Saturday, December 12, 2009
My Father
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Getting Closer
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Two good blogs, one great article, and a link to a good blogger
Thursday, July 23, 2009
I wish I could write that well.
I don't know whether Crowley arrested Gates because he was angry that an uppity black man dared to question him or whether this was just a tense misunderstanding that escalated out of control. What's clear is that neither the overused notion of racial profiling nor the trope of a black malcontent playing the race card gives us any real purchase on this controversy. Gates has said he hopes to use the incident as a teaching moment. But if we are really to learn anything from it, we'll have to look deeper. We need to ask why so many police officers of all races suspect the worst of racial minorities. (I wonder what the black Cambridge police officer pictured in the photo along with Gates after his arrest would say about all of this if he could speak candidly.) Decades of blatant and pervasive racial discrimination, poor urban planning, and failed labor policy have left blacks disproportionately jobless and trapped in poor ghettos across the United States. Faced with few opportunities and few positive role models, a disturbing number of people in those neighborhoods turn to gangs and crime for money, protection, and esteem.
Rather than improve those neighborhoods and help the people who live in them join the prosperous mainstream, we as a society have given police the dirty job of quarantining them. Frankly, we should expect that a disproportionate number of power-hungry bigots would find such a mandate attractive. And an otherwise decent and fair-minded officer, faced with the day-to-day task of controlling society's most isolated, desperate, and angry population, might develop some ugly racial generalizations and carry them even to plush and leafy neighborhoods such as those surrounding Harvard Yard. Yet when the inevitable racial scandal surfaces we, like Capt. Renault in Casablanca, are shocked,shocked to find racial bias in law enforcement and quick to blame individual police officers, rather than ourselves.
The baseless arrest of one of the nation's most esteemed scholars is wrong and unfortunate, whether racism or simple abuse of authority is to blame. Professor Gates was publicly humiliated and spent several hours confined in a jail cell for, at most, asserting himself against a mistaken policeman. He deserves the apology he has asked for and apparently won't receive. But the larger problem of racial disparity in law enforcement is not caused by individual misconduct, and it will not be solved by apologies extracted under pressure or the threat of litigation. It's a symptom of the way we have chosen to deal with poverty and racial isolation in this very wealthy and supposedly egalitarian society. And it makes all police scapegoats for the failed and callous social policies that we have all chosen or acquiesced to.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
A baby boy
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Atheism
As a kid I was lost and I was invited to go to church, I went to church off and on through high school when I asked God into my heart, I didn't truly live my faith until I met Jackee, and now it is the center (at least I try to make it my center) of my life.Ultimately I decided that this world could not have come to happen by happenstance. It would take more faith to believe that all this happened randomly, in my opinion. I do believe in evolution. I believe in natural selection. But, I don't believe that evolution accounts for all the variety of life we see on earth. After I came to a belief in something or somebody creating the earth, I started looking at all the particular religions, and I came to believe that Christianity was the only message that had a consistent message.In addition to using rational thought, I also had too many moments in my life that it felt like somebody was guiding me. I went through a lot growing up and it was clear that God directed me to Him. I had multiple moments where everything should have blew up in my face, and it didn't. There was a hand on my life.I do not have blind faith; I came to Christianity through research and personal experiences.
Google Voice
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Violence in the 'loo
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Best wife ever
Monday, July 13, 2009
Dad
Another email from work...
Subject: FW: A Letter For Ashley's Everywhere - An awsome letter!
Bill is 63 years old and owns his own business. He is a life-long Republican and sees his dream of retiring next year is now all but gone. With the stock market crashing and all the new taxes coming his way, Bill knows he will be working for a good number more years.
Bill has a Granddaughter. Ashley is a recent college grad. She drives a late model car, wears all the latest fashions, and also likes going out and eating out a lot. Ashley campaigned hard for Obama, and after he won the election she made sure her Grandfather (and all other Republican family members) received more than an earful on how the world is going to be a much better place now that Obama won the election.
Ashley recently found herself short of cash and cannot pay her bills, again. As she has done many other times in the past, she e-mailed her Grandfather asking for some financial help. Here is his reply:
Sweetheart,
I am replying to your request for more money. Ashley, you know I love you dearly and am sympathetic to your financial plight. Unfortunately, times have changed. With the election of President Obama, your Grandmother and I have had to set forth a bold new economic plan of our own....the 'Ashley Economic Plan'. Let me explain. Your grandmother and I are highly productive, wage-earning tax payers. As you know, we have lived a comfortable life and in return have forgone many things like fancy vacations, luxury cars, etc. We have worked hard and were looking forward to retiring soon. But this plan has changed. Your president is significantly raising our personal and business taxes. He says it is so he can give our hard earned money to other people. Do you know what this means, Ashley? It means less income for us. Less income means we must cut back on many business and personal expenditures. One example is, we were forced to let go of our receptionist today. You know her. She always gave you candy when you visited my office. Did you know she worked for us for the past 18 years? I can't afford her anymore.
That is a taste of the business side. Some personal economic affects of Obama's new taxation policies include none other than you. You know very well that over the years your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in cash, tuition assistance, food, housing, clothing, gifts, etc., etc. By your vote, you have chosen another family over ours for help. Judging from your Email requesting more money, I recommend you call 202-456-1111. That is the direct telephone number for the White House. You yourself repeatedly told me I was foolish voting Republican. You said Mr. Obama is going to be the people's president and is going to help every American live a better life. Based upon everything you have told me and things we heard from him as he campaigned, I am sure Mr. Obama will be happy to send a check or transfer money into your checking account. Have him call me for the transaction and account numbers, which by now I know by heart.
Perhaps you now can understand what I have been saying for all my life: those who vote for the president should consider what the impact of an election will be on the nation as a whole, and not just be concerned with what they can get for themselves (welfare, etc.). What Obama voters don't seem to realize is all of the "government's" money he is 'redistributing' to illegal aliens and non-taxpaying Americans (deemed "less fortunate") comes from tax money collected from income tax-paying families. Remember how you told me, "Only the richest of the rich will be affected"? Guess what, honey? Because of our business, your Grandmother and I are now considered to be the richest of the rich. On paper, it might look that way. But in the real world, we are far from it. But, as you said while campaigning for Obama, some people will have to carry more of the burden so all of America can prosper. You understand what that means, right? It means that raising taxes on productive people results in them having less money. Less money for everything, including granddaughters.
Congratulations on your choice for "change." For future reference, I encourage you to attempt to add up the total value of the gifts and money you've received from us over the years, and compare it to what you receive over the next four years from Mr. Obama.
Remember, we love you dearly... but from now on you'll need to call the number referenced above when you need financial help.
Good luck, Sweetheart.
Love,
PopPop
- Obama has been in office less than 200 days. The problems behind this crisis are rooted much deeper than anything he has done. I say this while acknowledging Obama has made some mistakes and admitting he hasn't handled the situation very well. There have been way too many people claiming they know the root of the crisis who have been very much wrong. This crisis occurred for many reasons to name a few: cheap interest rates for too long, stagnant median income growth over the last 10 years, people not saving enough, China's current account surplus, deregulation, leverage in banks, etc. For more on this there are experts that are much better than me, see: baseline scenario, naked capitalism, the big picture, and the economist's view. (I will say with an almost certainty that the Community Reinvestment Act had nearly nothing to do with the crisis.)
- If good ol'grandpa Bill let his receptionist go, it had nothing to do with proposed tax changes. Obama's proposed increase in income taxes will increase taxes on income above $250,000 by 4.6%. (about where they were under President Clinton). So say Bill makes $400,000. His tax bill will go up about $6,900 (4.6% X (400,000-250,000)). If This was enough to let go of one employee, wow. Plus, taxes haven't increased yet and they won't be increasing until probably 2011, perhaps 2010 (which would be paid by April 2011). Why did he let his nice receptionist go now?
- Now people pay more taxes than just income taxes so their is no doubt there could be additional taxes increasing. The most apparent increase will probably be capital gains taxes which will go from 15% to 20%. This would be income from stocks, bonds, and other assets you hold and then sell after the go up in value (primary residences are excluded most of the time). Normally, if you have income from this category you are relatively well off and your marginal tax rate is normally higher than the 20% rate, so this income will still be taxed lower than your normal income. Also, under president Bush this was lowered dramatically, and the proposed increase would still be lower than what it was in the 90s. Bill mentions hard earned money, most of the time, capital gains are not hard earned (except perhaps when selling a business venture). (For more information see wikipidea, which I am not a big fan of, but this is pretty concise and mostly factual).
- Grandpa Bill also mentioned corporate taxes. There is no doubt that the US has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world, but the irony is that the majority of businesses in the US, unless they are publicly traded, are not taxed under the corporate tax rate. Usually businesses are set up as Sole Proprietors, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and S-corps, which their income is passed to the owners and taxed at the individuals tax rate. This is one of those things that the media almost never discusses. I work at a bank. I look at tax returns literally every day at work, and I can count on one hand how many businesses I have seen that are set up as a regular corporation, and that is out of hundreds of businesses. There are very few times when it makes sense to be set up as a regular C corp, and normally if a business is set up this way, they have a great deal of assets.
- The email somehow equates young with privileged (yes Ashley is privileged). This is irritating. I am young and yes I voted for change and I have not been entirely happy with that change. I am also pretty privileged. I am white, I grew up in the mid west around people who spoke like rich people, and attended quality schools. I was by no means as privileged as Ashley though. The subject of the title speaks to Bill's disdain for the younger generation. There are some lazy people out there, but more that are discouraged and think they don't have a chance no matter how hard they work. I think most people on welfare would trade places with Ashley. It appears by Bills comments that Ashley is lazy, but she still has a college education. If you grow up poor, you cannot get a college education if you are lazy. Ashly will end up being fine. She speaks the language of the rich and has a college degree.
- "Perhaps you now can understand what I have been saying for all my life: those who vote for the president should consider what the impact of an election will be on the nation as a whole, and not just be concerned with what they can get for themselves (welfare, etc.)." The irony in this statement is so deep. Bush gave the largest handout to the wealthy of any recent president and maybe more than any president ever, got us into two wars with no way out, destroyed our image internationally, and set the economy up for disaster. He will go down as one of the worst presidents ever. When I went to the voter box, I wasn't just thinking about myself. I was thinking about the nation.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Failure
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Economics 101
Subject: Economics 101
Whether you agree with Dr. Rogers political conclusions or not, you must agree that he makes an interesting point...The late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931 to 2005) Memphis, TN, offered the following observation several years ago and it bears great Significance today:
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation."
"You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it."
I believe the fallacy in this argument is the presumption that people don't want to work and people don't want to take care of themselves. There may be a few who don't want to provide for themselves, but I believe most just want an equal opportunity. Most of the people I have talked to, when pressed, want to be self sufficient even if they say they want a hand out. It is convenient to look at the underresourced and assume that their situation is completely the result of their own doings because it absolves us from recognizing our position of privledge. While we demonize the poor, we make heroes of the wealthy assuming they are self made. I know of no person who is completely self made. Our society likes to look down upon the poor because it allows us the higher moral ground when we assume that others are simply too lazy to work hard. When you get to know more people who make bad choices you realize that they aren't that much different then yourself.There are some very minor changes I made above from the original email to protect some people. The gentleman's response to me is below:
What we fight for and what we try to defend is usually a good indication of our own insecurities. That is why when I read a statement like that below, I am quick to counter, because at one time I was one of the half that needed help. I needed somebody to pay for my medical bills so I could survive, and my mom didn't have the money. I don't want to believe that I am an indicator of "the end of a nation." Think of my mom in that situation, do you think she didn't want to work, or do you think that perhaps all her hard work wasn't producing enough money to pay for a decent standard of living? I promise you the 16 hour days she worked was definitely hard work. After watching her, I can see why some give up, as now she is 62 and still working well over 60 hours a week. Comments like these, especially when income inequality is at an 80 year high, strikes a nerve. Ironic, income inequality is at an 80 year high, while we are in the middle of the worst recession since the 1930s, which happens to be 80 years ago. I am not insinuating causation, but I am almost certain there is correlation.
The truth is the poor get discouraged because it doesn't matter how hard they work, they feel like they will never have a decent living. While my mom has worked well over 60 hours a week, I know of business owners who work16 hours a week but makes over $500,000 a year. What separates my mom and this business owner? One particular business owner was given a business after he was writing bad checks all over town and nearly bankrupt. He is not smarter; he is not better than my mom. His wealth was created through the backs of people like my mom. I believe his arrogance, greed, and power are a better indication of "the end of a nation" than a kid who would die without a "handout."
Comments like these (Dr. Nelson's) do nothing but drive a stake through the "have-nots" while allowing the "haves" to step on that pedestal. I ask you "Sender", did you feel good about yourself when you read this? Did it feel good to press send? Did you do it with a loving heart? It didn't feel good when I double clicked and read. And when I think about it, when I go to hit send, I will do it with anger and love. I am angry that I do not feel understood. I am angry that some kids right now are starving. I am angry that in our country of wealth there are some who don't feel like they have a chance. I love the fact that God has given me a voice to change perceptions, and I will fight to do it. I love the fact that God put me here at this moment. I pray that this brings Glory to God.
Shane,
I certainly meant no offense and I hope you realize that I understand and appreciate your perspective on things. However, I think you have to understand that there are two sides to any argument. And just because I have a different opinion on economics does not mean that I am attacking you or your family. In fact it's families like yours that gives me hope for this nation. I realize that for many people it is governmental support that has kept them alive and for that I am grateful. I am every bit as adamant about supporting the poor as you are. The difference is that I do not believe it is the governments role or responsibility. I believe the church should take care of orphans, widows and the poor. We both want those less fortunate supported and helped, we just think that the help should come from different places. I am truly sorry to have offended you, believe me I meant no disrespect on you or your family. To answer your question regarding "How I felt when sending the email"... Believe me if I had thought that this email was going to offend you I would not have forwarded it. I tried to make it clear in my opening statement that I was presenting one side of the argument, not forcing any political agenda's on anyone. I will be more careful in sending political emails in the future.
Your Brother in Christ,
Sender
Like I said before, I have a great deal of respect for this person. He is a very strong Christian, but we have had many conversations and I feel like he really doesn't understand the situation for the poor. I still didn't feel like he did so I replied again:
Sender,I care a lot about what the church is doing. My church is attempting to do more for the underprivledged, and we have outreaches to many places. We are attempting to do more on the east side of Waterloo, but it is hard.
I do not take offense personally, I realize you don't understand what it is like or what your words do. I just want you to realize how passing on an email like that makes others care less about the poor. I hope you understand that there are more people like me out there than those who just want to live off somebody else. I also know that you meant no harm, but to me, this is not a mere political matter, nor is it merely an "argument." While economics for most of us here is simply the difference between a new car and a used one, it is life and death for many.
You are right, the church should do more. The problem is that the church protects their own. It does a poor job reaching out to the underserved even in our own towns. The church has been no more successful, and I would even argue less than the government, at helping people through hardships. Do you think mom was going to church when I got sick? When is the last time your church paid for somebody's medical bills over $100,000? How about somebody who didn't go to your church? When was the last time your church brought in somebody from the east side as a new member? When is the last time your church paid for somebody's college that wasn't a member? If it was up to the church, I would be dead. The church is failing, and it is not because of the government. The church is failing because we are sinful. Too often we use charity to feel better about ourselves rather than make a difference. We give not in love, but in self adoration. We don't care about the person on the other end, we don't care about their story, we just like to say we did our part. This is why there is not enough funds in the church. We just really don't care enough, and we take a bad attitude.
We care less about others when we feel like they are lazy. We feel like we don't need to reach out to them, for they are making their own bed to sleep in. Statements like the one sent embolden people to care less.
I want you to send me the political e-mails. I want you to think about what you are sending. Get to know some poor people. Get to know why they are poor. Learn who they are and why they are that way. You will be surprised.
Fair enough Shane. Each is entitled to their own opinion. Despite our difference of opinion I do appreciate your desire to see the poor taken care of as I desire the same thing.He may have been busy or had any other number of valid reasons to basically not respond. I have a feeling it was simply that he didn't want to continue the conversation. Either I am annoying, I am overbearing, I make him mad, or he doesn't like to be pushed. For everyone who reads this? think of these questions I asked the sender of this email. Look inside yourself, what are your motivations. Who is your church reaching out to? If you don't go to church, let me know why.