depths.

Wise Words

I have this friend named Jacob. The last few days weve been hanging out riding bikes and stuff and I've just recently realized how geniousss he is. I was looking at his myspace and im totally stealing his blog. But after reading it.. theres no way I could say it anyyy better than he did:


addiction
Current mood: melancholy
Category: Life
fuck. that should be all. it is not.

isnt it funny how these little constants in our life are all that keep us going. these little seemingly nonexistant dependencies that rule each and every point of our perseity. however tragic it may be, we need each and every one of these normalties. and however tragic this may be, the removal of even one, or a fraction of one, begins a downward spiral sucking countless others into its devistating nature.

whether or not this innate desire for normalty, for comfort, is an addiction is debatable. i, however, feel that it is. i think that each of us depends solely on what we are used to and what we expect to happen. despite a change in lifestyle, location, the company you keep, or any other changes, there are still always these constants which come with us; the evolution of said constants is necesary and natural, but does not discount the fact that the constants are within. we bring them with us, it is inevitable, one cannot escape oneself.

addiction traditionally is viewed as a problem, as a disease. the word is also more frequently used to describe a dependance on some dangerous substance or habit. whether your addiction be drugs, alcohol, nicotine, sex, love, chocolate, plastic dashboard jesi (plural of jesus?), a favorite pillow, diet coke, chachkas, the presence of a certain person, whatever the fuck you need, the removal of it throws your entire world off of its axis.

it is when one realizes that these things are what make them who they are that they truly become complete. for any one person to say that there is not one thing in this world that they dont know what they would do without, is simply a lie.

im not really sure where im going with this but i am sure that i have done some serious thinking today and i have figured out that though so many of my "addictions" have evolved, so so many of them have also been lost over the past few years. and due to the loss of these dependencies ive realized that i may never be complete, which makes me question my own theory of completeity (made up word). in effect, the new revised verson of jacob's theory or completeity is that when one realizes these necessities and realizes that they still possess each, or have come to terms with the loss of one and no longer desires it, then and only then is that person complete.

The Best Text Message EVER.

uhh yeah michael. youre brilliant. he should stop worrying about you leaving him for a musician and start worrying about about what hes going to do to keep you around.

I love Elizabeth<3

learn to flyyy

Black bird singing in the dead of night. take these broken wings and learn to flyyy.
.i love the beatles.
i also love being happy and thats really what i need to focus on right now. im tired of fighting to make everyone happy. im tired of hurting. im tired of feeling like im in the wrong when i know damn well im not. i just recently got a new job at boombozz as a hostess. and i was talking to one of my managers. And we were talking and she just put things in a whole new different perspective for me. I was really down. Theres a song, it says "Always up and down, never down and out". Honestly, lately ive been feeling down anddd out. She really made me feel a whole hell of a lot better. Its about to be summer. Ive been stressing out enough this winter and i dont need it anymore. i dont want it. and i realize i dont have to have it. I got a new job.. might be picking up a second one for more money. I want to do volunteer work or community service. I just want to help someone or give something back to the community, help the environment or something. It's just time for me to grow up and start acting like it.

Possibly one of the best truths ever written

There is an art of listening. To be able to really listen, one should abandon or put aside all prejudices, preformulations and daily activities... But unfortunately most of us listen through a screen of resistance. We are screened with prejudices, whether religious or spiritual, psychological or scientific; or with our daily worries, desires and fears. And with these for a screen, we listen. Therefore, we listen really to our own noise, to our own sound, not to what is being said. It is extremely difficult to put aside our training, our prejudices, our inclination, our resistance, and, reaching beyond the verbal expression, to listen so that we understand instantaneously.
-The Derek Trucks Band

Urban Policy

This is just a paper I wrote for my Urban Politics and Government Class. It is more like a last minute thing that I typed up so I realize its probably not in the best shape. Regardless...

Throughout the last fifty years there have been many attempts made by Presidents to help improve the state of urban affairs and rejuvenate America. Since the 1960’s many Presidents have developed programs that have pushed the federal government towards assisting in urban renewal. Some of the Presidents urban policies have been a great success where others have not. Also, there is much debate over the new President, Barrack Obama’s urban policy plan. To judge whether or not his plan will be a success, it is important to first look at the urban policies that have been implemented in the past.
Grant-in-aids were designed to send federal funds to the states to be used for domestic programs. Their popularity had been increasing but did not come into full effect until the 1960’s. During the 60’s the focus of these grants changed from being used to help states accomplish state objectives to helping “accomplish nationally defined objectives” (Text, pg. 333). As to every decision made there are both praises and criticisms and grant-in-aid programs are no exception.
These programs have been praised for helping to encourage the states to address and spend a lot of money on urban problems and also have allowed federal money to be more accessible. On the opposite side of all the benefits, there are the criticisms. It is argued that these grants have caused the decline in central cities populations due to the interstates being brought into areas that do not desire them. Because of the diminishing population, retailers move away with their customers. The development of grants has also made it to where local budgets are determined by federal programs which has made it quite difficult for states to apply their money to areas that are not supported by the grants (Text, pg. 336). Grants are only the first approach from the federal government to help with urban problem solving. There are many more policies that have led to the current state of America’s urban policy.
Lyndon Johnson (1963-1968) established the War on Poverty and called his administration the Great Society. He set up programs to fund things like transportation, housing and education. Johnson allowed the relationship between urban centers and the federal government to expand through increasing cooperation and involvement. There is nothing that goes un-criticized which holds true for these programs. It was argued that the federal government did not think states had the ability to make their own priorities and that they were breaking up families and trying to rid of blacks (Text, pg. 339). All of these criticisms were looked at by the incoming Presidential administration.
Executive administration would completely switch roles in 1969 when conservative Richard Nixon was sworn into office. His goal was to strengthen state governments under his new system which was called New Federalism. Nixon enacted Revenue Sharing which began to eliminate the impact of grants which led to state and local governments using federal revenue as seemed fit. The most significant result of the New Federalism administration was the development of the community development block grant which helped in urban redevelopment. The money went straight to city governments which led to more power being left to councils and elected executives (Text, pg.341). A “New Partnership” of the federal, state, city governments and private industry would be established with the transfer of powers to President Carter.
Jimmy Carter (1977-1980) calling for a “New Partnership” sought to fix problems in the big cities. Carter’s goal was to channel funds into development projects in urban neighborhoods and help revitalize distressed cities. He intended for large corporations to invest in cities to help create jobs for those in need. His efforts would be overturned with the changing of Presidents.
President Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) brought back New Federalism. He believed the urban development projects should be left to the private sector. Like Nixon, he wanted to eliminate much federal authority over smaller governments. Throughout his administration, although more decisions were left up to the cities, they were running short on money and had to eliminate services. Throughout his presidency the economy did steadily grow yet there was nothing done about poverty, crime or poor schools. The continuous changing of policy would not stop with the new President.
From 1993-2001 President Bill Clinton pushed for the federal government to have a strong role in cities. Through his empowerment zone program millions of dollars were given to cities in need. In 1994 the Crime Bill was passed which helped reduce violent crime and improve policing standards. The Welfare Reform was also passed which drastically helped improve the number of people receiving welfare.
Parties and policies would again be switched with President George W. Bush. He ran his administration off what he called compassionate conservatism. He wanted educational reform which led to the No Child Left Behind Act. He will be known for the War on Terrorism which led to local money being spent to increase security. Bush left his office with the nation in a huge recession. Critics say that he was more worried about personal empowerment than urban renewal (Text, pg. 356.)
President Obama will be the first president in over 20 years that has focused on urban affairs and its importance to the American economy. The goal of Obama and his chief urban advisor Valerie Jarrett is to take federal urban policy and evolve it from being about dealing with the poor to being about developing cities and regions that will make America stronger (Greenblatt 2009). Obama is focusing on urban policy during his presidency and his main objective is to get regions working together and to have the upper and lower levels of government cooperating with one another. The President is quoted saying “We need to stop seeing our cities as the problem and start seeing them as the solution. Because strong cities are the building blocks of strong regions, and strong regions are essential for a strong America” (Greenblatt 2009). It is difficult to determine whether or not President Obama’s urban policies will succeed.
Although Obama and his administration have laid down the ground work for their urban policy, they have not yet provided many details about how immigration, transportation, criminal justice or poverty will be dealt with. This is not to say they are showing a lack of effort. They are currently researching and developing the best way to institute all the new changes of the reformulated executive branch. By looking at the past it makes it easier to evaluate the possibilities of this new plan working. Over the past 50 years there has been a shuffling of Democratic and Republican presidents and they have all had their own ideas on how the nation should be ran. Some of the ideas and policies were a temporary success where as others were not.
From Johnson and the Great Society, Nixon and New Federalism, Carter and the New Partnership, Clinton and his empowerment zone program to Bush and the War on Terrorism, many different policies have been implemented. Generally all of these efforts, if successful, were only temporary successes. All the federal programs put in to place by the different administrations that still exist are run independently of one another so it is questionable as to whether or not one united urban policy will be able to tie them all together to have a beneficial payoff. This is what the critics of Obama’s urban policy argue.
Due to the fact that he is basing this new policy on helping to rejuvenate the cities it is easy to say that yes, these plans will benefit cities and their residents. America will have more jobs. The millions of people who have lost their job due to the recession will gain them back. Cities will be improved which will draw more residents into the area, boosting revenue. Roads will be improved as will neighborhoods and schools and crime rates will have the potential to decrease. All of these things will happen because for once the executive branch will be focusing at the heart of this nation, where all the main problems are exhibited. Obama ensures that The Office of Urban Affairs will work with federal agencies to make sure that all federal money is targeted towards the highest impact programs. The President states that he is going to focus attention on the long over looked urban areas where 80 per cent of Americans live and work (City Mayors Metro News 2009).
If overtime Obama’s plan is a success then the economy will have a huge boost and slowly yet surely America will remove itself from the recession that it was left in by the former President Bush. This is the ideal situation. If Obama can achieve his goal and get mayors and cities to work together to do what is better for the group as a whole than his urban policy will be a success. No President in the last 50 years has tried this approach so it will be interesting to see the end result and whether it will withstand the tests of time. There will always be those in power who oppose executive decisions and are not willing to cooperate. There are also those who think that it is time something is done to uplift America’s economy, whether they are Republican or Democrat. A republican congress man, Roy Blunt says that “A stimulus plan that makes sense is something that I will be helpful with” (Favro 2008). Even though past presidential attempts to repair the economy have not succeeded as planned, that is no reason to give up hope. President Barrack Obama has instilled hope into American cities and his plans are something he will follow through with, no matter how hard the opposition is. No matter how much he is criticized, Obama will take the proper measures to set up a successful urban policy that is critical to the success of America.