We have a mental health crisis in America. I cannot condone the violent actions of the tortured souls that have responded in the only way they thought that they could make their voices heard. It's sad, pitiable, but absolutely a problem that must be addressed. It's also a place where politics should not be involved, but alas politics is already involved. I have a friend who works in special needs and he says we have problems.
Some of the things he outlines:
Segregation
We segregate those who need to have healthy-minded individuals around them to only be around others whom have mental health issues. So instead of the "town fool" of yore, we have mental hospitals (where we don't have to see, experience, or feel responsible to help those whom need it) where those who could live fairly normal lives learn bad behavior from other mental health patients (i.e. we treat them like prisoners; it has been observed that we have created a wicked process by which non-violent criminals are segregated from society with violent criminals and they themselves typically become violent criminals).
Poor Treatment
Who wants to work with the mentally ill or at nursing homes? My friend told me that the treatment is typically poor because the caretakers feel they can easily get away with it (similar to parents who mistreat their children). What recourse do the victims have? Who will take their side? I have seen what it's like in nursing homes.
I'm not saying everyone under care is mistreated and all caretakers are evil. I am saying we should not take the mentally ill out of society. We need to keep them in society. We need to embrace them as members of our community. We may have to watch them a little closer as we would with our children (because we care) but not "treat them as children." With positive peer pressure they will try to fit in as best they can and will be a part not set apart. They will feel heard not ignored. They will feel that they matter, that they have a voice. We need to listen on our terms not their terms because we have a responsibility to care. If we ignore the problem, this is what will continue to happen:
Study: All But Two Multiple Public Shootings Since 1950 Took Place Where Guns Were Banned
(I disagree with the "aggressive institutionalization" statement. Mental health point made.)
Why did the Ft. Hood gunman do it? Because a gun-crazy country let him (Self-admittedly this author has made slop of argumentation, and when corrected stuck to his non-sequitur conclusion, otherwise note his pointing out of the mental health crisis we are in. Instead of advocating for help on this point he simply has a gun agenda.)
Fort Hood Victim's Dad: Gunman Snapped After Seeking Time Off
On the Other Hand
James Holmes: Mental Illness or Social Frustration? (Exactly! Regardless of whether it's mental illness or social rejection or some combination, it is a societal problem not an institutional fix.)
So really, we have a social crisis in America. We have forgotten how to be a community. Mental health is an issue, but how much of an issue would it be if we had true community? We would help each other physically, emotionally, spiritually, psychologically, et cetera. We do this to a small extent but on such a small scale. There are pockets of community in this country. Certain churches practice community (but there is a line between community and cult). Certain neighborhoods practice community. In the military there is a sense of community but it's two-dimensional and needs expanding. I will pray for the cultivation of Christ-centered community which will truly enrich the world, because that is what we need now.
Friday, April 4, 2014
We Have a Crisis in America
It's Official: FB Saves Lives (Tongue-in-cheek)
Facebook post saves girl’s vision as 'glow in the eye' raises alarm
A bittersweet and inspiring story like this leads me to laud progress. The concept of progress can be really open-ended but please don't take it too far or misattribute to me something I am not saying. To be crystal clear, what I praise here is the good that comes from the "information age" in which we live. How amazing is it that through unintentional "crowdsourcing" people are saving and improving lives and livelihood?!
Tax Info for Rental Property
Some tax advice from MSN.com.
Schedule E blunders
"This is the Schedule that is used to report rental property, royalties, partnership income and expenses, estate income and expenses and S-Corp income and expenses," says Du Val, flagging it as the area on the federal tax form 1040 where people are most likely to make a mistake. He adds that anyone who needs to fill this out should be familiar with phrases like "property basis" and "suspended losses." If you own rental property and don't know those terms, you should start learning everything you can about them, as well as "depreciation" and "passive activities," Du Val says. Or, of course, you could hire someone who does, because things can get sticky when it comes to rental property. "For example," Du Val says, "A residential rental property is depreciated over 27 1/2 years, but furniture is depreciated over five years."
Time to start studying real estate laws, if this is my retirement plan.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
The Rise and Fall of the Political Ultra-Rich
The Rise of the Political Ultra-Rich
The most important statement made in this article is the heading of the final paragraph: "How establishment Republicans are trying to survive Tea Party challenges." This is the most telling data point of the whole piece. It clues us in to the reality of the situation: the Supreme Court's decision doesn't affect the Rep-Dem stranglehold on political posturing. The writer indicated that there will be a short-term benefit to Reps but that it would only be short, really short.
So in the least pontificated "paragraph" of the article do we find an exquisite exposition of the incredible implications? No. It reads almost as if the article was truncated. It ends abruptly.
So in the spirit of charitable free-lance, allow me to finish the article which was just starting to get good before it got gone.
How establishment Republicans are trying to survive Tea Party challenges
Turning to Senate contests, we’re seeing examples of how establishment Republicans are trying to survive Tea Party challenges. In North Carolina, American Crossroads is airing a TV ad for establishment GOPer Tom Tillis highlighting his work for voter ID laws. And in Mississippi, Thad Cochran is using guns and abortion as way to strengthen his conservative bona fides.
But saying that they are merely challenges is to obfuscate the symptoms with the source of those challenges. As indicated earlier in the article, the power of influence is via the power of the dollar, traditionally speaking. However the "Republicans" of today are less traditional. In fact, this is a problem for establishment Democrats as well. The establishment's base of support is dwindling due to changes in the culture, largely brought about by reactionary changes from generation to generation as well as the technological changes that have sparked the information revolution.
The response is revolutionary. What is becoming ever obvious to ordinary citizens is that the bureaucratic machine continues to polarize the public and pander to the politically minded. The establishmentarians fail to realize that the new generation of collective, political activism known broadly as the Tea Party is an idealist, intellectually-grounded, free-thinking, and politically-centrist movement of ideologues that cannot be bought by anachronistic advertising. They deal in the currency of ideas. They are neither republican, nor democrat. They are neither conservative, nor liberal. They desire the one thing that a bureaucratic machine cannot deliver: freedom. And like their forefathers, they are ready to fight for it.
Billions of dollars spent on smear campaigns won't deter the coming tide. If the establishment will not change to suit their constituents, their constituents will change the establishment. The rise of the political ultra-rich is also, paradoxically, the fall of the political ultra-rich.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Anglican Bios (wiki)
(T) Listed as "formative Anglican divines" in an article by the Very Rev. Dr. Justyn Terry on TSM website.
(W) Listed as a "founder of Anglican theological thought" on Wikipedia bio for Hooker.
Thomas Cranmer (T)(W)
Richard Hooker (T)(W)
Lancelot Andrewes (T)
John Jewel (W)
Notable martyred Anglican bishops:
Cranmer "the great man of learning"
Ridley "an able theologian"
Latimer "the great preacher among the Reformers"
Hooper
Ferrar
Founders of Anglicanism:
Henry VIII
Queen Elizabeth
Thomas Cranmer
Richard Hooker
John Jewel
George Herbert
John Donne
Famous Anglicans:
C. S. Lewis
N. T. Wright
John Stott
J. I. Packer
Alister McGrath
Episcopal Ministries
Hmmm...may not apply to ACNA. Political possibility. I hope not though. I need to find out...
The Order of St. Luke is a religious order dedicated to sacramental and liturgical scholarship, education and practice (open to clergy/laity, male/female, married/single).
The Order of the Daughters of the King is a Christian community offering spiritual support for women of all ages.
The Brotherhood of St. Andrew is a worldwide ministry to men and boys.
Global Warming and Risk, Risk, Risk! Subtitled: Our Diar[rhea] Circumstances...
Holy Crimea Batman! This piece reads like the alarmist literature it claims to not be. As I got a good laugh out of how it linked all of the world's ills to global warming, I thought to myself, "Why not blame the widening rich-poor gap on global warming too!" And guess what? Unfortunately, I cannot even muster the courage to quote the ridiculousness contained therein. Instead, I shall make a prediction.
I have no idea how long it will take for policy setters...er...modern scientists, to quit their shenanigans. Thus I give no timeline to my prediction. One disclaimer: I don't mean all scientists have disavowed science for politics, I mean that those policy setters wearing the academic garb of scientia are not scientists in any sense of the word (hyperbole). The average person will one day view global-warmers as we now view flat-earthers. Unfortunately, they will probably misattribute the held belief of the common uneducated person to the religious who have opposed the common view if for no other reason than that it fails to align with divine revelation. #endrant
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Best Advice: Stay Out of Debt
$1 trillion student loan debt widens US wealth gap
I have written about this before. There is a problem. Let's take a look at the data.
According to the statistics from BLS.gov on median earnings, you will earn $23,764 a year more if you have a Bachelor's degree compared to your high school graduate counterpart. (Don't take this to be prescriptive though.)
According to this CNNMoney article, the average school-related debt by 2013 graduates is around $35,200. Just read some of the comments..."12% of graduates, regretted their decisions entirely, saying their college education didn't justify the debt burden." That's awful. How were they duped into this (rhetorical)?
CNNMoney isn't trying to scare monger, they offer pretty good advice here.
Why am I pointing this out? There's a problem. Mainstream media says there's a problem. Now what is the root? I say the idea that "you have to go to college" is one of the problems. I think we should replace it with the idea that "you have to count the cost of going to college" which includes the idea of adequate preparation and the possibility of a 'no build' option. (If you are bristling about the idea of a 'no build' option right now, you are making my point.)
The idea that everyone has to go to college leads to high demand...hence rising tuition costs. It leads to the thinking "if statistics show people whom have higher levels of education make more on average, I should seek the highest levels of education"...which brings us to the original article to which I've linked. The number of jobs for PhD's isn't going to change simply based on more people getting PhD's, so all it will result in is that more people have a PhD level of college debt without the PhD level of pay that they were counting on having with which to pay it off. These people are debtor-slaves.
How do you take the people with the greatest potential and marginalize them? Enslave them to college debt. That's the most sinister thing about the issue. Is it driven from that viewpoint? It doesn't have to be. It may be an unintended consequence of poor policies, but that doesn't make it any less heinous.
Oh, and we've only talked about the college graduates. What about those who do not graduate?
