Tag: nytimes

I Feel A Liberal Breeze

by rhealitycheck

I don’t know that I believed this would be possible after my personal nightmare actually came true and Bush was elected a second time (and actually validly that time) to the White House. But I feel a wee liberal breeze sweeping through the US. It may not be a gust, it may be a little weak but it is there.

I really think the most significant thing that George W. Bush has managed to accomplish in his time as President is to have broken so many records in so many ways. He has lead us to the greatest deficit this country has ever seen. We are getting ready to rival the Great Depression with his fantastic economic leadership. And for the kicker ladies and gentlemen, he has a 71% disapproval rating, a first since the Gallop polls began. Don’t believe me? Check here.

I don’t know that I believe that this liberal wind may necessary lead us very far or last very long but I am glad it is here for the time being. And I am glad that it appears to be breaking down all sorts of barriers, race and gender alike for qualified individuals.

Why Not a Muslim President?

by rhealitycheck

This has been a sore point for me about the Obama campaign when the rumors first began that he might be a Muslim. And I have no problem with the fact that he isn’t Muslim and has been a Christian all his life, what upsets me is the fact that he vehemently denies being Muslim instead of questioning why we seem to believe that the President of the United States of America needs to be Christian. If I recall correctly one of main reasons for people migrating from Europe to America was fleeing from religious persecution, which is why we have laws in place that separate Church and State. Surely just because our fearless leader seems to believe that everyone should be a “God fearing Christian” does not mean that holds true with the fundamental belief system of our founding fathers and the laws that this country was built on.

I cannot describe how thrilled I was to hear (well really read because I don’t have time for tv so I just read the interviews online) Colin Powell speak out on this topic. I am glad that one very distinguished political figure has finally spoken up for very blatant discrimination. We all know that this country has problems as does the rest of the world and that discrimination of every kind is out there. But to outright assume that any Muslim person in the country would be loyal to terrorists as opposed to the US is just ignorant. It is choosing to be a bigot instead of actually considering the person’s history and merits and deciding from there where their loyalties lie.
I was also pleased to see that one of my favourite columnists Maureen Dowd actually wrote a piece on this today. What I thought was even better was that it was not her typical sarcastic snarky style that I hold so dear but it was actually something rather thoughtful that brings out the humanity of the situation. Colin Powell did not go into those details in his interview but I think it is important to remember that we have Americans that were born and raised here who happen to be of the Islamic faith. They are Muslim, they are American and they should be allowed to be proud to be both. Isn’t that what makes America unique, being able to believe in something different from your neighbor yet still being an American and still being part of a great nation? I fear that if something so small as your religious beliefs can make it impossible for you to dare to dream of being president we are losing an integral part of what makes America great. I would hope that we can do better.

The Ever Present Obsession with Losing Weight in America

by rhealitycheck

Imagine my distress as I am reading this morning in the paper about a new method of stapling your stomach where the surgery does not require cutting. I am quite serious and this appears to be quite real and if you’d like to read the article you should click here. I have always found it distressing when women (or men) want to get surgery in order to lose weight. Perhaps I am wrong but I just feel that the healthy way to do it is through diet and exercise. And I do realize that everyone’s body is different and it can be more difficult for some than it is for others which can be disheartening but I also think that it is our own responsibility to take care of our bodies. You cannot just allow yourself to balloon out and then expect a surgery to fix it.

Now I am no exception to the rule, I have my own set of insecurities about my own weight as do most women that I’ve met in the US. (Quite frankly many women from other parts of the world seem to have a healthier view of their bodies, perhaps not leaps and bounds healthier but it’s not quite as hyped up as it is here in the states, at least when I base this on my friends circle.) And I know that in recent years I have really let go and I really need to kick it up a notch but I am not going to let my hectic schedule talk me into a surgery that could possibly be damaging to my health. I mean how much do we know about “shrinking” your stomach. Somehow that just strikes me as a bad idea that could lead to all sorts of negative side effects and serious complications should you not be able to comply with your dietary restrictions.

It’s funny because I don’t think Americans have *always* been obsessed with being slender. I look back at the time of Marilyn Monroe and in those days having curves was sexy. In fact, that was the typical image of a model, it wasn’t those stick thin coat hangars that we call models these days. My theory (and I could certainly be wrong) is that this all changed when Audrey Hepburn came on the scene. No actress/model/famous woman had ever made it so glamorous or “cool” to be thin as she did. I mean let’s face it Audrey Hepburn is still an icon of class and beauty that is unparalleled. (I may be biased, I am also a little in love with her). But it saddens me to think that my most favourite icon of all time could have been partially responsible for this drastic shift in what is a beautiful body. I mean before her time women were supposed to have hourglass figures, which I will admit can also be a bit unrealistic but I think it gives a little more room for imperfection than the coat hangar look.

Don’t get me wrong I love Audrey Hepburn and I think that thin women without an hourglass shape can be beautiful too I just think it has lead to an obsession with losing weight and being thin. It would be great if we could get rid of the stigma of not being stick thin but also maintain an idea of what healthy is so that this country wouldn’t have such a problem with obesity. I believe there is a happy medium and somehow I think that we should be able to attain it.

Is It Really “No” Child Left Behind?

by rhealitycheck

Because really, I think it seems more and more like every child has been left behind as we keep letting this ineffective measure remain in place.

This morning as I was riding the train to work I was expecting the financial markets to still be all over the headlines of my paper and sure enough they were but hidden away at the bottom right of the front page there was something else that caught my attention. There was a piece titled Under ‘No Child’ Law, Even Solid Schools Falter. Now having been a public school teacher, education still holds a special place in my heart (I just don’t have the patience to be able to deal with public school administration to continue in the system).

So the title of this act is just phenomenal propaganda but it doesn’t actually address any of this issues plaguing our public schools such as the budgets continually being cut. (Unless of course you are fortunate and live in a wealthy neighborhood where parents will rally and raise money for the local schools themselves out of their own pockets). But really the only thing this act has done is require more testing in the schools. Personally I don’t think that standardized tests are always a great measure of what people know. I happen to test well and yes they do reflect that on some level I am smart but I have friends who are just as smart as I am and who generally perform better in class than I do who test horribly. In fact when these standardized tests are so heavily weighted because of funding there is a lot of pressure to teach to the test from the administration (and no I’m not making this up, I actually worked in a school and was told to teach to the test). When you teach to the test you miss a lot of material that is just as important but because it’s not on the test teachers will just skip it. Especially new teachers who are being pressured. I mean these could be very innovative inspirational teachers yet they are being given instructions to expect the worst from their students and often times given nearly impossible goals. Not to mention students lose from these measures too. It is much more important to instill some joy in learning, what joy is there when you are constantly under pressure to pass a test. These days they even have exams in grade school, which I know did not exist when I was growing up (thankfully). I think it is absolutely ludicrous to think that some exam will miraculously mean that suddenly American public schools will perform better. Also how on earth do you call it no child left behind when every single state has a different standard. You cannot make unreasonable federal regulations when you choose not to help out the states. That is irresponsible and unjust. I dearly hope that whoever wins this next election will reconsider the state of the nations educational systems and try to create a system that may be a little less dysfunctional instead of continuing to make demands of the school system without giving them any support.

On a bright note I am supremely proud of Chicago for approving a gay friendly school for teens that are at risk of dropping out due to harassment.

Alan Greenspan & the Credit Crisis

by rhealitycheck

So I was just reading this article yesterday on the way to work and I was really surprised by what I was reading. Granted for the better half Greenspan’s term as head of the Fed I was still a kid and had a shady understanding of politics let alone how the economy was run. Now, that I’ve grown up I do like to try to understand economics a little bit but I’ll certainly admit that my understanding is still rather foggy.

What troubles me about this article and the way the economy has been going is that it seems that we have completely forgotten about why there were so many regulations on banks in the first place. I know that we have new financial instruments and that in theory the market will regulate itself and so we do not need to have regulations in place. But it seems to me that this follows the same path as much of Marxist philosophy.

Should we believe the best in people then communism/socialism would work beautifully because everyone would be living equally and all contributing to society. Now in real life, that is not the case. For one, many people believe that they deserve a bigger piece of the proverbial pie than everyone else, which is why capitalism exists. For two, there are people who are leeches on society who choose not to work (yes, they actually choose not to work… trust me I didn’t believe it until I saw it with my own eyes). So while I am a big proponent of socialism, I just do not think it is possible implement well in a pure sense. Therefore we have to work around human nature.

In the same sense the financial markets should regulate themselves and should those people working in the financial markets never take higher than necessary risks or advertise falsely then we’d be great. Essentially if we could eliminate greed then it’d be perfect. But let’s face it, why do most people work on Wall St, I assure you it is not because they are do-gooders and think economics is fascinating, I would hazard a guess that even the most philanthropic Wall Streeters have at least a small greedy streak. If you truly loved the theory of economics I doubt you’d be on Wall St, you’d much more likely be a professor teaching and researching the theories.

That being said, I find it flabbergasting that Greenspan can still support essentially complete deregulation of the financial markets. Especially with financial instruments such as derivatives now being seen as rather controversial as far as deregulation goes. I mean just looking back at history regulations were put in place so that we could avoid the financial catastrophe that is occurring now. I mean just look at what the after effects have done to Iceland.

Another thing I would like to mention is that Greenspan fought for deregulation not for a small period of time but for the entire time he was in office. Granted, I would like to blame this whole thing on the Republicans (being the good little liberal that I am) but it’s not entirely their fault. I will say that they hold a large share of the blame but I don’t see any Democrats that were crying “wolf” when they should have been. We, as a country, were far too greedy for far too long and these are simply the consequences – depressing as they may be. I surely hope that we can finally learn from our mistakes and that the economy will smooth out sooner rather than later.

Another Look at Palin

by rhealitycheck

I just love this op-ed by Thomas Friedman on Palin’s patriotism. I feel like someone has finally pinpointed some of the little bitty things that she says that just crawl under my skin and stay there irritating it but I just can’t always find the words to express them. Thankfully every once in a while I find a more eloquent political columnist who does just that.

I love that Friendman discusses how Sarah Palin statement “You said recently that higher taxes or asking for higher taxes or paying higher taxes is patriotic. In the middle class of America, which is where Todd and I have been all of our lives, that’s not patriotic.” is really a contradiction on many levels. And I agree with him wholeheartedly that paying taxes is patriotic. Perhaps I wouldn’t have used that phrasing because I don’t think in jargon but I do believe that taxes are necessary to preserve our standards of living and basic human rights. I would like Sarah Palin to answer how on earth without taxes we would have come up with the $700Billion bail out that is saving our economy. And how without taxes we could afford to send our troops to Iraq? And without taxes just how exactly does she get paid?
I understand taxes may not be the most pleasant thing to think about. And I understand that it stings when it comes out of your paycheck. But I also believe very strongly in the greater good and in social responsibility. And if being socially responsible isn’t patriotic well then I don’t know what is. In fact, I would like to question all those people out there who think taxes should be eliminated completely and ask them how exactly they would like our military to function? Not to mention our government and economy? Because really if we were to eliminate taxes altogether that bailout never would have happened. And while I may not be a fan of the bailout, I can tell you right now that Dubya’s wonderful legacy of taking absolutely no social responsibility has left many millions of Americans in the lurch right now.

So I think I’ll take the taxes and be socially responsible, even if that means I’m not patriotic.

Bush’s Big-Time Bail-out

by rhealitycheck

So just a few days ago my roommate and I were talking about the upcoming bail-out for all those big banks. Now I can’t complain too much because I work at a bank and while I’m IT which makes it a little less tense for us than it is for the real finance folk, it is still a stressful time for all parties here.

[Disclaimer: I am not an economist or in any way shape or form into finance, aside from the bits and pieces I’ve picked up from work. These are simply observations and opinions and I could be way off-base and if so I invite you to respond with your opinion.]

But this whole bailing out the banks. I want to know exactly why this is such a great idea. I mean from my very basic understanding of the market is that when you risk a lot, you stand to lose a lot. So if you are going to invest in something that tanks, well that’s your own blasted loss. So why is it that we now have to “save” all these people. Our beloved fearless leader (or village idiot as I like to call him) is now proposing that we spend about $700 billion in these bail-outs which could increase to $1 trillion. What I’m wondering is where that money is coming from because if I’m correct in my understanding those would be all our tax dollars. All those dollars that couldn’t be used for health-care (God forbid we actually help the poor/middle class in this country), also can’t be used for education (who needs an educated public anyway, you should be able to afford private school and if not well you’re not worth it), oh and let’s not forget social security can’t give too much to those old geezers, they’re gonna kick the bucket soon anyway, let’s just help them along. But we can help those giant investment banks that give their executives millions of dollars in bonuses. We can help those funds for all those people investing serious money in the market. Clearly we need to help the wealthy stay wealthy. Why on earth would we let them actually take a loss? Obviously we shouldn’t just let the market bottom out and then right itself as it should in normal circumstances and let people who took big risks lose their money. What ever happened to accepting the fact that with large risk there can be large losses as well as large gains? I just find it fascinating that we can afford to put this much money to save money for those that already have but it is a really battle to try to get any money invested for regular social services. Just makes me so proud to be an American, clearly trying to get away from the class system was totally overrated.

On a more serious note, it makes me really happy that I can’t afford to save money right now because it is all going to grad school. At least at the end of that I get a degree.

Becoming a Biker

by rhealitycheck

So I think I can officially say that I am well on my way to becoming and avid bicyclist. I originally started this biking kick to just start living a healthier lifestyle and I think I can officially say that I’m starting to accomplish this. Being in grad school just kills my motivation to go to the gym or try to fit extra things into my day. I guess partly it’s just that between work and school it’s hard to justify spending hours at the gym when I could be studying which is what I need to spend time doing considering I am paying lots of money for this education.

But what I have discovered is that if I bike places then I take care of the being active and staying fit/healthy while actually getting to my destination. It’s like the greatest thing I’ve ever managed to discover. Not to mention biking around Chicago is just great because the bike paths just off Lake Shore drive are just so pretty and nice to bike on. I have to say sometimes the wind can get a little obnoxious, especially when it’s a head wind but I think I just need to get more used to it. It’s been a little sad for me because I don’t really have the time to read the newspaper as I’m used to but I’m trying to work a way out for me to get up earlier so I can get down to work a little earlier so I can grab breakfast and read the newspaper for half an hour before I actually start working. That way I’ll get my news and I’ll be doing something healthy! At any rate, I think my bike is one of the best investments I’ve made and I absolutely love it. I’m so glad I’ve stuck it out and haven’t quit, which I definitely felt like doing because the ride to/from work is a touch long for a novice cyclist who isn’t used to that much exercise.

Student Discount for New York Times!

by rhealitycheck

So I meant to post this yesterday but since I have been bleeding money to grad school (I just got my tuition bill last month) I decided I should cancel my subscription to the Times. I mean I love reading the paper on the way to work and when I have time on the weekends I also adore it not to mention my roomies happen to benefit from it too – they like the Sunday Times with the Magazine. I happen to be a fan of the Tuesday Science section and the Thurdsay Styles. I also like the one with the dining guide and the recipes. So anyway when I called to cancel the woman told me that they have amazing student discounts. In fact I am now paying $22.10/month for the paper delivered every day. I am so excited about it, especially since I can now afford it!

Evolution in Education

by rhealitycheck

I have always wondered why it is such a shock to have evolution be required in the public school curriculum. I find that most people I know are thoroughly shocked that in my high school (in Texas) it was unimaginable to not have evolution in the curriculum. I truly believe that not learning about evolution is the equivalent of allowing our country’s youth to be uneducated. I mean the public school system has enough flaws in it already, we don’t need to help detract from anyone’s education any more so than we already do. Imagine my shock when I read this article in the Times. To me it is simply mind-boggling to blindly say that evolution is not real when it has clearly been proven over the course of many decades. In fact it is the only theory we have as of yet for how humans came to exist. The universe has gone through many changes and it is just a little ludicrous to believe that *poof* God created humans overnight and well here we are. Does God explain what happened to the dinosaurs? Or all the other historical creatures that we have fossil records for? I just think we should be a little more practical about the whole thing. God and Evolution can exist in the same world. Also, who said you have to “believe” everything you learn at school. I may learn it but I can disagree with it. But to cut it out of the education system altogether is just unimaginable. After reading the article I am glad that it is now required in the Florida schools. You do not have to agree with everything you learn but you choose ignorance when you choose not to learn at all. And that just makes for a country full of ignoramuses and who really wants that? Certainly not me.