AIG bonuses; are they REALLY that surprising??

Is it really that surprising that a banking corporation has no interest in helping anyone but itself?? It seems now that the government in general is finally waking up to what you and I have been dealing with for years, THE BANKING INDUSTRY JUST DOESN'T CARE!

• They didn't care that they were creating a whole new generation of indebted people by "giving away" credit cards to 16 and 17 year old college freshmen without teaching them responsible spending.
• They didn't care what could happen when they were approving loans for people that could absolutely not afford to pay them back. They didn't care when they were declining to help a struggling family to keep their house instead of foreclosing on them at the first sign of trouble. They just don't care.
• They don't care that while you and I are laid off after doing a great job for a good company that was unable to meet payroll because the bank would not lend the money; the bank executives use that money to give themselves bonuses. Excellent!

Banking firms have been so out of touch with reality for so long that it has become ingrained into their operations. AIG's "contractual obligation" to give out bonuses is absolutely ludicrous. A bonus, by definition, is OPTIONAL based on meeting a criteria. What criteria exactly have these executives met??

The problem here is that, while all this was happening to the little guy, no-one seemed to give the proverbial rat's ass. I have one thing to tell the government:

"WELCOME TO OUR WORLD"

Maybe it is time that we let these banks fail, they had no problems letting US fail, did they? We have given them an excessive amount of money with the hope that they would use it to help us get out of this rut but they just sit on it or, even worse, send it abroad. What did we expect, for then to suddenly grow concerned with our plight?

The truth is, good people are losing their jobs, their homes and even their lives thanks to these greedy executives. My heart just about died when I heard of a couple that, having lost both their jobs, facing foreclosure and having NO HELP FROM THEIR LENDERS, took their own lives and the lives of their two children. Who is responsible for that??

These banks should be the ones bailing us out for all the heartache they have caused. Let them be the ones to pay. I guarantee you one thing, when it's all done and they are sitting pretty again, they will thank you by denying your loan application, charging you maximum interest for a loan while paying you minimal interest for your savings and charging you to even look at YOUR OWN money.

My non-political, non-partisan opinion is... fuck those executives! Take every penny back, now!

Virginia Tech shooting raises immigration concerns?

Below is a letter I wrote to Time Magazine-

In this day and age of high conflict surrounding immigration, what purpose does it serve to continuously point out that the shooter in the Virginia Tech Massacre was an immigrant? These inflammatory comments aimed at attracting an audience neither add nor detract from the facts of the case.

Cho Seung-hui, as has been reported by multiple media outlets, immigrated to this country at the age of 7. At the time of his death, he had spent more than a third of his life in America and had been raised and educated in the American system for the whole of his life. His national origin plays absolutely no part in his decision to commit this hideous act. From the limited information released thus far, one can deduct that this individual was severely depressed and troubled, that many people around him noticed this and that none of them took action to help him.

His English professor, who has so valiantly come on television to describe her interaction with this person, did nothing to get him to help. She stated that, through his writings, she believed him to be a dangerous person and that it was her duty as the Department Chair to take him aside and speak to him. She feels sorry that he did not take her advice and sought help. During the interview, the reporter mentioned that “no one could force him” to seek aid. This is untrue. Every state has laws aimed at protecting their citizens from those who will cause harm, even to themselves. In most cases, contacting Law Enforcement and providing evidence that this individual poses a risk, in this case the very violent writings and his demeanor could have prompted a court order for a psychiatric evaluation.

Rather than focusing on his nationality, why not focus on the multitude of individuals who failed him and ultimately caused him to feel that life was not just unworthy of living, but it was so lacking in value that he would take so many. What about focusing on his life and what brought him to this point? We have seen numerous reports on the lives of the victims, yet, we know very little about the life of the shooter or what may have prompted him to do this. All we know is that he was a Korean immigrant. He may have been an inhabitant of the planet Zork and come to live here illegally at the bottom of the ocean; however that was not the reason for his actions.

Republican Memory Loss

I was browsing through the WWW today looking for funny quotes. This has been a hobby of mine for several year now and has always kept me entertained during the slow times at work. Oddly enough, I decided to search for "political contradictions" and came across these.

I found it striking how impressively hypocritical these statements are. Especially since the present administration has been facing the same questions they posed some years ago and, as one would imagine, been just as bad at providing answers. These quotes relate to President Clinton's decision to send troops to Bosnia in the 1990's. Pay close attention to the very last quote, that's my favorite. Enjoy!

"You can support the troops but not the president." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." --Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" --Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." --Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." --Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" --Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." --Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

Quotes coutesy of:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/17/144732/740

The Pro-Life Hypocrisy

I was driving behind a car the other day when I noticed something very peculiar about it. It had a bumper sticker that said "Smile, Your mother chose life". Generally I would not pay much attention to this, but the hypocrisy of the statement just struck a chord. In order for my mother to chose life, she had to be able to make a choice, something the Pro-Life movement seems to forget.

When people ask me which side of this debate I'm on, I always give the same answer; "it depends". As I see it, when you are talking about something so loaded as abortion, being over simplistic as to think that one answer fits all situations is idiotic and irresponsible. I will explain my answer.

- I do not agree with abortion as a form of birth control whereby the pregnancy came about through the parents irresponsibility. If you got drunk, forgot the condom and got pregnant, deal with it. You knew this was a possibility before you had sex.

- Along the same line, I disagree with abortion when the reason for it is "it will interfere with my career/school/life/plans". Again, you should have take this into account before having sex.

Now, before my conservative friends start cheering, there are situations when I do agree with abortion:

- When a woman has been raped. The last thing she needs is to spend the rest of her life being reminded of it and the child does not need to grow up being resented by his mother and without a father. It's funny that the same people that want a single woman to raise the child of a rapist on their own are the ones that are against gay adoption because "a child needs parents from both sexes" which implies having both parents present (more on this later).

- When there are SEVERE medical complications that threaten the life of the mother, the child or both. I am not including Down Syndrome or CF in this category. These conditions are compatible with life and are not a health risk for the mother.

There may be other situations where I may be in favor or against abortion, depending on what the case is. The most important thing here is this. It is about a choice.

Pro-Choice, as I understand it, is not in favor or against abortion. It is about HAVING THE CHOICE. I do agree that the choice must be limited, but this has to be taken on a case by case basis. Morality aside, there are the physical and medical aspects to be considered.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the 14 year old daughter of a pro-lifer would get pregnant. Would this make them think differently? And what if that same child was told by the doctor that carrying the pregnancy to term would result in the death of both mother and child? Would her mother still be as passionately against abortion?

I guess you could say I am Pro-Choice. I believe that life is precious and worth living. I don't know when life begins or ends. Being a man, I will never go through this impossible situation.

I do know that our country is great because we have the ability to chose. Take that away and you might as well bow to a king. Yes, my mother chose life, but that's because she was able to chose.

HPV Vaccine

I was watching a news piece this morning where two Texas legislators were debating the Governors decision to make HPV Vaccination mandatory for school age girls in the State of Texas. Personally, I applaud Governor Rick Perry for this effort and agree that an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.

When it comes to Cervical Cancer, the type which the HPV Vaccine aims at reducing, the cost of diagnosis and treatment are, by far, higher than the estimated $360.00 price tag on the vaccination series. According to a 2005 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report, nearly 4,000 women would die from Cervical Cancer and another 10,000 would be diagnosed in that year alone, resulting in an estimated $2 Billion cost.

As with Polio and Malaria before it, we are now equipped with a vaccine that has the potential to severely impact these numbers. Granted, the vaccine is not 100% effective in treating all sources of Cervical Cancer, it only deals with the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) which has been identified as one of the leading causes. So, why so much controversy over a potentially life saving vaccine?

The biggest issue at hand is the idea that vaccinating young girls (the recommended age is 5 years old) will be sort of permission for them to become sexually active. The thought process is somewhat like this:

1. HPV is generally a sexually transmitted virus.
2. Vaccinating girls against a sexually transmitted illness opens the door to "no consequence" sexual activity.
3. We, as adults, cannot allow this.

This is a quasi good point, except that those who follow it forget one important point. The same was said about sex education classes in school. I trully believe that parents need to think abut their kids more than about what may be difficult for them to discuss with them. It falls on the parent to teach their children the values necessary to resist the temptation to get involved in sex before they are mature enough to deal with the consequenses.

Up to now, there has been no such vaccine, however, teenagers continue to engage in sexual activity. Recent studies have shown that teen pregnancy has declined in the US. However, concurrent studies point to increased sexual activity in the teen age population. How do these studies reconcile?

We as a society have done an exellent job of scaring our kids away from preganancy. By showing them the financial responsibility involved and how having a child too early can affect them for the rest of their life, we have been able to get the message across to them. However, we have not taught them about sexuality. Our kids are now more at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases because they no longer "get involved" with a single partner, rather they "hook up" with multiple ones. This new trend comes as a result of our own teachings. The "don't limit your choices" lessons we give our children. They are now taking this to heart and applying it to their sexual exploration.

Teenage girls will no longer give up their much prized (according to parents) virginity. Instead, they are involved in other types of sexual activities, some which not even their parents would take part in themselves. We have made the protection of the hymen the ultimate goal, and our kids are doing it well. Is it any surprise that teen pregnancy has gone down? Not to me. So, how does this relate to the HPV vaccine?

It is obvoius, at least in my opinion, that a vaccine does not make the difference whether your child decides to have sex. This comes from your ability as a parent to instill in them a sense of what sex means and why it is to their advantage to wait. Even so, there is as much guarantee they will listen to you as there was for your parents. What did you do?

With this in mind, it would be irresponsible to withold this valuable vaccine based on poorly documented morality. Should the vaccine be kept from our kids, any death from Carvical Cancer that can be linked to HPV must be treated as negligent homicide. Let's stop debating about morality, after all, everyone has their own. Let's think about our children and their future. Let's wake up to the reality that WE are the parents, that it falls to US to teach and protect our kids and, most importantly, let's stop trying to block a good thing beacause of our own ineptitude in discussing sexuality with our children.

The Issue With The Budget

Returning to my post-State of the Union topics, I'll discuss my thoughts on the President's statement on balancing the budget. As I mentioned before, I believe that any time the government takes on this task, social services are hampered. They talk about reducing government spending, but truly, what does this translate to? Is this the best option?

Reducing social services in order to balance the budget is not the answer. What results is a multitude of people devoid of programs which are vital to their sustenance. However, managing these programs to reduce overspending and mishandling of funds may be the answer. I briefly touched on the fact that many people in our country abuse the federal assistance programs. For instance, the Welfare Program was established as a means to temporarily assist citizens who, due to the remnants of The Depression, needed monetary aid while they were able to get back on their feet. The program was never intended as a substitute for education and work. However, we are now raising the 3rd generation of Welfare dependants in this country. These same individuals also take advantage of programs like WIC, Food Stamps, etc. All meant to be used on a temporary basis. Auditing these programs is imperative to ensure proper compliance and control the associated costs.

Another area our government should be able to tap for funds are those individuals in the top 2% of the income bracket. These individuals should be taxed on their gross income and not on an adjusted, taxable income. This may sound like discrimination but is not. Consider all the tax shelter options available to these individuals. From multimillion dollar home tax deductions to overseas investment and accounts, they are able to keep a lot of money away from the government. Unfortunately, for most of us in the other 98%, our ability to safeguard our money is quite limited.

By increasing taxes on the "Super Rich" the government would be able to apply more funds to the task of balancing the budget. I will include our own politicians in this group. In 2001, the median household income in the US was $46,326 (See Chart). According to the University of Michigan Library, that same year, the President's salary was raised from $250,000 to $400,000.

If we consider the total salaries for The Congress and the Supreme Court, our politicians make more money per-capita than any average citizen ever will. Now, consider that most politicians live in a double income household, and that some of these households contain two such politicians, you can see that their household income is, by far, beyond what you or I will ever make. Because of this, I would suggest that our brave leaders and take one for the team and cut their salaries to match whatever the average household income is. The savings can be applied to the task of balancing the budget.

In summary, in order to effectively balance the US Budget, our government needs to properly manage the programs that are already in existence, tax those who have the means to provide more funds and, above all, stop talking out of the side of their mouths and look at themselves as a source of needed money for this task. Maybe then we can look at them and see a reflection of us, the average, hard working, not so well paid American.

It's The Parent's Responsibility

Who's the parent anyway? This is the question we need to ask when we see these news casts about how McDonald's is making our children fat. I was about to write about the tax code when I saw a piece on the news talking about parents complaining about fast food restaurants latest marketing tactic...video games. We've all seen them. BK had a series of them featuring The King. Now, many cereal and "kid food" manufacturers are joining in with free, online games.

Is this really the cause of childhood obesity? Hardly. Parents need to get their heads out of their rears and realize that they are the decision makers in the house. If a 5 year old kid is eating a Happy Meal every day, it's not because he drove himself to the restaurant, pulled out his bank card and bought himself a meal. It is YOU who is taking your child there. It is YOU who is buying the food. And it is YOU who refuses to say no to your child so she won't throw a tantrum. With this in mind, the only one to blame for your 100 lb 5 year old is YOU. Compounding this problem it the fact that parents have removed physical activity from their kids' life. They refuse to support Physical Education programs in schools because they don't want their kids to suffer a little rejection. What is so wrong with a child learning to accept that he's not the fastest runner, or the most flexible gymnast or the best linebacker?

Honestly, it has nothing to do with the kids. The problem is that parenting has gone out the window. It's all about giving kids everything without teaching them about what really matters; responsibility, working toward a reward, earning what you get and, most importantly, dealing with disappointment when you just don't get your way. These are important lessons. The real world does not shield you from these frustrations and it is up to us as parents to teach our children how to deal with it.

Thinking back to my own childhood, I was lucky enough to be raised by a set of parents who had their priorities straight. My parents were not raised with money and, although they have done well for themselves, they didn't feel the need to spoil their children as a way to live life vicariously. They could have had the big house with the expensive cars and given us the latest and greatest. Instead, we would get what was fair and their money was invested in our education, not toys. We had the opportunity to travel and see how people lived in less privilege parts of the world and the country. Of course, growing up we didn't quite get this and would occasionally ask for an Atari or Nintendo- it was the 80's OK? I never did get a video console until I was able to buy my own. What I did get were plenty of books, building models and other toys that required using your brain.

I am not saying that parents shouldn't give things to their kids. However, no parent should give in to every little whim. There is no need for a child in grade school to have a cell phone. There is no need for a 12 year old to have the most expensive digital camera available. There is no need for a 16 year old to die, and kill a friend, by crashing a $38,000 sports car they are not experienced enough to drive. Common sense, as with most other things, is imperative in parenting. The most important thing we can teach our kids if common sense. It will keep them out of trouble, help them cope with disappointment and give them a way to analyze the situation they are in, good or bad, in order to make the best decisions.

Being a parent is not about blaming the television, fast food, sports, teachers, friends, society, the neighbors or anyone else for what happens in our kids' life. It is about living up to the responsibility we accepted by bringing this little life into this world.