FairTax Friday!

Are you one of those people who thinks that the only time you pay income taxes is when you have to write a check to the government on April 15th? Do you also think that "getting some back" means you not only paid zero income taxes, but the government just thought they would like to give you some more money? If so then please read on. If not, read on anyway and spread the word. From now on, we're going to have FairTax Friday on Real Honest Thinking to get and keep people excited about the FairTax!

You know that pay stub that you get when you get your paycheck? Take a look at it (even if you know where I'm going with this). There are two sections: Earnings and Deductions

Wait...... deductions? It's your money, why should anyone be able to deduct it? This is exactly how the government misleads people into thinking that they don't pay taxes. They just take it out as you go. Look at the pay stub above. To date, the government has taken $9,845.71 out of this person's paycheck and the year isn't even halfway finished! It's not even June yet! The Federal Government has taken $8,098.30 from this person's salary. This person may not have to write a check to the government next April, but they sure as heck have paid taxes! Over $20,000 worth once the year is finished! For those of you who are aware of this scheme that the government uses to trick people, take a look at your pay stub anyway just so you'll get good and pissed off at how much the government is taking from you. To everyone, what if I told you there was a system of taxation that keeps the government running, but allows you to keep 100% of your paycheck?!? Imagine having an extra $8,000 right now, because that's what the person above would have. What would you do with $8 grand?!?

Imagine what that would do for people struggling in this economy. What if someone's spouse has lost a job, and they can't quite pay all of the bills on just one income? Wouldn't an extra $8,000 help? You bet it would! What if products became cheaper because corporations no longer had to pay income taxes? Better yet, what if you got a check from the government every month that gave you the money to buy basic necessities like food? That would surely help struggling people right now, and for those not struggling it would free up money to give to charities and other good causes. That sounds amazing to me!

That's the FairTax folks. It eliminates ALL FEDERAL WITHHOLDING TAXES SO THAT YOU KEEP 100% OF YOUR PAYCHECK! If you're interested then tune in next Friday (or email me) for more information. You want a stimulus package? The FairTax is it!!!

How to Pick a Judge

Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court has sparked a firestorm of chatter about what makes a good judge. Many people, including Obama himself, are vying for someone who shows "empathy." Others want an "impartial" candidate and some advocate judicial activism. If you are trying to figure this out for yourself then consider the oath, shown below, that each federal judge must take prior to assuming office:

"I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Let's break this down......

1. "I will administer justice without respect to persons"
If judges are supposed to rule on cases without respect to persons then how does "empathy" fit into the equation? The dictionary defines "empathy" as follows:

1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner ; also : the capacity for this

Wouldn't "being sensitive to..... the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another" person qualify as the complete opposite of "without respect to persons"? Strike one for empathy and judicial activism......

2. "... and do equal right to the poor and to the rich"
'Equal" is the operative word here. If judges are supposed to look at everyone equally then why should it matter if a candidate came from an impoverished family or a wealthy one? Why is a candidate's personal background and upbringing so vitally important in the selection process? According to the first two phrases of the judicial oath you're supposed to leave your background and personal beliefs behind. Strike two for empathy and judicial activism....

3. "I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Wow, there's that word "impartial"! Amazing how it's actually in the oath that judges are required to take! Reading further you see the phrase "under the Constitution and laws of the United States." If you search for a definition of "judicial activism" you'll find that it's defined as a "philosophy advocating that judges should reach beyond the United States Constitution." Interesting.... the oath says "under the Constitution," but judicial activists "reach beyond" it. Anyone else see a contradiction here? And with the "duties incumbent upon me" being outlined in the first few lines of the oath doesn't it look like judges have a responsibility to approach each and every case through the eyes of the law and ONLY the law. Not through their past experiences, not through their hearts and certainly not through political pressures or consideration of what ruling might be less controversial. Strike three for empathy and judicial activism.

So this leaves us with "impartial." Again, I find it interesting the the word is in the oath itself when the others are not and/or actually stand for the opposite of what the oath says. A recent Gallup poll shows that most Americans say it doesn't matter whether or not the next Supreme Court Justice is a woman or a minority (Hispanic or black). Why does the media make such a big deal out of it when most people don't see it as an important issue? Could it be that they don't support a nominee whose record coincides with the very oath that judges take?

The bottom line is that judges are supposed to be impartial. If that's the criteria - and the oath says it is - then the race or gender of the candidate shouldn't matter. While Sonia Sotomayor's record may show that she's somewhat "moderate," I believe there is no room for moderates on the bench. Laws are meant to be changed in Congress, not the Supreme Court. When it comes to the courts, judges should call it according to the law, regardless of whether or not they agree with the outcome. If we get 9 black females on the bench that can do it, fine. 4 Hispanics and 5 white guys, fine. If we're really selecting judges based on the criteria that have been set out then background, rich, poor, man, woman, black, Asian, white etc. shouldn't make any difference.

***

Here is today's Thinkers Reading List

She doesn't look very impartial....

"I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate." This quote by Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, is not exactly something you want to hear out of a potential Supreme Court Justice. Aren't judges supposed to take an objective look at the facts rather than let their "sympathies and prejudices" dictate their rulings? Aren't they supposed to judge based on the Constitution? Like most of America, I know very little about this woman, but my initial findings don't give me much indication that Sotomayor will interpret the Constitution as it is written. Read this speech and see for yourself.

In her speech, Sotomayor goes on to say that we need "to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making." I thought justice was supposed to be blind. If that's the case then why does it make a difference if it's a man, woman, black, white, asian etc. on the bench? She makes an argument for different genders and ethnic groups having representation in the courts equal to their percentage of the overall population. I'm not saying that it would be a good thing for the Supreme Court to be made up entirely of black men or white women, but doesn't her advocacy for diversity on the bench undermine the very principle of impartiality upon which the law is meant to be interpreted? I don't understand it.

What does she mean when she refers to "differences we will and are making"? Is there currently a set of laws on the books that significantly undermine a particular group's ability to succeed or compete in this country? Can a Hispanic man not take out a loan, buy a house or go to college in the United States? Do black women have trouble doing these things because the law prohibits them from doing so? I don't believe it does, so why must the courts "measure the differences"? Don't get me wrong, there are definitely groups of people who face socioeconomic disparities and sit on the margins of society. However, these disparities are more often than not a result of cultural and personal factors, not legal. It seems to me that Ms. Sotomayor seeks to give certain groups a legal advantage so as to undermine the cultural and personal factors that exist. The law should provide a framework of equal opportunity, not tilt it in favor of the politically favored.

The Supreme Court does not suggest, as Ms. Sotomayor says, that judges let their "opinions, sympathies and prejudices" influence their rulings when "appropriate." In fact, judges are never supposed to let such factors influence their decisions. Their job is to interpret the law impartially. How does letting ones opinions, sympathies and prejudices keep one impartial? I haven't formed a solid opinion yet, but right now she's not gaining favor in my book.

** Update ** 5/27/2009

Great article from WSJ about Sotomayor. The author says about some judges he mentions within the article that "these men saw themselves as judges first and ethnic representatives second." I think that says a lot. Sotomayor doesn't seem to see herself that way though.

Check out the Thinkers Daily Reading List for your everyday source of all things you need to know.

The Real Reason Chrysler and GM Went Bust

It comes down to two factors: 1. Unions and 2. Being forced by the government to make cars that people don't want to buy. These are the reasons, plain and simple, and here's a great example. The Wall Street Journal had a great article yesterday about the United Auto Workers that included some perfect examples of the irrational agreements that the auto manufacturers are forced into accepting. They quote Louis McSwain a 15 year veteran of Chrysler who currently works as a pipe fitter. Due to "overtime" he made $129,000 last year. This guy made SIX FIGURES for being a PIPE FITTER!!! I did a quick Google search on "Pipe Fitter Salary," and the average salary for a senior pipe-fitter is somwhere around $50,000. This guy is making over two and a half times the normal wage for a pipe fitter. I've said it before, but that's like paying your babysitter or the lawn guy $30 per hour when the neighbor is paying theirs $12. And the UAW's idea of "overtime" doesn't exactly mean working over 40 hours per week like you and I are used to thinking. They negotiate the definition of "overtime," and in one instance that I cited in an earlier post "overtime" means working more than 25 hours per week. Yep, that's right, the union negotiated 40 hours worth of pay for just 25 hours worth of work. So, any time a worker puts in more than 25 hours per week it's considered "overtime." I thought working 25 hours per week was considered "part-time." Not when you're a UAW worker, apparently.

Louis McSwain is upset, because this time last year he had taken home about $70,000, and this year he's only made about $32K. That puts him on track to make $77,000 this year. "We had a whole bunch of guarantees.... look what the guarantees got us," he says. Ohhhh poor Louis! This year he is only going to make 1.5x the salary that the pipe fitters in the rest of the country make! For those of you making $50,000 per year (for work that you actually do) right now would you whine and cry about making a "measly" $77,000? Man I hate getting paid too much!!!

This guy was getting paid 258% more than he should be making, and he's still making 150% more than he should. And that's just salary. It doesn't include the excessive pensions, healthcare and other unearned benefits that factor into compensation. If you factor those in then this guy probably makes somwhere in the range of $200,000 per year. It's ridiculous folks. These people think they're entitled to this stuff, regardless of how hard they work or how intelligent they are.

Today, The Heritage Foundation published an analysis of unions and their effect on companies and the economy. Here's a taste of what they found:

• Unions Compress Workers Wages: Unions rarely allow employers to base pay on individual performance or promote workers on the basis of individual ability. Consequently, union contracts suppress the wages of more productive workers and raise the wages of the less competent.
  
• Unions Kill Jobs: Unions destroy 10 to 15 percent of a firms profit by making undertaking new investments less worthwhile and reducing the money that firms have available for new investments. Over time this makes unionized firms less competitive.
  
• Unions Slow Economic Recovery: They do this by raising their member's overall compensation, reducing business investment and the overall number of jobs in an industry.

"Investments" include investing in more employees, also known as creating jobs. Did you see that last point? Unions reduce the overall number of jobs in an industry. We are approaching a 10% unemployment rate in the United States. If we didn't have unions demanding ridiculous pay and benefits then more people would have jobs. Instead, though, they're busy raking in 3x the amount that they're actually worth. Without the UAW you and I would not have had to waste billions of our dollars bailing them out. All in the name of what they think is "fair".

Your Next Car Will Be Much More Expensive

Cars are about to cost $1,300 more than they currently do. No, you didn't read that incorrectly. A $20,000 automobile will now cost $21,300. Why, you might ask? Because Obama and our government have mandated that automobiles must have a fuel-average of 39 miles per gallon by 2016. This means that the auto manufacturers (yeah the one in bankruptcy, the one about to be in bankruptcy and the other barely still independent) are going to have to make cars that people don't want. Did you know that they are already forced to sell some cars at a loss to meet today's fuel standard of 27.5 mpg? Imagine that?!? A business being FORCED to lose money! That's exactly what's going on, folks! The reason...... no one wants to buy these cars. The market simply doesn't have a demand for them with gas prices under $4 per gallon. So, we have two failed auto companies who are in their current positions, because the government is forcing them to lose money, and the government's "solution" to make them "viable" again is to require them to keep selling cars that lose EVEN MORE MONEY! Seriously?!? Are you kidding me?!?

Now the auto makers must figure out how to increase the average MPG by almost 50% AND put features on cars that make consumers want to buy them. All of this equals cost increases for you and me when we go to buy a car. However, in order to compete with the foreign (read: better, more efficient and non-unionized) auto-makers they are going to have to cut costs elsewhere. There are a few possible scenarios that could play out. The first is that the cars will get smaller and safety will be compromised due to manufacturers looking for cheaper materials with which to build their cars. Americans are still going to prefer the larger vehicles, though, and continue to buy them. The net result is a bunch of large vehicles against a bunch of tin cans all driving around on the same roads. The Discovery Channel's show, Destroyed in Seconds, is gearing up for increased footage of the carnage that could result. Maybe the episodes will now be an hour long instead of 30 minutes?

The second possibility lies, of course, with government. They're going to try to coerce you into buying these cars by giving you a tax credit of a few thousand dollars if you buy a hybrid or other fuel-efficient vehicle. You know when people joke around when they have some "No one is going to buy that from me! I'd have to pay someone to take that car/couch/table etc. away from me!" IT'S THE SAME THING!!! Wake up people! "I know you didn't really want this car, but how about I give you $5,000 if you buy it?" This is how our government gets you and I to comply with its political wishes. They make things artificially cheap (or expensive - another option is to increase the federal gas tax to jack up the price of fuel above $4) so that the best-priced option is that which they want you to buy, not the one that you actually want. In reality, we will probably see some combination of both at work. Hopefully people will have the smarts to save their $5K tax credit to pay for their medical bills after their highway-punching-bag-on-wheels gets nailed by a foreign made truck.

Last time I checked, when a business was failing they were supposed to make some changes and start making money again. Now the auto manufacturers are going to be forced to lose more money than they already were. All of this in the name of a completely unproven phenomenon called global warming. WTF?!? Our government at work folks.

** Update 5/22/2009 **

Looks like The Wall Street Journal agrees with me:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124294901851445311.html
Of course, they say it better than I do, and I recommend reading the article, but you heard it here first folks!

Maybe We're Supposed to Give Up

"The indecipherable language of government has actually become dangerous to the well-being of the nation," says Peggy Noonan in her latest article from The Wall Street Journal. She makes an excellent point. When was the last time we heard any straightforward talk out of Washington? Last fall, how many of you actually got any valuable information out of the presidential debates? I know I didn't. We rarely, if ever, get actual details of policy initiatives. "Health care reform," "environmental protection," "improving the education system" and (the most genius one of them all) "change" sound great, but they can come in MANY different forms. I agree with Noonan on this one when I say Washington absolutely does this on purpose, because if "people fully understood they would say, 'Oh that's not a good idea,' or, 'The cost of that will kill us.'" It's all rhetoric. It's the details that actually matter, and the suits in Washington hope we just won't ask.

The problem is that most people are either too lazy or simply don't take the time to dig up the details. I can understand why, though. Government usually simplifies it so much that their top-level rhetoric sounds good to everyone, or they make it sound so complicated that people don't even bother. I agree 100% with the idea that our health care system needs to be reformed. I think most people would agree. However, when I hear a politician speak of "overhauling the system," I'm one of the few that immediately ask "Okay, how?" If you're sitting there saying "I ask that too and so do a lot of people I know!" then you must realize that you all are also one of the few, the very few. You are where you are today, because you have chosen to surround yourself with successful and intelligent people. The unsuccessful and unintelligent do the same thing. Success loves company just as misery does. Alas, our elected representatives know that most people won't ask "how?" In fact, they'll probably say "Yes! The health care system definitely needs an overhaul. I like this guy, and I'm going to vote for him." And that's the end of it for them.

If you're a politician, that's exactly what you want. The peril (or beauty, if you're the politician) lies in the ambiguity of the statements, because people can interpret them however they wish. "Health care reform," to me, means something very different than it does to the welfare recipient. Too often, when people hear "reform," they immediately assume that the system will be reformed in the way that they want it to be reformed. People tell themselves what they want to hear all the time. Washington knows this and exploits it!

Peggy Noonan says it perfectly when she says "maybe we're supposed to give up," trying to decipher what the heck they're talking about during the speeches and press conferences. It's intentionally vague! Folks, we have to start asking questions. Meaningful questions!

I also highly recommend that you read Peggy Noonan's article in full.

Gay Marriage...

...is fine with me (at least from a government standpoint). Republicans and the "let's use the government to advance our religious agenda" crowd need to let this issue go! It is not the government's role or responsibility to dictate who can and cannot get married. I know this is going to piss off some readers, and I'll probably get emails saying "You're not a true conservative!" but last time I checked a "true conservative" was supposed to stand for individual liberty and less government intervention. I invite you to explain to me how the government telling someone who they can and cannot marry increases individual liberty. Church and state are supposed to stay separated, period. No exceptions, and here's why.

If two guys want to get married their actions neither infringe on my personal liberties nor do they negatively affect me in any way. I can hear it now: "But it damages the institution of the family!" One might make that argument, but if that's the case then they should also make it illegal for heterosexual couples to have sex before marriage. Premarital sex could lead to having a child out of wedlock. The amount of children being born out of wedlock these days is staggering, and it is doing far more damage to the institution of the family than two committed lesbians who want to make it official.

The more dangerous aspect of government intervention in marriage is the precedent that it sets. On a personal level, I am a devout Catholic and I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. For this some may call me a hypocrite, but before you do please keep reading. Devout Christians who want the government to keep marriage closed to homosexual couples take for granted that Christianity is the dominant religion in this country. What happens if over the next 30-40 years people start converting to Islam, they become the majority and Sharia law gets implemented? Christian ladies, say goodbye to showing your faces in public and any gains you might have made towards gender equality. Also, in some instances, in order to accuse someone of rape you have to have four Muslim-male witnesses or else YOU get accused of adultery. But Sharia law also states that only heterosexuals can get married, so I guess you'll be fine with all of it. It doesn't matter if that's a seemingly inconceivable scenario (I used to think that trillion dollar deficits were, but I was wrong). The fact is that it could happen, and contemporary government legislation against gay marriage sets the precedent that at any given time the existing religious majority in the United States can use the government to enforce their religious beliefs. This is a perilous road, and there are issues far more consequential with which we should concern ourselves that truly affect the lives of all Americans.

Collective Whining

People who whine and cry tend to travel in packs. On the flip side people who solve their own problems tend to fly solo. Individuals in the first group rarely seem to want to fix problems on their own. Enter unions. "I don't want to put the work into fixing the problem, so if I find enough people to complain with me then I won't have to." In some cases this is valid, such as in the situations under which many unions were originally formed: dangerous working conditions in factories. Today this is rarely the case, however. "Collective bargaining" has been replaced by "collective whining." Today it is more about masking the realities of life and economics than it is about safety or other legitimate reasons. In many cases (read: Chrysler and GM), they are digging their own graves.

America is now divided into two groups: 1. Those who don't get what they want, but make some changes to get it on their own and 2. Those who don't get what they want but refuse to make any changes, whine about it and sometimes get it. Conservatives, by nature, are usually independent people who are much less inclined to gather in groups to protest something. They're too busy solving their problems on their own. That's why they don't make headlines as often. Controversy sells, and conservatives unintentionally avoid it by relying on themselves. Liberals don't seem to want to take care of anything on their own, so they gather in groups and whine about it until they get their way. They know controversy sells so they stir it up to get noticed. It's pretty rare to see a group of independent individuals gathered together screaming "Work hard and make some changes to your situation and you'll get what you want!" Again, they're too busy already doing it.

Did you know that some of the United Auto Worker's labor agreements include giving workers a full 8 hours of pay for only doing 5 hours of work?!? Payroll and benefits are usually a company's biggest expenses. Imagine if Chrysler and GM had their labor costs CUT IN HALF?!? A lot of these folks love to use the word "fair". How is that "fair"? Imagine having to pay your babysitter for 6 hours of watching your kids when you were really only gone for three. Or better yet, imagine paying for 3 entrees at dinner when you and a friend only ate two. It's the same thing.

The public sector (government jobs) is much more heavily unionized than the private sector. Did you know that the average public sector worker makes about 46% more in compensation than comparable private sector workers? This means you and I are paying these people almost 1.5x as much as a regular company would pay them! This is largely due to unionization and government inefficiency. As I write this, unions are sucking our (YOUR!) money down the drain. California is trying to close their budget deficit (that's what happens when you spend more than you make.... see this for an explanation), and the unions are successfully working to stop them. The problem with government is that they want everything to stay the same regardless of what is going on in the world around them. In their minds Same = Votes. Did you know that Congress has never decreased spending year over year? Right now we're in a recession, and millions of people have lost their jobs. That means millions of people are no longer paying income taxes which means the government isn't receiving as much money. Government solution: keep spending just as much money even though we're not making as much. HOW IS THAT SUPPOSED TO WORK? You've got to cut programs, cut employees and ultimately cut costs. I have never been laid off (that sound you just heard was me knocking on wood), and I wish that layoffs never had to happen, but they are a reality. Things cannot always stay the same. Things change, people change and businesses change. In New York, one of the areas hardest hit by decreased tax revenues, unionized government employees are refusing to give up wage increases. That's like you losing your job and then going out and buying some new clothes, a new computer and a TV. You just lost your job and have no money! How can you afford to spend more?

This has to stop. At some point people have to wake up and start making smarter decisions. There are some people out there that just don't get it. The ones that do have a responsibility to educate the ones that don't. Some people simply are not exposed to more than one way of thinking, and I don't blame them. Spread the message folks! All of these little changes add up. They're easy to ignore, because nothing really seems to change immediately. It's going to be a very different story ten or twenty years from now.

Balance Fail

George W. Bush and Congress started it. Now President Obama is making it worse. Everyone is to blame here. Our nation's proposed budget deficit is now over $1.8 TRILLION!!! Take another look..... that's $1,800,000,000,000 that we don't have! But we are going to spend it anyway. Most people can't even fathom what a trillion dollars looks like. It's so far fetched that people ignore it. It is documented that our brains have trouble comprehending the scope of something that large. A recent poll asked Americans how many millions are in a trillion , and only 21% of respondents got it correct!!! That means almost eighty percent of the people don't even know how much a trillion is! If you don't know then take it upon yourself to look it up. You need to understand this reality! Additionally, most people really don't understand how our government and its cash flow system works. The government takes OUR money, labels it as theirs, and then proceeds to spend (or waste) it. In this case they are spending 100% more than they are taking in.

Obama is proposing to spend about $3,500,000,000,000 next year (go back and take a good look at that number). The government is only projected to receive about half of that amount in tax revenue. Where do they get the rest? Well, they're going to borrow 50% of it. For older Americans this really doesn't matter that much, because my generation is the one that gets stuck with the bill.

Let's simplify this a bit..... a person makes $30,000 a year in take-home pay, they have total necessary expenses of $30,000 but during that year they spend $60,000. Where do they get the extra $30,000? Probably credit cards. So what happens the year after that? Not only do they have to spend $30,000 for food, rent/mortgage, gas, insurance etc. but they have added $3,600 in interest payments, because they borrowed $30K the previous year.

Wait?!? So now they have to spend $33,600 this year? But they only make $30,000! So to make it real for yourself just think of whatever your current salary is and think of spending 2x that amount this year. And then try to figure out how you're going to do the same the next year....

This, my friends, is exactly the scenario that George Bush, Barack Obama and Congress have put us in, except we're not dealing in thousands. We're not dealing in millions or billions either. We're dealing in trillions! And we have to pay it back with interest. Using some rough math at a 5% interest rate we'll owe $246,000,000 in interest PER DAY..... and that's just on this year's deficit. Where the heck are we going to get that money?

The answer is you and me...... yes, the government is simply going to take it from you and me in the form of taxes. Any promises of only raising taxes on the rich are going to be broken, because not even the rich can give the government $246,000,000 per day. This is what Americans voted for folks. If this explanation hasn't made this issue very clear for you then feel free to then email me at RealHonestThinking@gmail.com. You need to understand this. It's important that everyone understands the trouble we're in. It's time to do something about this. Write your congressman, write to the President and GET INVOLVED SOMEHOW! Oh, and if you weren't pissed already and still need a good visual of what a trillion dollars looks like go here.

Swine Flu Explained

Yesterday I decided to try and figure out if this whole swine flu thing is as big of a threat as everyone is making it out to be. My suspicion centered around the use of the word "epidemic" and the thought that the media and government might be exploiting the connotations of the word amongst the American people. I have a friend who works for the CDC, so I shot her an email asking if the epidemic is being blown out of proportion by the the government, the CDC, the media or all three. She is not an expert on H1N1, nor does she speak on behalf of the CDC. She does, however, have much more knowledge on the issue than the average person.

First let's go back to the connotations of the word "epidemic" (you can include pandemic too). When most people, including myself, hear this word they think "something that can kill me within 24 hours." That's the mainstream interpretation, and the government and the media know it. Therefore, they use it to scare the hell out of the American people and manipulate them.

Okay, let's define "epidemic." It's a technical term that has to meet certain criteria before an outbreak can be classified as such. It is basically defined as an occurrence of a virus or disease in greater numbers than would be expected under normal circumstances. My friend did an excellent job of explaining it this way (with numbers that are made up for the sake of explanation)..... let's say a city normally expects to see on average, 12 cases of swine flu per year. If the city suddenly sees 20 cases then you're above the normal 12, and it's classified as an epidemic. You could have an epidemic of the common cold if the number of cases was above that which is normally expected. It's not really life threatening like smallpox, but it's still an epidemic.

This leads into the next point that my friend made: disease severity. You can have an epidemic of anything, but it's not necessarily life threatening. However, put a relatively unknown (at least to the public) disease together with an unconventional name like "swine flu" and the media and government have the perfect combination with which to send thousands of panicky mothers and their snotty-nosed children to the doctor. The CDC has a responsibility to inform the public about epidemics, and I think they have done an excellent job in this case. The media also has a responsibility to properly relay this information, and they're the ones not following through. This relates to Monday's post, Truth and Consistency. The media needs your eyes, and they don't get them with headlines like "More Cases Than Expected of H1N1 Virus." They get them with this: "Swine Flu Epidemic Hits the U.S." Then they don't go on to explain the true definition of an epidemic. People panic, moms go nuts and keep their kids home from school and then the government steps in. I have a hard time believing that Janet Napolitano, our inept Secretary of Homeland Security, isn't using this to save some face after she's proven herself to be completely incompetent. She'll build up the threat, watch it pass knowing that it was never as bad as she made it out to be and then sweep back in at the end saying "Look how well we (read: government) handled the situation!" Again, government taking credit for something that they didn't really do.

The bottom line is that the media, once again, has created false perceptions amongst the American public. We need the media. However, it is our responsibility to hold them accountable. You vote for the media by giving them your eyes. Stop giving them your eyes, start giving them some words and maybe they'll start doing some honest reporting.

Truth and Consistency

Do you remember the letter that a South Carolina eighth-grader sent to Congress about the dilapidated state of her school (government school, of course) a couple of months ago? President Obama read it to Congress when he first addressed them back in February. It seems that someone heard the student's plea, but it wasn't Congress or anyone else in our government. Darryl Rosser, CEO of a firm that supplies schools with classroom furniture, caught word of the school's condition and decided to have the firm he leads, Sagus International, donate $250,000 worth of new classroom furniture to the school. It's an incredible act of generosity that I read about here.

Quite a few thoughts run through my mind while reading it, the first of which relates to the title. While the title is accurate in a sense, it will undoubtedly cause most people to give sole credit to Obama and the government, even though they did very little to help in this situation. The headline should read something like this: CEO Leads Firm to Repair Dilapidated South Carolina School. The difference between the two headlines is vastly different as one credits the CEO and his private firm and the other gives credit to the government, which did next to nothing to assist the school. In fact, the government is most likely to be blamed for the demise of the school. This situation is all too typical, government screws it up, private corporations fix it and government comes back and takes the credit.

Another issue that I have with the situation is the quotes that now adorn the walls of the school, namely the kids' "favorite" quote by the President: "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek." These students are falsely being led to believe that Obama fixed their school. The truth is that Darryl Rousser, his company and local volunteers, not the government or any government employees (except teachers), fixed the school. Sure, Obama may have read this student's letter in front of Congress, which made Mr. Rousser aware of the situation, but President Obama was doing it for political show. Don't even try to tell me that it wasn't, because that argument is painfully easy to squash! Obama has the power to transform government education across the country, so if he really cared about the students then he wouldn't be eliminating initiatives such as the voucher program in Washington D.C. (which has been quite successful and the statistics show it!). Instead, he would be working to implement it nationwide. However, if he does then the kids will be less dependent on the government. The message that they are currently being sent is that the government will come to their aid and fix everything. It's scary.

Lastly, in an age where private corporations and CEOs are being vilified by the government and the media, it would be incredibly counter-productive to give credit to Darryl Rousser. This would make CEOs and private enterprise look good in the eyes of the public, and the powers that be just can't have that right now. Consistency is the one thing that the government actually sticks to...... they are consistent with screwing things up, consistent in their incessant search for more power and consistent in wasting our tax dollars. It's only natural that the demagogue that is our government would maintain consistency in it's agenda to vilify private enterprise.

Face Value: I Want My $1 Million Bonus!

"We will miss [some of our wealth] in the sense that as a consequence of 25-year-olds getting million-dollar bonuses, they were willing to pay $100 for a steak dinner and that waiter was getting the kinds of tips that would make a college professor envious." These are the words of President Barack Obama from an interview he gave last week. Unfortunately, he will get away with this statement for reasons, among others, that include mainstream America running on the pure emotional reaction that a statement like this might elicit. Seriously, what can a 25-year-old possibly be doing to earn a $1 million bonus? The answer is, not much. No, I don't mean they are sitting around doing nothing while pulling in these bonuses. The fact is that this statement is simply false, because there aren't many (if any) quarter-century-olds getting bonuses anywhere near that size. On another note, Obama inadvertently admits here that trickle-down economics actually does work, something I'm sure he didn't mean to do. I digress...

I have a good friend (now 26 years old) who worked at one of the major New York investment banks (the employees of which seem to be the target of Obama's comments) during some of the years where employees were receiving these bonuses. He and his colleagues all received bonuses, but they were small fractions of the amount that our President alleges. In fact, you would have to put more than a dozen of them together to begin getting close to that number. The simple fact is that anyone that age would be, at most, a third or fourth year Level II Analyst, putting them on a nice pay scale, but nowhere near the $1,000,000 mark. Obama might want to check his facts next time......

Which leads me to my next point: Mainstream America, unfortunately, is all-too-quick to accept everything they hear at face value. Most people have no problem spending an hour debating and researching Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's relationship, but when it comes to thinking about things that actually matter (credit card debt, education, taxes, health care, savings etc.), they put about 1/3600th of an hour's thought into it (that would be one second). I don't care where you get your news from as long as you realize that they are all biased or slanted in some way and rarely does anyone report 100% of the facts. Does anyone ever think about the fact that all of the mainstream news organizations are for-profit entities? CNN appeals to liberals just as Fox News appeals to convervatives, and they want to keep these viewers. They're not necessarily trying to be balanced..... they're trying to keep their viewers glued to the television long enough to play commercials in between segments and get paid! For this reason they are more than willing to sacrifice "balance." If Obama jumps out of a plane without a parachute and lands injury-free on his feet and FoxNews runs the story with the headline "Obama: The Miracle Man" and CNN runs the same story with the headline "Obama Can't Fly," then everyone gets pissed off, because it's simply not what their usual audience wants to hear.

The point is that most people rarely take a step back from the headlines long enough to objectively look at what actually went on. Headlines are there to spark our interest and get us to read or listen to a story. They also have the effect of setting a tone/slant for the same piece. We need to start taking our emotions out of the news and take as hard of a look at the facts as we do TMZ.com. Gather the facts then get emotional..... not the other way around.

Withering Identities

Today I watched a demo video on Amazon's Kindle 2. First let me say that the Kindle is a pretty sweet piece of technology! Incredibly thin, holds over 1500 books, you can read newspapers, magazines etc. on it, and the battery lasts for four days. After watching the video I flashed back to this morning when I was packing to go out of town for the weekend. I usually take 3 books with me while traveling, a Bible, my journal and whatever book I happen to be reading at the time. It's a little cumbersome but worth it. After watching the video on the Kindle I was thinking that it would be very nice to have. Not only could I lighten my travel load but I could take more books AND magazines/newspapers. So convenient!!

Now, as much as I love cool techy gadgets I also still enjoy the experience of reading a print newspaper or magazine and/or picking up a book and flipping it's pages. Even more than that, I like seeing my library grow! I get comments such as "wow, you have a lot of books!"quite often when people come over and visit, and people seem to like looking through them. I enjoy recommending and lending books out to friends. There is so much knowledge to be shared in this world, and I love passing it on! However, the Kindle would take all of this away. Seriously, who is going to sit down and flip through my Kindle to see what books I have? It's the same with iPods (another amazing invention!). It used to be common practice to check out someone's CD collection upon seeing it in a person's house. You can learn a lot about a person by doing so. Now the only time a person might flip through a friend's music collection is in the car on a road trip (via the iPod).

Technology for the sake of convenience is taking away more personalization and human interaction than we seem to realize. Beyond e-mail, Facebook, cell phones etc, gadgets like the Kindle and the iPod are quickly chipping away at our non-verbal identities. No longer do people ask "Why do you have the K-Ci and JoJo CD?" (or another embarassing disc) like they used to when flipping through one of my 4 enormous CD cases in my car (got the album for free, by the way). Questions like these often sparked some good conversation, and it was always entertaining to flip through someone's collection. The same goes for books. I have always wanted a big library, and I love to read. However, the convenience of the Kindle may trump the desire for printed books (not to mention they're cheaper to buy on the Kindle).

I'm not saying that I want to show off by having people see a large music collection or library. I have always tried to be somewhat humble, and I don't think people should necessarily seek to be identified by these things. At the same time, on a more passive scale, people are able to learn quite a bit about you by looking at these things. Walking into someone's house and seeing video games everywhere vs. a large library definitely makes you view someone differently. What I'm trying to say is that if everyone adopts these gadgets, and they most certainly will in one form or another, then society as a whole will lose some very important indicators once used to draw conclusions about one's personality. The business world already suffers from this phenomenon due to e-mail now being the primary form of communication. Are we going to let our personal lives wither away in the same manner?