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.

$234,000,000,000

Jews were persecuted, needed a homeland and protection. As a result the US taxpayers have given approximately $234,000,000,000 to Israel since 1954. The current US Deficit is $18,000,000,000,000, aid to Israel over the years would be 1% of that number.

Look at it another way. According to the 2012 US Census there were 44,456,009 African American in the US, some of whom are descendants of slaves. Jim Crow laws were in effect in the US well into the 1960's, perhaps reparations could be paid to African Americans for the ills they have endured. Based on the current population and the amount of money we gave to Israel, a similar gesture would result in $5263.64 for each African American counted in the census.

One population was persecuted by Europeans and others, the other enslaved by Americans for a few centuries. Just food for thought...

As Promised (A Brief Perspective of the Middle Eastern Conflict)

*** These are just my views based on my own reading and research and may not be complete***

Now that the disclaimer is out of the way, I think that the first point is to recognize that the word I used was perspective of the conflict not the history of it. I did this on purpose because a term like "history" implies some sort of factual accuracy and I think with a situation as complicated as the one in the Middle East it is more accurate to call it what it is, my perspective.

So, a long long time ago the area that is Israel/Palestine was a Jewish Kingdom. Then over the course of a thousand years the land changed hands, belonging to different kingdoms and empires. Skip forward a few hundred years and you arrive in the 20th century. The area now recognized as Israel was under a British Mandate. Some of you have heard the argument that Israel has always been Jewish land, well here is where it gets interesting. By most accounts the population in the Israel/Palestine region at beginning of the 20th century was overwhelmingly non Jewish. Jews made up less than 5% of the population at that time, the total population of Jews in the region at the time was south of a 100,000 people. By comparison there were over 6 million Jews in Europe. Many of these Jews because of the situation in Europe (Nazi Germany, etc...) migrated to the region. What was once a majority Non-Jewish population started to change with the influx of Jewish migrants who largely migrated illegally. Take a second and let that sink in.

By most accounts the region was mostly non-Jewish as late as 1945. In 1948 upon the departure of the British, the Israeli Declaration of Independence was read, declaring the formation of a Jewish State. The US and Soviet Republic immediately recognized Israel as a state. Many Arab states did not. War ensued with certain surrounding Arab nations and Israel ultimately came out the victor. Boundary disputes continued over the next few years and are still continuing today. Gaza and the West Bank were territories that remained under Israeli control, but treated as Palestinian territories. In the coming decades Jewish settlers began to settle into these territories as well and under the protection of Israeli military expanded their control over certain areas.

I could continue elaborating, but even though it is a very truncated, abridged perspective. I think it gives a slightly more complete picture than things I have read. Now for the true "perspective" part.

Think of it from the Arab and Palestinian perspective for a second. Jews were driven out of Europe in droves, those Jews settled in a land that had a large Palestinian population, and upon the Jewish declaration of independence European counties and the US recognized Israel as a country. Over the next few decades the United States provided the state of Israel over a $100 Billion in aid, Israel expanded its claims by setting up settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, Israel was allowed to get nuclear weapons (they have over 80 warheads by most estimates... oh and Iraq has none), etc... Meanwhile the Palestinians weren't compensated for their loss, or at a minimum given their own right of self-determination. Instead they live in largely occupied territories with no control over their naval access, or their airspace. They can't freely move in out of Gaza or the West Bank. What do you expect them to do? 

Now to Hamas, I have heard a lot about on television from Israeli commentators that if Hamas had the ability to, they would wipe out Israel. First, I am not sure if that is actually the case, but think about it for a second. Hamas is a military/political organization that has never recognized Israel as a sovereign nation. What should their message to their people be? Sorry your land was taken but it is now owned by someone else. Hamas is a terrorist organization and the way they conduct themselves is atrocious. But if you come into someone’s home, take it by force, move them to the outhouse, and then lay claims to parts of the outhouse as well, the people you forced out might react a little angrily.

The Jews deserve a homeland, they deserve to feel safe, to not feel persecuted and attacked. Having said that Jews were not persecuted by Palestinians, they were persecuted by Nazi Germany, and other fascist nations, including some Arab ones (Iraq), so why do the Palestinians have to pay the price for the sins of others. What was their crime? The argument today is that Hamas (which by the way is not synonymous with Palestinian) does not want Israel to exist and that is the crime for which Palestinian's are being attacked. Jews kicked Palestinians out of their homes and land and their crime is that a terrorist organization is fighting to get their homes and land back?

I understand that the viewpoints above are my own perspective of what has happened and many people may disagree with my observations. I also am aware that some of the views may seem offensive to some people. It is not my intent to offend anyone, just simply to provide my own view. I invite anyone whether you agree or disagree to post comments of your views below. Only thing I ask is that you attempt to keep the comments constructive. I understand that some of my view may themselves not pass muster as constructive, but I tried...

"Outsiders"

What is going on in Gaza today is frightening, horrifying and truly sad. Over the last few days and weeks if any of you have a Facebook (FB) page you have seen posts like this, or perhaps this, or maybe even this, or a myriad of other posts. The saddest part about all of this is the five camps of people that I see forming as a result of the recent increase in hostilities: (1) The Pro Israel camp; (2) the Pro Palestine camp (3) people who are too afraid to say anything; (4) people who think they don't know enough; and  (5) people who just don't care.

Group 5 will always be a part of the world we live in. There will always be people who just don't care, who cannot be bothered to worry about the plight of others in certain situations. It is easy to find the lack of compassion to be disheartening, but one hard look in the mirror and we may all find ourselves a little troubled by our own lack of "compassion." How else does it make sense that we live in wonderful homes, wear great clothing, eat great food, while millions in the world don't even have clean water... For my part, I think we are all drawn to issues for different reasons, and some people are drawn to more issues than others. I myself, am guilty of ignoring many issues, so I accept Group 5 as a reality of the world we live in and understand that I too am a part of that group.

I often feel like a member of Group 4. There is so much to know and in my opinion not a whole lot of resources. I just note, that in a conflict so complicated very few people "know enough."

I sympathize with  Group 3. I have been wanting to write something like this for days, but haven't because I was afraid to appear insensitive or to offend people, or to make people think differently of me. I found myself wondering, how any perceived Pro Israeli comments would be taken by my friends? how Pro Palestinian comments would be taken by other friends? Is it okay to not pick a side? Is is okay to pick a side? I am not sure I have the answers to those questions, but after yet another myriad of posts on FB this morning, I decided to write this anyways.

Now for Groups 1 and 2. I understand that for some people there are personal reasons for being a part of one camp or the other. Some have seen personal family in the conflict and others have very committed ties to the underlying politics of the situation, people I think of as insiders. For those that are close to the conflict it seems fair to assume that their biases are real and that their opinions however subjective are justified.

However, I don't think that being of the Muslim faith or of the Jewish faith makes you an insider. To the doctoral resident in the US, or the investment banker who have a new found interest in posting videos like the ones mentioned above, I simply would like to request that you be judicious in what you post.We all know that civilians are dying, but posting gruesome images of that does not add anything positive to the discussion. Neither does posting the founding decree of Hamas.

In my opinion, to find an ultimate resolution to this conflict will continue to be difficult. The relentless screaming and blaming from "outsiders" is certainly not going to help the insiders reach a resolution. I am not an expert on the issue, but I hope to follow this post with a follow up on my own history of the conflict as I understand it. Hopefully from a more level perspective. If any people have specific questions or thoughts that they think I should address or explore, please let me know. Thank you for reading.

Hobby Lobby (Why the decision bothers me)

I own a corporation and don't want to be forced to provide contraceptives through a health insurance program because abortion is against my religion.

I own a corporation and don't want to be forced to fund wars through my taxes because killing is against my religion.

The government mandates providing health insurance and paying taxes. If corporations can use religion to restrict what health insurance programs can include, I  struggle to see why they can't use the same argument to restrict what programs taxes can pay for.

"Why I’ll Never Apologize for my White Male Privilege"

A friend mentioned an article in Times that was published recently. She was quick to point out that I would likely be riled up by it (she was right). The original article was published in the Princeton Tory, described on the website as a journal of conservative and moderate thought.

Let me start first with some general observations, this article was written by a white 18/19 year old freshman at an elite Ivy League institution who has worked really hard to get there. The previous sentence in a race blind world should read something like "this article seems to have been written by a 18/19 year old..." you get the point. This kid, most kids that get into Ivy League schools work hard to get where they are. In his case he is constantly told that somehow his path was easier, "check your privilege." However implicitly true that may be, he doesn't feel like he had it easy, he gave up nights out, studied hard, did all the right things to get to where he is, not to mention he doesn't feel like he comes from "privilege". It wasn't handed to him by any means. So he wrote an article which was titled "Checking My Privilege: Character as the Basis of Privilege", the title was later changed by Time Magazine unbeknownst to Tal Fortang.

It is easy to bash the article written by Tal, but we may want to take a second and remind ourselves that this is an article written by a 18/19 year old college freshman. I am a South Asian American and I remember being a freshman at UCLA and wanting to tell the world that I was different. Although, I didn't feel the need to "check my privilege," I did feel the desire to point out that I wasn't privileged. Unlike a lot of my South Asian counterparts, my parents didn't run successful businesses, weren't doctors, engineers, simply put we weren't wealthy. I took massive loans to pay for school, and I worked full time almost through my entire undergraduate degree to be able to afford things. So when I was bundled in those statistics about being the "super minority" etc... I always cringed. My family moved to the US when I was 12 we adjusted, got lucky, I luckily made the right friends, and yes... "I worked hard" to get in to a good college. It wasn't handed to me.

The difference between Tal and I is that I cringed but that is as far as it went. I understood, that in general the statistics were true, that South Asians were "privileged," that we were the super minority. I also understood that although my journey may have seemed tougher to me than some of my other South Asian counterparts, it could not be compared to the journey of other minorities. Maybe I understand that now as a 35 year old and didn't then. Maybe I just got lucky because I didn't sit down then to write an article about my story. The fact is I didn't and Tal did. It is not about Tal being "privileged," it is about something bigger than him. As someone on a post to his article stated, Tal be happy you won the "genetic lottery," you were born white. I am not sure Tal should spend a lifetime apologizing for having won that lottery, but writing about it in the manner that he did seems a lot like the 1% complaining about feeling persecuted by the media.

Tal... like it or not, a girl walking in a dark alley is likely to feel more afraid if a black Princeton freshman of your size and built is walking towards her then you. Until that changes, you will have to at least recognize that a difference exists, that you won the "genetic lottery," and at the least not gloat...

You get the picture...

Meet Joe, he wants to lower taxes, increase defense spending, cut entitlements, starve the government in a bath tub (Grover Norquist), protect your ability to own a semi automatic rifle, treat corporations as people, doesn't think elections can be corrupted by money, does not believe in climate change, thinks banks are over regulated, wants to repeal Obamacare, does not want to extend unemployment insurance, ... you get the picture.

Meet Mark, he thinks taxes should be fair, that our defense system should be strong, and that our entitlements should not burden future generations He believes that our government is way too big (largest employer in the country), believes in our Constitution and will help uphold it even if he may disagree with portions of it at times. He thinks that courts should not get to pick and choose when corporations are treated as people, and agrees that elections can be corrupted by money but not $5200 at a time. He thinks climate is changing and it always has, but is just not convinced the proposed methods for effecting change will work (97% of scientists, do not agree on how to solve the problem). He thinks our current system of regulation is ludicrous. Dodd-Frank has resulted in over 14000 pages of regulations and all that seems to have changed is that there will be a greater need for lawyers and accountants for years to come. He wants a system of health care that works and thinks there isn't proof that Obamacare does, he is worried before long Obamacare will become like every other entitlement program that we can never change. He is all for extending unemployment insurance but wants the extension to be meaningful and actually work, more importantly he thinks we need to fix unemployment not unemployment insurance, ... you get the picture.

It is easy to hate Joe and even outright ignore him. I may disagree with the Mark, but can certainly have a real conversation with him. All too often our politics have become a team sport (as I have mentioned before) and we don't have intelligent conversations. Instead, we reduce the thoughts of an intelligent person we disagree with, to punchlines. To make progress we need to treat each other with respect and have discussions about: what does fair mean in terms of taxes, how strong is strong enough, how do we balance future versus present needs, how the government can be more efficient... you get the picture.

We should be worried

This post may strike some as alarmist and it is not my intent to make things seem bad. They really aren't that bad, but I do think we should be worried. Here are just a couple of reasons why.

1. Inept Leadership
2. Income Inequality 

Inept Leadership 

The leadership of this country seems inept. This is not a knock on our President or on Congress for that matter. I voted for President Obama and am generally not a fan of Congress. The real issue for me, is not about the people but about the structure. What do I mean? Well lets take this example. You really want a job. You network and do all the right things and a year later land the job. It was a long road but you are finally here and ecstatic about it. Are you not going to do everything in your power to hold on to the job? 

Oh you are, well isn't that what Congress is doing. They fight to get elected and are doing their best to keep their job. There in lies the issue I think, keeping your job has nothing to do with being a "good" Congress person. And what is good anyways. If you are elected from a really liberal district or a really conservative one, isn't voting to reflect the interests of you constituents make you a "good" Congress person. With districts being drawn to make them all primarily Democrat or Republican, we have made it structurally impossible for compromise to occur. You don't believe me, what logic is there to the 40th California Congressional district being drawn this way. That is just one example there are many more. The second issue structurally is the Citizens United Case and campaign finance issues. The influence of money is politics is apparent, the ruling just seems to have made it worse... I am barely versed on the topic but it does cause me pause. 

Income Inequality 

Income Inequality is something we should all think about. I have had this conversation with people on a few occasions and it has rarely been an articulate one. Somebody points out the rich are getting richer and the poor are worse off. Another person points out that the rich play plenty in taxes and 50% of Americans receive some form of government aid. Empirically I agree that there is validity to both claims. The richest 1% of Americans by some accounts own 40% of the country's wealth, and with the myriad of government programs out there it doesn't seem surprising that half of America gets aid in some way or form from the government. 

What worries me is that we don't ask ourselves often enough why income equality matters. Yes we want everyone to have stuff, and be want to be good people etc... But really, why as a society outside of altruism should we care about income equality. Society should care because it allows the rich to stay rich. If the masses are happy then they aren't so concerned about the uber rich. If they aren't, the story can change. I am not suggesting that we are anywhere near a revolution or anything remotely close to that. But if we continue on the same track we have been on, it could certainly be problematic. 

I could go on about either or both of these issues, but really just wanted to quickly touch on some things that I feel often escape our radars. At least in the manner presented here. Thanks for reading. 

Who to ask, What to say...

To each his own.
We all bitch and moan...
Life stands by for no one
threads of life slowly undone
unwound, lost looking for the right way
who to ask, what to say...
The answers lie in the inquiry
don't sit around and let life be.
Take it by the horn and steer it in the direction
that you wish to achieve when you look at your reflection...

15 Reasons chiropractors should date lawyers

A friend posted this about Chiropractors. What can I say, I was inspired. ;)

1. A lawyer has a great mind. Enough said.
2. Lawyers know how to think outside the box, and accept that there is more to life than meets the eye.
3. It takes entrepreneurial nerve and skill to manage a successful legal practice.
4. Those in a “taking profession” like lawyers usually lack empathy, compassion, and need to be nurtured—qualities that go a long way towards making them a perfect fit for you.
5. It takes more than linear reliance on facts and figures to succeed as a lawyers—it requires intuition.
6. A successful lawyer must be a good listener—an essential skill among great lovers as well.
7. Do you believe the root cause of a problem is not always immediately obvious? A lawyer may agree with you it all depends on the underlying facts... etc...
8. Lawyers are probably afraid of physical intimacy but willing to learn and you of course are willing to help.
9. Lawyers care about the health and well-being of their clients and yours, if you happen to be their client.
10. Lawyers have horrible posture and could use all the help they can get.
11. He or she is trained to see the big picture and avoid oversimplification.
12. Lawyers know the importance of balance and alignment in life and could use all the help in the world in acheiveing it.
13. Lawyers have spent years convincing you of their training, which demonstrates persistence and dedication—always good qualities to look for in a potential partner.
14. Someone who chooses a career in lawyer is a masochist and welcomes criticism.
15. Got an annoying client problem? You know who to call.

My Solution

I have a simple solution. Let me make sure we first agree on some facts. The Republicans and the Tea Party hate taxes, they hate government (Grover Norquist once famously said that he wanted to drown the government in his bath tub), they want government out of their hair and they love their liberties. Any arguments so far? No... okay well here is what I suggest.

Here is a link to a past post called secession. The gist of it is that red states take more from the federal government than they pay in. The information simply shows that the blue states are givers and the red states are takers. So far the blue states have been patient and willing to give. If you are going to hold the government hostage than as constituents of red states you have the right to be free of that government.

The solution as I see it, is that we allow each state to vote on constitutional amendments outlining the following steps

1. The residents of any state that votes for the amendments gets a phaseout on federal taxes. 33% cut this year, 66% the next down to 0%. No federal taxes.

2. The federal government stops spending federal dollars in those states based on a phaseout 33% less this year, 66% less next year.. you get the point 

3. No Obamacare, no medicare, no medicaid, no social security nothing after three years. The states Any current red state resident has to wait nine years before they can get residency in a state that did not vote for the amendment.(To keep some states from having to take in all the "takers" from the other states) 

4. No EPA, FDA, FAA, etc... after three years. After all private companies are better in the minds of republicans they can tax their own residents and pay them. 

5. The federal government will simply bill the states that opt out of taxes proportionally based on population for defense and border patrol costs which the states can pay from their own budgets. 

Republicans specially tea party members should be jumping at this idea. It gives them everything they want total and complete freedom from the "government and taxes." 

( Yes what is above is silly, but the House of Republicans(certainly does not seem representative to me)  tried over 40 times to kill a bill that has already passed and is now law, which the Supreme Court upheld. When none of that worked they forced a government shut down, and now are threatening the country with default... and I seem silly???)  [***2016 addition, and now the Republican Party's front runner is Donald Trump, and I seem silly???***]

Some Stats

Saw something that made me wonder. It is pretty clear what side of the aisle I tend to lean on. Rather than write a long blog about what I believe etc... I thought it might be interesting to just throw out some statistics

Top Income Tax Rates (adjusting for inflation)

1965 70% on any income over $1.42 Million
2011 38% on any income over $388,000

Unemployment Rate
1970 - 4%
2013 - 7%

Poverty Rate

1965 - 15%
2013 - 15%

Top 1 % (Wealth)

1970 - 24%
2013 - 40%

Reducing taxes creates jobs which should in turn decrease poverty. Heard that one before? Obviously this is simplifying it but it would seem to me the rich have gotten richer. The poor... well they are still poor. Jobs well we have fewer of those oh and they pay less in real dollars than in the past. Oh and tax brackets haven't dropped for everyone in real dollars people in the 70's who made over $388,000 would have probably paid 38 % on that income but as they made far over that amount they paid a higher percentage. The only change is the really rich don't pay like they used to. The current distribution is more like feudal times where a few lords make most of the money and own everything... It's not corporations its the 1% that owns 50% of the shares of those corporations.

Congress should be fired... period. ALL OF THEM Pt. 2

The first part was in relation to a practical concern, Student Loans. Intelligent people I am sure could disagree on that, not sure that is the case this time.

Take a ride with me for a second. I propose that we all start a company. Like other corporations we will be run by a Board of Directors and the board will have ultimate corporate authority. I propose we hire employees pay them less than other private sector employees but give them all excellent benefits, hours etc... To finance our operations we will be taking on a significant amount of debt (corporations do this all the time). Next I propose we charge our customers what they think is fair, not what we think it costs for our services/products. Fast forward a few years. Over the last few years we have been losing money every year, and there are no positive projections in sight. In their ultimate wisdom a minority of the directors have held on tooth and nail to get their point across. About once a year this minority forces the doors of our business to be closed and our employees to go without pay. Along with the shutdown the minority refuses to approve any corporate resolutions. The accounting department has recommended the resolutions are pretty much the only way to keep from defaulting on our debt.

What happens to these directors? My guess, besides being fired some of them would probably face lawsuits for breaches of fiduciary duty, etc...

Now back to reality. Welcome to America. We have a Board of Directors (Congress) The government is the single largest employer in the country. We certainly have a whole lot of debt. We keep having tax cuts (Bush era and otherwise) and our services keep costing more (Healthcare, Medical etc...). The fast forward part, since Clinton left office we have blown through our surplus and have an unprecedented level of debt. In their wisdom the Republicans think its a good idea for us to have shutdowns. Yet again it seems the government will shut down. Oh and their is the looming prospect of the Republicans refusing to raise the debt ceiling. And yes the Republicans are a minority stake, they lost the Presidency and the Senate. The Congressional Budget Office and Treasury have recommended raising the ceiling but that doesn't seem to matter to the Republicans. Default and shutdowns are their way of holding on and getting their point across.

To my Republican friends I have a few admittedly redundant questions.

Are Republicans the party of business?

Is playing with the debt ceiling and default good for business?

Is a shutdown good for the economy?

When a company is running in deficit, they explore increasing revenue and decreasing expenses. Why does that seem so foreign to Republicans?

Lastly Democrats in Congress, you don't get off that easy either. If while in power you can't get the other side to work with you, or legislate with you then you are failing at your job. In case you were wondering legislating is your job. 

Ms. America

I will get into more detailed thoughts but for now...

So this whole Miss America thing is obviously crazy but its amazing how many South Asians are all of a sudden bothered. Seems we are a lot more bothered because she is Indian...? I mean none of my Indian friends congratulated the last Ms. America and I think she was "American" too. The constant celebratory messages for her success are understandable but are we celebrating the fact that she is American or that she is South Asian...