I do not understand...

It seems for the first time in my adult life that most personal conversations surround politics, and people on both sides (me included) are unable to listen to the other side. I now try to read Fox News everyday, listen to Patriot radio, and scour the feeds of a few individuals on FB who I believe will help me understand the view from the other side. I have to say, I do not understand the view from the other side when it comes to the situation in Charlotesville. I am not sure why Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and many other Republicans have not called our President out by name. This seems to be a clear opportunity to protect the office and not the man... Perhaps I am failing to understand the whole situation and all that has gone on, but here are a few things I think I may have wrapped my head around.

1. Everyone has the right to free speech. I may not like the speech but they have the right to it, never the less. As far as I know, even "hate speech" is protected unless such speech incites violence.

2. One side may have had a permit, though I have not been able to verify if the other side didn't or more importantly if in that public space a permit was even required.

3. At the risk of sounding cocky, I consider myself to be a relatively fine individual, if I find myself in the company of individuals yelling demeaning slogans about people of other races, color, sexuality, etc... I would at a minimum, walk away.

4. On questions of morality and ethics there are often gray areas. I often think of it as a bell curve. Certain things are definitely wrong, certain things definitely right and certain things are somewhere in the ambiguous middle/grey area as we sometime call it. I must be mistaken, but in my mind there is nothing ambiguous about whether white supremacists are bad, they are. I must be mistaken about this as well, but in my mind there is however at least a slight ambiguity about whether the groups on the other side in Charlottesville are bad. In such circumstances, I do not understand the defense of "many sides" or the equivalency that creates.

5. In regards to the confederate statues: George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were slave owners, and General Lee arguably fought to protect the right to own slaves. I guess I must be mistake about the difference, because I believe the former two helped found our great nation while the latter was the leader of an army that was trying to secede from our great nation. This too is another equivalency I do not understand...

I encourage people to please leave comments, even if you disagree. I know many of us have a lot to say and I hope this medium helps people say it. Also comments are a way for me to gauge if people are actually reading and if it means anything to them. If so, I will venture to posts more things and start more conversations. =)

Just the beginning...

If the Republican candidate for president loses. In my opinion, him and the Republican party are unlikely to concede and unlikely to step away from the process, as past losing candidates and parties have. Already a number of Republican Senators have stated that if Hillary Clinton wins, they will block any Supreme Court nomination for the next four years. On the other hand, I am not sure I have heard one Democratic Senator say they would block nominations if Mr. Trump was to win. I am sure Fox News ("Republican News") has multiple reports that suggest otherwise. Of course Republican News and facts do not necessarily go hand in hand, but then again when the candidate the Republican party wants us to elect for President boasts about grabbing woman by the ... and lies vociferously, then we have to give Republican News a pass for their lower standards regarding the truth.

Jokes aside, this election results will likely not bring any closure for the country. Instead if Hilary wins, as most polls suggest, I suspect we will see an even more anti democratic, and anti compromise Republican party. After a long arduous election cycle, we have to remind ourselves to not get complacent going forward. As long as the Republican party continues to cater to the Ted Cruz's, Grover Norquist's, and the Tea Party platform, we have to be aware that Donald Trump is merely the beginning of similar Republican candidates to come. Republicans can scream otherwise till they are "blue" in the face, but Donald Trump is the Republican party of the future... The establishment party that they speak of has long been gone...

I have issues with Hillary Clinton and it is not because she is a woman...

Lots has been written throughout this primary season about people not liking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman. I am sure there is some truth to the sentiment, but I think there is more to it then than. If Elizabeth Warren were running, I am not sure people would have the same reaction. Here are few things that give me pause about Mrs. Clinton:

1. Whitewater
2. Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones…
3. Benghazi
4. Email Server
5. Her coziness with Wall Street
6. Her positions on Iraq
7. Her general stance on defense
8. Her position on Israel (especially in comparison to Bernie Sanders)
9. Her ability to “change” her mind on any position based on the current climate.

I am not saying any one of these things is a detractor, but taken as a whole it just makes me not trust her. Not because she is a woman, but because her past is littered with examples of her shifting positions.

In addition Mrs. Clinton, is a former first lady and in her first time running for President she lost to a no name Senator from Illinois, this time she is in a battle with a no name Senator from Vermont. She has ultimate name recognition but can’t defeat challenges from relative lightweights. That does not instill confidence in me for her to be the parties nominee.

I will support her in the general election because I still prefer her over Ted Cruz, Donald Trump etc… I consider myself a relatively liberal person and if I have so many things about Hillary Clinton that give me pause, what will independents think about her…

Minimum Wage

“How can 22% of the US Children be living in poverty, while we have a 5% unemployment rate, and a federal minimum wage?”

Saw this facebook post earlier, and it just irked me a bit. 

Per the federal poverty guidelines a family of 4, is poor if they make below $24,250. A husband and wife making “federal” minimum wage where one parent works full time and the other works part time (20 hours a week), would make $21,750. So they would be both poor and gainfully employed.

Oh and that is assuming all states pay “federal” minimum wage (yes you guessed it not always  the case). In Georgia the minimum wage is $5.15. There a husband and wife who both work 40 hours a week at a “state” minimum wage job would make $20,600, and would be considered poor per the federal standards. That seems mind boggling. In my opinion, at its baseline two gainfully full-time employed individuals should not be poor.

The question though is why I or anyone else should care.

Moral Argument

First, there is some moral notion that a family of 4 where 2 parents work full time should at least make enough to not be poor. I mean the numbers to be considered not poor are $24,250 a year for a family of 4… 

Even if the moral point does not persuade you, there is also the economic piece.

Economic Argument

Second there is the economic piece. In today’s system, the employer who pays them $5.15 an hour, is in essence getting a subsidized employee, paid for by federal and state taxes, which are of course paid for by you and me. To make up for the shortfall you and I (tax payers) pay for the minimum wage employees healthcare subsidies, food subsidies, etc… while the employer is rewarded with greater profits. Here is one example of how that would work...

Food Stamp Subsidy - cost to Employer ($0) cost to taxpayer ($6,230 per year) 

Average per month per person food stamp subsidy in Georgia is $129.78. Multiply that by four (family of four) and then by 12 (annual) and you get $6,230 per year for a family of four.

Medicare Spending - cost to Employer ($0) cost to taxpayer ($12,404)

Estimated Medicaid spending per adult in Georgia in 2011(likely higher now) per year was $4174 and per child was $2,028. In our scenario annually that would be $12,404 (2 adults and 2 kids).

Not taking other subsidies into account that means that per family of four you and I provide subsidies of $18,634 per year. This I would argue is providing a subsidized work force to those employers that pay such a low wage. 

There are an estimated 103,000 people in Georgia that get paid at or below minimum wage. Assuming that a meager 5% of the 103,000 fit the scenario we have described above of two working adults with two kids, we can take the number down to 5,150. Based on two working adults per family we could cut that number in half to 2,575 families. For the 2,575 families with an annual family subsidy of $18,634, we provide $47,982,550 in profits to the shareholders of those employers by way of subsidies. That is of course only for the people that fit the four person family model, that live in Georgia and does not take into account the other subsidized employees in Georgia or nationwide, that we provide for these employers.

Current State of Affairs...

I can only speak for myself, but the last few weeks have been very uncomfortable as a Muslim. A couple of weeks ago, my sister had a run in at the local Home Depot where a man screamed that no Muslim should get service before her, she left the experience pretty shaken up. In the same week, a person on a bicycle said "Hey ISIS" as he rode by a group of us standing in a parking lot dressed in South Asian clothing. Now the leading Republican candidate calls for a ban on all Muslims traveling into the country...

The response from many in the Republican party has been to say he doesn't represent my Republican party. I hate to say it but he does exactly that, represent your Republican Party. He is leading your polls, has been a part of every debate sponsored by your Republican party, and he is running as a candidate from your Republican party.

The rhetoric from the Republican party does not make me anymore comfortable. You know what would, if people stopped clinging to their allegiance to the Republican Party and simply said, I am no longer Republican. I am not a Republican myself, but as a Democrat if the statements from the leading candidate from my party were so far from what I believed, the decision would be simple... Cruz, Bush, Trump, Rubio have all made anti-muslim or anti-refugee statements. Perhaps Trump is not from your Republican Party but what about the rest?

Kobe Bryant

            The NBA season just started and there has been a lot of conflict surrounding Kobe Bryant. Kobe Bryant (36) stands to make $23,500,000 dollars this year, making him the highest paid player in the league this year. By comparison Lebron James (29) will make $20,644.000 and Dirk Nowitzki (36) will make $7,974,482.

            Beyond the salary numbers I was interested in comparing Kobe's numbers versus Jordan and Lebron (chart below). Kobe has played for 19 years versus 15 for Jordan and 11 so far for Lebron. Based on totals the categories Kobe Bryant leads in are Assists and Turnovers. In 15 years MJ scored more total points than Kobe in 19, had more rebounds, almost 700 more steals, and 250 more blocks. Based on his current averages if Lebron were to play 15 years not 19, he would have 8,299 rebounds, 7,895 assists, 1,969 steals, 920 blocks, and 3,811 turnovers. That means at the 15 year mark Lebron will have approximately 1800 more rebounds, 2800 more assists, 150 more steals, 300 more blocks, and 60 more turnovers. 

             Kobe Bryant is a phenomenal basketball player but at least statistically not MJ or Lebron, which begs the question if at age 36 the Lakers were wise to make him the highest paid player in the league. I am all for being loyal to your players, but shouldn’t they be loyal to their team. For example, Dirk is the fourth highest paid player on the Mavericks this year. He is obviously not a Kobe Bryant, but still. I included his career stats below for kicks. 

            Here is another interesting thing to note Career FGA: Kobe Bryant 24391; Michael Jordan 24537; Lebron James 16764; Dirk Nowitzki 19759. Kobe scores 1.30 pts per attempt, by comparison Jordan’s pts per attempt were 1.31, Lebron’s pts per attempt are 1.38 and Dirk’s pts per attempt are 1.35. Anyone have any thoughts. 

Name                 Yrs   FG%  3p%    2p%    Ft%    RB      Ast      Stl        Blk      TO      Ttl Pts

Kobe Bryant      19     0.453   0.335   0.483   0.838   6604    5927    1836    620      3754    31719

Michael Jordan  15      0.497   0.327   0.51     0.835   6672    5633    2514    893      2924    32292

Lebron James     11     0.497   0.341   0.535   0.747   6086    5790    1444    675      2795    23170

Dirk Nowitzki    16     0.476   0.383   0.499   0.879   9600    3141    1038    1095    2209    26804

$359,000 for the lawyer, $1000 for the claimant

Yes you read the headline correctly, the lawyers got $359,000 and the victim got $1000. Here is an article about the case. I know none of the underlying facts of the case beyond what is in the article, so I won't go into why the claimant got only a $1000. But, based on the article I picked up two things that may be of some import here about the legal fees in the case.

1. $100,000 of it was expenses, which have to be outlined and justified to the Court. This is money the lawyers paid over the course of the trial out of their pocket (including court filing fee, costs for depositions, discovery costs, etc...), and if they had lost would likely not recover.

2. The case took six years. The attorneys worked for six years again knowing that if they did not win or reach a settlement they might not get paid for their time.

I am curious how many accountants, consultants, doctors, etc... would spend $100,000 of their own money on someone else' behalf in the hopes of getting reimbursed. Further how many of these same professionals would work and wait for six years to actually get paid.

Also, just as a note the lawyers got paid $259,000 in fees over a six year span. It would not be surprising for them to have spent a 1000 hours over that span, less than 200 hours a year on the case. Based on the 1000 hour scenario they charged $259/hr. That is what they charged an hour not what they took home by any means. What do accountants, consultants, doctors, etc... charge per hour?

It is insane that the victim got only a $1000, and the lawyers got $359,000. That does not point to the character of the attorneys but is certainly a problem with the legal system. A system that is not designed by lawyers but by legislatures, that the public voted for. The lawyers simply got paid for the work they did.