America’s Ignorance and Stupidity When it Comes to Muslim Countries

Once again we have Bill Maher saying stupid stuff about religion. Though I am a fan and find him correct most of the time, he keeps sticking his foot in his mouth about religion. I do not understand why he refuses to listen to the experts on this topic. This time though, it was not just Bill Maher, but our liberal media. Both sides, liberal and conservative, seem to be equally ignorant or stupid about the topic of religion, Islam, and the Middle East. I have spoken about this issue before but I wanted to do a blog dedicated to the topic because it really needs it. Religion, especially Islam, is very misunderstood in this country and for whatever reason, no one cares to listen to the experts.

The thing that made me feel the need to type this up was Reza Aslan’s interview on CNN. Before I show the video, I want to give his credentials…

Aslan holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in religions from Santa Clara University, a Master of Theological Studies degree from Harvard Divinity School, and a Master of Fine Arts degree from the University of Iowa’s Writers’ Workshop, where he was named the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction. Aslan also received a Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology, focusing in the history of religion, from the University of California, Santa Barbara.[7][8][9] His dissertation was titled “Global Jihadism as a Transnational Social Movement: A Theoretical Framework.”-Wikipedia

If anyone is confused about Religious Studies I would suggest either Googling it or reading my blog about it before you continue because it is more than reading the Bible or “studying God.”

Here is the interview.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2014/09/30/cnn-tonight-reza-aslan-bill-maher.cnn&video_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FNgRGButZCG

I expect that kind of crap from Bill Maher when it comes to religion but CNN shows the larger problem. “Muslim countries,” “Muslim countries,” Muslim countries,” he really hits the nail on the head with everything he said. To keep saying “Muslim countries” as if they are all the same is stupid. It is more than ignorant because he is there educating them on the topic and they ignore him. That is stupid. He is pointing out the fact that not all Muslim countries are the same and Americans appear to be completely clueless to this. Before I get into Muslim countries, let me do the exact same thing with America…
Do you believe these pictures accurately represent America?

Would you be offended if I said those pictures accurately represented most, or the average, American(s)? If you do not believe that is fair, why is it fair to do that to the Muslim world? Do you simply not realize the way we portray Muslims is not representative? The way we portray Muslims is the minority of Muslims, this is the point Reza was trying to make.

Contrary to popular belief, Religion is not the biggest driving factor in people’s actions, culture and society is. In Religious Studies we look at religion from all the different angles including sociological and anthropological (cultural) and it is painfully obvious that these issues are due to culture or society and not religion. The Sunni-Shia rift is a CULTURAL argument. We know culture and society are the driving factors because they both SHAPE religion. Religion can shape culture and society but culture and society are the bigger force. We know this because different cultures and societies with the same religion are very different. Also, if religion was the driving force, why are there so many denominations? The reason is people do not agree. Whether that disagreement is societal or personal, it is more powerful than religion because religion was changed because of that.

This is exactly what Reza was talking about. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is an AFRICAN problem. Here are a few maps of FGM and Religion. Click on the pics to enlarge them

It is certainly a problem in a very specific part of the world, mostly Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. It does certainly appear to be in areas that are Muslim, but Christian majority countries in Africa also have an issue with it. One map echoes what Reza was saying about Ethiopia. Ethiopia has around 75% of women experiencing FGM and they are a Christian majority…

According to the 2007 National Census, Christians make up 62.8% of the country’s population (43.5% Ethiopian Orthodox, 19.3% other denominations), Muslims 33.9%, practitioners of traditional faiths 2.6%, and other religions 0.6%

If this were strictly a Muslim issue we would expect to see around 1/3rd, not 3/4th. This shows it is clearly a cultural thing, not a religious thing. You may want to point out that the Arabian Peninsula is not Africa. Actually it is, in a cultural sense. If we trace culture backwards we will see that Arabs are a Semitic speaking peoples, and the Semitic language originated in Africa. Here is a map…

You will notice that only a few pockets of people in Iran are Semitic peoples. That is because the Iranian peoples are Indo-European peoples. This is the nature of the Sunni-Shia rift, the culture, not religion.

Besides FGM, how do we typically portray Muslims? Radical terrorists that treat women worse than dogs? As Reza says, that is certainly representative of certain countries, such as Saudi Arabia. No one is debating that the way SA treats their women is primitive and barbaric or that their beheading of people is alright. The problem is this is not representative of all Muslim countries. Would a Muslim country that saw women as inferior elect one as their head of state? As Reza mentions, seven women have been elected head of state in majority Muslim nations, another one was appointed…

Tansu Çiller, elected prime minister of Turkey, 1993-1996
Benazir Bhutto, elected prime minister of Pakistan 1988-1990, 1993-1996
Mame Madior Boye, appointed prime minister of Senegal, 2001-2002.
Megawati Sukarnoputri, elected president of Indonesia, 2001-2004
Khaleda Zia, elected prime minister of Bangladesh, 1991-1996 and 2001-2006
Sheikh Hasina, elected prime minister of Bangladesh 2009-
Roza Otunbayeva, president of Kyrgyzstan, 2010- 2011
Atifete Jahjaga, elected president of Kosovo 2011-

And actually throughout the history of Islam women have been leaders or held positions of power…

http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Muslim_Leaders.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_female_political_leaders

Like Reza asks, how many female leaders have we had here in the US?

Many Muslim nations are very secular. Take Turkey for example.

Turkey has been a secular state since it was founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in 1923. He introduced the secularization of the state in the Turkish Constitution of 1924, alongside Atatürk’s Reforms. These were in accordance with the Kemalist Ideology, with a strict appliance of laicite in the constitution. Atatürk saw headscarves as backward-looking[original research?] and an obstacle to his campaign to secularize and modernize the new Turkish Republic. The issue of the headscarf debate has been very intense and controversial since it was banned.[1] Turkey is a secular country and over 95% of its people are Muslims.[2] It has resulted in a clash between those favouring the secular principles of the state, such as the Turkish Army,[3] and those who are more conservative with their religious beliefs.-Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turkey

The United States needs to grow some secular balls and ban the headscarves! Seriously, I am not for that, but look at a Muslim country our secularizing the United States, impressive for a primitive and oppressive, conservative religious people. *Sarcasm*

I can point out leaders and point out facts. I can tell you about my experience with Muslims in the Religious Studies department at the University of Minnesota. I can tell you about my classes in Middle Eastern studies and Islam, but I have a more effective method. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so I will save on the typing and post some pictures.

While in the Air Force I spent time in two Muslim countries. The first was Kyrgyzstan…

Islam is the dominant religion of Kyrgyzstan: 80% of the population is Muslim while 17% follow Russian Orthodoxy and 3% other religions.[70] A 2009 Pew Research Center report indicates a higher percentage of Muslims, with 86.3% of Kyrgyzstan’s population adhering to Islam.[71] The majority of Muslims are non-denominational Muslims at 64% while roughly 23% are Sunni, adhering to the Hanafi school of thought.[72] There are a few Ahmadiyya Muslims, though unrecognised by the country.-Wikipedia

The second was the United Arab Emirates…

Islam is the largest and the official state religion of the UAE. The government follows a policy of tolerance toward other religions and rarely interferes in the activities of non-Muslims.[77] By the same token, non-Muslims are expected to avoid interfering in Islamic religious matters or the Islamic upbringing of Muslims.

The government imposes restrictions on spreading other religions through any form of media as it is considered a form of proselytizing. There are approximately 31 churches throughout the country, one Hindu temple in the region of Bur Dubai,[172] one Sikh Gurudwara in Jebel Ali and also a Buddhist temple in Al Garhoud.

Based on the Ministry of Economy census in 2005, 76% of the total population was Muslim, 9% Christian, and 15% other (mainly Hindu).[77] Census figures do not take into account the many “temporary” visitors and workers while also counting Baha’is and Druze as Muslim.[77] Among Emirati citizens, 85% are Sunni Muslim, while Shi’a Muslims are 15%, mostly concentrated in the emirates of Sharjah and Dubai.[77] Omani immigrants are mostly Ibadi, while Sufi influences exist too.[173]

People of all faiths or no faith are given equal protection under the country’s constitution and laws.-Wikipedia

While we were deployed, we had a shared folder of pictures taken while on our trips. That is where most of these pictures were taken from. The only purpose of these pictures is to show how the women dress and their freedom. Click on the pictures to enlarge them

Here are a few pictures from Kyrgyzstan. Kyrgyzstan has a mixed population of Russians and Kyrgyz. They have a heavy Russian influence and 64% of their Muslims are non-denominational Muslims. It is safe to assume that in these pictures the white people are Russian Orthodox (the Kyrgyz look more Asian) and not Muslim but the point is how WOMEN are treated in a Muslim country.

Here is a picture from a typical market place. The women here are dressed the same way you would find them dressed in Europe or America. They are also out there by themselves, no men needed.

Here is a picture from what I believe is a class trip. If it were not for the background you might assume this was a group of American kids.

The next three pictures are of the two lovely women that worked with us in linen exchange at Manas Air Base. They are there by themselves, no men. You will notice me in a picture with one of them and I am certainly not related to her.

On to the UAE. This was a fun trip. The people were so diverse. You have very conservative Muslims with the women covered from head to toe all the way to what we typically see here in America. The pictures that truly show how oppressed women are is best illustrated at a water park. Here are pictures taken from the shared file of a trip to the water park. Keep a close eye on what people are wearing and who they are with.

I want you to focus specifically on these two pictures. Notice that in the back ground there is a woman with a hijab with her face shown an in another it appears her face may be completely covered.

The range of diversity rivals and probably surpasses the United States. They have very conservative to very secular or liberal. I know recently on the news they showed a picture of a female UAE pilot, which Fox News thought was appropriate to make fun of, calling it “boobs on the ground” and saying she would have problems parking the plane. So apparently in America the idea of a female pilot is something to joke about but in the UAE women have the right to be one and their armed forces see them as just as capable as a man to do the job. It really makes me wonder which country has the problem with women being equal, Muslim UAE, or Christian America. Here is the picture of that woman and also a picture of other female pilots in the UAE Air Force. Notice that half of the women have their head covered and the other half, do not.

Is this what you thought a Muslim country looked like? This is exactly what Reza Aslan was saying. Not all Muslims countries are the same and vary greatly with how conservative or secular they are. Some Muslims countries surpass the United States when it comes to the equality of women. Some are more secular than the United States. I would argue that some run their countries better. Take UAE for example. They have billions, possibly trillions, from their oil. Instead of letting it sit in banks accounts, like we do here in the United States, they have been putting it back into the country to build infrastructure and some of the most beautiful buildings in the world. They have turned it into a tourist destination. They have a ski resort inside of a mall. Like Reza says, to say “Muslim countries” to suggest that all Muslim countries are like Saudi Arabia, Somalia, or Afghanistan is STUPID.

I leave you with some pictures of the UAE and what they have done with their oil money. I ask that you think about what billionaires have built for America recently…

Democracy and Free Market Capitalism: The Libertarian’s Lack of Understanding of a Democracy

There are two topics that constantly come up when Libertarians are arguing for Free Market Capitalism. Those two points are socialism and Crony Capitalism or Cronyism. Socialism has been a failure, as shown by history, and is illogical based on human nature, but that is a discussion for another time. The issue I have is with Cronyism. The issue is not that I disagree it is bad, but the reality of it. Cronyism is a bad thing and hurts a capitalistic system. No one needs to make that argument, for it is obvious. The issue is the prevention of it.

A true Free Market Economy is only plausible in a monarchy or dictatorship. Only in those systems, but possibly not even then, could the economy be totally separate from the government. The result of Capitalism in a Democracy is Cronyism, and I will explain why.

In a true democracy, or in a representative democracy, state officials or representatives are elected by the people. There are typically restrictions, such as age, birth place, or criminal record, but other than that, it is fairly wide open. One thing that cannot be policed is affiliation. That is not discriminated against by law and can easily be hidden. This allows any person with the interests of a certain business or corporation to run. This gives them the possibility of being elected, and often times the advantage because it has shown that money equals visibility, which equals election. If these members are elected to Congress, they are directly in charge of writing and/or passing legislation, which becomes law. There is also the possibility of these elected officials being paid off by corporations, which is highly likely because of the fact that being a politician is a job, not a volunteer activity. In addition to that, the president has the ability to appoint officials to different position, which directly relate to the economy and the money, for example, the United States Secretary of the Treasury. These appointments are made by elected officials, elected by the people. With this being the case, large corporations, especially Big Banks, are found throughout our government.

Our government, and the government of any democratic people, will be filled and influenced by wealthy elites, which have the best interests of their supporters in mind. These supporters wills be the large businesses and corporations. This is more than “government involvement,” it is the expected result of the system. Cronyism is the expected and certain outcome of a democratic, capitalistic, society.

Until we can invent and enforce a mind-reading device on candidates of political office (and laws to eliminate certain candidates,) genetically engineer a “morally perfect” being, or totally eliminate the possibility of outside influences into government (a dictatorship,) the idea of a Free Market Capitalistic Economy is a delusion and not even reasonably logical.

I think the fact that this is delusional is obvious by the fact that a Free Market Capitalistic system has never existed. This means it cannot be evaluated empirically or scientifically, but only philosophically. I think I have demonstrated that this is not philosophically sound and is totally destroyed if one studies history or human nature.

It is not that Liberals or opponents to the Free Market are Socialists or lack an understanding of the arguments; it is that we see the premise of the argument as flawed. It is not that we are less informed, simply better at reasoning and observing the obvious. Liberals recognize the good points made in the Libertarian arguments, which is why we propose a hybrid system, which attempts to use the best ideas of both sides. The question is whether or not that will even work. The problem is not brainwashing or ignorance, it is the Libertarian’s delusion that the government could be kept separate from the government.

The Need for Government Assistance and Higher Wages: A True Story

I want to tell you a little story…

My wife has a cousin, let’s call her Bree, and she is currently in a bad situation. When she was 22, she married a man named Pete, who was in his 30s and had 2 kids. She seemed to really love him, though my wife seem to feel he was no good. But all my wife had was feelings, and it appeared he treated her well. Shortly after being married, she became pregnant, which was a shock to them because she was told she could not have kids. Shortly after giving birth to her son, she became pregnant again. There is nothing odd about this situation, I mean that is what married couples do, have kids. Then issues started to pop up.

 

It turned out that Pete had a hard time keeping a job. He quit his job as a manager at McDonald’s, because he thought he was better than that. He got a job as a cook at another place, which he quit also. Apparently he was going to Le Cordon Bleu for free because he was married with kids (though we question this was actually the case now) but dropped out because he could not handle it. It also came out that he was dealing with fraudulent checks and bought a phone for her sister without her knowledge. He started to become abusive both mentally and physically. He cheated on her multiple times, once with her step-sister. She was clearly in a very bad place and decided to file for divorce. What happened next was a lengthy court battle to gain custody of the children. Pete wanted custody, even though his parents were taking care of his other two kids at the time. Apparently he wanted them for the state benefits. He is your typical loser that is mooching off the state, that put himself in a crappy situation, that Republicans often complain about. But what about Bree?

 

Not having any college and making slightly more than minimum wage, she, and he two kids, moved back in with her mom and step-dad. She also had a cheap cell phone and an old beat-up van. Providing her with housing was huge, but her mom and step-dad were able to provide not much after that. They had their own problems. Her step-dad was struggling to find a new job. They did not have extra time and money. This being the case, she needed child care for her two kids while she was at work.

 

http://www.childcareawaremn.org/families/paying-for-child-care/child-care-costs-in-minnesota

She had an infant and toddler. Here are the costs of child care per week (In the Metro in Minnesota…)

Metro	Centers	Family Child Care
Infant	$306.37	$173.87
Toddler	$259.37	$163.46

 

That is $337-$565 a WEEK. I will use the lowest numbers just to make a point. $337 a week is $1,348 a month, just for child care. Someone making minimum wage ($7.25) working 40 hours a week, makes $290 a week (before anything is taken out,) or $1,160 a month. Someone making $10 an hour, working 40 hours, makes $400 a week, or $1,600 a month. $10 an hour is enough to cover ONLY CHILD CARE, not including other expenses (diapers, formula, food, gas, car payment, insurance, rent, ect.)

 

What did Bree do? She quit her job. She quit her job because the job paid LESS than the costs of child care. She saved money by not working. This all was complicated by the fact that she was in the middle of a divorce, not single, but not married. She was getting no child support.  As most Republicans seem not to know, programs like WIC require one to have a job and work so many hours a week. Without a job, she did not qualify. When the divorce was finalized, she started looking for a job because once she had a job, she could get WIC, but also county assistance for child care. See, these things require a job AND they do not pay that much. Food stamps pay about $200 a month, per person, if you get the full amount. WIC is also no just free cash for anyone. They told us we should get into WIC. We did not qualify because we made too much. At the time, we were making about 40K combined.

 

What has happened in the year or so since then? Bree has been searching for jobs. I put in a good word for her at my job, but she did not get it. Without a degree, her options were limited. She did manage to find a job though. She works for a lawn care company driving a truck and pulling weeds. She makes $10 something an hour. Whether or not it was the right decision, she decided not to fight in court and agreed to 50/50 custody. Because of this she does not receive child support. She now gets help with child care costs from the county, and food stamps. She still lives with her parents and still has a shit van.

 

So why is she in this situation? Did she make bad decisions? Possibly, but she did not know the man she married was going to turn out to be like that. Should she have not had kids? She was told my doctors that she could not. Also, married couples often have kids. Could she have gone to college? Not on her parents dollars. Her mom and step-dad were on hard times. Her step-dad had been without a job for nearly 4 years, struggling to find work because no one wants to hire a guy in his 60’s to work on their computers when they can get a new college grad to do it for half the price. Could she have gotten a 2 year by taking out loans? That I am not sure of. I do not know if she qualified for loans. But then you have a 2 year degree and added debt to pay off.

 

I can tell you one thing. She is not a lazy moocher. She picks weeds for 10 hours a day. What do you do for a living? I am sure it is better than picking weeds for 10 hours a day. Do you put numbers into programs? Do you pay someone to plug numbers into programs? The fact of the matter is that she works harder than most people out there and makes $10 an hour.

 

Whether one personally thinks she put herself in this position, there is one obvious fact. Her children are innocent of any wrong-doings. Did they do anything to deserve this? Shall we punish them for the sins of their parents? And what are they going to do with their lives? Will they have money to go to college? Will their mom be able to co-sign for a loan? If you say “tough shit, other people’s kids aren’t my problem,” do not ever claim to be pro-life, pro-family, a Christian, or morally superior…you are an asshole.

 

The fact of the matter is that we have three options. Employers need to step up and pick up the cost of caring for these kids, your tax dollars need to support them, or they need to live a miserable existence or starve and die in the streets. If the third one is your view, screw you, you are a horrible human being. So it comes down to YOUR tax dollars to improve society and take care of our children, or it falls on the top 2% of earners in this country. The choice is yours.

Is A President to Blame

Is A President to Blame?

People often blame the President when things go wrong. This is the case whether it is a Democrat or a Republican. People point fingers and Bush and Obama. But is this fair? I would argue this is not fair and is inaccurate. Americans see the President of the head of the state, similar to the Queen of England. They are the figure head, the face of the nation. In reality, they are simply the head of the Executive Branch of government, and can be relatively powerless in many situations. This is because the Constitution sets up a system of Checks and Balances.  Contrary to popular belief, the President is not a dictator, thus the blame does not fall solely on them. To illustrate this point, I will explain how laws are passed.

A law can be introduced by a Senator or a Representative. Once this happens it is sent to a specific committee. If the law is passed by the committee, it goes to the floor for debate. After the debate it is either passed by the House or the Senate. It then must be passed by the other. Once a law is passed by both the House and the Senate, it goes to the President to be signed into law. At this point, the President can either sign it into law (adding his own bit,) or veto it. If the law is vetoed, it can still be passed with s two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. This means that the law ultimately is in the hands of Congress (House and Senate.) However, a law can be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which has the final say.

Not that I should have to cite this, considering it is basic knowledge that one would learn in an intro to American Government class…or has the ability to read a Wikipedia page or do a Google search…But here are some citations…

American Government: Power and Purposes by Lowi, Ginsberg, Shepsle, and Ansolabehere.

Keeping the Republic: Power and Citizenship in American Politics by Christine Barbour and Gerald C. Wright.

The New American Democracy by Fiorina, Peterson, Johnson, and Mayer.

Ultimately, this gives us three possible scenarios…

1. Presidency, House, and Senate controlled by one party.
2. Presidency and House OR Senate controlled by one party.
3. Presidency controlled by one party and the House and the Senate controlled by another.

In scenario one, we have closest thing that we can get to a dictatorship, assuming all members of the party are on the same page. When all three areas are controlled by one party, there is nothing to stop legislation from passing. The one thing that stands in the way is the Supreme Court, which can rule the legislation unconstitutional.

In scenario two, we have the best possible outcome for a Democracy. One party can stand in the way of legislation being passed, which limits the President’s power. Only legislation that is supported by both sides will pass, though one party can work to stop the legislation of the other.

In scenario three, we have what we call a powerless President. This results when both the House and the Senate are of different parties than the President. This effectively eliminates the power of the President.

There is one thing that is separate from these three scenarios. That is the Executive Order. This allows the President to create law while bypassing Congress. However, this can be overturned by the Supreme Court. Once again, checks and balances.

So how do we go about placing blame on a President, if at all? To start, we cannot fully blame a President without placing at least equal blame on Congress. Congress has the final say, not the President. But if we were to place blame on a President, it would most certainly be under scenario one. Scenario two gets more complicated, but scenario three is thrown out all together, as one cannot blame a powerless President without understanding our system.

Let’s look at the break-down from Reagan to Obama…

*Split Congresses in BOLD

97^th Congress-Final 2 years of Carter, first two of Reagan:

House: Republican

Senate: Democratic

98^th Congress:

House: Democratic

Senate: Republican

99^th Congress:

House: Democratic

Senate: Democratic

100^th Congress:

House: Democratic

Senate: Republican

101^th Congress (First 2 years of Bush Sr.):

House: Democratic

Senate: Democratic

102^nd Congress:

House: Democratic

Senate: Democratic

103^rd Congress (First 2 years of Clinton):

House: Democratic

Senate: Democratic

104^th Congress:

House: Democratic

Senate: Democratic

105^th Congress:

House: Republican

Senate: Republican

106^th Congress:

House: Republican

Senate: Republican

107^th Congress (First year of Bush W.):

House: Republican

Senate: Republican

108^th Congress:

House: Republican

Senate: Republican

109^th Congress:

House: Republican

Senate: Republican

110^th Congress:

House: Democratic

Senate: Democratic

111^th Congress (Final 2 weeks of Bush and first 2 years of Obama):

House: Democratic

Senate: Democratic

112^th Congress:

House: Republican

Senate: Democratic

113^th Congress:

House: Republican

Senate: Democratic

 

Let’s break this down into simple “dictators” and “powerless…”

99^th Congress: Reagan=Powerless

100^th Congress: Reagan= Powerless

101^st Congress: Bush= Powerless

102^nd Congress: Bush= Powerless

103^rd Congress: Clinton=Dictator

104^th Congress: Clinton=Dictator

105^th Congress:  Clinton= Powerless

106^th Congress: Clinton= Powerless

107^th Congress: Bush=Dictator

108^th Congress: Bush=Dictator

109^th Congress: Bush=Dictator

110^th Congress: Bush=Powerless

111^th Congress: Obama=Dictator

 

So what can we conclude from this? Well, if we are placing blame, here is how it would go…

Reagan: Not responsible for 86-88.

H. W. Bush: Not responsible for anything.

Clinton: Responsible for first 4 years.

Clinton: Not responsible for next 4 years.

Bush: Responsible for first 6 years.

Bush: Not responsible for last 2 years.

Obama: Responsible for first 2 years.

 

Conclusion:

Reagan=toss up for first 6, but no credit for last 2.

H. W. Bush=Nothing.

Clinton=Half and half.

W. Bush= Credit for first 6 years, but not last 2.

Obama=Credit for first 2.

Bush seems to stand out with a “dictatorship” of 6 years. H. W. receives the least blame as he was “powerless” the entire time. The main point here is to remember that Congress holds the ultimate power. Both Democrats and Republicans voted for and against decisions made during this time. You can read the numbers as you like, but the point is the blame is not always fully on the President. However, if one is to point fault, they better look at the Congress to support their claims.

For example, I would claim the Bush administration is responsible for sending us into a war that costs 3 trillion dollars and thousands of lives. I would also claim the largest terrorist attacked happened during the watch of the Bush administration. I would also claim that our economy crashed under the Bush administration (though it was in the works for years before.) I would also claim that the Bush administration is responsible for our losses of freedoms and liberties in Patriot Act. When looking at the Congress and the President during those events (all Republican controlled,) my argument looks strong.

If one were to claim, as someone did today, that in the last two years under Clinton, we were in a recession, and blamed Clinton, their argument would be fairly weak. This argument would be the same if one were to try and blame H. W.

The only times in which there should be an actual debate is when the House and Senate are of different parties. When that is the case, we can have a debate. If that is not the case, one is simply refusing to acknowledge to reality of who was actually making the decisions during the time.

 

On a related note…

I do not credit Reagan or Clinton for the economy of the time. I believe the economy is mostly separate from politics. I base this on my study of Capitalism. Japan, Taiwan, and other places saw great increase in their economies in both the Reagan and Clinton years. The world economy, as a whole, was increasing during that time. Did Reagan or Clinton influence the economy in other countries? I think not…The world economy was on a rise that was totally separate of them, not because of them. The economy is the economy, regardless of the President. Sure, policies can be made that can tank an economy, but this fault also falls on the banks and corporations involved. It is much easier for our government to tank an economy, than it is to get it moving.

What the government is responsible for is our national debt. The government controls its money and can choose to over-spend or under-spend and what to spend the money on. Because of that, it would be hard for one to claim that the Bush administration is solely responsible for the economic collapse, though I will point out that it happened during his term because Conservatives are always quick to point out things that happen during Democrats terms, but in reality, this collapse was in the works before Bush. However, the claim that Bush plunged us into debt by putting two wars on a credit card, with no plan to pay for them, is fairly easy to support. By not paying for the wars though, the Republicans did a great job of making Obama look bad for the fact that he had a massive debt and wars still going on. People often forget that when Presidents come into office, they often do not come in with a clean slate. It is like me handing a credit card with a huge debt to my friend and say “here, fix this” and then blaming him when he has a hard time doing it.

 

There are things that can be debated. Obama has done some things I did not like, as did Clinton. Bush and Reagan also did some good things. We should be honest about these things and debate the topics that deserve legitimate debate…but please…stop ignoring reality and the way the American Government works.

Unemployment: My Experience with the “Free Ride”

I constantly hear (from Conservatives) about how people are getting these free rides and are living off of the government through programs such as unemployment. They talk about people just live off this unemployment because it pays more than a job would. They also make it seem as if it is easy to collect unemployment, while just sitting around sipping on a martini. I knew these claims were BS because I actually look up stuff and visit websites but I just had the “pleasure” of living the experience, and it even surprised me.

I will start by telling you about my former job. I worked for Kwik Trip, a convenience store chain based out of La Crosse, Wisconsin. I still believe to this day that they are a great company and the model of what capitalism should be. They offer great benefits, profit sharing (40% of profits got directly back to employees in the form of a check,) and pay their employees well. Typically at gas stations, the pay is around minimum wage, $7.25-$7.50 an hour. Kwik Trip starts their employees at $10.20. An assistant store leader can make over $50K a year and a store leader can get nearly 6 figures, after bonuses. I loved Kwik Trip so much, and believe in them so much that I wanted to make a career out of it. I put my school aside and took a promotion to work full time. I was thinking my BA was going to be my back-up plan and Kwik Trip was going to be my current career plan.

With nearly 10 years of experience from the US Air Force, in food service, I applied for an assistant food service position. The district food service leader interviewed me and hired me on the spot, which is uncommon. He liked my experience, knowledge, enthusiasm, and most importantly, my honesty. Because of my mindset and being able to work with difficult people, I was put at a specific store.

Instantly I did not feel welcome. The store leader never welcomed me or had anything good to say. The only time you heard from her was if you messed up. Even though I did not like it there, I did my job and I did it well. I was given the choice to go to a different store but I declined because I was planning on getting promoted within 6 months. This was my downfall.

I was paid $12.50 an hour, working 40 hours a week. I busted my ass in there every day, typically not even getting my break. I was improving food sale numbers and the cleanliness checks were the best they had ever had. I was happy there and just looking for the chance to move up.

To make a long story short (I can provide details another time,) I was fired without ever being written up. They listed a number of BS reasons to fire me, but was mainly cursing behind the counter and violation of sanitation policy. Yes, I did curse behind the counter but no customer or employee reported it (I will explain more shortly.) I actually did not violate the sanitation policy because there is no policy on handling utensils without gloves. I am ServSafe certified and have been handling food for nearly 10 years, I know what I am doing.

Well needless to say, I was crushed. I felt like my world fell apart. I wanted to do this as my career and I actually like my job. We also have a lot of bills and it was the holidays coming up. The most irritating thing was that I was fired a couple weeks short of my bonus check, which would have been around $2K. My wife and former co-workers (from my first store) said I should file of unemployment. I was reluctant because I did not want to deal with it and I thought we did not really need it. I took on the role of house husband and did all the cooking, cleaning, and caring for the kids. This was more stressful than the job I had just lost. Because of this, my wife was able to pick up extra shifts and she ended up making more in extra shifts than I was making at my old job. But I did file for unemployment none-the-less, if nothing more than to verify that I was fired for unjust reasons.

The process of filing for unemployment, in itself, is a pain in the ass. It is like 12 pages of questions and explaining your case. The most irritating part was the schooling part. Basically they need to make sure that you are willing to quit school for a job. This was difficult because I wanted to do some school yet to finish my BA. I think this is counterproductive, but they want to make sure you are SERIOUS about finding work.

By far the most annoying part of filing was what seemed to be some kind of glitch. Maybe it is just my imagination, but every time I reached a certain page, my screen would flash a few times and my computer would shut down. It did this 3 times in a row before I was able to get past that part. I am not saying there was something fishy going on, but my computer does not just shut down in the middle of stuff. I was getting so frustrated I wanted to throw something through the window. The entire process took me more than 3 hours.

Once they reviewed my case they determined that even though the company had a right to fire me (for using profane language,) they did not have the right to fire me for bad conduct because I did not swear at a customer or a co-worker, nor did anyone hear it. For that reason, they awarded me unemployment. I was to receive $179 a week. If you remember, I said I was working 40 hours at $12.50 an hour, or nearly $500 a week. Unemployment was paying me less than HALF of what I was making before. Why would I prefer this over my job when we have bills to pay?

The next few weeks were the holidays and I did a little bit of job searching but I was exhausted from taking care of 2 young kids. My kids are up at 8AM and the older one does not go to bed until around midnight. They take a 3 hour nap, but that is house cleaning time. I was more stressed than when I was working full-time.

With unemployment, they do not just send you checks. Every week you have to file for benefits online. It was annoying, but fairly easy. They just ask if you have been searching for work, have been available to work, or had any interviews. This is very vague and admittedly, very easy to lie on (I thought maybe Conservatives have a point, even though this only works for 6 months.)

I made the decision that I wanted to focus on school instead of finding a job. The reason I quit school in the first place was because kids, work, and school were too much. But my wife is making enough to cover the bills and I am so close to finishing. I am glad I made this decision.

In the mail I received a letter that said I needed to attend a class on resume writing, job searching skills, and something like a job fair. It informed me that failure to attend would result in the termination of my benefits. On top of that, I went to apply for last week’s benefits online, but it was not the normal few questions. It was a longer version that asked detailed questions about the jobs I applied for, interviews, ect. I did not have the time or energy to deal with that, nor did I think my job search effort would be enough. I mean you could not exactly lie your way through this one. That’s fine though because I am going back to school this spring. A job can wait. I “mooched” a grand total of $358…or as my wife calls it, 1 night of work…

So in conclusion…I did it ya’ll! I took advantage of the government and lived a life of luxury! The reality is that people would rather have a job. Not only is it embarrassing, but does not pay anything close to our bills or a real job. In addition to that, it is not just a mailing list that one puts their name on to receive checks for thousands of dollars from the government. You have to apply and be approved. From there you have to be ACTIVELY searching for a job. They provide you with the skills necessary to find a job, rather they force you to find a job. They are really trying to find you work. They are clearly not making it easy to sit around and collect cash, they want you OFF the system and working. The entire process is annoying, time consuming, and embarrassing. And for all that, I was getting paid less than half of what I was making at my job. If you do not think that I would rather have my job back, you are delusional. No one is living happily on unemployment. I would argue that it needs to be increased for those who truly need it. Can anyone reading this honestly say that they can pay their bills on $179 a week?

UPDATE: Shortly after completing this blog, I received something in the mail…I received a notice that Kwik Trip was appealing my claim. I did not even know this was possible!

So a date was set to have a hearing, over the phone, with a judge. It was just another hoop for me to jump through to get my “free cash.” I debated not doing the hearing because I did not need the unemployment, but Kwik Trip suffers a penalty if I win. Because of that chance, and to shove it in my boss’ face, I decided to continue. Of course I was having anxiety over the thing and was sick to my stomach right before the case, I had never spoken to a judge before.

Over the next hour, we were going through the evidence. I knew that I was screwed…The judge asked me “did you use profane language?” I said yes…the judge then asked “did you sign the paper that said you could be fired for doing this?” Again, I said yes. I knew the judge was never going to rule in my favor after that, but I did get to say a few things to my employer to show her that she had other options (as related to a different issue) and that this was not fair.

About a week later I received the verdict in the mail…and to my surprise, the judge ruled in MY favor. The ruling stated EXACTLY what I had claimed on my original claim, which was also the original ruling. The judge determined that it was not employee misconduct because I did not swear at anyone, no customers heard it, nor did an employee report/complain about it. In addition to that the judge stated that I never had a repeat offense on the other issues in question.

At no time I have ever requested another payment, my payment stands at 2, as it did when I wrote the first part of the blog. The point of going through with this hearing was to PROVE to Kwik Trip, and my former boss, that I was right and they were wrong, that I was fired unjustly.

The original ruling decided I had been fired unjustly and a hearing with a judge, under oath, with my former boss able to respond, ruled the same way. That more than supports my argument that THE EMPLOYER, Kwik Trip, was wrong, and that I was fired unjustly.

This just goes to show that not everyone on unemployment is a bad employee or lazy. They are people that were treated unjustly by an employer. In addition to that, my experience shows that unemployment is a pain in the ass and works in the favor of the employer. It is not just some mailing list that gives out free cash…