I'm watching NBC instead of MSNBC. It's a good feeling.
One thing that I can admit and realize is that shifting my focus to the election allowed me to vacate from my own thoughts and feelings. So it was kind of nice.
But now I'm starting to settle. I got my president. I've got a good job. But I still am wanting a lot.
More than a vacation I want refuge. I'm glad it's holiday season. That means a few trips back home. I've decided that I'm going up to DC in 2009 as many times as I went to Miami last year. I think that DC/VA will provide the refuge that I'm seeking. Getting back to friends and family as often as possible. It's black alumni weekend (yes we have special weekends at pwi's) in April, I'd like to bring the new year in up there, I'd like to see the Cherry Blossoms for my birthday (3/31 - crap it's a Tuesday, well the weekend after or before) Let me tell you I still don't even like thinking about my birthday this past year. I tear up thinking about it. But whatever, it's in the past. I'd like to go to a football game, I'd like to drive up 64 as the leaves turn all sorts of beautiful colors. I want to see my best friends, not because I have business and/or something else to do...but just because I want to see them.
God if it weren't for this job and this mortgage - both of which I don't want to be taken away from me...so this is not some type of prayer that I want you to answer through job loss and foreclosure...but I'd like a new vision or an opportunity to go toward something new. (Yeah, sometimes when it comes to prayer, I'm weary...right after I talked about the two things that keep me here, I feared that one of God's possible answers was joblessness and foreclosure - is that cynical?)
I'm out of Atlanta by 2015. I'll be 34. Who knows if I'll be loved, or loving a family. But I do know that my days are here are limited.
11.07.2008
Hmm - as I learn more about Prop 8
the more I'm disgusted.
So it's mainly the Mormons who supported the ban on it. And quite frankly black people.
So let me get this straight.
It's okay to have children wives.
It's okay to have multiple wives.
below the belt comment in 5-4-3-2-1
It's okay to have hundreds of children go into state care because the children are subject to underage sexual acts. BUT it'd be terrible for a same-sex stable couple to adopt a child that needs parental care.
It's okay to oppress a group of people. Despite the fact that you lived the most ultimate form oppression in the form of slavery...where you were property, no better than cattle or horses.
But it's not okay for two consenting adults to choose who they love? And have that love recognized, validated and protected.
Ain't that some bullshit?
Call me liberal, but I don't believe who you are attracted to is a choice. Why would somebody chose to not be able to have basic rights and respect? Society can be such an effed up place at times. That's like me saying, you know what? I choose not to get paid for the hard work I do...I'm black and my right to be considered a human being instead of property should be taken away from me.
So it's mainly the Mormons who supported the ban on it. And quite frankly black people.
So let me get this straight.
It's okay to have children wives.
It's okay to have multiple wives.
below the belt comment in 5-4-3-2-1
It's okay to have hundreds of children go into state care because the children are subject to underage sexual acts. BUT it'd be terrible for a same-sex stable couple to adopt a child that needs parental care.
It's okay to oppress a group of people. Despite the fact that you lived the most ultimate form oppression in the form of slavery...where you were property, no better than cattle or horses.
But it's not okay for two consenting adults to choose who they love? And have that love recognized, validated and protected.
Ain't that some bullshit?
Call me liberal, but I don't believe who you are attracted to is a choice. Why would somebody chose to not be able to have basic rights and respect? Society can be such an effed up place at times. That's like me saying, you know what? I choose not to get paid for the hard work I do...I'm black and my right to be considered a human being instead of property should be taken away from me.
11.06.2008
Has seeing Obama & Michelle's relationship changed you in any way?
On my msg board a dude posted that in an argument his lady said, "i know i won't be comfortable but its bigger than that, its historical, see that's why we are so different and separate, Michelle would be there with Obama......see that's what I want, I want what THEY have.....but I'll just settle for you, you're not gonna rain on my parade, I already took off that week to be there." (there - inauguration).
That was a LOW BLOW, "I'll just settle for you."
With me, I've really thought about my love life and what I want. It's a balancing game. Some women have what I consider to be, "It All," a great career, health, and a loving, successful family/love. Then there are others that have a rigid standard and are still waiting for Mr. Perfect and spending more New Years the way Whitney Houston did in Waiting to Exhale. It's not to say that you have to have love just for the sake of spending New Years with somebody...but let's face reality that the only thing that gives or takes away opportunity in this world is time.
I'm not expecting to meet and marry the next Barack Obama, I'm not Michelle. I want some body that I seek refuge in. The world can be an uninviting place, but at the end of the day, when your boss yelled at ya, or didn't recognize your heard work...when your kids are screaming and acting a fool, when life doesn't go your way...you should be able to collapse in the comfort of your significant other's arms and know that everything is OK.
That was a LOW BLOW, "I'll just settle for you."
With me, I've really thought about my love life and what I want. It's a balancing game. Some women have what I consider to be, "It All," a great career, health, and a loving, successful family/love. Then there are others that have a rigid standard and are still waiting for Mr. Perfect and spending more New Years the way Whitney Houston did in Waiting to Exhale. It's not to say that you have to have love just for the sake of spending New Years with somebody...but let's face reality that the only thing that gives or takes away opportunity in this world is time.
I'm not expecting to meet and marry the next Barack Obama, I'm not Michelle. I want some body that I seek refuge in. The world can be an uninviting place, but at the end of the day, when your boss yelled at ya, or didn't recognize your heard work...when your kids are screaming and acting a fool, when life doesn't go your way...you should be able to collapse in the comfort of your significant other's arms and know that everything is OK.
11.05.2008
Intelligent discourse requested
In light of the fact that several bans on gay marriage have passed, please enlighten me as to why people would want to amend a state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.
State and Church are separate. So while you may be opposed to gay marriage on a religious basis why would you take away somebody's right/priviledge to marry?
Another argument I might hear is in regards to parenting. As if you need a study to prove what I find obvious...there are studies providing evidence that same-sex couples make good parents (no better or worse than hetero couples). The other argument is that it takes a man and a woman to raise a child. Umm, I'll ignore the obvious stats on divorce and children out of wedlock, but I'm aware that single parent's also have the right to adopt. Under the "a child needs a man and woman" argument, how would a same-sex adoption differ from a single parent adoption? In either case, 'the other' sex is missing from the equation.
I will jump on a limb, and this might not be the case for everybody, but usually people that are against same-sex marriage are also against abortion. At least this applies to the far right republican base. So....if abortion was banned and more children ended up in the foster care system, do you REALLY believe that the children fare better in state care (for which they complain about paying taxes or spreading the wealth) than in a home with loving parents?
I take offense to the mindset of a person that would vote for a ban on same-sex marriage. There are couples that have been in loving committed relationships. One man I know is the one of the most committed people to social endeavors, he's an advocate for animal rights, cancer, AIDS/HIV awareness ect....AND he's loved his significant other, who happens to be a man, for a long time. His character is impeccable. I truly respect and admire him...and would only want him to have protection to LOVE. Who is anybody to judge people, especially when they are actively seeking a better world? Why inflict pain upon a couple when all they do in return is try to LOVE?
I once had to really challenge a friend regarding his biggotted view. His boss had been in a committed relationship with a man for 15 years. I said, "how would you think that their love is wrong? They have supported each other for 15 years. You've been divorced once...should I assume that you don't deserve a loving committed relationship because you didn't succeed at your first one?" (yes that's a low blow). But I really challenged him to see the how real their love was and question why he would deny that love to anybody.
I am REALLY trying HARD to jump in the mind of a person that would vote for a ban on gay marriage, but I'm failing. While I wouldn't be able to agree, at least I could have perspective.
What am I missing?
State and Church are separate. So while you may be opposed to gay marriage on a religious basis why would you take away somebody's right/priviledge to marry?
Another argument I might hear is in regards to parenting. As if you need a study to prove what I find obvious...there are studies providing evidence that same-sex couples make good parents (no better or worse than hetero couples). The other argument is that it takes a man and a woman to raise a child. Umm, I'll ignore the obvious stats on divorce and children out of wedlock, but I'm aware that single parent's also have the right to adopt. Under the "a child needs a man and woman" argument, how would a same-sex adoption differ from a single parent adoption? In either case, 'the other' sex is missing from the equation.
I will jump on a limb, and this might not be the case for everybody, but usually people that are against same-sex marriage are also against abortion. At least this applies to the far right republican base. So....if abortion was banned and more children ended up in the foster care system, do you REALLY believe that the children fare better in state care (for which they complain about paying taxes or spreading the wealth) than in a home with loving parents?
I take offense to the mindset of a person that would vote for a ban on same-sex marriage. There are couples that have been in loving committed relationships. One man I know is the one of the most committed people to social endeavors, he's an advocate for animal rights, cancer, AIDS/HIV awareness ect....AND he's loved his significant other, who happens to be a man, for a long time. His character is impeccable. I truly respect and admire him...and would only want him to have protection to LOVE. Who is anybody to judge people, especially when they are actively seeking a better world? Why inflict pain upon a couple when all they do in return is try to LOVE?
I once had to really challenge a friend regarding his biggotted view. His boss had been in a committed relationship with a man for 15 years. I said, "how would you think that their love is wrong? They have supported each other for 15 years. You've been divorced once...should I assume that you don't deserve a loving committed relationship because you didn't succeed at your first one?" (yes that's a low blow). But I really challenged him to see the how real their love was and question why he would deny that love to anybody.
I am REALLY trying HARD to jump in the mind of a person that would vote for a ban on gay marriage, but I'm failing. While I wouldn't be able to agree, at least I could have perspective.
What am I missing?
Debunking the Republican Fiscal Platform
My friend Matt knows how to debate and argue. Here, he takes on the republican that has been duped into believing that the Democrat party's platform on fiscal policy is the demise of the American economy.
I imagine that some democrats hear republicans cling to the economy as the reason they want to vote republican. This dialogue offers many excellent arguing points. It is also extremely factual. If interested, I strongly suggest reading it because it's smart!
Republican:
The only reason I am against welfare and the progressive tax structure is because my dad is 70 and still wakes up every single day and does the job that is asked of him, while my mom is a retired teacher, yet still maintains a job to have an extra income for her family. I'm pretty sure they could be sucking the country dry like some people do on welfare, but they are working hard to maintain the American dream they have made for themselves. They are in a tax bracket where they are about to have to pay a lot more because of Obama's tax plan, so I am bitter for legitimate reasons. I took that status off for obvious reasons as many people have commented on it. I like everything else about Obama, but the economy is the largest issue for me and when my parents’ income is about to go down drastically I am not very happy.
Matt:
I understand this is personal for you. I did not mean to insult you, offend you, or convey anything less than my sincerest love and compassion. I support the Democratic party in general because ideologically I cannot justify living in relative affluence while there are still hungry, tired and poor; uninsured and unadopted inadequately cared for; sickness and ill health roaming the streets. I believe in the core concepts of self-reliance, but I also realize that unregulated capitalism fails to restrain the greed that would ultimately lead to the shrinking of our economy as a whole in addition to social crises similar to that faced in Europe in the 1930s.
I do not blindly acknowledge, however, that social welfare and tax credits are properly administered. There has never been a perfect solution to how such programs should be run, and there are many problems. It is my hope that by centralizing the administration of these programs the Obama administration is able to tighten control and increase accountability. I know that the popular opinion is that he favors unrestrained “hand outs” but that’s not what his rhetoric or record suggests. On the other hand I felt McCain desired to leave financial markets unrestrained, allow extreme upper-class wealth-consolidation to continue its disproportionate growth (CEO pay has increased an annual average of ~15% over the last 30 years as opposed to 2.5% for the average American worker), and refused to acknowledge federal responsibility for the administration of battling poverty. This includes leaving management of socio-economic programs up to states and private enterprise, which results in higher costs to the taxpayer, and less rigid management around the distribution of government funds; in short I do not believe this to be equitable. Part of the reason people in states like Pennsylvania have more faith in programs like Welfare than we do in Alabama is because the controls around distribution as administered by the state government in Alabama is so poor and inadequately maintained.
As for your personal situation, it’s my understanding that Obama’s tax proposals would create new tax brackets and only increase taxes on income earned in excess of $250,000 per individual. This would be $500,000 annually for a married couple filing jointly. I think there is sufficient misunderstanding among the American people when it comes to this; many seem to believe that the middle class will pay more than Obama promises. If we do, we’ll hold him accountable in 4 years for the promises he made and elect someone else.
I assume your parents retirement, however, is less of a tax concern and more of a concern over the economy. Having worked 4 years I built up a balance of $5,000 in my 401k by the end of the summer. I was fortunate to change jobs so my money wasn’t in the market when the first hits from the credit crunch happened, but I still lost $1,000 in October. I can only imagine the sort of losses that people who had worked for 30 or 35 years must have taken and how damaging that must be with a view to retirement in the near future. I personally believe that those losses on investment were a result of a lack of regulation in our capital markets and that the new government will work quickly to ensure this doesn’t happen again. To his credit, even George W. Bush has acknowledged that these measures are necessary in the current climate. John McCain, however, has stuck to the ideology of absolutism and maintained to the end that he would always be a free market economist.
Conservative economics believes that government can best support growth by shifting the balance of disposable income to the wealthiest corporations and individuals by way of lower tax rates at the top brackets. It takes the view that those who know how to make and have money also know best how to invest it on behalf of our economy. It seeks that even at lower tax rates, the investments that those individuals will make with their money will fund economic growth to an extent to make up for the lower tax percentages by way of absolute dollar value. It also has an undeniably and very American aspect to it – it’s up to you to decide how to invest your own money and it’s your right to keep a greater portion of what you earn. There’s nothing wrong with that, and in theory “supply-side” economics is great. I’ve never disputed that.
Theory, however, does not translate into practicality. Many in America today of great wealth have inherited that wealth, and as a result don’t personally know how to invest it wisely. They are able to hire the professionals that make up the remainder of the American wealthy to manage their portfolios for them. They are able to afford hiring the best and the brightest income tax advisers both as employees to manage their corporate tax and as personal accountants for their own income. They can take advantage of complex tax strategies that even I, as a CPA, would never think to come up with due to our overly complex tax rules. I once read that over 100 Fortune 500 CEOs making approximately $12 million per year paid $0 in federal income tax. Of the 2003 Fortune 500, 46 companies paid $0 in corporate income tax or received tax rebates from the federal government.
(Check this out … http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=8110)
On the other hand, liberal economic theory believes that government can best support growth by leveraging more of American’s disposable income into spending. This includes both government physical spending as well as redistributing disposable income to those more likely to go out and spend it – the least wealthy Americans. When you give a rich man $1, he puts it in a savings account. When you give a homeless person $1, he goes and buys food, clothing, shelter, or unfortunately perhaps beer. Even if he goes and buys beer though, that dollar becomes divided up into funding the margins for the small business that owned the convenience store and the distributorship, paying the salaries of the gas station clerk, the bottler employees, and the brewery workers. It pays for managers and janitors alike, and enables the brewer to invest in expanding their business to increase their profits. The profits in turn make the shareholders more wealthy, and from a macroeconomic standpoint all of this leads to a growth in the economy.
What does this lead to in terms of securing a retirement for me in 30 years and for your parents much sooner than that? From 1994 to 1999 under Bill Clinton’s Democratic administration, the S&P 500 increased 351%. That effectively means that someone whose retirement would have earned them $100,000 a year in 1994 would earned them $351,000 in 1999. Under George W. Bush from 2002 to 2007, the S&P 500 increased 42%. That means that blue chip stock values, which a majority of your parents retirement account is likely invested in, increased almost 6 times as much during Clinton’s administration as it has during Bush’s.
I acknowledge that a lot of this is due to changing situations. President Bush has had to deal with 9/11, the fall of Enron/WorldCom, and Iraq. However, there is a reason that when you hear economists talk about the strength of the economy the first thing they mention is “consumer spending.” The way this is increased is by giving more disposable income to those likely to spend their dollars. We haven’t done that over the last 8 years, and now we’re paying the price. People don’t have cash to spend… as a result corporations don’t have cash flows coming in from operations and are having to dig us deeper and deeper in debt to foreign creditors just to pay their bills and payroll when people aren’t buying their inventory.
The reason people like George Bush and Dick Cheney – extremely wealthy upper class Americans – fight so hardly for conservative economics is not that they believe it works. George H.W. Bush called it “voodoo economics” in a primary debate with Ronald Reagan in 1980. They fight for it because they belong to a wealthy and elite class that doesn’t want to give up a single penny of their wealth because they cannot tangibly see how it benefits them. If you’ll notice, however, the extremely intelligent among the ridiculously wealthy (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, the Kennedy’s) are all strong advocates of progressive (liberal) economic policy. They realize the cycle of the consumer spending and how that strengthens the overall economy.
What the conservative wealthy is do not realize that while they’re economic polices allow them to hold on to their earned dollars – the same policies make their dollars worth less. From 1990 to 2000, the relative strength of the US dollar against the British pound, German mark, Indian rupee, and Swiss Franc increased 17.4%, 31.7%, 56.7%. and 21.5% respectively while weakening (25.6%) compared to the Japanese Yen. To contrast, from 2000 to 2006, the dollar weakened compared to the GBP, Euro, Japenese Yen (17.8%), (26.4%), (4.2%), This essentially means that the purchasing power of $100,000 in 2000 was about 25% more in 2000 than 1990, but (15%) less by 2006.
I imagine that some democrats hear republicans cling to the economy as the reason they want to vote republican. This dialogue offers many excellent arguing points. It is also extremely factual. If interested, I strongly suggest reading it because it's smart!
Republican:
The only reason I am against welfare and the progressive tax structure is because my dad is 70 and still wakes up every single day and does the job that is asked of him, while my mom is a retired teacher, yet still maintains a job to have an extra income for her family. I'm pretty sure they could be sucking the country dry like some people do on welfare, but they are working hard to maintain the American dream they have made for themselves. They are in a tax bracket where they are about to have to pay a lot more because of Obama's tax plan, so I am bitter for legitimate reasons. I took that status off for obvious reasons as many people have commented on it. I like everything else about Obama, but the economy is the largest issue for me and when my parents’ income is about to go down drastically I am not very happy.
Matt:
I understand this is personal for you. I did not mean to insult you, offend you, or convey anything less than my sincerest love and compassion. I support the Democratic party in general because ideologically I cannot justify living in relative affluence while there are still hungry, tired and poor; uninsured and unadopted inadequately cared for; sickness and ill health roaming the streets. I believe in the core concepts of self-reliance, but I also realize that unregulated capitalism fails to restrain the greed that would ultimately lead to the shrinking of our economy as a whole in addition to social crises similar to that faced in Europe in the 1930s.
I do not blindly acknowledge, however, that social welfare and tax credits are properly administered. There has never been a perfect solution to how such programs should be run, and there are many problems. It is my hope that by centralizing the administration of these programs the Obama administration is able to tighten control and increase accountability. I know that the popular opinion is that he favors unrestrained “hand outs” but that’s not what his rhetoric or record suggests. On the other hand I felt McCain desired to leave financial markets unrestrained, allow extreme upper-class wealth-consolidation to continue its disproportionate growth (CEO pay has increased an annual average of ~15% over the last 30 years as opposed to 2.5% for the average American worker), and refused to acknowledge federal responsibility for the administration of battling poverty. This includes leaving management of socio-economic programs up to states and private enterprise, which results in higher costs to the taxpayer, and less rigid management around the distribution of government funds; in short I do not believe this to be equitable. Part of the reason people in states like Pennsylvania have more faith in programs like Welfare than we do in Alabama is because the controls around distribution as administered by the state government in Alabama is so poor and inadequately maintained.
As for your personal situation, it’s my understanding that Obama’s tax proposals would create new tax brackets and only increase taxes on income earned in excess of $250,000 per individual. This would be $500,000 annually for a married couple filing jointly. I think there is sufficient misunderstanding among the American people when it comes to this; many seem to believe that the middle class will pay more than Obama promises. If we do, we’ll hold him accountable in 4 years for the promises he made and elect someone else.
I assume your parents retirement, however, is less of a tax concern and more of a concern over the economy. Having worked 4 years I built up a balance of $5,000 in my 401k by the end of the summer. I was fortunate to change jobs so my money wasn’t in the market when the first hits from the credit crunch happened, but I still lost $1,000 in October. I can only imagine the sort of losses that people who had worked for 30 or 35 years must have taken and how damaging that must be with a view to retirement in the near future. I personally believe that those losses on investment were a result of a lack of regulation in our capital markets and that the new government will work quickly to ensure this doesn’t happen again. To his credit, even George W. Bush has acknowledged that these measures are necessary in the current climate. John McCain, however, has stuck to the ideology of absolutism and maintained to the end that he would always be a free market economist.
Conservative economics believes that government can best support growth by shifting the balance of disposable income to the wealthiest corporations and individuals by way of lower tax rates at the top brackets. It takes the view that those who know how to make and have money also know best how to invest it on behalf of our economy. It seeks that even at lower tax rates, the investments that those individuals will make with their money will fund economic growth to an extent to make up for the lower tax percentages by way of absolute dollar value. It also has an undeniably and very American aspect to it – it’s up to you to decide how to invest your own money and it’s your right to keep a greater portion of what you earn. There’s nothing wrong with that, and in theory “supply-side” economics is great. I’ve never disputed that.
Theory, however, does not translate into practicality. Many in America today of great wealth have inherited that wealth, and as a result don’t personally know how to invest it wisely. They are able to hire the professionals that make up the remainder of the American wealthy to manage their portfolios for them. They are able to afford hiring the best and the brightest income tax advisers both as employees to manage their corporate tax and as personal accountants for their own income. They can take advantage of complex tax strategies that even I, as a CPA, would never think to come up with due to our overly complex tax rules. I once read that over 100 Fortune 500 CEOs making approximately $12 million per year paid $0 in federal income tax. Of the 2003 Fortune 500, 46 companies paid $0 in corporate income tax or received tax rebates from the federal government.
(Check this out … http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=8110)
On the other hand, liberal economic theory believes that government can best support growth by leveraging more of American’s disposable income into spending. This includes both government physical spending as well as redistributing disposable income to those more likely to go out and spend it – the least wealthy Americans. When you give a rich man $1, he puts it in a savings account. When you give a homeless person $1, he goes and buys food, clothing, shelter, or unfortunately perhaps beer. Even if he goes and buys beer though, that dollar becomes divided up into funding the margins for the small business that owned the convenience store and the distributorship, paying the salaries of the gas station clerk, the bottler employees, and the brewery workers. It pays for managers and janitors alike, and enables the brewer to invest in expanding their business to increase their profits. The profits in turn make the shareholders more wealthy, and from a macroeconomic standpoint all of this leads to a growth in the economy.
What does this lead to in terms of securing a retirement for me in 30 years and for your parents much sooner than that? From 1994 to 1999 under Bill Clinton’s Democratic administration, the S&P 500 increased 351%. That effectively means that someone whose retirement would have earned them $100,000 a year in 1994 would earned them $351,000 in 1999. Under George W. Bush from 2002 to 2007, the S&P 500 increased 42%. That means that blue chip stock values, which a majority of your parents retirement account is likely invested in, increased almost 6 times as much during Clinton’s administration as it has during Bush’s.
I acknowledge that a lot of this is due to changing situations. President Bush has had to deal with 9/11, the fall of Enron/WorldCom, and Iraq. However, there is a reason that when you hear economists talk about the strength of the economy the first thing they mention is “consumer spending.” The way this is increased is by giving more disposable income to those likely to spend their dollars. We haven’t done that over the last 8 years, and now we’re paying the price. People don’t have cash to spend… as a result corporations don’t have cash flows coming in from operations and are having to dig us deeper and deeper in debt to foreign creditors just to pay their bills and payroll when people aren’t buying their inventory.
The reason people like George Bush and Dick Cheney – extremely wealthy upper class Americans – fight so hardly for conservative economics is not that they believe it works. George H.W. Bush called it “voodoo economics” in a primary debate with Ronald Reagan in 1980. They fight for it because they belong to a wealthy and elite class that doesn’t want to give up a single penny of their wealth because they cannot tangibly see how it benefits them. If you’ll notice, however, the extremely intelligent among the ridiculously wealthy (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, the Kennedy’s) are all strong advocates of progressive (liberal) economic policy. They realize the cycle of the consumer spending and how that strengthens the overall economy.
What the conservative wealthy is do not realize that while they’re economic polices allow them to hold on to their earned dollars – the same policies make their dollars worth less. From 1990 to 2000, the relative strength of the US dollar against the British pound, German mark, Indian rupee, and Swiss Franc increased 17.4%, 31.7%, 56.7%. and 21.5% respectively while weakening (25.6%) compared to the Japanese Yen. To contrast, from 2000 to 2006, the dollar weakened compared to the GBP, Euro, Japenese Yen (17.8%), (26.4%), (4.2%), This essentially means that the purchasing power of $100,000 in 2000 was about 25% more in 2000 than 1990, but (15%) less by 2006.
A funeral...
for the word Nigga, Nigger, or any derivation of it.
We have a black man as president. You, your son or daughter could be president, we are no longer a niggas, niggers or whatever degrading word you want to use.
Tonight I heard two dudes about 25 years old say, "Yeaaa we got a nigga for president!"
I looked at them and said, "No, you have an intelligent black man as president. Do NOT use the word nigga to describe our president, or any person that could potentially be president."
It's dead folks, the division the ignorance...it's all dead.
We have a black man as president. You, your son or daughter could be president, we are no longer a niggas, niggers or whatever degrading word you want to use.
Tonight I heard two dudes about 25 years old say, "Yeaaa we got a nigga for president!"
I looked at them and said, "No, you have an intelligent black man as president. Do NOT use the word nigga to describe our president, or any person that could potentially be president."
It's dead folks, the division the ignorance...it's all dead.
11.04.2008
Is anybody else super emotional? Obama inspired emotion?
My eyes tear up and my heart pounds.
I feel like I'm in labor trying to give birth...
I already love the hope inside of me...I just need it to be delivered.
Then I think of my grandmother who won't be here to experience this...but I know that she would be getting the word out as passionately as I have tried. Her civic spirit is with me, it motivates me to write letters to call out injustice.
Some folks don't understand that this is bigger than a mere election.
It's proof that America really is the best place in the world, something I'm not fully comfortable proclaiming because it displays an arrogance. But if Obama does win, it's a testament that ANYTHING is possible, really, anything is possible here. The world is looking toward us to validate that hope. I'm looking toward us to validate that hope.
And after he wins, it won't be so unfathomable that you, me or our unborn children can become president. It will be a position available to any one, it will no longer be exclusive in favor of white men. The democratic party, driven by people like you and I, have done something absolutely historic, or rather something absolutely American. We have given an opportunity to a woman and a multi-racial man. That opportunity opened the door for anybody of a minority standing to be nominated to the two highest offices in the world. Just think....the two types of people once prohibited by the constitution to have basic freedoms have been given the opportunity to be the protectors of the constitution.
And if the unspeakable happens, it'll be evident that America is experiencing a new type of mental slavery. Slavery to lies, deceit, ignorance, a disdain for the globe, a disrespect for hope, a disregard change a new direction, an embrace of hatred, division, an unconditional acceptance for Bush and the 8 years that he has destroyed America. (okay, this might be extreme, but we all entitled to our opinion, this is America!)
I feel like I'm in labor trying to give birth...
I already love the hope inside of me...I just need it to be delivered.
Then I think of my grandmother who won't be here to experience this...but I know that she would be getting the word out as passionately as I have tried. Her civic spirit is with me, it motivates me to write letters to call out injustice.
Some folks don't understand that this is bigger than a mere election.
It's proof that America really is the best place in the world, something I'm not fully comfortable proclaiming because it displays an arrogance. But if Obama does win, it's a testament that ANYTHING is possible, really, anything is possible here. The world is looking toward us to validate that hope. I'm looking toward us to validate that hope.
And after he wins, it won't be so unfathomable that you, me or our unborn children can become president. It will be a position available to any one, it will no longer be exclusive in favor of white men. The democratic party, driven by people like you and I, have done something absolutely historic, or rather something absolutely American. We have given an opportunity to a woman and a multi-racial man. That opportunity opened the door for anybody of a minority standing to be nominated to the two highest offices in the world. Just think....the two types of people once prohibited by the constitution to have basic freedoms have been given the opportunity to be the protectors of the constitution.
And if the unspeakable happens, it'll be evident that America is experiencing a new type of mental slavery. Slavery to lies, deceit, ignorance, a disdain for the globe, a disrespect for hope, a disregard change a new direction, an embrace of hatred, division, an unconditional acceptance for Bush and the 8 years that he has destroyed America. (okay, this might be extreme, but we all entitled to our opinion, this is America!)
Greetings Governor Perdue,
What needs to be done to get appropriate funding for education? I'm outraged and disappointed about the resource cuts made to the Dekalb County school system.
On your page you indicate, "Governor Perdue has focused on growing Georgia's economy and has created over 320,000 new jobs since being sworn-in as Georgia's Governor. He continually works to ensure that Georgia's economy and its businesses are the envy of global competitors. "
You are no longer doing this. As a citizen under your jurisdiction that pays taxes and wouldn't mind paying more so that children can have proper education, I demand that you do better.
How will you do better? What are 3 objectives moving forward that will improve education in Georgia? What do you expect of me, a concerned citizen, to ensure that you can improve education *IF* you are re-elected?
Thank you for your consideration and prompt response,
SunFresh's Government Name
This is the most recent correspondence that I've sent to Georgia's Governor Perdue in response to the face that one of Atlanta's largest counties, Dekalb County is experiencing resource cuts.
Is it really a socialist, liberal concept to ensure that our children receive a decent education? How do you feel about an increase in taxes if say...your children are going to receive a solid education in return?
On your page you indicate, "Governor Perdue has focused on growing Georgia's economy and has created over 320,000 new jobs since being sworn-in as Georgia's Governor. He continually works to ensure that Georgia's economy and its businesses are the envy of global competitors. "
You are no longer doing this. As a citizen under your jurisdiction that pays taxes and wouldn't mind paying more so that children can have proper education, I demand that you do better.
How will you do better? What are 3 objectives moving forward that will improve education in Georgia? What do you expect of me, a concerned citizen, to ensure that you can improve education *IF* you are re-elected?
Thank you for your consideration and prompt response,
SunFresh's Government Name
This is the most recent correspondence that I've sent to Georgia's Governor Perdue in response to the face that one of Atlanta's largest counties, Dekalb County is experiencing resource cuts.
Is it really a socialist, liberal concept to ensure that our children receive a decent education? How do you feel about an increase in taxes if say...your children are going to receive a solid education in return?
11.02.2008
One word
So tonight on my favorite message board somebody asked, "why should sexual compatibility be less important than intellectual/emotional and other forms of compatibility?"
I approached this from two different fronts:
1) In a committed relationship - it's just as important as understanding and appreciating somebody's sense of humor. Would you get married to a person whose sense of humor you didn't understand or appreciate. Right...so why not have a similar understanding/appreciation on the sexual front?
(insert your thought here)
Counter-argument - you could learn to understand and appreciate somebody's sense of humor too.
2) Casual sex. I'd rather holler at BOB than this. I went on to say how sex requires a level of trust which I cannot provide in a casual context. I went on to describe the act of sex with a word that has a rather negative connotation. Which made me want to explore why I used this word. Think on it, how would you describe sex? Not in terms of writing a 'how to' manual...it's as natural as eating, breathing and sleeping, nobody needs a how to. A man XXX a woman? A lady part XXX a man part?
my word? intrudes and or intrusive. Yikes - I just looked it up. "to thrust or force into or to thrust or bring in without invitation, permission, or welcome." I need to reset my mindset or select a new word.
the person with whom I was conversing with threw out other words such as:
drawing somebody in
welcoming
engulfing
enticing
(insert one word to describe it)
I approached this from two different fronts:
1) In a committed relationship - it's just as important as understanding and appreciating somebody's sense of humor. Would you get married to a person whose sense of humor you didn't understand or appreciate. Right...so why not have a similar understanding/appreciation on the sexual front?
(insert your thought here)
Counter-argument - you could learn to understand and appreciate somebody's sense of humor too.
2) Casual sex. I'd rather holler at BOB than this. I went on to say how sex requires a level of trust which I cannot provide in a casual context. I went on to describe the act of sex with a word that has a rather negative connotation. Which made me want to explore why I used this word. Think on it, how would you describe sex? Not in terms of writing a 'how to' manual...it's as natural as eating, breathing and sleeping, nobody needs a how to. A man XXX a woman? A lady part XXX a man part?
my word? intrudes and or intrusive. Yikes - I just looked it up. "to thrust or force into or to thrust or bring in without invitation, permission, or welcome." I need to reset my mindset or select a new word.
the person with whom I was conversing with threw out other words such as:
drawing somebody in
welcoming
engulfing
enticing
(insert one word to describe it)
Phone Number: A story about SunFresh hanging up on a 48 yr old
If I'm in a bar and have decent conversation with a fellow, I may give my number to the fellow. Chances are I might have had a drink and been in a merry mood. For whatever reasons, I'm not really the type of woman to give out a fake number or say, "you know what I enjoyed our convo; however, I'm not interested in having a future conversation with you." So I may give my # out. Sometimes this leads to something, sometimes it doesn't.
This happened about 2 months ago. I was at an establishment and a guy was nice engaged me in conversation. It was entertaining, nothing too deep. He asked for my number. I gave it to him.
He texted, I gave short replies or ignored. Over a two month period, I didn't give much at all. (Me - I will not invest in unrequited attention from strangers)
So today he texts, "R u still not responding to me? did I do something wrong?" This struck me as sincere and deserving of a truthful answer. So my reply was, "No I just have an ex who I can't shake and I don't have the energy to maintain new relationships (friendships w/ guys who eventually want more or just want sex) until I figure out to do with my current situation. He responds, "That's the first time you said something of substance to me. Communication is important and I understand. Can I speak to you for a minute?"
Pause: We met at a bar and talked about him being from Durham, NC. Did that constitute a responsibility on my behalf to have open communication? He was a stranger dude, I owe him nothing.
Resume: My dumb ass calls him back. And I again reiterate my situation. I am a person that can admit her faults. In terms of relationships, I'm not in a position to start a new one. I'm still hurt, confused, and too unreliable to offer anything positive to a sustainable relationship. My admition of that should serve as a red flag to stay away from me. When I am ready to jump back into the dating game, sure I might wear a few battle scars, but I'll be open to being vulnerable and getting to know somebody.
Furthermore, a guy can try to disguise his interest as 'only friendship,' but I don't buy that because men don't approach women that they find unattractive and request friendship. They request at least one opportunity to prove that they are worthy of a bedroom visit. (This doesn't apply to men you meet through your social circle, it more so applies to a situation in which you dress up to go out and are approached by a random stranger).
Okay, back to the conversation with dude. He asks how old I think he is. I say at least 7 years older than me. I thought he was about 35 give or take 3 years on either side. Boy was I wrong...dude was 48. WTF. When he found out that I was 20 years younger than him, he should've gladly felt okay with my rejection. At that point, I was sized him up as a man not interested in being in a committed relationship that would lead to a life-long love of his wife and children. Especially if he is trying to spit game to a 27 year old. He goes on some preachy condescending mode. Now that he asserted his age, he felt as if he was some fatherly figure...or rather creepy molester old man figure. He talks about how I need to heal, (no shit sherlock, I just told you that I know I need to heal). He wasn't telling me anything that I haven't told myself or a true fried hasn't opened my mind to consider. He continued to try to convince me that I needed him in my life. Dude...I'm good on that.
One thing that I've learned is that I have to make no apologies to others for who I am. If I'm having a bad day, as long as I don't cuss you out...if I need to take time for me...I need not make apologies. I might need to explain, but SORRY doesn't have to be a part of my vocabulary. So when a stranger comes at me trying to make me feel bad about what I'm going through and who I am...that doesn't fair well with me. So here I am, talking to a 48 year old stranger telling him that I'd rather not have this conversation and he says, "well fine, be young & hang up."
*Looks into camera* Did I not just tell this man my truths? That I was too insecure in my vulnerability to be open to a new relationship. If my admission of my truth is young to him, so be it.
So I said, well okay, take care. And hung up on a 48 year old man.
UPDATE (9:30 pm): I received the following text: I hope things work out for you! I'm really sincere.
*Looks into camera* The second you tag a sentence with, "I'm really sincere," I stop taking you seriously.
This happened about 2 months ago. I was at an establishment and a guy was nice engaged me in conversation. It was entertaining, nothing too deep. He asked for my number. I gave it to him.
He texted, I gave short replies or ignored. Over a two month period, I didn't give much at all. (Me - I will not invest in unrequited attention from strangers)
So today he texts, "R u still not responding to me? did I do something wrong?" This struck me as sincere and deserving of a truthful answer. So my reply was, "No I just have an ex who I can't shake and I don't have the energy to maintain new relationships (friendships w/ guys who eventually want more or just want sex) until I figure out to do with my current situation. He responds, "That's the first time you said something of substance to me. Communication is important and I understand. Can I speak to you for a minute?"
Pause: We met at a bar and talked about him being from Durham, NC. Did that constitute a responsibility on my behalf to have open communication? He was a stranger dude, I owe him nothing.
Resume: My dumb ass calls him back. And I again reiterate my situation. I am a person that can admit her faults. In terms of relationships, I'm not in a position to start a new one. I'm still hurt, confused, and too unreliable to offer anything positive to a sustainable relationship. My admition of that should serve as a red flag to stay away from me. When I am ready to jump back into the dating game, sure I might wear a few battle scars, but I'll be open to being vulnerable and getting to know somebody.
Furthermore, a guy can try to disguise his interest as 'only friendship,' but I don't buy that because men don't approach women that they find unattractive and request friendship. They request at least one opportunity to prove that they are worthy of a bedroom visit. (This doesn't apply to men you meet through your social circle, it more so applies to a situation in which you dress up to go out and are approached by a random stranger).
Okay, back to the conversation with dude. He asks how old I think he is. I say at least 7 years older than me. I thought he was about 35 give or take 3 years on either side. Boy was I wrong...dude was 48. WTF. When he found out that I was 20 years younger than him, he should've gladly felt okay with my rejection. At that point, I was sized him up as a man not interested in being in a committed relationship that would lead to a life-long love of his wife and children. Especially if he is trying to spit game to a 27 year old. He goes on some preachy condescending mode. Now that he asserted his age, he felt as if he was some fatherly figure...or rather creepy molester old man figure. He talks about how I need to heal, (no shit sherlock, I just told you that I know I need to heal). He wasn't telling me anything that I haven't told myself or a true fried hasn't opened my mind to consider. He continued to try to convince me that I needed him in my life. Dude...I'm good on that.
One thing that I've learned is that I have to make no apologies to others for who I am. If I'm having a bad day, as long as I don't cuss you out...if I need to take time for me...I need not make apologies. I might need to explain, but SORRY doesn't have to be a part of my vocabulary. So when a stranger comes at me trying to make me feel bad about what I'm going through and who I am...that doesn't fair well with me. So here I am, talking to a 48 year old stranger telling him that I'd rather not have this conversation and he says, "well fine, be young & hang up."
*Looks into camera* Did I not just tell this man my truths? That I was too insecure in my vulnerability to be open to a new relationship. If my admission of my truth is young to him, so be it.
So I said, well okay, take care. And hung up on a 48 year old man.
UPDATE (9:30 pm): I received the following text: I hope things work out for you! I'm really sincere.
*Looks into camera* The second you tag a sentence with, "I'm really sincere," I stop taking you seriously.
ScarFace
This is my favorite movie (amongst a few other classics such as Forest Gump and the Color Purple).
But if you think I like it because of the glorification of the drug life...you don't understand.
As odd as it sounds, I connected with the character and keep his ultimate flaw in mind. Tony is a self made man. He illegally arrived in the USA from Cuba. Knowing that he couldn't rely upon an education, equality or opportunity - he achieved the American dream in a rather unconventional way. The hardest scene, yet the scene the defines his character is in a Miami hotel. These cocaine dealers set him up and plot to take his money without making a sale. At one point this dude shoves a gun in his face and Tony's response is, "why don't you try sticking your foot up your ass, see if it fits." Basically he had no fear, not even when his life depended on it.
Where I connect with the character is on his main character flaw: the inability to trust anybody. I've been screwed over my fair share of times, and while ideally I would make a full recovery from the past, it has left it's scars on my heart. *cue in small violin here.* Tony instead didn't trust anybody because of his greed and irrational protection of all that he considered good in life (his best friend, his sister). He ends up destroying all that is good in his life, including himself.
Ehh - Scarface is on, it's 5:30 am. I was browsing on Facebook and looking at some college buddies pics thinking, not in an envious jealous psycho bitch way, but a introspective way...that was supposed to be me. Why did I chose to move to Atlanta far away from family and friends? Like Tony, I was headstrong and determined to make a way for myself...by myself. At the expense of......
Nevermind Michelle Pfifer looks gorgeous and dressed flawlessly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)