Buffett Rule Defeated

Today Republicans defeated a Democrat-backed piece of legislation that required millionaires (literally, people making more than a million dollars/year) to pay a minimum income tax of 30%, which is just about the national average for middle class tax payers.

The legislation came after millionaire Warren Buffett announced that his tax rate was lower than his secretary, and that he and other millionaires should pay at least as much as the middle class Americans who pay close to 30%. Tens of thousands of wealthy Americans are paying a lower percent of their income to taxes than their middle class neighbors. This is possible because it is easy to mix and match capital gains and avoid taxes, legally. The more money you have the more you can mix and match.

Apparently, Republicans are very comfortable slashing Medicare (see the recent budget they pushed through the House) and most recently eminent GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney announced his plans to combine or totally dissolve federal departments of Education and Housing and Urban Development. The justification for these rash measures is that we are spending too much and have massive debt. If that is the argument, then why not let the mega rich pay the same 30% that most middle class people pay? Why are we burdening the middle class with more taxes so the wealthy can pay less?

Republicans counter that taxes taken from individuals represent less money spent in the economy. They say that increasing any tax would stifle the economy. "Let the rich avoid taxes so we can fuel the economy!" This is the crux of trickle down economics.

The great irony is that even Reagan, the imagined champion of trickle down economics and all things conservative shared the liberals exact same opinion on this issue. Years ago he stomped the nation with a complaint similar to Warren Buffett. Reagan demanded change so that the super-wealthy did not pay a lower percent of their taxes than the middle class. If you don't believe me, check out this well cut video comparing Obama and Reagan's nearly identical please for legislation requiring millionaires to pay equal or more than the middle classes:

So if Reagan and Obama are on the same page, why can't the bill pass? Because politics today is more about who's side you are on than what you believe in. No self-respecting Republican will vote for anything a Democrat suggests. Such a move would be political suicide. Are Democrats any different? I don't know. But what we do know is that in this climate every politician is looking out for themselves and America comes last. If you don't like it, call your local representative and complain, and then maybe for fear of losing their job they will do what is right.

Republicans argue that they are not simply protecting rich people but rather saving

Abortion: Women's Rights and Freedom of Religion

The debates surrounding freedom over one's body vs. rights of the unborn just wont go away. Two weeks ago the debate centered on the Obama health care legislation's clause requiring employer health care insurance to cover the birth control pill. Catholic church officials refused, and would not extend coverage to the many women employed and covered by catholic hospitals, citing freedom of religion. Which is supreme: freedom of religion or women's rights to control their body?

The truth is the two principles need not be in conflict. Women can have the right to control their body and the Catholic church need not pay for it. Both can win. While I do not agree that a medical institution can withhold services based on their faith (imagine women dying in labor because religious hospitals won't terminate a pregnancy or give blood transfusions or do other life-saving measures because it violates their beliefs), I don't think the contraceptives mandate is appropriate either.

I find it even more repulsive that the health care legislation requires any employer--religious or not--to pay for birth control. Since when did a women's right to control her body mean that somebody else (employer) has to pay for her to have recreational sex? If you do not want to get pregnant then abstain or buy a your own contraception. Government should not require that health coverage include this anymore than it should require coverage for the consequences of other personal indulgences (that's right - private companies should be free to make lifetime smokers pay for their tracheotomy, alcoholics pay for their own liver transplant, and the grossly obese to pay for their own diabetes medications).

In the case of the Church vs. the pill, the Obama administration caved to conservative demands and says it will strike out the provision. He is trying to win over moderates while Republicans are still fighting to win the base during the primaries. At any rate, this particular battle seems to have been a conservative victory (except in the eyes of Obama haters who will never be happy and the Conservative News propaganda machines that benefit from stirring something out of nothing).

Still, the issue of women's rights and abortion may not be over yet. Virginia and Oklahoma are now considering laws that would extend "personhood" to all ages, even embryos, in an effort to outlaw abortions. It seems to me that this would not prohibit abortions conducted to save the mothers life (murder in self defense is usually acceptable), but it would make it illegal to abort products of rape and incest--situations I am personally divided on. I hate to make such abortions illegal, but under our current laws we seem way too casual about permitting people to use abortion as a form of contraceptive. Consider that there are between 1 and 1.5 million abortions conducted in the US each year. It might be time to swing the other way and error on the side of saving life instead of extinguishing too many.

Current laws are tied to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, where in the court ruled that abortions fell within the rights of women to control their body up until the point that the fetus was "viable" to survive on its own. This tends to be about 24 weeks (or six months) into the pregnancy. Consequently, women are free to abort anytime before then and boy do they. In the United States we hand out abortions like candy with no justification except that the mother requested it. One website reports that 1% of US abortions occur following incest or rape, 6% due to health problems, and that 93% occur for social reasons (the birth of a child would be inconvenient). I'm no math wizard, but even know that 93% of 1.25 million is a lot of dead embryos/babies each year. The numbers are sickening.

With all this talk about abortion, women's rights, and freedom of religion, we may find that family values makes an unexpected rise in the political bargaining as conservatives and liberals face off in the general election. I'd like to see a socially conservative wave augment the current conservative economic reaction and help boost the GOP into the White House.

Most & Least Literate People

Central Connecticut State University just released a new study of the most & least literate populations in the United States. They looked at all cities with a population over 250,000, and by examining journal & newspaper subscriptions, self-reported use of internet news, booksales, library data, and whatever else, they produced ranking of literacy.

The most literate:

5. Boston

4. Atlanta (I'm very surprised by this one)

3. Minneapolis, MN (I'm a bit surprised on this one)

2. Seatle, WA

1. Washington, DC (the most literate people in America)

The study found (to my surprise) that wealth and literacy are not related. Just because your city has money does not mean that people can read. The author wrote, "Cleveland ranks second lowest for median family income . . . and yet, thanks to its great library system (ranked #1 . . .) and strong newspaper (#6) and magazine (#5) circulations, it is ranked 13th most literate in the survey. On the other hand, Anchorage, AK is ranked 5th in median family income and only 61st in literacy."

Now the fun part. Who are the most illiterate people in America?

73. El Paso, TX

74. Corpus Christi, TX

And the highest rate of illiterate people live in . . .

75. Bakersfield, CA

You can find the entire report and ranking for this year and previous years at: http://www.ccsu.edu/page.cfm?p=11096

Economic Theories: Keynes vs. Hayek

A student recently pointed out these videos to me and I thought some folks might get a kick out it. It is a musical debate over the two main theories that economists use to manage our modern economy. John Maynard Keynes taught that economic crisis could be managed by government infusions of funding that could revitalize a stagnant economy. The lesser known theorist, Friedrich Hayek, argued a more classical liberalism approach. He believed if we left the economy alone it would balance and solve itself (essentially Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory from centuries earlier). The two theorists face off in these two videos.

The original video:

And Round Two:

Reagan: Man vs. Myth

As the GOP moves closer to the primary election we continue to hear praises of Ronald Reagan--the ultimate standard of a good Republican. He is credited with collapsing the the Evil Empire (Communist Soviet Union), with the economic boom of the 1980s (following an economic crisis under Carter), and all around hero of the party. He is a symbol against which all candidates are judged. But what did he actually do? I found myself unable to answer that question, so I did a little reading and thought I'd share it.

I found that Reagan was indeed a fabulous spokesman and the type of man that people want to believe in and definitely follow. A closer look at his presidency reveals that he did not do most of what he is credited with, and that his general lack of involvement permitted his cabinet and administrators to run wild and disturbing scandals followed. Lets look at each of these element of his presidency:

(1) Strong foreign policy, most commonly demonstrated by (a) Iran's release of hostages 20 minutes after Reagan was sworn in, and (b) the collapse of Soviet Russia.

Yes, Iran released hostages just as Reagan was sworn in, and Republicans credit him with scaring the Iranians with threatening language and a bold claim that he would not negotiate. The truth is that Carter is the only one who feared Reagan. He feared Reagan would irresponsibly thrust the US into war, and so one day before Reagan was sworn into office (Jan.19, 1981) Carter caved to the Iranian demands. In this meeting the U.S. agreed to release $7.9 billion in frozen Iranian assets, guaranteed immunity to the terrorists holding our citizens, and promised to stay out of Iranian affairs (just google Algiers Accords for the full text of the agreement). Twenty-four hours later the hostages were released. Reagan had nothing to do with their release.

As for defeating the communists, well, it is a similar situation. Reagan talked big, and he did spend tons of cash on growing the military and new tech, but that is not exactly what collapsed the USSR. At the same time Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbechev was lobbying for liberalization. He used Reagan's militant rhetoric (and unmatch-able military spending) as leverage to help liberalize the country. Reagan's bold statements like "Bring down that wall" helped Gorby to paint the US as an aggressive state and pressure his own party to change. Reagan absolutely helped--he provided Gorbechev the "bad cop" image so that Gorby could be the "good cop" when trying to reform his country. Reagan did help Gorbechev to liberalize the USSR. However, he did not unilaterally defeat the Russians; instead, he provided Gorbechev the insane threat of war that no previous American president was bold enough to threaten. The two men met frequently, as friends, and worked to cut back nuclear weapons while publicly posturing themselves as rivals.

(2) Saved the economy.

After the Johnson's domestic programs and Vietnam bankrupted the country, neither Nixon nor Ford nor Carter could get it back on track. A small but constant recession continued from the late 1960s through the early 1980s, and inflation grew out of control. When Reagan came into office he used his popular support to push through congress a republican sponsored bill that embodied "Reaganomics" or "Trickle-down economics." This idea states that if you cut taxes more people will spend, the economy will grow, and everybody will benefit.

This Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (authored by Jack Kemp of NY and William Roth of DE) was a MAJOR tax cut, and promised to cut taxes by 23% over 3 years. However, the bill did not provide the magic bullet solution that Reagan and Republicans promised; in fact, the economy got worse. Our Gross National Product dropped by 2.5%, unemployment rose above 10%, and the Congressional Budget office anticipated widespread budgetary shortfalls. The only good news was that the heightened economic crisis deflated the inflation that Carter never could control. Americans grew tired of the failed experiment in Reaganomics, and demanded a new approach.

In 1982, CA Democrat Steve Stark authored the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA). It hiked taxes back up and after the bill passed in the democrat controlled house the republican controlled senate added a few more tax increases into the language of the bill. Reagan reluctantly agreed to the tax hikes in exchange for promise from Congress to cut back on future spending. Congress did not cut back, later Democrats and Republicans blamed each other for it (dems said Reagan spent too much on military; Republicans said they spent to much on entitlement programs). In the end, TEFRA constituted one of the largest tax increases in the history of the nation. Also in that year Reagan encouraged the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which deregulated Savings & Loans institutions. It shrunk government and cut bureaucratic oversight, which had a short term benefit of economic growth but ultimately led to financial collapse and a government stimulus of just under $100 billion.

In this environment--government deregulation, stimulus money, expanded military expenditures, and an out of control spending funded by unprecedented taxes--the economy bounced back and expanded. Yes, the economy grew immensely under Reagan, but we need to point out two importance qualifiers. First, while the GNP rose the percent of Americans living below the poverty level (12.75) remained constant from 1980 through the close of Reagan's administration in 1988. Everyday people did not see a significant change in economy, but those who had money did secure even more. Second, the recovery was not an example of Reaganomics/trickle down economics. That little experiential failed and was replaced by modern democrat fiscal policy, and that dominated Reagan's administration. That was the economic climate during which the economy grew--not Reaganomics. In fact, in 1996 a Congressional report found that from 1981-1993 (under the administrations of Reagan and Bush Sr.), the wealthiest 10% of Americans paid a growing percent of the taxes while the poorest 50% paid a shrinking segment.

(3) Poster boy who motivated people but didn't actually do anything, which allowed for utter mismanagement and scandals within his administration.

Reagan was a great speaker, motivator, and rally point. His confidence and absolute surety drew flocks of followers. But when it came to actually doing anything, he tended to just let his cabinet and other administrators do whatever they wanted. He made the big decisions on policy, and then let them carry it out however they wanted. As a result, he could honestly plea ignorant when scandal after scandal occurred during his presidency.

Scandals? Yes, Reagan's administration had more scandals than just about anybody. I don't think Reagan was rotten, just clueless. What do you expect when you hire an actor to be president? He knew he wasn't the smartest man in the room, and simply trusted advisers to run the show. Some made serious mistakes. Here are some of the scandals that occurred during his administration:

• Iran-Contra - illegal sale of weapons by CIA to Iran; funded by CIA dealing with Contras in Nicaragua
• Lobbying scandals - Reagan's chief of staff and press secretary convicted of lying to congress and courts about their illegal lobbying efforts
• EPA Scandal - EPA director and one other administrator convicted of perjury & contempt for misuse of monies
• HUD grant rigging - a half dozen assistant directors in dept. of Interior, as well as the Sec of Interior, convicted of graft & taking bribes
• Inslaw Affair - Dept. of Justice accused of stealing people tracking software developed by Inslaw; Reagan's attorney general refused to prosecute; congress found several in contempt for refusing to testify
• Savings & Loan - Reagan eliminated "passive loss" in tax code, which also undercut subsidies for rental housing & thus bankrupted real estate developments & thus bankrupted Savings and Loans institutions; charges of corruption as banking industry was bailed out by taxpayers
• Debatgate - Reagan somehow acquired Carter's prep notes for the Oct 28, 1980 debate; not divulged until 1983 when expose book was printed; one member of Reagan's administration publicly testified that Reagan's campaign manager debriefed him on Carter's debate notes but campaign manager denied it

So with that my synopsis of Reagan's presidency is complete. Was Reagan a good president? Sure, he did a fine job. But his only real accomplishment was to project a confidence that won American support. In fact, in his re-election he won the presidency with the greatest landslide victory in US electoral history. People loved the guy. But popular support does not necessarily equate to quality accomplishments, and most of his accomplishments are historical creations that modern Republicans thrust upon him as they create a modern icon of what a good Republican should be. Today there is more myth than reality surrounding Reagan, but he remains a powerful symbol for modern Republicans to express their ideology.

Approaches to the Economy: Keynesian vs. Trickle Down

A good friend recently visited me and asked about my feelings about Obama. It led us to a discussion about the economy, labor, and lots of other topics. At one point I explained I believed in Keynesian Economics, to which he replied disbelief, "you're an educated person, and you believe this stuff?" Let me explain.

There are two major approaches to the economy that are embraced by the major American political parties. The Democrats advocate for more government involvement via regulation and taxation for the purpose of redistributing wealthy. Republicans prefer less government and believe that such a policy achieves greater economic prosperity for all. In a time of economic crisis, both parties tout their system as the path to recovery.

Beginning with Roosevelt, the Democrats turned to British economist John Maynard Keynes who believed in a mixed economy--some private & some government enterprise. He recommended that an economic slump could be combated most effectively by dumping tons of money into the system. To accomplish this task, the government should take out loans and hopefully make good investments that stimulate the economy and make enough profit to payoff the debt later. When taken to the extreme this seemed to work and save America from the Great Depression. Conservatives will say, "no, FDR's spending did not save us; World War II saved us!" I agree. And who paid for the massive industrialization of WWII? It was the federal government. "But Obama's stimulus failed!" Yes it did, and I can give you two reasons for that. First, he did not spend enough to make a difference. He got no where near the adjusted spending of WWII (and we can blame both parties for that). Second, he invested it in stupid things. You can't dump money into tax relief and unemployment benefits. That is what people want, but it is not a good investment. You've got to invest in things like infrastructure, new industries, and education in order to make enough money later to pay off the debt. It is not worth taking out a loan to pay for day-to-day expenses because you'll never get out from under it, but it is worth taking out a loan to get more education and increase your earning capacity.

Conversely, Republicans believe in "trickle down economics," an economic theory that says if you deregulate and cut taxes for big business and rich people, they will invest it and hire more employees and the money will all trickle down to everyone. The entire economy and population will benefit. If you ask me, this is a thinly veiled effort to screw the poor and enrich the wealthy, and many Americans who don't know any better jump on board because the conservative propaganda media tells them it works. There is no historical evidence of success--none. America in the 1870s-1890s is the best example of what happens when you deregulate and don't tax the wealthy. The result is a high GNP and strong economy where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. On paper the nation looks wealthy, but you have millions living in squalor--families packed into unsanitary studios pooling their money from low wage labor just to survive. Republicans typically turn to Pres. Ronald Reagan's administration for their positive example. Well, that is a cute thought but there are several problems with that which they ignore. First off, it was under Reagan that the economy slumped first, before rising. When it did rise (and it certainly did), more jobs were created and GNP rose. It was great for the wealthy and even middle classes. But the jobs that were created, termed "McJobs" by one historian, were minimum paying low wage jobs like McDonalds--not the sort of income needed to raise a family. Real wages dropped across the nation. Yes, national production and wealth grew, but it did not trickle down.

So what does our country need today? I think we needed a massive stimulus package that went to new industries, infrastructure, and education. We did not get that, and now the nation is poisoned against any new stimulus and I'm not sure the economy could survive another one anyhow. We now have no choice but to go the other way--screw the poor with conservative trickle-down economics that will not actually trickle down, but it will save the economy as it polarizes wealth into the hands of a few. That is the only way to rake up enough cash to save the economy. It is unfortunate, but I don't see another route at the moment. Once the economy is stable, we can get back to a more balanced system that taxes the wealthy to re-distribute the labor and wealthy that they extract from the poor. After all, a person who puts in 40+ hours, works hard, and generates wealth for the company deserves enough to rent a cheap apartment and eat food, don't you think? But that is a discussion for another day.

A Comment on Race . . . and Lily

So for those who don't know, I'm white. I'm not caucasian because I have no ancestry from the caucus mountains of present-day Armenia and Georgia, but I understand that it is the box I'm supposed to check on forms. My problem with racial categorizations, and particularly the caucasian (or white) category, is that they presume all sorts of false generalities that are used to discriminate.

In 2001 sociologist Allan Johnson published his book, Privilege, Power, and Difference. I disagree with parts of the book, but Johnson does correctly identify many subtle social benefits of being white. On average, white people pay less than blacks for cars and per square foot of home, are less likely to be convicted with similar evidence, and as our new case worker explained to me this week, whites are less likely to have children taken from their home by social workers. White children are more likely to have positive role models of their own race, and, Allan notes, less likely to be shadowed by store clerks while shopping.

In an effort to combat this racism, many Americans support affirmative action type programs that turn the tables and favor non-whites for government contracts, educational admission, and other opportunities. Similar efforts are made to correct gender inequality as well. As a white male, I've faced quite a bit of institutional reverse discrimination. At times I've felt society overcompensated too much. I looked over Johnson's extensive lists of subtle benifits and found few that served me, but time and time again I saw where my identification as "white" limited my access and equality.

As a teen I grew up in an ethnically diverse suburb of Los Angeles. I was always "the white guy" and often suffered the exclusion that is typical of minorities in an a larger group, but made worse by the false assumption that I represented "the man". In fact, in graduate school some of my colleagues jokingly called me "the man" because I was the token white male (there was actually two of us) in a cohort of several dozen graduate students, and yet I somehow embodied the power structure (according to standard protest models).

As I completed my studies it also became obvious that as a white male I would simply be overlooked for most positions teaching Native American history. At conferences I attended many pseudo-academics asserted that by virtue of Indian ancestry they had access to some essential knowledge that could not be accessed by a white guy. This common racial essentialization is at direct odds with the very premise of academic inquiry (the notion that we can actually learn something), but that does not stop the growing ranks of pseudo-academics from endorsing racially exclusionary tactics that openly disadvantaged me.

This brings me to Lily. When the caseworkers offered us Lily they said we were selected because we were a good match. I was confused. Does Lily like college football? Has she longed for an older sister? How are we a good match? Surely there are other would-be foster parents in the system who would love a newborn baby, and they were probably already certified. We, on the other hand, had not done anything but fingerprints and still needed a home inspection (which is not up to code--a fence around our pond will be installed later today) and 12 hours of "training". Why did we get Lily? The answer surprised me - because we're white.

Apparently, there are lots of Mexican-American foster families but not many white families, and we were the only white folks (working with this particular agency) who could take in an infant right now. If we were not available they would have placed her with a Mexican-American family (in fact, the emergency foster home she briefly stayed with only spoke Spanish), but since were were available we jumped to the top of the list. Of course, this works both ways. They have very few white children--most are Mexican American--and so most of the time we'll be at the bottom of the list. It just happened that the caseworker's efforts to match race benefited us this time; most of the time it will be a disadvantage.

So, Allan Johnson, I have now seen a privilege that whiteness brings; however, don't be so foolish to think it whiteness brings only positive affects. I can still point to more discriminatory experiences based on my racial designation. Indeed, I can remember store clerks following me and I know what its like to be the odd man out, and to suffer an employment blockade because of my skin color. Perhaps one day we will actually achieve a "post-racial" American, but I don't know when.

New Law Requiring Homosexuality Taught to Children

On 5 July 2011, the CA senate passed senate bill 48 ("the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education Act"). This law will require that educators (and textbooks) include the various gender and ethnic groups in America. This legislation, written/proposed by openly gay CA Senator Mark Leno, also includes passages that will require schools to teach the "role and contributions" of "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans" as part of the social studies curriculum.

Jerry Brown has just over ten days to sign or veto the bill (and he tends to support gay activists). If he chooses to veto the bill then I don't think Leno has the support to override--it would be dead (it initially passed by a vote of 23-14--well short of the 2/3 it would need). But if Gov. Brown signs the bill then our children will be taught about homosexuality in the classroom, and those who practice it will likely be elevated as examples of positive contributions to America.

California would be the first state to pass such a law, but others will likely follow suit. Furthermore, California and Texas historically determine the content of textbook nationwide; if California wants gay history woven into textbooks the rest of the country will be reading those same books. Consequently, this is an issue for all Americans who are concerned about the curriculum taught to their children. For more on the law see the CA Senate's notes webpage: http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_48&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen

I find this bill disturbing on several fronts. First, it seems to me that this bill is an effort to normalize homosexuality as just another ethnic/gender/class group that is equally valid and brings good diversity. I don't agree, but I can accept that some feel that way. What I don't accept is that they want to pull an end-around. They can't get my vote so they want to change the curriculum so they can raise my child with their values and then win the votes. Our children should not be pawns for political squabbling. I can accept losing a vote, but I don't accept having my children indoctrinated by somebody else so that they can win the next vote. To Mark Leno and others I say, "Leave our children alone!"

On a second note, it bothers me that legislators who don't know squat about history are dictating what will be taught. The truth is that there are not many people who professed a homosexual lifestyle throughout history; they blended in and did not have a unique identity and experience until quite recently. To recreate a historical narrative where they stand out is to manipulate and revise history for current political needs--not authenticity's sake. With the possible exception of the Stonewall Riots, there is not really any gay history that belongs in the mainstream narrative. If we include the few obscure events that would qualify then why not include every other obscure historical event and turn our historical narrative into a chaotic all-inclusive mess that values events not for genuine cause/effect significance but rather for present-day political gain. This bill is a mistake.

I hope you will join me in sending Gov. Brown a message that conveys your feelings about this law. You can submit messages at his webpage: http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php

If you are going to send him a message, do it fast. He could be deciding on the bill right now. And if you don't live in California, you don't need to volunteer that information in the message you send him.

Free Carpet Cleaning

Yesterday Jen invited in a door-to-door salesman who promised a free carpet cleaning, apparently as part of an effort to sell his cleaning service. How could Jen say no to a free vacuuming and shampoo? As it turned out, he was not selling a service, but rather a vacuum. I pulled into the driveway just as two Kirby vacuum salesmen stepped into the house.

The two salesmen did a silly two man routine where one worked on us and the carpet while the other went to check on other agents and came back to schmooze us over every fifteen minutes. As the one vacuumed I searched the web for dirt on the Kirby company. Here is what I found:

1. Everyone loves the vacuums--they are legitimate. I don't believe that the vacuum was just on 1/3 power, as the salesman claimed, but it still did pull out a heck of a lot of dirt (maybe 5 cups or so from a 10ft. x 10 ft. patch of carpet that was just vacuumed by a newly purchased and Consumer Report celebrated vacuum). After he disassembled it it was obvious that he was not secretly importing dirt--it really came from my seemingly clean carpet.
2. The company is frequently criticized for two "scams":

• "Scam" #1: They make empty promises to potential employees and ultimately don't pay them squat for their work. Our guy confirmed internet rumors that he was expected to do 60 demonstrations a month and that they have a high turnover rate.
• "Scam" #2: They use high sales pitches to pressure buyers and charge highly fluctuating prices that leave some feeling burned. Our guys told us the vacuum cost $2,700! He then discounted us $200 for our vacuum in a trade-in, then knocked off $100 because he liked me so much (right). When I laughed at the $2,400 price it magically dropped to $1,830 or so. Too bad for the salesman I also checked ebay and found that online they sold for $300 and up. I refuse to pay more than $300 for a vacuum, even if it comes with a paint sprayer attachment (somehow I doubt that does a quality job spraying paint).

I'm not sure any of this qualifies as a scam, but they certainly misrepresented themselves and do charge exorbant prices; still, the product is pretty amazing.

Has anybody else had any Kirby experiences?

Trump? Really? My Thoughts on Donald Trump

He is a self aggrandizing promoter who personifies much that is wrong with America. I’m not sure if he is really even serious about running for president or just using it as yet another way to draw attention to himself to increase his reality show ratings.

As a presidential candidate he has built his reputation on the Obama birther argument, that is, the ridiculous idea that Obama is an illegitimate president because he really was not born in the United States. Besides the fact that Obama’s mother is a citizen (which automatically makes her son a citizen regardless of where he is born), researchers have presented decades-old newspaper articles announcing Obama’s birth in Hawaii, and Obama himself has released both his short and long form birth certificates. Still, iron-clad evidence is no obstacle for irrational political extremists. The sad part is that he is actually influencing the political discourse with this garbage, and as people pay attention to it they are distracted from genuinely significant issues. I’m not sure if Trump is that stupid himself, or just courting this idiotic segment of the population for his own benefit, but in either case I don’t want somebody like that running our country.

The other way Trump has built support for his candidacy is through his supposed prowess as a businessman. Who better to save the American economy? Did nobody notice that Trump (or companies bearing his name) declared bankruptcy four times in the past two decades (1991, 1992, 2004, 2009)? If he was your personal investor he would probably put all your money in speculative companies, make lots of quick cash, take his cut, and then jump ship when your portfolio crashed. He is a user, and the economic roller coaster that he and corporate slime-balls like him create is the last thing our nation needs.

BYU Honor Code

As many of you know, BYU has been having an amazing year in basketball. However, we just lost our starting forward (and we only run two tall men in our offense with three guards--so losing that forward really hurts) due to his violating the school honor code. Consequently, we lost a game this week to crappy University of New Mexico, and questions loom about the Y's ability to compete this year. Similarly, last year's rough football season was made worse by the unexpected loss of the senor star running back who (along with his girlfriend) broke the honor code. Check out this video of ESPN sports pundits assessing the question, "Can schools win championships while upholding strict standards?"

I think it is nice to see these sports pundits supporting the idea of moral and educational standards for athletes. Sports illustrated and CBS recently did a in depth study of the top 25 football teams and found that quite a few are composed of violent criminals. The University of Pittsburgh led the nation in criminal teamates, and the report found that 1 in 14 athletes on these top 25 teams had a criminal past. Only TCU and Oklahoma had any system of assessing criminality before offering scholarships to students.

If we don't hold students accountable in college then what makes us think they'll be responsible adults?

Life's Little Lessons

Yesterday a student came into my office and shared a bit of his personal life. He explained how he was leaving behind the old him and taking a more responsible path by returning to college. After high school he worked for a while, then lost his job, and was on unemployment for the past two years. He said that during that time he received $26,000/year in unemployment benefits. Because of paperwork issues and retroactive qualification he said that much of it was dispersed in large lump sums, one as large as $13,000. Then he pulled out his MGM casino gold card and explained how he would regularly go to Vegas and with friends and spend that money. He played the high rollers tables where it costs $500-$5,000 per hand. Casinos compted his rooms and gave him free limo rides.

What should Democrats learn from this. . .

You cannot doll out lump sums of money to the poor/unemployed. They will just blow it. That is why most low income households I’ve ever seen tend to have big screen TVs and multiple video game consuls; many drive a nicer cars that me. If they ever get a wad of cash they spend it on frivolous things. A local school teacher here tells me that his district hosts a workshop on “the culture of poverty” which includes a segment explaining low-income/poor Americans tend to view money as a temporary thing that needs to be spent before it is taken, lost, or otherwise used up. Hence the big TVs, fancy car stereos, and shiny rims on cars. So if we are going to give out welfare (unemployment or otherwise) it needs to be in small steady increments, and it would really be nice if much of it was in the form of vouchers for food and rent or some form of credit that could not be spent in electronics stores or at casinos.

What should Republicans learn from this. . . .

There is a large chunk of the American society who are irresponsible. If you really think these people are capable of managing their own social security funds you are insane. We cannot privatize everything or they’ll be exploited, starve, and then taxpayers will have to pay for their idiotic spending habits in the end. The same is true of health care. They may not want to buy it, but let’s face it, they need it. If they don’t buy it then when they get sick and go to the emergency room (which costs a heck of a lot more than a preventive doctor’s appointment) the US taxpayers get the bill. I’d much rather see Uncle Sam garnish their wages and force them to have some insurance so that they are the ones who pay for their bad habits—not me.

Some folks say it is wrong for the government to force Americans to buy something they may not want. That is the exact same argument Southern Democrats used in the 1840s when Northern Whigs were developing public schools and laws mandating attendance. Whigs said that people could not be trusted to make the decision on their own. If given the choice, they’d put their kids in factories and make money off them and years later those uneducated children would have no future. Americans agreed, after several decades of debate. It is better for the whole of the nation to force every family to send its kids to school and then raise their local taxes to pay for those schools. Agreed? Today you must send you child to school (you can opt for the government school, private school, or home school but they must attend) and every American must pay the local taxes that finance the public schools (much of your property taxes is for the schools). Similarly, California requires car insurance because if it did not we’d have drivers all over who could not pay for the consequences that they create. We can’t always control who will hit our car, or if we will get cancer, but sooner or later most Americans will need that insurance. If they don’t have it, then taxpayers pay the bill (often at an inflated cost). Most who refuse to pay for it while healthy will be the ones asking the government to pay for it later when they need it. They are short sighted, just like those who opposed mandated schools, and just like my casino attending student, and just like many other Americans who can’t pay their bills but have expensive toys. They are not capable (or are unwilling) to do what is best for them and everyone else, and in the end we pay for their foolishness. I for one am tired of paying for them, and the only solution is the same one we’ve used before—mandate it. Require it, just like we require auto insurance and education of children. If you really think that is a violation of the constitution then why don't you call for a repeal of the mandates for education and car insurance? If you are in favor of mandatory schooling than you don’t have much room to say mandatory health coverage is wrong. It is clearly better for everyone, and those who resist are really just asking Americans to pay for them when they do get sick and cannot afford it. Requiring people to have health coverage is no more unconstitutional than requiring they send their children to school.

Family Photo

Here is a photo from our photo session in LA last month. The picture was taken by Kara Rush Photography. We really appreciated her patience with the kids! Matt's sister purchased a photo session with her for our entire family, and the deal includes digital copies that we've not yet been down to LA to pick up. Next week we are getting the disk with all the photos, but for now all I have is the one picture I lifted off the photographer's web page. She posted it with several safeguards to make it difficult to copy the image, so I'm posting it here in part to brag that I got it anyway.

On another note I had a strange experience today. A young college graduate met with me to discuss the role of print press companies and thier relationship to professors. He knew way too much about me, ranging from my education to my family. I guess for the curious there is ample data available online. It is a weird world we live in when you can investigate somebody so thoroughly before ever meeting them. Perhaps it is the long overdue correction needed for the anonymity created by modern urbanity. Hundreds of years ago people behaved, in part, because they were part of a small community and everybody knew each other. In short, there was social accountability. With the advent of large cities we lost that. Maybe the recent rise of social media on the internet will help to recreate that lost mechanism of social control and encourage to think twice about anti-social behavior. Or maybe not.

Who Wants Dog Vomit?

Today I observed a little treat in my front yard. Just outside our front door there is a large mulch covered area with pretty little bushes (I don't actually know what any of them are) that have thier own dedicated sprinkler line to keep them healthy. However, hiding in the mulch I found some fine specimens of an ugly little mold/bacteria called "Dog Vomit Fungi." No, I did not make that up; that is the standard nickname for the Fuligo septica that haunts my front yard. The photo below is not from my yard, but is a dead ringer for the six inch diameter blobs I am looking at.

It starts of as a light yellow/white color and then fades to black, from the inside out, and then to an ashy gray that --POOF - blows all over the yard. My neighbor has it too, and she says it because we have clay soil below us that traps the moisture. My online reading confirmed her explanation. Oddly enough, this mold is particularly common in desert areas like Bakersfield and Phoenix, and I'm guessing that is because the soil does trap moisture between my clay dirt and the imported sod and mulch sitting on top.

So how do you get rid of this vomit? That is the fun part. You can't. Sure you can scoop it up and throw it in the trash, but it will be back. There is no chemical treatment that is proven to work, or so I've read. One website said the only way to remove it permanently is to pave over your front yard. Yes, that would look lovely. Another said to only water your yard in the morning so any excess H20 evaporates by the end of the day. I'll give that a try, if I can figure out how to use the high tech sprinkler system that came with our house.

The good news is that I'm reading it is often a seasonal growth that flares up in September, so hopefully this is the only time I have to look at it. So far it is not too wide spread, and since I don't have much of a sense of smell I don't notice the stench I've read about on these websites. Lucky Jen.

Direct Buy

So I was looking for furniture stores in Bakersfield (we need to buy a couple couches and a mattress) when I stumbled upon DirectBuy. I thought the premise of their online sales pitch made sense. Essentially they buy from manufacturers and sell to members without the mark up. They make their money off the membership fees. So, I figured, it must be like Costco.

Yesterday I filled out the online info request but midway through it required I select a time to visit. I wanted Jen to accompany me so I did not complete the form, but I thought it odd that they so quickly tried to bind me to some time slot when all I wanted was a little information. Today a cheerful friendly salesman called to ask if he could send me materials and get me out to the warehouse to see what great deals they can offer. He testified that I could save 25-50% off items bought through DirectBuy. I agreed to let him send me materials. I also asked about the membership price; however, the salesman explained that he was not permitted to share it over the phone. Suspicious, I thought. It reminded me of the time share pitches I've attended in the past where they refuse to give you a price until they've sufficiently wowed you with their product. It is a sales tactic I don't care for, but I do understand it.

So, I did a google search on this company to see what the price would be and if people liked their service. Holy Bedposts Batman! I routinely google search for reviews on anybody and anything I encounter just to see what the world thinks of them, and I've never seen such universally hateful comments about a company.

To begin, the membership price (shhh... dont tell anybody, its a secret) is $5,000. For this, they tell you, the company will save you bundles of money on every purchase. They hope that you wont do the math and realize that it would require tens of thousands of dollars worth of purchases before you made back the loss on the membership fee. But this is only the beginning. They have terrible customer service (routinely do not answer or return calls) and won't let you return or exchange anything you bought. Most disturbing, they employ a over the top high pressure sales approach, according to the reviews I read. Apparently, they get you to visit the warehouse, show you furniture and other products without prices, except for a couple selected items with big savings. If you ask to see the catalog, with prices, they refuse. There they subject you to a 2-3 hour sales pitch, and then tell you that you must decide right then. They explain, if you leave the store you will never be permitted to join--its now or never. One review I read said that the would-be members had to open their cell phone and begin calling the police before the sales crew would let them leave the building. About half of the reviews I read said it was a rip off and the other half said RUN (in capital letters) away from this scam.

So the moral of the story is, don't join DirectBuy.

And on a final note I should point out that the entry on Wikipedia even states that DirectBuy's attorney has filed cease and desist actions against blogs that spoke ill of the company, so don't be surprise if this posting disappears later because I don't want to pay for an attorney to defend my first amendment right to freedom of speech. If all that is true, this company really is evil.

Life in Bakersfield

Jen has dutifully posted pictures on comments every day for the last little bit and I thought some of you might be interested in the occurrences here in Bakersfield.

I finished my first week and it went great. I had a good time and remembered how much I enjoy teaching. The students are a little less prepared for college than I am accustomed, or than I expected, but it is still a lot of fun.

This morning I got up to go run errands, shop for a couch and whatever else, but found that the front tire was flat on my grandmothers car (which I've been borrowing for the past two weeks). I called some local church members who I hardly knew and with good fortune my first call was to a man that is more service oriented than everyone I ever met. Dave came by my house with Jacob, his "indentured servant," Jacob (a 17-year old young man of no family relation who follows him around and helps with his projects). Jacob grabbed my tires on and tossed them on the truck and then Dave drove us to a warehouse of parts and toys on the other side of town. Among the tools was a hydrologic tire machine that stripped the tire from the rim. Dave determined the hole in my tire was too severe to patch, so he tossed on a tire that was sitting around the warehouse and said I could pay the owner later.

Dave inquired about my plans for the backyard, and I told him I hoped to get somebody to pour concrete on the side and then described my other plans. He offered to pour the concrete for no fee, other than the cost of the cement. I explained that I first needed to dig drainage and sprinkler systems that would (in part) be under the cement. Dave and Jacob figured they could help with that task too, and then offered another machine Dave owns that digs trenches. Dave then offered to bring his bobcat into my backyard to dig up the coy pond and whatever else was needed back there. When I questioned the likelihood of fitting the bobcat through the side gate he replied that it was no problem because he also owned a crane and could just lift the bobcat up and over my back wall.

Wow.

To top it off, later in the day I drove to Dave's house where he used some high pressure hoses to add an ounce of oil into my granny's struggling AC system, in an effort to raise the pressure and improve the operation of the failing device. It did not work, but he did it for free as well. He was just happy to try to help. Dave gave me some tasty fruit and they even sent me off with a bag of grapes that Jacob picked up someplace. Jacob said, "I'm Mexican, so I know people who pick produce."

So I am almost in shock. I can't believe how generous Dave and Jacob were with their time today, and that they would offer to do so much more. They are wonderful guys and we are so very fortunate to land here in Bakersfield among so many great people. I'm quite happy that we'll be living here and are already making such wonderful friends.

Bakersfield Motel

The motel I'm staying in at Bakersfield is dirt cheap. It only costs $31/night and that includes cable TV, internet, microwave, refrigerator, and free breakfast. Too good to be true? Well, there are some downsides. The room has a serious fly infestation and these buggers are fast. I can hardly kill them, and certainly not faster than they replenish themselves. I am not sure where they are coming from, since I keep the door closed, but may from the bathroom vent or AC unit. The AC works--that is nice, but the room stinks to high heaven so I stuck a air freshener on it to mask the odor. The fridge and microwave work fine, but the free breakfast consists of day old donuts that are a bit stiff and a nasty tang orange juice that I can't stomach. There is a waffle iron, so that works out fine, but waffles get old after a few days. I really can't wait until we close on the house and I can move out of this motel and into the new home.

I've had meetings at the college all this past week. The folks there seem nice. I'm sure things will work out well. The focus on student learning is a little more intense than I am accustomed. When teaching at the university level I heard, more than once, "get your research done and try to help the students if you have time" or "cut into the teaching prep to finish your research." That is not how things work here. The college reminds me much more of when I taught eight grade. It is all about student learning, which is just fine with me. Still, I do plan to do some research. It looks like Fridays are mostly free, so I'll do my scholarly writing then. In the meantime, I must convince those who think (and one person already asserted this opinion directly to me) that folks with a PhD cannot relate or teach junior college kids. The fact is, I think, that folks with a PhD know their stuff so much better that we can better reach the students. I guess we'll find out soon enough.