The Hypocrisy of McDonald's

The other day my wife and I were watching television, and we saw a commercial - promoting health in children - only to find out that this commercial was for The Ronald McDonald House.

For those of you that do not know, in 1984, the Ronald McDonald House Charities (RMHC) was official established in the memory of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc - who is said to have been a strong advocate for children. And since 1984, McDonald's has continued to support the charity through donations (boxes at all McDonald's restaurants) and ads geared towards donations for the fund.

This is all fine and well. It's great that McDonald's is reaching out to children in need and children with health problems. In fact, the mission statement from the RMHC website states:

"The mission of Ronald McDonald House Charities (RMHC) is to create, find and support programs that directly improve the health and well being of children."

Excuse me? Improving the health and well being of children? I have thus, dug a bit deeper.

On the American Heart Association's website - this table shows daily averages of what children should consume - as far as their food intake. It shows that between the ages of 4 and 8 (the typical age where those children will consume a McDonald's Happy Meal) for females, the daily intake should be 1,200 calories, and for males - 1,400 calories. Also, the Baylor Medical Center estimates that total sodium intake for a child ages 4-8 as being 1,200-1,900 mg, 19 g of protein, and total fat of an equivalent of 39-62 g (which seems rather high to me, but who am I to argue with the Baylor Medical Center?).

So, how is McDonald's being a hypocrite? Well, it's simple, if the RMHC wants to promote healthy living in children, then how can the McDonald's restaurants continue to sell their Happy Meals? Allow me to elaborate:

On the nutrition center of the McDonald's website, they list the Cheeseburger Happy Meal with a Sprite (not "soda" but specified as Sprite) as having 640 calories, 940 mg of sodium, 35 g of protein, and 24 g of fat (of which, 7 g are saturated - i.e. "bad" fat).

Assuming this Happy Meal is the meal eaten for dinner, that leaves the child with only about 500-700 calories to fill the remainder of their day (both breakfast and lunch), with only 260-900 mg of sodium, protein enough to consume two days for children in only their dinner portion (and any excess protein, we all know, can turn to fat just as easily as excess calories), and 15-48 g of fat.

So, half of a child's caloric intake can be consumed EASILY in one sitting at a McDonald's restaurant (and the sodium, protein, and fat are off the chart), yet, they support the RMHC who seeks to "improve the health and well-being of children"? Which is it? Either you are trying to make a buck, or you truly wish to support the health and well-being of children.

I don't think it's any surprise to many Americans that our children are becoming obese and lethargic, and while McDonald's cannot be held fully responsible, it still raises the question, are they being hypocritical in their choice of charity versus their product sold to the children of America?

Which brings me back to the ad - not a single McDonald's product showed up in the ad for the RMHC, in fact, the children in the ad were eating salads and fruit - and I'm sure this was not done by accident, yet McDonald's continues to feed the children of America utter garbage, that can only help lead to obesity issues in the United States.

Sure, the parents may be more to blame than the restaurant, but if the restaurant truly wishes to promote the charity, which, in turn, promotes "health and well-being in children" then shouldn't the restaurant actually provide a product that does, in fact, promote that same desire for health and well-being?

I personally think so and I see the hypocrisy in their actions. I don't condemn the charity, but at the same time, I don't see how McDonald's can boast, "billions and billions of hamburgers served," and still latch onto a charity that seems to express the opposite of everything that is wrong with their restaurant. It just seems sad, almost like they feel as if they support the charity (and the fact it was established, in part, thanks to their founder), that they will get a reprieve in the eyes of the public.

I for one, am not blinded by their attempts to show support for health while over feeding everyone (not only the children) that enters into their establishment. The all-mighty dollar is a hard thing to forgo - especially when it's someone else's health at stake - keeping the health of the corporation running strong.

Saving, SAVING is Killing the Economy?

There is an article on CNN today titled "Why Saving is Killing the Economy", and I can't help but think, are they serious?

Never mind that greed started this entire "recession" but now you want to lay the blame on the American people that are watching out for themselves as to why it endures?

Okay, fine, I get the thought behind the article - as more people save, they ultimately spend less, which means, the economy continues to decline, but how can you blame the individual?

Let's think about this - and I'm sure many of you have - if you don't save, and you lose your job, you lose everything. Therefore, in these "uncertain times" people are going to save, and save every little bit they can. Sure, it might "kill the economy," but honestly, you can't tell me that those unemployment numbers aren't doing a whole heck of a lot more to kill the economy than the individual saver!

Currently, my job has been threatening to cut overtime - fair enough, I guess be happy you still have a job, correct? Fine, and I will be happy with that, but if you cut my overtime, I lose about $1,000 of monthly income that I could otherwise SPEND in this economy.

And what about the people that have lost ALL their income by way of pink slip? Are they to be "blamed" as well for "killing the economy"?

However, when the business "saves" - i.e. SLASHES JOBS!!!! - it's deemed okay, because that's "good business practice," but when an individual cuts back to only the bare essentials to living, they are deemed as "killing the economy."

Let's make up our minds people, we can't have it BOTH ways! One way can't be "good for business" while on the individual level they are "killing the economy."

Seriously, the individual would easily spend, spend, spend if they didn't have to worry about the company looking to save some dough by way of cutting salaries and jobs! If these companies truly wanted to save the economy they'd start hiring, they'd reduce their firing, and they'd stop cutting back on the employee benefits!

Yes, the individual makes the economy tick, but with such fear in the air due to the "great saving strategies" in place at the corporate level then yes, the individual is going to do what is best for them, and that is save every dime they can for that day when their job becomes extinct.

Blaming the individual for saving is ludicrous, when the real culprits in this travesty are the bank CEO's - who get BILLIONS in bailout money and "save it" - not turning any of that money over by way of loans, or even by way of increased savings rates - which would help the individual in that they can have more to actually SPEND, rather than save.

But the media, and even the government, want to ignore the savings at the corporate level and only attack the individuals. Individuals that have a responsibility to themselves and their families to make sure that, if times get too rough, that they can make ends meet. Indeed, it's the individuals fault for "killing the economy."

How could I have been so naive?

Is It Just Me?

So, I don't know if it's just me, or if people are just growing increasingly rude. Now, I know, I've wrote about this before, but, well, I was just thinking about three instances recently that - when thought about - I come to the same conclusion.

I realize, I can be rude. I realize I can seek blood with my words. However, I typically only am rude once I have been wronged first. Perhaps I am too quick to judge, maybe those I encounter often times are just "having a bad day," but at the same time, why does their bad day have to be transferred through their actions to me? Especially when those being extremely rude are employees of an establishment I am frequenting - since when does the employee think they have so much power over the customer? All three of these instances refer to places I am going as the customer - and two of them are the same establishment.

As I said, it could "just be me," and if it is, then so be it, but I just feel it's an accumulation of everything anymore - those on the streets can't bother to watch their mirrors or the surrounding traffic, those that are too busy on their phones that they linger and stand in your way, those that are just plain rude, as if the world is owed to them. Like I said, I don't like being rude myself; I prefer to be pleasant, but increasingly, every one's stupidity is driving me quicker to temper.

The first instance took place at an eatery - Maggiano's Little Italy. Some of you may have been to this establishment previously, and may have had very pleasant experiences - I know I used to when this establishment was concerned. I am speaking of the Maggiano's in Oak Brook, Illinois, and it was a night my wife and I were planning on spending upwards of $150 in food and drink - such a special occasion for us that we decided to make reservations for 7 PM. At 6:45 that evening we arrived and checked in (even valeting our vehicle, which we have done exactly one other time, on my wife's boss' dime, in our life). The hostess told me "it will be a few minutes while we get a table set up for you," which is all fine and dandy, we were, after all, early. 5 minutes pass, and people are being sat all around us - some, seemingly having just arrived and checked in themselves - and then 10 minutes, and then 20 minutes. At 7:05 I approach the hostess stand and ask how that table is coming along (and I was very polite in my actions). I was told then, that it would be "another 10-15 minutes" because "we seat people 15 minutes after they check in, and since your reservation was for 7, we will sit you at 7:15-7:20." I was floored, but I held my tongue. I wanted to outright tell her "that's bullshit," but I did refrain. I go to my wife and tell her we still have to "wait" meanwhile, we are still watching people check in and promptly be sat - was it just us? My wife, who could see the hostess stand, said that the hostess "must have been talking about me" because she kept whispering to people and pointing at the back of my head, but what can I say and do, they require 15 minutes worth of "check in time," but what happened to the fact that I checked in at 6:45? Finally, at 7:15 we were called to be sat - not only did we no longer feel like having our special occasion after waiting 30 minutes to sit on a reservation, but we spent far less than planned, and will never go back to that establishment. We have been known to drop $150 at this restaurant previously, and were not opposed to doing it again, however, after this experience, we will never even go back - I'm sure there are plenty of other restaurants that will happily accept my business and my cash.

The other two instances occured at the Jewel Osco grocery store in Oak Lawn, Illinois. Now, in order to fully comprehend these issues, the set up of the entrance needs to be understood. There are two, single automatic doors set up side-by-side. Once you enter one of those two doors, directly in front of you, about 5 feet, is another set of side-by-side automatic doors. Between the doors is an "atrium" that houses the carts to the left - and to the extreme left is another "entrance" that employees use and carts should be brought from outside through, since the two, single double-door entrance is not wide enough for an employee to bring multiple carts from the outside into - especially, considering customers enter and exit through this area.

So the first instance at the Jewel Osco, my wife and I enter the left door from the outside air into the atrium. I turn left to get us a cart, in front of my wife is an employee (one I thought was the manager at the time). This employee walks in front of my wife a good 3 or 4 times - merely moving a sign around (why? I don't know). So my wife finally moves to the right door to enter into it, the door begins to open slowly, then stops, so she pushes it open and says a few words under her breathe about the ridiculousness of the situation. Meanwhile, I am now behind this employee with my cart. The employee enters the right "automatic" door and flips a switch - a switch I am sure makes the door actually automatic (they had been open for like 3 hours at this point, the door should have been "open" long before this moment). The employee (who again, I felt was the manager) then STARES at my wife as she walks halfway into the store. So I walk past him, watching him stare - and so I say simply, "you don't have to stare." That was it, I was calm, but just letting him know, that his staring was not appreciated (didn't your parents teach you not to stare and/or point? This isn't a new concept). So he says, and I quote, "I'm just trying to figure out what her problem is." There was no word of "I'm sorry, sir," or, "my mistake," instead, he was "trying to figure out what her problem is." Is he psychic? I didn't know he could read her thoughts by staring at her! Must be a rough life having ESP, of course, had he actually BEEN psychic, then he could have known I was merely looking for a word of apology at him STARING DOWN my WIFE! So I repeat my point, "you still don't have to stare," and again, he had the same response of, "I'm trying to figure out what her problem is." So finally, I tell him, "it's RUDE to stare, and if you hadn't been RUDE and in her way, then this wouldn't be an issue. If you are the manager, then you should definitely know to treat your customers with more respect" and I walked away, leaving him dumbfounded that he could be so stupid. Point of the matter is/was, he KNEW what her "problem was" because he flipped the switch that would make the door work properly, and besides that, how did he NOT know she and I had not just had a huge argument in the parking lot? Would it then be his business to "figure out what her problem is" through telekinesis? I think not. He was just being rude, because he felt he had a RIGHT to be rude, and thus, I gave him two chances to apologize before finally telling him, that as the manager, he is extremely rude. I thought I expected more from managers than from "regular employees," however, maybe due to this instance, the next one irked me as well, even though it was just a "regular employee," and only slightly lived.

This time, the same thing happened, my wife entered the store, and I turned left to get a cart. I turn back around to take my cart into the store, when what do I see? A cart man, coming for me! Yes, the employee that was getting carts off the lot was attempting to bring in about 6 carts through the aforementioned narrow passageway that should be used for customers (remember, to the extreme left is a wide open, employee only entrance where carts SHOULD enter via employee at). So I stop, as does the employee, so I decide, that's my cue to hustle past him. I begin to move, as does the employee - we again both stop, so I start to go again, and the employee says, "hurry up and move." I, of course, don't take kindly to such words, and I say, "you work here, I'm the customer, you don't have to be rude to me," and I walk into the store never looking back.

I know I am "quick to temper" about these things, but my thoughts are, if they "get away" with being rude, by not having a consequence from me (I am the wrong guy to mess with on this issue), then they will only continue in their ways. So, I guess it's up to me to change the world, one rude person at a time! If I can do that, then I feel my time on earth has not been wasted!

Okay, seriously, I don't know if it's just me. I don't know if I should ignore the utter disrespect people have these days, but I just don't know if I can. Like I said, I am pleasant most of the time, and I go out of my way to be nice (when is the last time you slowed down to hold the door open for that little old lady that is 5 steps behind you entering a store? Well, I am the one that DOES hold that door, because I'm never in such a hurry that I think the door just needs to be closed rudely in her face), however, it seems anymore, people are quick to "tell you what to do" without them thinking of their own repercussions, and that attitude irks me to no end.

It might just be me, but even if it is, I deserve to be treated with at least minimal respect, especially when I am the customer. In these economic times, shouldn't the businesses be held to a higher standard in an attempt to keep their customers? Okay, maybe not, but at the very least, I can expect to not be disrespected to the point where I wait 30 minutes to be sat for a reservation when everyone else is walking in, being sat promptly, or I have a right that my wife does not have to be stared down, or I have the right to not be disrespected by a bag-boy doing cart duty, and coming in the wrong door to boot.

It might just be me, but I guess I expect more of people!

Bait and Switch

So I was reading today about how President Barack Obama wants to "limit executive's pay" for those executives that have accepted bailout funds, but my question is, how can you do that?

Okay, I've made it clear, "bailout" and I do not go well together. I was never for it, I thought the idea of it was inane, and I thought stipulations should have been in place BEFORE handing the money out so willfully. But, even with that said, I do not think NOW is the time to add stipulations to companies that have already taken their funds. It's the classic bait and switch, and it smells.

Recently, at my job, I was offered a new position. During the preliminary discussions, I was told this was a "salaried position" - which is something I had been hoping for since the day I started. I was also told, it was an eight hour position (I currently work 10 hour days). So in thinking about if I wanted to accept the position or not, I took these things I was told into consideration - so I finally told my boss (after discussing the situation with my wife) that I would accept. I then, mentioned briefly, "of course, assuming all we had talked about" - so far, those eight words have saved me from suffering.

In those eight words, my boss then looked dejected, and his response to me was . . . and I kid you not, "really?" Honestly, his reaction was to ask me, "really?" OF COURSE, "really," you dimwit! Why would I accept based on what you told me in good faith, if that good faith wasn't even that good, or of faith based? Why would I accept, less hours - when I'm HOURLY - thus losing the overtime?

Anyway, I digress. I am currently still in negotiations with my work, but what about those who, in good faith, accepted bailout funds - when there was no stipulations placed upon those funds - who may now not be able to do anything about the bait and switch they are enduring? Is it fair to them, that, in good faith, they accepted these funds sans stipulation, only to have the carpet yanked out from underneath them?

I, at least, could still technically deny the new position (if it hurts me financial, it doesn't make sense to accept) - but what can the banks do? What can the executives do? Give the money back that they likely already spent for their executive Las Vegas trip (of which, has since been canceled)?

I am 100% against bailing out the free market - but stipulations were not in place in a timely fashion (i.e. BEFORE the funds were given) and I don't believe now is the time to add those stipulations. If the U.S. government couldn't foresee the greed of the banks (how could they not, isn't their greed EXACTLY what got us into this mess to begin with?), then that is on THEM, and not the executives to have to now accept the stipulations that were not in place when they should have been.

If Obama wants to add stipulations to new money, that's fine, but on past funds, I hope he would see the error in attempting to add clauses to what has already been given too freely. After all, could the banks foresee the language changing in the future of what they accepted so readily? And, if they did, should they have said the simple little phrase like I did, "that is assuming what we talked about will remain true" . . . of course it assumes what was discussed is true - otherwise, why did we even discuss it at all - just give freely, then take away - it's what you want to do anyway.

Bait and switch - it's classic.

Now Congress Wants Transparency

"Congress Moves to Crack Down on Bailout Recipients"

This is the title of an article today on the Fox News Website. The article goes on to inform us that there is no way for us to currently report on how the bailout money is being used (based on 4 questions previously asked to these institutions by the associated press). So that brings us to congress - now they wish to know where the money is going.

This is so painfully obviously something that they should have thought about LONG ago - like maybe BEFORE rushing this "bailout" through the senate the first time? Perhaps this is the reason it was not gaining steam - that is, until, as has been reported, congressmen were "bullied" into voting for the bailout on the second round of votes.

At any rate, this is something that should have ALWAYS been in place. How is it that the government thought it was a good idea to give free money to banks and institutions that have proved their greed in creating this mess to begin with? Of COURSE the greedy corporate fat cats would take their chunk and run with it - and do what they wish with it - lavish vacations, more homes for themselves, bigger and faster "corporate" jets! Yeah, good move by the government, and the very reason why I was against this bailout to begin with!

And NOW they decide "oh, we need transparency - we need to know where the cash is going" ... and all I can really say to that is DUH!!!! And all we can hope as the taxpayers - funding who knows exactly what - is that it isn't too late for the transparency to come to light; so we can finally, again see that these greedy fat cats are just a new wave of criminals.

Recession? What Recession?

Well, it's been a month since I last posted, so I figured I owed my readers something - unfortunately, there isn't much of significance.

Sure, I could post about the bailout of the auto industry - a bailout, that if you read any of my past posts, you would know, I do not support. If they truly had issues with running their company, they should do what the individuals in this economy are being forced to do - foreclose - file for bankruptcy protection and move on with their day. And sure, I could rant about their usage of private jets to fly to Washington D.C. to beg for the $25 billion they think is owed to them, but honestly, A) that's old news - it is reported they will drive the next time and B) what will my ranting do, except upset me?
Oh sure, Ford now says they can "manage" without the government bailout - all they'd ask is for $9 billion be "set aside" for them "just in case" they need the cash. I could easily write about how they came up with that dollar figure - I mean, honestly, 9 BILLION DOLLARS? What makes them think that is what they'll need - even though they "say" they can "manage without it?"

Yes, I could write about all of that, but instead, I will focus on something more broad - the economy as a whole - as you may have read or seen on television - we are now "officially" in a recession - a recession that started, or so they now say, a year ago.

The problem I have is with the "official" report, well, first off, individuals aren't in a recession unless their job has been lost or their mortgage payment has become unmanageable. It is a very sad fact, but also very true. For those that can make their mortgage payments and are currently still holding down jobs - well, for those people, there is no recession - and that has been made evident with the stronger than last year's (when the recession has now been said to have "officially" began) "Black Friday" sales numbers. I read that the "average" consumer on Black Friday has spent $372 on that day this year - which is up from last year. Leaving me to ask, what recession?

Secondly, why has it taken a full year for the government to finally report that, yes, we are in a recession? It seems the same thing they did with the mortgage crisis - ignore it, it will eventually go away; if not, well, we can always go back and say when the "real crisis" began at a previous date. Why is it they (the government officials) feel so compelled to lie to the American people about things such as this? Why not shoot the average person straight (we all know Cheney is a good shot anyway)? Those with half a brain can see the stock market (for whatever reason this is the benchmark most economist use to measure such things as a recession) is dropping - and that the economy, at the very least, is dropping - likely into recession-like-figures.

But then, I am reminded by my first paragraph - is it truly a recession unless you, or I, or Joe Average Citizen is in one individually? Does the whole of the economy really plunge us all into a recession if we can still afford our bills, and we still have jobs? Sure, we can feel fear at the prospect of losing our jobs; and we can even feel fear that we might not get that Christmas bonus or that raise this year - but we have jobs, and the price of food (or gas - trust me, it will go back up again) hasn't gone up nearly enough to devastate those that are fiscally responsible - and, of course, assuming they still have their jobs in place.

So where does that put us? Are we truly in the recession that is now "officially" being passed along to the citizens? Are all those people that have spent more freely this year over last on Black Friday increasing their credit card balances - hoping that all will work itself out if they just ignore it? - or are people truly spending more freely because they actually HAVE more free cash?

Perhaps they are simply ignoring the "economic indicators;" perhaps they all are now of the mentality that "it doesn't matter." After all, all their hard earned income - all of it is taxed - and those taxes are used to fund the crooks in the big business. Maybe, just maybe, the average citizen is deciding for once to live for today - to enjoy what they have now - before the government or the crooks of the big banks take everything they have once and for all.

Recession? We don't need no stinkin' recession!

Historical Day

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the way the media throws around the term "historical day" for every election, but today is certainly different.
Today we have a chance to dictate history through our election selection - whether it be the first black president or the first female vice president.
Whoever wins today's election will have a lot of work ahead of them in fixing the disaster that was the past eight years. Hopefully, we the people can elect the better leader, the leader that will implement change - someone that will bring back the stability that the American people have grown so fond of and have lacked dearly during the Bush administration.
Today is a historical day, indeed - but more than that, it's a vote to make a change in this country; a change this country badly needs right now in its time of uncertainty. Today is not about the history of the election, but about mending the future. Hopefully, the right candidate for the nation as a whole can come out victorious - for America needs some stability in the Commander in Chief and as a nation.

Reverse Robin Hood?

So I was reading this article the other day, and I have to wonder - are they stealing from the poor to pay the rich?
The premise of the article states that of the $125 billion of taxpayers money used for the bailout thus far - approximately $50 billion of that is being used for ... executive bonuses!!! Not creating new credit lines, not to those mortgages at high risk of foreclosure, and not for anyone that might, actually NEED the money - but for the executives - to, as far as I can tell, make sure they are still wholly compensated for their drowning business and sinking stock prices.
Which leads me to the point - is this the exact opposite of everything Robin Hood stood for? Think about you, we are all taxpayers, that's true, but why are the majority poor being forced to fund the minority rich in this nation? Oh, sure, the article argues (and quite satirically, I do assure you) that the executives surely cannot be forced to endure a life on a mere $80,000 per year, and thus require these additional fundings for their bonuses. Yeah right, tell that to the single mother of three that brings in $25,000 a year and is barely managing to keep food on the table. Yet, this mother of three is the one who is being forced to continually fund the extravagant lifestyles these highly overpaid executives have grown accustom too - and it is a true travesty that we, the "regular Joe's" (i.e. the MIDDLE CLASS and BELOW) must be the ones to fund these executives compensation packages, when in every one's estimation, they are the greedy individuals that prompt this "credit crisis" to begin with. It seems they robbed the poor to get rich by selling subprime mortgages, only to rob the poor to bailout "their company," or more plainly, to bailout their compensation as their stock portfolio's decline in value - and all thanks to these crooks. Glad the government is truly looking out for the people - oh wait, I'm sorry, they aren't, they are looking out for the next great paycheck themselves - the lobbyist. It's a shame.

And now, McCain has been bashing Obama for his alleged "socialist" views, but McCain supports action similar to what is being spoken about above. At least Obama wants to tax those wealthy individuals more and tax the MAJORITY poor less. Why that is not a good plan, is beyond me, but the Republican party has resorted to smear campaigning in calling Obama every name under the sun (socialist, Marxist, even Muslim and terrorist - see Bill Ayers, etc., etc.). Yet, all McCain wishes to do is give a free tax-ride to those who invest in the stock markets - so essentially, those already stealing so much from so many "regular" taxpayers will be able to continue stealing from those taxpayers, as their investments increase in value, and their tax bills diminish due to not having to pay a capital gains tax. Sounds fair to me? How about you? Obviously, I am being facetious, but honestly - we do need change, and I feel Obama may be able to provide such change.

It is a true shame that this bailout was essentially force fed to the American people - and to the senators and congressman that voted on the bill. No one had a choice but to pass the bill, and on the second vote no less - in the court systems, a second vote on matter of guilt or innocence is called double jeopardy, and it is illegal, yet in our highest office, it is, apparently, normal practice. And all for what? To bailout the rich, to keep them living the life they know and love - the majority poor in this nation would give anything for a chance to just not have to worry about where the next meal is coming from, but the executive crooks can't even bear the thought of giving up their private jets and champagne parties. A travesty that needs to be corrected.

So a day before the election I call for change - who will stand with me?

Let's Spread the Wealth Around

This is the term that Senator Barack Obama was criticized by Senator John McCain for saying last night during the presidential debate. Read it again - Let's Spread the Wealth Around.
Senator John McCain is trying to spin this quote in a negative light, but let me examine this five-word phrase and break down exactly why McCain is wrong in his criticism.
For starters, and the most obvious, by McCain saying "this is the wrong way" sure sounds like McCain has an interest in NOT spreading the wealth of the American people around. Seems to me that Senator McCain thinks the wealth is right where it needs to be - with the wealthy. Obviously, if you look at McCain's position on taxes, well, he's looking to suspend capital gains tax (tax on gains in stocks by investors) and even to provide full write-offs for stocks that lose in today's economy. Sure sounds like he is looking to keep the rich, rich, while kicking the poor and middle class before they ever have a chance to catch up.
What Senator Obama is saying with his statement of "let's spread the wealth around" is exactly that - let us tax the wealthy (those making over $250,000 per year) more - and for anyone making less than that, tax them less - effectively creating a more balanced economy - the wealthy can afford more tax, the middle class and poor cannot. As Obama said last night, he will cut the taxes for 95% of the American workers - only those earning more than $250,000 will see their taxes increased - or 5% of workers - something tells me that 5% can afford it a slight increase in taxes.
So, to me, it makes only too much sense, and the fact that Senator McCain can go on national television and say something this absurd and to not be absolutely blasted and ridiculed for it, is ridiculous! He only wants to keep the wealth where it currently is - with the wealthy few - and he doesn't care at all about the "little guy" - the middle class.
I think Chris Rock said it best on Larry King Live - who are you going to trust to keep you in your home, the guy that doesn't even know how many homes he has, or the guy with one home? That answer should be clear.
I may not believe in everything Senator Barack Obama stands for, but I have to do what is best for me, and for me, I need to have more money in my pockets as the cost of living continues to rise exponentially - but I still cannot believe that Senator McCain can criticize Senator Obama for wanting to spread the wealth among the citizens of the United States and for no one to simply recognize his criticism for what it is - ludicrous.

Where Do the Motives Lie?

I am not a fan of the bank bailout, I believe that has been established. However, I believe I am even less of a fan of it now.

The problems run deep. First, when the government buys up shares (the government holding stake in any private company is enough to worry me, but more on that later) it will effectively inflate the share prices on the stocks they buy up. And then, of course, how long will they hold those shares for? And what happens when they do (if they do) finally sell them? Will they put a glut of shares back on the markets - thus causing the stock market to crash again - and what, maybe we can write up another bailout scheme?

But wait, I'm getting ahead of myself. The question that remains is how are they going to buy these stocks? I'll tell you how, it's by printing more money - read this as: increasing the abundance of U.S. dollars in the world - and what does that do? It's simple, the dollar that has already grown so weak, becomes even weaker - with more money in print, it becomes worth less over the long haul. So then they do buy those shares back (at a time later to be detailed?) and fine, the dollar will go back up, but as I said previously, the stock market will crash again, so what came first here, the chicken or the egg? Somehow, some way, the government is doing the free market a disservice.

Let me forget about all those technicalities, however, and move into something much more frightening - the government is growing too powerful. It is no longer the voice of the people. Think about it, the government is buying shares of stocks in private companies - do you know what that equates to? It means the government, our United States government will have OWNERSHIP stake in these PRIVATE companies. What could be worse than that? Now there is talk of them potentially buying up shares of General Motors (GM) - and what will that do exactly? Fine, preserve jobs in America, yet, isn't the government a proponent of outsourcing? If they truly wanted to preserve American jobs - send the Mexicans and other illegal immigrants home - but of course, that would "cost too much" and is "impractical", right? Yeah, because $700 BILLION to bailout private companies is chump change.

Back on point - I read today on Yahoo Finance that $250 Billion is presently in the works to buy up shares of stock from leading banks, quoted as follows:

"Nine major banks will participate initially including all of the country's largest institutions, he announced, in a move that sent stocks soaring on Wall Street.
Some of the nation's largest banks had to be pressured to participate by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who wanted healthy institutions that did not necessarily need capital from the government to go first as a way of removing any stigma that might be associated with banks getting bailouts."

Stop and examine this quote for a moment and lets highlight some key phrases:

1) "Some of the nations largest bank's had to be pressured to participate" ... excuse me? So the government is pressuring banks to participate in this scheme, whether they want to or not? That seems to be adding more power to the government and the role that the government was supposed to play in this bailout.

2) Henry Paulson "wanted healthy institutions that did not necessarily need capital" - so now, not only is the government "bailing out" those banks that are nearing collapse (if not for the government intervention, as they'd like you to believe) but now they are buying shares (ownership) of "healthy" banks that don't "need capital"? Okay, you lost me again - if this bailout is supposed to be used to HELP those institutions from COLLAPSE - why pump the money into 9 of the largest banks who - by phrasing of this article - may not even NEED the MONEY? Seems again, the government is overstepping their boundaries - and increasing their power even further.

So naturally, what does this mean for us, the taxpayer? It is simple, there is nothing we can do about it. The government (the all-powerful wizard of Oz) has spoken, and we have no choice (in this democracy) but to accept the government's decisions that are meant to "help the average citizen," of which, I am still missing how this bailout helps the little guy, especially now that the taxpayer's money is going to "bailout" completely healthy institutions that aren't even in need of the capital injection.

When baseball players get "capital" injections it's called steroids, and it always comes with a side effect - I can only imagine the side effects we are going to feel from this bailout. Either the government will do more harm playing with the free market - or they will grow far too powerful, more powerful than our forefathers ever planned for the government to be. The process has started, I wish there was some call to action that could stop it now.

$20M for 17 days of work

Who wouldn't want to earn over one million dollars PER DAY? That's exactly what Alan H. Fishman, CEO of now seized bank conglomerate Washington Mutual has received for, well, doing nothing.

Fishman was brought in to run Washington Mutual exactly 17 days ago - or 17 days before their seizure by J.P. Morgan-Chase. 17 days ago, on September 8th, he received a hiring bonus of $7.5M - then upon his termination (you know, when the bank collapsed?) he was granted an "immediate" cash severance of $11.6M. Fishman also received a portion of his guaranteed annual bonus which was set at $1M - likely prorated out to the 17 days he actual worked - or almost $50,000. Include the 612,500 shares of stock Mr. Fishman was awarded - free of charge to him - by Washington Mutual on September 10th (per yahoo finance). These shares are likely to rebound, from the current price of $0.16, before all is said and done - and all thanks to the government's intervention we won't have to worry about Alan H. Fishman and his future.

And what happened before these 17 days? Who was CEO then? Well, none other than Kerry K. Killinger - who had been CEO from 2002-until 17 days ago. His compensation between 2002-2007 was $54M - but what about his severance package? Obviously, no one would ever be able to survive on the $54M earned in only 5 years - ah, but not to fret.

Mr. Killinger received a severance package worth $17.1M: a lump sum of $16.5M thanks to a clause in his employment agreement that promises him this lump sum (totaling 3 times his annual compensation) and $5.8M (worth of assets as priced at $13.61 per share) came from immediate vesting of restricted stock he had been awarded since 2002. Mr. Killinger currently owns 315,662 shares in Washington Mutual, and just like Mr. Fishman above, he will only benefit as the stock price rebounds.

I'm sure the government bailing out these corporations has good intentions, but I still can't help but feel like the rich are the only people that will benefit from the bailout. The rest of us will be left holding the bag - never mind that Mr. Fishman and Mr. Killinger combined can pay off approximately 185 - $200,000 mortgages with their severance packages alone. Mr. Fishman with the potential to pay off 100 of those mortgages by himself after only 17 days worth of work.

Suspend Capital Gains Tax to Help in Bailout?

So today I came across some rather shocking news, to say the least. Apparently, John McCain, who can't be bothered with a presidential debate while the economy is in "turmoil" (because we all know we want a president who will not multi-task), spoke up, mentioning a counter-proposal that had been offered up by some conservative House Republicans that would "suspend capital gains tax for two years and provide tax incentives to encourage firms that buy up bad debt," but McCain would not discuss specifics of the plan.

Excuse me? Suspend capital gains tax? For those of you that fail to understand what the capital gains tax is, let me spell this out for you - Warren Buffett (widely regarded as one of the premier investors of the world) bought up $5 BILLION worth of Goldman Sachs earlier this week - well, with the suspension of any kind of capital gains tax, if that Goldman Sachs stock goes up - say to a net of $6 Billion for Mr. Buffett - he could sell all his stock in the firm and earn ONE BILLION DOLLARS - TAX FREE! So basically, anything earned through investments (and keep in mind that, under current conditions, losses in investments can be offset with capital gains as well anyway - essentially, those gambling in the stock market can offset their losses and have the government pay for their losses in the markets, so long as they have capital gains to cover this loss) in the stock market will be FREE of government charge - completely TAX FREE! The absurdity of this concept cannot be understated.

So I'll say it again, excuse me? How is suspending the capital gains tax going to help ANYONE in America that is middle class and losing their homes? So is this yet another case of the rich getting richer? I cannot imagine the rationale behind this concept as incentive to help the economy - you know, all the little people that are struggling to just get by.

And it leads me back, again, to what I feel the absolute best scenario is - suspend taxes for ALL - suspend the taxes on the homes that people are fighting to continue to afford (thanks to the increases in property taxes due to the over-inflation of home values). This way, everyone benefits, not just the corporate fat cats of Wall Street. (see my earlier blog on the subject here: http://holdensbestblogever.blogspot.com/2008/09/financial-bailout.html)

If the government truly desires to help, they certainly need to do something that will benefit everyone - not just those that created this mess. No sense in letting them continue to lead extravagant lifestyles while the rest of us suffer. Some things just aren't fair - and if the government passes a bill suspending capital gains tax, then we have seriously been let down by our government - doing nothing for the people.

Homeland Security

I was watching the news yesterday when I heard about "Operation Virtual Shield" for the first time. For those of you that do not know what this is, it is to be a comprehensive surveillance system spanning Chicago in efforts to "protect against crime and terrorist attacks." These cameras are going to be linked to all cameras of the city - and they will be able to do such things such as being able to identify gun shots, change trajectory to get an image of where the shots came from, and alert 9-1-1.
Of course, the obvious question arises - what about the average individual's privacy? Sure, if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you don't have "any problem." The only issue I have with that argument, however, is prove it. Prove to me that just because I'm walking, going about my business as usual that I won't be harmed. Better yet, why does the government need to know that I'm walking down Madison Avenue? What does it matter to them if I pass Clark Street? Who is to say they aren't watching at all times? Who is to say they are not being voyeuristic with these new cameras?
Then, if that weren't enough, on foxnews.com today there is another article that claims "Homeland Security Detects Terrorist Threats by Reading Your Mind." The article goes on to say that "MALINTENT (which is the name of this new system), the brainchild of the cutting-edge Human Factors division in Homeland Security's directorate for Science and Technology, searches your body for non-verbal cues that predict whether you mean harm to your fellow passengers" (passengers, I'm assuming because this technology is to be used in airports). The article goes on to say that it will possess a series of sensors and imagers that read your body temperature, heart rate, and respiration for unconscious tells that would otherwise be invisible to the naked eye. It claims these "tells" are signals that terrorists and criminals may display prior to their crimes.
My thought on the matter is - what about those that might just have a fast heart rate? Or those that perspire because they are nervous by nature? Or what about those that have grown so paranoid to the Big Brother nature of the United States government that they display all these "symptoms of crime"? Does the government then stop this individual to interrogate him or her only to not deem their answers unacceptable and detain them? Talk about a paranoia dream come true.
And what if, for a minute we go back to Chicago and they initiate this new technology of MALINTENT into Operation Virtual Shield? What if someone is walking a great distance on a hot, humid day - and what if, that individual had just been reading something causing them to act "out of character" (like the fact their every movement is being scrutinized by the government) - will the Virtual Shield camera system focus on this individual who is perspiring with a greater heart rate - and will the police be dispatched to "further question" this individual that just so happens to be going about his daily business?
I really wish I had an answer - I really wish the government were not taking control of everything, but what I wish and what is becoming reality are two drastically different things ... frightening things, actually.

Financial Bailout

SEVEN HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS - For those that may not quite grasp this - it is $700,000,000,000, and that's a lot of zeros.

So it will take $700B of taxpayers money to "bailout" the institutions that began this entire financial crisis to begin with, and exactly how is this fair?

Here is the rub, you and I are taxpayers - we go to work only to have our income taxes taken out of the wages we earn honestly, we go home to our homes that we are taxed on, and we go buy things with our discretionary income that are accompanied with sales tax. Then, if we get into trouble with our finances, we have to file for bankruptcy (or worse) and no one cares to help the individual. But now, all the taxes we pay is going to help the big business. It's that simple. The problem is our taxes are essentially being used to, yet again, make the rich, richer.
Martin Sullivan, former CEO of American International Group (AIG) resigned from the company in June of this year, after all of the "subprime" loans had already been issued - and what did he receive for his trouble? Nothing short of criminal - a $47 MILLION severance package. Excuse me? Here is one of the men that - at least - helped facilitate the subprime mess - and the ensuing financial collapse and bailout, and he received FORTY-SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS in an exit package to quit the company .... why are we not using his wealth to serve as means to help ease the financial burden proposed to the taxpayers?
October, 2007 - Merrill Lynch posts an eight-billion dollar loss and subsequently, CEO Stan O'Neal decides it is time to resign, himself. For all his efforts, which included the 8 billion dollar quarterly loss (quarterly loss projected out over a full year would have meant a loss of about $32 billion for the firm that year - if all held true) -so for Mr. O'Neal efforts, he was rewarded a 159 MILLION DOLLARS to leave the firm. Again, where is the outrage and why are the feds not looking at Stan O'Neal to help ease the American financial crisis?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, you ask? Well, we all know their part in this debacle, but how about those CEO's that did nothing to quash the crisis at hand? Well, Dan Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae, received $9.3 million for destroying his company - and Richard Syron, CEO of Freddie Mac, received $14.1 million - because he (deceptively I'm sure) renegotiated a clause to his contract two months prior to the collapse, knowing the company was headed for disaster ... and again, all of this is perfectly LEGAL and often practiced in the firms of Wall Street. Yet again, instead of the feds going after those who initiated and created the mortgage crisis to benefit their personal bottom lines, the taxpayer - who had little choice in the mortgage fiasco and none of the profits - are left holding the bag.

I mentioned in a July post, The Mortgage Crisis - and How to Fix It, that maybe the federal government should subsidize the local municipalities - in essence, eliminating the property tax on the public's private residencies. My plan, however, I figured would not be prudent because of the sheer amount of government spending that would be needed to subsidize such municipalities. However, in light of the proposed 700 BILLION DOLLAR bailout, I no longer think eliminating (or simply suspending - or even just easing the increases) property tax is such an absurd solution.
In my plan, everyone would benefit. Think about it - Joe Neighbor would be able to keep his home - because he could afford the mortgage all along, just not the increase of taxes (and for those that CAN'T afford the mortgage readjustment - that solution is so easy I feel stupid even needing to voice it - DON'T INCREASE IT - the bank will get the interest of the rate agreed upon, and Joe Neighbor still keeps his home). So we have Joe Neighbor benefiting from a "no-property-tax-clause", but so to will the banks - because they won't have an over-abundance of foreclosed upon homes - and they will still receive all the interest from the current homes on the market. Seems like a win-win. Also, the taxpayers will not feel as if they are "bailing out" the financial institutions that began this mess - they'll feel much better knowing their tax money is being used to HELP THEM - you know, the way the government SHOULD help the people - after all, it is a government FOR THE PEOPLE still, right?
$700,000,000,000 could be far reaching if the government used this money where it should go - to help the average person (** see below note). The bailout will do nothing but keep the wealthy, well, wealthy - and create an even bigger divide between rich and poor. Just because the banks are bailed out, that does nothing for Joe Neighbor who has lost everything (home included) due to his increase in interest rate and home property taxes - which all began because big business was greedy and told Joe Neighbor that he could afford a loan that he obviously couldn't. Sure, Joe Neighbor is partially to blame, but so are the financial institutions, and if they are going to be bailed out, then why is our friend Joe Neighbor now homeless and without a job? How is this a viable solution to a horrendous problem?
Even if you have little sympathy for Joe Neighbor, you should have less sympathy for those "smarter than that" that created this issue - the financial institutions that knowingly pushed risky loans (including such a thing as NINJA loans - No Income, No Assets, No Problem - loans). So now, instead of resetting Joe Neighbor's interest to something manageable, they (the financial institutions) have an over abundance of homes on the market and all the money in the bank. Meanwhile, even if you've made all your home payments and taxes payments on time - well, sorry for you because even you have suffered while the rich get richer - because now your home value is worth much, much less than when you purchased it. No worries though, the bank will hold your money (thanks to the government for keeping them so liquid) until you decided to sell, then they'll take your money to make up the shortfall you'll likely have when the time does come for you to sell your home.
Indeed don't worry - the rich have taken their payouts, they have sold their souls, and they have the government backing them in their endeavor - just in time to keep the rich living handsomely. We The People of the United States of America should be outraged - but instead, most are accepting the proposed bailout as the "only way." But if they weren't so greedy to begin with, none of this fiasco would have ever happened, and we'd all be living just fine in a home that is, not only cheaper (thanks to the subprime lending not inflating the value on homes), but that carries less taxes due to its cheaper state - seems the government turned a blind eye to the banks to drive home prices up, thus pushing up the taxes for many homeowners - just in time to turn around and return the favor by scratching the financial institutions backs.
I, for one, am outraged and see a more win-win-win solution if the government truly wants to step in and help, but the problem is, they need their corporate cash, and thus the every day American just trying to manage a living are forced to suffer through life - meanwhile funding the bailout that has paid ex-CEO's MILLIONS to run their company into the ground.
It must be the American dream!

**
Note: As of July 1, 2007 the Census Bureau estimates the total number of homes in the United States as being 127,901,934 - of which I will round up to 128 million homes. Given this, I will assume each pays taxes to a local municipality - and if the $700 billion were used to subsidize the local municipalities (based on what the municipality would receive from the property tax) then the government could pay $5,500 PER HOME in the U.S. to the local municipalities to help ease the burden on the individual tax payers that are being priced out of their homes due to the absurd nature of the property tax.
So again, if we suspend this tax, it is the best win-win situation - the homeowner (and tax payer) feels justified that their taxes and their government is helping them - and the mortgage loans on the financial institution books will continue to be paid (thanks to the homeowner having more money in their pockets to actually make their mortgage payements). I realize this may be a short term solution, but if you truly think more foreclosures won't follow due to the current proposed bailout, then I believe you to be naive - and no one can truly say if the bailout of the institutions will only turn into a short-term solution as well. But if given a one year suspension on property taxes, more people will find a way to make the mortgage payments and thus spur the economy - and those that have not been affected will have an extra (on average) $5,500 in their pockets to also put back into the economy. I don't see why the individual homeowner is being forgotten by the government during their time of need - only to watch the rich and greedy (likely borderline criminal) benefit from the financial crisis.

Side Note: So Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned today, as he attempted to get this bailout plan passed, saying that lawmakers risk a recession with higher unemployment and increased home foreclosures if they fail to pass the proposed plan.
Well, my question is, how is bailing out the LENDER going to help prevent the BORROWER from foreclosing? Think about that one and please let me know if this logic in any way makes sense because I'll be honest with you, I miss the point on this one. If people are going to foreclose, it doesn't matter if the financial institute has money or not, the end user (the home buyer) won't have any money to pay their mortgage with or without the financial institutions being bailed out.
Granted, it if the institutions fail, there will be increased unemployment (as those people lose their jobs - but there is no guarantee for a loss of their jobs anyway) and there will be an increase (likely) from these individuals foreclosing, but again, it doesn't help the public as a whole. And besides, some of the people within the companies that will benefit from such a bailout, are likely those same individuals that pushed the "subprime" loans - do they really deserve to be bailed out? It seems to me like more political propoganda put on by the government - everything sounds good on paper, but in reality does nothing to help the average American citizen.

A Candid Moment, or General Politicking?

On the St. Petersburg Times' website today, there is an article in regards to Palin's daughter, Piper - age 7 - licking her hand to smooth down her brother's, Trig's, hair. The article claims:
"During Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's speech, cameras cut to her 6-year-old daughter flattening Trig's hair, oblivious that America was watching. It was a taste of legitimacy buried in weeks of rehearsed politicking, and we ate it up."

You can view the entire article here:

It shows a youtube clip of this moment where Piper was "oblivious that America was watching" ... did anyone at the St. Petersburg Times stop to wonder A) why there was a camera on Piper to begin with and B) that just maybe this "taste of legitimacy" was merely part of the "rehearsed politicking" put on by a politician to show just how "wonderful" her family is?
Honestly, it seems to me to be politicking at its best. I would hope the only people that seem to think this was a "taste of legitimacy" are the people at the St. Petersburg Times - and hopefully they are the only people that "ate it up."
Shameful really. Although I'm sure the St. Petersburg Times has their reasoning for politicking as well. Everyone has something to gain with this - oh-so-touching - moment, but it seems it does little for the American people. Honestly, if a girl the age of 7 truly was oblivious of the camera sat out before her, does it really change your mind on how you think her mother will represent the American people as Vice President of the United States?
If it does change your opinion about Governor Sarah Palin, then America has a long way to go before they realize a legitimate president again - since seemingly the search criteria most Americans use has nothing to do with how a government official will actually represent the general public, but more to do with how well they can dupe the voters with painfully obvious "candid" moments.

Political Strife

So I was reading today that apparently, Elizabeth Edwards is being "blasted" for keeping her husband, John Edward's affair "secret," and I have to wonder why that is.
First of all, as Elizabeth Edwards states in her blog, she kept the very non-public affair story private because it was "so painful" and she didn't want it played out on the "public stage." And who among us can argue with that sentiment? It's not hard to decode right where private matters should remain (and I don't care who you are).
Some are saying that John and Elizabeth Edwards are no longer capable of handling public matters due to this indiscretion, and as they perceive it, subsequent cover up. Yet, can these people not see the difference between a private matter versus matters dealing with the public? It seems obvious to me. After all, we already had one president not only commit adultery, but also perjure himself to get out of the hot water - and the American public was fine after that - even with that president remaining in office.
I do not condone the actions of Bill Clinton, but his private matters should have remained as such - but once he decided to commit perjury, that is where the true issue should have lied. Same can be said for John Edwards - the affair is a private matter - thus, it does nothing to say how the man will act when given the chance to lead the nation - and lest we forget, he has already lost his parties nomination twice, so anything he could possibly hope to amount to politically is even less than that of the former president Clinton.
And as for Elizabeth Edwards, she chose to keep her private matter to herself, and yet there are those faulting her for it. Even if she kept it quiet only to help push forth her husband's political career, what does it truly matter? Are there truly any among us that do not think politicians lie, cheat, and steal all the time? What difference would it make if John Edwards were a current presidential candidate? The only difference would be that his lying and cheating should be played out on the public stage, even though his actions were private in nature. Please, explain that rationale to me because I certainly do not understand it.
President Bush lies to get us into a war, and that is seemingly forgiven, but if one lies to his wife (quite inexcusable in its own right, but certainly not the concern of the public) then we now have to not only persecute the man in question, but also the wife that chose to keep her private life exactly that, private.
Are we, as a nation, that voyeuristic that we expect everyone to air out their dirty laundry all the time? Unfortunately, in times like these, it sure seems like that is the case.

Olympic Coverage

Well, the Olympics are over, and so I think it is finally time to add my thoughts on the matter. There were quite a few things I liked about the coverage, but at the same time, far too much I did not like.
I enjoyed the events. I did not enjoy the coverage.
When I learned that NBC would show coverage of the events online, I was excited. Come to find out, live events were only shown online when they were not going to be aired in prime time. This left a bad taste in my mouth.
Then, when it was time for the prime time coverage, it became evident the Olympics were all about money - at least to the executives of NBC. It was hard to watch a single event without interruption of commercials. How hard would it be to show a ten-minute medley relay in the pool uninterrupted? For the NBC executives, apparently, that was too hard of a task to master. Same thing goes for the volleyball, instead of showing uninterrupted coverage of a set, we had to take commercial breaks in and around the set, only to return to the game eight points unseen; just in time for a timeout and more commercial breaks.
The amount of commercialization is simply absurd. I don't know when product placement has become such a big industry, or when commercials dominated our society, but it is all too true of a fact. The commercials are fine (honestly, I do believe in advertising) when in tune with the programming, and even would have been fine for the Olympics, but why interrupt an event in progress for the endorsements? There existed plenty of opportunities to have words from the sponsors, but not during an event - a likely taped event at that which could have been edited if you MUST place the ads, but, for the most part, were not.
The coverage could have been so much more, but when I was already able to read the results of the events before seeing the coverage (because online content was unavailable) it certainly left a lot to be desired. If only the forum on the internet had lived up to its billing, perhaps this would not have been such a great issue in my eyes, but the fact that I was forced to endure tape delayed coverage, only to have that coverage interrupted every few minutes for commercials is beyond absurd. Surely, there exists a better way to get the sponsors names out to the public without breaking from the only medium that was offered to view some of the events.
More than once I stopped watching an event due to the absurd ratio of event coverage vs. commercial breaks, and this is truly unacceptable.

Entitlement

I am having a hard time grasping one concept that seems to be running deep in America - a sense of entitlement. It seems more and more people are entitled to things that others before us never were entitled to. Problem is, most people feel so much entitlement that they don't care about the ramifications of their actions, and, for the most part, they get away with their actions because no one ever seems to hold them accountable. And all this does is add to their overwhelming sense of that entitlement.
So, whatever came of hard work? It seems any longer people simply 'expect' things to be done for them. The way they drive? Who cares? They are entitled to drive, thus they do as they please. That job they take advantage of? Well, honestly, who needs to work, the guy next to them will do it, right? And so it becomes a generation (read into this however you please, but I am not defining which generation I speak of because I do not believe this is 'generation specific' but more an overwhelming sense of the word) of those that expect someone else to do something for them. Plain and simple. More and more people are expecting others to watch out for them, and I honestly don't understand the trend. But it seems more and more people lack any sort of accountability for their actions, and due to this, they will continue in their downward spiral.
Late to work (or taking that extra half hour of lunch)? They don't care because they make a set salary, but, of course, they'll be damned if they don't leave promptly at their scheduled quitting time. Heck, it won't matter, since they get paid the same - and their employer surely doesn't say anything about it, so who is it hurting? Well, if these people had any self-pride, it should hurt them, but I guess if they feel it's okay to float through life without being held accountable (whether by others or themselves) then by all means, they should continue to live their lives as loafers. Besides, they're probably too stupid to realize they are doing anything wrong anyway, so in all honesty, the only person they are hurting are those more intelligent than they are - because they sit back and wonder where this entitlement, of far too many people, has come from. And it's the intelligent people (who can hold themselves accountable for their actions) that have to suffer and pick up the pieces when those entitled individuals can't be bothered to work, or bothered to pay attention on the roadways. But I'm sure they don't care because they are getting everything they have ever wanted - they amaze me how entitled they truly are.

Racial Profiling

So yesterday I was on my way home from work with my wife, and we got pulled over - for driving while white.
You might be thinking right now, that's impossible, but hear me out. We work in downtown Chicago and take the interstate home, often times, the interstate is backed up, and so we, not wanting to sit in traffic, have found alternative means to get home, and this sometimes entails driving through the neighborhoods that are predominantly black. I'm not going to call the area "the ghetto" or "the hood" because I don't feel like these people are out to do harm (the only person that has ever disturbed us driving through this area has been a white, homeless man), they are simply less fortunate and thus live within their means - which just might not be as much as we have, and there is no shame in that.
So we were driving down a street through one of these neighborhoods and we came to a stop sign. At the adjacent stop sign sat the Chicago Police. Since they had arrived at the sign first, naturally, they went before us. But what they did, as they pulled slowly through the intersection, was stare; without a single attempt to hide this fact. My wife and I began to talk about it jokingly with one another since we knew we were the "white people" and they were checking us out. Turns out, they wanted to investigate even further, for when we turned behind the officers (2 officers were in their vehicle) they promptly pulled over to allow us around, only to pull directly back into the street behind us. We instantly thought, "we've seen this on Cops - they want to check us out," but they did not readily pull us over (because we came to another light). When that light turned green, we pulled onto the main artery only to hear and see the familiar "bloop" of the car behind us and the blue lights flashing.
When the officer walked to the driver's side door (with the other officer flanking the passenger side of the vehicle), he didn't utter a single word of "I pulled you over because . . .," nor did he ask us "do you know why I pulled you over?" Instead, he cut to the chase with, "why were you driving down Wentworth (the name of the street we were on)?" Considering it was rush hour in Chicago, chances are we were headed home, and thus, that was the answer we provided. Next, he asked, "where is home?" And so we told him. So then he asked "where are you coming from?" So naturally, again, being rush hour, we answer simply "work." Of course, that is never enough, so he asked, "where is work located?" - which is downtown. The only way from downtown to our home is on the interstate - and then through what some can perceive as "the hood."
So finally, the officer takes my wife's license, only to return a few minutes later with words of caution of, "be careful driving through there."
What a nice guy. He was only concerned with our well-being that entire time. Never mind the fact he had absolutely no reason to actually pull us over, except for the fact we were driving through "the hood" while being white. It was racial profiling at its finest. We were white, therefore, we surely have "no business" being in "the hood," now do we? Of course, forget the fact that the interstate is exactly one block away from the street in question, and we obviously should never use that road when exiting the interstate to head home, right?
So it appears, we were being singled out for being the "white people" in a predominantly black neighborhood. Obviously, or so the officers seemed to think, the only reason we could be there was with criminal intent. And of course, being white, once they realized we had done nothing but drive down a public road, we should "be careful" when driving through "the hood" in broad daylight during rush hour, right?
Now, I do not necessarily feel we have been discriminated against. Yes, I know the reason we were pulled over, and it had nothing to do with traffic violations or impairments on our vehicle - it was only because we were white. Their rationale, I'm sure, was to see if we were in "the hood" to buy or sell drugs - despite the fact we had done nothing wrong, unless it is now a crime to drive on a public street. And so this raises the question, why were we singled out, and I think the reason is that, yes, racial profiling does very much exists.
We are white, and thus had "no business" in "the hood" other than that of criminal intent, but wait, no, it is a public road, so why were we pulled over for that? My wife and I got a kick out of being "profiled" because we have seen instances similar to this on the television program Cops, but what about those who truly are innocent? What about the black population that is singled out on a daily basis for doing absolutely nothing wrong?
I'll be honest with you, if the cops would have asked us to get out of the car, I would have become worried. I would have likely become defensive, and I would have wondered "what are they going to plant on us?" Of course, we are white, so we were left with a simple warning of "be careful driving through there," but what if my wife and I had been black? Would we have been handled much more harshly? Sadly, I cannot say, but if I was worried about being asked to step out of the car (and what they could possibly put on the scene to make us appear guilty) then I know I cannot imagine how a black individual must feel every single time they are pulled over - whether the reasoning for them being pulled over is justified or not. In our case, there was no justification made for pulling us over - not a single word as to why they felt the need to single us out.
Yet, we are white, and thus we had no "real" worries. Had the color of our skin been different, would I be here today able to blog about this incident? Unfortunately, I cannot say. If I was worried, I cannot imagine the feeling if I were a person of color, and that is truly unfair - and it goes a long way in defining our law enforcement agencies. Do they serve and protect, or are they too busy racially profiling individuals to serve or protect anyone effectively?

Spell Check?

Time magazine has an article entitled "Making an Arguement [sic] for Misspelling" (and if you were to go to the link, you can see that 'arguement' is actually misspelled for the article, which I cannot say if it is done on purpose since it is not mentioned at all in the text). The point of the article essentially asks if we should consider changing the spelling of words to suit those who make errors.
For instances, the article states that words like truly are often misspelled (as is the word misspelled - as 'mispelled') as 'truely' and since these misspellings are a frequent occurrence, perhaps, just maybe, we should consider changing the English language to accommodate these oft misspelled words as a "variant spelling" of whatever word is in question.
Now if anyone wants to talk about dumbing down of America, now would be a prime time to begin just such a discussion - even if the English language is not the sole property of Americans, it would seem most Americans would happily accept such a change to the language for their own lazy reasoning (lazy in that they do not wish to learn how to actually spell a word).
Not to mention the computer age and the glorious usage of spell checker to correct all our little mishaps. Think about how many times the spell checker will change your words FOR YOU, unbeknown to you as a writer. You misspell the word opportunity, and BAM, it's fixed for you, so every time you type 'oppertunity' it changes magically to 'opportunity' - go ahead, go to Microsoft Word and give it a shot, I promise you the word corrects on its own. And this is just one example of such a feat. How many other words are people constantly misspelling that spell check simply changes for them? Sure makes life easier going through it spelling words incorrectly every time, just to have the word processor do the correction for you. After all, your time is likely too precious to take the time to A) know you made an error and B) to find the proper spelling of said error.
It seems almost daily I come across a posting on an article where someone is spelling 'loose' for the word 'lose.' Now I understand this is a common error that one can make when typing and doing so quickly, but the poster often uses the term 3 or 4 times in their post, only to use the term 'loose' each and every time - in the context of "the Red Sox loose the game" ... huh? How exactly does one loose a game? On the same posts, there will be someone specifically telling the individual that types 'loose' to learn 'grammer' ... errr, did you mean they need to learn GRAMMAR? Yeah, thought so. And 'grammer' is another word that should never be 'accepted as a variant spelling.' It would be a travesty if it came to such.
But this Ken Smith (senior lecturer in criminology at Bucks New University in Buckinghamshire, England) seems to think that "oft made errors should just become a variant spelling," but I ask, what about my case above? Loose is the oft made error for lose - but if we now accept 'loose' as a variant spelling, then how are we now supposed to accept the actual word 'loose' when used properly?
I will admit, I am not the best speller ever, but I have worked hard on this aspect of the English language to where now I have become a much, much better speller. And if I can't spell a word, I look it up, or have spell check do it for me - once my spell check shows me the correct spelling, I take the time to learn it before moving on - that way, I don't waste my time again and again trying to figure out the spelling of every word I use, and I certainly don't expect anyone to change the grammatically accepted (not 'excepted') principals to suit my too-lazy-to-find-the-correct-spelling needs.
Now, the language is just fine as is, and besides, if it is now 'exceptable' (I'm making a point here) to 'mispell' (same point) words, then how can I tell who the morons of the world 'truely' (again, same point) are? Oh yeah, it'll be easy because I still know the proper spelling and usage of words. At least I'll know I'm not a moron.