It can go BOTH ways (really)

While going through the process of securing financing for our new (used) house, the lender has asked us to explain why we would voluntarily choose to “downgrade” our domicile. Granted, the vast majority of people upgrade their homes and mortgage balances. We apparently are the aberration, and thus must explain our seemingly irrational actions.

I purchased our current house after I got divorced. I also had other reasons for buying this specific house in addition to simply serving as a tax shelter. I knew that I would want to eventually get married again and I was just hedging my bets. Based on my age at the time (mid-late 30’s) I assumed that I would meet a woman with children already or one with a furiously ticking biological clock, and the odds of finding a woman who didn’t have or want children was close to nil. Because of this eventuality, I chose a home with a combination of good equity potential, cul-de-sac location, great neighborhood, a pool, and proximity to an elementary school. As luck would have it, my fears were not realized and I met and married an incredible woman that also happens to not want to have kids. Long-time readers know all of this already, so I won’t go into any more detail.

Now fast forward to the present. My wife has a home-based business and we live in a neighborhood filled with children. We need more land to store our Airstream camper trailer. My wife’s working area is upstairs and she goes up and down the stairs multiple times every day. From my second story balcony I can see into the windows of my five neighbor’s homes, just like any other cookie cutter tract housing development. A ranch style home in a more remote location is better for us. We use our pool once or twice a year and pay the maintenance all year round. I plan to retire in 10 years or so, and we will likely move out of the state. Although it bucks the current dogma of the McMansions, we don’t NEED (gasp!) a bigger or a more expensive house. In fact, a smaller and cheaper (gasp!) house would actually be better for us, financially and in general.

The bottom line is simple - our house doesn’t suit our needs, our lifestyle, and would add unnecessary financial burdens. The fact that it is less expensive, smaller (only a little), and 10 minutes farther from my business apparently makes our lenders nervous. Go figure.

I'd like to teach the world to sing...

Gaya be praised! Utopia! Nirvana at last! Yes the world is now as it should be, in perfect harmonious peace, love, and tranquility. So let’s all hold hands and sing triumphantly.

Since the election is over start looking for the news reports about:

[1] How great the economy is going.
[2] “New” discoveries about corrupt Democrats that, for journalistic "integrity", such reports had to wait until after the election.
[3] The positive progress in Iraq.

Yes, I realize that Nancy Pelosi is the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives – we get it! Yes, it is an admirable achievement (congrats to her), but enough already. Ann Coulter expresses this so much better than I, click HERE. Why is it that most news reports have to take note of her hairstyle, brand of dress [zap]

We’re sorry, due to incongruent conformance to newly enacted government and media declarations of peace, love, and harmony, the remainder of this disruptive contraband will be confiscated for the safety and mental security of the peoples of the Republic of Meximericanada (formerly the United States of America).

This message provided free of charge, courtesy of your friendly representatives from the following agencies:

Department of Social Responsibility and Global Healing (formerly the Department of Defense)
Department of Diversity and Tolerance
Department of Wellness
Department of Inner Peace
Department of Masculine Reeducation
Department of Caucasian Reeducation
Department of Republican Reeducation
Senate Committee on Pro-American Activities (formerly unAmerican Activities)
Senate Committee on Anti-Enviromental Dogma Activities
World Peace Initiative Enforcement Association
Social Workers United for Global Progress
Islamic Jihad for the Death of all Infidels and Positive Global Climate Change

and more added daily...

Aftermath, Reflection, and Reclusion

Upset, no.
The election went as expected.
The delusional Republicans did it to themselves.

I think that history will depict the last 12 years as merely a minor speed bump along the path of regression of the United States into socialism, or maybe the bumpy transitional inflection point of the country's dominant influence of the values and desires of the urban-based population over the traditional rural based populous. Either way, there is no stopping it.

I think that y=-x3 (-x cubed) defines this as best as anything can.

I awoke this morning in a different country, one that I no longer recognize, understand, or feel like I belong. The newly erected “big tent” does not welcome or tolerate people like me, a fact amply demonstrated time and time again, despite the forked tongues behind euphemistic smiles.

Time to hang up the cleats, close the barn door, and turn off the lights...

And like those fictional rugged individualists of Atlas Shrugged, it’s also time to disappear into the shadows and live out the rest of our days in reclusive isolation whilst the rest of the nation trods along it's freely elected path.

Who is John Galt? Better yet - WHERE is John Galt?

Please leave this to the professionals

Election Eve, oh boy, oh boy!

I don't care what your politicial persuasion is, or whom you vote for, or what proposition you vote for or against, if you are EDUCATED and INFORMED on the candidate/issue, PLEASE vote. If you have no true opinion either way and are just voting party line (doesn't matter which) please DON'T, I repeat, DON'T vote. I'd rather a defeat/victory for a candidate or proposition be based on an informed decision than a default party line position.

If you feel strongly about position "X" or candidate "Y" and not much else on the ballot concerns you, then just vote for those particular items. Don't feel the need to vote for EVERYTHING just because you should. A vote based on little or no research doesn't do anyone any good, and isn't really honoring the purpose of your civic duty.

If I can interject my bias here - it's my blog after all damn it - please vote with your MIND, and not your heart. Emotion is an irrational yardstick by which to measure the intent, value, methodology, or effectiveness of a candidate or ballot measure. Please THINK about the rational, real world consequences (higher taxes, regulations, restrictions of freedom) of your vote (if enacted), not the feel-good emotional act of voting for or against a cause (a symbolic I-care-ism). Remember that all candidates and laws are not perfect, and we should expect as such. If you truly believe in a position, then by all means support it and hold your head proudly if your candidate or position gets the short end of the stick. At least you made your voice heard in an honest way.

I know as a nation we've become complacent with the freedoms and privileges defended to the death by too many to name, so please don't take it for granted.

Don't vote party line, vote AMERICAN and what it means to YOU as an American, not as a Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or Green or whatever.

Contrary to election-hyped political hyperbole, no matter which party controls Congress or the Presidency, the world will not instantly ascend to Utopia or end violently in flames if your favorite party or candidate wins or loses.

Untouchables

I know this isn’t the timeliest of subject matter, but this has been on my mind for a while and it’s time to eject it from the cranium. This concerns this liberal and media-created protective shield that supposedly protects certain public figures from criticism. So please turn off your knee jerk outrage meter and let me explain.

Now place in your mind the Michael J. Fox flap of the last couple of weeks and the whole Cindy Sheehan drama. I recall in both cases the usual sympathetic, kid gloves treatment by the media, as there should be - to some level. Yes, one wouldn’t be human if we didn’t feel sorry for these people during such tragic periods in their lives, and no one in their right mind would wish such pain on another human being. Can you intellectually understand that concept? It’s very important.

That being said... (Is your knee jerk outrage meter off?)

When someone such as this enters into the arena of ideas and the realm of public discourse, he or she shouldn’t be completely insulated from critique or debate because of his or her particular condition or tragedy. I not suggesting that these people are not continuing to experience their pain, but apparently they are strong enough to choose a side and advocate publicly for it. They are free to do this, but they shouldn’t be exempt from playing by the same rules that we have to adhere to either.

Take Michael J. Fox for example. He has a documented track record for manipulating his medication to his advantage when advocating his point of view. That’s OK. It makes a lot of sense. Why is it all of sudden a severe breech of conduct to call him on it or even just mention his history of doing things like this? This is all that Rush Limbaugh and others like him opined about. If you actually listened to the comments - in context - you would have deduced that he wasn’t being mean, just questioning the methodology. Is that OK? Apparently not.

At some point, Cindy Sheehan went from grieving mother to anti-war activist. Once that line was crossed, legitimate public debate is appropriate. The media still paints her as only a concerned, grieving mother even three years after her son’s death. Again, I have no idea what she went through, what she is still going through, and again, wouldn’t wish it on anyone, but why is wrong to simply disagree with her?

Have you heard arguments/comments like these before?

[1] Who could be against (clean water, increased pay for teachers, the children, etc.)?
[2] Do you have Parkinson’s disease? So how can you question Michael J. Fox?
[3] Did you lose your son in war? Who are you to criticize Cindy Sheehan?
[4] Are you a minority? How do you know what it’s like to live under the torment if constant racism and discrimination?

Liberals have a great way of advocating their point of view, I grant them that. They have a method of emotionally framing an argument or enlisting a crusader, so that by simply disagreeing with the person or idea you are instantly branded a heathan, mean, or an idiot. This is no way to engage in public discourse to try and solve problems.

It has come to a point that many people will not even state an opinion that isn’t politically correct or differs from someone in a protected political class in any social situation for fear of being labeled a racist, bigot, chauvinist, homophobe, etc. For me it started with corporate sexual harassment and diversity training. Many very good and necessary things came out of this, but at the end of it all I was afraid to say anything to my coworkers except business-related discussion. Workplace conversations about more personal matters (family, home, weekend plans, etc.) ceased and are still rare for me. I am to this day, uncomfortable with being in a room alone with a woman at work. Don’t get me started about the guilt imposed onto me for being a privileged white male, the uber-scourge of all society.

Can’t we all drop the pretense and remove the chips from our shoulders? We can agree to disagree without hating each other or questioning each other's integrity or motivation. Just becuase I diagree with your approach doesn't necessarily mean that I disagree with your goal, just maybe how we get there.