I was paid $20,000 to go to college.  I had a full scholarship to a state university and received grants on top of that.  Between 2001 and 2016, average state university costs are set to rise at least 100%.  Scholarships are being cut, federal/state funding is being dropped, prices skyrocket (the jerk that tells you “I paid for my school out of my own pocket and hard work back in the 90s- you should be able to do the same”- that guy literally doesn’t know what millennium he is in).  I went to school for free. I could not do that today.  In fact, instead of making $20K by starting college in 2004, if I were starting at that same school today I would likely take out at least $40K.  And that’s just undergrad at a 2^nd tier state university.

Here is the first thing you need to know about student loans: nobody understands the current system.  Not you.  Not your parents or spouse or fellow students.  Not your financial aid advisor.  Nobody.  But I’m going to give you a few numbers to show how ridiculous the system is at the moment.

Even if they did understand, laws are being rewritten fast.  Many of the current student loan rules are an expansion of Bush-era holdovers that were  tucked into the 2010 health care act.  Even if the Supreme Court doesn’t knock the whole thing over this summer, an army of ravenous politicians that don’t give a shit about the sick or students will be waiting to take the regulations apart however they can.  And if the crisis comes down to cutting grants and loans to students, or raising taxes a couple of percentage points- you know what way they will go.

There is a certain large segment of the population that thinks the solution to the student loan crisis is “Those kids shouldn’t have taken out that money- didn’t someone tell them they’d be paying it back?!”  Aside from the mind-numbing reduction of a highly nuanced crisis in such an answer, the second thing you need to know about student loans is that you won’t necessarily pay them back.  In fact, if student cost trends paired against default and employment trends continue, paying back your loans will put you in the minority before too long.

They want you to pay back student loans over ten years.  If you take out $10K or $30K, you can do that.  But federal loans have a lifetime cap at $138,000 and GRADplus loans for graduate students can continue being taken indefinitely at approx. $20,000/year.  There is theoretically no limit to how much you can take out in student loans if you are in school long enough (say, like me, you go to college, get a master’s, and then a Ph.D.-  I’ll do that in 11 years total, but that is abnormally fast and every additional year means the student gets more GRADplus funding). 

By the way, the debt calculators I'm about to blow your mind with are all here.  Check it out for yourself.

If you go to a shitty state school or online college, you don't need $138,000.  But if you want to be competitive, you will graduate from a ranked university plus graduate school afterward.  You can reasonably expect student life today to cost $25K/yr.  For 6-8 years.  Let give it a very conservative estimate of $130,000 total.  Unless you get all that covered by parents or scholarships, you are responsible.  So how much are your monthly repayments on the standard 10 year plan you will be advised to use by your lender?

$1,496 per month?! Well, you are fucked.  Or, would be.  Lucky for you, they’ve added several repayment options.  Let’s talk about just one of those options.  And here is where it gets really interesting:

Let’s go with the income-based repayment (IBR) plan.  Like the name suggests, the repayments have more to do with your salary than your loan balance.  Under this plan, you pay a minimum payment for 25 years (10 if working at a 501c3), and then the remainder is dropped, regardless of how much you still owe.  In other words, with a high enough principle and a low enough salary, you might not even pay all the interest, much less the principle.  Remember what I said earlier about those people who mistakenly think “everyone should know they’ll have to pay loans back”?  Not so.

I’m married, so lets say my wife and I have a $130,000 debt from my school and, by some completely unrealistic miracle, only have $20K from her's.  So, $150K total.  And let’s say we have no kids.  And let’s say that we make $70K/yr right out of school without even having to try (which is $25,000 above the average U.S. income).  That’s just starting out in our new life post-education.  What are the IBR repayments for our $150K loan?

Comebined $590 per month.  That’s doable. 

 Let’s say we struggle and only made $50,000 our first year.  What is my repayment on $150K then?

$340K/mo. 

 OK, OK, here is the most interesting part of all of it.  Let’s say I made that $70K salary again.  But instead of a loan debt of $150K (repaying $590/mo) I decide I want a ton of student money and take out an extra $100,000 just because I can.  So my debt is a quarter of a million dollars, but I only make $70K/yr.  What are my monthly repayments now?

Oh, still just $590 per month?  So I pay that same amount (more or less depending on salary) over 25 years (again, only 10 if I work at a nonprofit), whether I stick to a razor-thin budget or take out an extra $100K that I don’t need?

OK, OK, OK.  So we have a job market that encourages high education, and costs for education are skyrocketing.  There isn’t enough political pressure to simply provide public education, so we come up with a student loan program instead.  The program encourages people to take out more money than they will ever pay back.  The program will not penalize me if I take out a $100K extra that I don’t need, and my repayments will be the same as if I were responsible and took a lower loan.  And that’s if I follow all the rules- unlike the 10% of people that have defaulted (simply stopped paying back loans altogether) since graduating in 2009.  That’s my college class.  Default is going to become the norm.  Watch it happen. 

And there are very few consequences for defaulting.  Your financial aid advisor does not tell you this.

But in the meantime, even if you choose to pay back those student debts (because I hope I’ve demonstrated how much of a choice it actually is- and I only demonstrated 2 of the options they offer), the system is designed to crash.  It only stays afloat- like so much of the economy- because nobody really understands it.

Hey, remember that time banks were giving housing loans to people they knew wouldn't pay back- but the banks were still lending money because there were no consequences if the federal government had their back?  Remember how it fucked up the economy and the only thing that saved us was federal intervention?  So what happens when the creditor in trouble is the entity that is supposed to fix these problems?

In today’s American Christianity, it is extremely common to hear people claim they have a “personal relationship with God.” You might even get judged if you are a Christian that doesn’t claim to have a personal relationship with God.  It’s so common that you don’t even recognize it as particularly odd to hear people talk about this.  Since Jimmy Carter, you can’t even be elected President without playing to this language.  As a matter of history, this personal relationship is really, really odd.

At least a quarter of Americans today claim to have a personal relationship with God.

The first time we see “personal relationship” language enter the historical record is around the end of the 19^th century in the populist theological literature of American evangelicalism.  The 1^st and 2^nd Great Awakenings made “read the Bible for yourself” a common meme in early evangelicalism, and making God your BFF was the next logical step.  Before the late 19^th, and outside of North America, Christians simply did not explain their understanding of God in these terms.  I’m not making a value judgment- it’s just a historical fact. I think it’s interesting how our conceptions of God have shifted endlessly over the past 200,000 years (which is when our earliest historical records of religion via shamanism and death rituals emerge), and this concept of “personal relationship”- best buddy Jesus who chatters back at you- is the most recent innovation.  What factors (economic, sociological, political) contribute to this shift in consciousness? 

NPR has a fascinating interview on the phenomenon of Evangelicals who feel they have a personal relationship with God.  Fresh Air’s Terry Gross talks with T. M. Luhrmann, author of When God Talks Back.  It’s a really great interview that doesn’t come off as judgmental either way, and it discusses Lurhmann’s time submersing herself in a Vineyard congregation, participating in prayer and such, trying to understand what it means when people say they have a “personal relationship with God.” 

Listen to NPR’s interview here.

Professor Richard Wolff (emeritus, University of Massachusetts) is one of the world's foremost experts on Marx.  He is trained in both classical and Marxian economics, and his status as a public intellectual has risen in light of the present crisis.  If you want to understand Marx's critiques of capitalism, Dr. Wolff is the scholar to go to.

I've uploaded two series of lectures by Wolff on my Resources page (lectures #73-82).

Just a reminder: I have posted audio lectures on and/or by every significant philosopher (ever) on the Resources page.  

“In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” -Martin Luther King Jr.

Obama’s announcement in favor of marriage equality was certainly a milestone on the inevitable road to equality (if you wonder why I say “inevitable,” see previous post).  I saw a lot of cheering from my progressive friends and anger from my conservative friends.  But what struck me was the silence of most of my clergy friends and fellow seminary students.  There were definitely exceptions, but the silence was deafening when this is the civil rights battle of our time.

What I’ve been asking myself- and I hesitated to even ask publicly- was: how exactly do I feel about those of us with religious expertise who refuse to speak out for equality? Not the ones trapped in archaic systems of belief- I’m talking specifically about those who have thought, studied, dialogued, prayed, etc., to a point of being very certain that they affirm equality.   Those who know that a fight against equality would be merely a repetition of past errors in foresight and bigotry.  Those who are comfortable being on the right side of history, but are not willing to go on record just yet.

This happens because traditionalists hold hegemony in the power game of religion.  Affirm gay marriage, and clergy and professors get fired.  Theology students have job prospects restricted.  It comes with a personal and financial cost- not nearly as high as the cost visited upon those whose rights are being deprived as a result of their silence- but a cost nonetheless. 

Here is my story and why this is a hard thing for me to ask:

On the one hand, I am not a pastor and don’t plan on becoming one.  So I don’t have a job to loose.  On the other, I am not a pastor because I was dismissed from my position and told to leave a church specifically because I could not call committed gay relationships sinful.  Other ambiguous reasons were trumped up for padding, of course, but the affirming stance was the only real reason.  This was further confirmed 9 months later when the head pastor that terminated me was arrested for having sex with a young boy (it turns out there is an iPhone app for that, and he was making use of it). He had gotten rid of me because he needed to look as conservative as possible to keep up the veneer. A few perceptive friends saw through though all the murky bullshit all along, but many others continued to support the guy against me (I  presume because of a fear of more progressive theology).  After the pastor’s arrest, not one single parishioner, friend, elder, or local pastor who had supported Pastor Pedophile ever apologized for the months of pain and slander they had participated in.  Some were even worse in their behavior toward me afterwards.  Crazy story, yes?  So no, I really don’t have anything to loose by advocating for equality.  But it’s been a costly road to get here. 

So from my position, it would be easy for me to judge those who believe the same as I do, see this as the civil rights battle of our time, understand that their silence contributes to the problem, but still remain silent.  I don’t know if that’s right of me or not.  Those who caution and call for “pastoral sensitivity to the congregation” would have said the same in the 1960s about a different civil rights demographic.  If there is no legal reason that gays should be barred from marriage, the only reason this is an issue is prejudice covered in religious language.  Because of that- and for that reason alone- those of us with credentials and expertise in religion have some of the highest potential as equality advocates.  And that’s why I continue to talk about this and was happy for the President’s words today.

I do judge the silence.  More honesty could really help. But that's easy for me to say at this point- I've been through the negative side already.  I haven’t decided whether I agree with myself or not on this.

If you have an opinion (especially if you are clergy or a fellow student of theology), I’d love to hear your thoughts.

North Carolina has passed Amemendment 1, a law designed to discriminate against its gay citizens.  It’s a sad day for those of us hoping to see a society that values marriage and equal rights.  When these laws pass, it is a personally painful reminder to me.  You see, the first election I was able to vote in was in 2004.  I was 18.

As you may remember, Karl Rove had sold the Bush administration on the idea that putting anti-gay laws on the ballots would be a terrific way to co-opt the religious, get them to the polls, and ensure another four years for Bush.  I am horrified at my vote now.  But I had a very small worldview, untrained theology, very narrow politics, and I was taken in.  I thought God must be in favor of oppressing a certain group of people.  I had never met a gay person (that I knew of, at least).  I was a life-long southerner, and I had never met a Christian who supported equality.  I was naïve.  Even more than voting for an administration that was committing war crimes, this vote to write discrimination into a state constitution still haunts me.  How could I participate in such bigotry?  It was detestable.

The good news is that I’m not the only one who has had a change of heart, as this week's Gallup poll demonstrates.  2011 was the first in which public opinion was in favor of marriage equality (53%).  This year it dropped to 50%, but the discriminatory side has a history of getting a bump in election years- the Rove tactic of co-option still works after all.  But even now, only 48% is against equality, meaning if we had a vote today, equality would win.

In fact, over the last 16 years, public support for marriage equality has risen at least 23 %. 

For a while, the prevailing thought was that public opinion was shifting a 1 percent (net) per year.  If Gallup is right, public opinion is now shifting at a net 2.69%/year.  You can do the math, but I’m going to be shocked if we are still having this debate in 10 years. I’ll even argue that the GOP presidential candidate in 2024 will be in favor of marriage equality (on chance it isn’t settled by then), because it will become tiring to loose elections over backwards views:

In other words, we know which side wins in the end.  You can join the call for equal rights now, or you have to face the reality that- like it or not- you will have to explain to your grandkids why you held the discriminatory views you have, just like generation past with another issue.

By religion, which is rapidly changing (as demonstrated by the many churches calling for justice in NC):

Read it from Gallup.

Hell is the most hilariously worst idea to ever become normative in any religion.  I can't think of a decent reason the idea exists accept for manipulation or naivete (seriously, how many people do you know that are aware a word actually meaning "hell" never appears in the Bible, not even once).  You are better off, like most of the early Christian church, without it.

But an upcoming documentary will explore how it works in American Christianity.

learn mere at http://www.hellboundthemovie.com/

On Tuesday, we released our split album Venn.  Download it.

You can also download an additional song of mine, Lament and Protest, on the music page.

Review of Venn from Elijah Davidson:

"With Venn, the normal conception about the electronic musician – one guy wearing headphones
in a closet messing around with his computer – is proven too limited. Venn isn’t the musical
meanderings of a lone soul. Venn is communal. By inviting Jumboduck and Tad Delay, among
others, into the creative process, Bendblock has moved his music outside his own mind and into
his community. Venn is the sound of overlapping inclinations and passions, waves that wash over
one another and then recede, leaving each altered and bettered in the process.

Songs like these are sometimes called "soundscapes," as if they are sonic expanses without
definable limits or intentions. Venn’s songs are not endless vistas. These songs are the road
cutting through creation's expanse. Are they wandering? Explorative? Steady? Yes. But they
also have definite beginning points, trajectories, and destinations. Bendblock and his guests are
musicians on a journey together, and the listener gets to go along for the ride.

The result of this communal effort is a constant surprise. One track is emotive and contemplative,
and the next is joyous and lilting. One carries you thorough the ether of an imagined future
of mystery and light, and the next grounds you in the earthiness of centuries old tradition and
ecclesial rhythm. People together are puzzling and unpredictable, humorous and holy, and Venn
is the work of people together. It contains and represents what makes people together frustrating,
enlivening, and ultimately, very good."

Adam Kotsko’s Why We Love Sociopaths: A Guide to Late Capitalist Television just released on Kindle.  If you want to know why you love sociopaths like Don Draper and hate wannabe sociopaths like Pete Campbell, read along with me.  Kotsko’s site recently discussed the Draper/Campbell difference (I’ll return to this below and discuss a sociopath I worked with). 

If you know more than 25 people, you’ve interacted with a sociopath.  3% of men, 1% of women.  Chances are, you love them.  Sociopath is a generic term for Anti-Social Personality Disorder (ASPD). According to the DSM-IV, if you fit 3 or more of these conditions, you are likely a sociopath:

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

2. Deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.

3. Impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;

4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;

5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;

6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;

7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another.

A very common subtype of ASPD (but which can be a standalone disorder) is Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD), evidenced by 5 or more of the following: 

1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

3. Believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

4. Requires excessive admiration

5. Has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

6. Is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

8. Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her

9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

We all know plenty of people who fit several of these types of characteristics, and then we also know people that fit every single one.  Politicians to celebrity pastors to TV characters to former friends.  

When I Worked with a Sociopath

During my college years, I worked alongside of a (never diagnosed) textbook-example sociopath for a while.  He ran a small ministry that is still going, and early on I assumed he had the best of intensions.  Over time, it became clear he had a long history of creating conflict, financial indiscretions, an excessive need for control, and had started this group after realizing his past conflicts had made him unemployable. I eventually got in way of his insecurities, and I too became one of his ended friendships almost overnight (I was even informed of this via Facebook, no joke).  I had only passing familiarity with the ASPD or NPD typologies at the time as a psych student, but so much behavior made spectacular sense in retrospect.  Reading the Draper/Campbell article gave me pause to consider what it was that I experienced in that particular case.  ASPD's tend to have a standard set of behavioral histories that are identifiable and concerning, and yet society still rewards narcissism.  But what baffles me to this day is how I was able to excuse certain warning signs for so long.  Part of it was my own overly trusting naïveté, but it was more than that.  What is it that makes sociopaths attractive (but only at a distance, and usually only temporarily)?  Why the TV shows idolizing hero sociopaths?

Pathology vs. the Wish for Pathology

We all know that there is something about Don Draper archetype that is appealing.  He appears free precisely because of a pathological detatchment that prevents him from experiencing a normal range of human emotion (particularly, empathy).  He has all the success, money, respect, sex, and alcohol he wants, and he has them while making a big show of not giving a shit.  Of course, we only want this at a distance- it would be a truly horrible person that would really want Draper’s lonely and indifferent existence.  But Pete Campbell does want exactly that, and he tries really hard to get the things that Draper has (which instantly become unappealing to him, e.g. the 1st season's affair with Peggy). 

Campbell wants to be a sociopath, but he cares too much.  Which raises the question: does Draper really not care? Or is he simply better at pretending?  And is there a difference?  If someone is a sociopath and/or narcissist, would it make any difference to what degree they wanted to project their own Draper-esque apathy toward the people they hurt or the success they have? 

The particular sociopath I worked with seemed to control people in his circle quite naturally, but he also works really hard to project a certain aura.  This means he immediately comes across as fake to many, but to those in his circle, he owns them for years.  Again, if you know more than 25 people in any given population, you know the type.

I suppose I’m trying to understand which is more concerning: the Drapers that can’t help destroying relationships (because of some innate pathology), or the Campbells that really, really, really want to become Drapers?  The pathological or the wannabe pathological?  And if we are going to idolize pathology, how long until we can no longer tell the difference between wolves and the sheep that want to be wolves?

What started as a few collaborative tracks grew into a split EP and now a full split Album of a wide range of electronic music from vocal driven, blues inspired songs to experimental soundscapes.

Matt, Simon, and I are excited to anounce Venn, for free or name your price, to download or stream today at mattlumpkin.bandcamp.com

Pew recently put out a survey that could represent an alarming case of self-fulfilling prophecy.  Apocalypticism is on the rise and nearly half of Americans expect the world to end in the next 50 years.  As global warming becomes less and less something that can be denied, we are seeing a shift in explanation from “it doesn’t exist” to “it’s god’s punishment or sign of the end times.”

I say it’s yet another example of our finding it easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine something different than the capitalism that is bringing about that world’s end.

-Nearly 6-in-10 (59%) white evangelicals also believe that natural disasters are a sign from God. Only about one-third of Catholics (31%) and white mainline Protestants (34%) believe natural disasters are a sign from God.

-A majority (53%) of white evangelicals believe that God punishes nations for the sins of its citizens–a view held by just 1-in-5 white mainline Protestants and Catholics.

-Nearly 6-in-10 (58%) Americans say that the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence of global climate change, compared to 44% of Americans who say that the severity of recent natural disasters is evidence of what the Bible calls the ‘end times.’  White evangelical Protestants and Republicans are an exception to this pattern:

-Among White evangelicals, 67% believe that natural disasters are evidence of what the Bible calls the ‘end times’ compared to 52% who see it as evidence of global climate change.

-Among Republicans, 52% believe that natural disasters are evidence of what the Bible calls the ‘end times’ compared to 41% who see it as evidence of global climate change.