Five years!

Five years ago today, my life changed. I've been reflecting on this time given the anniversary, and I hope you enjoy the results. It's kind of fitting that there are rallies across the nation today in response to the recent spate of suicides, because I also came very close to taking my life on this day in 2005. One side note: this is a little patched together from separate attempts to write down my feelings, and I haven't had time to blend each piece. Without further ado...

In the fall of 2005, my thyroid gave out suddenly and I plunged into an acute, suicidal depression. Without question, it was the worst experience of my life: In a matter of hours, the world transformed from a system I knew to a place of darkness and terror. I stayed in bed all day, transfixed by visions of suicide, yet that horrible cinema was my only sanctuary from turning my grotesque screenplay into a grisly one-man show. I couldn’t stay, but I couldn’t go.

I had to leave Wake Forest University after attending for three years to spend a week in a mental hospital. Leaving my friends and life behind to check into a mental health hospital shattered my vision of the world, and it was almost as bad as the initial trauma of suicidal thoughts.

After the first months of shock, I began to build a new life: getting an apartment, finding a job, attending a class the next fall and another in the spring. Even with this progress, I still tried not to focus on why I had suffered and was still suffering so much; I only cried out in pain. For a time I felt numb, going through the motions of my previous life, but looking back, my actions resemble those of a man who stubbornly tends his garden after all his plants have burned. Even now, I am grateful for those plants; even now, they nourish my new life as they disintegrate into the soil below. I had always heard of suffering; now I knew what it was. My faith in God has never recovered; I’ve had to find a worldview that makes sense to me.

I thought I knew my world, but it was only an illusion. The picture in front of my eyes was torn away, leaving me to blink and bleed in a new light. What I took for darkness was reality piercing my retinas, searing them with more information than I could handle. I groped about for my old mask, the old painting, but now it seems darkly cartoonish; a strange distortion of reality. For nearly two years I fiddled with the old picture, but it never matched up with what I saw on That Day.

...and now I have to go to bed. Not one of my best posts, but I promised myself I'd put up something today. There's a second part to this story; hopefully I can post it in the next few days (though I'm not making any promises...).

I have a dream, too... (but it's not as good as THE dream)

I will see your Beck and raise you an MLK.

I love this article. King's words still ring true after all these years. Wish I could write more, but I'm tired. Suffice it to say that I'm finding it hard to limit myself to this blog to talk about politics.

The more I read/hear about the GOP, the more I want to volunteer for Elaine Marshall and David Price. It'll happen, eventually - and sooner rather than later. You know, it's kinda like how I felt toward the Gulf Coast after Katrina: Yearning describes it well. I just knew I had to get down there and help. It took me two years, but I finally made it. Now I have the same feeling about politics; I've just got to get to campaign headquarters and pitch in! I can sit here and harp on the all my major issues, but until I actually spend time affiliated with a campaign it'll be idle chatter (unless I persuade some stray visitor from the internet).

And that brings me to something I've been thinking about recently: How can I bring people to my line of thought? Most folks I know have already made up their minds, as far as I can gather. There's shouting from street corners... but then who listens to that? Talking to strangers is just weird and off-putting for both me and the stranger... so what's left? Ranting on this blog? I want to engage people, to have meaningful discussions and, with some luck, persuade others to join me.

Eh, I dunno. We'll see.

Something New... again?

Ladies and gents, I have an announcement. In an effort to separate my political and non-political internet activities, I will attempt to keep my musings, urgings and protests on this blog, while jokes, chatter and harmless fun will remain on facebook. Lately, I've been mulling over how much time I spend spouting my politics on facebook, and I think that perhaps a change is in order. Now, that's not to say I'll be shying away from political discourse when it comes up, but I'll try not to initiate it. Plus, I'll still pass along forwards/causes that in my mind merit support from all political stripes (like Darfur).

On a related note, I will begin to explore this "blogosphere" that everyone keeps talking about and try to generate internet conversations both here at home and at other sites. I'm a little hesitant to talk to strangers, but perhaps I can find reasonable folks for intelligent, respectful debate (hey, the internet is a big place). If anyone has any suggestions on where to look, I'm all ears.

We'll see how this thing goes. See you in the future!

Happy Ramadan!

"Good morning, news! What do you have to tell me?"

"Well, here's a piece from FOX complaining about the President's comments on the "Ground Zero Mosque."

"Okay, let me take a look... seems to imply that Obama inserted himself in the debate; victims are angry; Peter King claims the President "caved to political correctness;" here are references to the unpopularity of the mosque (70%); oooh, this is nice: Rick Santorum says Islam is not just a religion but a political doctrine, and he goes on to say the imam behind the GZM (Faisal Abdul Rauf) has said the USA was "an accomplice" and "brought about the events of 9/11."

Folks, this really dismays me. Lemme break this down...

First of all, Obama is not jumping into this debate on a whim. He was speaking at the White House iftar celebrating the beginning of Ramadan. If there were ever an appropriate time for the President to talk about a Muslim-American controversy, this was it. In fact, if Obama had kept mum over the affair, it would have been extremely conspicuous.

Next, when a victims' spokesperson claims that the president "has abandoned America at the place where America's heart was broken nine years ago, and where her true values were on display for all to see," not only is she wrong, she's speaking the exact opposite of the truth. America IS religious freedom. If we allow our misgivings about our fellow citizens to overrule our principles and deny innocent people the very rights we hoard for ourselves, we are acting unequivocally un-American. Therefore, madam, you are the one abandoning America.

Let me be clear: I'll never forget where I was and what I was doing on that fateful Tuesday morning. I shared in the national shock as I turned on the news just after the third plane struck the Pentagon, and I looked on in horror as one tower fell, and then the other.

Mr. Santorum, if Islam is a political doctrine, then so is Christianity, Judaism and every other religion under the sun. You refer in your interview to Sharia law; what about Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy? Don't they set up a theocracy, too? And even if Islam is a political doctrine (which it isn't), not all Muslims believe the same things or act the same way. Even within Sharia, there are four major branches of thought with varying degrees of tolerance (see here). As far as I know, Faisel Abdul Rauf is not even advocating instituting Sharia, so it shouldn't be a concern in the first place.

Furthermore, the foulest things that FOX can dredge up against this imam are his quotes saying the USA was "an accomplice" and "brought about the events of 9/11," plus he refused to be pigeon-holed into calling Hamas a terrorist organization. It's a tough pill to swallow, but Bin Laden's trigger against the USA was our presence in the Gulf War (read here and here), so in that sense, the imam is right. As for the Hamas quote, try to put yourself in Rauf's shoes. If he calls Hamas an out-and-out terrorist organization, he alienates many Muslims who sympathize with the cause and ignores Hamas' contributions like social services (noted here). If he demonstrates any tolerance at all for Hamas, then he immediately receives the label of "radical." I'll say this, though: Rauf ought to have repudiated the violence of Hamas; instead, he dodged the question and thus allowed Hannity et al. to paint him as untrustworthy.

Now, do I think that this mosque/cultural center is in good taste? No. But just like freedom of speech or freedom of the press, freedom of worship is guaranteed regardless of taste. As long as you don't incite violence or promote destruction of life or property or do anything else against the law, you get a green light. You know what else is in poor taste? Politicizing this issue. If the law says you can build a church or synagogue or grocery store, then that should be the end of it. Let us be gracious enough to let our neighbors worship in peace.

Finally, perhaps the most upsetting facet of this whole issue is that President Obama gave a wonderful speech (which is even better than this post, if you can believe it), and all anybody talks about is the GZM. Take a look:

Well, I think that's it, for now. As always, if I've messed up my facts or logic, please correct me; and if I've overlooked something, please let me know. I crave conversation!

A bloated facebook thread...

Ladies and Gents! A political discussion!

This originally was a facebook post that mushroomed into something much more. And since my eyes tire of reading that tiny print, and because I like political discussions, I figured I’d put this on my blog.

Here's the context: I first posted this video about the Bush tax cuts and the debate over extending unemployment benefits. I added the text, "It's kinda long (14:32), but the gist is this: if you cut taxes, the government makes less money."

I was surprised at how many responses I got, but that's a good thing. Even if my friends disagree with me, I'm glad they feel comfortable expressing their views. In fact, I was just lamenting to my step-dad that in my experience, I have few political dialogs with my friends but many bouts of cursing/namecalling at the television. Anyway, the point is: I'm only too happy to promote real people discussing important issues with intelligence and civility. Here are their responses (names abbreviated for privacy):

J: You really think it's that simple??? There are many arguments as to why lowering taxes in certain areas will actually increase government revenue. To say that increasing taxes would increase government revenue would be similar to saying that a company which raises it's prices will increase their profits...in the short term that would often be true statement, but in the long term the effect could be the complete opposite.

Think of all the companies out there...now stop and think about some of the most successful and profitable ones. What makes them profitable? Most likely it's either, 1) they have an exceptional or unique product that is worth paying more for, OR 2) they have the lowest prices/best value. Well the same basic principle goes for taxes and government - if people actually have more of their money, then they'll spend it, which in turn generates more revenue for the government through the taxes they do have AND at the same time it stimulates the economy at the same time. If people have less money, then they won't spend it, the economy won't recover and the government will get even less revenue.

Now if the government actually produced something "exceptional" for once, then perhaps people would mind as much letting the government take more of their money...but when was the last time government ever did anything exceptional that didn't also cost some ridiculous amount of money such that it wasn't even worth it? How often does the government spending more money actually provide enough stimulation to offset the money they spent? (seriously, if you can find such an instance I would like to know about it so i can correct myself)

Historically, all attempts to specifically tax the "Rich" have never worked. When the wealthy are taxed heavily they are not encouraged to take risks and invest in businesses (which stimulates the economy and creates jobs). They will instead invest in things like tax-exempt securities or some other lawful method of avoiding the new taxes, thereby creating no jobs and the government gains no additional revenue.

K added...

I agree with J. It's basic economics, it's not complicated. Rich people don't like to pay taxes anymore than the middle class or poor. It's the way people work, not the way it "should" work. You have to look at history and see how people behave in given situations, that's what makes a leader wise. That's how we make other big decisions in life, so why not do it in economics and taxes? J is correct, history shows that taxing the rich has never worked, so why beat your head against the wall and keep trying it over and over again? Makes no sense...things need to change I agree, but make a sensible change, not just any change.

Then M said...

when i took macroeconomics at Campbell they taught us about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

And finally, R pitched in...

I agree that taxing the rich does not solve anything. And J is right that growth of both big and small businesses is key to the health of the economy. There are other places besides taxes in which the government should be looking to reduce the deficit.

1st should be getting out of Iraq and stopping the occupation of countries we have no business being in. $1 trillion later, and we haven't achieved anything, except gained more enemies. If we could focus more on trading with other countries instead of occupying, I bet we would see less hostility, more cooperation, and reduce our defense spending. We are spending as much on defense as the rest of the world combined. That's just ridiculous.

Also, the "war on drugs" (we just love war or using the term war) is not only a big waste of money and resources, but absolutely futile and has produced no positive results. This abomination has wasted nearly $1 trillion as well. Plus our prison population/cost of nonviolent criminals (50% of total population) would be reduced from decriminalizing it. And cartel wars along the border and drug running would also be reduced over time. Cartels love the anti-drug laws, because it keeps them in business.

Reducing entitlement spending is another they could look at. We are constantly seeing stories about fraud and abuse of programs, such as M's link about the New York teachers getting paid to do nothing, and fictitious schools receiving funds. They also have to stop these ridiculous stimulus packages. The only people seeing those funds are the elites. And none of them have worked. IMO, That money should have gone to the bottom line, to the people. People then would be able to pay off bills, shop more, and it would circulate all the way back to the top.

There are lots of ways to reduce the deficit, but higher taxation is only a "quick fix" without the fix part. The spending needs to be addressed. It has to be reduced or in some areas frozen.

----

Now, here are my responses. In an effort to streamline this discussion, I’ll try to focus on the primary issue in my original video: Comparing unemployment benefits to the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. First, to J:

"You really think it's that simple???" No, I don’t think it’s that simple – I was summarizing a 14 minute video. I'll readily admit that I'm no economist, but there are a few points/questions I'd like to make/pose. Are you comparing the government to a company? Because, if you are, that seems like comparing apples to oranges. Companies are out for profit, while governments (in theory) seek the good of their citizens, like providing libraries and education, services like roads and trash pickups, and of course, national defense.

"When was the last time government ever did anything exceptional that didn't also cost some ridiculous amount of money such that it wasn't even worth it?" Well, we put a man on the moon (though the space program is pretty expensive), and that was exceptional. I tend to think that helping the poor is an exceptional thing, too, albeit less glamorous or flashy as space travel or bombs. But again, this is the government providing services, not a company churning out profits. I'm not saying that we shouldn't expect efficiency from Uncle Sam, but I believe there are activities and programs with values that don't begin with dollar signs. I've already mentioned the poor; there's also the arts, our parks and forests, and keeping oil off wildlife and off beaches with regulations and oversight.

"How often does the government spending more money actually provide enough stimulation to offset the money they spent?"

Stimulation is one thing, unemployment benefits (the topic of discussion in the video) are another. I will focus on the latter. These benefits are an investment into the economy, since people who have money can buy things and pay taxes on those goods, as Sherrod Brown points out in the video (12:30-end). It's funny, because we both point this out: people with money buy stuff. I want the unemployed to have money to spend on necessities, and you want the rich to have money for discretionary spending - presumably to invest in business. But again, I think it's fair to note that the 3 million net jobs created under Bush pale in comparison with the 22 million under Clinton, so I'm skeptical of the claim that if rich folks' taxes go up, jobs will plummet. Here's another video (2:00-4:15) where Ezra Klein rattles off Bush's and McCain's economists who think the tax cuts do not pay for themselves. Remember, Bush proposed these cuts in the face of a surplus, so it wasn't a big deal if they didn't pay for themselves. W's own words were, "I'm asking for a refund," not, "This money will get back to the government eventually."

J, one last thing. You say that "Historically, all attempts to specifically tax the "Rich" have never worked." I beg to differ. In Germany, depending on which source you use, they tax about 36 to 40 percent of GDP, and they’ve got the fifth largest GDP in the world. Here, we tax about 28 percent of GDP with the number one economy. If we raised the tax rates by 10 points to something comparable to Germany, would it really be so bad? They’re doing just fine over there with those rates. And it's not just Germany - Great Britain, France, Brazil, Russia, and others have tax rates higher than ours but still rank among the world’s top economic powers. (Thanks, by the way, to M; his link led me to my sources)

To K I can only say: I think ending the Bush tax cuts in fact, can be sensible.

R: Amen about getting out of Iraq; you're preaching to the choir. I wish we could walk away from many of our commitments across the world right now so we could lend a hand in places that could use it - like Darfur. But that's a whole 'nother can o' worms. And sure, there are lots of places we could cut waste and fraud; gimme a sensible plan and I'll sign up for it. The drug war I'm not so sure about - mainly because I haven't given that much thought to it. I'm open to persuasion on that front.

Here's how I can best summarize my perspective: Let’s say that I make a billion dollars this year (hey, I can dream, right?). If the government takes half of that, I’m still one rich son of a gun and I can buy and do pretty much whatever pops into this ol’ noggin of mine - like rocketboots! However, if I've lost my job and can't provide basic necessities, you can bet I won’t be getting new shoes, much less rocketboots.

And finally, my sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

Now comment away! Just play nice.

Thoughts leaking from my mind

After five months, I just have so many things to say and no time to say them! Or rather, I opt not to say them and choose other activities.

First among these distractions is... my girlfriend! I can't possibly describe how awesome she is, but I'll say this: we met while contra dancing in March (a clue to her high level of coolness), and since then our relationship has been a continuous high. She's smart, she's funny, she's beautiful, and amazingly enough, she somehow has the grace to put up with me!

There's been the illness and death of my great-aunt, which has taught me many things... and someday, I'll write them out. The best part of that ordeal, though, has been that my 91-year-old great-uncle has moved up from Atlanta to Cary, so I see him twice a week now! Since he's the closest thing I have to a grandparent, I cherish our time together.

Alongside death and old age, I've seen new life emerge - two of my childhood friends who married have just given birth to their firstborn, and my step-brother is currently visiting with his wife and nine-month-old son. Then there are the lives merging in marriages - three since late March! It moves me every time to see two people I know commit to a life together.

But that's not why I started writing. Nor do I wish to take up politics, even though I could pontificate on The Spill, Big Business/Capitalism, Markets, Health Care, or something else. No, just a thought I'd like to throw out into cyberspace:

If hindsight is 20/20, I want to look at life from that perspective. That is, I want to see the future as if it were the past. I know Kierkegaard pretty much said the same thing: "Life can only be understood backwards," but I want to see my life laid out from my funeral to the present so I can gain the best view. Impossible, of course, but I can still simulate this by imagining various funerals, then charting a course to get to those funerals I want. Now there's an odd thought: How do I get to my funeral? What stops do I want to make on my way there? Are there places I want to avoid? Because when I ascend the last hill, I want to roar with delight and triumph as I survey my road. Come to think of it, I want that final roar more than anything else in the world, because in it lies Contentment. I don't mean to suggest that I'm not happy at present; I'm just afraid I won't get to do what I want before my time is up.

I suppose that's it for now. You know, I really enjoyed this post. I ought to do this more often...

Kindness and Analysis

I've been watching a lot of political shows lately, and I thought instead of whining about health care or the Christmas Day attack, I'd share more positive thoughts in a spirit of friendliness and goodwill. I suppose I've got some lingering magnanimity leftover from the holidays... :D

After watching this interview last night, I have to say that, right now, Ron Paul is my favorite Republican at the moment. His views and demeanor are refreshing in such antagonistic times. And just to be clear, both sides are antagonistic; Olberman can be rather inflammatory, as can Limbaugh. Back to Paul - he's so calm; pointing out the flaws of both sides with all the charm of a kind grandfather and the insight of a sage. I wish Paul's fellow fiscal conservatives in the various Tea Party factions would show the same restraint and gentleness as their figurehead. That said, I think I understand why some of the signs in their marches are so venomous. As Paul says in the interview above, this is an anti-establishment movement that has no defined place in either major party, so while citizens affiliated with either party can appeal to their leaders and representatives in DC, these folks have no recourse but to organize marches and protests. Simply put, if think no one's listening, you shout louder. That translates into something akin to desperation and manifests itself with increasingly vehement supporters and decreasingly courteous messages. Look at the drawings of Obama as the Joker, or the sign, "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy!"

Unfortunately, as Paul himself says, such well-intentioned passion for smaller government and less spending can ultimately hurt its own cause. I just witnessed in a heated discussion the importance of style and presentation: Two people ultimately agreed on a point after much civil but tense conversation, but just as they were about to wrap up, one shouted at the other that the discussion should end precisely because they agreed. This of course did not resolve the matter, but made the situation much more unpleasant because the other person was not finished expressing their final remarks and was hurt at the harshness of the first person. The lesson here is that if Unkindness can drive away those who agree, how can it negotiate with others who disagree, much less persuade them to join its cause?

Next, I have to say I feel sorry for Michael Steele. He has the onerous and unenviable task of balancing the demands of the Tea Party while placating the base and taking fire from both sides. Oh, and then there's the midterm elections to prepare. No big deal, right?

That's it for now, but I may post more soon. Take care, and I'd love to hear your comments - especially if you're conservative. Just keep it civil (not that you wouldn't).