Debt Ceiling Foolery

The debt ceiling debacle was completely non-sense. I was watching GPS, a news talk show, the other day and the host made an interesting point about the debt ceiling debate. What he basically said is that the republicans, around the beginning of this year, approved an United States budget that agreed to spend more than what we were bringing in in tax revenues. By approving a budget that spends more than what we are bringing in you essentially agree that we will have to borrow money to make up the difference. This is not politics, its math. Now we get down to the very deadline and the Republicans want to hold the poor people and senior citizens hostage by threatening them with the prospects of not receiving their monthly income. The poor, senior citizens, and the disabled members of our society had their very lives hanging in the balance all for a political gain. Using people's lives as leverage is absolutely reprehensible and is a note that the american people should take to the polls with them in 2012. The republicans in conjunction with the tea-partiers almost destroyed the country without regard. They used this opportunity to break the backs of the Democrats. The Dems knew the effects that a default would have on our country and were unwilling to allow the republicans/teapartiers to ruin us all. In conclusion, its almost as if the country is the baby from I Kings 3 verse 26: the republicans wanted to split the baby in half, thus killing it, but the dems said no you can have your way. What party really has the people's best interest in mind? #foodforthought

The Truth About Gas Prices

I think we all can agree that gas prices are ridiculously high. Who does this affect the most? The poor. This answer seems easy enough right? And it is true. But why does it affect the poor the most? Is it due to their lack of disposable income? In part. In addition to the lack of disposable income, their geographical location also plays a role.

Gentrification is the root of the problem for poor people in regard to gas prices.

Gentrification: is the term referring to displacement that results when wealthier people acquire property in low income and working class communities. The average income increases and the average family size decreases, which sometimes results in evictions of low income residents because of rent increases, house prices, and property tax.

In the mid to late 90s urban gentrification became a major focus in many large metropolitan areas such as New York, Los Angeles, Miami, and Houston to name a few. Back in the 80s and early 90s the city was where you could find most, if not all, of the impoverished families. Along with the problems poverty stricken communities face (i.e. drugs and violence). Consequently it was really inexpensive to live in the city. During this same period most of the affluent families lived in the suburbs and commuted to the city for work.

What were the gas price during the period in which the rich resided in the suburbs? 95,97,98,99 cents per gallon. Lets pause for a moment as we reflect on the good ole days........Ok back to the subject. Have you ever priced a condo in downtown Houston? No? Well don't its very depressing. Which is why the poor and the middle class now live in the suburbs. Now that gentrification has taken hold of many downtown areas, the wealthy families no longer need to drive as much. On the other hand the poor and middle class have to drive miles into the city to get work. They are really feeling the crush of 4 and 5 dollar per gallon gas prices.

Why are the gas prices so high? Is it the instability in the Middle East? No, there has always been instability in the Middle East. Is it the war? No, in the early 90s, even with Kuwait's oil wells on fire we didn't see such ridiculous prices (Persian Gulf War). Is it demand? No, demand has went up but so has oil production. Then why are the gas prices so high? It's the intentional price manipulation by speculators in the market in an attempt to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Gas should, based on "real" supply and demand, not be over $1.80. By investing billions of dollars into big oil the rich are creating an artificial demand which consequently drives up the price of oil per barrel. So while the less fortunate are spending all of their disposable income on fuel, leaving them little or no money to invest or save, the rich are living in their penthouses in the city, not driving as much, investing their disposable income in the oil market and benefiting from terminal plight of the poor.

In closing, it is clear that these oil prices are unbearable. What is not so clear is the lack of effort by our government to curtail this growing atrocity. It is an apparent manipulation of our capitalist system, which is contributing to the wealth gap. What ever the rich can't cheat their way out of in tax loopholes, they get back, and even more, in market manipulations. If this problem goes on unattended, we will continue to see a mass redistribution of wealth. Socialism for the rich. God Bless America.

Political Insanity: Tax and Debt

Taxes are a government's way of raising revenue in order to reinvest in its people. Without taxes the government can not provide basic services like healthcare, education, defense etc... In the United States we have a very serious problem; our government spends alot of money, but we tax very little. There is no way that this type of course is sustainable. This is not politics, its math. As a county we are over 14 trillion dollars in debt(14,000,000,000,000 just so you can see the number).

In order to close this obtuse gap we are going to have to attack it from both ends, cutting spending and raising taxes. First lets address spending. We are pumping boatloads of money into Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and Defense. These programs if unchanged by 2040 will take up approximately 89 percent of the budget. So doesn't it seem logical to start there? Nope, not what our politicians think. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are entitlement programs so I can kinda understand the ambivalency here, but in regard to defense there shouldn't be any. We are currently fighting 3 wars. Totally unacceptable. We have a military base in Italy. Really? Could someone tell me why we are in Italy? How about we end some of these wars, close some of the totally geographically impractically located bases, cease occupations of countries that don't want us there, and put an end to this prehistoric imperialistic ideology. America, just like individuals, if you are shining and taking care of your business you are going to have haters every now and then. The key is not consume yourself with the haters and exhaust all your resources to the point where you destroy yourself. In this scenario the haters win. Lets stop trying to nation build elsewhere when right here in America there were over 30 million people unemployed. But thats another story. Back to the tax and debt issue. By cutting defense, America will be on the right path in reference to fiscal responsibility.

Educationally, America has fallen several notches on the global stage. Fact! Conservatives want to cut the education budget. Fact! I personally have several colleagues that are teachers and they have very serious doubts about their job security. Since when did teachers have to worry about their jobs? If we are on a steady decline when it comes to educational successes, why are we cutting the education budget? Statically speaking people that receive a poor education or no education are more likely to end up on social programs, commit crimes, and consequently increase the financial burden on the government (increase debt). In order to secure this country's intellectual and fiscal future, I have a novel idea: increase teacher pay so that teachers will be motivated to teach and stop threatening the future of their careers, which are predicated on the success of students on unfair standardized examinations. We should be try to be SMART when it comes to education.

The aforementioned issues are just a couple of the many that I feel a certain group of politicians have backwards. Now for the big one. Our leaders are refusing to raise taxes on the rich. They would much rather fire teachers, defund planned parenthood, and stop supplying heating oil to less fortunate families in the winter. Are you kidding me? Planned Parenthood was the program where many politicians drew the line in the sand. Lol. Might I remind you we are 14 trillion dollars in debt. The budget on Planned Parenthood is only 1 billion dollars, which is miniscule relatively speaking. I understand that we have to start somewhere, but "come on man". When you are not even willing to address the 600 billion dollar defense budget, but you are telling me that the real debate is over Planned Parenthood, I cant help but think that either you are a compulsive liar or you think me to be an absolute idiot; neither of which are acceptable conclusions.

Why not raise taxes on the rich? When I say raise tax on the rich, i'm simply saying return the tax rate to where it was in the 90s'. During that period there were over 20 million new jobs created and was one of the most prosperous periods of the 20th century. Everyone likes prosperity right? Not true. A certain political party thinks its cool when only rich people prosper. If the middle class is prosperous or the income gap is shrinking theres a problem. We tried the current tax rate for 8 years, and the period ended in a recession. This is not politics its common sense. These people are wealthy they can afford to pay more than the middle class and the poor whom have seen their net income decrease for the first time in 5 generations. Why is this so contemptable? Why must the Democrats continue to capitulate on this issue? We have to raise taxes and cut spending if we are serious about the debt and deficit.

I would like end with this conversation I had with a stranger.
Me: The rich can afford to pay more taxes than middle class or poor, we should raise the rate.
Her: We have high unemployment and i've never seen a poor person hire anybody.
Me: And i've never seen a rich person pay taxes.
Republicans complain about how high the corporate tax rate is, but the reality of the matter is that they never pay them anyway. GE, 14 billion in profits, paid no taxes. You mean to tell me I paid more than GE? Unacceptable. Please forgive my fatigue with this issue of debt. In the paraphrased words of the great Dennis Miller in regard to whoever owe the debt to "F*ck it dont pay'em".

They Gave Us A Word

INTRO:

40 acres and a mule, was what they promised us. I personally don't know anyone whom's ancestors received that kind gesture. What I do know is that they gave us a word. A word that has carried condescending and demeaning stigma for over 400 years. Nigger is was they called us. This word was not used as an exclusive NOUN referring to an individual, but as an inclusive ADJECTIVE to describe an entire race of people. The word was is pejorative, condescending, demeaning; describing us as inferior, stupid, dumb, ignorant, savage, uncivilized and the list goes on.

I was compelled to write this blog out of necessity. The extraction and the subsequent verbal manifestation was motived, in part, by one Dr. Laura Schlessinger. In short Dr. Laura is a radio show host that posed and a rather controversial question: If black people can use the N-Word why can't everybody else? I have heard many different answers to this question, but none that could quite satisfy the public. Here's my attempt to do so.

PRACTICAL ANSWER:

This is by far the simplest conceptual explanation for why everyone isn't allowed to use the N-Word. Introducing "Circle of Familiarity" (c of f). Everyone has friends and/or family; when a friend or family member calls you a name or makes a descriptive inference in regard your lifestyle, appearance or beliefs, that any reasonably prudent person influenced by society would find offensive, you may not, necessarily, be offended by their comments. As long as this person is within your "c of f" their words may be moderately offensive or not offensive at all. Now if a perfect stranger walks up to you and calls you ugly, short, or fat I am sure your response ,for the most part, will be entirely different. The "c of f", in regard to the N-Word does, sometimes, transcend race. I have personally heard (not that I agree with it) whites and hispanics use the N-Word in the presence of their black friends. In this particular instance, the usage of the N-Word was deemed acceptable due to the relationships with their "c of f". I personally was offended when I heard it, because I didn't have that type of relationship within that circle. Whether you feel like the exclusive, and partially acceptable, use of the N-Word by African-Americans is right or wrong, you can understand that if you are not within a "c of f" you cannot say certain things to certain people. Period!

ABSTRACT LOOK:

Disclaimer: A famous linguist once noted that ever so often words have a way of reinventing themselves.

The N-Word historically has been used (mostly by white people) , like I stated in the intro, as a demeaning and condescending word. Regardless of any ADJECTIVE that was placed in front it, it was defamatory. And in most cases it was used simply as an ADJECTIVE to describe African-Americans as inferior. Now fast forward to the 21st century. African-Americans, true to our creative culture, have taken the word, patented it, and remixed it to mean, for the most part, something entirely different. N-word in some cases is used as a greeting by a fellow black person, illustrating that they recognize a black person and are welcoming them into the ascribed "c of f" as an African American. It has historically been used as a NOUN, of course spoken with the correct slang or diction, by black people to recognize another person as black(i.e. "my nigga"). Now don't get me wrong black people have you used the word negatively towards each other. However, in 'almost' all cases the N-Word must be preceded my an acrimonious adjective in order for the word to carry negative connotations. Members of other races also use the N-Word as a NOUN when preceded by an ADJECTIVE, but no matter what ADJECTIVE precedes it, it will always carry a negative meaning in the presence of black people that are not apart of your "c of f". This NOUN/ADJECTIVE dichotomy must be noted in order to attain a general understanding of the perpetual usage of the word.

ITS ALL ABOUT POWER:

Im my opinion it is all about power. They gave us this word with malicious intent. We have taken this word patented it, and remixed it. Exclusive rights to its usage. It now carries, in some cases, a positive meaning. They can no longer use the word outside of their "c of a" and not receive some sort of societal backlash. Yep I said societal. When it comes to being an African-American there are not too many things that society backs us on and the almost exclusive use of the N-Word, is one of them. And the people that "coined the phrase" can't stand it. The power and freedom to use the word is now gone. Whether you as an African-American embrace the word or not, all parties involved must make an effort understand the "c of f" concept and the "Noun?Adjective" dichotomy.


If you have any thoughts on this, no matter what race, feel free to comment. This a conversation we need to have.

Arizona Immigration

Bill S.B.1070 Article 8 sec 11-1051b states:

FOR ANY (LAWFUL) CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE (REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS) THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Reasonable Suspicion? What is that? How do you define that? Is your definition differ from mine? Chances are, it does.

Just a note in regard to reason:

If the definition, that is to be excepted and applicable under this law,is subjective (meaning that it may vary from person to person), the decisions made cannot be excepted as an objective truth. Never can you deem a decision objective based on subjectivity. This would be in direct violation of the term law.

Note on practicallity:

Furthermore putting the freedoms and liberties of a certain group of people in the hands of street level bureaucrates is absolutely reprehensible. Where does "reasonable suspicion" stop? And how you prove, objectively, that there was none, if by chance, someone needed to defend themselves againt such a judgement call? You can't. Therefore this law, conclusively, is unreasonable and irrational.

Constitutional Prohibition:

Article I sec. 9:
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

This means that any subsequent year, posteriorly in occurrence of 1808, the federal government alone will have the power of allowance,or disallowance, in regard to the migration or importation of all persons. This simply means that no state can change, amend, or create any laws that pertain to immigration. It is solely a duty of the federal government; and this clearly was an attempt by Arizona legislators to violate the constitution. These types of charades must not be allowed to be propagated, if we are going to protect the stable and civil union of the United States of America. No mas.

Briefly; Race and Poverty

"When we talk about unemployment, the levels of underemployment, the decrepit schools, disgraceful school systems and decrepit housing, we’re talking about power and privilege versus poverty and relative powerlessness - and Race is integral." -Cornell West

My response:

@Dr. West. Well said. It all starts with education; the level of education attained, more often than not, is directly a reflection of your socioeconomic class. And with the growing wealth discrepancy between blacks and whites, the point you are making is perfectly clear.

Subsequent remarks:

There is irrefutable evidence that points to a direct relationship between education, or lack thereof, and poverty. Many people believe (or lead you to think they believe) that the playing field is even. This could not be further from the truth.

The evidence that the belief of this theoretical "even playing field" exists is the implementation of standardized high school exit exams. If you analyze the scores of these examinations you will discover that there is a huge divide between the number African-Americans that pass and number of Anglo-Saxons that pass. Why is that? Are whites simply smarter than blacks? I was in one of my poli-sci classes and my professor, whom is an African-American, made some very interesting comments. She basically communicated to us that she refused to believe that whites were smarter that blacks and that when this proposal to abolish standardized exams came up to for vote, that she would vote in favor of continuing these exams. I must admit my thoughts about her, in response to her comments, were very condescending. To say that she is professor I felt she was a bit naive. She had fallen victim to the fallacious propaganda of the proponents of these exams. Thats exactly what they want you to believe.

To make the this easy to understand lets take a look at a couple of high schools in Houston, TX. There is no way that anyone could believe that the kids at Katy High School and the kids at Jack Yates High School are receiving the same caliber of education (no pun intended). The Katy Independent School District has far more programs and tools that can be utilize to enhance their students education. Jack Yates High School does not have access to the same programs and tools. Why is that? Wealth. Many of you who own homes or are shopping for homes are aware that there is a tax, paid by you, to the school district that your neighborhood is in. What are these taxes used for? These taxes are used to help enhance the facilities, programs, and personnel of the respective district. Katy has higher taxes therefore can afford better and more of the aforementioned attributes. Who can afford to pay these higher taxes? Wealthier people.

Based on recent studies there is a growing wealth divide between whites and blacks. Numbers don't lie. With that in mind, it is safe to say that a higher percentage of whites are able to afford to send their kids to schools that are able to provide a better education. While a higher percent of black due to the income divide are forced to go to school that are not as well equipped. Based on this, there is clearly inequities in regard to education.

My beef with the standardized exam, is that it assumes that all high schoolers are receiving, to a degree, the same level of education (hence that word standardized). When in reality they are not. So these standardized tests that prevent kids from graduating are really hurting african-americans, not because they are not smart enough but because of their socioeconomic status. This a big problem and will continue to ruin future of young black people.

Full circle:

Due to the growing gap in wealth between blacks and whites (race), a higher percentage of whites are receiving a better high school education. While on the other hand the education of the young African-American is limited. Consequently, the direct correlation between education and (poverty), adversely affects African-American communities. "Race and Poverty"

Inequitable Terminology

I read an article today that I found to be a bit disturbing. A Mr. Jerry Gonzales, who happens to be a Latino activist, exclaims that the word "illegal" in reference to immigrants "...serves to dehumanize a person....Similar to the way the n-word was used to dehumanize African-Americans"

Lets start off defining these terms:

Illegal Immigration- Illegal immigration is a movement of people across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. Illegal immigrants are also known as Illegal aliens...

Nigger(n-word)- a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, or ignorant.

Implied meanings:

Illegal Immigration- Illegal immigration is a movement of people across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country. Illegal immigrants are also known as illegal aliens...

Nigger(n-word)- used as a disparaging term for a member of 'a' darkskinned race.


Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm. Whether definitive or implied the definition of illegal immigration (illegal alien) does not change. Clearly this term does not, generally speaking, dehumanize people (though the "feeling" of dehumanization is subjective and may vary from person to person). Even if someone felt that they were being dehumanized, the term itself is inclusive. Any person(s) of any ethnicity can be an illegal immigrant or alien, however to the contrary the nword is implicitly exclusive and derogatory. This word has been used to degrade Africans and African-Americans for over 400 years. It has been used as a to belittle, patronize and incite anger within the black community. But somehow these two terms are equitable? I beg to differ. Calling someone an illegal immigrant is simply a reference in regard to a person's citizenship status, and does defame a person's or a race's character. The perpetual inference of the nword is and should existentially remain separate from statements or terms that refer to an immigration status. Apples and oranges.