AuH2O knows best.

Barry Goldwater is widely known as the champion of conservatism, whose 1964 presidential bid launched the mobilization of a new wave of Republicans and conservatives within the United States. In fact, he's the politician most often credited with sparking the resurgence of the American conservative political movement of the 1960s (Wikipedia says so, so it must be true).

Barry Goldwater (get it...Gold + Water = Au H2O?) is also responsible for introducing Ronald Reagan to the national political scene, giving Reagan the platform for one of the most stirring and poignant speeches of his entire career, "A Time for Choosing." If you've never read, heard, or watched that speech, I can't recommend it enough. Here's a link so that you can see/listen to/read it. To this day it's considered one of the most effective speeches ever made on behalf of a candidate. UH-MAZING.

Some other tidbits of wisdom from Barry Goldwater include:

• "The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government."


• "To disagree one doesn't have to be disagreeable."


• "To insist on strength is not war-mongering, it's peace-mongering."


• "A government that is big enough to give you all that you want is also big enough to take away all that you have."


• "I wouldn't trust Richard Nixon from here to that phone."

Obviously, he was a very wise man.

However, one of my favorite quotes from him is something I feel is especially relevant this week. Barry Goldwater said, "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to shoot straight."

This weekend the Senate voted to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell (often abbreviated as DADT, which I often mistakenly read as "Defense Against the Dark Arts" like in Harry Potter). Today, President Obama signed the bill into law. And honestly - I couldn't be any prouder.

I think that the fact that we have denied gay Americans serving our country the right to be themselves in egregious. I think gay Americans who want to serve their country should be able to do so freely and openly, without any sort of fear for their livelihood should their "secret" come out.

Because fighting for and defending the honor of your country is pretty amazing.

ANY citizen who wants to be able to stand up for the rights and freedoms of Americans should be allowed to do so. I respect the military. I believe they should be honored. And I don't think that the government should be able to tell someone they can't serve because of the gender that person happens to be attracted to.

While people (mostly liberals) are trying to spread the message that conservatives and Christians alike are terribly bigoted anti-gay homophobes, that's simply not the case. A lot of conservatives and Christians disagree with the lifestyle, but they don't hate the people.

Goldwater, this bastion of conservatism, was all for gays serving openly back in the 60s. He reiterated his position in 1993, shortly after Clinton took office and instituted the DADT policy (expelliarmus!). Like I mentioned in an earlier post (here) it is my opinion, and the opinion of many conservatives - not necessarily Republicans - that it's not my place to diminish the love that one person feels for another person, no matter their gender. Neither is it the government's place to sanctify that love. It IS the government's job, however, to make sure this country is adequately protected and well-served, and they can't do that by excluding anyone who is willing and able to serve.

I am proud to call myself conservative, and I am proud that this bill made it through the Congress and the Senate and was signed by Obama. I think it's a step in the right direction, and hope that the legislation can be implemented with little to no dangerous reprecussions for those currently serving.

And I am proud of anyone who is willing to serve our country: gay, straight, or otherwise. You are true heroes.

Sexxxy Tiiiiiime: Making Social Security the most sought after domestic policy

When someone asks me to describe my outlook on the future of social security as it stands now, you could probably liken my response to that of the people who had to avert their eyes from Sacha Baron Cohen riding a jet ski in a red thong to the premiere of his movie in Amsterdam a few days ago.

Yeah, that's not good.

Social Security might not be the hottest issue being discussed right now, but it is an issue that I feel is really REALLY important for people, especially young people, to pay attention to. And, you know what? We need to sexy it up a little! Buy it a hot little teddy, tell it that it's pretty every now and then, you know...make sure that it becomes something worth caring about, because, ultimately, it can and will have serious long term impacts on every single American citizen. 

Disclaimer: when I say "Social Security," I am referring almost exclusively to the benefits for retirement, disability, survivorship, and death, which are the four major areas of payout, and those most commonly found in private-sector pension plans. Other issues that could fall under the larger umbrella of the original Social Security Act include welfare and unemployment benefits, which are a whooooole different ball game, and definitely best left to another blog. 

Social Security was implemented in a time very similar to the one we're facing now. The economy was in the crapper, we had a progressive "unifier" as the president, and there were major changes being made the system of government. It was implemented so that the a sector of the population that was particularly financially vulnerable would have a ray of hope during dark times. 

Today though, this ray is very visible. Here's the problem: We. Can't. Afford. It. 

When Social Security was first implemented -- it was signed into law in 1935, the first lump-sum payments were made in 1937, and the first monthly payments began in 1940 -- the average life expectancy at birth was 62.9 years of age. So basically to collect the monthly benefits provided by Social Security, you had to outlive the expectancy by 2.1 years to be able to collect. That's not a whole lot, and sure, it happened often, but that just means that people weren't collecting for too long before they popped off, too. Now, you can still collect at 65, but the average life expectancy (as of 2005) was 77.8 years! That means that on average, people will be collecting for over 12 years before they start to die off! That's a HUGE difference from the system that worked so well to ensure economic viability to the most vulnerable sector of the population in 1940.

Another interesting fact: In 1940, when the first monthly payments began to arrive, there were about 160 people who were contributing to the fun for every one person drawing out of it. Basically, the Social Security fund was in the black, and it had no reason to believe that it would ever be in danger...it was flush! But then as the life expectancy and population increased hand in hand, we started seeing a little inkling of the problem that now faces us. As of 2005, there were three workers paying in to Social Security for every 1 person receiving benefits. 

4 years later we're facing even more of a crisis. The Baby Boomers are rapidly approaching the age at which they can start collecting benefits, and that should make us all very scared. You see, the sheer amount of baby boomers that will move from tax-paying workers to benefit-collecting retirees is enough to completely devastate the ration of 3:1. Estimates say that we will be having 1 worker paying in for ever 2 or 3 beneficiaries! Newsflash, that means that there will be more money going out than coming in. Suze Orman would say that we should stop living beyond our means. 

So what, you might say? Well, basically this means that all of the taxes "The Man" takes out of our already meager paychecks as college graduates in entry-level positions is not going into a giant fund, like it used to. Rather it is immediately being sent out across the country to those people who collect benefits.  In fact, by 2037 the fund is expected to be officially exhausted. I'll be 50, stil 15 years away from collecting the money I've paid in during my adult life. The only thing that will cover the payouts will be the taxes we are paying in, and that will only cover about 76% of the payouts in 2037. So then, forty years down the road, when we come of age to collect OUR checks, what money do you think will be left for us? Certainly not the same amount as we labored to put in over the years!

Ever heard the old saying, "you reap what you sow"? Well, in the case of Social Security, that's not always true. "That's not fair!" I can hear now, in the refrain so loved by the kids I babysit. You're right. It's NOT fair.

So what are you going to do about it?

That's my point. There needs to be something done about the current Social Security crisis we face in the United States. The program is falling down around our shoulders, but we just keep paying in, hoping that it will just take care of itself by the time it comes for use to collect from it. Doesn't it sound FAIR if we were able to collect exactly what we paid in, not a dime more, not a dime less? Isn't that EXACTLY reaping what you sow? Yes. It is. 

And that's what privatization is, bebez. It's taking what you pay in, putting it into an account for you, and then paying you from that account, and that account only, when it comes time for you to retire. And it's good for the government, too! The government would get to take the profits from these investment accounts make investments with them, and keep all of those profits. (Yes, there's a lot more that goes into the process, but do you want this to be a novel? Do your own research, my object is to get you to care.)

So if you want to get out as much as you put in, if you want to have something to retire on, and if you care whether the government will come to a complete financial standstill in the next 40 years, you should really take a closer look at the Social Security situation in the United States. This isn't the sexiest issue out there, but really, do you want to wait until you're ten years from retirement before you discover that there's nothing there for you? Something has to be done, and whether you're for privatization or for more government control (ugh, I hope not), you need to let your elected officials know that this is a pressing issue they need to address now, not later.

 

My dad said I had to be 16 to date...

"Joanne, why do you have to be so nasty?"

"It's not called gym-nice-tics."

Stick It is a fabulous movie, cinema snobs be damned. It fostered my love for Nastia Liukin and helped me prepare for the sheer delight that is the Women's Gymnastics at the Beijing Olympic Games. And while I'm not a gymnast per say (texting while walking and drinking a coffee can become a beam routine gone bad very quickly) I realize that it's not called gym-nice-tics for a reason. You're there to win, not to make friends. Period.

The Chinese are there to win, too. And really, who is going to let a few insignificant details like age requirements and government records stand in between them and the wonder of hearing "March of the Volunteers" from the highest podium in Olympic Stadium? 

When I settled in with my kettle corn and sangria to watch the team competition, I was a little startled by the size of a few of the girls on the Chinese team. I mean, I'm way older than most of the gymnasts at the Olympics -- except for Oksana Chusovitina, who is, quite frankly, an awesome role model and amazing gymnast, but a freak of nature -- but some of those girls looked positively infantile. I swear to God, I saw one missing a baby tooth, and could definitely see the rumple lines of the tissue that a few of them used to stuff their built-in bras (who wasn't eleven and underdeveloped once upon a time?). I thought to myself, "NO WAY are these girls 16."

Turns out, I was right.

The Associated Press felt the same way I did about the baby tooth missing, bra stuffing tweens that were being passed off as 16 year old Olympians, and after doing some digging around they discovered official documents showing that at least two of the gymnasts are on record as being under the age of 15 less than 9 months ago (I hate to give The Huffington Post any sort of shout out, but here's the proof), which makes them ineligible for the Olympics. The official age requirement was changed in 1997 for the Sydney Olympics from 14 years old to 16 years old, meaning that any gymnast wishing to compete in the Olympics must be 16 or older by the end of the year of the games.

When confronted with this particular bit of information, the international powers that be released a statement saying that the passports presented by the Chinese gymnasts all indicated that the age requirements were met; no other form of verification is necessary.

Right. So for the commies in charge who mandate political control of the court system, implement a one-child policy that contributes to gender-specific abortions and forced sterilization, and who want to make sure you're not secretly praying to Jesus, falsifying a passport is just stepping over the line. This is the same country that, in the same Olympics, made an "ugly" child sing from backstage so that a cuter child could take the credit and make the nation look more appealing.

It's not like this is the first time, either. After the 2000 Olympics, the Chinese gymnast who won the bronze medal in the uneven bars individual event acknowledged that she was actually only 14 at the time of the Olympics, and that she and her coaches had lied about her age so that she would qualify. Her passport showed her age to be 16...wonder who fixed that up for her?

It really shouldn't surprise us that this is what the Communist government of China is stooping to. Their way of life and governmental systems are collapsing around them, and the best way to soldier on is to make sure that we -- the outsiders watching the proceedings on our flat screens from the safety of our homes in our capitalistic society -- are intimidated by their might and impressed by their show. 

An interesting thought to close: In 1936 the Olympics were held in Berlin. 9 years later (in 1945) Nazi Germany surrendered WWII and ended the Holocaust. In 1980 the Olympics were held in Moscow; the Soviet Union began to actively disintegrate in 1989, 9 years after the end of the summer games. Where will China be 9 years from now?

xoxo

What it do, baby boo?

Okay -

Since this is my first post I should probably explain myself and my blog to you. I think both can best be summed up by the following statement: Winston Churchill once said that if you're a young Conservative you have no heart, but if you're an old Liberal you have no brains...well, my brain just seems to be a little more developed than a lot of people my age. 

That's right, I am a twenty-something conservative. I know, I know, cue the tomatoes, right?

I don't necessarily believe that just because Winston Churchill thinks I should be BFFs with the Tin Man that makes it true. He was a great man, a great leader, and a great Conservative, but things have changed since Winston's day. It's my personal belief that I'm just a little more farsighted than a lot of my generation. Instead of the culture of instant gratification that abounds today I look to the future, and my political views are formed because of my hope and vision of the long term.

So that's what this blog is going to be -- a vision for the future for people my age. Let's face it... a lot of 18 to 24 year olds don't give a shit about politics or current events. If I said "Hey, what are your opinions on Georgia's sovereignty being compromised by Russia?" most people my age would be thinking along the lines of the ATL, not the Eastern European country (this disgusts me, btw). Obviously 18 to 24 year olds grow up. What happens when we become 40 year olds? How will people who haven't cared about politics until the middle of their lives feel when they realize they could have been safe-guarding their future rather than creating mindless Facebook groups in a quest to be "1,000,000 strong" for something stupid?

Hopefully this blog will be a platform for more people to become more educated about more issues. There are so many dangerous and scary things happening in the world of politics that are being glamorized and glossed over because not a lot of youth understand what lies under the surface, so maybe (just maybe) this blog can help shed some light on some issues that a lot of people around my age have trouble getting into.