Category Archives: Politics

Politics, Society

Trump Revisited

2 Comments

One of my recent blogs, Prepare to be Trumped, focused on why Trump has been so popular and why he has been surprisingly so successful in his presidential campaign. I’ll admit that I too got caught up in the Trump fervor. But I am also known to ruminate over decisions and their consequences.

Unlike Obama voters, and the current Hillary swarm, I don’t blindly follow any cause or candidate. I have my doubts and I question things, and I think that’s healthy. It’s useful. It’s necessary. I listen to and read the news, both right and left leaning. I hear what the pundits have to say, the talking heads, the masses, and of course those closest to me.

Mitt Romney gave a speech several weeks ago urging people not to vote for Trump for a plethora of reasons. Mitt is very presidential and a nice, respectable guy. And I voted for the dude in 2012 so I gave him the time of day and listened to his entire speech bemoaning the candidate that I was at the time currently favoring. He brought up some interesting points, and I weighed those points factoring them into my political decision.

Then Louie CK went on about how Trump is Hitler. And then SNL made a post about Trump supporters being KKK members and Neo Nazis. And then of course if you read Huffington Post or Slate, they don’t even make an attempt at unbiased work, and essentially claim that if you support Trump, you’re the devil. Or whatever the atheist version of the devil is. I guess that would be Trump.

One could say that I was starting to ‘lose faith’. Hearing so much garbage about the guy had me wondering if I’m the fucked up person that liberals say I am. I understand this is all part of the left plot to fracture the Republican party in order to win the election, but it had me thinking nonetheless.

But then I met up with a close friend and we discussed politics. Like me, he’s a California conservative, which means we are pro 2nd amendment, but run left on a number of social issues like gay marriage, weed, etc. Not having talked politics with him for a long time, when I brought up the issue of Trump didn’t know what his thoughts of the guy were. I suspected he might foam at the mouth with hatred. He didn’t. In fact he was very coolly and confidently pro Trump, but like me he was reluctant to say it too loud in a place where he frequents.

What frustrated him frustrated me – simple things like political correctness run amok and fear of being shamed and ostracized for holding ‘extreme views’ like securing your borders. Then I talked to my Catholic dad, and my Jewish mom, and my secular friends, who all support Trump. I wondered, if so many people support Trump, why is all I hear on TV, on social media, online, that people hate Trump and Trump is Satan?

I get it now. Conservatives may or may not be the silent majority, but we are certainly silent. Every other day you see liberals of some flavor off bitching and moaning and whining and protesting about some stupid shit. Black lives matter. Occupy Wall Street. Protesting at Republican presidential rallies. Conservatives don’t do that. We’re adults. We have shit to do. WE HAVE JOBS. So you don’t hear from us too often. We’re not out there every weekend with signs, burning down buildings, and shitting in public parks. We’re working our hands away to the bones so you hardly even notice us. We don’t scream from rooftops – because we’re toiling away at work – so our frustrations go unheard and our cries unanswered. Most of the military is conservative, and they’re advised not to be too public about expressing their discontent with the president because he’s the commander in chief, so in a way their cries go un(der)heard too.

And that’s why conservatives favor Trump. In a crowd of political introverts, Trump is our extrovert. Our poster child. Our spokesperson and our cheerleader. I can keep working, nose to the grinding stone, while he sticks it to the establishment. I can go on about my quiet life while Trump tosses up tables and burns down figurative buildings for me. Being an outspoken conservative in a liberal dominated workplace is career suicide (Luckily for me, insurance is a conservative dominated workplace, but still). So while good little Republicans get to work and go on about their day, Trump is fighting the fight we wish we could.

“Work hard and handle your own shit” is a tough sell. It’s not cool. It’s not sexy. And it’s all too easy for liberals to drown out sound arguments with a hail of sarcasm. The whole nice guys finish last thing. Trump will have none of it. Trump isn’t afraid to jump in the ring and spar with you. In fact he enjoys it. He’s got nothing better to do than stir up shit and piss off liberals, and I fucking love it.

I’m tired of being guilted for my thoughts, or my stance on issues, or the candidate I support. I’m tired of political correctness.

I don’t get why you can’t call illegal aliens illegal aliens since that’s exactly what they are. I don’t get why the term Islamic Extremist is a no-no. I don’t get why protecting our borders is xenophobic. I don’t get why if you work hard and own your home you’re the first person targeted for tax increases, but if you pop out three kids with two guys out of wedlock and manage to stay an unemployed leech on society you get subsidized housing and childcare. I don’t get why killing a baby in the 3rd trimester is totally cool, but water boarding a known terrorist or executing a rapist is inhumane. I don’t get why thinking you’re the wrong sex suddenly makes you a protected victim class in need of protection, as opposed to a mentally ill individual in need of psychiatric care. I’m tired of China reverse engineering everything we make and the U.S. not doing anything about it. I don’t get why shutting off water to people in Detroit who are 60 days delinquent on their bills gets the attention of the U.N., but China violating basic human rights such as their 1 child rule for decades has gone ignored. I’m tired of being made out to be a villain simply because I own a firearm. I’m tired of the U.S. losing. And Trump is a winner.

Culture, Haterade Series, Politics, Society

The Thing about (White) Liberals

5 Comments

I can go on for days about how and why I disagree with democrats on a number of issues, but what frustrates me the most is one specific flavor of democrats, and that’s white liberals. So please enjoy my blog, The Thing about (White) Liberals. And to be balanced, and because I’m an equal opportunity smack talker, I will follow it up shortly with another blog The Thing about (uber Religious) Conservatives.

White liberals try so hard to help people of color and those they consider minorities, poor people and other unfortunate souls, but they fail miserably because their policies (and to a large extent even their mentality) actually serve to make things worse for the very people they are trying to help. I would actually argue that many white liberals are unknowingly, yet subtly racist.

That’s not to say that I believe in some paradigm shift where all racists are white liberals, and all white liberals are racist. However while I think racism is spread pretty uniformly across all groups, it’s worth pointing out the oblivious racism in that exists in certain parts of society, because a wolf dressed as a sheep is more dangerous than a wolf dressed as a wolf.

White Liberal Policies

White liberals propose legislation like rent control, minimum wage hikes, protected domain, and mandatory unions which they think will better peoples’ lives, but which actually make the lives of their constituents even tougher. We can have a 10 hour debate about the effects such policies have, but let’s instead defer to the 40 year case studies known as the real world, in which such social experiments were expected to flourish, but instead floundered.

Look at rent control in Los Angeles and New York where lower income people either can’t afford to live in a nice place, or live in a place that hasn’t been updated in 40 years because the owner can’t afford to make the needed repairs. Protected domain in places like Santa Barbara have essentially stopped the construction of new housing. As populations swell, and housing remains fixed, rents will rise. And minimum wage jobs would be a great foot in the door for high school seniors and recent high school grads, but why the hell would a business owner pay an unskilled pimply faced teenager $15 per hour when they can spend the same money and hire someone with years of experience and who needs the money. So laws that were intended to help the poor, the disenfranchised, the needy, people of color, minorities, whatever you want to call them – have backfired.

White Saviors

Another tenet of white liberalism is that only white people – specifically white liberals – can save the poor, poor colored people. White liberals have appointed themselves as the savior to who they consider to be their feeble minded, hapless, colored brethren. That’s not my opinion. That’s their opinion.

In a world where words like racist, fascist, ignorant, xenophobe, and literally are among the most frequently misused and misunderstood words, white liberals and their policies of contradistinguishing black people and other minorities, and then assigning themselves as messiah, is literally racist.

If I told you that black people are inherently so incompetent that white people need to make special laws to make it easier for black people to get jobs (and that, oh by the way, I’m a Republican) you would consider that racist.

However if I told you my name was Joe Liberal, and I had this grand idea called Affirmative Action that would undo the wrongs suffered upon the blacks by white people, (and did I mention my name was Joe Liberal, right?) you would hail it as a victory of racial equality.

White liberals get an orgasm watching Avatar.

When you boil it down, that is their belief. They say it, they act it, they legislate it.

White Washed Nomenclature and Politispeak

We can’t even have an honest discussion about the struggles of different people in the country because everything has become a buzz word.

  • Instead of black people, or predominantly black communities, politicians say ‘urban America’.
  • Instead of non-rich white people, politicians say ‘middle America’ or ‘the  middle class’.
  • Instead of rich white people, politicians say ‘top income earners’.

At various points in time the correct way to refer to people who aren’t white has changed from ‘colored’, to ‘minorities’, to ‘people of color’, and I’m sure some new term like ‘post racial individual’ is in the works as we speak. Let me consult my quack, white social psychologist first. Vernacular created by white liberals is like iPhones – new ones come out every two years, and if you’re caught using an old one you’re a piece of shit and to be ostracized from society.

Vernacular created by white liberals is like iPhones – new ones come out every two years, and if you’re caught using an old one you’re a piece of shit

Each time a new word is ushered in, it’s because white liberals decided the old word was racist, derogatory, and antiquated. Except the stupidity of it all is that it was white liberals who years earlier came up with those terms in the first place.

raptor

 

In my college computer programming class, I read a meme that went “If debugging is the process of removing bugs from code, does that mean that programming is the process of putting bugs into code?”

Put concisely, yes, it does. So if the role of a white liberals in society is removing derogatory words from common usage they coined, does that mean that the role of white liberals is to create new, acceptable, derogatory terms in the first place?

The Liberal Problem Solution Dilemma

Up to this point everything has in some way been tied to race, and I attribute that to white liberals being the constant race baiters of the nation. Well… them and Al Sharpton. I think the truth is the majority of people (white or not) wake up and go on about their day and don’t give race or ethnicity or religion a thought. It’s not that they are avoiding the issue, it’s that for constructive people who have a fucking job and real world obligations, worrying about shit like which word is the least offensive really doesn’t make the priority list.

It’s amazing how in the light of things that actually matter, liberal policies tend to be bleached out. That’s because liberal propositions are not solutions to problems, but rather solutions in search of problems – answers to questions no one ever asked. I’ll conclude with four things which haunt American liberals, and why people can’t stomach them.

  1. Liberals attempt to solve problems that aren’t problems
  2. Liberals attempt to solve problems that aren’t theirs to solve
  3. Liberals create problems, say Republicans created them, and then fail to solve them
  4. Liberals don’t have the backbone to solve tough problems

One – Liberals attempt to solve problems that aren’t problems

Example, California Governor Jerry Brown recently enacted legislation that would remove the word “alien” from all legislation, presumably because it was ‘too offensive’. This will probably cost a good deal of money to implement, and will have no tangible benefits to anyone, yet alone aliens.

Two – Liberals attempt to solve problems that aren’t theirs to solve

Again, circling back to things like unemployment and problems that plague certain communities. Other curiosities of white liberals is legislating what foods parents are allowed to pack in their kids school lunch, or mandating that McDonalds get rid of toys in Happy Meals in San Francisco, or not allowing fast food restaurants to serve soda beverages of certain sizes in New York. In short, liberals try to legislate culture.

Three – Liberals create problems, blame Republicans, and fail to solve them

Rent control is probably the largest contributor to unaffordable housing and poor living conditions in predominantly democrat run communities. Another is unsustainably high minimum wage which discourages employers from hiring inexperienced workers for entry level positions – the very positions that in large cities would be filled by the democrat constituency. Affirmative action is the most notorious of the liberal policies, lowering the bar so much as to discourage competitive behavior in previously discriminated demographics. Decades since all of these social experiments have been implemented and black Americans are still staggeringly unemployed, underemployed, renting as opposed to owning their homes, and living in poverty.

Four – Liberals don’t have the backbone to solve tough problems

Liberals have cornered the market on complaining and being slacktivists. The notion that if you bitch and moan and stomp your feet long and loud enough, you can make change. Oh, and using sarcasm in the absence of an intelligent answer.

When Boko Haram was headline news a couple years ago, we had a bunch of whiney white liberals calling for ‘justice’ – whatever the hell that means – and writing letters, and silk screening t-shirts, and changing their Facebook profile pic, and all around just being annoying. They accomplished absolutely nothing. This is because liberals have no resolve. They lack the spine to do what is necessary. We’re talking about some child kidnapping war lord in war torn Africa and these pansy ass white college kids are talking about ‘delivering justice’ and having some guy stand trial. Oh yeah sure. For fucks sake, just start a kick starter, raise a couple millions dollars and hire some mercenaries to kill the fucking guy if you really want to make some change.

Summary

Whereas liberals think conservatives are trying to destroy the world, I won’t feign such stupidity by reciprocating. I do legitimately believe that liberals want to help the world, end famine, disease, war, and poverty. However despite their good intentions I think many liberals lack real world experience. Experience that when had, lends itself to pragmatism and hard knocks methods more typical of conservatism. While living a life of principle is admirable, living a life of fantasy is detrimental. It leads to inflated and unrealistic expectations, like free college, the prospect of never being offended, and a guaranteed job waiting for you after college even if you got a degree in something like ‘Ethnic Studies’ with no realistic career prospects.

The thing with white liberals isn’t so much in their ideals, as it is their ideas.

Please stay tuned as I plan on following up this post soon with The Thing about (uber Religious) Conservatives.

Politics, Society

Prepare to Be Trumped

12 Comments

I was reading this opinion piece on Politico this morning, and it just jumped out at me. The title is “Donald Trump is Shocking, Vulgar, and Right” and as I read, I found that the piece itself was shocking, vulgar, and correct.

I encourage you to read it, because it was enlightening. The gist of it was that while Trump has offended the Republican elite, – the unnamed, shot calling ‘ephors’ that exist in both major political parties – Trump has had unexpected success with the actual masses.

As is customary, I scrolled through the comments section to find the usual bantering vitriol one would expect at the end of any political op-ed, especially one about a controversial figure such as Donald Trump.

As is typical, you have your fair share of white-guilt liberals who think anyone who doesn’t vote Blue is a racist, old, white, evangelical, gun owning male.

Liberals have severely underestimated Trump’s appeal. I live in California where it’s pretty Democratic and I can’t believe how many ‘typical Democratic voters’ are coming out of the woodwork in support of Trump.

“I had to support Obama ‘cuz you know, I’m black and he’s my boy. But dude, Trump is killin’ it.”

Of course it’s always in private confidence to me as a Libertarian, or as an insurance agent. My black friends fear being raced out of town by their other black friends, if they admitted to supporting Trump. One such friend told me “I had to support Obama ‘cuz you know, I’m black and he’s my boy. But dude, Trump is killin’ it.” And he proceeded to tell me how what Trump said really resonated with him, even in areas I was sure they wouldn’t like Trumps stance on terrorism, immigration, and the refugee debate. And though he would never dare say that to a group of suspected democrats, he’d say it to me.

So what’s the appeal here? Why do people like Trump, or to auto-correct myself, why do so many people like Trump enough to vote for him? Trump’s got balls. He’s got chutzpah. I may not always agree with him but then again what politician do you ever fully agree with? But he says it like it is. Candor is something the black community and other minority groups can appreciate, however candor is something white liberals avoid at all costs in their embrace of self-censorship and PR verbalise.

Even I can admit Trump has made a couple gaffes, but when you break it down and scrutinize what he’s said even some of his more noticeable stumbles are really an overreaction to some benign, and common sense stuff. To quote the author;

“Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn’t said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals — these are the ravings of a Nazi?”

Trump has a greater appeal than most people give him credit for and it’s not something you can easily sum up in a cross-sectional analysis of poll results.

When Trump does something, he does it once, he does it big, he does it right. He pulls out all the stops. If you like keepin’ it real, then Trump’s your man since he’s the king of keeping it real. Trump says fuck the system and he’s not afraid to point fingers and call people out on their bullshit. You don’t give a fuck? Trump patented not giving a fuck.

I liken Trump to guard dog. What do you look for in a guard dog? Do you want your guard dog to be polite? To be kind? To care if the other dogs in the neighborhood like him? No. You picked that dog to keep you safe and devour any one that messes with you or your family. For the past 8 years we’ve had an apologist cupcake in the white house who only ever had the balls to pick a fight with fellow Americans across the political aisle, but who could never be bothered to stick it to Iran, ISIS, North Korea, Russia, or China. Say what you will about Trump but even democrats can concede the man loves his country, bleeds red, white and blue, and is one hell of a pro-U.S. cheerleader.

And perhaps counter intuitively, Trump might be doing so well because he’s the anti-Hillary. Yeah they’re both old and white. But the polarization is in their approach, and in their appeal.

Hillary has never known a job outside of politics. She’s been in politics since she was 21 years old. She’s been making a living off tax payers for over 40 years, with no intention of ever leaving. Donald Trump is fresh off the streets in terms of politics.

Clinton is a certifiable liar. After all, she comes from a family of liars. Her husband lied about an affair to her and the entire country. From private email servers being wiped clean to Benghazi. She lies. Her husband lies. And the entire world knows it. Trump is a crude, rude, dude, and might misspeak from time to time, but there is no one more honest than him right now in headline politics.

Trump is so bad-ass he let him self get roasted on Comedy Central.

Hillary has an army of political scientists whispering into her ear, telling her what to say, how to say it, and how to deflect criticism. Every sentence, every word, every syllable she utters is a carefully chosen, orchestrated regurgitation of politi-speak. She is a master politician, I’ll give her that. Trump is not. Trump couldn’t give two shits if what he says offends you or your kitten. He’s a master ass kicker.

Hillary Clinton could literally be caught on camera eating a baby and liberals wouldn’t care.

And I think the biggest difference between the two politicians is not just their appeal, but their audience. Hillary Clinton could literally be caught on camera eating a baby and liberals wouldn’t care. Anyone that suggested she is unscrupulous, or that she be indicted would be met with a fury of insults from her cult like followers that they are sexist, misogynist, blasphemists. In the world of Clintonites, Hillary can do no wrong.

Juxtapose that to Trump supporters. I’m a Trump Supporter, and I’ll be the first person to tell you Trump is a dick. He is! It’s no mystery, and if you ask your Trump friends they’ll tell you the same. We don’t try to masquerade our candidate as some saint, some divine messiah like what was done with Obama and what is being done with Hillary now. Trump is what he is. A flesh and blood man with a plan. He’s a bad ass mother fucker who takes no shit, gives no fucks, and takes care of business, and – yes, I will remind you – he’s a dick. But he’s an honest dick. And he’s our dick.

He’s a dick. But he’s an honest dick. And he’s our dick.

Culture, Politics, Society

My Stance on Issues: Part 1

Leave a comment

As I’ve stated before, when I started this blog I originally intended it to be a place where I could vent about things that are controversial issues being discussed in society, but which I thought were too long to post on Facebook, and I certainly didn’t want to argue with strangers on the internet.

Like most people I am a bit reluctant to talk about controversial stuff. Many people who know me would probably disagree with that statement. But it’s true, I am reluctant. Very reluctant. But I push past it.

There’s a lot of controversial things out there which have flared up in recent years, even this past year (2015). Especially with it being all about the 2016 elections, we have every buried issue getting unearthed all at once.

What’s more is that in addition to people thinking I’m some loud mouth, I feel like a lot of people, even my close friends, think I’m an asshole for saying it. I’m an asshole for thinking it. For believing it. For wanting to share my thoughts about it. And that’s the hush hush world we live in now where though police shame people who disagree with them into not expressing themselves.

But I don’t think I’m an asshole and I want to let everyone know what I think about the issues of our time, because I have a voice, and I think it matters.

Generally Speaking

I’m a libertarian. I’m all for live and let live. Legalize and regulate. Keep things simple and practical. Individuals must be responsible for themselves. And individuals must be responsible for only themselves. That’s the gist of my approach and I try to be as consistent as possible in how I apply it.

Now for the juicy stuff.

Weed

I don’t see what the big deal is. I don’t smoke weed. I have smoked weed, but I don’t smoke weed. Does that make sense? I’ve done it but I’m not a habitual user and I can probably count the number of times I have used wee on my fingers. It’s not for me, but then again neither is pistachio ice cream. Weed doesn’t hurt anyone, but if it does, it’s only the person using it. I think it should be legal.

Whose bright idea was it to take something horrible and turn it into a dessert?

Apparently there are even medicinal purposes for it. But I don’t think someone should be required to have a special medical card or prescription to get weed. I think it should be fully legalized for recreational use for anyone 18 or over.

That being said, I think it should be treated like a mixture of alcohol and cigarettes. You can drink, but you can’t drink and drive. You can drink, but your ass might get fired for showing up to work drunk. (Not me, because I’m awesome and drink at my desk regularly). As much as I think you have the right to use weed, I think that employers ought to maintain the right to hire or fire based on whether or not you use it, with the exception being legit medicinal purposes, and not just “glaucoma”.

Abortion

First off, let’s walk briskly past the whole life of the mother thing. Yes, I got it, if the mom faces health problems, or the baby is missing half a heart or something then no argument there. Do what needs to be done.

This is a tough issue though, it really is. Of course we’ve got the whole “women’s rights” and that whole spiel. (Oh, on a side note I do have a tinsy winsy thing I’d like to inject here, for the sake of keeping this semi-short, please refer to my future blogs)

But then let’s be real, there is the very real baby thingamajig inside the womb. Here’s a thought… if a woman who had every intention of coming to term fell down a flight of stairs and lost her child, no one would dare say “oh well it technically wasn’t even alive yet.” because they’d be the biggest most heartless douchebag in the world and run out of town. But when a doctor does it surgically, it’s considered by some to be less horrible. So it is at least disingenuous to play the whole “it’s not a life” card. A fetus might not meet the textbook definition of a life, but it’s definitely not nothing either.

If abortion was illegal, there arises the dilemma of coming up with a suitable punishment, and that’s a can of worms in itself. A mom with two kids gets an abortion because she can’t afford to feed a third mouth? Whatcha gonna do? Throw her in prison and deprive the other two of a mother?

My thought is that no legal punishment will have as much of a lasting effect as someone’s own sense of guilt. The picketers, the rioters, possible jail time. All of that pales in comparison to the weight of such a decision.

The truth is every pregnancy is different. Ever set of parents and their life situation is different. But what all of them have in common is that getting an abortion is probably not (hopefully not) an easy decision, and shouldn’t be taken lightly. And for those who feel no guilt, the ‘repeat offenders’ who have no qualms whatsoever about abortions…. Just maybe the world is better off without them as parents.

I’m not pro abortion. I’m not anti abortion. I’m thankful I’ve never been in a position where I had to make that choice. And heaven forbid I was, I sure as hell wouldn’t want an already complicated situation compounded and exacerbated by politicians.

Also, this song.

Guns

My more left oriented friends probably think I’m a gun nut. To them I say, you’ve never met a real gun nut.

Again, my stance is legalize and regulate. I think guns should be legal but just like with the law, the rule ought to be innocent until proven guilty…or in this case, incompetent.

By default everyone can have guns, but then we set up some parameters like you have to be of age, you have to be mentally sound, you can’t have committed a violent crime, and you can’t have a restraining order against you. Stuff like that.

I’m also for digging a little deeper. I think people with a history of reckless driving behavior should probably undergo some extra scrutiny. Do we want a guy with 5 accidents, 8 tickets and a DUI handling a gun? Guns are deadly, no argument there. And just as doing stupid shit can cost you your license, I am surprisingly not opposed to it costing you your right to bear arms.

Honestly, I can name a few people who shouldn’t be anywhere near a firearm, and for good reason. As a gun owner, I’ll be the first person in line to admit that yeah, guns are dangerous in the wrong hands.

And now for what I consider the ‘peripheral attacks’ on firearms. The big distractor, the go to red herring used by ‘gun control’ advocates is the fallacious argument that “no one is trying to take away all your guns”. I call bullshit.

There are literally laws in the U.S. that restrict:

  • how long or short a gun can be
  • how long or short the barrel can be
  • what type of bullets can be fired
  • what materials a bullet can be made of
  • how many bullets a magazine can accommodate
  • the physical mechanism for releasing a magazine
  • the shape of a rifle stock
  • whether or not a rifle stock can extend
  • how many guns you can buy at once
  • how long you have to wait to pick up a gun you purchased
  • how you can store guns
  • how you can transport guns
  • features that are purely aesthetic or ergonomic in nature have been outright banned, such as a barrel shroud, a muzzle brake, or a flash suppressor.

The truth is most guns in this country sit in a safe 360+ days per year collecting dust. In 2011 there were about 8,583 gun deaths in the U.S. There were about 270-310 million privately owned guns, both legally and illegally. The population coincidentally was about 311 million. Using that figure there is/was a .00275% chance that a gun/gun owner would shoot you dead.

That same year, 32,479 people died in car accidents. Almost four times as many. When four times as many people are dying accidentally, as are being murdered intentionally, I think that shines a light on the larger problem.

Why are you arguing with me? Willy Wonka said it, goosh…

I don’t think gun laws are the problem, therefore I don’t think more gun laws are needed. I think this country has a cultural problem, and gun violence, rape, texting and driving are all symptoms of that one illness.

Immigration

I don’t think it’s outlandish to claim that a country can’t just let in anyone and everyone. I don’t know that we need a fence along the entire border, but I also don’t think that enforcing your borders is xenophobic. It’s just prudent.

Pretty much every country in the world enforces its border, or at least those with the resources to effectively do so. But in the U.S., such a practice is considered racist.

I think of a country as a giant house, and the citizens as a giant family. If someone broke into your house (crossed your border) and squatted in your garage, do you think you should be obligated to leave them be? Now imagine that person broke in and had a bunch of kids? Are you now required to let them all stay? Are you required to feed them? Pay their medical bills? Pay for their kids school supplies?

But I’m not heartless. Think about how dire your situation has to be that you would risk life and limb, and even the safety of your family, to abandon your home for a land where you have nothing, know nothing, and don’t speak the language. Most of the people coming here are looking to provide for their families and I give them a hell of a lot of credit for that. They’ve crossed a desert, crossed a border, to work. I know some American born people who at times couldn’t be bothered to cross the living room to apply for a job.

That being said, the law is the law. If you got caught sneaking into Mexico, fat chance you’d be treated as a victim. And no one calls the Federalis xenophobic. I think we should allow more people to work here without necessarily being citizens. Give them a higher income tax rates to encourage US businesses to hire domestic first, but at least make the process legit.

Conclusion

It’s late. I’m tired. I’ll write some more later.

Business and Finance, Home and Living, Movies, Politics, Review, Society

99 Homes: Movie Review

Leave a comment

A little late I know, but better later than never, right?

99 Houses was a very different movie from anything I have ever seen. It stars Andrew Garfield, the short lived Spider-Man star. It also stars Michael Shannon, the guy who played General Zod in Man of Steel, but you might also mention him from a dozen other works like 8 Mile, Iceman, and Boardwalk Empire.

The story is about Dennis Nash (Garfield), a young blue collar man trying to single handedly raise his son and his mom in a rough economy, in the midst of losing their home. That wasn’t a typo.  Dennis practically raises his mom, who acts more like an irresponsible 19 year old daughter who dropped out of high school and is going to a trade school, than a mother.

Nash loses his home to the bank, and his eviction is overseen by a strict, no nonsense real estate developer, Rick Carver, played perfectly by Michael Shannon.

After initially losing his home, Nash despises Carver and naturally sees him as the person responsible for his misfortune. However a chance encounter with some of Carver’s home-flipping laborers turns into small time, small paying labor jobs. In short time Dennis Nash has a lucrative career not only working for his former nemesis, but along side him.

In the trailers, Shannon’s character was portrayed as this evil, corporate, heartless business tycoon who steps on the innocent, hard working little man Dennis Nash, for his own greed. After all, that is the song being sung by almost everyone in the country these days, regardless of your political affiliation. The narrative being painted today is that homeowners are all saints who have done no wrong, and financial institutions are all secretly owned by Hitler death squads.

You definitely do sympathize with Garfield’s character. The movie pulls no punches in the heart area, when you are forced to watch this dad get kicked to his hands and knees, and struggle to support his family.

But interestingly, over the course of the movie the character I really took a liking to, was Shannon’s character Rick Carver. Yes, I liked the “bad guy” more than the “good guy”. Was the guy a stone cold hard ass? Yes. But he was also a smart, hard working son of a bitch. He was also a loving father who wanted nothing but the best for his children. But he also did everything he could to teach Nash how to earn, spend,and invest his money properly.

Without spoiling the movie too much, this is perhaps the most interesting part of the film. Despite our cultural views of bankers, businessmen, and wall street, this movie attempts to show you a different angle, and in many ways approaches a paradigm shift between the contemporary views of “good guy” and “bad guy”. In fact, I didn’t think Carver was the bad guy in the movie at all until a hiccup at the very end of the movie, but again, no spoilers here!

Our two leads did an amazing job. You forget about Garfield’s most recent web slinging hurrah and you really do see him as a father trying desperately to make ends meet for his family. His grief, his stress, and his struggles are portrayed perfectly, and you feel every ounce of emotion Garfield brings to the set.

Michael Shannon of course needs no introduction. This actor has always floated in that narrow corridor between A-list and B-list actor. He acts better than most A-list stars but just could never get the cinematic boost needed to rise into full stardom. Nonetheless, I couldn’t have thought of a better actor to take on the roll of the tough as nails Rick Carver. Shannon’s intensity, and rigidity make him a one man force of nature, and his presence on screen is heart stopping.

I highly recommend 99 Homes to anyone who wants to see a genuinely well written, well casted, well acted, and well directed movie. No negative feedback about this movie whatsoever. 5 stars.

Culture, Firearms, Politics, Religion, Society

Jews Agree with Ben Carson

1 Comment

I was pretty confused when I learned that the media was making a big deal about a comment Dr. Ben Carson made recently about how the plight of the Jews would be have been more favorable, and that the Holocaust could have possibly been diminished had Jews had firearms in the 1930’s and 40’s. A lot of people are treating this as Ben Carson’s big gaffe, like it’s some foot-in-mouth comment akin to Joe Biden telling women to “just get a shotgun”.

What’s more surprising, is that people find his comment surprising. Let me explain.

I’m Jew…ish. My mom’s a Jew. I occasionally went to temple growing up. I do own a couple yamakas that I save for the occasional Passover or Yom Kippur dinner. I was raised with Jews growing up.

But then I also spent a month in Israel as part of a religious trip shortly after graduating college. While I was there I also spoke with dozens of rabbis, and rabbinic scholars. I spoke with pizza maker Jews, taxi cab driver Jews, bartender Jews, mom Jews and dad Jews. I even went to the official Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem.

Guess what. They all have guns. And they agree with Ben Carson.

Almost unanimously, Jewish people acknowledge that part of the reason why the holocaust was allowed to get as out of control as it did, was that no one did anything about it. No one slayed the holocaust in its infancy. That no one, including the Jews, opposed the Nazi’s until it was too late. That Jews were powerless to stop the harassment, the badging, the confiscation, and the vandalism. They were powerless to stop the thuggery, the detainment, and ultimate genocide of their own people.

In fact, Jews have a saying – Never again. This isn’t like the “never forget” Americans say come September 11th. Forget isn’t a Hebrew word. Forget is not in the Jewish vernacular. Not forgetting something is easy. We Jews have one of the longest known histories of any people on this planet. It’s not because we have a short memory.

Instead the Jewish challenge is to never again, let such atrocities happen. Atrocities are not avoided with the pen. One cannot simply grab a pen, draw a circle around a problem, and expect to contain it. Rapes are not avoided with pleas of mercy. Holocaust are not avoided with diplomacy. Lest we forget, the Nazis were voted into power.

Like it or not. Agree with it or not. Whether it settles well in your political stomach or not, had Jews been armed, it’s possible the holocaust as we know it, would never have happened.

I was on the internet reading some stupid ass posts, and one Richard Hodge sarcastically wrote “Yes Genius. Jews with a few pistols could have easily defended themselves against an army that almost took over the world.”

To quote and paraphrase some of the more intelligent folks who replied, were these Jews who were rounded up and murdered better off without guns, or would they have been better off with them? The 9.5 million Jews living in Europe in 1933 would have constituted only a “few”? The Warsaw uprising is a good example of how armed citizens fought hard to defend themselves, but it was too few too late. Realistically speaking, a few million Jewish people with a few million pistols (and the ammunition to go with them) back in the mid-1930s might very well have changed history as we know it.

The world didn’t wake up one day to a fully militarized and entrenched Nazi Germany. The wave of a magic wand did not suddenly teleport millions of Jews to death camps. The holocaust happened one day at a time, one train at a time, one door knock at a time. Movements, even the Nazi movement, take time to build momentum. And enough armed people with the will to act, could have stopped it in its tracks, had they acted soon enough.

So although some might feel that the comparison is inappropriate, does not mean that the basis of the comparison is not solid.

Thank you, Dan Mcpherson, Andrew Haraldson, and Randy Leever for letting me bum your quotes.

Business and Finance, Home and Living, Politics

The Truth about Federal Student Loans

2 Comments

A million thank-yous to Chris Johnson for contributing this latest post to Canyoubelievethatguy.com. This is our second post from someone other than myself in the past two weeks and I am very excited and appreciative to have an additional author contributing to the site.

 His post touches on something that has been the subject of much debate recently – and that we’ll probably hear a lot about in the coming election cycle – and that is student loans, and whether or not college education and the tuition that comes with it is affordable for the average American. Chris was kind enough to get us past the fog and rhetoric, and give us some real hard facts about the issue.  Thanks Chris! -Andrew H.

Federal Student Loan Repayment Options

I was asked to say a few words on student loans. I want to start by saying that I think it is rather funny to me that after all this time in the student loan industry, the first person to ask me about this, the first person who actually reached out for information is, like me, someone who believes we already have enough tools to build a good life. Like me, he feels the game is already more than fair and that it simply requires effort, hard work and dedication. Of all the rants and complaints about free education, he is the first to ask me about this even though I have posted no less than 40 times, mentioned in conversation no less than 100 times that for most, education is already either free, or very affordable. And he asked me the first time I  mentioned it to him. To me, this says something about the people asking for more from their country vs those who ask more of themselves. Jim Rohn said it best, don’t ask for it to be easier. Ask that you become better.

With that said, I’ll jump right into it. The Federal Government has, already available several programs that allow federal student loans to become affordable. In most cases one can eliminate interest all together. I have been in finance for almost 13 years now. For the first 11 or 12 I was a Mortgage Banker. But for the last two, I have been a Compliance Officer for federal student loan programs. There are at least 7 programs available and they all serve a specific purpose depending on the borrower and where they are in life. But there are three programs that stand out. Three that literally offer anyone the ability to absolutely make their federal student loan debt affordable. The US Department of Education’s IBR (Income Based Repayment) option. Before I jump into the details,  I think it might be best to first touch on how student loans work, why they are so incredibly difficult to pay off and ultimately why they are such a problem in the US.

When you get a federal student loan, you are not taking out a mortgage. You are not qualifying for a car loan. You are taking out a heavy debt with a high interest rate you likely cannot refinance and one that will charge you interest daily. On top of that, it will compound daily. If you understand finance then you probably know at this point, most people are paying a negative amortization loan. This means that they are making payments on their loans and are not even covering the interest on a monthly basis. They are paying towards their loan(s) and the balance is actually going up.

What’s being done about this, nothing. Why? Because service providers of federal student loans have lobbyist in Washington that are second to none. The laws are not written to protect borrowers. They are written to make money. Same thing happened with mortgages and the US threw a fit. Regulation was again placed on the industry and and the entire industry was turned upside down.

 In the US, federal student loan debt exceeds car loans and credit card debt combined.

Who was to blame, the banks, the consumer? Personally I say both and I think the circumstances of each deal would have to be considered. But what scares me is that this industry is doing the very same thing and no one is even talking about it. No one seems to think its a big deal even knowing that in the US, federal student loan debt exceeds car loans and credit card debt combined. To make matters worse, a majority of this debt belongs to our young, our future. They are entering into the professional world behind the line. I will conclude this paragraph with probably the scariest and in many cases least known fact about federal student loan debt. You absolutely cannot get rid of them ever. With exception to these federal forgiveness programs and people that are 100% and permanently disabled (after the loans were acquired), these loans do not ever go away. In fact, they are on a short list of debts the government can actually garnish from disability and social security income. And make no mistake, they will. So if they are willing to take social security income from people living off of $800 to $1,500 per month, what do you think they would do to people in the work force?

So now we know federal student loans are very difficult to pay off. We know why student loans of $40,000 take 80 years to pay off while Americans in New York and Los Angeles pay off $600,000 to $800,000 mortgages in 15 and 30 years. And yes, we now know why a specific group of individuals are upset that college is too expensive. Well now we can jump back to the IBR programs offered by the US DOE. The William D. Ford Act was passed and authorizes the government to forgive federal debt. The IBR comes with it a very specific yet very short list of guidelines. Prove your income, tell them how many people you live with and they will determine what your payment should be. Do not worry about the interest. Do not worry about paying off the loan or loans.

First, they will consolidate your loans. Then, they will set you up with a term, 120 months (10 years), or up to 300 months (25 years) and or anywhere in between depending on the income and family size. They will take between 5% and 10% of your gross annual income as payment or less, again depending on family size. They evaluate this income annually. Every 12 months you must turn in one of three forms of POI (proof of income). Pay check stubs, tax returns from the previous year or bank statements in some cases. In some cases you may even be able to use tax returns from the year before last. If you are married and use returns (1040’s) they will base the payment off the borrowers AGI (Adjusted Gross Income). If you use pay stubs there is a chance you can separate the income, meaning the calculation for the borrowers payment will be based off one persons income rather than the combined income. If you already file separate returns, this too will allow the calculation to be based off one persons income. Even when separating the income, you may still use the full family size for the calculation. I understand this can become complicated and in many cases, people do screw this up. Service Providers like Naviant (previously Sallie Mae), Great Lakes and Nelnet should offer this service (and can), and for free. They don’t unless you are aware of them and ask. And if you ask me, trusting them to do it for you is like asking the prosecuting attorney to handle your defense while trying to prosecute you. Remember, they are paid off the interest.

There are also services available to assist in the evaluation and enrollment as well as management of these programs. If you seek this assistance out, under no circumstances, I repeat under NO circumstances should the consumer pay for these services until the entire process is completed. Not for any kind of application fee, not for any kind of processing fee. NOTHING, not a single dime until you are in and enrolled correctly. Even if they ask you to pay into some type escrow account, your talking to the wrong people. To add to this, these services are not a part of the program, and like the service providers borrows are already paying they do not work for, or are not a part of the federal government.

If you can manage this yourself, you should. If on the other hand you are the type of person who has a hard time with this sort of thing, or if you are not good at staying on top of things like this, I’d recommend the assistance. To receive the forgiveness or complete the program, the evaluation, like I said earlier must be completed annually, every 12 months until the term is up. Only then, when the term is up can you provide proof that the program has been completed. As a rule of thumb, I ask people this, do you do your own taxes? Or do you hire someone to do them for you? Use that same thought here. Another example I use for clients, if you get a speeding ticket, you would not hire an attorney to fight it. It simply wouldn’t be worth it. If on the other hand you hit and killed someone with your car (on accident of course) you would probably hire one. Well if you owe $5, $10 or maybe $15,k, that’s like a speeding ticket. $20, $50 or $100,k plus… Obviously I work for one of these companies. I assure you, they are quite compliant, it’s my job to make sure they are. If it is done correctly, if you are enrolled, maintain enrollment annually and keep up on the payment the government will forgive the remaining amount owed at the end of the term. You can still go into deferment or forbearance but you will not receive credit during this time towards the forgiveness. If you have an unstable income, or if you are not in a career type work environment, you may see income go up one year and down the next. No problem. The term will adjust accordingly. The best way to look at it, the higher the income, the higher the payment but the lower the term. The lower the income, the lower the payment but higher the term up to 25 years unless, you qualify for PSLF or PAYE.

PSLF is another program that falls under the IBR option. If you work in public service or non profit, the term is automatically 120 months or 10 years. This includes but is certainly not limited to: Police Officers, Teachers, Church employees, Soldiers and Nurses. Anyone paid by the state, the government or even local government like city and county employees. You pay an affordable payment, many times a payment of zero for 10 years and then your debt is forgiven. And this is not some kind of hand out, it is not a compromise. It’s simply an alternative to a standard amortization. Instead of paying off your loans, with a payment based on balance and interest, you make a payment based off income and family size and for a specific amount of time. The Government feels that they will get enough from you from the term set. They are willing to take whatever this amount comes to at the end of the agreed term. The difference here, with PSLF is that as long as you are employed by public service or non profit, you will be finished after 10 years regardless of how much you’ve paid towards your debt. Even if you’ve paid zero dollars. Another program, Pay As You Earn (PAYE) is similar, only the term is 240 month or 20 years. The PAYE program also starts at a lower percentage, meaning they only take up to 5% of the borrowers gross annual income. This program is for any employment type but the loans must have been acquired after late (end of November) 2007.

So in the end, anyone qualifies as long as the loan(s) are federal. There are private student loans as well and if you do not know what kind you have, you can ask your service provider. If you are familiar with FASFA or the DOE, you likely have federal student loans, not private. Or, if you want, my information is below. I’d be happy to assist anyone or refer them to an Account Manager that can. If you owe federal student loan debt, this is the best and most efficient way to repay them, period. The only exception, specific circumstances and loans. Parent Plus Loans are limited to one program and in some cases, the benefit is not all that great. Still worth looking into though. If you have consolidated and then defaulted, could be tough to get approved. Again, it cannot hurt to find out.

I will leave you with an example. A man lives with his wife, two children and his wife’s mother. So the family size is 5. His income is roughly $32,000 per year and is steady. I might add that with a family size of five, he could make upwards of another $5 to $7,k per year and his payment would be the same as it is now, $0 (zero dollars per month). He pays $0 per month, has been in the program 3 years and has thus far has paid absolutely nothing on his student loans. Based on his percentage increase in income every year, he will pay $0 for another 4 years. That is seven years with no payment. If he is lucky, and his income increases to what he expects, on his 8th year in the program he will qualify for a $10 per month payment. In the 10th year, his final year because he is a teacher, he will pay $40 per month. That means that he will pay $720 over a ten year period of time and on a $45,000 federal student loan. He entrusted us to manage this for him and the payment to us is $39.42 per month. Add that up over 10 years,  you get $4,730.40. So all together, he will pay $5,450.40 and he will not even have to think about interest. Not to mention, once he enrolled, his DTI (Debt to Income) ratio came down TO ZERO. His credit scores improved and his monthly affordability came up.

Compare this to what he was doing… $45,000 at 6.8%. He had just left deferment and had agreed to pay $450 per month. It would have taken him 12 years and 3 months to pay off and he would have paid $21,047.83 in interest alone. So he was on track to pay $66,047.83. Now, he will pay $5,450.40 and in less time. Show me a country that offers that, with the same amount of opportunity, same market and the same amount of citizens. Personally, I call that free education.

–Chris Johnson, VP, Compliance for Student Advocates,  September 2, 2015

Chris’s Information is included below:

Cell: 562-231-4120.
Office: 714-473-1800.
Email: cjohnson@r3group.org
Culture, Life, Politics, Religion, Society

Gay Marriage, Get Over It Already

Leave a comment

Holy shit. If you read the comments sections of any article dealing with the recent gay marriage decision by the SCOTUS you would think they had just passed a law legalizing rape or something. That is how virulent some people are when taking to the message boards on major media sites. And I’m talking left leaning sites like MSNBC. And it’s not just news sites. It’s all over facebook too.

When I started this blog I originally intended to write about ‘controversial’ things and hot topics like gay marriage, weed, or firearm ownership and it sorta turned into a blog about movie reviews. I kept at it because honestly talking about Guardians of the Galaxy is way more fun than arguing with people about bullshit, but enough is enough already.

I’ll admit that I don’t usually give racism a full shake because nowadays hating on people based on their race is so socially shunned that people have simply become closet racists. But I gotta tell you, I am pretty fucking shocked at how anti-gay people still are, especially here in the U.S. Granted, I did not think the entire country was one giant San Francisco, but it’s not exactly a Disney movie out there either.

Here are some broad categories of reasons I’ve found people use to justify being anti-gay. I’ll show why they are wrong, but even better, I’ll do it using their own reasoning against them.

Religion

Some religious people are anti-gay because they claim it’s against God’s will. God looks down on homosexuality and we know because they bible tells us so. Arguing with Christians about this is pointless because they believe this in their soul of souls. So don’t argue with them.

To simplify things, let us play along and say there is for fact a God, that this God looks down on homosexuality as a sin, and that homosexuals are condemned to hell. Let’s say this is 100% fact, written in the stars. God came down from heaven last week and told everyone live on CNN.

Sharia law rioters in the UK- er…. I mean, Christians?

All that being said and known, why would religious people worry themselves about gays, or if gays were getting married?

Joe fucks Steve, Joe marries Steve, Joe and Steve go to hell. How does this concern Billy Bible?

If Joe and Steve go to hell, it’s not like Billy Bible gets dragged along for the ride, so what does he care what gays do or who they do it with, so long as everyone is a consenting adult?

I can understand being against things like murder, or rape, or theft, because these things have victims; the person who was murdered, raped, or robbed. But who exactly are the non-homosexual victims of homosexuality?

Homophobes

It’s hard to discern who is antigay and who is full blown homophobe but I am very perplexed specifically by people, especially men, who are always vehemently against gay dudes.

Gay dudes are a straight bachelors best friend, his guardian angel.

I mean fellas, come on. Every gay dude in existence is one less competitor in the world of heterosexual dating for men.

When I was 21 and single, it would have been nothing short of a miracle if half the male population decided they liked pole instead of hole. After all, less straight men means more straight women for the rest of us guys!

“Thanks gay dudes!” – Actual straight men everywhere

My thought here is that guys who are always complaining about gay guys are just jealous that others had the courage to come out of the closet before they did.

Mental Disease

Then there is a whole crowd of people who think, or at least claim to think that homosexuality is a mental disease or illness. Honestly, who the fuck knows. I’m not a doctor. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but either way I don’t see how it matters.

Actual post clipped from MSN, no doctored. Click to enlarge.
Click to enlarge in new tab.

Again, let’s just play along with this crowd for the sake of argument. Let’s say we establish without a doubt that homosexuality is a mental illness. Okay, now what?

Do we now hate on people because they have a mental illness?

Do we now prohibit people from getting married because they have a mental illness?

Mama said don’t wear white after labor daaayyy.

The people who think it’s perfectly acceptable to hate on gays or prohibit them from getting married, would they feel the same way about people with other, currently established mental illnesses?

Do they share this same hatred for people with Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia? Would they be okay with prohibiting people with Tourette’s from getting married?

These people are another case of homophobes in denial, and they try to cover it up by playing doctor.

It’s a Choice

When the mental disease card gets overplayed, some people regress to sexuality being a choice.

Usually when this card gets thrown down on facebook or on the internet, the entire discussion becomes some stupid drawn out debate about whether or not people choose to be gay or straight, or if it’s innate.

But those arguments are fucking stupid. Because again, what difference does it make?

Whether you choose to be, or are born a Republican, an introvert, a homosexual, or left handed, what difference does it make?

People choose their religion and we don’t use that as a basis for discrimination.

I mean really, what’s the argument here? “Homosexuality would be okay if that’s actually the way you were born, but since you chose to be gay, fuck you. No marriage for you.”

The Misguided Small-Government Advocate

This one is perhaps the most frustrating because their stance on being against gay-marriage is supposedly rooted in some sort of anti-government libertarianism gone awry. It’s particularly frustrating to me because I’m libertarian.

A lot of people misinterpret libertarianism as being anti-government. True, a lot of libertarians are anti-government but that’s more of a symptom of the cause. The root of libertarianism is about keeping the government out of other people business. This means keeping the government out of your pocket, out of your church, and out of your bedroom. It just so happens that the only proven way to accomplish this is to have a small government.

I recently got into a bit of a debate with a friend of mine on facebook about the recent SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage, and he said “Notwithstanding sexual orientation, I still don’t understand what the government is doing sticking its nose in marriage in the first place.”

I was a little confused by this comment because it misunderstands whose nose is in whose business.

The recent ruling wasn’t pushing the government’s nose into marriage.

The ruling was pulling religion’s nose out of marriage.

So while the church and it’s followers cannot prohibit gays from getting a legal marriage, the state cannot compel the church to perform gay marriage ceremonies.

Religious Marriage vs. State Marriage

My friend then went on to say “Marriage should remain a religious ceremony.” To be honest I don’t even know the term to describe why this thinking is incorrect. It’s almost like some form of anterograde amnesia, where the sufferer has the inability to learn new information.

Yes, marriage is a religious ceremony when we’re talking about in the context of religion.

But the same word “marriage” can also mean the merger of any two things, such as “The United States is a shining example of the marriage of capitalism and democracy.”

Marriage has also been adopted by the state for legal use which can mean any two people getting married. Not just a man and another man, but also a secular heterosexual couple who gets married.

For some reason though this seems to result in some sort of mental short circuit for some people. They fail to grasp that religious ‘marriage’ and state ‘marriage’ are homonyms, or “one of a group of words that share the same spelling and pronunciation but have different meanings”.

Disguising Anti-Gay as being Pro-Religion

One of the more well-known claims that has lost some popularity in the past couple years is the whole argument of gay marriage ruining the sanctity of marriage. This can be shot down with my homonym argument above, but let’s take a detour for a second.

The whole premise behind this is religious people thinking that two gay dudes getting married is somehow against god and against the church.

But why then don’t religious folk make the same huss and fuss over two atheists, a man and a woman, going to the local court house to get hitched, when this clearly is an example of a non-religious marriage?

For decades in the US, secular couples have been having non-denominational and non-religious weddings. Why does gay marriage make it on to their radar?

Misinterpreting the Supreme Court’s Ruling

Of course, the whole cause of this recent hoopla is Obergefell v. Hodges which will no doubt be in our kids history books in 15 years, alongside Roe vs. Wade and other landmark decisions.

Up until now legislation and court rulings on gay marriage have been at the state level. You’d think a ruling from the mother fuckin’ Supreme Court would finally lay the issue to rest but it hasn’t.

Many people are now claiming that the SCOTUS overstepped it’s bounds, as this person here posted on MSNBC.com,

Actual post clipped from MSN, no doctored. Click to enlarge.

What people fail to realize is that the Supreme Court didn’t make a new law. They simply stated that any laws that allow marriage discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation are unconstitutional, based on laws we already have in force, i.e. the law of the land, our constitution.

Conclusion

When you boil it down most of the arguments against gays or against gay marriage are pretty stupid. By that I mean none of them are so complicated that they even merit a Socratic seminar. Half the arguments can be won by using their own belief system against them. The other half can be dismissed with “yeah, and?”

I’m fucking tired. It’s like 11:57pm and I’m pooped.

To the gays of the U.S., congrats. You should celebrate. After a long and grueling battle, 8,000 gay pride parades later, you’ve finally won your right to get a gay divorce!

Gotcha!

Gotcha! -Buddy Christ
Business and Finance, Culture, Home and Living, Politics, Society

Arguments Against Minimum Wage Hikes

Leave a comment

This is by no means a formal thesis on my stance against increasing minimum wage. Sorry, no statistics, no numbers, no conclusive studies from universities. Just reasoning, common sense, and personal experience.

As always, I have to give a stupid disclaimer. No, I do not think that everyone who earns minimum wage is an idiot, or lazy, or a bad person, or deserves a shitty life. That’s not my opinion. But it doesn’t affect my stance on the issue one bit. Sorry, pulling no punches this time.

Why am I against increasing the minimum wage? Read on.

Employees are Expensive

When people think employment they think of words like company, enterprise, corporation, which all have negative connotations and stir up imagery of monstrous evil entities with gazillions of dollars just laying around. I work for a corporation, and it employs two people, my mom and me.

Expensive personFor many businesses, labor is a HUGE expense. I don’t know percentages. And it doesn’t matter what percentage of operating costs are for labor, but it’s big, and relevant. How do I know? Go to any small mom n’ pop business in your local neighborhood. How many people do you see working there that aren’t owners? 1? 2? None?

If labor costs were the drop in the bucket that Wage Hikers make them out to be then every business on Mainstreet would be flooded with employees. But they aren’t. Because employees are fucking expensive.

And were not just talking their hourly or salary, but also their benefits, their PTO, workers compensation, and then paying unemployment once they no longer even work for you. Then, you add on top of it that employees these days are usually lazy and check their social media accounts for 4 hours, spend an hour in the bathroom, and do a half ass job the remaining hours, you realize that you’re paying your employees 8 hours for 2 hours of work.

Labor Costs Outpace Consumerism and Revenue

The big “counter attack” to the point above is “Well if employers pay workers more, then they can afford to buy more and then more people buy from that business and the business makes more money, and so then it all works out.”

The premise is horrible for a multitude of reasons.

  1. It assumes that business revenue will increase. Big assumption. Higher labor could mean higher product costs, which could very well result in less customers, less sales, and therefore less revenue.
  2. It assumes that business revenue will increase immediately. Labor is an upfront cost. Meaning even if business will improve weeks, months, or years later, business can’t write I.O.U.s to their employees and wait for that increased revenue to come in. I have to pay my staff NOW. For many businesses they simply do not have money laying around to pay their workers more. It’s not a matter of fairness or equality. It’s a matter of accounting and budgeting.
  3. It assumes that business revenue will increase for every business. Even if certain businesses do see an increase in revenue, it will not be all businesses. The only businesses that will do better are those which hire low wage workers and whose consumer base is also low wage workers. So for example, fast food joints and movie theaters. Businesses that hire entry level workers but attract well-to-do clientele will not benefit from this at all. So the majority of businesses that cater to homeowners, the housing industry, contractors, real estate, will see their labor costs go up without a coinciding increase in volume or revenue.

People are Hired Based on Merit, not Circumstance

Yeah, yeah. Such-and-such lady is a single mom with two kids and she works four jobs and still can’t make a decent living at the current minimum wage, feel bad, yada yada.

And? Since when are people paid based on their circumstances, and not on their merit? What difference does someone’s sob story make? If and when I ever hire someone, the only thing I will care about is what can you do for me? How are you going to make me more money? Why should I pay you X amount? Now prove it.

If anything else mattered, people wouldn’t send in resumes and applications when looking for a job. Employers would ask candidates “How shitty is your life?” and then pay then commensurate with how shitty of a life they have. But that’s not the way it works because it doesn’t matter.

People Aren’t (Always) Worth Minimum Wage

LA recently increased their minimum wage to $15 per hour. A landslide victory for underqualified workers!

pay

Sometimes I consider hiring someone to help me out with simple tasks like writing thank you cards. My penmanship is absolute shit. I can barely read my own handwriting so that seems like a task worthy of being outsourced. Plus, it takes me forever. Why spend 5 hours writing thank you cards which is maybe $10 work, when I can writing policies which is $200 work?

Okay, so a card writer to work for three hours tops. What qualifications do they need?

  1. Good penmanship
  2. A pulse

That’s it.

Why the hell and I am going to pay someone $15 per hour to write thank you cards?

It Ruins the Pool of Candidates

Building on the previous point, not everyone is worth $15, $20, or even $10 per hour. Fact.

But having a lower minimum wage made it easier to distinguish between different tiers of workers when looking for someone to fill an opening in your business.

A $10 job attracted $10 workers. A $25 job attracted $25 workers.

Let’s say I was looking for an entry level position, again, to write thank you cards day in and day out. That’s their only job. It’s a $10 job, meaning the job is so simple that there’s no benefit to me to pay more than that, regardless of how qualified someone is. I post an opening on Craigslist and get a dozen or so people interested in the position. Let’s review the competition:

Candidate 1 – Very Overqualified: One girl is a grad student who expects $20 per hour. She’s got a bachelors in business administration and very qualified in her own right. Fair enough. She is worth $20 per hour, but my labor is not. I won’t pay $20 for $10 work. Pass.

Candidate 2 – Slightly Overqualified: This girl is still in college working on her undergrad. She doesn’t have a whole lot of experience but she’s working at it, and has good handwriting. She’s also bilingual. She’s worth $15 per hour. But again, I have a $10 job, so she is slightly over qualified. Pass.

Candidate 3 – Quality Match: Then comes some woman, 40 years old. Never graduated high school. Dropped out and had 2 kids. No college. Monolingual. But she does have great handwriting and low and behold, she has a pulse! We have a winner! But, oh shit, I forgot. Minimum wage is $15.

Now I am forced to pay someone $15, even if it is to do $10 work.

You would think this is a victory for the Wage Hikers. They think, “Aha! Andrew is now forced to hire this woman worth $10 per hour to work for him and pay her $15 per hour! Buahahahah! Our misguided plan has worked, and now low skilled people can get jobs paying higher wages! BRILLANT!”

But hold on one second… that’s not exactly how it works…. Read on.

It Screws Low Skilled Workers

You can pass a law that increases minimum wage, but you can’t snap your fingers and improve the work force in a flash.

Minimum wage or not, I’m not going to hire a $10 worker for $15 per hour. For $10 per hour, Candidate 3 would have been a great choice, and she would have got the job. She’s worth $10 per hour, and I was willing to pay her $10 per hour.

Gun to my head, if I am forced to pay someone more money, I am going to find a worker who is worth it. Which means sorry Candidate 3, I’m stepping over you and moving straight to Candidate 2. True, I didn’t originally need to someone with college experience and who speaks two languages. However, if I am going spend a certain amount of money I am going to get every ounce of employee I can and sure they are worth every dime.

Example: If I was forced to spend $50,000 on a car, I would not have bought my $25,000 Nissan Xterra. I would have made sure to get a car that was worth the $50,000, such as a Land Rover, or fully loaded Jeep Cherokee.

The minimum wage changed. The candidates did not. When you raise the minimum wage, employers are going to stop hiring entry level workers and go straight to more qualified people who in their eyes would have been worth $15 per hour prior to the wage hike.

Employers are not going to suddenly stop thinking logically, and pay more money for the same labor. If they’re forced to pay better wages, they’ll get better workers, and they’ll fire their current work force without hesitation. Every candidate whose labor is worth less than the new minimum wage is going to have a very hard time finding a job and keeping it.

Conclusion

The long and short of it is that increasing minimum wage might help some people get paid more. But others will lose their jobs and either be replaced, or the employer might just decide to do without their position. It hurts the very people it intends to help. So it’s bad for employees.

It will also reduce consumption, and making hiring more difficult, so it’s bad for businesses.

Prices for goods and services will go up, so it’s bad for consumers.

When someone is bad for everyone, I don’t

 

Culture, Life, Politics, Pop Culture, Religion, Society

Disclaimer

Leave a comment

This blog, article, whatever you call it has been on the back of my mind longer than any other I’ve written. A blog about how in modern society we have to give a god damn disclaimer before doing or saying anything. Most people will probably read this article and doze off three lines in so how do you start such a blog without first giving a disclaimer? Seems almost ironic that I would need a disclaimer to write a blog throwing jabs at disclaimers.

Basically, the gist of my angst here is that you can’t just be honest any more. You can’t just say what you think any more. You can’t just say the obvious any more. No matter how blatantly fucking obvious, or benign, or trivial something is these days, we all have to give disclaimers beforehand for fear of being shamed out of town, because we’ve fostered this atmosphere of wussiness.

I mean ordinarily, I would have been inclined to say at the beginning of this blog “Warning, this blog is about to use foul language. For those of you with children eyes, turn on the Disney Channel instead”.

People have to give disclaimers for practically everything they do. Here are some common examples you’re exposed to every day, whether at work, at home, during the holidays, or out in public.

  • What you say: “I can see your point of view, however it’s my opinion that…”
  • What you mean: “I heard you. I’m about to talk, please don’t hate me.”

 

  • What you say: “Before I begin, I want to clarify that I didn’t vote for Bush…”
  • What you mean: “Don’t hate me, I’m not Republican.”

 

  • What you say: “….oh and by the way, I’m Mexican.”
  • What you mean: “Don’t hate me, I’m not racist.”

 

  • What you say: “No offense, but…”
  • What you mean: “You won’t like what I’m about to say, please don’t hate me.”

 

  • What you say: “Excuse me, can you please lower your voice. I can’t hear the movie.”
  • What you mean: “I paid $12 for this ticket! Shut the fuck up before I shove my foot up your ass!”

 

 

You might argue these are niceties. But I think it’s really just pussy footing. Sometimes I wanna just blurt out “Offense intended. That’s a stupid idea.” There’s being flat out rude, and then there’s being flat out ridiculous, and I feel like the pendulum has swung very far in that direction. Even when something isn’t rude we’re afraid of coming off as rude because as a society we’ve slowly but surely been getting thinner skinned. So many people have such delicate sensibilities, and it seems like every issue is a hot topic of controversy for someone.

I’ve been told not to talk about politics even when I am with like-minded people in public, because some random person I’ll never see again might overhear and get offended. Gasp!

But exactly that’s the root of it. People being offended. Us being offended. Have we all always been so easily offended? Did we always use to cower when something of controversy was said amidst a mixed crowd at a dinner party? Do we dare not raise out glass in agreement with the stranger across the room for fear of earning some random bloke’s enmity? What happened?

Whatever fucking happened to straight shooters? Whatever happened to people who know what they want and say it. They just fucking say it for the sake of saying it? Whatever happened to Eminem? Clint Eastwood, Winston Churchill and George W. Bush? What happened to not giving a fuck?

To quote the great Marshall Mathers, “Whatever happened to wildin out and being violent? Whatever happened to catchin a good old-fashioned passionate ass whoopin’ and getting your shoes, coat, and your hat tooken”

We give disclaimers for almost everything. It’s expected that you do, and rude if you don’t. If you just go off and say what you want to say, without first lubing up the sensibilities of the people around you, you’re bound to create some friction, and some enemies.

Because of this, a void in communication has been created. There are certain opinions, certain ideas, certain offensive truths that dare not be spoken for fear of offending someone and permanently landing yourself on their shit list. No more getting invited to couples charades. What has filled this void, is lies, false pleasantries, groupthink, blind obedience to, and agreement with those whose sensibilities might be offended. We’ve catered our thoughts and speech to the lowest common denominator of the emotionally volatile.

Starbucks caught a lot of flak for starting up a dialogue about race. That’s all, let’s just talk about race. Howard Schultz never told his employees to don a white hood and start setting crosses on fire, but that’s how people reacted to it.

When you baby a kid, he turns into a baby. So let’s stop treating everyone like babies. Let’s toughen up. Let’s be bold and speak what’s on our minds. I’m not saying go out and be rude, but let’s stop acting like the simple act of disagreeing is rude. Let’s stop acting like being individuals, and thus have individual thought, is an offence. Am I asking you to stop using disclaimers? Well…