For this politically independent government worker, the events within political playground are nerve wracking, not the least of which is the Republican playing field for the 2012 election. Most recently, Herman Cain has surged to the fore with his 9-9-9 tax plan overhaul. proponents of this tax plan have raved about how it is the most fair plan because of its even percentage that all would have to pay. I have decided to throw in my two cents on this plan, and expose it for what it is: anti-poor, anti-elderly, and anti-small business.
What is the 9-9-9 plan? Put simply, the 9-9-9 plan states that everyone would pay a 9 percent income tax, corporations would pay a 9 percent corporate tax, and there would be an implementation of a national 9 percent sales tax (over and above any state sales tax you already pay). Cain states that this is fair, alleging that everyone across the board would pay the same rate of taxes. It makes sense, doesn't it? But after taking this plan out of the vacuum of theory and placing into the real world, it is not what it seems.
Let's look at the 9 percent income tax for all. Called a "flat tax", this tax is actually regressive in how it disproportionately effects the poor. If we look at it in terms of the tax payer's post-tax wealth relative to the price of necessities, we can see that this tax punishes those of lower income. Not convinced? Let's look at an example: assume we have two tax payers. The first tax payer makes $100K per year. (Wouldn't that be nice?) His 9 percent tax would be $9k. The second tax payer makes $30k, so their tax would be $2,700 per year. That seems fair, right? The person that makes more, pays more and the person that makes less pays less. Now, lets look at each of these people after they pay those taxes. The first one, has a remaining $91k while the second has a remaining $27,300. Since the prices of goods that each of these tax payers are buying are the same, the post-tax wealth that each person has is not equal relative to the common goods they both purchase. This is where it gets complicated, so stay with me. The price of bread is a much smaller portion of the first tax payer's income than it is of the second. This means that the utility, or buying power, of each dollar spent for the second tax payer (the poorer one) is of greater value because they have less dollars to spend, and therefore, they have more to lose by paying the same tax rate as the the wealthier person. Hardly fair to those who currently live on a low or fixed income.
Now, lets look at the 9 percent corporate tax rate. The argument against this corporate flat tax is the same as the flat income tax explained above. The difference would simply exchange the rich and poor taxpayers to a big and small corporation. The incomes between these examples may be drastically different, but the principles are the same: the corporations that have a greater revenue stream than the small corporation, but the smaller corporation would have more to lose with a flat tax since they receive a greater utility out of each dollar earned and spent. By applying this critique to the flat corporate tax, we can see this portion of the plan is anti-small business--hardly what our economy needs right now!
Lastly we turn to the 9 percent national sales tax. This was proposed earlier in 2007 as a replacement for the income tax bracket all together. Called a "Fair Tax", this tax system was meant to create a tax revenue stream across the board for anyone purchasing anything in the United States. It's proponents stated that there would be no way to avoid the tax as many wealthy and those who are paid under the table purchase goods here. Certainly a clever idea, I agree. Its opponents state that it would increase overall cost of goods, but advocates believe that this increase in cost would be offset by the absence of an income tax.
However, this tax is also regressive. It simply takes the critique of the flat tax and turns it on its head; instead of forcing the poor to pay a greater utility of their income, it diminishes the purchasing power of these dollars. Since the wealthy have more dollars with which to use, they feel the hurt of a price increase less than those who have less dollars to spend. The one thing the Fair Tax plan had over Cain's 9-9-9 plan: fair tax got rid of the income tax, where as Cain's plan compounds the hurt. It not only takes away more buying power from the poor, but it devalues the dollars those people have left!
Herman Cain's plan was clearly not thought with the elderly, impoverished, and the middle-class in mind. With the economic repercussions outlined above, Cain's 9-9-9 plan not only accentuates the economic divide, it will exponentially expand it. For a country built on Christian ideals of helping those less fortunate, this plan is anti-elderly, anti-poor, and clearly, anti-American.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Photography
While at a family reunion recently, I was asked why I always took pictures of landscapes and not that of people. There's a lot of money in wedding photography, for example. And yes, I'm sure the small, secluded town of Staunton, VA certainly has a market for it. That said, my answer was simple.
I do not take photographs of people, because when they look upon my photographs, they do it through the lens of their own insecurity. Especially in wedding photography, the patron commissions the photographer to make every blemish disappear, and fix every issue this person sees--whether it exists or not. (With this in mind, I think the exploitative use of Photoshop has completely blurred our sense of reality, beauty, while exacerbating our insecurities.) As a photographer, I refuse to take money in exchange for making one's insecurities disappear. That's what psychologists are for.
I take pictures of landscapes because a landscape will never tell me what is wrong with my photo of it. It has an understanding, that I will do my very best to show it off in the glory it deserves. I think the key here is that God created all that is around us, including myself, and therefore trusts my God-given talent to represent his creation accurately and respectfully--and He is satisfied with every outcome. I doubt a photographer will ever get such a response from a human being.
I do not take photographs of people, because when they look upon my photographs, they do it through the lens of their own insecurity. Especially in wedding photography, the patron commissions the photographer to make every blemish disappear, and fix every issue this person sees--whether it exists or not. (With this in mind, I think the exploitative use of Photoshop has completely blurred our sense of reality, beauty, while exacerbating our insecurities.) As a photographer, I refuse to take money in exchange for making one's insecurities disappear. That's what psychologists are for.
I take pictures of landscapes because a landscape will never tell me what is wrong with my photo of it. It has an understanding, that I will do my very best to show it off in the glory it deserves. I think the key here is that God created all that is around us, including myself, and therefore trusts my God-given talent to represent his creation accurately and respectfully--and He is satisfied with every outcome. I doubt a photographer will ever get such a response from a human being.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Passion Fruit
Last night, my wife and I were laying in bed talking about various cities we've visited together and New York came up in the discussion.
"I must be in the minority," she said with certainty, "I did NOT like New York! While I was there, it felt like money was the only thing people there cared about. I guess that's why I like D.C.," she continued, "people by in large aren't there to make money, they're there because they have a passion that drives them." She continued on to talk about the various people she got to know during her AARP internship and how she felt revived by their passion.
And then the bombshell:
"I guess what bothers me most are people who have no passion."
Shortly thereafter my wife was out cold, and her last words before slumber echoed in my head as her deep, methodical breathing serenaded my thoughts. I agree with her. Not having a passion has been a long standing issue I have had with myself. I've written in the past how my life does seem a bit empty without some source of passion or drive. I commented on those whom I envy mastered the incredibly difficult task of pursuing passion while meeting real world obligations. Her words sparked a new found investigation to discover what I felt I was missing.
"What is a passion?" I asked myself, "and what makes it different from a hobby?" What made those aforementioned friends able to pursue that passion? My conclusion is that a passion is something that appeals to the soul so much that to pursue it becomes compulsory; and not to pursue it, consequently, is to deny the very definition of one's identity. Though some may contend that this definition maybe lacking or skewed, it makes sense to me because it validates my feelings that not having a passion does leave me with a sense of emptiness, a lack of self-definition, if you will.
I began to think about what activities or interests would appeal to my inner self so much that they would be compulsive by nature. Photography? Acting? Film? These activities are/were hobbies of mine, but they aren't interests whose pursuit of which I would risk impoverishment. Maybe that makes me a coward; maybe it makes me practical. Either way, the difficulty in identifying that which could define who I am and my place within this world grows increasingly disturbing.
Then I think about my family. I'm passionate about my wife. Doesn't that count? After further consideration, I reject this notion. To place a passion, the definition of one's self, on the sheer presence of another in one's life places an unfair responsibility upon that person. It's living and defining my life using my significant other as a proxy. (I can't say I'm innocent of this as I have difficulty figuring out how to amuse myself alone while April is gone; but that's a topic for another day.)
What about my work? Working for a government agency which is the bread and butter for over 49 million Americans nationwide can easily be something that one could be passionate about. However, some aspects of my job require me to assume the worst of people rather than the best, which rubs against the grain of my personality and values. To that end, I do enjoy being in a position to help those who truly deserve it. Through my own experiences, I absolutely hate watching bad things happen to good people (I moreover hate being the barer of bad news to good people). I've occasionally had the means and the opportunity to give back to those who have given so much to others, and make a positive difference in their lives. That fuels me.
Now, this is not to say that my job is a source of passion for me. These opportunities are much too seldom to energize me through my day or give me any lasting sense of identity. However, it does illuminate to me aspects and values that may lead me closer to a concrete passion. But one question lingers on the horizon of this discovery:
Once I find this self-consuming passion, how will I balance it against my other priorities as a husband and as a father one day? Maybe this is why all those passionate friends I know are single.
"I must be in the minority," she said with certainty, "I did NOT like New York! While I was there, it felt like money was the only thing people there cared about. I guess that's why I like D.C.," she continued, "people by in large aren't there to make money, they're there because they have a passion that drives them." She continued on to talk about the various people she got to know during her AARP internship and how she felt revived by their passion.
And then the bombshell:
"I guess what bothers me most are people who have no passion."
Shortly thereafter my wife was out cold, and her last words before slumber echoed in my head as her deep, methodical breathing serenaded my thoughts. I agree with her. Not having a passion has been a long standing issue I have had with myself. I've written in the past how my life does seem a bit empty without some source of passion or drive. I commented on those whom I envy mastered the incredibly difficult task of pursuing passion while meeting real world obligations. Her words sparked a new found investigation to discover what I felt I was missing.
"What is a passion?" I asked myself, "and what makes it different from a hobby?" What made those aforementioned friends able to pursue that passion? My conclusion is that a passion is something that appeals to the soul so much that to pursue it becomes compulsory; and not to pursue it, consequently, is to deny the very definition of one's identity. Though some may contend that this definition maybe lacking or skewed, it makes sense to me because it validates my feelings that not having a passion does leave me with a sense of emptiness, a lack of self-definition, if you will.
I began to think about what activities or interests would appeal to my inner self so much that they would be compulsive by nature. Photography? Acting? Film? These activities are/were hobbies of mine, but they aren't interests whose pursuit of which I would risk impoverishment. Maybe that makes me a coward; maybe it makes me practical. Either way, the difficulty in identifying that which could define who I am and my place within this world grows increasingly disturbing.
Then I think about my family. I'm passionate about my wife. Doesn't that count? After further consideration, I reject this notion. To place a passion, the definition of one's self, on the sheer presence of another in one's life places an unfair responsibility upon that person. It's living and defining my life using my significant other as a proxy. (I can't say I'm innocent of this as I have difficulty figuring out how to amuse myself alone while April is gone; but that's a topic for another day.)
What about my work? Working for a government agency which is the bread and butter for over 49 million Americans nationwide can easily be something that one could be passionate about. However, some aspects of my job require me to assume the worst of people rather than the best, which rubs against the grain of my personality and values. To that end, I do enjoy being in a position to help those who truly deserve it. Through my own experiences, I absolutely hate watching bad things happen to good people (I moreover hate being the barer of bad news to good people). I've occasionally had the means and the opportunity to give back to those who have given so much to others, and make a positive difference in their lives. That fuels me.
Now, this is not to say that my job is a source of passion for me. These opportunities are much too seldom to energize me through my day or give me any lasting sense of identity. However, it does illuminate to me aspects and values that may lead me closer to a concrete passion. But one question lingers on the horizon of this discovery:
Once I find this self-consuming passion, how will I balance it against my other priorities as a husband and as a father one day? Maybe this is why all those passionate friends I know are single.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Training
For the past three months, I have been working at the Staunton Social Security office, learning the job while exercising much of the information I assimilated while in Tampa. I knew I would eventually be shipped off to another office for my formal Service Representative training, though I never expected it to be very far.
Finally, the day came when I found out where I was going. It was not there in Staunton, nor 30 min north to Harrisonburg, East to the Charlottesville office, or an hour and a half south to Roanoke where the other SRs went for training. I was being sent to Danville, Va., A town 2.5 hours Southeast of Staunton, close to the North Carolina border. It's not a big town, so there's very little for entertainment. When April mentioned my destination to her co-workers at James Madison University, Danville was described as "the armpit of Virginia." The best part: I am training until the start of March 2010 (though I will come home for Thanksgiving, three weeks at Christmas, and one week at the start of February). Just wait, there's more. I have to unhook my desktop computer from my desk in Staunton, and take it with me because this office "doesn't have enough computers to go around".
When I get into town, I have to go straight to the office because there was not enough time to first head to the hotel and check in. When I set up the computer, we had some issues moving my user profile over to the this office and it turned out they have to re-image (or reformat) the hard drive on my machine so that their office server can recognize it. In the meantime, they switch out my tower for an extra one they had there at the office. Let me repeat that. They had to switch out the computer I had to lug from home because they didn't have enough computers, and replaced it...with an extra one. Well, I already brought the thing, so I might as well roll with it, right? I went around the office and met many of my future co-workers for the next three months, and proceeded through my work day. "This won't be so bad," I thought, "especially once I get back to the hotel, and I can check my email and put my feet up."
When I get to the hotel, I check in, head to my room, and continue to unpack. Once I got my computer hooked up, I quickly realized I didn't have any internet access despite the free internet advertised by the hotel. I opened the diagnostic applications for the networking and quickly noticed that I had access to the router, but it was not letting me through to the internet. After calling the front desk, they prompted me to go to the hotel website and a gateway page should pop up on the screen prompting me to put in a user name and password. So, I put in the website--and no gateway screen. Now what? I looked at the directions to access the internet found in the "welcome packet" on the room desk and notice that directions for setting up internet stop at Windows XP. Despite this, I still managed to follow them, despite some of the organizational differences between my VISTA OS and it's predecessor. Still nothing. At the top of the sheet, I notice there's a toll-free number to call for 24/7 assistance. Summoning the patience required to deal with Indian accents and scripted answers, I pick up the phone and dial. I quickly discover that this "help" number is "disconnected or no longer in service". Check-mate. Figuring I won't have internet that night, I head to bed, turn on the tube, and just make the best of it.
The next morning I was ready to get into a battle with the front desk people about my internet service, and ready to take my three-months of patronage elsewhere. After my free breakfast of cereal, coffee, and a bagel, I head to the front desk. After explaining to them what happened they asked if I had any firewalls up, but I explained that I had disabled them all with no resolve to the problem. Then, after asking if the CAT-5 jack in the wall of my room worked, they said, "yes it does. Do you need a cord?" And with that, presto! I've got internet!!
Elated that things were looking up, I headed to work. My computer (their tower, not mine) was up and running, I got to know more of the coworkers on a personal level, and I was even invited to one's wedding reception this Friday night (tomorrow).
After the invitation, it was back to my training class. As I sat there, listening to a satellite feed of talking heads, I got to thinking: perhaps this training is more than just job-specific SSA business. Perhaps this training is really a training on a greater scale of life. Yes, my situation isn't desirable: I'm being trained on a job I already know, I got sent to the "armpit of Virginia" to do it, and I'm far enough away from my family that I can't drive home during the week. But, I have learned repeatedly that we just have to roll with what we are given. It could be worse--I could have been sent across the country for training, or my hotel stay might not have been so accommodating in the midst of disappointment.
These and other life problems are only temporary, especially if we look to make the best of what we're given.
Finally, the day came when I found out where I was going. It was not there in Staunton, nor 30 min north to Harrisonburg, East to the Charlottesville office, or an hour and a half south to Roanoke where the other SRs went for training. I was being sent to Danville, Va., A town 2.5 hours Southeast of Staunton, close to the North Carolina border. It's not a big town, so there's very little for entertainment. When April mentioned my destination to her co-workers at James Madison University, Danville was described as "the armpit of Virginia." The best part: I am training until the start of March 2010 (though I will come home for Thanksgiving, three weeks at Christmas, and one week at the start of February). Just wait, there's more. I have to unhook my desktop computer from my desk in Staunton, and take it with me because this office "doesn't have enough computers to go around".
When I get into town, I have to go straight to the office because there was not enough time to first head to the hotel and check in. When I set up the computer, we had some issues moving my user profile over to the this office and it turned out they have to re-image (or reformat) the hard drive on my machine so that their office server can recognize it. In the meantime, they switch out my tower for an extra one they had there at the office. Let me repeat that. They had to switch out the computer I had to lug from home because they didn't have enough computers, and replaced it...with an extra one. Well, I already brought the thing, so I might as well roll with it, right? I went around the office and met many of my future co-workers for the next three months, and proceeded through my work day. "This won't be so bad," I thought, "especially once I get back to the hotel, and I can check my email and put my feet up."
When I get to the hotel, I check in, head to my room, and continue to unpack. Once I got my computer hooked up, I quickly realized I didn't have any internet access despite the free internet advertised by the hotel. I opened the diagnostic applications for the networking and quickly noticed that I had access to the router, but it was not letting me through to the internet. After calling the front desk, they prompted me to go to the hotel website and a gateway page should pop up on the screen prompting me to put in a user name and password. So, I put in the website--and no gateway screen. Now what? I looked at the directions to access the internet found in the "welcome packet" on the room desk and notice that directions for setting up internet stop at Windows XP. Despite this, I still managed to follow them, despite some of the organizational differences between my VISTA OS and it's predecessor. Still nothing. At the top of the sheet, I notice there's a toll-free number to call for 24/7 assistance. Summoning the patience required to deal with Indian accents and scripted answers, I pick up the phone and dial. I quickly discover that this "help" number is "disconnected or no longer in service". Check-mate. Figuring I won't have internet that night, I head to bed, turn on the tube, and just make the best of it.
The next morning I was ready to get into a battle with the front desk people about my internet service, and ready to take my three-months of patronage elsewhere. After my free breakfast of cereal, coffee, and a bagel, I head to the front desk. After explaining to them what happened they asked if I had any firewalls up, but I explained that I had disabled them all with no resolve to the problem. Then, after asking if the CAT-5 jack in the wall of my room worked, they said, "yes it does. Do you need a cord?" And with that, presto! I've got internet!!
Elated that things were looking up, I headed to work. My computer (their tower, not mine) was up and running, I got to know more of the coworkers on a personal level, and I was even invited to one's wedding reception this Friday night (tomorrow).
After the invitation, it was back to my training class. As I sat there, listening to a satellite feed of talking heads, I got to thinking: perhaps this training is more than just job-specific SSA business. Perhaps this training is really a training on a greater scale of life. Yes, my situation isn't desirable: I'm being trained on a job I already know, I got sent to the "armpit of Virginia" to do it, and I'm far enough away from my family that I can't drive home during the week. But, I have learned repeatedly that we just have to roll with what we are given. It could be worse--I could have been sent across the country for training, or my hotel stay might not have been so accommodating in the midst of disappointment.
These and other life problems are only temporary, especially if we look to make the best of what we're given.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Election Day: A Thought Experiment of Marital Proportions
On this election day, I find myself reading the headlines and finding myself taken aback by all the politicians admitting infidelities to their public and their families in just this past year. This got me thinking: what if we had to re-elect our spouse?
Think about it. What if our culture built monogamy upon a one-year term for the office of spouse? Would we be as likely to cheat knowing that our spouse could easily, and without judgment from the outside world, toss us to the curb? Wouldn't we be more likely to pay greater attention to our spouses, treating them as we did when we dated, if they could simply move on to the next candidate? If every year we had to demonstrate to our spouse that we were worthwhile to keep in office for another year?
Now, I understand that in today's statistics of divorce, this concept is growing increasingly less novel. However, it's simply a suggestion for the married ranks to simply consider the question: Do I take my spouse for granted?
So, as an exercise, ask your spouse if they would re-elect you; just don't be surprised to get a politician's answer.
Think about it. What if our culture built monogamy upon a one-year term for the office of spouse? Would we be as likely to cheat knowing that our spouse could easily, and without judgment from the outside world, toss us to the curb? Wouldn't we be more likely to pay greater attention to our spouses, treating them as we did when we dated, if they could simply move on to the next candidate? If every year we had to demonstrate to our spouse that we were worthwhile to keep in office for another year?
Now, I understand that in today's statistics of divorce, this concept is growing increasingly less novel. However, it's simply a suggestion for the married ranks to simply consider the question: Do I take my spouse for granted?
So, as an exercise, ask your spouse if they would re-elect you; just don't be surprised to get a politician's answer.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
"Edugate"
Many who know me and my political ideology know that I prefer to have an individual opinion void of a complete partisan platform. That said, I find that the most current partisan games have passed the line of embarrassment and I feel the need to comment.
In recent months, we have seen many headlines informing us of the increasing polarizing debates revolving around President Obama's actions and politics. The most recent reaction on the political right to Obama's speech encouraging our nation's youth to stay in school, however, is downright laughable.
While, I am not one to name one party more correct than another due to the complication of our nations many worthwhile issues, I feel this most recent speech uproar to be a front to our nation's intellect and common sense. Critics of the speech have stated that the president is attempting to "indoctrinate" our nation's youth. Or better yet, they state he is attempting to "hijack" the parental role. It seems that while the democrats are attempting to achieve the impractical, republicans are busy serving up a punch of fear on the "NObama" bandwagon. Snap out of it, America!
First off parents, your kids are in school because YOU put them there. They learn and do their homework at home because YOU enforce it. If they're still in school, it's because YOU-the parent-did the indoctrinating long before the president said a word. The only children who are going to feel the encouragement of staying in school from this speech are going to be the ones who don't get it at home. As for the rest, the president is simply reinforcing a message they get at home anyway.
Second, regardless of the source, is it really that bad to encourage a child to stay in school? I can imagine people being up in arms about the president coming on the air and giving a speech stating that BJ's don't count as adultery, or condoning polygamy, but staying in school? Honestly, if people are so hell-bent to hate the president and his politics, there has to be something better out there than getting our knickers in a bunch over his attempt to lower America's drop-out rate.
In reaction to the airing of the speech, many in-laws were ready to pull their children out of school for the day. So let me get this straight: our parents, so fearful of the evil message of "stay in school", have PULLED their kids out of school for the day, essentially undermining the original message to begin with-regardless of its source. I guess I shouldn't be surprised this reaction is coming from a party which advocates the spread of peace through massive preemptive bombing.
America, we need to get back on track talking about the issues which will have a lasting effect on our youth, rather than those built upon a foundation of fear. We need to have more thoughtful discussions about what to do about our failing systems of health care and border patrol, in addition to education. Let's not waste our breath on such frivolous matters as this. Honestly, it's embarrassing.
In recent months, we have seen many headlines informing us of the increasing polarizing debates revolving around President Obama's actions and politics. The most recent reaction on the political right to Obama's speech encouraging our nation's youth to stay in school, however, is downright laughable.
While, I am not one to name one party more correct than another due to the complication of our nations many worthwhile issues, I feel this most recent speech uproar to be a front to our nation's intellect and common sense. Critics of the speech have stated that the president is attempting to "indoctrinate" our nation's youth. Or better yet, they state he is attempting to "hijack" the parental role. It seems that while the democrats are attempting to achieve the impractical, republicans are busy serving up a punch of fear on the "NObama" bandwagon. Snap out of it, America!
First off parents, your kids are in school because YOU put them there. They learn and do their homework at home because YOU enforce it. If they're still in school, it's because YOU-the parent-did the indoctrinating long before the president said a word. The only children who are going to feel the encouragement of staying in school from this speech are going to be the ones who don't get it at home. As for the rest, the president is simply reinforcing a message they get at home anyway.
Second, regardless of the source, is it really that bad to encourage a child to stay in school? I can imagine people being up in arms about the president coming on the air and giving a speech stating that BJ's don't count as adultery, or condoning polygamy, but staying in school? Honestly, if people are so hell-bent to hate the president and his politics, there has to be something better out there than getting our knickers in a bunch over his attempt to lower America's drop-out rate.
In reaction to the airing of the speech, many in-laws were ready to pull their children out of school for the day. So let me get this straight: our parents, so fearful of the evil message of "stay in school", have PULLED their kids out of school for the day, essentially undermining the original message to begin with-regardless of its source. I guess I shouldn't be surprised this reaction is coming from a party which advocates the spread of peace through massive preemptive bombing.
America, we need to get back on track talking about the issues which will have a lasting effect on our youth, rather than those built upon a foundation of fear. We need to have more thoughtful discussions about what to do about our failing systems of health care and border patrol, in addition to education. Let's not waste our breath on such frivolous matters as this. Honestly, it's embarrassing.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Bigger isn't Always Better, It's Just More to Clean
When we're young, especially when growing up in America in the 1980's, it was easy to get swept away with the idea of buying bigger, better, and faster. If you were not living large, fast, and loose, then you weren't truly living.
This ideology found its way into many of my fantasies and games as a child. One in particular involved an issue of "Architectural Digest" wherein my brother, Nathan, and I would turn magazine pages which portrayed lavish homes with the latest styles and compete to see who could point and lay claim to the luxurious homes first. This usually took place at bedtime, and while I wasn't always the most gracious loser as a child (especially when tired), my mom said something to ease my pain one evening when I lost out on a priceless waterfront mansion in the East Hamptons. She said, "bigger isn't always better, Nick. It's just more to clean." At that, I felt like I was the winner, suddenly proud of claiming only one home in the Rancho Santa Fe mountains with half the square footage to clean.
This lesson of responsibility and care-taking certainly brings new meaning to my life as I grow older. As I look towards buying a home and starting a family in the next few years, it is suddenly becoming more apparent to me that the larger life becomes, the more my wife and I have to "keep clean". Now, not to say that any of these things is a burden. I enjoy the responsibilities that marriage brings and I love having a larger home. But, this is only to say that lifestyle perks come with responsibilities.
That night, mom cleverly used an opportunity to teach me an important life lesson as a means of cheering me up. It's easy to envy, its easy to want luxuries, but those luxuries come at a price. And, while those who think they've "won" this arbitrary race of life by having bigger and better, I can have the last laugh by tending to my life rather than my trophies.
This ideology found its way into many of my fantasies and games as a child. One in particular involved an issue of "Architectural Digest" wherein my brother, Nathan, and I would turn magazine pages which portrayed lavish homes with the latest styles and compete to see who could point and lay claim to the luxurious homes first. This usually took place at bedtime, and while I wasn't always the most gracious loser as a child (especially when tired), my mom said something to ease my pain one evening when I lost out on a priceless waterfront mansion in the East Hamptons. She said, "bigger isn't always better, Nick. It's just more to clean." At that, I felt like I was the winner, suddenly proud of claiming only one home in the Rancho Santa Fe mountains with half the square footage to clean.
This lesson of responsibility and care-taking certainly brings new meaning to my life as I grow older. As I look towards buying a home and starting a family in the next few years, it is suddenly becoming more apparent to me that the larger life becomes, the more my wife and I have to "keep clean". Now, not to say that any of these things is a burden. I enjoy the responsibilities that marriage brings and I love having a larger home. But, this is only to say that lifestyle perks come with responsibilities.
That night, mom cleverly used an opportunity to teach me an important life lesson as a means of cheering me up. It's easy to envy, its easy to want luxuries, but those luxuries come at a price. And, while those who think they've "won" this arbitrary race of life by having bigger and better, I can have the last laugh by tending to my life rather than my trophies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
