President Obama recently unleashed tons of money on the Weatherization Assistance Program for the entire nation. The Weatherization Assistance Program helps people reduce their energy costs by sealing windows and doors, putting solar screens on windows, repairing or servicing air condiditioning and heating units, and fixing other energy deficiencies.
There is a controvery over this program.
Many conservatives view this program as a waste of taxpayer dollars, alluding to the program as a creation of a welfare society. From my personal experience in my job, I've seen a boost in employment (contractors to help repair the homes, the sub-contractors, and angency workers), people are lowering their energy bills, thereby reducing the potential for requesting other forms of government assistance, and even homeowners who are renting home to low-income people are getting a slight reward by having their homes weatherized for free.
Weatherization is one of my favorite programs, and we need to understand that the Obama plan is bigger then just spending money. It has a result-oriented approach. We are going to see a decrease in need for government assistance, a boost in employment, and definately a boost in the economy.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
Defining Weatlhy: Working Class, Poor Class, Etc.
An article in the Washington Journal entitled, "Wealth-Less Effect: Earning Well, Feeling Otherwise," by Gary Fields explains that those people making $250,000 aren't necessarily "wealthy," and that Obama's tax increases are putting the pinch on them. One family mentioned in the article was living in a 2500 square foot home, driving around in a 10 year old Infinity, and had to reduce vacations and other luxuries.
I don't know how to define "wealthy," but I personally think it boils down to perspective. I personally make less then 20K a year, and I am a Navy veteran with a B.A. I'm not lazy, and I do work 40 hours a week. I live in a small apartment and drive around in a 10 year old Buick. In fact, I have it a lot better then most in my situation. I can pay my utilities, and I'm not living in a rat hole, though my AC recently went out, so I'm waiting for the lanlord to fix it, and the wiring in the house is a bit off. I don't have cable, and I certainly don't take vacations. I don't own a boat, or a second car, nor do I buy new clothes. In fact, I've bought new clothes probably three times in the last two years.
Some of the folks I work with feel as though I am wealthy. Some of them earn less then I do, and at every level, there is a desire for those above them to somehow relinquish their so-deemed luxaries, at least to a minimal extent, so that those less fortunate may prosper a bit more. Relatively, I'm pretty poor compared to those at that income level where the Obama taxes take place. On the same token, I'm pretty affluent compared to someone living in Project housing making $340 a month on TANF because she didn't complete a GED due to societal, parental, and other environmental influences. In some cases, the mere fact that I even have a job has created discontent with my fellow citizens who've experienced job lay-offs and who've found it difficult to secure new employment. I often hear, "You're so lucky to have a job." I've even encountered beggers who see me driving my shiney 10 year old vehicle, and assume I have "a few dollars to spare." I assure you, I do, but feel no obligation to every stranger I see in need. I too would be destitute if I relinqueshed my earnings to every needy person I met.
Where those who make over a certain amount have faced economic difficulties that have stretched their dollars, those of us at the bottom are struggling to ensure we have a place to live and can afford to pay for child care and food for the family. That's the bottom line, in my opinion. How do we resolve such an issue without putting too much burden on those who've managed to earn their way into higher income brackets? The easy answer is to tax them, as they can clearly afford to feed themselves, house themselves and provide transportation for themselves, but it's not working well, or at least as far as I can see. For now, many Americans are upset about this fact. The taxation has been deemed a "redistribution of wealth."
What I propose, though, is that those of us at the bottom aren't scum, especially those of us working honestly to earn a wage. Those of us who work full-time jobs and struggle to not become evicted are the one's who are the minor consumers, as well as the back-bone of the industry. Without low-wage earners, people in top places would be in a lot of trouble financially. Perhaps if we were paid more sufficiently, we wouldn't pose a threat to taxation.
So, going back to the tax issue and the economic stimulus plan, how do we resolve this conundrum of redistribution of wealth? Do we impose some sort of wage-cap, above minimum wage? Where I live, many educated people are earning less then 30K/year. Many of us are earning even less then that. When minimum wage went up, our pay didn't go up. The gap from minimum wage to our wages decreased too, and when the cost of basic living necesseties keeps rising, that gap is just as significant for us as the problem of increased taxes for those who are perhaps middle-class yet deemed "wealthy."
Or, perhaps, should that $250,000 income gap have been increased? At what point do we asses the tax bracket in such a way that the economy is stimulated enough to help those who are working honestly but are struggling to survive in the United States? Furthermore, if we don't tax the so-called wealthy, then how do we ensure those with necessary employment don't struggle so much that they can no longer afford to work? After all, why show up for work when that employment no longer pays rent and childcare, gasoline, and food? Do we simply assume it's everyone's fault for earning less then 20 or 30K a year and let them suffer, despite the fact that those people fill necessary roles in society, so much so that should they end up homeless or jobless due to lay-offs that the economy and society suffers exponentially?
I think, perhaps, I do understand why many families are upset at the notion of imposing more taxes on certain income levels. As I mentioned, wealth is relative, and the notion of redistributing it seems unfair at any level. I'd be hard-pressed to want to take a pay-cut so that people in poverty can have more of a chance, because I feel financially pressed at times myself. Again, though, as a nation of wealth, what we aim to improve, is a decrease of poverty. Opening opportunity to the poor is paramount in our efforts to reduce the income gaps in our nation. Furthermore, we need to reward hard-workers without allowing meaningful employment to become a burden.
In conclusion, I don't purport to say that because I cannot fathom even making $50K a year, let alone $250 that those people deserve steeper taxes. I simply propose that rather then complaining, we ask ourselves, what IS the solution?
I don't know how to define "wealthy," but I personally think it boils down to perspective. I personally make less then 20K a year, and I am a Navy veteran with a B.A. I'm not lazy, and I do work 40 hours a week. I live in a small apartment and drive around in a 10 year old Buick. In fact, I have it a lot better then most in my situation. I can pay my utilities, and I'm not living in a rat hole, though my AC recently went out, so I'm waiting for the lanlord to fix it, and the wiring in the house is a bit off. I don't have cable, and I certainly don't take vacations. I don't own a boat, or a second car, nor do I buy new clothes. In fact, I've bought new clothes probably three times in the last two years.
Some of the folks I work with feel as though I am wealthy. Some of them earn less then I do, and at every level, there is a desire for those above them to somehow relinquish their so-deemed luxaries, at least to a minimal extent, so that those less fortunate may prosper a bit more. Relatively, I'm pretty poor compared to those at that income level where the Obama taxes take place. On the same token, I'm pretty affluent compared to someone living in Project housing making $340 a month on TANF because she didn't complete a GED due to societal, parental, and other environmental influences. In some cases, the mere fact that I even have a job has created discontent with my fellow citizens who've experienced job lay-offs and who've found it difficult to secure new employment. I often hear, "You're so lucky to have a job." I've even encountered beggers who see me driving my shiney 10 year old vehicle, and assume I have "a few dollars to spare." I assure you, I do, but feel no obligation to every stranger I see in need. I too would be destitute if I relinqueshed my earnings to every needy person I met.
Where those who make over a certain amount have faced economic difficulties that have stretched their dollars, those of us at the bottom are struggling to ensure we have a place to live and can afford to pay for child care and food for the family. That's the bottom line, in my opinion. How do we resolve such an issue without putting too much burden on those who've managed to earn their way into higher income brackets? The easy answer is to tax them, as they can clearly afford to feed themselves, house themselves and provide transportation for themselves, but it's not working well, or at least as far as I can see. For now, many Americans are upset about this fact. The taxation has been deemed a "redistribution of wealth."
What I propose, though, is that those of us at the bottom aren't scum, especially those of us working honestly to earn a wage. Those of us who work full-time jobs and struggle to not become evicted are the one's who are the minor consumers, as well as the back-bone of the industry. Without low-wage earners, people in top places would be in a lot of trouble financially. Perhaps if we were paid more sufficiently, we wouldn't pose a threat to taxation.
So, going back to the tax issue and the economic stimulus plan, how do we resolve this conundrum of redistribution of wealth? Do we impose some sort of wage-cap, above minimum wage? Where I live, many educated people are earning less then 30K/year. Many of us are earning even less then that. When minimum wage went up, our pay didn't go up. The gap from minimum wage to our wages decreased too, and when the cost of basic living necesseties keeps rising, that gap is just as significant for us as the problem of increased taxes for those who are perhaps middle-class yet deemed "wealthy."
Or, perhaps, should that $250,000 income gap have been increased? At what point do we asses the tax bracket in such a way that the economy is stimulated enough to help those who are working honestly but are struggling to survive in the United States? Furthermore, if we don't tax the so-called wealthy, then how do we ensure those with necessary employment don't struggle so much that they can no longer afford to work? After all, why show up for work when that employment no longer pays rent and childcare, gasoline, and food? Do we simply assume it's everyone's fault for earning less then 20 or 30K a year and let them suffer, despite the fact that those people fill necessary roles in society, so much so that should they end up homeless or jobless due to lay-offs that the economy and society suffers exponentially?
I think, perhaps, I do understand why many families are upset at the notion of imposing more taxes on certain income levels. As I mentioned, wealth is relative, and the notion of redistributing it seems unfair at any level. I'd be hard-pressed to want to take a pay-cut so that people in poverty can have more of a chance, because I feel financially pressed at times myself. Again, though, as a nation of wealth, what we aim to improve, is a decrease of poverty. Opening opportunity to the poor is paramount in our efforts to reduce the income gaps in our nation. Furthermore, we need to reward hard-workers without allowing meaningful employment to become a burden.
In conclusion, I don't purport to say that because I cannot fathom even making $50K a year, let alone $250 that those people deserve steeper taxes. I simply propose that rather then complaining, we ask ourselves, what IS the solution?
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Angels, Fairies, Aliens, and Ghosts
Do you believe in Angels? I can think of a few songs which pose that question. We believe in all sorts of beings which we've never seen, or at least, the majority of society has never been able to prove to have seen. What make an angel any more plausable then a fairy or an extra-terrestrial? Ghosts are popular visiters too. ghostly beings seem like big money makers on popular television channels such as Discovery and The History Channel.
There is a phenomenon that happens to us self-loving creatures, where when we see two dots underscored by another, we imagine we see a face. If you look at some old photographs, you may be tempted to shout, "Look, I see a face." Somewhere in us, we are hardwired to see human-like faces. On the same token, knowing something else exists helps us to continue living our short life spans knowing there may be something bigger and less physical. So, in short, we have a tendency to believe in human-like beings we've never fully seen.
So, I'm wondering, if someone believes in, say, ghosts, but not angels, or believes in any strange phenomenon but not the other, then, well, why?
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Susan Boyle
Susan Boyle is all the rage. She's an amazing singer with a cute personality who managed to plant a beaming smile on judge Simon Cowell's face on the t.v. show, Britain's Got Talent.
When I heard her sing, I'll admit, I was impressed. What's most interesting, to me, about her, is that her humble demeanor did not impress on her being at the show any sort of apologetic stance. She was confident, yet humble. She simply did her thing, did it well, and waited for a response. She did not boast that she was amazing, nor did she cower into some imaginary corner on stage with some, "I know I don't have a chance, but please give me one," sort of attitude.
She stood out because she is pretty talented. The young and beautiful folks have less to do in that regard. They need only hit the right notes, show their personalities, and wait for the viewers to be inspired by their presence. I'm not saying, I suppose, that young beautiful people don't have to work hard, but it's difficult for someone without long shining hair, a small waist, and perky breasts to prance up on a big stage, and expect people to anticipate being entertained. People love eye-candy. Are we really ready for radio to kill the video stars?
A lot of the great singers of the past were less then porn-star quality. They were maybe plump, or older, or had big noses, or were just beautiful only on the radio only when the stretched their voices from the crevaces of vinyls.
I'm ready to start hearing beauty again. I'm not as interested in seeing the perfect legs and star-glittered skin of young buxom blondes and brunettes of popular music. Aside from that, they all start looking the same to me after a while anyway.
Let the Boyle revolution begin!
When I heard her sing, I'll admit, I was impressed. What's most interesting, to me, about her, is that her humble demeanor did not impress on her being at the show any sort of apologetic stance. She was confident, yet humble. She simply did her thing, did it well, and waited for a response. She did not boast that she was amazing, nor did she cower into some imaginary corner on stage with some, "I know I don't have a chance, but please give me one," sort of attitude.
She stood out because she is pretty talented. The young and beautiful folks have less to do in that regard. They need only hit the right notes, show their personalities, and wait for the viewers to be inspired by their presence. I'm not saying, I suppose, that young beautiful people don't have to work hard, but it's difficult for someone without long shining hair, a small waist, and perky breasts to prance up on a big stage, and expect people to anticipate being entertained. People love eye-candy. Are we really ready for radio to kill the video stars?
A lot of the great singers of the past were less then porn-star quality. They were maybe plump, or older, or had big noses, or were just beautiful only on the radio only when the stretched their voices from the crevaces of vinyls.
I'm ready to start hearing beauty again. I'm not as interested in seeing the perfect legs and star-glittered skin of young buxom blondes and brunettes of popular music. Aside from that, they all start looking the same to me after a while anyway.
Let the Boyle revolution begin!
Friday, April 17, 2009
Texas Country... I Mean it, Another Country?
I was watching Chris Matthews for a quick spell, and the buzz was that Texas Governor, Rick Perry, spoke liberally (nonsensical pun intended), about seceeding from the Union.
Politicians make waves all the time in an effort to garner attention on important topics. Is that was Gov. Perry was doing? Republicans abhor taxes, or at least, that's how this looney lib sees it. I totally understand the rationale behind such conservative premises. Texas is being dubbed a "donor state," meaning, the outcry behind secession is being alluded to the fact that Texas gets a small portion of return on the tax money it puts into the Federal System. Furthermore, Texas is doing quite well economically these days, and the Texas Governor says it has a lot to do with not over-taxing its citizens. Sounds plausible.
So, controversy emerges as money and individuality become crucified. Well, Texas gets a bigger return on its tax money then do most liberal states, especially compared to those who do tax the tar out of their folks, such as New Jersey.
On a side note, or maybe not really, the tax money return is not the only issue at hand. Many conservatives purport to see a bigger picture, and that picture is some sort of seplature of debt being handed down to our next generations. Yikes. That IS kind of scary...
However, and I thank you all for your kind patience in allowing this liberal to give a simple-minded counter argument. All isn't fair in the Union. Some states pay more then others, and other states get less back for their payment. Debt is growing, and the economic stimulus is a big gamble. The future is most definately at stake, but we need to take a breath and think about what will perpetuate future endeavors in such a way that will breed common or universal responsibility between individuals, between states, and at the Federal level.
You see, the agency for which I work has been granted a substantial amount of mula to weatherize homes. We will need to hire more folks through our agency. We will be employing many more contractors, who will hire more laborers to accomplish the feat. Our county has a really bad employment rate, so those jobs are very much needed immediately. At the end of it, we are going to reduce the costs of energy to thousands of low-income people in our agency mission to help these people become self-sufficient and to get them off of government assistance. We can see it begin to work. We love it (I suppose I can't speak for all of our staff, but many of us are pretty stoked, as far as I can see).
What I'm saying is that taxing isn't so horrid. Using Gov't dollars isn't so bad when there is a purpose. I understand the conservative concern that our future is at stake by increasing debt (or making somewhat of an investment on loan), but the investment very well could have a very nice return for all of us. To trumpet the notion of secession is to turn icy a motion that may curtail the future problems forecasted by nay-sayers.
Politicians make waves all the time in an effort to garner attention on important topics. Is that was Gov. Perry was doing? Republicans abhor taxes, or at least, that's how this looney lib sees it. I totally understand the rationale behind such conservative premises. Texas is being dubbed a "donor state," meaning, the outcry behind secession is being alluded to the fact that Texas gets a small portion of return on the tax money it puts into the Federal System. Furthermore, Texas is doing quite well economically these days, and the Texas Governor says it has a lot to do with not over-taxing its citizens. Sounds plausible.
So, controversy emerges as money and individuality become crucified. Well, Texas gets a bigger return on its tax money then do most liberal states, especially compared to those who do tax the tar out of their folks, such as New Jersey.
On a side note, or maybe not really, the tax money return is not the only issue at hand. Many conservatives purport to see a bigger picture, and that picture is some sort of seplature of debt being handed down to our next generations. Yikes. That IS kind of scary...
However, and I thank you all for your kind patience in allowing this liberal to give a simple-minded counter argument. All isn't fair in the Union. Some states pay more then others, and other states get less back for their payment. Debt is growing, and the economic stimulus is a big gamble. The future is most definately at stake, but we need to take a breath and think about what will perpetuate future endeavors in such a way that will breed common or universal responsibility between individuals, between states, and at the Federal level.
You see, the agency for which I work has been granted a substantial amount of mula to weatherize homes. We will need to hire more folks through our agency. We will be employing many more contractors, who will hire more laborers to accomplish the feat. Our county has a really bad employment rate, so those jobs are very much needed immediately. At the end of it, we are going to reduce the costs of energy to thousands of low-income people in our agency mission to help these people become self-sufficient and to get them off of government assistance. We can see it begin to work. We love it (I suppose I can't speak for all of our staff, but many of us are pretty stoked, as far as I can see).
What I'm saying is that taxing isn't so horrid. Using Gov't dollars isn't so bad when there is a purpose. I understand the conservative concern that our future is at stake by increasing debt (or making somewhat of an investment on loan), but the investment very well could have a very nice return for all of us. To trumpet the notion of secession is to turn icy a motion that may curtail the future problems forecasted by nay-sayers.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
GM Recalls 1.5 Million Cars
It was a beautiful day for my true-love on Tuesday. Financially, we're getting our ducklings all lined up. His job is going well. He just picked up the title of his car, which means no more payments and a lower insurance rate.
Oh, dang. Wait a minute. What was that in the news about a recall?
He wanted to write a blog entry about this subject but I beat him to it. Apparently, his computer went on the fritz, which is particularly nice news for him as he uses his computer for work. Nice.
General Motors has been on the brink of bankruptcy, and so, in an effort to save American jobs, congress has given GM some of the mega-mentioned bailout dollars in the past. What's more, is that the New York Times recently reported that GM is slated for bankruptcy in the next few months, and even so, we'll still pass the buck to bail GM out.
My awesome boyfriend cringes as the recent news of GM recalls for that very reason. His car is over 10 years old, and it is one of the cars ready for recall due to some safety issue with the engine. How can a car manufacturer allow a car to unsafe for such a long time, he asks? Furthermore, the recall puts people in a pickle, in particular, for those who are just now paying off their used vehicles. Does one risk taking an older vehicle back to the manufacturer for the necessary repairs, knowing more stuff will inevitably go wrong with the car (isn't that always what happens when one takes an older car for repairs)? Does he ignore the recall and risk the inability to resell the car?
So now, 1.5 million cars, some as old as 11 years old, will be going in for service just on the dawn of the manufacturers bankruptcy then bailout. Nice.
Oh, dang. Wait a minute. What was that in the news about a recall?
He wanted to write a blog entry about this subject but I beat him to it. Apparently, his computer went on the fritz, which is particularly nice news for him as he uses his computer for work. Nice.
General Motors has been on the brink of bankruptcy, and so, in an effort to save American jobs, congress has given GM some of the mega-mentioned bailout dollars in the past. What's more, is that the New York Times recently reported that GM is slated for bankruptcy in the next few months, and even so, we'll still pass the buck to bail GM out.
My awesome boyfriend cringes as the recent news of GM recalls for that very reason. His car is over 10 years old, and it is one of the cars ready for recall due to some safety issue with the engine. How can a car manufacturer allow a car to unsafe for such a long time, he asks? Furthermore, the recall puts people in a pickle, in particular, for those who are just now paying off their used vehicles. Does one risk taking an older vehicle back to the manufacturer for the necessary repairs, knowing more stuff will inevitably go wrong with the car (isn't that always what happens when one takes an older car for repairs)? Does he ignore the recall and risk the inability to resell the car?
So now, 1.5 million cars, some as old as 11 years old, will be going in for service just on the dawn of the manufacturers bankruptcy then bailout. Nice.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Wednesday's Word: Zeitgeist
So, my mom has a theory that the "man" is hoping to keep the poor down by insisting low-wage earners remain in low-wage jobs. The big-shots call the shots, offering low-pay incentives, while media mouths from so-called financial backgrounds instruct viewers to move from job to job.
Unemployment is extremely low, as we all may well know. Who exactly, I wonder, is the Atlas, who holds up the Earth? Is it the wealthy, who engineer to job force, or is it the bottom feeders, who provide the labor, industry, and hunger for trivial commercial items?
Are we being lead, through some historical ideology, to maintain our pride for work, despite the failing value of the dollar?
Zeitgeist is a word that defines a sort of historical trend, or way of being of a society. It's a mental state, or the "spirit of the culture."
Look it up on WikiPedia. It's explained much better there.
Unemployment is extremely low, as we all may well know. Who exactly, I wonder, is the Atlas, who holds up the Earth? Is it the wealthy, who engineer to job force, or is it the bottom feeders, who provide the labor, industry, and hunger for trivial commercial items?
Are we being lead, through some historical ideology, to maintain our pride for work, despite the failing value of the dollar?
Zeitgeist is a word that defines a sort of historical trend, or way of being of a society. It's a mental state, or the "spirit of the culture."
Look it up on WikiPedia. It's explained much better there.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
It's a Dog Eat Dog Media Frenzy
In the morning, because I am from the tech-gen (sort of), I click on Google News and browse the top headlines from the US and the World. On a side note, I most certainly do have a subscription to the local newspaper; however, I let my neighbor devour it each morning as I'm more inclinded to surf the Internet in the morning. So anyway, most shockingly, one of the top headline subjects in Google's US news this week is the breed of dog the president has chosen for his family. For two days in a row, in fact, his dog choice has come in at numbero uno.
What strikes me most about this topic is that people seem to comment quite vehemently on whether or not the president and the vice president chose pets from a shelter or from some breeder. In Pres. Obama's case, the little paper-eating, energetic, low-shedding Portugese Water Dog was a good fit for their family's high-energy lifestyle, and for their daughter's pet fur allergies. While one might attest to the fact that there are plenty of doggies in the shelter which might fit such a standard, I also want to add that this little pooch was supposedly a gift.
Okay, all that background info aside, I admit that my verdict is not quite out on whether Pres. Obama is the true bonafied "Go" man for whom I've voted eagerly; however, I don't think his family's decision to by-pass the shelter shows a shadowy inclination to break promises (he'd promised to search the shelters for the family doggie). I am dissappointed, I'll admit, but I'm not sour. I personally prefer to adopt adult pets from the Humane Society because they are usually great companions who are already well-trained and loyal. Aside from that reason, I also believe most people prefer to adopt puppies and kittens, so I like to adopt a bit older pets if I'm going to adopt. With all that said, sometimes I'm presented with the opportunity to befriend a furry pal who doesn't hail from the shelter. I would probably go for Bo, too, if I were the Obama's.
Now on to Mr. Biden, who has secured a German Shepherd from a breeder. This bit of news was particularly interesting to me for a personal reason. You see, the first family dog I remember having was a dog we got as a stray. We named him Poncho. Though we didn't buy him from a breeder, nor did he have any papers, he was most definately German Shepherd. Well, the vet said he was at least 99.9 percent German Shepherd, as he had a spotted tongue and may have been the result of a chow mingling with some German Shepherd family. Poncho was a very cool dog. I've never seen such an agile creature! He spoiled us in our expectations of all other mutts we've ever owned. He'd jump clear into the window of my dad's pick-up truck. He was an awesome protector, and most benevolent companion. He passed away at only 6 years old, and his successor was a chubby black-lab mix we obtained from the local Humane Society. We've since had other stray dogs as well as one pure-bred castaway Pomeranian.
My family has always been stray dog lovers. We simply love animals, and my mom has been known to harbour the most motley of mutts. She feeds them, gaurds their hearts, pampers them, gives them rides, and lets them rule the house. Our first search outlet for a new pet is almost ALWAYS the animal shelter. Recently; however, as my mom's beloved male dog Sebastian died in his ripe old age of 14 years old, she's admitted to wanting a German Shepherd. Surprisingly, she's contacted local breeders in search of a new German Shepherd puppy. We'll probably never find another "Poncho," at the local shelter, but we're always on the lookout. My mom wants a protective dog; a loyal companion. It's for this reason, I was amused that the Biden's chose to buy a German Shepherd from a breeder. It is for that same reason that I am empathetic toward the Bidens.
The truth is, certain breeds do have certain characteristics which meld well with our family desires for a pet. Breeders make a living from such enterprise, and to completely boycott such endeavors may not be the most fruitful way to save homeless pets. It's true that more folks should adopt from shelters, but it is not necessarily a sin to buy a pet from a respectable breeder.
Buying a pure-bred does have its pitfalls. I don't deny that. Breeding dogs for purity means keeping the genetic gene pool pretty stagnant througout the family blood-line. Not only are all the cool character traits passed down the line, but so too are genetic problems, such as poor eyesight, hip problems, cancer, Etc. For example, German Shepherds and Collies are suceptible to hip dysplasia. A 99.9% pooch, such a Poncho, might decrease that possibility. If he were to breed with a pure-bred, he might pass along a spot on the tongue, but his pups might have been fairly perfect German Shepherds otherwise. Doing so might also decrease the chances for the passage of whatever common genetic disorders his breed has (unless Chows have those same problems, which I really don't know, as I'm no doggy expert).
So, all I'm saying is buying a pure-bred dog isn't a total sin. I'm not sure why there is such hoopla over such action. I definately encourage people to search the Humane Society for their next pet, but it's not always necessary.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Religion and Compassion
The agency I work for is very friendly toward accepting partnerships with religious entities. I appreciate the notion that my agency, which is not a religiously centered organization, does partake in pre-lunch prayers and other religious activities. Freedom of religion is two-fold. In one respect, people should be granted freedom to actively practice religious activities in the workplace, while those who hold toward different beliefs or lack of beliefs should not be scolded, judged or given any sort of punishment.
Why I mention this fact is that we recently met with a pastor of a church who said that since we have similar mission, though different missions, he'd like to work with us on the areas which overlap. He said that while our agency will not go out and spread the Gospel, and his church will not financially assist people the way that we do, our common ground is indeed helping those in need. His words struck a very nice chord in me and it put me on a whole new journey of thought when contemplating the journey to find religious meaning.
I believe everyone has a personal relationship with God. My biggest problem with religious heretics is their choice to act as God's personal judges. Homosexuality is considered an abomination of God, after all, it says so in the Bible. Pre-marital sex is deplorable, and those who do it are immoral, unworthy beings. Well, I thought the Bible says that we all sin, and it seems to me that Jesus preached love and peace. Right. I know, I know where all this is headed. Being a student and follower of God is not easy. It's not meant for us to do as we please and expect a place in Heaven. I agree; however, my problem isn't so much that people preach the sins God has defined, so much as the way in which people deliver such information.
One sin is a bigger temptation for one person then it is for others. For example, I have no earthly desire to partake in any form of homosexual relationship. Furthermore, as I have not created the human race, I really can't say whether it's a choice or not. People do say so, though, only because such acts seem detestable to them. To avoid an act for which you have no earthly temptation does not give you free rein to heroicize yourself and belittle someone who is strongly tempted in that sin. To preach God's word well, takes less words, more love, and more empathy and compassion.
Once we begin to show love for others, unquestionably, and begin to accept that we know very little about what prompts someone to act the way he or she does, then we have more power to be the real salt of the earth. I'm not sure what people are trying to accomplish by chastising others, belittling them, and saying, "What you're doing is a sin, and you'll go to hell for it." The words may be true, but they are not effective. If you want a part in helping to save someone, show love and understanding, not hate and contempt. Such judgement is cruel and fruitless. It wastes time and energy, and hate proliferates.
Why I mention this fact is that we recently met with a pastor of a church who said that since we have similar mission, though different missions, he'd like to work with us on the areas which overlap. He said that while our agency will not go out and spread the Gospel, and his church will not financially assist people the way that we do, our common ground is indeed helping those in need. His words struck a very nice chord in me and it put me on a whole new journey of thought when contemplating the journey to find religious meaning.
I believe everyone has a personal relationship with God. My biggest problem with religious heretics is their choice to act as God's personal judges. Homosexuality is considered an abomination of God, after all, it says so in the Bible. Pre-marital sex is deplorable, and those who do it are immoral, unworthy beings. Well, I thought the Bible says that we all sin, and it seems to me that Jesus preached love and peace. Right. I know, I know where all this is headed. Being a student and follower of God is not easy. It's not meant for us to do as we please and expect a place in Heaven. I agree; however, my problem isn't so much that people preach the sins God has defined, so much as the way in which people deliver such information.
One sin is a bigger temptation for one person then it is for others. For example, I have no earthly desire to partake in any form of homosexual relationship. Furthermore, as I have not created the human race, I really can't say whether it's a choice or not. People do say so, though, only because such acts seem detestable to them. To avoid an act for which you have no earthly temptation does not give you free rein to heroicize yourself and belittle someone who is strongly tempted in that sin. To preach God's word well, takes less words, more love, and more empathy and compassion.
Once we begin to show love for others, unquestionably, and begin to accept that we know very little about what prompts someone to act the way he or she does, then we have more power to be the real salt of the earth. I'm not sure what people are trying to accomplish by chastising others, belittling them, and saying, "What you're doing is a sin, and you'll go to hell for it." The words may be true, but they are not effective. If you want a part in helping to save someone, show love and understanding, not hate and contempt. Such judgement is cruel and fruitless. It wastes time and energy, and hate proliferates.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Poetry and Empowerment
I had an old account on Associated Content where I could write content and get a little bit of a residual. I haven't logged into it for an eon or so, but just so happened to do so during this glorious month of celebrating poetry. The assignment I saw upon logging into the account was to write a poem about the eighties. Dare I admit that I remember that decade? I was young. Really, I was, at least during the onset of that strange generation.
Anyway, you can read the poem here:
Robots and Punk Rockers
National Poetry Month submission on a poem about the 80's.
http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/1634605/robots_and_punk_rockers.html
It's no masterpiece, but I enjoyed the challenge.
On another note, I am often intrigued by the connections we weave between non-related instances in our lives. Is a comment or a chance meeting simply coincidence, or is it fate? Quite a few moons ago, I decided my mission in life was to unearth the creative consciousness of humanity by proliferating the popularity of poetry. I thought lyrics, poems, (real) hip-hop, and performance poetry all scraped at the bones of us in a way that connected us through the similarity of our differences. Today I met a woman who was some sort of life-coach or consultant who contracted her seminars to help those in need empower themselves. She used poetry as a tool for power. She believed knowledge is a high power, and she had a holistic approach to coaching people toward self-sufficiency by combining the spiritual, the mental, and the physical aspect of our whole beings. While she was probably giving me and my co-workers a sort of sales-pitch for her consulting business, I was hugely impressed. She had very powerful eyes, and I swore there was meaning in the way she spoke.
Her presence was alluring, and she resonated in me a solid, composed sort of wisdom. She definitely seemed like a strong woman who had a real purpose, even if she did drive around in a Lexus and was tapping into my non-profit agency as a potential customer.
While I digressed a wee bit, I was stunned at the fact that poetry lent itself toward the empowerment of others in her experience. It moved people, even to the point of pulling from their beings tears.
What was the meaning in that, I wonder. Shall I ponder the prospect of initiating a poetry release for folks once again?
Happy Poetry Month!
Anyway, you can read the poem here:
Robots and Punk Rockers
National Poetry Month submission on a poem about the 80's.
http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/1634605/robots_and_punk_rockers.html
It's no masterpiece, but I enjoyed the challenge.
On another note, I am often intrigued by the connections we weave between non-related instances in our lives. Is a comment or a chance meeting simply coincidence, or is it fate? Quite a few moons ago, I decided my mission in life was to unearth the creative consciousness of humanity by proliferating the popularity of poetry. I thought lyrics, poems, (real) hip-hop, and performance poetry all scraped at the bones of us in a way that connected us through the similarity of our differences. Today I met a woman who was some sort of life-coach or consultant who contracted her seminars to help those in need empower themselves. She used poetry as a tool for power. She believed knowledge is a high power, and she had a holistic approach to coaching people toward self-sufficiency by combining the spiritual, the mental, and the physical aspect of our whole beings. While she was probably giving me and my co-workers a sort of sales-pitch for her consulting business, I was hugely impressed. She had very powerful eyes, and I swore there was meaning in the way she spoke.
Her presence was alluring, and she resonated in me a solid, composed sort of wisdom. She definitely seemed like a strong woman who had a real purpose, even if she did drive around in a Lexus and was tapping into my non-profit agency as a potential customer.
While I digressed a wee bit, I was stunned at the fact that poetry lent itself toward the empowerment of others in her experience. It moved people, even to the point of pulling from their beings tears.
What was the meaning in that, I wonder. Shall I ponder the prospect of initiating a poetry release for folks once again?
Happy Poetry Month!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)