I Don't Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Bailout Walmart

I knew Walmart calls itself the home of one-stop shopping. What I didn’t know is the major retailer and other big box stores have now adding another branch to their repertoire of serves: banking.

Photo Credit: http://i.imgur.com/I5oNu.jpg

Of 618 US consumers poled in September, one in three would consider a mortgage from Walmart while one in two would consider obtaining one from PayPal. The store has yet to offer mortgages but it does provide small business loans at its Sam’s Club stores. 

Rewind several years to the onset of the 2007/2008 economic crisis. Since then banks have limited the accessibility and availability of credit, especially that for new lenders with no credit history or those will poor credit ratings. Moreover, people have lost much of their faith in the big banks to be responsible lenders. In rural areas where the number of banks is already few and far between, the somehow omnipresent businesses (ie Walmart, Sam’s Club, Costco, Home Depot, etc) realized they could fill the void by providing ATMs for check deposits and cash withdrawals, life insurance policies, and handing out loans for various individual ventures.

Walmart is the world's biggest retailer and the biggest company in terms of the number of its employees. It's a natural tendency of a company to look for an uncharted niche when expanding its services. Approximately eight cents of every dollar spent in the US stores is spent at Walmart. 

Photo credit: http://www.onlinemarketing-trends.com/2011/02/size-of-walmart-statistics-and-trends.html#sthash.Qp153lp2.dpbs

In communities with little or no access to a local bank, such banking functions provide locals with the opportunity to access loans and funds in their own “neighborhood.” People who may not have such access, whether they not be approved by the banks to receive a loan or not reside close enough to one to go, can now get financial assistance. The problem however is that these transactions are not regulated by the same standards and rules that govern the practices of regular banks. Even the prepaid cards are not backed by the FDIC. Furthermore, the consumers’ long-term interests are not the concerns of Walmart, et al. For such stores banking is a business venture intended to put more money into customers’ hands, which they then turn back to the stores at the cash register. It’s not about them saving for retirement or for college; it’s “how else can I get them to buy more?”

I see the benefit of enabling more small business and homeowners to make investments. But I don’t trust that the big box stores can be any more responsible than the banks. Risky loans are still risky, no matter who doles out the original funds and how high interest climbs. I also worry about such important financial transactions taking place outside of federal oversight. Even though the fed dropped the ball on preventing a housing boom and bust under Barney Frank, I still think that federal oversight is necessary to protect the individuals as well as the taxpayers. No way I will EVER bail out Walmart. 

I Don't Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Standardize an Education

When my family came together for Thanksgiving last weekend, my relatives inevitably inquired about my junior year. I shrugged unenthusiastically. Many responded with praises of their own college experience, raving about the freedom to explore different classes and intellectual opportunities. “Don’t you love what you’re studying,” they asked.

Sorry, I don’t have time for that. I have to prepare for my future.

I’ve never taken a class “just because.” Between fulfilling my school’s mile-long list of distribution requirements, completing the ten mile-long list of requirements for veterinary school and taking enough biology classes that I actually obtain my major, my classes have been selected based on their ability to fit into either one or better yet two of those categories. In elementary school, it was do well to get ready for middle school. In middle school, it was get good grades to earn a spot in the honors classes in high school. In high school, emphasis was placed on doing whatever it took to get into a good college. Now it’s about getting into graduate school. Accompanying these pressures are hours upon hours of standardized testing to which academic curriculums are forced to cater.

I don't understand why a student's performance on one given day or a few select days outweighs his or her performance over an entire high school career for college admission. The scoring system is not even uniform; it's curved based on how all of the students on that particular day do. I applaud Mount Holyoke, Smith and other institutions that have made standardized test scores an optional application component. 

Photo credit: http://www.nacacnet.org/research/briefing/StandardizedTesting/Pages/StandardizedTesting.aspx

What happened to school centered around the love of learning?

Within the last two years, forty-five states have adopted the Common Core Standards. The Common Core Standards identify a sweeping list of what K-12 students should learn and be capable of doing in mathematics and English language arts. The hope is state adherence to the Standards will produce high school graduates prepared to handle collegiate level courses or succeed in an entry level job.  They claim implementation of the Standards will not lead to more testing or changes in lesson plans but I disagree. What students learn will change. But not necessarily for the better. (http://www.corestandards.org/)

How students are increasingly being taught to answer questions.

Photo credit: http://standardizedtests.procon.org/

I was eight when I first encountered my first standardized exam. I recall my third grade teacher encouraging us to just do our best, to answer the questions as best we could and to not worry about our scores – how we did would only reflect on the school. Yet if my scores truly did not reflect my ability as an individual, I never would have received them in the mail. A group of chattering nine year olds wouldn’t be comparing scores with one another when they were sent to our homes the following fall. Year after year precious time was wasted taking more and more exams. First it was just reading; then they added math and science. I just missed the cutoff to having to pass history in order to graduate high school. When does it end?

There is so much stress associated with the state exams, the SAT, the ACT and other national standardized exams. Is it really fair to put that much pressure on students, especially those under middle school age? How will such pressure help students to learn effectively if all they know is that they better answer the question correctly (or else)?

Photo credit: http://educational-alternatives.net/welcome/?page_id=435

So much precious time and energy gets wasted on and preparing for these exams. You have to write and think in a certain way. If you do not, you are deemed unintelligent. Such exams only cater to one learning style. Did it matter to the graders that I would devour thirty books every summer? No. All that mattered to them was that I could correctly identify and analyze themes in All Quiet in the Western Front. Could I incorporate new vocabulary into my daily prose? No. But could I fill in the right word in the right blank in my vocabulary exercises book? Absolutely.

Photo credit: http://www.beyond.com/articles/a-standardized-testing-uproar-7773-article.html

I understand why such standards are important. Society demands a population that can read, write, perform basic arithmetic, think critically and articulate opinions.  It’s also important to ensure teachers are doing their jobs. But I really think we have lost sight of crucial piece of getting an education (I also know of plenty of teachers not being good teachers who are allowed to remain at the front of the class). It’s great being able to regurgitate information when prompted and when being evaluated. But what happens when you’re no longer being evaluated? Chances are, the learning ceases. I loved reading. Yet the strict analytical code I had to obey in middle and high school temporarily killed that love, a love I could not rekindle until my sophomore year of college. In order to encourage life-long learning, students must be taught that that is the ultimate goal. Not the grades, not the test scores, but the knowledge. A common list of standards or exams can’t accomplish that.

I don’t approve my tax dollars to do that: standardize an education.  

Should I Approve My Tax Dollars to do that: Rebuild After a Hurricane

Three weeks later, much of New York and New Jersey is still reeling from Superstorm Sandy. It will be months before normalcy is restored for the many people whose homes and businesses fell victim to storm surges and flooding. Several affected shore communities have already voiced promises to return to their pre-storm state (with millions of federal assistance of course).

As I pointed out in one of my earlier posts, every part of the country is subject to national disasters. Generally speaking, the West Coast gets hit with earthquakes and wildfires, the Northeast combats major snowstorms, the Gulf and Southeast Coast face hurricanes and the Midwest deals with tornados.  Virtually any city or town, hit directly by a major storm, will experience severe damage and need federal assistance. Yet beneath the clamor for volunteers and aid, some grumbling and criticism can be detected, especially when dealing with coastal hurricanes. Why should “checks from Washington” continue to rebuild hurricane-wracked communities that are only to be devastated by another storm and rebuilt several years later? (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/science/earth/as-coasts-rebuild-and-us-pays-again-critics-stop-to-ask-why.html?hp)

An Moore, Oklahoma home after a 1999 tornado. 

Photo credit: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/f3.htm

Devastation and destruction by Sandy. The two images could have been from the same storm. 

Photo credit: http://darkroom.baltimoresun.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/AFPGetty-155063691.jpg

The Stafford Act is a federal law that holds the US Treasury responsible for 75 percent or more of the cost of repairing infrastructure damage (roads, bridges, etc) caused by a storm. While the Act provides incentives to rebuild, it does not encourage improved or revised storm preparations. As a NY Times article describes, “In many beachfront communities, the federal subsidies have helped people replace small beach shacks with larger, more valuable homes. That is a main reason the nation’s costs of storm recovery are doubling every decade.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/science/earth/as-coasts-rebuild-and-us-pays-again-critics-stop-to-ask-why.html?hp)

I’m torn. People should have the right to live where they want to live without the government dictating particular areas as “safe zones.” Anywhere can be hit by a devastating storm and require federal assistance. Such assistance must be available to those communities. No one asks for his or her home to be swept, blown or burned away.

Snowstorms will damage homes, bring down power lines and trees, and cripple transportation systems. As a New Englander, I face this reality ever winter. I feel no need to pack up and relocated to another part of the country just because I'm at risk to get a lot of snow. Thus can I understand why people with beachfront properties continue to rebuild their homes despite the risk of damage in a storm. 

Photo credit: http://www.punditmom.com/2010/02/snowpocalypse-part-deux-snowpocalypse-the-squeakuel

Yet I choose to live in a part of the country not typically threatened by coastal storms. Why should I be paying to repair the homes of people who take that risk? Why is it my financial responsibility to rebuild someone else’s beachfront vacation home only to pay again when it is damaged in the next hurricane? I should not have to pay for repeated rebuilds in high-risk areas. You choose to live on the beach then you pay for it when a hurricane hits.  You should pay for more than a ocean view when you build near the coast.

You live this close to the ocean and obviously you will have damage should an oceanfront storm rip through. If you take that risk, why do I my tax dollars have to pay for it? 

Photo credit: http://www.searchforcharlestonrealestate.com/images/a-sullivans%20beachfront%20crop.jpg

That being said, one could argue that because I reside in an area prone to snowstorms, any damage caused is my fiscal responsibility. I do not dispute this. In fact I accept it. But I know better than to assume the cost of storm recovery is solved so easily. I have yet to realize a satisfactory solution that balances individual and federal responsibility.

Should I approve my tax dollars to do that: repeatedly rebuild after a hurricane.

I Don't Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Fight another Civil War.

There are times I honestly believe our nation is led by groups of toddlers. States calling for secession following Obama's reelection is one of those times.

We went over this in 1860. A state cannot secede from the Union. Just because you disagree does not give you the right declare yourself as your own country.

The states in dark blue seceded when Lincoln was elected. They did not listen when he vowed not to dissolve or prohibit slavery. They simply assumed the Republican elect would and thus left the Union. At least this time the states have witnessed Obama in office for four years.  In a way, it's a little surprising to me how so much of the Civil War was fought on and devastated Southern land and yet Southerners persistently call for secession. This time they are joined by several northern even die-hard blue states but it makes one wonder, have you already forgotten how bad the Civil War was? 

Photo credit: http://www.ushistory.org/us/32e.asp

Petitions have been filed to the “We the People” website on behalf of twenty states: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina (shocker), Tennessee, and Texas (no surprise there).

Don't get married if you threaten divorce every time things get rough or you fight. Same thing with being part of a nation. 

Photo credit: http://www.reasonstosecede.com/whatissecession.shtml

He won the popular vote AND the Electoral College. Get over it.

Citing the Declaration of Independence, secessionists believe that it is their right to abolish and institute new government if they feel the government has failed to uphold its responsibilities (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57548572/states-petition-to-secede-from-union). My inner history major would like to point out that while the Declaration is an extremely important document, we govern ourselves according to the Constitution. Therefore the Constitution has the final say on secession. And as we determined 150 years ago, secession from the Union is unconstitutional. Done. End of story.

The We the People site allows people to communicate with the White House and submit petitions for things that they would like to change or see changed. Petitions that receive 25,000 signatures within a 30-day deadline will be reviewed. Texas' plea for secession currently has 22,000. They have until December 9th. 

Photo Credit: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83776.html

I am sick and tired of hearing dissatisfied people automatically crying secession instead of trying to fix the problem. If you are really that unhappy with the direction of the government, run for office. Volunteer for a campaign. Get involved on various committees. Actively work to change things instead of throwing in the towel and declaring you’re better off on your own. Much of our nation’s greatness stems from our disagreements. It is remarkable that so many people have different political philosophies yet can get together and govern a nation. We sacrificed so much to be a nation – why throw that all away?

In my history class last semester, we discussed why Washington differed from the other Virginia elite. He sought a larger government with more authority and a federal military while many of his fellow Virginias favored a much smaller government and fewer taxes. My professor, Joseph Ellis, pointed out that Washington saw first hand why a big government was necessary. His officers and many of the men who fought were Northerners. They needed soldiers and supplies but the government did not have the power to authorize and distribute them effectively. It’s time the Southerners remembered the sacrifices the North made to make this nation a reality. If we can be scrappy Yankees taking on the leading military power in 1776, we’re not going to give up that easily in 2012 either. 

I don’t approve my tax dollars to do that: fight another civil war. 

I Don't Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Get Further Involved in the Middle East

“We’re not your grandfather’s America anymore”

Thomas Friedman is one of my favorite NY Times Op-Ed columnists. This week he posted an interesting column on what Obama’s reelection meant for the relationship between the United Stated and Israel.

According to Friedman, “Obama has his marching orders from the American people.” Such orders involve turning our attention back toward conditions at home rather than problems abroad. We want out of present conflicts and to stay out of future ones. Let someone else do the dirty work for once. For Israel, that ideology means “Don’t count on America to ride to the rescue.”

Photo credit: http://www.legendsofamerica.com/ks-hollenberg.html

Tensions have increased over the course of four years between the Obama Administration and the Israeli government. Prime Minister Netanyahu even openly supported Romney (that worked out well for you, Mr. Netanyahu, didn’t it?). Friedman dubbed such alignment with the conservative right wing as foolish on his part because that is no longer “the rising political force in America.” He would have been better off to associate and make friends with the Democrats. Oh wait, he already snubbed Vice President Biden.

A September 2011 meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. The two have not always had the greatest relationship, particularly in regards to Iran's nuclear program. 

Photo credit: http://rt.com/usa/news/us-israel-iran-nuclear-773/

 But the biggest change is what we ourselves have realized about meddling in the Middle East: it doesn’t work so we need to stop trying. As Friedman writes,  “We can provide the mediation and even the catering, but it has to start with them.” We can no longer march into an area and demand obedience and respect. It is not fair to us, as our valuable tax dollars get sucked dry remediating another country’s conflict, and it is not fair to country we’re trying to support. They have to be able to support themselves. Assistance is one thing; becoming a nation’s military foundation is another.

Under the Bush administration, Americans were much more supportive of Israel, especially since we lacked powerful Middle Eastern allies. Under Obama, however, that support has shifted in favor of the Palestinians and increased the percentage of people who identified as neutral or no opinion.

Photo credit: http://www.californiapatriot.org/magazine/2009/09/the-special-us-israel-relationship-a-case-for-the-continued-support-of-israel/

The only America I remember is a nation at war. Now a legal voter, I have my own fair share of concerns that reside within our nation’s borders. I want affordable health care. I want an affordable college education. I hope someday to be able to achieve what I consider my version of the American dream. I cannot necessarily do that while my government squanders MY money away in the Middle East. It’s time my money and my president finally return home.

I don’t approve my dollars to do that: get more involved in the Middle East.

I Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Impose Tougher Regulation on the Prescription of Narcotics

From a very young age, we’re taught that doctors are “good guys.” Alongside police officers and firemen, doctors help us and are people we can trust. Whatever they prescribe us or inject us with is supposedly safe.

If that is the case, then why have prescription overdoses claimed more lives than heroin or cocaine?

In recent years, attention about misuse of prescription drugs has been directed toward situations in which they are attained illegally: the robbery of a pharmacy, a teenager swiping pills from a parent or sibling’s medicine cabinet, the raiding of a stash at a hospital. Much less focus has been placed on when a doctor has actually prescribed the drug. A Los Angeles Times report half of the patients who accidentally or intentionally overdosed in Southern California had a prescription for “at least one drug that attributed to their death” (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/prescription/la-me-prescription-deaths-20121111-html,0,2363903.htmlstory?main=true)

The majority of people who use pain relievers recreationally get them from friends or relatives but approximately one-fifth obtain them from their doctors. This graph excludes those who do take pain relievers for actual chronic pain.

Photo credit: http://discoveringalcoholic.com/category/prescription-drug-abuse

The Times uncovered some harrowing statics about some doctors having ten or more patients die from prescription drug overdose where the drug they prescribed was the primary agent in the patient’s death. Most never face criminal prosecutions and have spotless records with the California Medical Board. Recently the prescription of narcotic painkillers has shifted from exclusive use in cancer and other terminally used patients to becoming “among the most popular prescription drugs in the United States.” Nationally narcotic painkillers are responsible for approximately 15,500 deaths annually.

The number of drug-induced deaths has rapidly increased over the past decade. Now second only to motor vehicle fatalities, the number of drug-induced deaths has surpassed even gun shot deaths. What the chart fails to distinguish however is the number of suicides as a result of intentional drug overdose. I assume that such deaths would be categorized as suicides but they also pertain to the drug-induced category.

Photo credit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/prescription-drug-abuse

 How do we still maintain the accessibility of aggressive narcotic painkillers while reversing the escalating trend of overdose-related deaths? Patients who have tried exhausted alternative forms of pain therapy should be allowed access to stronger medication. At the same time, something that struck me about the Times article was how many of Dr. Vu’s patients to whom he prescribed narcotic painkillers were mentally unstable. That class of drugs requires that you be responsible, cognizant and mindful of their power. Thus I support the Times’ proposition to track the correlation between patient deaths and prescribing doctors. If he or she has had a certain percentage of his or her patients overdose and die, in Dr. Vu’s case there were 16 deaths as a result of the medications he prescribed, they should lose their license. Prescribers need to take the severity and strength of these drugs more seriously before automatically resorting to Hydrocodon or OxyContin. Someone needs to be held accountable for essentially putting a gun in these victims’ hands.

A table showing the drugs most commonly abused. Note that all categories are identified as "highly addictive." Two of the three also warn of death if used improperly. My doctor offered to prescribe me Hydrocodon when I was 16 for a back injury. Even as the daughter of two medical professionals, I didn't trust myself with such a powerful drug. I was shocked that she even suggested it. 

Photo credit: http://well.wvu.edu/articles/the_411_on_prescription_drug_abuse

I approve my tax dollars to do that: impose tougher regulation on the prescription of narcotics. 

After the Election: Why the Republicans Shouldn't Be So Surprised

The saying goes, “the winner takes it all.” The presidential election is no exception. Romney will be lost to the history books, quickly overtaken by the next GOP hotshot while Obama, his legacy already cemented with his election four years ago, will continue to make an impressive mark. But the election results did more than deny the GOP the position of commander-in-chief. They revealed that Party members are sporting a new accessory: earmuffs.

Yes, earmuffs.

In reading various articles after Election Day, much of the consensus reveals that despite their supposed shock, the Republicans would have seen the writing on the wall had they paid attention. Their reaction to Romney’s fairly decisive loss shows how much the Republicans were completely oblivious to the wants, expectations and actions of American voters. Michael Barone, co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, predicted a 315-electoral vote win for Romney. George Will called 321 for Romney. Karl Rove showed he was no more mature than a five year old, blubbering and throwing a tantrum on Fox News. How could they be so misguided?

 Map of Tuesday's presidential election results in each state. Florida has since officially awarded its electoral votes to Obama. The Republicans claim to be "shellshocked" by the devastating loss but Romney lost by over 100 electoral votes. Even with California, that is no small feat. Of six major  swing states, Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, Florida, Virginia and Iowa, Obama won 5, despite the many claims by Republicans to sweep the swing states. 

Photo credit: http://media2.abc15.com//photo/2012/11/09/electoral_map_cnn_20121109112711_640_480.JPG

I recommend two articles, the first a NY Magazine editorial and a NY Times blog (written by the Times ‘ Editor).

Both articles related that the Republicans’ isolated themselves in their own bubble, discrediting and faulting any source that predicted anything but a landslide win for Romney. By only acknowledging sources and reports that favored them, they tricked themselves into believing a fantasy. What I still don’t understand though is how this could happen on such a national level? The Republican Party is one of two main political parties in the United States. How could they be so out of touch with the 2012 voters?  

In googling images for the map of the electoral college by state, this came up. The author wanted to show the election results if white men, the key Republican demographic, were the only ones allowed to vote.. No surprise that forty-five of the fifty states went red, even die-hard blue California. Thankfully, white men are not the only ones allowed to vote. It's time for the Republicans to acknowledge that.

Photo credit: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/news_cut/archive/2012/11/if_only_white_men_could_vote.shtml

One source I read immediately after the election described your typical Republican: white and male. The problem with targeting that particular demographic is that its control on political power is declining with the rise of women and minority voices. The shocking and completely infuriating dismissal of rape by Todd Akin in August, for example, was just one sign of how out of touch the Republican Party is. If he truly felt like he could openly say that and not start a riot (or more importantly lose him the election), then that shows the Republicans have a real problem. Guess what? He lost in Missouri to a Democrat.

It baffles me. Top party leaders are supposed to be astute, savvy and clued into the talk of the nation. We tried to inform them but the Republicans cut their communication lines. It’s not our fault they got handed a defeat. The voters did our job. Now, rather than whine like a group of preschoolers, they ought to re-evaluate who who today’s Republicans ARE. Plural. If the Republicans continue to limit themselves to the rich white man’s club, they’re going to keep losing. Maybe we’ll witness the a rise of new political parties.

I Don't Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Ignore Climate Change

It’s been about a week and a half since superstorm Sandy smashed into the East Coast. We’ve seen remarkable relief efforts and even an unexpected change of heart from New Jersey Governor Christie who sang Obama and the Fed’s praises the week before the election, much to the dismay of the Romney campaign. Today, a snowstorm slammed into the already battered East Coast. An additional 417,000 people on top of those still without power from Sandy are now without power (ABC World News Tonight). So what is this crazy weather that seems increasingly common?

“We have weather on steroids.”

That’s the current situation as described by Eric Cooley, senior vice president of the Environmental Defense Fund. It’s not so much that climate change is causing storms; instead climate change is making them stronger. Warmer ocean temperatures equates to more energy for storms to feed off of. The atmosphere is warmer and thus retains more moisture, which becomes drawn into storms and dumped on unsuspecting land. It’s also costly. In the last thirty years, not including 2012 data, losses from weather disasters have totaled $1.06 trillion dollars. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/weather-on-steroids-is-global-warming-stupid-paul-barrett.html)

Maybe now people will start paying more attention to climate change.

I don’t approve my tax dollars to do that: ignore climate change. 

My Thoughts on the Outcome of the Election

After months of intense campaigning, Obama emerged as the projected victor of the 2012 US presidential election. I care about the outcome of the presidential race, but there were three other contests, four including my own state’s senatorial race, whose outcomes worried and excited me almost as much as that for president. They were the ballot votes on gay marriage in Maryland, Maine and Washington.

What is unique about this particular ballot vote is that it had never before succeeded. Massachusetts, Iowa and the other four states that currently allow same-sex marriage were not decided by a popular vote: their courts deemed such discrimination unconstitutional. When attempting to pass same sex marriage via the popular vote, even Maine shot the proposition down 53% to 47% several years ago (http://bruni.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/maine-and-maryland-say-we-do/).

Now in 2012 things are starting to change. Obama is the first president to openly support gay marriage. Maryland and Maine passed gay marriage in their respective states with promising results thus far predicted for Washington (their submit their ballots in the mail so actual numbers take longer to determine). Wisconsin elected the first gay senator, Tammy Baldwin. To me, these results symbolize a change in attitude in the American population. People have finally realized that the failure to include all people and families in law is flat-out discrimination, religious preferences and propaganda aside. It’s acknowledgement that we are not so different after all and do not deserve to be denied our rights.

There is still a lot of work to be done. Thirty states have banned gay marriage in their constitutions. But if the number of states allowing gay marriage can jump from six to nine states overnight, there may just be hope that those numbers will be reversed by the time by moms turn 65.

Thank you, American voters, for supporting my family last night.  

I Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Redefine Assault

“It’s no big deal, I’m gay, I don’t want her – I was just having fun.”

Partially as a result of the buzz surrounding Amherst and its failure to properly prosecute rape, assault is a hot topic on college campuses. Then someone shared an article with me describing a new area of un-scrutinized assault: gay men inappropriately commenting on or touching women.

I want to preface this by saying I acknowledge the volatility and controversy of this subject. If you have not read my previous posts, I’m the proud daughter of a same-sex couple so I do not write this to perpetuate homophobia, especially toward gay men. I also do not intend to stereotype gay men. This was hard for me to write about, particularly because of my family structure, but something I felt compelled to comment on.

Author of the article, Gay Men’s Sexism and Women’s Bodies, Yoko Akili addresses a the trend of identifying gay men as the “experts of women’s fashion and by proxy women’s bodies.” Such a position of knowledge and expertise has apparently made some gay men feel entitled and “comfortable” evaluating and manipulating women’s bodies like a piece of pottery. They consider their unsolicited criticism or touch as “benign” because they are not sexually interested.

I have a problem with this. Rather, I have a BIG problem with this. First off, it is never okay to grope someone intentionally. Gay or straight, invading someone’s personal space like that is violating and degrading. It’s time we define assault once and for all. Touching someone inappropriately, regardless of age, sexual orientation, gender, hair color, eye color, height, weight, etc, is not okay and should be prosecuted as such. Though already established in the legal books, it now needs to become equally socially unacceptable. Such practice starts in schools, teaching kids to not only report it but to intervene if they see something inappropriate. Young kids must observe older ones standing up for what’s right rather than giving into the pattern.

Secondly, there is already so much in the media and society chipping away at a women’s image about body. The last thing we need to do is add more scrutiny. I don’t understand why it’s okay for a guy to point out a woman’s “thunder thighs” or “muffin top” yet a woman can’t openly smirk at a guy’s beer belly to his face. How are women supposed to accept and praise their bodies if the group of men not even sexually attracted to them scolds them for not fitting a particular stupid mold? Speaking as someone who spent much of middle school and high school having a bad relationship with food and my body, the negativity comes from all directions. Women cannot stop it on our own. We need allies. Clearly in this case, some of the guys we have turned to be our allies have turned against us.

It's hard enough already to look in the mirror and be satisfied. Why do people have to make it harder?

Photo credit: http://eatingdisorderstreatment.com/eating-disorder-programs-miss-melissa-had-a-thought/ 

I approve my tax dollars to do that: redefine assault.

I Don't Approve My Tax Dollars to do That: Free-for-All Military Spending

In the United States, the first Tuesday in November is probably the most famous day of the month in the United States behind Black Friday and Thanksgiving. That day, which happens to be today, is Election Day. By the end of the night, we [hopefully] will know our leader of the next four years, if voting goes as planned. We shall see if that actually pans out.

Although both presidential candidates have attempted to distinguish themselves over the course of the campaign, portions of their policies line up with one another. One example is that Obama and Romney have both promised to increase the defense budget. As a twenty-year-old with residual resentment about the Iraq War, I’m tired of hearing out expansion of military spending. Problems here at home need urgent attention too, not just those abroad. Imagine my surprise when I read an article posted by my politics professor in which a Marine reserve officer actually agreed with me.

Huh?

In his op-ed column for the New York Times, Aaron B. O’Connell compares our country’s present relationship with the military to that at the end Eisenhower’s presidency. Eisenhower warned of the military becoming too large of an influence in political and domestic affairs, becoming a epicenter around which all other policies would circle, defense-related or not. He pointed out that few of his Naval Academy students remember when America was not at war. I cannot say I recall when a time bombings, death tolls, yellow ribbons and camouflage were not daily contributors on the nightly news. O’Connell claims that service is glorified in the media through television shows and video games. Various military-related demonstrations precede major sporting events. When did we, the civilian population, become so obsessed with our nation’s unequivocal military might?

Particularly popular after 9/11 and the immediate outbreak of the Iraq War, the yellow ribbon, a symbol of supporting the troops and thus being a "good" American, is seen everywhere from trees to cars to businesses. I remember in 5th grade tying yellow ribbons around tree trunks outside of my elementary school in 2003. Now such practice in a public school would bother me. We ten and eleven year olds were not given an option not to support our troops. We just did. In essence we were brainwashed: that the military going to war was a good thing. War is never a good thing. 

How much the US devoted to military expenditures in 2012 compared to the world's other leading nations. The sum of China, Russia, the UK and France's spending barely exceeds half of what the US alone spends in a year. How much of what we spend is really necessary? 

Photo credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

The most interesting aspect of O’Connell’s op-ed however was his critique of the excessive military spending. I assumed that as an officer he would be all for more money and resources. He is not. In fact, he calls for increased skepticism and criticism from Congress. The majority of representatives and senators have no military background, trapping them in a dangerous Catch-22: criticize the military without the proper credentials and be deemed un-patriotic or provide “unhesitating adulation” and allow military spending to balloon out of control. Guess which choice leads to re-election (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/opinion/the-permanent-militarization-of-america.html?ref=opinion).

The concept of trade-offs in terms of spending often gets lost among political jargon and election ads. When we appropriate funds for one project, another project inevitably loses them. We devote more money to the military, chances are that gets taken from other areas at home. Instead of working to pay off the deficit, we build more tanks. Rather than reduce the cost of a higher education, we establish more bases. Money does not just magically appear; it all comes from somewhere and more importantly, it is a finite amount. Regardless of the outcome of today’s election, I hope our next president will weed out the military budget with the guidance of those who know the industry best. It’s time we bring the troops and the money home.

Increased military spending for the few years after the 9/11 attacks does not come as a surprise. But ten years after the fall of the Twin Towers, why are we still increasing the budget? 

Photo credit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Defense_Spending_Trends.png 

I don’t approve my tax dollars to do that: free-for-all military spending