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...
4.08.2014
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.
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.
2.03.2014
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.
- Inept Leadership
- 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.
1.07.2014
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...
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...
11.25.2013
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.
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.
10.07.2013
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)