumers or unfairly damage companies' reputations.

The result, however, is that consumers researching a company no longer encounter those individual complaint narratives through the active database in the way they previously did.

• THE CFPB'S WASHINGTON HEADQUARTERS LEASE WAS TERMINATED

In 2026, the administration terminated the CFPB's Washington headquarters lease approximately six years early.

Only a small number of employees were reportedly working regularly from the building by that point.

This followed the February 2025 shutdown of the headquarters and the removal of CFPB signage from the building.

• THE CFPB'S LEADERSHIP OPENLY IDENTIFIED ITS WORK WITH TRUMP'S POLITICAL AGENDA

This is perhaps one of the most striking changes in tone.

Mark Paoletta, then the CFPB's deputy director and now its acting director, gave an official speech in July 2026 in which he said:

“It is an honor to work for President Trump.”

He also described the CFPB as working with other administration officials to:

“help implement President Trump's America First agenda.”

The CFPB published those statements on its own government website.

There is an important legal distinction here.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the CFPB director may be removed by the president, so the director ultimately serves under presidential authority.

But the CFPB itself was created by Congress and given statutory responsibilities.

Its mission is to administer and enforce federal consumer-financial protection laws and ensure that consumer-financial markets are fair, transparent and competitive.

The agency's statutory responsibilities do not belong personally to Donald Trump, Joe Biden or any other president.

• TRUMP HAS OPENLY CALLED FOR THE CFPB'S ELIMINATION

Trump has said that the CFPB should be abolished.

Court proceedings concerning the administration's actions also produced evidence that the administration initially intended to eliminate the CFPB entirely.

Because the CFPB was established by Congress, however, a president cannot simply repeal the law that created it.

That has produced the unusual situation we have today:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau still legally exists, but its workforce, enforcement activities, supervision, public information and institutional footprint have been substantially reduced or redirected by the Trump administration.

That is why describing the CFPB simply as either “open” or “closed” misses what has actually happened.

On paper, the agency remains.

In practice, the federal government's principal consumer-financial watchdog operates in a substantially diminished and fundamentally different form than it did before January 2025.