Bad relationships: The Andre and Eddie Editions

What’s up folks?

It’s been quite a week for me personally. I won’t go into all the details, but I’m single again. As it turns out, running the risk of publicly embarassing oneself by pouring out one’s heart out doesn’t work. In the end, I guess you can probably count on being kicked to the curb more than you can count on making a relationship work. Maybe my boy the Angry Independent – to my dismay – was more correct in his assessment of relationships than I was with mine. I’m just sorry I had to find out how wrong I was this way.

If you’re of the praying variety, please toss one or two up to God for me. This one may be a bit of a struggle for me. In fact, my love life in general is presenting itself as a living, breathing conflict.

But…moving on. Speaking of messed up relationships, if you thought the Eddie Long drama was over, think again:

There’s just no closure to this story, is there? And I thought I had relationship problems.

Anyway, after watching the clip above, I can glean a few things from the newest angle of this ongoing storyline:

(1) It’s pretty clear to me that this Centino Kemp dude and Fast Eddie have the same drug-influenced barber. Also, said barber should be dragged outside, tarred, and feathered. :-/

(2) Though it seems the media is bloodthirsty with their investigative reporting on the Eddie Long case, I believe them. And I believe the exchange between the two DID go down.

(3) This is what happens with figures of authority who are allowed to behave unchecked. A few months ago, friend and fellow pulpit pimp Crefalo Dollar defended Long from his accusations and took it a step further by addressing visitors from Long’s church pretty harshly. Likening Long’s problems to a “wreck”, Dollar spoke of hypocrisy and judging others, while at the same time conflating two important principles in our faith: forgiveness  AND accountability. Bishop Long (and I use the term ”Bishop” very loosely) didn’t just have a “wreck.” This wasn’t just some fender bender or hitting a bump in the road. Long, Dollar, and a sizable number of these pulpit pimps are guilty of the equivalent of a DUI; driving under the influence of power, ego, and a lack of accountability. Rather than accepting the accountability and responsibility that comes with being in their position, they quickly retreat to “Judge not, lest ye be judged” when they find themselves immersed in controversy. And then, when a person shifts gears from adamantly denying accusations in public to offering private settlements, forgiveness becomes a foreign concept. If you haven’t confessed your sins to those who deserve it, how can you truly expect their forgiveness?

(4) Finally, I feel for Long’s wife, in addition to the countless other casualities of their mate’s sordidness. I don’t know why she decided to be with Long; if it was out of true love, money, status, or whatever. The purpose of their union would likely impact the extent to which I sympathize with her. But being absent of that knowledge, I have to defer to the assumption she truly loves/loved him. In which case, she undeservedly had to endure the public embarassment from her husband’s indiscretions. I’ve been down that road – though obviously not on that scale. I can tell you, nothing is more hurtful than feeling betrayed and unwanted.

But candor dictating, I’m not shocked by anything anymore, particularly when it comes to the disfunction of human relationships. While it’s true I don’t carry the same cyncism inside me that I once did, I do realize the frailty of humans and what appears to be an inability to connect with one another on certain levels. There are undoubtedly success stories – and for a while I thought I had one – but they are too far and in between (especially with the people I know). Things just aren’t the way they were with our parents and grandparents.

OK, I’m gonna stop there. Before I lay down a series of blanketed statements and jaded views of the world, I’m going to belay those thoughts in favor of the belief that the world has NOT lost its mind and that positive relationships ARE attainable. For all the disappointing relationship I’ve had and – in no connection – for all the Eddie Longs of the world, all is not completely lost.

I’ve rambled enough. What say you?

- ACL

Raising the Roof

From guest columnist The Hippie Conservative:

Right now, as we speak, there is a serious debate going on in the halls of Congress. The debate centers around our Nation Debt and how we will attempt to reduce it before we go the way of other debt-ridden countries like Greece,  Portugal, Ireland, Spain,  Italy and frankly, too many more to mention. Most of these countries share two traits; one, they have  approached the 100% debt to GDP ratio (as we also have) and two, they are being put on welfare by the the IMF and the World Bank. The biggest difference between us and them is the second part, for no one on this planet is big enough to bail us out. 

There are two approaches to solving this problem and they are NOT mutually exclusive.

The first is to raise “revenue” (the new code word by the Dems for taxes) and the second is cutting spending which is favored by the Reps. The problem is; neither side is being even remotely honest about the options we have or the consequences that we may face. In this piece I will try to disseminate what is really going on and how we could possibly save ourselves before we find ourselves in fiscal ruin. I’m warning you in advance; this is going to be full of boring numbers. However, I’ll try my best to keep it light.

First, let’s understand where we are.

We spend far more than we take in. About $.40 of every dollar we spend is borrowed; some of it from counties that are using that debt to leverage us into deals that are not favorable to our own interest. Debt to GDP ratio is used  by lenders in much the same way that equity in your house is used. Reach 100%, and it becomes unlikely that anyone will lend to you anymore (which is why the problem is different now than before under Bush, Clinton, or Reagan.). The spending can be broke down into four main entitlement programs; Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and Social Security  Disability Income (SS and SSDI are usually grouped together). Also on the table is the Military which, with three running wars that are unpaid for, uses about as much as any one of the entitlement programs. Together they consume approximately 63% of our budget. The debt itself consumes over 6% (in interest) and the remainder is mostly education, Government function and transportation infrastructure. Considering that 70% of the budget is focused on entitlement, military and the debt interest, it is impossible for us to address the problem without cutting those programs unless we raise more “revenue”.

For the Dems that’s an easy fix. Simply raise taxes on the rich. In fact, that’s their answer for everything. The main tenet of Liberalism is simple; the answer to ever problem is more government programs paid for by someone that isn’t them. I’m sorry people, but to a Moderate Centralist like me, that’s all I hear.  The problem with Rich people, as I like to say, is that they won’t keep coming to the same corner to be robbed. However, for the sake of argument, let’s see if that is even possible.

The biggest gripe the Dems have is the Bush Tax Cuts. The biggest lie that they tell you is; without it, we wouldn’t be in this situation and would be back into surpluses like we had under Clinton. There are several things wrong with that statement. The Bush tax cuts (for purposes of this piece I’ll include both the 2001 and 2003 cuts) didn’t amount to nearly enough to cover our borrowing. In fact, all 10 years of it would basically only erase this year’s deficit. Not the past 9 years. It’s a clever piece of wordplay, “Without the Bush Tax cuts, we wouldn’t have this deficit.” Correct, if you’re only counting this year’s. The second deception is that they use numbers that include ALL the Bush Tax cuts, not just the part that benefited the wealthy. Those include deductions for dependents, rebates, and raises in the Standard Deduction. While it’s true the bulk of the cuts went to the wealthy, including these cuts to the poor and middle class, it is dishonest in the way it’s presented. Let’s take a quick look at the income tax cut for the wealthiest Americans for example. Bush cut their rates from 39.6% to 35%, a decrease of approx. 5 percentage points or roughly 12% of their tax burden. Given that we get about $ 1 trillion in “revenue” from Federal income taxes and the rich pay about 90% of those revenues, we get;  $1 trillion x .12 = 120 billion divided by 90% = $108 billion a year. That’s a nice start, but a loooong way from solving our $1.4 trillion deficit. If you included every part of the Bush cuts that benefit the top 10% (like capital gains, estate tax, etc.), the highest number I can come up with is about $160 billion a year.  Again, I would support this, but it’s not the solution on it’s own. We have about $1.24 trillion to go.

Another gripe is; the Bush wars were unfunded. Well, that’s partially true. Some of the cost we would have had anyway. It’s not like military spending just stops when we’re not at war.We spend about $700 billion on defense and it’s hard to see a way we could reduce that by much since most of that is simply maintaining the military. A lot of the actual war cost was funded through one-time appropriations which would put it outside of the 70% we’re trying to cut . Accounting all the defense budget as being a target for cutting is once again dishonest. However, stopping all the wars (which I’m in favor of) would definitely save money through contracts. My research only showed that defense contract accountability needs to be stepped up. A safe number would be $ 100 billion saved a year. On the actual defense budget side,  I’ll go with the the Bowles-Simpson plan which recommended $100 billion in cuts. So, we would save another $200 billion which would bring us to $1.04 trillion. Still a long way to go.

Probably the single most dishonest thing that is being chanted by the media is that without a raise in the debt ceiling, we will “most likely” go into default. If that’s the “most dishonest”, then this statement is the second most dishonest, “Social Security checks won’t go out.” Both are patently not true unless the Obama administration makes them true. How would we not go into default? One solution is simple-print money. During the celebrated QE1 and it’s sister, QE2, the Treasury printed hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars. Why can’t we just print more? Unlike borrowing, printing doesn’t go on the debt. Social Security is also not the problem. S.S is almost completely self supporting. Why would they stop those checks then? The same reason your local school cuts busing when a millage fails; they want YOU to suffer, not them.

On the Republican side I hear only one argument, “Taxes of any sort will stifle the economy.” I would rate this as true to a point. The best way to tax is to tax prosperity, that’s what Clinton did. Taxing people when they are struggling however, particularly small business, practically guarantees that more will fail. That’s not rocket science. However, marginal tax increases on companies that aren’t struggling, like the oil companies, seems necessary. This is a well we have to be careful not to drain. Never in history has it been easier for companies to yank up their headquarters signs and move to some place more tax friendly. If you want an example, look at Michigan. I am convinced that there is a small amount that can be taken without pushing them out. How much depends on the company and it’s situation. I would warn anyone who thinks taxing corporations is the solution to think again. They won’t, and don’t have to, keep coming to the same corner to be robbed.

In conclusion, we are in dire straits. We CAN NOT tax our way out of this. The Democrats that are selling that line are simply lying to you. What they are really telling you is that we won’t commit suicide if we go up a couple of floors before we jump. The truth is; it will just take longer to fall and we’ll hit the bottom harder. We CAN NOT avoid cutting entitlements…I’m sorry. Taxing to alleviate some of the pain is necessary, but is not the solution. Democrats get fired for cutting social programs and entitlements. Republicans get fired for raising taxes. Both sides are fighting to blame the other for the cuts and taxes that both sides know is necessary. The only solution is forgiving both sides and taking the medicine for our sickness of spending too much and taking in too little.

- H.C.

The Hippie Conservative blogs at http://thehippieconservative.blogspot.com/

Code Switch-A-Roo: The Challenge of Being Black and Professional

An odd thing happened to me at work yesterday.

So, I’m in my office having an impromtu meeting with a colleague; when all of a sudden, I get a surprise phone call from a guy I knew growing up. I wouldn’t call him a friend, per se, so I admit I was a bit taken back by the call. This guy easily fits the bill as one of my “cousins ‘nem” – a gentle euphemism I typically use to describe fellow black people who are – how do I put this nicely? – ghetto as hell. As it turns out, he’s been away for a minute but is looking to turn his life around. In particular, he’s finishing up his GED and is thinking about going to college (Endless kudos to him. Straight talk). He wanted to get some insight about the campus and found out through mutual friends on Facebook that I worked there. The passage of information through the grapevine of social networking. Sh*t.

Let me take this quick moment to digress…

I, along with countless black professionals, occasionally find myself in the unenviable position of resorting to the practice of code-switching; the process by which a person alters their communicative style in an effort to more closer align with the people or settings in which they find themselves. Remember the flack Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took when he said (then Senator) Obama didn’t have a negro dialect? Well, most black people – at least the ones with any ties to the ‘hood - have some kind of ‘negro dialect.’ It’s becomes the onus of the black professional to determine when it’s appropriate and, perhaps, sensible to turn it on and off. **End of digression.**

Anyway, back to the story. I don’t know what possessed me to answer the phone at that moment, but I wish I hadn’t. Because the moment I picked up that receiver, I bore witnessed to the paradoxical intersection of the ‘hood and white-collar employment. Due to my fateful decision to answer the phone, the two worlds I’ve worked so assiduously to keep seperated collided. The very core of both my cultural and professional identities were put to the test. Do I flip the code-switch off and meet this dude’s ‘hood with my own while simultaneously running the risk of having my professionalism questioned, or do I keep the code-switch on and come across as an Oreo who has lost touch with the ‘hood roots from which I came? I tell you: this is the kind of perplexing struggle in cognitive dissonance that I wouldn’t wish on even my worst enemy.

In the end, I kept the conversation brief, with most of my responses limited to one or two carefully selected words. I disguised the conversation well enough, I think, so my co-workers (all within listening range of me) or the person in my office could’t entirely decipher what was being said. But I think I also accomplished the feat of not coming across as being bougie to this guy (not that what he thinks about me matters at all, but the next time this could be somebody closer to me). All told, I think I walked away from this one relatively unscathed. But what will happen the next time these two worlds meet is anybody’s guess.

All this time I thought drinking and driving were a bad combination. But that’s got nothing on the deadly cocktail of being black and professional. OK, maybe I’m getting a bit dramatic here. But, still.

- ACL

Worshipping On the Other Side of the Tracks

As some of my older readers may remember from the time spent on my previous blog, I was in heavy contemplation about whether or not to stay at my old church. I’ve since left that church, trying my hand at another church newly pastored by a friend who was also a former member of my old church. But after spending a few months there and putting up with as many shennangians as I could, I decided that church wasn’t a fit for me either. So my girlfriend and I – sick to death of all the coonery that we’ve discovered in predominately black churches over the years - decided to defect and try our luck at a church with a cultural environment entirely different to what we were accustomed. In short, we started attending a predominately white church.

After a few months now, let’s put it this way: this will take some getting used to.

First off, the pros. As I stated earlier, we were seeking a church free of all the coonery that has become a staple of Flint church-hoodedness (not a word, but you get the point). I was pleasantly surprised to see that our new church offers a refreshing departure from all that mess. An example of some of the buffoonery you WON’T see there:

On top of that, you won’t see egotistical preachers who feel the need to force their members to kiss their rings in total submission. You won’t see begging ass people trying to scam (um, I mean), scripturally Deebo (um, I mean) encourage you into giving your hard earned money to the church without leadership having the least bit of accountability. You won’t see people tripping out about the clothes you wear. In fact, I see just as many people wearing  jeans, shorts, and t-shirts as I see wearing suits and dresses (which, by the way, don’t come with glitter, neon colors, or matching hats). You won’t see people driving fancy cars that were purchased above and beyond their means. You won’t see this church vying to be the top dog out of all the other hundred churches in the area.

What you will see is a church on the move; committed to advancing the Gospel (they quite literally have mission programs both stateside and abroad), outstanding activities and events for youth, a multi-million dollar budget that gets used and accounted for with the utmost fiscal responsibility, and an environment that has far more “little you’s” than “Big I’s”. Even the pastoralship is divided amongst five people. How often can you say that about a black church?

Now, the cons. First, my girlfriend, her son, and I stick out like sore thumbs. Therein lies a major struggle for me. This may sound pretty modest and self-congratulatory on my part, but I HATE being the center of attention. Yet that’s precisely the case at my new church. Assimilation, I’m discovering, is not a simple thing; especially when race is in play and is so blatantly at the forefront. If you find yourself out of place because of - let’s say - the way you dress, simply wear what other people are wearing and disappear in the crowd (not a good example because, again, dress is not an issue there. But you get what I’m trying to say). But unfortunately for us, we can’t jump into new skin suits, akin to maybe something Foghorn Leghorn would do in the cartoons. I suppose being the standouts has some advantages though, but even those advantages raise unique questions all their own. For instance, people know us there…usually by name…and seem very interested in learning about us. I have to admit, however, that my interaction with many of the members of the congregation often feels like they’re taking a pop quiz on political correctness, with them internally saying ”Let’s show these black people how colorblind we are by being so uber-friendly to them.” I question whether we’d get the same treatment if we were a white family; people far more likely to blend in the crowd undetected. Or it could be that they’re just very friendly folks.

What’s funny to me is that for their attempts to learn about us through chit chats and subtle probing, there are some aspects that members of the congregation haven’t even touched yet. To date, the majority of the members think my girlfriend and I are married; a sentiment which – in their defense – we haven’t exactly made a consistent point of correcting. The few members who do eventually find out that we’re only dating are usually embarrassed by their initial assumptions about our marital status, but then use our situation as a cultural learning tool. For them, I suspect, the idea of a single mother dating a man who is not the child’s biological father is pretty atypical and falls prodigiously outside of their more-traditional upbringing. Meanwhile, our situation is not only commonplace in the so-called “black community”, but it’s almost like it’s an unspoken bylaw. You would be hard-pressed to find the “Black guy marries high school sweetheart and only then has a family” scenario play out anywhere except for on the Cosby show. I thought the fact that we don’t wear rings and don’t have the same last names would have been a dead giveaway. But I guess not.

What’s most hilarious to me (and maybe most problematic) is the order of service. The service is admittedly well-timed; getting out no later than 12:15, which I can appreciate. But prior to the sermon, which is my favorite and most fulfilling part of service, I have to suffer though approximately 45 minutes of cheerless singing and epic levels of boring. They use PowerPoint (ugh) to flash the lyrics to each song on the screen as we sing to the tune. The singing is led by a Praise Team – comprised of approximately four to five people armed with microphones, or a choir. Accompanying the singing is a team of musicians including a small orchestra at ground level. Admittedly, I know less than 5% of the songs, but I do my best to keep up. I find myself gamely singing along and - in some cases – actually getting into the song (being the musician and music lover I am). But then – right when I think I’ve got the song down - there is invariably some part of the tune that completely throws me for a loop. It might be change of tempo, a series of words you have to squeeze into a single line, whatever. In response, I usually stop singing at that point, resentful because I don’t know what to expect next. Follow this same process for three to four more songs and you have what makes up the morning worship service. I love Sunday School (which unconventionally takes place AFTER morning service), but I’m usually so ready to go home by that time, that I have a hard time even caring about the lesson.

Obviously, I still have plenty of growing to do in the spirit. As pastor pointed out today, no matter how spirtually mature we think we are, there is no way we can outgrow matters of the Spirit. I agree with that 100%. What makes me wonder, though, is whether my growth can be at this church or not. I’ll give it a try and hope for the best. What I do know from this and all my other experiences is that church-hopping is not the end all/be all solution to whatever is spiritually hindering you. In fact, in making my point, I’d be remiss not to include this funny analogy from my pastor a few weeks ago:

Once there was a man stranded on an island. After being rescued from the island and knowing he’d never see this place again, he asked the pilot to do one last flyover. Looking down with him, the pilot asked the man about the three buildings he saw down there. Said the man, “The first building was a small house I made. The second was a church I made. The last building was the church I moved to.”

The point of the story was to warn us that changing churches as often as we change underware may not be the solution. Some of the problems we are escaping at one place could easier show up at the next place; especially if we’re the ones carrying them around.

Time will tell how far this place takes me on my journey.

- ACL

Slavery and The Family Stone: Why Conservatives STILL Don’t Get It

Reason Why Republicans Just Don’t Get It #423

Republican presidential frontrunner Michelle Bachmann and fellow lagging candidate Rick Santorum both recently signed a highly controversial document in support of family values. The document – “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family” from Family Leader, a conservative group in Iowa, contained some pretty hot button topics; urging the candidates to reject same-sex marriage, pornography, and Sharia law. But the item generating the most controversy was a claim attempting to somehow link slavery to modern day family values. To wit, the document claimed that “…a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

After public outcry, vow has been revised omitting the line. But not before the intrepid host of this blog got my hands on the original version.

In their attempt the whitewash the damage already done, a spokesman from the group issued the following statement:

After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued, and such misconstruction can detract from the core message of the Marriage Vow: that ALL of us must work to strengthen and support families and marriages between one woman and one man. We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow.

Source

Sure.

First, the comparisons between slavery and today are simply ludicrous with no real account of history. While it’s true that over the past few decades – especially since the Civil Rights movements – there has been a noted disintegration of the black family and abortion wasn’t exactly popularized during slavery, these people from Family Leader are clearly absent of one of the true atrocities of slavery. How many families were broken up as slaves were sold off like cattle? How much mating was forced on blacks to produce more able-bodied slaves? How many family lineages were destroyed after slave owners raped and impregnated enslaved women? If conservatives nt to focus on the voluntary disintegration of the family (if there ever was such a thing), using slavery for political points is preposterous.

It’s silliness like this that will all, but assure that Blacks as a whole will never support the Republican agenda. Even as black people generally hold many of the same morally (if not socially) conservative views as Republicans, they also recognize the consistent practice of conservatives to casually and insensitively make observations that completely ignore history. Even now when conservatives offer scathing analyses of black pathologies in the modern day, they fail to do so with proper social context. In short, they love to point out the problem areas, but never take into account the social factors in play that precipitate certain behaviors. Look no further than the recent trends of ahistoricism we’ve seen from neocons and Tea Party activists who have made deities of the Founding Fathers, while conveniently ignoring the legacy of slavery by which many of them benefitted.

Secondly, I can’t say enough about how annoying it is to watch conservatives sing the same off-key song about the sanctity of marriage and family; resting their case by rallying against wedlock and single parenthood found in the so-called “black community.” They love to spout off damning statistics which vilify blacks who have children born out of wedlock but will sit quiet when whites do the same thing. Uh, anybody ever watch MTV’s hit reality show Teen Mom? Lest my point be completely lost, can we not forget about one, Bristol Palin, who stands proof-positive that being a pregnant, unwed white girl is formula for success? Between her book, a TV show, and serious cash for being a “motivational speaker”, we have some evidence (albeit, outlying evidence) that single motherhood is not viewed in the same light for everyone. *As a side note: it’s odd to me that conservatives will decry having babies out of wedlock while ALSO trying to dictate reproduction rights.*

Third, what’s the deal with this vow nonsense anyway? Republicans (and yes, Democrats too) have a history of breaking promises, especially as it relates to marriage. So exactly what kind of legitimacy should we expect out of this? Candor dictating, I’m sick to death of hearing white conservatives acting as if they are somehow the exemplars of morality when – in reality – they are the complete antithesis. We have seen countless examples (and this is just in recent years) of “family values” conservatives involved in all sorts of kinky stuff. So it stands to reason that signing cheesy pledges will not stop anyone, including people vying for the White House, from engaging in the very same practices they claim to abhor.

Finally, backtracking on a statement doesn’t remove the sentiment behind it…at least, as the case may be, in politics. Most of us can make a claim or comment that is factually incorrect or unknowingly insensitive. And when brought to our attention, we simply say “I’m sorry. I was wrong. Please accept my apology.” But in this instance, one has to wonder if Family Leader and conservatives of that ilk truly sincerely remorseful or if they believe what they are saying and are just offering a damage-control apology. I don’t know much about Family Leader, I’ll be the first to admit. But following the history of conservative politics, I’d bet they have little for which they are truly apologetic. I’m pretty confident statements like this and sentiments like theirs will continually find there way into headlines…immediately following some tepid apology. Let’s face it: that’s just how they roll.

Like anything, though, I suppose there is a silver lining here. At least in the preamble, they pointed out how “disastrous” slavery was. Baby steps, right?

- ACL

Casey Anthony – Open Thread

So, despite lying like a Persian rug, Casey Anthony has been acquitted of murdering her two-year old daughter Caylee. In what has been compared to the now infamous OJ murder case, Anthony enjoyed a similar verdict to that of Mr. Orenthal James. Though the jury found her guilty of lying to police, she may get a light sentence due to time already served.

I freely admit that I haven’t been following the story very religiously. You know how I tend to get with stories about missing white girls/women. So I open the floor to you. What do you think of the case? Was justice or injustice served? What do you think of the media attention? What are your thoughts on any or all of this?

Aaaand, go.

- ACL

Questions

I’ve been bugging my close friend and fellow blogger The Hippie Conservative to get back into the blogging game. Despite my best efforts to get him back to his outstanding writing, he’s been on the shelf, save his frequent comments on my and a few other blogs. But he finally cleared the dust off his typewriter (I’m joking. I’m sure he doesn’t use a typewriter. It’s a quell and ink, right?) and get back to writing. So here’s a piece from my friend and guest columnist, The Hippie Conservative.

Is there a God? Am I living in a matrix? What’s the meaning of my existence? Do I even exist? These are questions that have plagued mankind since language first allowed us to ponder our inner thoughts. These aren’t the kind of questions, however, that routinely get me in trouble.
The questions that I’ve been asking , and that have gotten me kicked off of Myspace and Facebook sites, are a little more challenging to the norm. An example would be, “Why do black and poor people support abortion when it targets their children?” or “If guns are the problem, why are the majority of the murders in this country disproportionately in one small area of any city?” Every since I was a little kid growing up on the North Side of Flint, Michigan, I’ve had a fascination with questions and, more importantly to me, the response that they would get from people. Most of these questions have gotten me into trouble or arguments… or even fights.

I love questions.

Questions are the best way to see if someone truly believes what they are saying or if they are just regurgitating pabulum fed to them by someone else. Questions are great for getting your point across without making a real statement or opinion of your own. Questions keep authority honest; governments from going completely corrupt and people from becoming mindless ideological zombies.

People often quote Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist, who once famously said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” However, the best part of the quote is often left out, “The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” In short, Goebbels was saying that questions and the resulting dissent are the enemy of propaganda.

I couldn’t agree more. No one who is lying likes to be questioned; no one that is unsure of his values likes being questioned, no one that has committed a crime, no one that is unfaithful, and no one that is dishonest. Questions are the air that floats the truth to the surface. For those that seek to manipulate you, questions are the enemy.

For those of you that don’t know me, it’s easy to mistake me for a simple troublemaker or someone who is trying to change your point of view. The truth is; I don’t care that much what you do or don’t believe. I have many friends on both the right and left and I refuse to see either side as the enemy. Remember, fear and hate is how they control you. I’m simply fascinated with how you have gotten to your point of view and how you defend that view. In my 50+ years on this planet, I’ve learned it’s far easier to get someone thinking than to change their mind. The hope is that they will come to a better conclusion if they will allow the most important questions-the ones you ask yourself.

So, since my good friend Andre was kind (crazy?) enough to allow me to guest write here, I thought I would start with a few questions, Since most of you have heard some of my questions, or will hear them in the future, I thought it would be nice to first have you ask me a few. Nothing is off limits except my name or identifying factoids (such as my social security number). Some of the answers may surprise you since a lot of my time here has been spent trying to figure out you, not telling you what I really believe. Take your best shot, because after this, the questions will all be mine. I promise they won’t be easy.

- H.C.

The Hippie Conservative blogs at http://thehippieconservative.blogspot.com/