It's difficult not to come across a Millennial headline every now and then: "Millennials: Trust No One But Twitter;" "Why Millennials Can't Grow Up;" "Narcissistic, broke, and 7 other ways to describe the Millennial generation;" "Millennials are the key to saving retail." The Baby Boomers, and Generation X, are keenly interested in us -- the younger generation.
The geriatrics have spent their time studying our interests, buying patterns, and social media indulgences. There is enough data to make some conclusions. "Narcissists, I tell you." Or, "Lazy, entitled, and love video games too much," they groan. One book summarized the Millennial generation as "Generation Me." I wonder if the old timers are right.
Yes, we have grown up with the internet, laptop, Google, Facebook, and iPhone. Selfies are our creation. We love Netflix, personalized webpages, reality TV on cooking, relationships, celebrities, competitions, and so forth and so forth. It's true that we can post our feelings on a million different social media platforms. Well, maybe not a million, but you get the idea.
But, Millennials are also the most educated of all generations. And guess what: we are also more tolerant, optimistic, and civic-minded. We may even be the Next Greatest Generation because of our pragmatism. So, in a way, Millennials are both self-absorbed and community-oriented.
Articles may discuss, or highlight, our weaknesses but some of them do not put history into perspective. Millennials have gone through the worst recession since the Great Depression. We have also witnessed the most polarized and least efficient political body in United States history. If that weren't enough, we have also been victims of higher education malfeasance and unrestrained avarice. Companies have polluted our waters with DT-50-D. The food we have eaten has been laced with ADA.
We can thank all of the older generations for the above-mentioned realities. So do you think you can excuse Millennials for being a little skeptical, distrustful, alienated -- even a little "narcissistic." There is the notion that we cannot fit into the frameworks institutionalized by the Baby Boomers. It's actually not true. We simply reject their framework.
Family time does not need to be sacrificed for a better career. A liberal and a conservative can sit at a table together and compromise, without abandoning principles. A person can be wealthy, and successful, without trampling on the least among us. Everything in this world does not have to be so black and white, a zero-sum game.
When I read the articles analyzing Millennials, I can't help but think that this has been done time and time again. The older generations aging -- losing the institutions and values that they had built for a lifetime. Almost half a century-ago, Baby Boomers must have been similarly criticized. It's the way it goes, I suppose.
Do not get me wrong: the older generations have made our world possible. They were the ones who gave Millennials the tools to be self-obsessed. It's just that Millennials have been unfairly mischaracterized. We do not like the way things are moving forward. Millennials are going to do something about it though. We are going to change the world -- for the better.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Static Union
"Big thinking has more often gotten us into trouble then led us to success..." - Republican Congressman Tom Cole.
Last night President Obama gave his State of the Union Address in front of his political adversary -- the "do even less" Congress. During the address, Mr. Obama focused on the personal stories of average Americans. He highlighted the anecdotes to paint a picture and establish a theme: citizens need help, and if Congress is unwilling to act, he will.
The economy has definitely improved since the Great Recession. Unemployment is down, stocks are up, the housing market is rebounding, and consumer spending is picking up. Yet, people are still hurting. There are still many things that can be done to improve the lives of tens of millions. The Federal Reserve can only do so much; fiscal policy can be much more effective in strengthening the economic recovery.
Hence, President Obama has declared that he will use executive action when possible to aid the economy. Congressional Republicans reacted in sync. "Obama has run out of ideas..." "If [Mr. Obama] tries to ignore the [Constitution], he's going to run into a brick wall." What has Speaker Boehner been calling the brick wall up until now? The GOP has made it a political strategy to block whatever it can to ensure that Mr. Obama does not have claim to legislative achievements. The Speaker presided over record setting Filibusters and historical intransigence.
The Constitution is silent on what to do when one branch of the Government has taken an indefinite vacation. So, while Executive Action is necessary, it is not a cure all. It should not become a fix to Congressional obstructionism.
I believe that Republicans want to do whats best for the country in the long run. Like Democrats and liberals, the GOP loves its country. They certainly have different policy ideas on how to accomplish that goal. But, Congress has decided that it must win elections first before it can do its job. It's a brazen strategy not worth hiding. In having good intentions and standing by strong held convictions, the GOP has resigned to the fact that Americans can wait. We shouldn't have to.
Our leaders should look to the American people as examples. Every single day we compromise. We do not agree with all persons we come across or do business with, but we find a way to negotiate and find common ground.
Like individuals who must agree every day despite having different beliefs, Congress should forfeit its strategy of letting 2014 come and go. The time delay may be politically convenient, but it is not a good policy for Americans. It is not a winning formula either -- people will reflect their frustration at the ballot box.
In sum, Executive Action can help only so much. Mr. Boehner and I agree that the Constitution is the foundation of our great nation and must be followed. That is why I call on Speaker Boehner to fulfill his duties under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution. You see, you were not elected to win elections, you were elected to legislate. Get to work.
Last night President Obama gave his State of the Union Address in front of his political adversary -- the "do even less" Congress. During the address, Mr. Obama focused on the personal stories of average Americans. He highlighted the anecdotes to paint a picture and establish a theme: citizens need help, and if Congress is unwilling to act, he will.
The economy has definitely improved since the Great Recession. Unemployment is down, stocks are up, the housing market is rebounding, and consumer spending is picking up. Yet, people are still hurting. There are still many things that can be done to improve the lives of tens of millions. The Federal Reserve can only do so much; fiscal policy can be much more effective in strengthening the economic recovery.
Hence, President Obama has declared that he will use executive action when possible to aid the economy. Congressional Republicans reacted in sync. "Obama has run out of ideas..." "If [Mr. Obama] tries to ignore the [Constitution], he's going to run into a brick wall." What has Speaker Boehner been calling the brick wall up until now? The GOP has made it a political strategy to block whatever it can to ensure that Mr. Obama does not have claim to legislative achievements. The Speaker presided over record setting Filibusters and historical intransigence.
The Constitution is silent on what to do when one branch of the Government has taken an indefinite vacation. So, while Executive Action is necessary, it is not a cure all. It should not become a fix to Congressional obstructionism.
I believe that Republicans want to do whats best for the country in the long run. Like Democrats and liberals, the GOP loves its country. They certainly have different policy ideas on how to accomplish that goal. But, Congress has decided that it must win elections first before it can do its job. It's a brazen strategy not worth hiding. In having good intentions and standing by strong held convictions, the GOP has resigned to the fact that Americans can wait. We shouldn't have to.
Our leaders should look to the American people as examples. Every single day we compromise. We do not agree with all persons we come across or do business with, but we find a way to negotiate and find common ground.
Like individuals who must agree every day despite having different beliefs, Congress should forfeit its strategy of letting 2014 come and go. The time delay may be politically convenient, but it is not a good policy for Americans. It is not a winning formula either -- people will reflect their frustration at the ballot box.
In sum, Executive Action can help only so much. Mr. Boehner and I agree that the Constitution is the foundation of our great nation and must be followed. That is why I call on Speaker Boehner to fulfill his duties under Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution. You see, you were not elected to win elections, you were elected to legislate. Get to work.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
2013: Incompentence over Nihilism
Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" is the go-to program for political satire, high-brow comedy, and potty jokes. In one moment during the show, a viewer can see an insightful interview on voter suppression, and in the next minute, a shtick on Chicago Pizza. The comedy central team certainly has range -- and it is no wonder that a larger majority of Americans are relying on the New Jersey native for quality news (as opposed to Cable News).
One segment, however, summarized the 2013 political year for me: Team Incompetence v. Team Nihilism. Can you guess which political party stands for nihilism and vice versa? Let me give you a hint; one was "responsible" for the Government shut-down, and the other, a botched health care roll-out.
Neither team names carry positive connotations. At this point, both political parties are facing huge electoral challenges in the future. Both have to fight their historically low favorability ratings in the upcoming 2014 elections.
In fact, the lack of faith in institutions, both Government and private, are at an all-time high. Even the reputable "60 Minutes" faced backlash when it ran with a bogus Benghazi story. It had to retract and apologize. No wonder people are pessimistic.
My posts this year have constantly focused on the GOP's absurd policies for obstruction, corporate welfare, and fiscal callousness. But, it would be a disservice to my handful of readers (I jest, it's at least a dozen) to ignore the failings of the current Administration. President Obama needs to do a better job with overseeing executive programs.
Let me be clear: I am happy with the President overall. No president in the history of our nation has had to face the amount of hatred and nonsense that he has had to deal with. He is the President in times of incomparable polarization and special-interest influence. Moreover, the GOP are not really opposing Obama, it's more like, they are opposing the imaginary Obama that they have created in their minds. Hell, if half of the things e-mailed to me about Obama were true, I would have purchased my tea party hat a long time ago.
That being said, President Obama should have appointed a head of the Health Care Exchanges at the beginning of 2011. The program, at the start, should have had a top-down hierarchical system to ensure efficiency and functionality. I was greatly disappointed that the first couple of months were plagued with glitches and bugs. Had there been better oversight, coupled with a more efficient procurement system, the problems could have been avoided.
Of course it doesn't help either that we have a minority party in Government that are nihilists, which brings me back to my central point -- I support candidates that want to improve the way things are done, not simply advocate a position of opposition. The GOP still, after three years of repeal obsession, has no alternative to the pre-ACA healthcare system. It's okay to the GOP that 40 million people remain uninsured, and that people with preexisting conditions, like cancer, diabetes, and the like, are out of luck.
It's much easier to fight for nothing, than to try to implement change -- messy, difficult, and demanding change. That's how I would summarize the 2013 political year though. We have one party willing to risk political capital to help the uninsured, and the other, willing to cash in on petty political points for every reported setback. For some reason, I had a crazy thought that after the 2012 election, we would have moved towards reconciliation and compromise. Boy, was I wrong.
Next year, 2014, we will have a choice as voters. Do we want a majority party that may mess up at times for trying to enact difficult reform? Or do we want to support the party that are naysayers, can't-doers, and perpetual alarmists? I have to admit, I don't really like either option. But, I'm willing to bat for the team that are willing to make mistakes, rather than the team willing to strive off of them. Bring on 2014.
One segment, however, summarized the 2013 political year for me: Team Incompetence v. Team Nihilism. Can you guess which political party stands for nihilism and vice versa? Let me give you a hint; one was "responsible" for the Government shut-down, and the other, a botched health care roll-out.
Neither team names carry positive connotations. At this point, both political parties are facing huge electoral challenges in the future. Both have to fight their historically low favorability ratings in the upcoming 2014 elections.
In fact, the lack of faith in institutions, both Government and private, are at an all-time high. Even the reputable "60 Minutes" faced backlash when it ran with a bogus Benghazi story. It had to retract and apologize. No wonder people are pessimistic.
My posts this year have constantly focused on the GOP's absurd policies for obstruction, corporate welfare, and fiscal callousness. But, it would be a disservice to my handful of readers (I jest, it's at least a dozen) to ignore the failings of the current Administration. President Obama needs to do a better job with overseeing executive programs.
Let me be clear: I am happy with the President overall. No president in the history of our nation has had to face the amount of hatred and nonsense that he has had to deal with. He is the President in times of incomparable polarization and special-interest influence. Moreover, the GOP are not really opposing Obama, it's more like, they are opposing the imaginary Obama that they have created in their minds. Hell, if half of the things e-mailed to me about Obama were true, I would have purchased my tea party hat a long time ago.
That being said, President Obama should have appointed a head of the Health Care Exchanges at the beginning of 2011. The program, at the start, should have had a top-down hierarchical system to ensure efficiency and functionality. I was greatly disappointed that the first couple of months were plagued with glitches and bugs. Had there been better oversight, coupled with a more efficient procurement system, the problems could have been avoided.
Of course it doesn't help either that we have a minority party in Government that are nihilists, which brings me back to my central point -- I support candidates that want to improve the way things are done, not simply advocate a position of opposition. The GOP still, after three years of repeal obsession, has no alternative to the pre-ACA healthcare system. It's okay to the GOP that 40 million people remain uninsured, and that people with preexisting conditions, like cancer, diabetes, and the like, are out of luck.
It's much easier to fight for nothing, than to try to implement change -- messy, difficult, and demanding change. That's how I would summarize the 2013 political year though. We have one party willing to risk political capital to help the uninsured, and the other, willing to cash in on petty political points for every reported setback. For some reason, I had a crazy thought that after the 2012 election, we would have moved towards reconciliation and compromise. Boy, was I wrong.
Next year, 2014, we will have a choice as voters. Do we want a majority party that may mess up at times for trying to enact difficult reform? Or do we want to support the party that are naysayers, can't-doers, and perpetual alarmists? I have to admit, I don't really like either option. But, I'm willing to bat for the team that are willing to make mistakes, rather than the team willing to strive off of them. Bring on 2014.
Saturday, November 30, 2013
The Pope Ain't Down with "Trickle-Down"
"What
good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their
soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?" - Matthew 16:26
Francis of Assisi was listening to a sermon in the year 1209 when his life changed forever. The preacher had been discussing the verse Matthew 10:9. In that passage, Jesus instructs his followers to go out into the world and proclaim that the Kingdom of Heaven was upon them. But Jesus also told his followers to not take any money, shoes, or even a walking stick while they spread the Gospel. Shortly thereafter, Francis started the Franciscan Order, a group of "lesser brothers," who lived by a simple creed: follow the teachings of Christ and walk in his footsteps.
It was said that Pope Innocent III had his initial doubts about an endorsement for the Order. The doubts were put to rest when during a dream Pope Innocent III had seen Francis holding up the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the cathedral of Rome.
Over 800 years later, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected Pope and took the name Francis. A sense of renewal, awakening, and hope has followed the white smoke that emanated from the Sistine Chapel. For over a billion Catholics, Pope Francis has rejuvenated the church. His embrace of the disfigured man showed compassion; and his humility was on display when he washed the feet of prison detainees.
Personally, it could not be more exciting to see Pope Francis living out the name he has chosen. He has called for Catholics to serve and help the poor. And his actions show a desire to ensure that the call is met. Pope Francis also connects with me on a deeper level because he will be the Pope during my confirmation in the spring. Almost two years of confirmation classes will culminate in me choosing a new name as well.
Pope Francis was also in the headlines recently because he attacked "trickle-down" economics -- the economic policies made famous by President Reagan and a number of "fiscal conservatives." In his statement, he condemned the policy by saying, "[trickle-down economics] has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system." He went on to decry the "idolatry of money" and encouraged implementation of economic policies that can actually help the less fortunate.
The remarks possibly gained more attention than it would have otherwise had it not been for Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP Vice-Presidential candidate. During a CNN interview, Palin said that the Pope's statements of late "sound kind of liberal." There was a social media backlash and Palin eventually issued an apology on her Facebook page.
The Pope is not the only person challenging the belief that low taxes on the rich will spur economic opportunity for all. Economists have been championing ideas that will curb the growth of severe income inequality. Furthermore, some journalists have made the issue of low wages a major topic of public discourse. Both McDonald's and Wal-Mart have had to face heat for being "welfare queens." The two companies have a host of employees who receive government assistance because the large companies do not pay them enough. McDonalds' McResource line, which helps employees sign up for welfare and food stamps, was rightly mocked and ridiculed.
There is no doubt that the public mood has changed on economic fairness because of individuals who have advocated for reform. In the year 2012, over half of the country made less than $30,000 a year. Over the past two decades, the top 1% of incomes have received over 2/3 of the overall economic growth in the country. The inequality is not just unfair, it is morally wrong. That is why Pope Francis has made it a central issue in his push to re-shape the Catholic Church.
There is another Pope who reminds me of the importance of good economic policy. The biggest statue in the world of Pope John Paul II is in the former soviet state of Poland -- the country where Pope John Paul II was born. Poland's economy has become the most dynamic in Europe. During years of economic decline all over Europe, Poland has stood out for its consistent growth and success. One of the main reasons for its success: Poland's refusal to accept austerity and its commitment to invest and spend on infrastructure. Over $137 billion was spent by Poland while other European countries were cutting back.
The point is that our Government can do more to change the current imbalance. Right now, the economy does not work for everybody -- it only works for a few. I sincerely believe that we have a moral responsibility to support ideas that will enable people to earn enough for their families without having to ask for a handout. If we can strengthen someone's ability to earn, we can also strengthen the moral foundation of our country. Pope Francis is right: money must serve, not rule. Let's just make sure that our elected officials hear the good news.
Francis of Assisi was listening to a sermon in the year 1209 when his life changed forever. The preacher had been discussing the verse Matthew 10:9. In that passage, Jesus instructs his followers to go out into the world and proclaim that the Kingdom of Heaven was upon them. But Jesus also told his followers to not take any money, shoes, or even a walking stick while they spread the Gospel. Shortly thereafter, Francis started the Franciscan Order, a group of "lesser brothers," who lived by a simple creed: follow the teachings of Christ and walk in his footsteps.
It was said that Pope Innocent III had his initial doubts about an endorsement for the Order. The doubts were put to rest when during a dream Pope Innocent III had seen Francis holding up the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the cathedral of Rome.
Over 800 years later, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected Pope and took the name Francis. A sense of renewal, awakening, and hope has followed the white smoke that emanated from the Sistine Chapel. For over a billion Catholics, Pope Francis has rejuvenated the church. His embrace of the disfigured man showed compassion; and his humility was on display when he washed the feet of prison detainees.
Personally, it could not be more exciting to see Pope Francis living out the name he has chosen. He has called for Catholics to serve and help the poor. And his actions show a desire to ensure that the call is met. Pope Francis also connects with me on a deeper level because he will be the Pope during my confirmation in the spring. Almost two years of confirmation classes will culminate in me choosing a new name as well.
Pope Francis was also in the headlines recently because he attacked "trickle-down" economics -- the economic policies made famous by President Reagan and a number of "fiscal conservatives." In his statement, he condemned the policy by saying, "[trickle-down economics] has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system." He went on to decry the "idolatry of money" and encouraged implementation of economic policies that can actually help the less fortunate.
The remarks possibly gained more attention than it would have otherwise had it not been for Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP Vice-Presidential candidate. During a CNN interview, Palin said that the Pope's statements of late "sound kind of liberal." There was a social media backlash and Palin eventually issued an apology on her Facebook page.
The Pope is not the only person challenging the belief that low taxes on the rich will spur economic opportunity for all. Economists have been championing ideas that will curb the growth of severe income inequality. Furthermore, some journalists have made the issue of low wages a major topic of public discourse. Both McDonald's and Wal-Mart have had to face heat for being "welfare queens." The two companies have a host of employees who receive government assistance because the large companies do not pay them enough. McDonalds' McResource line, which helps employees sign up for welfare and food stamps, was rightly mocked and ridiculed.
There is no doubt that the public mood has changed on economic fairness because of individuals who have advocated for reform. In the year 2012, over half of the country made less than $30,000 a year. Over the past two decades, the top 1% of incomes have received over 2/3 of the overall economic growth in the country. The inequality is not just unfair, it is morally wrong. That is why Pope Francis has made it a central issue in his push to re-shape the Catholic Church.
There is another Pope who reminds me of the importance of good economic policy. The biggest statue in the world of Pope John Paul II is in the former soviet state of Poland -- the country where Pope John Paul II was born. Poland's economy has become the most dynamic in Europe. During years of economic decline all over Europe, Poland has stood out for its consistent growth and success. One of the main reasons for its success: Poland's refusal to accept austerity and its commitment to invest and spend on infrastructure. Over $137 billion was spent by Poland while other European countries were cutting back.
The point is that our Government can do more to change the current imbalance. Right now, the economy does not work for everybody -- it only works for a few. I sincerely believe that we have a moral responsibility to support ideas that will enable people to earn enough for their families without having to ask for a handout. If we can strengthen someone's ability to earn, we can also strengthen the moral foundation of our country. Pope Francis is right: money must serve, not rule. Let's just make sure that our elected officials hear the good news.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Can the Real Will McAvoy Please Stand Up?
It is probably fair to say that Americans have lost faith in their elected leaders. The Government shutdown was emblematic of our current partisan divide: we cannot move forward because we cannot agree on where we should go. Without a compass, the United States is stuck in a mire of malaise.
There are certain facts that are indisputable. Our economic recovery is slow. Inequalities are rising. Politics are making things a lot worse. The constant bickering causes unease and the public is unsure if politics can be put to the side for the benefit of the country.
But there are a few individuals who profit from this 24/7 drama: the media - or perhaps the more aptly titled, "professional pundits," who never cease to be predictable, and never grow tired of hurling falsities.
As the Government shutdown continued into its void of senselessness, the cable news networks increased viewership and revenues. The partisan media took financial advantage of the shutdown and debt-ceiling crisis, while at the same time, exacerbating the problems that we face. We should not put the spotlight on those who favor conflict over compromise, i.e. Ted Cruz, et al. We absolutely cannot treat the tea-party as legitimate policy-makers.
Journalists who covered the shutdown attempted to describe a narrative of equal blame. The Democrats are unwilling to bend to the fiscally responsible minority party and the Republicans are unrealistically demanding the reversal of a major policy achievement by the President. False equivalency does not help the public stay informed. Let me explain.
False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. For those HBO fans that also happen to read my blog, Aaron Sorkin makes it a constant theme in his show: "Newsroom." At one point during the first season, the main character, Will McAvoy, gives an example:
"The news isn't biased toward the left or toward the right, it's biased toward fairness. If the Republican congressional caucus were to walk onto the floor of the House and offer a resolution saying the world is flat, the next day's headlines would likely read: 'Democrats and Republicans can't agree on shape of Earth...'"
Sorkin, through his character, was attempting to criticize the media's bias towards trying to appear fair and balanced at the expense of failing to fulfill their journalistic duties of keeping the public informed about the truth.
The shutdown was planned months in advance. The tea party did not hide their intentions at all. They have never lied about their desire to dismiss compromise and attack pragmatic legislators who are willing to vote with Democrats. As we speak, the tea party are running candidates against the "traitors," who voted to end the shutdown. Senators Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all will have to survive a primary before facing a Democrat. Sarah Palin was not whispering about attacking squishy Republicans who would even think to deal with President Obama.
Gone are the days of a reliable media. The shutdown story was simple and the news should have covered it simply. We now have a faction in the Republican party who will do anything in their power to disrupt Government. They do not advocate for a limited government with more personal freedom; they want to pugnaciously fight the Democrats on every single issue for the sake of fighting with Democrats on every single issue.
Our country should not only place the blame on our leaders. We also need to admit that our media institutions are failing to perform their journalistic duties.
It is not going to be easy to move ahead. The partisan gap is still wider than ever. But, as Americans, we should expect more. And as Americans, we should do more. Let us hope that in 2014, we can elect candidates who are practical - Republican and Democrat. Let us pray that the media will help us discern which candidates those are. There has to be a Will McAvoy out there somewhere.
There are certain facts that are indisputable. Our economic recovery is slow. Inequalities are rising. Politics are making things a lot worse. The constant bickering causes unease and the public is unsure if politics can be put to the side for the benefit of the country.
But there are a few individuals who profit from this 24/7 drama: the media - or perhaps the more aptly titled, "professional pundits," who never cease to be predictable, and never grow tired of hurling falsities.
As the Government shutdown continued into its void of senselessness, the cable news networks increased viewership and revenues. The partisan media took financial advantage of the shutdown and debt-ceiling crisis, while at the same time, exacerbating the problems that we face. We should not put the spotlight on those who favor conflict over compromise, i.e. Ted Cruz, et al. We absolutely cannot treat the tea-party as legitimate policy-makers.
Journalists who covered the shutdown attempted to describe a narrative of equal blame. The Democrats are unwilling to bend to the fiscally responsible minority party and the Republicans are unrealistically demanding the reversal of a major policy achievement by the President. False equivalency does not help the public stay informed. Let me explain.
False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. For those HBO fans that also happen to read my blog, Aaron Sorkin makes it a constant theme in his show: "Newsroom." At one point during the first season, the main character, Will McAvoy, gives an example:
"The news isn't biased toward the left or toward the right, it's biased toward fairness. If the Republican congressional caucus were to walk onto the floor of the House and offer a resolution saying the world is flat, the next day's headlines would likely read: 'Democrats and Republicans can't agree on shape of Earth...'"
Sorkin, through his character, was attempting to criticize the media's bias towards trying to appear fair and balanced at the expense of failing to fulfill their journalistic duties of keeping the public informed about the truth.
The shutdown was planned months in advance. The tea party did not hide their intentions at all. They have never lied about their desire to dismiss compromise and attack pragmatic legislators who are willing to vote with Democrats. As we speak, the tea party are running candidates against the "traitors," who voted to end the shutdown. Senators Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all will have to survive a primary before facing a Democrat. Sarah Palin was not whispering about attacking squishy Republicans who would even think to deal with President Obama.
Gone are the days of a reliable media. The shutdown story was simple and the news should have covered it simply. We now have a faction in the Republican party who will do anything in their power to disrupt Government. They do not advocate for a limited government with more personal freedom; they want to pugnaciously fight the Democrats on every single issue for the sake of fighting with Democrats on every single issue.
Our country should not only place the blame on our leaders. We also need to admit that our media institutions are failing to perform their journalistic duties.
It is not going to be easy to move ahead. The partisan gap is still wider than ever. But, as Americans, we should expect more. And as Americans, we should do more. Let us hope that in 2014, we can elect candidates who are practical - Republican and Democrat. Let us pray that the media will help us discern which candidates those are. There has to be a Will McAvoy out there somewhere.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
What About Our (Fiscal) Civil War?
"Bang bang bang," I shouted when I jumped into the Tennessee grass and tried to avoid the imaginary fire from my older brother. We were both under ten at the time but that did not stop us from developing an interest in United States history - particularly the Civil War. I wore gray, the color of the Confederates, and my brother wore blue for the North.
With a battle site not ten minutes away, in the city of Franklin, it was easy for two young boys to get enthralled with the fights of the past. There was one problem for me, however: I never got to win. The South suffered heavy losses in the Battle of Franklin.
During this month of September the public had an opportunity to discuss and debate another civil war - the one in Syria. It was interesting to see the different viewpoints and coalitions for and against a military strike. The whole global crisis and argument developed because President Assad used Sarin gas against his own people. The lungs of 400 children were paralyzed because of the banned chemicals.
Not surprisingly, the conservative-controlled House of Representatives were opposed to the strike. Some of the members may have opposed the strike on rational grounds, but it is almost certain that some wanted to simply oppose the President. Congressman Israel thought so and stated that:
"Does anyone truly believe that if Mitt Romney had been elected president and had asked House Republicans for exactly what President Obama is asking, that House Republicans would oppose it to the extent that they’re opposed to what President Obama wants? The level of hypocrisy is what amazes me."
Luckily, we did not have to find out if there were enough votes from the House of Representatives. A diplomatic deal was struck and for the meantime postponed a potential global conflict. Unfortunately for the American people, we can still expect a domestic conflict that will have an impact on our everyday well-being - the budget battle and likely government shut-down.
The truth of the matter is that we are embroiled in another American civil war. This war is not being fought with horses and bayonets. The weapons of choice for this ideological civil war is special interest money, political brinkmanship, and a wide army of pundits. The casualties: our economy and the American people.
If you have not been following, the Federal government is facing a possible shut-down because extremists in the House conditioned the funding of the Government on the defunding of ObamaCare. It is a symbolic move, which has a zero change of passage, but has the ability to cause havoc to our markets and economy.
The GOP obsession with ObamaCare has curtailed any laws from being passed, i.e. comprehensive immigration reform, tax reform, campaign finance reform, and a host of laws that could only help the United States. Now, the GOP's irrational fixation will slow our already slow recovery.
ObamaCare was passed and signed in 2010, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012, and has helped millions of young Americans stay insured through their parents' health care. 78% of the young beneficiaries of ObamaCare are Republicans.
Yet, we are still fighting. Why? Because there is a political opposition that cannot govern and perhaps do not want to govern. A government shut-down is precisely what some of the Tea Party zealots advocate. They do not want a limited government, they do not want a government at all.
Every civil war eventually comes to an end. I am certain that this fiscal one will end too. But only because the American people are fed up. Reasonable conservatives and liberal Americans will come together to express their dissatisfaction with the gamesmanship. We do not have to accept a government that is incapable of compromise and disrespectful of the opposition.
In the end, we are all in this together - brothers and sisters of the Constitution. I can guarantee that despite these budget fiascoes, there will still be young children replaying the great history of our country in their front yards, perhaps the Battle of Franklin too. I even bet that, just like my brother and I, they will eventually get tired, smile, and put down their imaginary arms. Sometimes its more fun to be on the same team.
With a battle site not ten minutes away, in the city of Franklin, it was easy for two young boys to get enthralled with the fights of the past. There was one problem for me, however: I never got to win. The South suffered heavy losses in the Battle of Franklin.
During this month of September the public had an opportunity to discuss and debate another civil war - the one in Syria. It was interesting to see the different viewpoints and coalitions for and against a military strike. The whole global crisis and argument developed because President Assad used Sarin gas against his own people. The lungs of 400 children were paralyzed because of the banned chemicals.
Not surprisingly, the conservative-controlled House of Representatives were opposed to the strike. Some of the members may have opposed the strike on rational grounds, but it is almost certain that some wanted to simply oppose the President. Congressman Israel thought so and stated that:
"Does anyone truly believe that if Mitt Romney had been elected president and had asked House Republicans for exactly what President Obama is asking, that House Republicans would oppose it to the extent that they’re opposed to what President Obama wants? The level of hypocrisy is what amazes me."
Luckily, we did not have to find out if there were enough votes from the House of Representatives. A diplomatic deal was struck and for the meantime postponed a potential global conflict. Unfortunately for the American people, we can still expect a domestic conflict that will have an impact on our everyday well-being - the budget battle and likely government shut-down.
The truth of the matter is that we are embroiled in another American civil war. This war is not being fought with horses and bayonets. The weapons of choice for this ideological civil war is special interest money, political brinkmanship, and a wide army of pundits. The casualties: our economy and the American people.
If you have not been following, the Federal government is facing a possible shut-down because extremists in the House conditioned the funding of the Government on the defunding of ObamaCare. It is a symbolic move, which has a zero change of passage, but has the ability to cause havoc to our markets and economy.
The GOP obsession with ObamaCare has curtailed any laws from being passed, i.e. comprehensive immigration reform, tax reform, campaign finance reform, and a host of laws that could only help the United States. Now, the GOP's irrational fixation will slow our already slow recovery.
ObamaCare was passed and signed in 2010, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2012, and has helped millions of young Americans stay insured through their parents' health care. 78% of the young beneficiaries of ObamaCare are Republicans.
Yet, we are still fighting. Why? Because there is a political opposition that cannot govern and perhaps do not want to govern. A government shut-down is precisely what some of the Tea Party zealots advocate. They do not want a limited government, they do not want a government at all.
Every civil war eventually comes to an end. I am certain that this fiscal one will end too. But only because the American people are fed up. Reasonable conservatives and liberal Americans will come together to express their dissatisfaction with the gamesmanship. We do not have to accept a government that is incapable of compromise and disrespectful of the opposition.
In the end, we are all in this together - brothers and sisters of the Constitution. I can guarantee that despite these budget fiascoes, there will still be young children replaying the great history of our country in their front yards, perhaps the Battle of Franklin too. I even bet that, just like my brother and I, they will eventually get tired, smile, and put down their imaginary arms. Sometimes its more fun to be on the same team.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
We Don't Need No Education
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." - Albert Einstein
Every so often I can expect the same article from an online news website: don't bother earning these college degrees. With a cringe on my face, I read it every time, already anticipating what I will read. I am never disappointed after I read it- the author loves to knock philosophy majors.
The whole idea of a college degree is to receive a return on your investment. Or so says the author whose name appears below the advertisement for the online for-profit school.
There is a problem with treating a college degree like a mutual fund. Learning should be for the sake of learning. Studying American history or calculating probabilities should not be a security deposit for the chance to work on Wall Street. Not everything in this world has to be about increasing your assets and lowering your liabilities.
I always want to point out to the author, being the antagonist that I am, that two of the wealthiest men on Wall Street also happen to be philosophy majors, i.e. Carl Icahn and George Soros. Their combined net worth could pay for 1,000,000 "worthless" college degrees.
Putting aside my education soliloquy, we all know that a college degree is important. It gives individuals the ability to pursue their dreams, whatever those dreams may be. A person with a college degree has a better opportunity to secure a career and earn a higher wage. Thus, a college education can help a person realize his or her goals.
Financing a college education is another story, however. Unfortunately for millions of Americans, the cost of a college education is rising astronomically. It does not help that median incomes have been stagnant. Since 2009, the median income in our country has decreased 4.4%, while productivity has continued to rise.
Inequality, both in income and access to education, will widen as college becomes more unaffordable. We are starting to see the effects: low-income students are not being represented at selective universities. Only 34% of high-achieving students in low-income brackets went on to an elite school, while 78% of students in the high-income bracket did.
For low-income families, an obvious conundrum falls into their lunch pails. How does one pay for a college education, does it mean that one has to forgo purchasing a home or saving for retirement? The answer: student loans.
Because of the difficulty in paying out-of-pocket for a college education, it has become necessary to borrow to attend. Student loans now account for $1.2 trillion of our national debt. That is 6% of the overall outstanding debt. It is becoming a problem for everyone.
When a student finally graduates from college, they now have the burden of having to start their life deep in debt. The outcomes of this tragic phenomena is less entrepreneurship and less of a willingness to take risks. Of course, that will decrease the chances of having another Steve Jobs or Elon Musk. How does one move on an innovative idea when they cannot even afford to make the May installment payment? Again, the costs of higher education will become a problem for our future generations.
I become enthused when I see prospective students taking initiative to find ways to pay for college. One program allows individuals to invest into a student with the student later paying the investor a portion of his earnings. Not a typical financial arrangement, but it allows the student to not have to pay a "faceless institution."Yet the ingenuity is not enough to confront the complex situation our country faces. We need systemic reform.
President Obama is attempting to push the conversation forward but it is difficult. The politics of today is poisonous. Any common sense discussion of reform is pushed to the side for partisan attacks.
My approach would be three-fold, if I had the ability to effectuate policy change. First, there needs to be a different metric in tying federal aid to secondary education. I agree with President Obama that costs and graduation rates need to be factors in assessing the school's eligibility. Second, I would initiate broad economic reforms to spur middle-income growth, i.e. a real progressive tax, corporate tax holiday to bring back cash to the United States, increase the minimum wage, and implement means-testing to entitlements, among other things.
Finally, I would make every college student take a philosophy course, which will probably mean that there will be a new "worthless" college degrees list for the author...Perhaps students will find personal value in their degrees, not just monetary value. A man can dream right?
Every so often I can expect the same article from an online news website: don't bother earning these college degrees. With a cringe on my face, I read it every time, already anticipating what I will read. I am never disappointed after I read it- the author loves to knock philosophy majors.
The whole idea of a college degree is to receive a return on your investment. Or so says the author whose name appears below the advertisement for the online for-profit school.
There is a problem with treating a college degree like a mutual fund. Learning should be for the sake of learning. Studying American history or calculating probabilities should not be a security deposit for the chance to work on Wall Street. Not everything in this world has to be about increasing your assets and lowering your liabilities.
I always want to point out to the author, being the antagonist that I am, that two of the wealthiest men on Wall Street also happen to be philosophy majors, i.e. Carl Icahn and George Soros. Their combined net worth could pay for 1,000,000 "worthless" college degrees.
Putting aside my education soliloquy, we all know that a college degree is important. It gives individuals the ability to pursue their dreams, whatever those dreams may be. A person with a college degree has a better opportunity to secure a career and earn a higher wage. Thus, a college education can help a person realize his or her goals.
Financing a college education is another story, however. Unfortunately for millions of Americans, the cost of a college education is rising astronomically. It does not help that median incomes have been stagnant. Since 2009, the median income in our country has decreased 4.4%, while productivity has continued to rise.
Inequality, both in income and access to education, will widen as college becomes more unaffordable. We are starting to see the effects: low-income students are not being represented at selective universities. Only 34% of high-achieving students in low-income brackets went on to an elite school, while 78% of students in the high-income bracket did.
For low-income families, an obvious conundrum falls into their lunch pails. How does one pay for a college education, does it mean that one has to forgo purchasing a home or saving for retirement? The answer: student loans.
Because of the difficulty in paying out-of-pocket for a college education, it has become necessary to borrow to attend. Student loans now account for $1.2 trillion of our national debt. That is 6% of the overall outstanding debt. It is becoming a problem for everyone.
When a student finally graduates from college, they now have the burden of having to start their life deep in debt. The outcomes of this tragic phenomena is less entrepreneurship and less of a willingness to take risks. Of course, that will decrease the chances of having another Steve Jobs or Elon Musk. How does one move on an innovative idea when they cannot even afford to make the May installment payment? Again, the costs of higher education will become a problem for our future generations.
I become enthused when I see prospective students taking initiative to find ways to pay for college. One program allows individuals to invest into a student with the student later paying the investor a portion of his earnings. Not a typical financial arrangement, but it allows the student to not have to pay a "faceless institution."Yet the ingenuity is not enough to confront the complex situation our country faces. We need systemic reform.
President Obama is attempting to push the conversation forward but it is difficult. The politics of today is poisonous. Any common sense discussion of reform is pushed to the side for partisan attacks.
My approach would be three-fold, if I had the ability to effectuate policy change. First, there needs to be a different metric in tying federal aid to secondary education. I agree with President Obama that costs and graduation rates need to be factors in assessing the school's eligibility. Second, I would initiate broad economic reforms to spur middle-income growth, i.e. a real progressive tax, corporate tax holiday to bring back cash to the United States, increase the minimum wage, and implement means-testing to entitlements, among other things.
Finally, I would make every college student take a philosophy course, which will probably mean that there will be a new "worthless" college degrees list for the author...Perhaps students will find personal value in their degrees, not just monetary value. A man can dream right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)