Saturday, February 28, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
the stimulus: boon or boondoggle
At Liz's prompting, I realized that I actually do have something to say about the recent stimulus.
It's not entirely a moot point because my feelings toward it relate to the broader current American economy.
GOP opposition rallies around the idea that government spending won't create jobs. They're absolutely right. John Maynard Keynes, the economist who inspired the New Deal, said something to the effect of "In times of recession, the government should pay people to dig holes and then fill them." (I don't know the actual quote or if he actually said something akin to that, but it doesn't entirely matter because that's the idea that people are talking about.) Well guess what, the government has been doing a lot of that for the last 6 years in something called the War on Terror, and it has not kept us out of a recession.
This does not mean that I agree with the alternate tack proposed by the GOP: cutting taxes. The reasoning is that the private sector alone is capable of getting us out of the recession, and that the government should do nothing. Of course, when the GOP says "do nothing," they really mean that the government should cut taxes for the wealthy while continuing to provide the subsidies and services that taxes pay for. In our economy, this is lemon socialism, where losses are socialized while profits are privatized.
The recent bailouts are nothing new, at least in principle. For the last few decades, the government, in concert with industry lobbyists, has reduced the tax burden for corporations (the Cato Institute--which does NOT at all share my political ideology btw--reports $92 billion of corporate welfare in 2006) and the very wealthy and passed it off to the public on the back of the imaginary Invisible Hand--a rising tide lifts all boats. What we have seen instead is a rising bubble that has lifted a select few boats. From 1979 to 2005, real family income for the top 5% of earners in America increased by 81% while the bottom 20% saw their real income fall by 1%. This is in stark contrast to the period from 1947 to 1979, when the bottom 20% saw their income increase by 116%, while the top 5% saw the slowest rate of improvement, a still-better-than-the-last-few-decades 86%. Income and wealth inequity is at its most extreme since the last Great Depression.
Let's revisit the $92 billion that the government shelled out to businesses in one year of the W. Bush administration. While this is an extraordinary amount of money, for the federal budget, and especially next to the Wall St. bailout, this is not a bank-breaker. The larger problem, as I see it, is that these giveaways undermine the principle of a competitive marketplace. When companies are not left to fight and scrap for their meat, they become flabby. The Big 3 are a tragic case in point (though admittedly ExxonMobil doesn't appear to have become too complacent as a result of their pork. It doesn't hurt that their product fuels the global economy). What adds to this nightmare is the lax enforcement of anti-trust laws; companies are allowed to merge ad infinitum until they become "too big to fail." The result has been that the resultant economic climate forces taxpayers and government to reward complacency out of sheer necessity.
The question is, why did the economy grow so much for everyone in such equitable proportions post-WWII and so little for non-executives since Reagan?
Bringing it back to the stimulus bill, this question has obvious import for the current economic situation. My humble opinion is that instead of looking only at GDP, economists should be measuring wealth creation. The problem is the reacting-to-Marx assumption that an increasing GDP means wealth is being created. Getting more money can come from other places like, say, robbing people. Any economic growth that we've seen in the last decade, and most of that from the last couple of decades (Clinton is not blameless), is not a result of newly created wealth, but of the transfer of resources from the most poor to the most rich, through the aforementioned lemon socialism, but also through exploitation of labor and the environment (see "global warming"--who's going to pay for that one?).
So if government is a big part of the problem, how could government spending possibly be the solution?
This goes back to my point that all government spending is not created equal. Corporate giveaways create artificial rewards, specifically for those with the best lobbyists. On the other hand, investment in science and technology and education can actually create wealth. Remember the internet and all the companies that now have billions of dollars because of that? Remember how this new technology changed the way that everyone does business and gave everyone infinitely more access to information (and music)? Remember how the private sector came up with this--oh wait, it DIDN'T. The internet comes from Department of Defense research. I like to complain that NASA gets too much funding, but in actuality, they more than pay for their share of the budget through patents from past NASA research.
There is a bunch of money in the stimulus package for clean energy, which stands to put a lot of capital in something that would create wealth. It stands to introduce a product with more demand than supply. Another highlight is the money for improving our health care system. It will computerize records and do studies on the relative effectiveness of different treatments, cutting exorbitant health care costs which could strangle our crippled economy. Education got some money, but not enough to increase standards or really encourage people to go to college. This is a serious threat--do we want to continue as a manufacturing economy with an expensive standard of living or do we want to compete as an information age powerhouse?
But the big idea behind the package is to restore consumer confidence. This sounds to me like the old consumerism trap that got us into our current mess. There is something to this idea, at least in the short term, but even then tax cuts rank lowest on the best way to accomplish the goal of moving money through the system. Unemployment and welfare benefits are the best.
As far as moving money through the system, the transportation money (which doesn't have enough public transit funds btw, though the $8 billion for high speed rail is a nice start) will go towards projects that will put people to work.
Consider the infrastructure that everyone needs to work, eat, travel, etc. It's not feasible that the private sector take over the interstate system or the electrical grid (oh wait, Enron did that and it was a huge debacle that ripped off consumers and investors). But can you imagine trying to do business without roads to travel on or without electricity? You actually may not have to imagine it very hard, because the American Society of Civil Engineers gave our national infrastructure a D rating. The price tag to get it to an A? $2.2 trillion over the next five years, or 3 times the cost of the entire massive stimulus.
This isn't wealth creation, but it underscores the point that the 83% of US corporations who have offshore tax shelters are using valuable public assets and skipping the bill.
As for the costs of not switching over to renewable energy sources--if you want to talk about "generational theft," who exactly is going to pay the costs of our environmental neglect? It's not going to be ExxonMobil, at least not this generation.
All in all, I reluctantly support the stimulus package. Again, I think the mindset of moving money around without looking at what kind of money it is is misguided, but I think now is a good time--while the political will exists--to update our infrastructure and provide some money for promising new industries and education. Hopefully this will create another golden age in which wealth creation actually will raise all boats.
It's not entirely a moot point because my feelings toward it relate to the broader current American economy.
GOP opposition rallies around the idea that government spending won't create jobs. They're absolutely right. John Maynard Keynes, the economist who inspired the New Deal, said something to the effect of "In times of recession, the government should pay people to dig holes and then fill them." (I don't know the actual quote or if he actually said something akin to that, but it doesn't entirely matter because that's the idea that people are talking about.) Well guess what, the government has been doing a lot of that for the last 6 years in something called the War on Terror, and it has not kept us out of a recession.
This does not mean that I agree with the alternate tack proposed by the GOP: cutting taxes. The reasoning is that the private sector alone is capable of getting us out of the recession, and that the government should do nothing. Of course, when the GOP says "do nothing," they really mean that the government should cut taxes for the wealthy while continuing to provide the subsidies and services that taxes pay for. In our economy, this is lemon socialism, where losses are socialized while profits are privatized.
The recent bailouts are nothing new, at least in principle. For the last few decades, the government, in concert with industry lobbyists, has reduced the tax burden for corporations (the Cato Institute--which does NOT at all share my political ideology btw--reports $92 billion of corporate welfare in 2006) and the very wealthy and passed it off to the public on the back of the imaginary Invisible Hand--a rising tide lifts all boats. What we have seen instead is a rising bubble that has lifted a select few boats. From 1979 to 2005, real family income for the top 5% of earners in America increased by 81% while the bottom 20% saw their real income fall by 1%. This is in stark contrast to the period from 1947 to 1979, when the bottom 20% saw their income increase by 116%, while the top 5% saw the slowest rate of improvement, a still-better-than-the-last-few-decades 86%. Income and wealth inequity is at its most extreme since the last Great Depression.
Let's revisit the $92 billion that the government shelled out to businesses in one year of the W. Bush administration. While this is an extraordinary amount of money, for the federal budget, and especially next to the Wall St. bailout, this is not a bank-breaker. The larger problem, as I see it, is that these giveaways undermine the principle of a competitive marketplace. When companies are not left to fight and scrap for their meat, they become flabby. The Big 3 are a tragic case in point (though admittedly ExxonMobil doesn't appear to have become too complacent as a result of their pork. It doesn't hurt that their product fuels the global economy). What adds to this nightmare is the lax enforcement of anti-trust laws; companies are allowed to merge ad infinitum until they become "too big to fail." The result has been that the resultant economic climate forces taxpayers and government to reward complacency out of sheer necessity.
The question is, why did the economy grow so much for everyone in such equitable proportions post-WWII and so little for non-executives since Reagan?
Bringing it back to the stimulus bill, this question has obvious import for the current economic situation. My humble opinion is that instead of looking only at GDP, economists should be measuring wealth creation. The problem is the reacting-to-Marx assumption that an increasing GDP means wealth is being created. Getting more money can come from other places like, say, robbing people. Any economic growth that we've seen in the last decade, and most of that from the last couple of decades (Clinton is not blameless), is not a result of newly created wealth, but of the transfer of resources from the most poor to the most rich, through the aforementioned lemon socialism, but also through exploitation of labor and the environment (see "global warming"--who's going to pay for that one?).
So if government is a big part of the problem, how could government spending possibly be the solution?
This goes back to my point that all government spending is not created equal. Corporate giveaways create artificial rewards, specifically for those with the best lobbyists. On the other hand, investment in science and technology and education can actually create wealth. Remember the internet and all the companies that now have billions of dollars because of that? Remember how this new technology changed the way that everyone does business and gave everyone infinitely more access to information (and music)? Remember how the private sector came up with this--oh wait, it DIDN'T. The internet comes from Department of Defense research. I like to complain that NASA gets too much funding, but in actuality, they more than pay for their share of the budget through patents from past NASA research.
There is a bunch of money in the stimulus package for clean energy, which stands to put a lot of capital in something that would create wealth. It stands to introduce a product with more demand than supply. Another highlight is the money for improving our health care system. It will computerize records and do studies on the relative effectiveness of different treatments, cutting exorbitant health care costs which could strangle our crippled economy. Education got some money, but not enough to increase standards or really encourage people to go to college. This is a serious threat--do we want to continue as a manufacturing economy with an expensive standard of living or do we want to compete as an information age powerhouse?
But the big idea behind the package is to restore consumer confidence. This sounds to me like the old consumerism trap that got us into our current mess. There is something to this idea, at least in the short term, but even then tax cuts rank lowest on the best way to accomplish the goal of moving money through the system. Unemployment and welfare benefits are the best.
As far as moving money through the system, the transportation money (which doesn't have enough public transit funds btw, though the $8 billion for high speed rail is a nice start) will go towards projects that will put people to work.
Consider the infrastructure that everyone needs to work, eat, travel, etc. It's not feasible that the private sector take over the interstate system or the electrical grid (oh wait, Enron did that and it was a huge debacle that ripped off consumers and investors). But can you imagine trying to do business without roads to travel on or without electricity? You actually may not have to imagine it very hard, because the American Society of Civil Engineers gave our national infrastructure a D rating. The price tag to get it to an A? $2.2 trillion over the next five years, or 3 times the cost of the entire massive stimulus.
This isn't wealth creation, but it underscores the point that the 83% of US corporations who have offshore tax shelters are using valuable public assets and skipping the bill.
As for the costs of not switching over to renewable energy sources--if you want to talk about "generational theft," who exactly is going to pay the costs of our environmental neglect? It's not going to be ExxonMobil, at least not this generation.
All in all, I reluctantly support the stimulus package. Again, I think the mindset of moving money around without looking at what kind of money it is is misguided, but I think now is a good time--while the political will exists--to update our infrastructure and provide some money for promising new industries and education. Hopefully this will create another golden age in which wealth creation actually will raise all boats.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
speaking up day IX: decriminalize marijuana
Why would a nice Mormon boy who's never smoked marijuana want to decriminalize it? Is it out of a vain hope that if it's legal the Word of Wisdom will change to allow it?
The key word here is "decriminalize." It's different from "legalize;" I'm not interested in promoting another intoxicant. Decriminalization means ending the failed War on Drugs, which has cost the country billions and helped--by way of mandatory minimums for drug offenses--to balloon our country's prison population to 2 million people. Incarceration has disproportionately hit our country's black population--the percentage of black inmates is 3.5 times higher nationally than the percentage of blacks in the overall population.
A RAND Corp. study found that every dollar spent on treatment for substance abuse (for cocaine) saves $7.56 in societal costs. This is contrast with a loss of $.85 for source-country control and of $.48 for domestic enforcement, the cornerstones of the War on Drugs. Despite this, we insist on incarcerating drug offenders, driving our prison costs to $37 billion a year.
The problems with our prison system are legion, and I would like an overhaul of the whole way we view punishment and rehabilitation in our country, but I think a good first step is decriminalizing marijuana, whose stigma is based largely on stereotype and cultural fears. Compared to alcohol, marijuana is practically harmless, but we don't jail alcohol users.
If states decriminalize marijuana, it doesn't mean much if the DEA is still able to enforce federal drug laws that are in conflict with state medical marijuana laws. Go to norml.org and send a note to new Attorney General Eric Holder to urge him to keep the DEA from circumventing various states' medical marijuana laws and arresting medical marijuana users.
The key word here is "decriminalize." It's different from "legalize;" I'm not interested in promoting another intoxicant. Decriminalization means ending the failed War on Drugs, which has cost the country billions and helped--by way of mandatory minimums for drug offenses--to balloon our country's prison population to 2 million people. Incarceration has disproportionately hit our country's black population--the percentage of black inmates is 3.5 times higher nationally than the percentage of blacks in the overall population.
A RAND Corp. study found that every dollar spent on treatment for substance abuse (for cocaine) saves $7.56 in societal costs. This is contrast with a loss of $.85 for source-country control and of $.48 for domestic enforcement, the cornerstones of the War on Drugs. Despite this, we insist on incarcerating drug offenders, driving our prison costs to $37 billion a year.
The problems with our prison system are legion, and I would like an overhaul of the whole way we view punishment and rehabilitation in our country, but I think a good first step is decriminalizing marijuana, whose stigma is based largely on stereotype and cultural fears. Compared to alcohol, marijuana is practically harmless, but we don't jail alcohol users.
If states decriminalize marijuana, it doesn't mean much if the DEA is still able to enforce federal drug laws that are in conflict with state medical marijuana laws. Go to norml.org and send a note to new Attorney General Eric Holder to urge him to keep the DEA from circumventing various states' medical marijuana laws and arresting medical marijuana users.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
the best country club in the world
So I had a conversation with someone from work during my time in DC. He is dating a former LDS boy from Logan, Utah, so we talked a little bit about the Church. (Also, we shared a bed later, because the org routinely puts 4 - 6 people in one hotel room; I can say I've slept with a gay man).
One story in particular stood out to me. J----'s partner wanted to remove his records from the Church, so he went in for a talk with the bishop. The bishop used an example for why he shouldn't leave: "You're at the country club with the best golf course in the world. But you want to play tennis. Don't you think it's unfair to demand that the country club have a tennis court just for you?"
First of all, referencing a country club makes the analogy that much more unfortunate in light of the fact that one of the young man's reasons for wanting his records removed was the Church's history of racism. More intriguingly, this bishop's line of reasoning was that this guy should stay in the Church because it's good at something he's not interested in.
We say the Church is for everyone, but only if "everyone" changes themselves to like the things we like and see things the way we see things. Which effectively means that the Church is for some everyones more than others. If you like tennis, it's your fault.
We like to say that the Church is perfect, but the members aren't. Of course, this simply serves to marginalize those who disagree with the Church's "perfect" mainstream culture. The idea that the current Church is perfect isn't supported by doctrine--where is the United Order and the prohibition against remarrying after divorce? Instead of seeing the Church as a work in progress, we prefer to view the Church's inability to meet some needs as a failure on the part of the individual whose needs have not been met; we blame the victim. And we do it so damned sweetly that people go crazy and can never figure out how they really feel about the Church (my uncle).
I understand that being a member of the LDS Church requires a good deal of commitment and repentance. I'm not arguing that we drop the standards for the sake of inclusiveness. What I would like to see is for the Church to reach out a hand to everyone, not just to people who fit the image of "good Mormons." The truth is that we all need help. Instead of focusing on how much faith someone does or doesn't have, what ostensible deficiencies they have that cause them to be averse to the Gospel as we see it, let's spend more time nourishing that person (D&C42:43). Let's meet people where they are without condemnation or shibboleths and help them work on the important things. One good reason: the pool of WASP Republicans who don't drink or smoke is running out sooner than later.
One story in particular stood out to me. J----'s partner wanted to remove his records from the Church, so he went in for a talk with the bishop. The bishop used an example for why he shouldn't leave: "You're at the country club with the best golf course in the world. But you want to play tennis. Don't you think it's unfair to demand that the country club have a tennis court just for you?"
First of all, referencing a country club makes the analogy that much more unfortunate in light of the fact that one of the young man's reasons for wanting his records removed was the Church's history of racism. More intriguingly, this bishop's line of reasoning was that this guy should stay in the Church because it's good at something he's not interested in.
We say the Church is for everyone, but only if "everyone" changes themselves to like the things we like and see things the way we see things. Which effectively means that the Church is for some everyones more than others. If you like tennis, it's your fault.
We like to say that the Church is perfect, but the members aren't. Of course, this simply serves to marginalize those who disagree with the Church's "perfect" mainstream culture. The idea that the current Church is perfect isn't supported by doctrine--where is the United Order and the prohibition against remarrying after divorce? Instead of seeing the Church as a work in progress, we prefer to view the Church's inability to meet some needs as a failure on the part of the individual whose needs have not been met; we blame the victim. And we do it so damned sweetly that people go crazy and can never figure out how they really feel about the Church (my uncle).
I understand that being a member of the LDS Church requires a good deal of commitment and repentance. I'm not arguing that we drop the standards for the sake of inclusiveness. What I would like to see is for the Church to reach out a hand to everyone, not just to people who fit the image of "good Mormons." The truth is that we all need help. Instead of focusing on how much faith someone does or doesn't have, what ostensible deficiencies they have that cause them to be averse to the Gospel as we see it, let's spend more time nourishing that person (D&C42:43). Let's meet people where they are without condemnation or shibboleths and help them work on the important things. One good reason: the pool of WASP Republicans who don't drink or smoke is running out sooner than later.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
biggest political day ever
So I woke up this morning at 6:45 so I could make it to a meet and greet with Senator Deb Stabenow at 8:00 am. An advocate from USPIRG and I talked to an aid about financial oversight and public transit while we waited for the senator to show up. She did, and we got a picture with her. Not a bad start to a day, right? Give it a minute.
I got staffpeople from two representatives' offices to agree to become original co-sponsors on a financial oversight bill. Which was awesome. But it doesn't end there.
So I got a pass to the Senate gallery to see them vote to bring the economic recovery package to a vote last night. They don't mark the passes, so I went again today at lunch to see the actual vote on the largest spending bill in history. So I saw every senator alive in person last night and today.
Here's where it gets really good. At 4:30 I learned of a reception for John Dingell, who today became the longest serving Representative in history (53 years). I walk into the capitol an hour later looking for Statuatory Hall (it was Statuary Hall). I milled around aimlessly in a packed hall, focusing most of my attention to getting past the punk-ass old people socializing right in front of the cheese and crackers. I finally managed to get some boiled blue potatoes and asparagus and some spinach dip that I'm pretty sure had meat in it and then wandered over to the dessert table.
I was eating a chocolate-covered strawberry when everyone started clapping. I look over to the door to see Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, John Lewis, and John Dingell walk in. About this time, I hear someone to the left of me say "Thanks, Mr. Frank." I look over, and Barney Frank is standing right next to me. Alan Greenspan was there. The place was lousy with Congresspeople; the lapel pins were everywhere.
I was pretty near the stage, and Bill Clinton was on the end closest to me. He was literally 15 ft. from me.
They all say their piece about John Dingell, and then Bill Clinton gets off the stage and starts shaking hands 5 ft. away from me. I tried to get to him to shake his hand, but I was crowded out, and he was talking to old friends. A couple of teens got to him to get a picture and an autograph, but everyone else was on chummy terms. So I gave it up and considered going to the debrief that I was supposed to be at by this time.
Instead I walked around and tried to take to Michigan reps. I wound up in the reception line to greet Mr. Dingell. I said to him "Hey, I work in Ann Arbor for PIRGIM," and he said, "Come get a picture, son." Right after the picture, while I was still right by John Dingell, Bill Clinton walked over to him and people started snapping pictures. By that I mean, people were snapping pictures of John Dingell, Bill Clinton and MY FACE directly between the two of them.
After this, I decided I had to shake Clinton's hand. I stood with the group waiting to say hi and made some strong eye contact. Finally he offered me his hand, and I said "How you doing," and he said, "Thanks, man," though it sounded more like "Thanks, Nate." Satisfied, I went to the debrief fashionably late.
The best part is that I found out at the debrief that the party was supposed to be invitation only! Somehow I crashed the Bill Clinton-Nancy Pelosi-Alan Greenspan-John Dingell-Carl Levin-Barney Frank party and got a picture with Bill Clinton and John Dingell. Amazing. Also, I'm really tired.
I got staffpeople from two representatives' offices to agree to become original co-sponsors on a financial oversight bill. Which was awesome. But it doesn't end there.
So I got a pass to the Senate gallery to see them vote to bring the economic recovery package to a vote last night. They don't mark the passes, so I went again today at lunch to see the actual vote on the largest spending bill in history. So I saw every senator alive in person last night and today.
Here's where it gets really good. At 4:30 I learned of a reception for John Dingell, who today became the longest serving Representative in history (53 years). I walk into the capitol an hour later looking for Statuatory Hall (it was Statuary Hall). I milled around aimlessly in a packed hall, focusing most of my attention to getting past the punk-ass old people socializing right in front of the cheese and crackers. I finally managed to get some boiled blue potatoes and asparagus and some spinach dip that I'm pretty sure had meat in it and then wandered over to the dessert table.
I was eating a chocolate-covered strawberry when everyone started clapping. I look over to the door to see Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, John Lewis, and John Dingell walk in. About this time, I hear someone to the left of me say "Thanks, Mr. Frank." I look over, and Barney Frank is standing right next to me. Alan Greenspan was there. The place was lousy with Congresspeople; the lapel pins were everywhere.
I was pretty near the stage, and Bill Clinton was on the end closest to me. He was literally 15 ft. from me.
They all say their piece about John Dingell, and then Bill Clinton gets off the stage and starts shaking hands 5 ft. away from me. I tried to get to him to shake his hand, but I was crowded out, and he was talking to old friends. A couple of teens got to him to get a picture and an autograph, but everyone else was on chummy terms. So I gave it up and considered going to the debrief that I was supposed to be at by this time.
Instead I walked around and tried to take to Michigan reps. I wound up in the reception line to greet Mr. Dingell. I said to him "Hey, I work in Ann Arbor for PIRGIM," and he said, "Come get a picture, son." Right after the picture, while I was still right by John Dingell, Bill Clinton walked over to him and people started snapping pictures. By that I mean, people were snapping pictures of John Dingell, Bill Clinton and MY FACE directly between the two of them.
After this, I decided I had to shake Clinton's hand. I stood with the group waiting to say hi and made some strong eye contact. Finally he offered me his hand, and I said "How you doing," and he said, "Thanks, man," though it sounded more like "Thanks, Nate." Satisfied, I went to the debrief fashionably late.
The best part is that I found out at the debrief that the party was supposed to be invitation only! Somehow I crashed the Bill Clinton-Nancy Pelosi-Alan Greenspan-John Dingell-Carl Levin-Barney Frank party and got a picture with Bill Clinton and John Dingell. Amazing. Also, I'm really tired.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
sexual cleanse: the report
So I refrained from thinking about sex or romance for four days (when I planned on three, I was thinking it was Friday when it was actually Thursday). And it was a big success! I'm thinking monthly cleanses may be in order.
The first day was especially liberating. You may have heard that when doing a dietary cleanse, some people experience a profound clarity of the mind. When I don't eat for more than 5 hours, I get extremely cranky. But with the sexual cleanse, I felt like I experienced that clarity. Apparently I'm very much like George Costanza. I felt newly energized.
The second day my extra energy turned to antsiness. I was especially hungry and especially restless by the end of the day. But by the third day, I had settled in to the routine, and I've been riding it since.
I haven't really shifted out of cleanse mode, which was kind of the point. So the pressure cooker danger still remains. Will my next romantic interaction see a repressed outburst of physical passion, taking me to the fateful 88 mph (thanks for the analogy, Mr. Fusion)? I'll guess we'll have to wait and see.
The first day was especially liberating. You may have heard that when doing a dietary cleanse, some people experience a profound clarity of the mind. When I don't eat for more than 5 hours, I get extremely cranky. But with the sexual cleanse, I felt like I experienced that clarity. Apparently I'm very much like George Costanza. I felt newly energized.
The second day my extra energy turned to antsiness. I was especially hungry and especially restless by the end of the day. But by the third day, I had settled in to the routine, and I've been riding it since.
I haven't really shifted out of cleanse mode, which was kind of the point. So the pressure cooker danger still remains. Will my next romantic interaction see a repressed outburst of physical passion, taking me to the fateful 88 mph (thanks for the analogy, Mr. Fusion)? I'll guess we'll have to wait and see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
