My Political Journey

Intro Blerb

I started out 2019 as a very disaffected registered Republican. I grew up in a conservative house, that believed in pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, buying used cars and generally saving as much money as you can so that you can get out of your situation (‘you got yourself in this mess, you get yourself out’ mentality). From what I could see, there were Democrats that didn't know how to hold intelligent debate and wanted to increase taxes on middle class people to give handouts that didn't do anything and then on the other side there existed the Republican foil. I also believe that life starts at conception, and I knew that the Republicans had my back and Democrats did not. At age 21 I would get to cast my first vote in national politics and I ruthlessly researched the field of 16 Republicans, because I didn't want to speak with a vote without having first used my brain. As I researched that election cycle, I began to notice some really silly things within the GOP that I hadn't noticed before... Prior to casting a vote in 2016, I couldn't believe how crazy the climate-change denialism in the mainstream Republican party had gotten, or how mean-spirited and horrible Trump behaved (and how every other politician running was more concerned with personal power rather than conceding and consolidating), or how every life seemed precious to the Republican party until it was born (granted that's extremely skeptical and none of these things reflect all Republicans, just most elected ones from what I've seen). Despite those things, as someone who was pro-life and anti-big-government I didn't think I could ever find a home outside the GOP. Some Republican rhetoric was good (Chris Christie had a great speech about making sure we are caring for people and being pro-life for drug addicts, single mothers, homeless, etc) and I thought my best option was to stay in the Republican party and try to change things from the inside-out. With that said, once Donald Trump was obviously going to win the primary I knew I needed to start looking at other options for the general election because I couldn’t see myself supporting him.

In 2016, I went through a libertarian swing and even voted Libertarian in my safe state of Oregon. I liked the libertarians in the race partially because they pointed out inefficiencies in government, Trump's silliness and how Hillary Clinton was a less-than-ideal candidate. For those that aren't aware, libertarians are also pro-weed and anti-foreign intervention, pro-freedom (economic and personal) and all of those ideas immediately or eventually resonated with me by election time that year (by the way, weed should not be scheduled at the same level as heroin; just saying). I liked both Gary Johnson and Bill Weld; their quirky charm and a lot of their ideas, but after further research I started to take issues with a growing number of libertarian ideals. Libertarians are pro-economic freedom, but their view on life assumes we all have very similar economic opportunities and that corporations will generally sit to the sidelines and not involve themselves in rigging systems of government to work for them—both unfortunately well intended but untrue. Unlike some friends, I assume that libertarians are generally good people that have a different perspective, and I always appreciate their input even if I don't think a government run by libertarians would be a good one. Ultimately, if I didn't believe in a party I knew I needed to switch again, and I might as well look at Democrats now that it was 2019.

The Dems

Sometime in February of 2019, a video came across my recommended feed on YouTube that was a long-form interview with a democratic candidate. I took a leap and watched my very first Joe Rogan video that was an informal sit-down with Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang... and I was blown away by what I heard. Yang is driven by facts and data, and especially at this portion in his run he was unabashed in his beliefs. His message of ‘AI is coming at a breakneck pace and our government is unprepared’ ended up being a great lead-in. He's absolutely right that many of today's jobs will disappear and economic power will continue to consolidate upwards (look at Jeff Bezos), and my brain instantly went to a place of imagining a technological feudal age (extra reading), which could eventually lead to "corporation kingdoms". I listened in earnest to what else Yang had to say and then he threw in his bit on Universal Basic Income (which I was not initially for; if you remember my anti-handout upbringing) but by the end of the interview I went from a skeptic of UBI to open to more research. Even more surprising was my interest in a single-payer ‘Medicare for All’ (as advocated at the time by Andrew Yang). Turns out that a Single-Payer M4A does a good job at taking care of people's most basic human needs—which fit in very nicely with my pro-life stance—as well as providing people with economic freedom to move from a job without fear that their family will lack health care. Yang also talked about using economic pressure to get universities to lower their costs, and so I absolutely had to look up the rest of his policies. Sure enough, his site was great and each viewpoint was explained and researched to a very satisfactory degree to the point of it only taking 4 policies to push me over the edge to become a supporter (where a single-payer M4A, Ranked Choice Voting, the American Scorecard and UBI). I joined a few Yang-Gangs online, and over the course of 2019 donated $60 directly to the campaign and bought around $50 in merch (proceeds go towards the campaign). Yang didn't do amazing during the first two debates but in subsequent ones his performance got significantly better. It was clear that he had a lot of good ideas, but it was also clear that his standing nationally wasn't moving very quickly. So I started to research the rest of the Democratic candidates more in depth, and found it immediately disappointing. From my initial research, it appeared that there several different types of people running for the 2020 nomination; including good people who had sold out (Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker), bad eggs (Kamala Harris, Tim Ryan, etc.), Bland Eggs (John Delaney, Mayor Pete, Amy Klobuchar, etc.), an incompetent egg (Joe!) and some anti-establishment people who ranged from Marianne Williamson to Bernie Sanders (who seemed to be saying the same thing now as he did in 2016). Even though the majority of candidates were disappointing to me, the more I dove into the anti-establishment ones the more I liked what I saw.

The "Left"

The anti-establishment general vibe was 'the DNC isn't that great, but Trump needs to go, and then we can work to reform our party' and I was instantly endeared to that message (as someone who also has no affinity towards the democratic party). Furthermore, they were not turning down Republicans and they even went a step further to try to reach out to conservatives wherever possible by bringing them around to their perspective. All of them acknowledge that we want to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps but they have the same rhetoric as MLK who said

“it is cruel jest to say to a bootless man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps.” 

They get that a large part of economic and personal freedom is having the ability to make choices with your money, and you can’t do that if you’re constantly on the bottom half trying desperately to claw your way up and don't have any money. Means tested benefits (or what I thought were handouts) can be cruel, and is a way to turn people against each other (the working class against the truly destitute) while the rich oligarchs who run our country continue to profit on the backs of working people, who must sell their time to survive. This was a revolutionary shift within my thinking, and even processing it now is crazy. The bottom line is that things that other Countries consider a basic part of life are viewed by many in the US as socialistic (national healthcare, paid maternity leave, overtime protection, etc.) and my tune was starting to change significantly.

The left (and the 2020 anti-establishment candidates) also point out that even though a lot of government programs have issues in the way they are run, a lot of the reason is that either profit motives get in the way or their non-universal nature means that the rich can put poor people on it, and then take away resources, claim it doesn’t work and then ax the program. I had always seen the left as complaining SJW’s who need safe spaces and are afraid of intelligent debate, but as I dove in I found out that that crowd is a very small subset of the online Social Left, not the Political/Economic Left. Obviously no presidential competitor in the democratic primary is going to come down on the side of being pro-life when it comes to abortion, but these candidates have shown that they are pro-life on everything after birth. Also, many of the policies that the anti-establishment candidates want would lower abortions, because abortions are the last choice anyone wants to make anyway and when you remove a lot of the barriers for having kids then people will probably decide to have kids. They have shown that they are on the side of working people and trying to make life better for all of us. Hell, the Left even agrees with Libertarians in their anti-war rhetoric, as both sides believe it’s wasteful spending, kills people and gives stupid amounts of money to military contractors who specifically benefit by worldwide chaos and violence. Even though I don’t agree with all of the Social Left, I am finding a happy home within the Economic and Political Left unlike any home I’ve politically had before.

Cut to Now:

Many bland and bad eggs have dropped and shifted (yay, Pete is now more bad-egg than bland-egg), and the Democratic Party continues to be a horrible mess. The establishment wing is basically at war with the leading Anti-Establishment candidate, and they are doing everything in their power to muddy the waters and create confusion around this “socialist”. Pelosi is running the house horribly and shot her party in the foot when she pushed for impeachment even though it was doomed in the Senate and when we pretty-much knew that acquittal would lead to a Trump surge. Generally, Democrats in Congress don’t tend to really have much of a voice or idea of what they stand for other than “Not Trump” and “Not Republican” and even that doesn’t mean hardly anything because many congressional democrats are playing the same corrupt corporatist game. There are some exceptional Democrats serving who I can agree with on many things (Bernie Sanders, Rashida Tlaib, Ron Wyden, etc.) but I’d say that by and large the corporatists outweigh the good ones by quite a lot. Not only is there all that BS to deal with, but there is a constant stream of conveniently timed press releases and shady stats coming out of the Iowa Caucus, and there is some really strong evidence that the Democratic Party was trying to cheat in Mayor Pete’s favor. I firmly believe that after this election the party either needs to be reformed so it becomes a party that celebrates democracy (and doesn’t have freaking Super Delegates), or it needs to be destroyed and a new left party needs to rise up instead.

The more research I went through, the more dubious I was towards Elizabeth Warren, and even though I was endeared to the Hawaiian Congresswoman Tulsi, it is clear the smear campaigns and work by the establishment wing had achieved its effort and she is no longer viable nationally. This left me with Bernie Sanders, who I had been defending from smears for awhile (he may not have been 'my guy' but I wasn’t going to allow people to trash him just because they didn’t understand him. The more I looked into Bernie Sanders, the more common ground I found. I do still have disagreements with him (I don’t think that the Federal Jobs Guarantee is going to go flawlessly) I generally found myself agreeing with his perspectives and subsequent policies. He went from being someone I wasn’t actively considering in the primary to being my second choice through his consistency, steadfastness, honesty and some honest-to-God really good policies (broadband for all?! Hellllll yes).

All that to say,

I was willing to support Andrew Yang as long as he was viable and give him everything I reasonably could by throwing my voice and money behind him whenever possible. Given Andrew Yang's performance in Iowa however, and his wishy-washy-ness towards a single-payer Medicare for All, I do not think that his time for leadership is now. I cannot express how thankful I am for having his voice in this cycle, because he has shifted the overton window a ton in so many ways: on UBI, AI, and making people aware of how many humans are suffering in our current system. I still love listening to his interviews, and I think that he’s a genuinely good guy who will make an awesome leader when his time comes. I also have fully come around to the idea of UBI, and I think it’s only a matter of time until others join me there as well. With all that being said, considering Sanders' huge surge, consistency and generally good ideas I've decided to support Sanders going forward. I know that he will be a voice for the people, and will do what he can to make things better.

I’m not voting “Blue No Matter Who”,

I'm a registered Democrat,

I strongly dislike the Democratic Party,

I’m supporting Bernie Sanders in the primary

Responses to Commonly Referenced Complaints about UBI

Intro

A Friend On Facebook (Who Genuinely Wanted to Learn) recently asked me if there are any downsides to the UBI as proposed by Andrew Yang (here's a snapshot of what it looked like in December; in case it changes). Yang brings lots of good ideas to the table, and though I find it disappointing that he's backed away from a single payer healthcare system, I do support many of his ideas. One of his plans is obviously the Universal Basic Income (branded "The Freedom Dividend"). Below are some of the main arguments against his flavor of UBI and my responses to them:

"But won't the poor will just waste money on booze and drugs?"

The argument behind this is that only people with money know how to spend money. One of my favorite quotes about poor people is that poor means a lack of money, not a lack of work. The American way is that if you put in your fair share of work, you will end up better off than average when you retire (which we all know can't work for everyone based on the rule of averages and you know, what we see around us). The US isn't particularly known for sharing the wealth, and there are many people who are classified as working poor. I would argue that the question is phrased from a place of bigotry (purposeful or not) but I will answer the question behind the question, which is...

"Does the money actually go towards useful things?"

... and the answer appears to be yes! 57% of Americans can't afford an unexpected $500 payment, so we know that the $1000 a month would at least go towards alleviating part of that pressure that everyday Americans feel on them. In a study of UBI, it found that most people spent their money on food, utilities, clothing and donations; all either necessary or at least net-goods by any measurement. Still, some people will push back and say:

"Even if poor people use money, does everyone really need that money for nothing?"

Now this one gets controversial. If I they are conservative, it actually might be easier to argue for this than if they are progressive, but with that said: hear me out.

Founding father Thomas Paine once said:

"Land, as before said, is the free gift of the Creator in common to the human race. Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society" - Agrarian Justice

Which can also be looked at in the context not just of land, but of value of intellectual property and businesses. Facebook uses the data it harvests from us (with our "consent") to generate wealth which line Zuck's pockets, who then turns around and gives us nothing. Same thing with Google, Amazon, Netflix, etc. They reap most of the benefits because we have allowed them to continue to do so without asking for anything in return. While it would nice to go to Jeff Bezos and ask him to give everyone money, the fact of the matter is that he is a symptom of the underlying issue: we have created a society where a few can get rich off of the backs of the many who also cannot ask for anything in return. If we all get a UBI, the inherent worth the rich few receive will be shared on a smaller scale, as part of their dues for living in a society with people as nice as us to allow them to have the structure through which they acquire riches in the first place.

If you don't agree with this, here's another angle:
Getting this check is like receiving a dividend from a company that you've invested in. We (as functioning members of society) pay taxes and help our "company" thrive. This is just your fair share of the pie.

"But Won't Giving People Aid Create More Dependent People Who Won't Want to Work?"

I'd argue that very few people could realistically live on $1000 per month. In fact, $1200 is below the current US poverty threshold ($13,550 | source) and so I'd say that those who are able to would in fact be outliers. From what I've read, UBI does not even make people work significantly less. So, no it does not appear so.

"What If Some People Are Worse Off With UBI Instead of Current Welfare Benefits?"

Let's say that someone was receiving $1100 before from cash-like programs and now they are only receiving $1000 under Andrew Yang's proposal. Even though it is less money, I still would count a shrinking welfare program as a good thing, and I can argue that from a perspective of both a conservative and a progressive.

Conservative

Less people on welfare means that we are shrinking bureaucracy, and limiting what the government says you can or cannot have. It restores freedom for poor people and allows them to make the choices that are best for them. Let's use a slightly silly example: if a family can only spend some money on meat, and some on car payments, but they are vegans with a broken car then they are out of luck! Why should the government get a say in who gets what? Also, if we cut welfare and we give people money directly, we are cutting excess government spending.

Progressive

Alright, let's be real and say that welfare has the best of intentions (even historically so; with the word 'Welfare' even appearing in the preamble of the constitution), but the current welfare programs have some major issues. I have completely flipped on what I originally thought about welfare. Let's take something simple to start. I originally thought that proving that you are poor and need help is a very reasonable ask, but if you are trying to find work/take care of kids/survive, spending whole days of many months filling out forms and trying to prove how poor you are is
a) humiliating—lowering how your value is determined and making your economic output/input your value is dehumanizing
and
b) ineffective at catching everyone—13 million of the 40.6 million US people living in poverty receive $0 in aid. This is roughly 32% of US citizens living in poverty or around 4% of our total estimated citizens. Many people cannot prove that they are poor because they don't have the time, or they worked a tiny bit, or their state refuses to give them aid, etc.

Also, The Tyranny of Kindness has a lot of really good points to make about Welfare. It definitely does not catch everyone it's supposed to, and it has left a lot of people out to dry. Giving everyone a fixed boost without having to prove they are poor will be a net gain to our society, communities, families and individuals. I cannot hope to give it the same weight as what the book does, but I highly recommend reading the book (you can listen to the first chapter on the podcast UBI enterprise).

Conclusion

Even though this was only meant as a response to a Facebook comment, I ended up having a lot more to say about UBI than I originally thought. I intend on voting for Yang in the primary, but even if he doesn't go anywhere, I could not be happier that the overton window for UBI has shifted so far; and for that I am forever grateful.

Galatians 6 (First Half At Least)

I want to talk a little about two unique things about me. 1,I've read Paul's letters to the various churches many times. One Summer, I read them 6 or 7 times in a row just because I was so into them. 2, I can also be a somewhat dense person sometimes on occasion.

Both of those things have certainly collided before, and that's definitely the case here. I've read this chapter many times, and I'd just go straight on through it. Come to think of it, I even recall a time where my 4th grade class talked about this part of the chapter (the second part is on circumcision, and I'm honestly good on that front, I think I'll maybe just cheerypick this for now). Without further ado, the first half of that chapter!

Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, for each one should carry their own load. Nevertheless, the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.

Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

Great Verses, no?

I thought so too! I zoomed in a little bit, and found a lot of good nuggets. I want to specifically tune in to a few key parts of this passage right now.

Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, for each one should carry their own load.

Blam! These verses are good news! I'm good at carrying other's burdens! (Really good!) The thing that I'm not so good at is the last part of that section. I have a hard time testing my own actions, and living for myself instead of trying to please others. I spend a lot of time carrying everyone's stuff and not enough time caring for me. If I want to keep myself sane, I have to spend time looking out for me, for my sake alone. I was told to set a good example from a young age—an understandable—and screwed up aspect of my rearing. I spent a lot of time trying to be the person that everyone looks up to, and I don't think I actually took the time to find myself a midst all that.

Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people

That is so basically stated that I don't even need to explain it, but I'm still going to. I definitely have grown weary many times of doing good, because I do good to set a good example. But the times where I do good for the sake of doing good are much more fulfilling than the emptiness that I often feel from trying to get myself on everyone's good side through works. Reading this has made me realized how wonky that is, and I've decided to start moving against that.

How Does This Play Out?

For the moment, I'm not quite sure. I feel like I need to learn to live for me, and not for the approval of others. I need to understand life on my own, without the oversight of those in my life. I'm not planning on becoming the prodigal son, but I definitely need to find out what I believe and why. And I need to determine where that child that has to set a good example ends and where I begin. I know that it's a fairly large task, but it will have to be tackled at some point. And there is not a better time to do that than now.

Why I Haven't Posted In Awhile

Recently, I either have not been motivated to post, or I haven't had a reason to.

See, this blog was originally started for just joking around, and doing fun stuff, but it grew pretty quick into a blog where I could vent at non-specific people or about life in general. Once I got past that low in my life, I just didn't really have a reason to post; all of my feelings had been vented.

So today I'm working on a school assignment for improving my online image, and I remembered this little blog. Well, I'm back for a few seconds to update this, then I'll probably disappear for an unspecified amount of time until I need this again. Just know that I'm doing awesome, I'm totally digging my Fall courses here at MHCC, and I finally am in a groove with work, school and friends so that I'm finally getting pretty much exactly what I'd want out of life.

So, thank you readers for checking in, but it may be awhile before I post again. Have an awesome day everyone!

Hello, Welcome back

Some Thoughts
When you greet someone, you usually have something like this happen:

Hi, hey there [insert name!]
Hey [insert your name]

and then you always ask one of three questions:

1. How are you?
2. What's up?
3. How's things going?

And the response that we expect to each is "Good."

Even when I'm having a terrible time I'll still answer friends with "Good" because it's the social thing to do. You don't answer with your real answer, you fake it because that's what we do as a society. And I'm very much not cool with it for a couple of reasons

1. People are either too callous to care
2. Or just too uninterested to care

and so we fake caring by asking questions that have the same answer. It's kinda like being real with people, but with Zero commitment. You look good, the friendship looks fine, and everything works out great.

We as a culture don't take the time to realize that people that answer good are either good, okay, or very bad, hanging on to try to find a reason to live.

Problem = Clear, Solution?...

So, I have said why I have a problem with it, but I have yet to give a solution.

As a culture, I think that it's going to be hard to change how much we care. It's just the way that things are, with empathy being a tool used by a few and people telling you to shrug off whatever's bothering you being the tool used by most. Even though changing why we say something may be impossible as a people, we can still change what we say.

So, how about next time you greet someone, you use a different greeting, one that actually leads to depth:

1. Hey [insert name here], it's good to see you! (Use if it's truth, avoid if it isn't. this can make some people's day, but they will know if you are lying through your teeth)
2. Hello [insert name here], tell me about your day! (Use only if you actually care)
3. Hi [insert name here], what has been happening in your life lately? (Use only if you actually care)

People, it isn't hard. You just have to care, and you have to invest. If you are okay going past people every day that are desperately hurting, content to be frustrated about some guy's parking job then you may want to rethink that. Life is ultimately very short, and could end at any moment, and so each minute that we have with people must be cherished. People are a gift, and ignoring them is a waste.

What's my bottom line then? 

Want to care, 

care 

and say meaningful things.

Love Languages (3) - The One About Pysical Touch

The Story of the Back (Backstory, get it? :P )

For awhile now in TREK, we've been going through the different Love Languages. We divided up how everything was going to work, and among the top 3 leaders at the time we divided up who would speak on what. The lot fell to me to talk about Physical Touch, and since it's my second Love Language, I figured that that would work out pretty well.

At the most recent meeting, I spoke about this a little bit. Since it was the day before Easter, a lot of the people left the meeting early to go home and be with their families, so the group was quite a bit smaller. I had prepared a little shpeal for that talk, and I have edited that and posted it below. Without further ado, my expanded version of what I spoke on, last Saturday!

The (Kinda Mostly) Marriage Love Language

The 5 Love Languages (post 1, post 2) were designed with couples in mind, meaning that a lot of the love languages don't necessarily transfer over to friends, or groups very well. This love language is certainly the same way. Even though most of this love language cannot be expressed in TREK, some of them can.

For a person with this love language, love can be expressed in TONS of different ways, including but not limited to:

• Holding Hands,
• Kissing,
• Hugging,
• Back rubs,
• Pats on the back,
• Arm around shoulder,
• High fives,
• Handshakes,
• +Pretty much everything good involving touch  

Unsurprisingly, a person with this love language is going to a little touchy. A person with this love language feel loved best when they are in proximity to others that they trust, and as such: physical presence and accessibility are both crucial.

Most people would say that they want to feel secure, and loved. If your love language is Words of Affirmation, and someone that you do not trust gives you a compliment, it will not resonate as strongly as a compliment from someone that you trust. If you're love language is Quality Time, spending time with people that you distrust or don't like will be draining, wheres spending time with people that you know and love will energize you.

It is the same for someone with Physical Touch as their love language, if someone they don't trust is being touchy it will feel very violating and could be destructive to the friendship. For many, trust has to be earned BEFORE the channels between individuals can become synced enough to transfer love.

It Doesn't Have to be Big

“Love touches” require a little bit of thought, but don’t take much time. If this is not your primary love language and/or you didn’t grow up in a “touching” family, learning to speak this language may take some time. Sitting close to each other as you watch TV requires no additional time, but communicates your love loudly. Actually, sitting close ANYTIME. Sometimes, it's just the small things that let you know that they see you, have acknowledged you and have reached out mean the world. If that sounds tough, let me give an example of how easy simple it can be:

Imagine you are walking through a hallway, and a close friend that has this love language is talking with some friends. They see you, and you see that person, but you have stuff to do so you just keep walking. If you reach out and just touch that friend on the shoulder as you walk by, it can speak the world to him/her.

It sometimes can take more time, such as giving a hug, and even though it may seem often or annoying, try to remember that this is the language that they speak, and that they are trying to reach out to you.

For Me

Since examining how I handle this love language, I've figured that I've divided things into pretty much 5 groups:

• Strangers = Handshakes (possibly; no trust has been established, so it depends on my mood)
• Kinda Friends = Handshakes, high fives

• Friends = Handshakes, high fives, hugs,

• Close Friends = Handshakes, hugs, playful teasing (poking, chasing, jokingly punching arms, etc)

• Relationship = Handshakes, hugs, playful teasing, holding hands, arms around shoulders, etc.

So, there you are! Hopefully now you know a lot more about me, and about this love language in general! Have a nice day! =)

what have I to boast in?

I would rather boast about the things that show how weak I am 

I'm a prideful person sometimes. Even if I may not exude pride with every step I take, I can sense a confidence slightly above confidence from myself. I'm the cat's meow, the bee's knees, the coolguy Josh that everyone likes.

I don't take too many risks, but most of the ones I take are because my pride has swelled up inside of me. Basically, imagine the guy on the right as me.

I can be so prideful. I take pride in my friends, in my work, in my ability to get things done. Usually take take take, not give give give. When was the last time I was seen as a generous person? I don't know, it's probably been awhile.

I'm not saying this to bring myself down necessarily, I say it because these thoughts seem to be always swirling around inside my head.

Last Week

I had an interesting confrontation recently, and I didn't really know what to do with it. There were problems with the higher ups, and I was one of them. Why had no one talked to me? Why was I suddenly the one to blame? Am I to blame?

At one time, I was bold and arrogant. I would take risks. I could get stuff done. But I've hurt myself, I've hurt others, and I make enemies when I take risks.

I don't like that side of me.

Why then do I feel like it's needed? Why do I cling to this piece of myself and act as if it is precious to me? Why do I cling to it?

I don't have the answer

Maybe, I just need to take in more, and give out less. Maybe I need to listen. Maybe I need to contribute, not personalize. I'm not a great person all the time, and sometimes I wonder why people like me.

But then again, why would people like me if I was as bad as I thought I was?

They wouldn't.

And therein lies my problem.

God, help me release this. I'm tired of carrying this baggage. I give this back to you. I can't hold it anymore.

No, I'm not a Leader

Recent Events

Not too long ago, I remember talking over some of my character traits with my mom. It was right before a college thingy where I'd get to meet some people from Colorado Christian University and just talk college and stuff. At one point, my mom said that good leadership was a skill that I had.

Instantly, I had a negative knee-jerk reaction to it.

Sure, I do enjoy projects where I get to lead, and I have grown a lot through leadership. It's also true that being the Senior Patrol Leader for my Boy Scout Troop was one of the most fulfilling things that I've done, and that I currently am the president of a student leadership group within my theater group.

Classification Hurts
When people classify others through positive or negative skills or attributes, I feel that it subconsciously limits potential.

If you hear that someone is really rich, and then they pull up in some falling apart car and start walking up the stairs in junky clothes; it's going to be a bit of a shock for you, right? You're expecting certain things from the person based on what you've heard, but you may be a little off-put by what you see. You may start saying, "well, he's living frugally." Or, "he's obviously not too worried about what others think of him." Or, "he's lazy and rich."

What if something got mixed up, and he's actually just a really poor guy with an amazing voice? In the 15 seconds of the first impression of him, you didn't get to see that. You saw what you heard and you rationalized it.

If you try to use a Phillips Screwdriver to pound in a nail, it isn't going to work quite right. If you were just reaching for something to use and that was the first thing that you grabbed, maybe you didn't question whether that tool was really right for that job.

People Are Similar (in that way) To Screwdrivers
Let's pretend that you hear that someone is a good leader and you immediately plop them into a leadership position. Do they know those under them? Have they gotten a grasp for what the group is like? Do they truly know leadership? What if that person is good at leading, but has interests elsewhere?

If you say that someone is a leader, you may trigger something in someone's brain. What if someone else thinks that being a good leader means that they can't take orders? What if that person sees a leader as a potential threat to their position? If you think about it, there are words that may not be good or bad in and of themselves that you may relate unrealistic negative (or positive) connotations to.

Now, I know that not having any classification is crazy, but I do think that a second hand assessment of a person's skills or attributes should be taken as a good starting point, but not the end all.

Another Reason
I don't think that the term "good leader" can just be used as a way to describe someone. But I think in order to explain why, you have to ask: What is leading?

In my opinion, leading is being someone that people are willing to follow.

You see, people can get behind an idea, but that can be thrown out in a second if the person in charge is an absolute jerk. You may love the ideas of a person, but have problems with their character (or vice-versa).

I'd say a leader needs to have:

• Charisma
• Good problem solving skills
• A vision (goal)
• Compassion
• Bravery
• Strength

Which of those have are measurable?
Vision? (maybe?)

You can't really say: Oh, that person has three charisma. Or, ten strength. People don't work that way. It's a little bit harder to nail those down. And people are going to react differently to that depending on who they are and what their personal tastes are.

One Final Reason
What do you think of when you think of a "leader"? Does a good leader always ask the opinion of those under him/her? Does a good leader make the choice that he/she thinks best, regardless of what others may say? Does a good leader have to be religious? Merciful? Strong?

If you ask ten different people that, you are going to get different answers.

So, why not let people choose for themselves if a person is a good leader?

If I have something to prove, I can prove it. If I have a skill, others will observe. I don't want to be a braggart, or incorrectly labeled. In fact, I'd rather not be labeled at all.

So, am I a good leader?
No, with all due respect, I'm not—I'm me.

Thinkings (3)

I Should Definitely Be Working, but Inspiration Always Strikes When it's Inconvenient
I know that I should be doing about ten other things right now. Actually, about a hundred. Maybe even more.

I let myself get held down by lots of things. I cast so much shame on myself. Sitting there in the dark sometimes, I just let grief swallow me whole. During the day I'm different, at night in the dark when I'm all alone, that's when I just let loneliness and shame slowly creep over me.

Well, I'm done with that.

I choose to be happy. I chose to rejoice because God is good. I choose to rejoice because I am alive, and I have been surrounded by people that love me. I choose to be happy, even if I'm not bubbling.

If I chose to live in my own self pity, I will die in my own self pity.
If I chose to live in happiness, I will die in happiness.

That's not as dark as it sounds
I'm not suicidal. Nope, been there done that (I'm not letting that define me now either, by the way). I'm just thinking, if I were to be hit by a car tomorrow, how would I want to be remembered? What would my legacy be?

I've known people that were full of sadness, and when they died that sadness was amplified. Sadness will always be there in death, but if the person lived a happy life, it's like there's so many more reasons to not be sad.

I want to be the person that people will be able to look to and say that I was honestly and truly happy. I have been doing pretty well with the honesty, so now I just gotta be happy.

I'm not going to promise to be happy always.
I'm not going to burden myself with shame.
I will be free to be me, happy, spinning around in the sun under the sky. I am so ready to let go of the pain that I've held onto and become happy.

You know, if a boat is tied to a dock, it's never going to sail away. It's time to untie that knot attached to my sadness that I've been trapped by but have never moved. It's time to sail away. It's time to become the person that I was meant to be. I want to experience what God has in store for me out on the ocean, not in a harbor. I want to experience the waves on my face and the wind at my back.

I Want to be Sailing

Goodbye shame

Goodbye death

Goodbye insurmountable grief

I'm not yours any longer.

I choose hope

I choose peace

I choose grace

Those are some ideas I can get behind.

ENFP... say what?

Sorry, Homework Assignment first

So, those of you that have read my blog will know that I'm somewhat of a Myers Briggs fanatic. Well, maybe not fanatic, perhaps more like a fan. But I do really like it—quite a lot in fact. I think that there are good times for it to be used, but I also see it misused often.

If you haven't read about Myers Briggs, I recommend doing some research first. You could look it up on Google, or read my past posts about it (Post 1, Post 2). Regardless, you should do that before you read this, otherwise you might end up being slightly confused at all of the terms that I'll be throwing around. ;)

Forward

I feel that a great deal of my struggles have been with my identity and discovering who I am. I used to rely a lot on my girlfriend, my peers and Myers Briggs to find that. Now, I know better.

Now, don't get me wrong, Myers Briggs is great, and certainly has its place. If you are using the percentages for everything, it can be helpful when weighing strengths and weaknesses of those that you are over (aka: subordinates). I think that it is an excellent tool for leadership and can be fine for self improvement, as long as it is never used to find/create identity, as I once fell into the trap of doing.

Now we go

So, now that you know that, here goes.... I'm actually an ENFP. Yeah, yeah, I know. Crazy, right? I mean, I used to be an ESTP, so in reality, that jump isn't super duper far fetched. It is interesting to note that I have changed 7 times, and tested as different types almost every time. I have jumped all over the place, trying to find out which type I really am.

First I thought I was an ENTJ, then I thought ESTJ, then ESTP, then ISFP, then ESTP again, then ESFP, then ESTP, and now ENFP. So, I used 6 combinations of four letters to define me for a while, until I finally discovered that it doesn't matter as much as I once thought it to. As long as you are true to who you are, you're type truly doesn't matter. So, I use the tool, but I don't let it use me, if that makes sense.

Of course it does. :P

So, I'm an ENFP

• Extroverted
• iNtuitive
• Feeling
• Perceiving

"Whoa, whoa, whoa" you say. Intuitive? Feeling? Depth? HA! It is kinda crazy to think about, but just try to stick with me on this.

Yo, it be true

It all started when I was looking back through my old posts on Myers Briggs. As I looked at the N/S section, I just started blinking repeatedly. After that, I went and took the test, scoring as ENFP. This happened early December, and I wasn't really wanting to admit that I shared a type with my ex-girlfriend, so I just kinda ignored it... but sooner or later you have got to accept reality, so I took the test again, and I scored once again as an ENFP. At this point, I was pretty sure that it was true.

I actually thought it through, and I think that my reasoning makes sense. I compared ESTP, ENFP, ESFP and ENTP all side-by-side. ESFP didn't really fit me, and ENTP was also off. I know that I'm not as adventurous as other ESTP's and I know that I think waaaaaay differently than they do. So, I concluded that I must be an ENFP after all.

In order to prove it to myself I went through and looked at those lists that were in my old posts. I'm going to underline those terms that apply more to me, and maybe that'll make it a little more clear.

N/S

iNtuitive Characteristics

• Abstract
• Complicated or Deep
• Future-focused
• Idealistic
• Imaginative
• Inventive
• Sees possibilities
• Theoretical

Sensing Characteristics

• Aware of surroundings
• Concrete
• Factual
• Goes by senses
• Lives in the present
• Notices details
• Practical
• Realistic

Explanation of the Confusing
For those sensing traits that I had previously assigned myself, I've come up with some explanations. I used to consider myself aware of my surroundings, but I only did that to make myself feel better for the lack of stuff that I actually noticed. Sorta like, if you aim for your goal, you might make it sometimes, but if you do nothing you'll never make it.

As for concrete, living in the present, and being realistic/practical goes, I think that's mostly due to what happened to me over these last 6 months. I've grown a lot as a person, and a lot has changed in how I view life and others. I don't view life as clear cut as I did before, so I think that I may have at one time been closer to an ESTJ in the way that I acted, but that's definitely not who I am now.

Finally, the whole noticing details thing only really happens when I have reason to pay attention. If a parent is talking to someone else about something and I'm pretty sure it'll be important, you can bet that I'll probably remember it. Other stuff, like the fact that my room can go for months without being cleaned isn't as easily noticed. (That actually ties into the whole aware of surroundings thing too!)

F/T

Feeling Characteristics

• Caring of others
• Decides with heart
• Dislikes conflict
• Driven by emotion
• Easily hurt
• Empathetic
• Gentle
• Passionate
• Peacekeeper
• Warm

Thinking Characteristics

• Critical
• Decides with head
• Driven by thought
• Firm with people
• Impersonal
• Logical
• Objective
• Rational
• Thick-skinned
• Seeks truth

Explanation of the Slightly More Straightforward

With the N/S differences, I had to really process exactly what was going on. With the Feeling/Thinking side of things, it was a little bit clearer.

Now, don't get me wrong: I rely on my head because I totally need it.

But whenever I have to make a decision, I've given the right of way to my heart. I need to trust my gut instinct and choose what is right based off of that. Trying to sort everything out in the head leaves me running loops, muddling the issue further or getting stuck in a rut.

I still seek truth continuously, but I think that this is because I am always seeking for meaning and understanding in life due to my N type.

And just because I'm an F, doesn't mean I always have to be 100% mushy, or have to decide without thinking things through. I can still process pretty well, it's only when emotions become involved that I have to decide with my heart.

Final Musings
Maybe being an ENFP isn't too bad.

Well, not like I have too much of a choice. It's at least nice to know why I do what I do, and have some good explanations for it. When I make a decision now I'm thinking: OH YEAH, that makes sense!

Words of encouragement? 
My N likes it because it uses words to convey a deeper message.
My F likes it because it's kind, and genuine

Physical touch?
My E likes it because it's physical action, real world stuff. They are putting themselves out there for me.
My F likes it because it's all to be felt, and isn't rational. It comes from within, not without.
My P likes it because it kinda becomes an experience to take in.

You know what, being an ENFP isn't bad.
It isn't bad at all.