what can I say, I'm kind of a big deal. people KNOW me.

Hey, check out this article I wrote for the Bakersfield Californian today in recognition of Constitution Day!

An Open Letter to Jimmy Carter - Or, What you talkin' bout, Willis?

Dear Jimmy Carter -

You should really be ashamed of this.

I FIRMLY believe that Rep. Wilson cares about the future of our country, our citizens, and our economy, and it was his passion for these issues that led him to his perhaps ill-timed, disrespectful, but by no means criminal, outburst the other night. I DON'T think that Joe Wilson thought, "hmmm, I don't have to listen to what he says because he doesn't look like me."

Maybe, just maybe, Joe Wilson's outburst had more to do with, oh, I don't know, HEALTHCARE than with racism?

Is there even the slightest possibility that, until you communicated these race-based views that people were more interested in the issue at hand than the color of the skin of the person presenting the platform?

By putting this sort of view out on the national stage, Jimmy Carter, YOU are the one who is observing, mentioning, prioritizing, and giving different treatment to a president because of his race and/or ethnicity. And that is the definition of Racism, sir.

Do the country a favor...please stop placing these misleading, damaging, and completely UNNECESSARY ideas out for an already fired-up populace to seize onto. We are smart enough to know when someone is being bigoted and when someone is being outspoken. And (in this case, at least) those two have no relation to each other. Joe Wilson was standing up for something he believed in, and that something was NOT white supremacy.

Black people can be racist too...right?

I’m sure a lot of people have heard about how Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested outside his home in Cambridge, Mass. earlier this week. His front door had apparently become jammed shut, and after entering with a key through the back door, Gates went around to the front to try to force the door open. A neighbor who saw him trying to wedge his own door open called police, alerting them to the fact that she believed a burglar was attempting break in.

Gates was able to get inside the home before police arrived, but that’s when it got interesting. Police, who were only doing their job to serve and protect the citizens of Cambridge, asked to see Gates’ ID, just to verify that he was, indeed, the owner of the home. Gates began ranting about racism in the justice system and accused the police officer questioning him of being racially biased. According to police reports, Gates became very loud and “tumultuous,” and, after being warned twice by the officer that he was becoming disorderly to no avail, Gates was arrested on disorderly conduct charges.

Of course, there are two sides to every story...Gates’ attorney has publicly stated that Gates complied with every request made by police in a subdued and timely manner, that the police officer harassed him by entering his home uninvited to continue an interrogation, and ignored the fact that Gates was lawfully in residence.

There has been a lot of brouhaha (I do LOVE that word) about this issue, and charges were dropped this morning. Still, people from all over the country have come to the defense of Gates, claiming extreme racism in this case.

Here’s the thing…

I just need to say something: just because you have a different color skin does NOT mean that every offense committed against you is committed because of prejudice.

I’m sorry. I know this is DEFINITELY not the case with a majority of African Americans in the United States. But those few who do believe that all white Americans are racist to the core, and that every thought and action is dominated by racial awareness, those are the ones who create this drama that seems to never end. They are the ones who give their groups bad names and bad reputations. They are the ones who are truly racist.

I know that this is a pretty controversial stance to espouse, but it is actually something I do (for the most part) believe. I’m not saying that there are not backward white Americans who believe that the “South will rise again” or some such nonsense. There are mean, hateful, ignorant people out there. But ignorance is not exclusive to one race or ethnicity. And for some radical African Americans to say that, hey, all white people are racists, that is ignorance.

Ultimately, people like that are the ones who are throwing the difference in skin color into sharp focus. And because their decisions are based on color, not character, they are the ones who can be deemed “racist,” even if not in the traditional sense of the word.

I don’t believe Gates’ attorney when he says that the police officer harassed his client based on skin color. I think that if there was an inquiry made, or even an interrogation, it was more because the police department RECEIVED A CALL FROM A NEIGHBOR saying that there was a possible burglary in process. This officer was not strolling down a street thinking, “hmm, what is that black guy doing?”

Regardless of skin color, I think that the officer was just doing his job. Had it been my house I would have been happy to comply with the police department, because honestly, what if it wasn’t me? I mean, what if some random person had broken in to my home, and when the officers arrived to make sure everything was copacetic (another fabulous word), the burglar announced that he lived there, and when someone started questioning that fact he flipped his lid about how the police officers were unfairly targeting him because of his race? Do you think I would want those police officers to be so worried about the politics of race and political correctness and hurt feelings resulting in job loss that they don’t fully investigate any threat to my property?

No! I would want those police officers to make damn sure that the person who was in the house had a right to be there. And that is what I think the police officers in Cambridge were doing. Rather than be agitated about being a “black man in America,” as Gates so vocally was, I would be thrilled to see my tax dollars at work towards something useful.

Ultimately, this is the bottom line: the racism here was on the part of Henry Louis Gates Jr. By being so sure that the only reason for his questioning and detainment was because of the color of his skin, Gates made the inference that the police officer was ignorant, and that inference wasn’t made because the officer was a public servant or a man, but because he was WHITE. And that is racism, plain and simple.

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.

 

A little confused...

I'm sorry, but I'm confused by something:

Major news today is that Arlen Specter has switched political parties and now identifies as a Democrat. Speculation is that he just wants to make sure he wins in his state again next year. He was facing HEAVY competition in the primaries, and recent polls show that he was about 15% behind.

My question: did he even identify with the Republican Party?!?!?!?!?

Statistically speaking, Arlen Specter has the most liberal record of any Republican in Congress...BY A LOT. He votes with the Democrats more than 50% of the time (if I weren't in class right now I would have all sorts of stats to throw at you...give me an hour or two and I'll see what I can do to BLOW YOUR MIND haha).

So, basically, in summation, Arlen Specter has never really been a Republican. Just a shady career politician who sacrifices personal beliefs for votes. So, Democrats, you can keep him. I don't want him.

I think everyone should go take THIS QUIZ...it's interesting and well rounded!

(and that's the only time I'll ever say anything like that about something put out by the Center for American Progress)

PS - If anyone is wondering, I scored 102/400. That makes me 60 points more conservative that "Conservative Republicans," haha.

Futile Action

Shortly after class, an economics student approached his economics professor and said, "I don't understand this stimulus bill. Can you explain it to me?"

The professor replied, "I don't have any time to explain it at my office, but if you come over to my house on Saturday and help me with my weekend project, I'll be glad to explain it to you." The student agreed. 

At the agreed upon time the student showed up at the professor's house. The professor stated that the weekend project involved his backyard pool. They both went out back, and the professor handed the student a bucket. Demonstrating with his own bucket, the professor said, "First, go over to the deep end, and fill your bucket with as much water as you can. The student did as he was instructed.

The professor then explained that they were going to do this many more times, and began walking back to the deep end of the pool. The confused student asked, "Excuse me, but why are we doing this?" The professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make the shallow end much deeper. 

The student didn't think the economics professor was serious, but figured that he would find out the real story soon enough. However, after the sixth trip between the shallow end and the deep end, the student began to fear that his economics professor had gone crazy. The student finally exclaimed, "All we're going is wasting valuable time and effort on unproductive pursuits. Even worse, when this process is all over everything will be exactly as it was before, so all you've really accomplished is the destruction of what could have been a truly productive action!"

The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile. "Congratulations! You now understand the stimulus bill!"