Uzo NYC

Is Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage in NYC Alone an Option?

2009-06-08T09:22:00.000-04:00

As a New York City resident, I am appalled that this city, one of the most liberal cities in the world, has not legalized same-sex marriages. Granted, this is more of a state issue than it is a city issue, but maybe that should change too.

Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Iowa and Maine.

Know what those states have that New York doesn’t?

The legalization of same-sex marriage.

Those states are not nearly as liberal as New York City, yet they have gotten it done. Of course, if the vote was left up to the people within New York City limits, I am sure that same-sex marriages would be legalized by a ratio better than 5 to 1. Nevertheless, New York City and its political representatives don’t get to decide this matter, so a city-wide vote is not the case.

But maybe it should be.

Because of financials, it is impossible to make this a city issue. Afterall, one of the most prominent reasons homosexuals want same-sex marriage is so that they can take part in the economical, social and statewide benefits that come with being married. Such benefits would include jointly-filed taxes, untaxed inheritances, or being able to have hospital visitation rights and medical decisions over your spouse; rights that really can only be granted by the state.

However, why doesn’t New York City do the best that it can?

Why not, if voted on, start to recognize same-sex marriages within New York City institutions? Sure, it is not the answer to the problem and homosexuals should want more and should get more in the future. Yet why not do the best we can with what we’re working with at the moment?

Certainly, I am no legal expert, but maybe I can play one on the internet for just a second here. Is it impossible to give those hospital visitation and medical decision rights to married same-sex spouses here in New York City? Is it impossible to give same-sex married couples whatever New York City tax-relief we give to other married couples within the 5 boroughs (and Yonkers too!).

I am sure that a lawyer could hit me with 17 indictments just for suggesting that the city shun its State capital like that, but as a New York City resident, isn’t it the right thing to do? Why should this city, the most liberal in the world, be entirely bound by a legislation that clearly does not represent the majority of New York City residents?

As I said though, I am no lawyer. I do not know how feasible giving same-sex marriages certain rights in New York City is. However, it is definitely worth a shot. And I hope there is someone out there, with a better legal mind than my own, who is willing to approach the idea of doing whatever we can to maintain this city’s personality, as well as the inalienable rights of those who aren’t like everybody else.

Brooklyn: Moving Out of City's Version of the Suburbs

2009-06-01T06:00:00.002-04:00

So I recently moved from Brooklyn to Harlem. Harlem is familiar stopping grounds for me given that I went to school in Morningside Heights for 4 years. Having lived here before, I know that I am in for a good time with all of Harlem’s culture, activity and stimulating personality. However, with all of the good that comes with moving to Harlem, there is a lot of bad that goes with leaving Brooklyn.

The grass is always greener on the other side of the….water! For so long, I have thought about moving back to Manhattan, back to the Upper West Side, where I originally planted my roots here in New York City. And while I knew that day was inevitable, I never really thought about how much I would miss Brooklyn.

I only lived there for 3 years, but it is sufficient to say that you can certainly make a home in Brooklyn in just 3 years. That’s what I did. I originally lived in Crown Heights, in a lovely Brownstone, right off Kingston Avenue. The block I lived on was actually lined with trees and there was a park across the street that was full of activity during the summer months. It was in that park that I started a workout regiment and as well as a jogging routine. That’s something that few Manhattanites can even consider. Around the corner from me was a bodega that mine as well have been a supermarket. It pretty much supplied me with everything that 22-year old male just out of college needs: Ramen Noodles, toilet paper, orange juice and potato chips. Of course, I lived with 3 girls for roommates at the time, so there were plenty of other items that I got from there, as well as from the neighborhood grocery store down the block; which of course, was run by people in the neighborhood. Ahhhh, the community experience!

After a year of living across from the park, I ended up getting booted out of the Brownstone—it got sold to some fairly wealthy individuals, whom had no need for 4 college grads throwing wildly entertaining Halloween parties (even though I barley attended the party, it was legendary, I swear!). I moved to a spot down the road and just a few blocks from both Brooklyn Museum and Prospect Park. The street outside of my apartment was often littered with young, black adolescents seemingly wasting their time away on sidewalks, as well as the hipster white folks, who loved the neighborhood so much that they actually staged a patrol to pick up trash off the streets. Needless to say, I loved this place.

I ended up frequenting the park, often for barbeques, runs or just to go out there and relax. The great thing about Prospect Park, and really all of Brooklyn, is that it is such a great break from the hustle and bustle of Manhattan. People are not running over each other to get somewhere. There is way less commercialism, with “mom and pop” shops dominating the retail activity; as opposed to the McDonald’s and Duane Reades of the world that dominate the island. You will find far less people dressed up in suits, and many more people walking outside and their skimpies. The sidewalks in Brooklyn aren’t just for walking, but for grilling, children playing and meeting new people. Brooklyn is more or less the more densely populated version of Long Island. It is the suburbs of city life, if there is such a thing.

Of course, many of these same things can be found in Harlem, which does not embody all of the bells and whistles that the rest of Manhattan does. In moving to Harlem, I still find myself just 2 blocks from Morningside Park and only 8 blocks from Central Park. Nevertheless, it doesn’t feel the same. Morningside Park is about as creepy and deserted as parks get in New York City, and you can barley scratch your ass in Central Park with out a permit.

So while Midtown isn’t exactly the spitting image of Harlem, Harlem is still no Brooklyn. I will continue to miss my Caribbean folks on Fulton Street who had the jerk chicken on the grill—on a daily basis—starting at 11am everyday! I’ll have to try to get by without an easy path to the best park in New York, a path (Eastern Parkway) that has been labeled as one of the most beautiful streets in America. I will have to manage the long commute to Brooklyn on First Saturdays, as I certainly will not give up my recent fascination with Brooklyn Museum’s monthly celebration of art and life. And I’ll have to make due with the constant street noise that comes with living in Manhattan, an issue that was rarely an topic of concern on the confined streets of Park Place and Franklin Avenue.

But I’m sure I’ll be back in tune with Harlem before the next First Saturday event. It’s not as if Harlem doesn’t have its own unique culture and way of life. So get ready for the next post entitled “The Return of the Harlem Renaissance,” or “Uzo runs 125th Street,” coming to an email box near you in the not too distant future. But until then, I soak these memories of Brooklyn up, dreaming of the more colorful grass on the other side of water.

Raising Kids In New York City? Not Me...

2009-05-26T09:00:00.000-04:00

Over the Memorial Day Weekend, I had an incredibly interesting conversation on the feasibility of raising a child in New York City. It’s a conversation that I have had many a times, and it’s a conversation that many people in their late 20’s tend to have because of the daunting decision of starting a family here in New York or eventually moving out to the suburbs. It was a very inspired debate, and I certainly have my mind set in stone as to how I feel about the situation.

Personally, I could not do it. I could not see myself raising my children in New York City without some sort of guilt. Certainly, I find the day when I have to pack my stuff up and leave New York City unfathomable, but I think that’s what I would have to do if I intend to start a family.

I have lived in the inner city, the ghetto, low-class suburbs and middle-class suburbs, and I certainly have experienced what it is like to live in all facets of the many different types of lifestyles available here in New York City. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, there is no place for a child like middle-class Suburbia.

I do not care if I was worth $10 billion, you could never get me to agree that living in Beverley Hills, the Hamptons, or the Upper East Side presents a better upbringing for a child than good, old-fashioned Suburbia. I actually have a hard time qualifying that belief with examples, which usually renders the best defense of my belief to saying that I lived in D.C., moved to Texas as a child, and was absolutely astounded by everything I was missing out on before I became a part of Suburbia. However, now that I am writing and not having this conversation with a cup of Dominican Rum in my hand, I think I can muster up a few examples of why Suburbia is a better place to raise children than New York City.

First and foremost: outdoor space! Kids need it. They need it to play, run around, to be with other kids, or to be away from other kids. Space breeds activity, which is important not just for physical health reasons, but for mental health reasons. Being cooped up in high-rises, office buildings, apartments, and subways can have a certain effect on a child. Heck, we as adults living in New York City experience that feeling of having been inside way too often, but that’s apart of New York City. We live, play and go through life indoors. Heck, we spend 9 months waiting for Summer, and when it finally comes around, we continue to spend countless moments in our offices, at the gym, at parties, in clubs, and doing various other indoor activities. Sure, we as adults try to play softball in the park on occasion, and we eat meals outdoors, but that is not enough for a child. A child needs to be free to do those things all the time, whether it’s walking home from school, playing football at the park, or just playing in the driveway, kids need to be able to experience the outdoors. Heck, can a child really play tag or hide-and-go-seek on a crowded Upper East Side sideway?

Secondly, New York City is a town for grownups. This city caters to people in their 30’s and 40’s. Even people in their 20’s still trying to come into their own career-wise cannot really experience everything New York has to offer. And I went to college here in the city, and you can’t do a damn thing before your 21st birthday—unless of course, you have a fake i.d. (which I would never have had because that’s illegal). So imagine what life is like for a child here. Sure, there are probably school events, some things here and there, for the few child programs there are here in the city, but that fails in comparison to what is going on out there in Suburbia. They are just making up things for kids to do in Suburbia. From the plethora of athletic opportunities (you can’t even play football or soccer here in most city schools), to the multitude of town fairs, barbeques, plays, circuses, water activities, clubs, and the overabundance of things I can’t even think of or don’t know about, Suburbia trumps New York City in all things having to do with the outdoors. Sure, we have some of the same things here in New York City, but to what degree? Hell, we get excited when there’s a street fair outside of our offices.

My last argument focuses on the community feel of living in New York City versus living in suburbs. Let’s face it, 99% of New Yorkers reading this don’t even know their neighbors’ names. Hell, I don’t. Don’t really care either, because that’s just how the city is. There is no community. God forbid you move to New York City and not know anybody, because that could easily result in several months (maybe even years) of solitude. You all know you have heard the stories about single people getting hurt or dying in their apartments only to be found days later. That doesn’t happen in the suburbs. Your neighbors are so far into your business that most of them could recite your daily schedule with 100% accuracy. There is no way you can live in Suburbia and not know your neighbors, or your neighbors’ neighbors. On top of that, living in Suburbia gives your kids the opportunity to grow up with familiar faces, whom they can visit at will, and you end up having the opportunity to truly let a village help raise your child.

I am not saying that raising a child in Suburbia does not come with a downside, nor that raising in a child in New York City doesn’t have things Suburbia doesn’t offer. Kids in New York City are surrounded by culture with all of NYC’s museums, plays and historical attractions, while Suburban kids are more likely to get involved with drugs and alcohol. However, at the end of the day, I think Suburban kids lack very little of what New York kids have, and for the most part, they can attain those things easily—especially if we are talking about living in New Jersey or Long Island.

Thus, I stand by my belief that raising a child in New York City is not fair to said child. Which is why I believe that parents only choose to raise their kids here because of their jobs (and I say that half-heartedly, because many of those parents could commute to the city), or more likely it is just their own unwillingness to give up a lifestyle that is hard to duplicate elsewhere. Listen, I understand the dilemma of city-parents, because it is hard for me to imagine living in another place anytime soon. However, the thing about parenting is that you have to make tough decisions, and you have to stop putting yourself first when you make those decisions. Perhaps, it is not until you can distance yourself from this debate that you should even think about having kids. Of course, that is just my opinion. Here are the opinions of other people who either agree or disagree with me:

P.S. I won't feel sorry for any of you who disagree with me when you need help lifting your stroller up subway steps!

What I love about raising kids in New York City
Why I Let My 9-Year-Old Ride the Subway Alone
Pros/Cons of raising a family in NYC
Raising Kids in NY
Urban Environments Can Provide a Great Upbringing
10 Reasons Why Raising Kids in NYC City Rules
Raising Kids in the City or the Suburbs?
Schools Close, but Children Are Out and About

MTA is Holding my Money Hostage

2009-05-10T15:06:00.001-04:00

Okay, so I just got off the phone with that wonderful company we New Yorkers call the “MTA”. For those of you who don’t reside in New York, that’s New York City’s silly old mass transportation service that is a whole lot more of disturbance than it is of any service to anyone.

So what was my issue this time?

Well, on Friday night, I attempted to buy a monthly metro-card for $81. I swiped my card in the MTA machine, and the machine said that it was unable to process my request. So I tried again with a different card and got the same result. Now, let me just make sure you’re aware of this; I did have enough money on both cards, but for whatever reason, the machine was f’ing with me that night. Now I was in a hurry to get home, because it was like 3 o’clock in the morning. I tried to purchase the monthly card several more times, but it didn’t work. Eventually, I ended up being able to purchase a single-ride ticket, so I got on the subway and went home.

The next afternoon, on my way to Habana Outpost in Fort Green, I tried to purchase a monthly metro-card, and it still didn’t work. Once again, I was only able to purchase a single-ride ticket. I did that, and went on my way to Brooklyn. During my stint in Brooklyn, I got some food with some friends where I ended up having to use my card. Some people gave me some cash and I used my card to make the purchase. Now, I was a little weary using my card because it hadn’t been working with the MTA machines for the last 2 days. Nonetheless, $50 worth of food later, my card was accepted.

On my way from Brooklyn, back to my apartment, I tried the MTA machine again, and it still didn’t work—even with the very same card I used to purchase my food. This time, I couldn’t even buy a single-ride ticket for $2.00. Unbelievable! So I used my credit card to make a purchase, and after 2 or 3 tries, it actually worked, and I was able to get my monthly card.

When I got home, I checked my online account to see what was going on. Turns out, I definitely had enough money in my account to buy a metro card, so that wasn’t the issue. However, despite only purchasing the one monthly metro card, I had about 6-7 $81.00 charges on my account; all pending, but still subtracting from my available balance.

I called the bank and they said to call the MTA. I called the MTA, and they told me that I should wait 3 days for the charges to clear. Understanding that, I initially got off the phone, but outraged at the fact that if I really needed that money, it was not available to me, I called back to try and demand that they immediately rectify the situation.

I talked to one person and asked him if he could do what my bank asked me to tell them to do, which was to have the MTA call my bank and give my bank the approval to deny the charge. The representative said that the MTA does not do that. I asked to speak to his manger. She, the manager, then came on the phone, and said that she couldn’t do that either. When I lied, and told them that I really needed the money so that I could buy a metro card and get to work on Monday, she said there was nothing they could do to help me, despite the fact that they were holding my money hostage because their machines were randomly denying my card while siphoning my money right out of my pockets.

Is this what customer service has come to? Here I was, a young man, saying I had no money other than the amount pending on my card, and the very company holding my money hostage refused to help me out. I even told the lady that every bit of cash I had was in that bank account and that I have no credit card, but she didn’t care. She didn’t even say sorry. She just said there was nothing they could do except tell me to wait 2-3 days for the charges to come off my card. Meanwhile, if I really had no other money, I would have been destined for 2-3 days of no food, missed payments, and countless missed phone calls from my boss about missing work.

This is the world we live in though. Where the government (the MTA is run basically run by the state) won’t even help the little man out when it is the government that is at fault. Look, I’m a liberal guy, and I tend to side with the Democrats on political issues, but if the government is really going to give people a big fat “there’s nothing we can do to help,” even when they are the ones at fault, then I don’t want them running anything, never mind the economy.

So what should I do people?

Should I call the MTA back on Wednesday and say I still have the charges, even if I don’t? Should I tell them I missed out on 3 days of work because of them? Should I see if my bank can cancel the charges anyway? Let me know. I’m looking for ideas, because there’s no way they can be at fault and be able to tell the customer to live with it. It’s just wrong. So let me know what I can do to at least be as big of a nuisance to them as they were to my bank account.

Mailed Your Taxes Yesterday?....You Are a Drag on Society!

2009-04-16T20:04:00.003-04:00

What’s wrong with people? I walked by the post office late yesterday afternoon and I see it full of people, with a line almost out the door. No I’m no dummy. I recognize that yesterday was April 15th, otherwise known as Dooms-Day—I mean tax Day. But come on! It’s freaking 2009. If you’re still mailing your taxes, nevermind doing them on paper, not only do you have a problem…you are the problem!

No, I’m not saying that anybody mailing their taxes is causing the Rain Forest to deplete—although, I guess there is an argument for that. But I’m not playing the “green card” today. Instead, I’m talking about the fact the so many people are so adverse to new technology and new ways of thinking, that this country has no choice but a future bound for a Romanesque type fall.

Before you start calling me Anti-American, let me remind you that it was the Ancient Roman society that would not alter its political, economical and imperialistic ways, ultimately resulting in the fall of one of the greatest empires of all time.

Conversely, this United States of America is considered one of the greatest empires of all time. But we too won’t give up some of our ways. Starting with the whole tax thing? Like what kind of cave dweller still goes to the post office on April 15th, to mail their taxes—or even worse—send off their extension papers? I mean, has anyone heard of TurboTax? And if you really want to pay more attention to your taxes than some “ordinary software” can provide, then you should probably have enough money to hire someone else to do them for you.

However, forgetting about how people do their taxes, if you’re crazy enough to do them on paper, why are you waiting until the last day? Did these people not get their W-2’s by February like every other person in America? Why are so many Americans waiting until the final day to do the one thing that the federal government ask them to do every year? It’s pure laziness and slothfulness! Get off your butts and do your damn taxes in a timely fashion. Don’t crowd up the post office and keep other people from doing what they need to do there.

But this kind of antiquated and slothful behavior is indicative of the very society we live in. America is no longer tops in education, because we invest our money by pumping our egos with warfare and the bailing out of Wall St. America is also one of the fattest countries in the world, because we’re too busy sitting on the couch watching the Biggest Loser, not realizing we’re breeding ourselves for cameo appearances on the show in the near future—myself included! America isn’t even the best auto-maker anymore. We invented the damn machine, but because of our lethargy and unwillingness to embrace new technology, we have fallen behind in an industry that we ourselves created. That would be like Bill Gates creating Word in 1981 and sticking with that version of the program for the rest of his career. It just wouldn’t work!

Of course, this shouldn’t be a surprise. We allowed Japan to surpass us in so many technological areas during the Cold War, because we were too preoccupied with Russia. I’m too young and too uneducated on the matter to say our preoccupation with Russia was unfounded, but the fact is that we did sacrifice innovation dollars for an arms race, and the extent to which we did deserves at least some debate.

This brings me back to taxes. Chances are, if you are reading my blog, on the internet and not printed out by your intern, then you probably did your taxes in a timely fashion and via e-file. It’s the people who refuse to turn to blogs, read their news online, get an iPod, file for direct deposit, open a Twitter or Facebook account, or embrace video chatting, that keep America struggling to get out of the very dark ages we once fought to leave behind.

MTA Prices Up...Service Down?

2009-04-10T14:59:00.001-04:00

I’ve lived in New York City for almost 7 years now, and if there is one thing that I have become accustomed to, it is the raising of MTA prices.

When I first came to New York City to go to college, the cost of a single fare was $1.50 and you could still buy tokens. Now the price of a single fare is $2.00, there are no more tokens, and the price is set to rise to $2.50 beginning this summer—unless something should change.

However, the price of a single fare is not the only thing the MTA has raised. More commonly, the price of a monthly subway card has risen at least two times since my arrival, and the price of riding in taxis and on the train have gone up substantially as well.

If you are a New York City resident and worker, the most staggering price shift is that monthly fare increase. Right now, the cost of a monthly subway card is just $81, but it is set to jump all the way to $103, a shift of over 27%!

If you could show me the numbers that say this is the price that that the monthly card has to be if we are going to keep the subway running at its currently level of efficiency, then eventually I would have to accept that. I would hope for continued improvements if I am going to give that much more of my money to the MTA, but I can only expect so much from a municipality, right?

However, instead of the MTA simply saying this is the price that they need to make monthly Metrocards if the subway is going to continue to operate, they are also adding to that by saying that they will cut back subway service.

That’s right. The MTA is going to ask New Yorkers to pay more money for the subway while giving its riders less subway to work with.

Subway service is not the only thing the MTA is going to cutback. Bus routes will also be cut. Need I not point out how critical bus transportation is to those outerboroughs. So on top of cutting back subway service in areas of New York City where the subway runs too infrequently, the MTA is also cutting back on one of the most vital forms of transportation for the elderly.

I find it amazing how the MTA turns to the people of New York City when they need to bludgeon people for money. As if it’s the people using the subway everyday to get to work that are responsible for the MTA’s poor financial accounting and the city’s overall economic downfall. If you ask me, if the MTA needs money, they need to turn to the people who are responsible for the city’s budgeting problems: the people on Wall Street and government officials.

If Citibank and Bank of America can acquire taxpayer money and backing, then why can’t the people of the New York City have some of that money spent on rescuing the MTA?

I would rather see the fall of Citibank before I see the subway shut down. Call me shortsighted, but the subway is the reason this city is the way it is. Public transportation is what makes New York City unlike any other, because it puts people on a level playing field, in that anyone can get anywhere, regardless of income. Citibank is only a proponent for making the wealthy even wealthier, and while many New Yorkers have benefited from that, I want my tax dollars saving the average man from a 27% increase on the subway, not from some proposed catastrophic fall of a bank that could care less about me.

Any Should Mean “Any!”

2009-02-24T01:45:00.002-05:00

But that’s not what it means to Subway Sandwiches.

Despite its well known advertising campaign championing the $5 Footlong sandwich, Subway has decided to use its newfound popularity in another way…with deceit!

If you haven’t caught the message, Subway is not only advertising its usual catalogue of $5 footlong sandwiches, which includes staples such as the chicken breast, ham & cheese, meatball marinara, tuna and other classics, but now Subway has a limited promotion that says “any footlong” can be bought for $5.

Now, when I hear the word “any”—especially in song format—I am inclined to believe that “any” is indeed what I’m being offered. However, upon going to a local NYC Subway while at my freelance gig last week, a co-worker and I became the products of false advertising.

Having come to Subway to test out this $5 “any footlong” special, I came in and observed the menu. Now, not even I really expected every sandwich to be available for $5. I knew a Philly Cheesesteak or some other premium sandwich would not be available, but I knew of a sandwich that I had seen on the commercial that should have been available to me. So I ordered that sandwich, the Chicken Bacon & Ranch footlong, expecting to pay $5 plus NYC sales tax. However, when I got to the register, I was in for quite the surprise.

They rang me up for $7 and some change!

Now, I was no math major, but I knew NYC sales tax wasn’t so high that it could turn a $5 purchase into $7 rip-off.

I asked the woman what was going on, and they said the Chicken Bacon & Ranch was not included in the promotion. Right with me, my co-worker ordered the Chicken Parmesan Sandwich, and he was greeted with a total of $10+.

This was one hell-of-a-surprise. I had been harboring that sandwich all morning long, probably more for its price than its taste, but in one swipe of the debit card, they ruined all of my excitement. You can believe I squabbled with them, because I couldn’t believe that such a simple sandwich was not in the “any” category. Nevertheless, they refuted me. And yes, I still bought the sandwich, because that’s what I really wanted, but you can rest assure I wasn’t happy about it.

When I got back to my computer, I checked out the Subway website to see what they were offering, and of course, the Chicken Bacon & Ranch was up there. That means this was a huge oversight by the particular Subway franchisee I went to. I won’t mention the place’s location (852 10th Avenue, New York, NY 10019), but you can rest assure they’ll never win another battle with me.

Anyway, if you take only one thing away from this post, let it be this: there’s no such thing as a free lunch…even if it cost you $5.

NY Times Gives Endorsements

2008-01-26T07:48:00.000-05:00

On January 24, 2008, the New York Times Editorial Board announced the two candidates that they are endorsing in this year’s Presidential Primaries.

On the Democratic side, the oft-liberal paper selected Senator Hillary Clinton as their choice to win the Democratic nomination for the general election this fall. In their published endorsement of Clinton, the editorial board called her “brilliant,” and seems to be of the mind that she is experienced in both foreign and domestic affairs that could lead this country out of this mess, which President George Bush has created, better than any of the other Democratic candidates. In the process of anointing Hillary, they patted Barack Obama on the back and dismissed John Edwards as basically a flip-flopping candidate.

The NYTimes choice for the Republican Party nomination was John McCain. In their endorsement of him, the say that he is the only “Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe.” However, the “endorsement” actually only focuses on McCain for the first three paragraphs, and then immediately goes in to Rudolph Giuliani bashing. Posing the question to themselves as to why they, a New York-based paper, are not backing Giuliani, they essentially say that he is not the man he used to be.

I don’t know if it’s just me, but I find it preposterous that these big producers of mass media find it necessary to fully endorse a candidate for the President of the United States. And don’t fall for the “it’s the editorial board endorsement, not the paper” excuse.

That’s bologna!

You and I know that if the major figureheads at the head of any major paper were adamantly against the endorsement of a particular candidate or any candidate at all, that it just wouldn’t happen. And if you want to sell your endorsement as being the opinion of just a few select people from part of your staff, then don’t put it on the front page of your newspaper; otherwise, I have to call a spade a spade.

Is this really okay though? This is an extremely liberal paper in democratic-based environment, yet it feels the need to tell the readers whom to endorse, and it even goes as far to use selective reasoning as to why to vote for their choice.

What ever happened to objectivity in media? Did Rupert Murdoch by the NYTimes, too?

The NYTimes (or their editorial board) should stick to just giving us the facts and diversity of opinions on the issues pertaining to the race, where the candidates stand, and why or why not one individual writer is in favor of a particular candidate. I don’t want to know what candidate a multi-million dollar company with a fiduciary responsibility to its owners wants to endorse. Just give me my news and opinion and save the vote tampering for Super Tuesday.

"Crank That Soulja Boy"...Great Business Platform or New Aged Blackface?

2008-01-20T15:45:00.001-05:00

I was one of those who thought that the term “Crank that Soulja Boy” would immediately mean the end of the Black race as we knew it.

Many performances in the history of entertainment in America have been at the expense of a black person’s self-respect and/or a black person’s sensitivities to being a part of such a marginalized social grouping. From blackface to coonery, and from token stereotypical black characters in early white sitcoms, to black sitcoms making fun of us on their own, entertainment has long been a platform to disrespect the race.

And when I first saw “Crank That Soulja Boy” on youtube.com, I didn’t know what to think. The video itself was pretty interesting and there was no real problem with it by itself. However, I was quickly directed to an instructional video, followed by dozens and then hundreds of videos with people dancing to this beat, doing outrageous things like picking up guns, and doing stereotypical things like popping collars and pointing to their shoes, and I honestly thought to myself:

“Black people might not be able to live this one down.”

But with “Crank That Soulja Boy” so engrossed into today’s pop culture, I’m not sure how to judge it. Afterall, it is a song, dance and video, that has made a young 17-year old man, artist and Creator “Soulja Boy”, into at least a “well-off” individual. His song is now the highest selling digital song ever. “Crank That Soulja Boy” was #1 on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 for 7 weeks. It has sold 3 million ring tones, and has produced 600,000 album sells. It was nominated for a Grammy, and sells over 100,000 digital versions (iTunes, Zune, etc.) a week. And then there is their web space traffic, where they have multiple videos tallying over 25 million views, and a litany of homemade videomakers performing the “Crank That Soulja Boy” dance.

So is “Crank That Soulja Boy” just a modern day blackface performance, or nothing more than cult phenomenon for loves of dancing and music?

Given its business success, one might be tempted to say that it is nothing more than entertainment and that its acceptance by the masses is evidence of that. However, Black minstrel shows were popular and profitable, too, but it doesn’t mean they didn’t come at one’s detriment.

I personally think that the video itself is fine. Its catchy beat, innovative dance ancillary, and digital focus are the makings of great entertainment and business initiatives. The song, of course, is very typical of a young rapper. Its self promotional, and uses unbecoming and stereotypical language. From “why me crank that Roosevelt” to “superman dat hoe”, the language just does an injustice to the race by promoting every negative term you can find on urbandictionary.com. The lyrics and video together promote violence and demeaning behavior, and have inspired many adults to teach their kids to dance to these lyrics. You can find countless people on YouTube dancing to this, while unbeknown to them, they are rebroadcasting black stereotypes and looking quite silly.

It’s embarrassing, and yet I can’t blame someone who is old enough, smart enough, and responsible enough, for appreciating the catchy beat and creative dance, because in the end, it’s just a song. So when I see common sensed, learned people dancing to this, I have no problem. It’s the young, ignorant and stupid that scare me everytime I hear “crank that soulja boy.”

Editor of Golfweek Gets the "Axe" for the "Noose"...Sort of

2008-01-18T22:21:00.000-05:00

As many people know, Golfweek Magazine published its January 19th issue with a noose on the cover. The illustration was for an article on Kelly Tilghman’s statements about Tiger Woods that used the word “lynch” (discussed here on The Sports Watchers Radio Show).

However, as of January 18, 2008, Golfweek “replaced” Dave Seanor, the editor deemed responsible for okaying the noose illustration, and the Turnstile Pushing Co. president, William J. Kupper Jr. had this to say:

”We apologize for creating this graphic cover that received extreme negative reaction from consumers, subscribers and advertisers across the country...We were trying to convey the controversial issue with a strong and provocative graphic image. It is now obvious that the overall reaction to our cover deeply offended many people. For that, we are deeply apologetic.”

Quite frankly, I am glad they did replace former editor Dave Seanor. It was irresponsible of the editor to place a noose on the cover!

I will be honest with you, I am a young man, 23-years old, and seeing a picture of a noose does not invoke visions of hatred and the racist atmosphere of America’s past for me.

However, I am quite aware of the origins of the noose and the hatred that it stimulated and provoked throughout the better part of the 20th century, mainly 1882 to 1968 (from Tolerance.org). The noose was used in lynches, mainly in the South, and many southern black victims were hanged by this weapon of choice for bigoted individuals and organizations. It is said that over 4,700 people were murdered in this fashion, with the majority of them being black.

So I think it should be understood by an educated professional like Dave Seanor that a lot of people would have a “negative reaction” to this type of illustration, especially when it comes across as a marketing ploy that is taking advantage of an issue that once had grave repercussions for a generation of people that are still alive and present. Placing a picture on the cover of the magazine would have been like placing a gas chamber on the cover of a Nazi publication. It’s just not right, and reprimanding Dave Seanor was the least the Golfweek could do.

Nevertheless, don’t let president Kupper’s statement full you. He and the magazine should also be held responsible. Never should there have been any such an illustration on the cover of magazine. One only has to look back to last October to see the effects hanging nooses had on society when Jena 6 was in the news. However, I do not expect the president to suspend himself, but a deep reconfiguring of the editorial/publishing process at that magazine should be underway.

As for Dave Seanor, I would never promote the firing of a hard-working, middle-class person to lose part of their pay, never mind their job. But perhaps his next reporting assignment should be to educate the office on the day’s lunch specials from the café down the street from the office.

So What Exactly Did "Fifty" Mean By "Magic Stick"...?

2008-01-14T21:13:00.000-05:00

Is there a drug that can make you rap or sing better? Probably not. Nevertheless, that has to be the first comical thought that comes to your mind when you hear that the Albany Times-Union leaked a report that found Mary J. Blige, 50 Cent, and Timbaland on a list of alleged customers involved in a steroid/human growth hormone ring.

Does the idea that 50 Cent takes steroids really bother anybody? One wouldn’t think so. Afterall, steroid use helped bring major league baseball into public favor by increasing the overall entertainment level of the game via an increased production of homeruns. The same effect could be attributed to 50 Cent if he indeed did use steroids. Obviously, steroids and H.G.H. did not help 50 Cent rap any better, but the benefit would seemingly be to increase his sex appeal, or larger than life iconic image. I can’t remember the last time I saw an album cover or video of 50 Cent’s that didn’t involve him taking off his shirt and flexing his muscles.

However, 50 Cent is not the first non-athlete entertainer to use steroids to gain some type of advantage in the entertainment industry. Oh, no! This goes back deep into the 20^th century. Who knows where the current Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, would be right now had he not used steroids to amass that gigantic body that lead to a Mr. Universe crowning and a lifetime worth of fame. In addition, there are dozens of other actors who I could speculate on but wouldn’t dare publicly accuse (just think multi-sequel boxing movies and I guy named Rambo).

While we can understand while a hardcore rapper like 50 Cent, and others “Aftermath” rappers like Dr. Dre and Busta Rhymes might have a reason to use the juice (allegedly), but it’s harder to understand why Mary J. Blige’s name was found on this list of alleged steroid customers.

Steroids and H.G.H. do have the possibility of acting as an anti-aging agent, but the jury is out on whether or not they actually do slow the aging process. Even if Blige saw them acting in that matter, is the bad press she could get from using steroids worth a few years of delayed aging? Maybe it is in the world of a female entertainer, whose entire career could end the day some agent decides she has one too many bags under her eyes.

Nevertheless, steroids and H.G.H. are illegal, and if these entertainers obtained them through illegal methods, that’s even more trouble. But personally, as long as the kiddies aren’t inspired to use steroids, I’m okay with these ladies and gentlemen juicing up. Who knows, maybe one day they’ll concoct a designer steroid that helps enhance the performance of one’s vocals chords…?

The AMT is DOA

2007-12-19T18:57:00.001-05:00

By Uzo Ometu

The Alternative Minimum Tax has been sticking it to American taxpayers for years, but on December 19, 2007, Congress finally decided to do something about it.

The House of Representatives voted on a measure that would relieve 21 million tax payers of their responsibility to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) for the 2007 tax year. In fact, they voted for this bill emphatically, with a 352-64 outcome.

The AMT was created in 1969 in order to prevent the “rich” Americans who were paying virtually no taxes because they were using a plethora of deductions and loopholes to get around paying income tax. The AMT is a form of back up tax enforcement that requires people of specific income brackets (those who are “rich”) to pay a minimum tax should their original tax filing result in owed-taxes that are below the AMT. Thus, if a taxpayer does his or her taxes in such a way that they end up owing no income taxes (or taxes below the AMT), then they have to pay the AMT which taxes at a rate of either 26 or 28 percent.

The AMT has been obliterating the incomes of millions of middle-Americans since 1986 when President Ronald Reagan and Congress elected to make some major changes in the tax system that would result in the average person’s deductions being effectively negated by the AMT. Also, since the AMT’s induction in 1969, there have been no changes to it that have accounted for inflation, thus creating all sorts of problems in using it in an economy that is almost 40 years removed from the one the AMT was created under. Because of those factors, Americans who aren’t rich and who fall into the middle and upper-middle class economic categories have been paying more than their fair share of taxes.

Had Congress not enacted this measure before the tax year was over, approximately 21 million Americans would have paid an average of $2,000 or more on their taxes. Some of these people make as little as $30,000 to $50,000 a year, and an additional $2,000 in owed tax money could represent as much as 6% of their income.

However, there is the question of how on Earth this $2,000 from 21 million people is going to be replaced? This is a question that the 64 people who voted in opposition of this measure were trying to raise via their votes. That’s over $42 billion in potential tax earnings that the government is essentially rejecting, and there is no provision in the measure voted on today that will replace that amount of money. As if our national deficit wasn’t big enough, now we’re instituting provisions without regard for how we are going to pay for them.

It was a good effort by Congress, and it was the right thing to do. But it would help if the nation’s most empowered politicians could demonstrate a little bit of skill and give me more than just good intentions.

Should We Reverse Urbanization?

2007-12-11T22:51:00.000-05:00

It is official, over half of the world has been urbanized- meaning that there are more people who live in cities than in rural areas. According to United Nations Population Fund report, by next year, more than half the world’s population will live in towns and cities. That’s over 3.3 billion people. That number is expect to balloon to almost 5 billion by the year 2030.

Such an outcome can have dramatic effects on our futures. For centuries now, the move from rural areas to suburbs and inner cities has been the social movement. However, with more people officially living in cities, is it plausible to think that this whole thing could reverse itself over the next few centuries?

Some people look at the city as a negative phenomenon. Citing the city as a place filled with pollution, poverty, and lack of space. But in reality, is this really the cause of the city, or just a misunderstood correlation? Afterall, is it better for a poor person to live out in the woods and to try to start a life of agriculture and self-sustaining with little or no capital? Of course it isn’t. Besides, the GDP per capita is much greater in cities than it is in rural areas. Yes, a lot of that can be attributed upper class, but most of it is because the people in the middle class are result of the increased economic mobility that cities allow for.

Is pollution really greater in a city when you account for the pollution caused per person, and the fact that things are created in mass quantities thereby eliminating much of excess waste that can be derived from creating for one’s individual family, or even just themselves?

Moreover, as for a lack of space, that is a choice that people make, and it is a choice with way more benefits than detriments. Being confined to live in more dense communities forces people to interact more, and interaction is the root of creation, which is what has allowed developed nations to become what they are.

So you must ask yourselves, are the trivial non-issues really worth declining the sizes of cities?

Some people will argue that we will have no other choice.

There are those who see the Baby Boomer era that forced residents into cities, as something that will reverse itself, citing that it is a simple case of what goes up most go down.

As Robert Brugemann of the University of Illinois at Chicago notes, “In virtually every affluent nation on Earth, the old 19^th century industrial cities have exploded outward, allowing densities [of cities] to plummet at the core as residents move further out into low-density suburbia…The city of Paris today has a third fewer residents than it did in 1907.”

Is it that simple though? What could possible cause people across the world to leave the cities to back into rural areas and spread out? Can people, especially in America, give up modern day entertainment, retail, and companionship? In the days of the Internet where people from across the world can connect, is that enough to replace the relationship that one has with their next-door neighbor, their co-workers, or even just the regulars of everyday life. Will America really revert to a society that is centered solely on the family?

I don’t think so. I think that creation, innovation, relations and forward movement relies on the fact that people live in proximity with one another. The very idea that two people who do not know each other can work together everyday in order to produce and contribute to the sustaining of the economy is vital to the way of the world. Yes, it would be nice if every family could fend for itself. But what price do we pay when we no longer rely on one another?

Classist Fool Displays Classless Rules

2007-11-20T11:29:00.000-05:00

In an article by Michael Lewis, of Bloomberg News, Lewis discusses his thoughts on why “finance is one thing you should never engage in with the poor.” Obviously, when he says finance, he is referring to investing in the “poor” market, such as with subprime mortgage loans. And when he uses the word “poor”, he is referring to “anyone who the SEC wouldn’t allow to invest in my hedge fund. And maybe if he was just referring to the subprime market with his reasoning being that the entire non-traditional lending movement did not work, his statement would not be so ridiculous. But Mr. Lewis did not stop there.

In fact, Michael Lewis had several more points to address in his dismissal of poor people, (which is really the lower-middle class and below for him) as something to invest in. Unfortunately for Lewis, his points were no less shaky the very subprime mortgage itself.

Lewis point #1: “[The poor] are masters of public relations.”

Under this point, Lewis describes his investment in the subprime portfolio as an act of philanthropy, and says that because people who invested in the market are being ripped by the media his charitable actions have been turned against him. As his statement above denotes, he clearly thinks that poor people have intentionally made him out to be the bad guy in order not to place the blame on somebody. Well, sorry Mr. Lewis, but as you said, you “bought [subprime stock] at a discount,” and you did that because you were okay in using your money to charge outrageous interest rates on “poor” homeowners. Karma, baby. Karma.

Lewis point #2: “Poor people don’t respect other people’s money in the way money deserves to be respected.”

Not even mentioning his labeling of the poor as “schlubs”, Lewis goes on to pretty much say that the “poor” simply just waved their hands in the air and defaulted on their loans in order to get out of the obligation…as if they had a choice! Come on, the people who defaulted are the one’s who could no longer afford their mortgages once ARMs sent their monthly payments into orbit. Yes, Lewis does make a good point here when basically faulting those who were not aware of the hike their mortgage payments could incur, because those people should have done everything they could have to understand the terms of their mortgage. However, it has been clearly documented that there are many lenders who violated all ethics and did not make such information clear, if they brought it up at all when at the negotiating table.

Lewis point #3: “I’ve grown out of touch with poor culture.”

Yes, you have, Lewis. Yes, you have.

Lewis point #4: “Our society is really, really hostile to success. At the same time it’s shockingly indulgent of poor people.”

This could not be further from the truth. When describing this point, Lewis talks about how the government is trying to “bail [the poor] out.” What he really should be noting is how the government is trying to take advantage of this for political gain. The “poor” are the one’s that get people elected, and pandering to them is the government’s way of saying, “you scratch my back, and I’ll say I’ll scratch yours.” Lewis also makes mention of turning the poor into a circus, a statement that can only be defined as elitist, insensitive and classist. Not to mention classless.

Leis point #5: “I think it’s time we all become more realistic about letting the poor anywhere near Wall Street.”

In this point, Lewis finally defines what “poor” is according to him, which is “mainstream.” So he has been talking middle-class America throughout his piece, just as I noted before. But his point about not letting mainstream anywhere near Wall Street is nothing but a pipe dream, because unfortunately, Wall Street is based 100% on the ongoings of the mainstream culture. It is based on what we buy, what we like, what we cherish, and what we want. Business make money on Wall Street buy upping the price on what we must have so that investors can see higher and higher returns.

To end, Lewis calls the “poor sharks,” but if you have ever seen someone in the likes of Michael Lewis, then you really know what it is like to see a fish out of water.

Interactive Marketing Is the Hit of the Advertising World

2007-11-13T06:28:00.001-05:00

With consumers looking down on traditional advertising methods more and more, the business world has been forced to get a little creative.

People no longer want to deal with pop-up ads, so everyone and their momma has a pop-up-blocker installed on their computer.

Forget television commercials. With Tivo and DVRs, people record those and skip right through them.

Screw all of that signage in they gym, airport and other commercial buildings, I’m turning on my IPod so I don’t have to pay attention to that stuff.

Even with Internet giants Facebook and Google, people don’t want the ads that are being forced upon them, they want the pictures that they are browsing through or the organic search results that fit their needs.

However, there are a few methods out there that companies are taking to improve their chances of getting your attention.

Facebook for example, is taking aim at getting a better ROI for their advertisers by introducing a their Fan pages application, which allows advertisers to set up a “MySpace like” page where facebook users can pledge their affinity for the company or product, and advertisers can reach out to those “fans” through targeted call-to-action promotion.

Google has implemented YouTube into their Adsense/Adwords programs, thereby finally making that big step into making YouTube a valuable marketing device.

BMW has taken advantage of all of those signs you see in the airport by place short-codes (5-digit numbers) on them, allowing mobile device users to dial-in the number and download a BMW application that shows BMW videos and ushers consumers to dealership.

Then there are the new street promotions, that involve replicating a company’s website into a “fair-like” atmosphere, where usually kids, and sometimes adults, can partake in a bunch of interactive activities. There is also the “fake-protests” idea by Naked Juice, where people in fruit costumes voice disapproval to being “butchered.”

Several fast-food restaurants are also placing short codes on their food products (the containers that is). This turns a traditional medium into an interactive advertisement, and it also allows for increased segmentation and measurement of a company’s marketing efforts.

All and all, companies are trying to change the way consumers get their advertisements. With TV viewership dropping, click-through rates falling and a declining economy, advertisers know that they have to do something to get this generation’s buying power to fixate on their products. So they are trying to get those consumers who have found their way around consuming traditional advertising.

Of course, there are those pesky DVD commercials prior to the menu screen that I still can’t figure out how to skip.

Buying Your Business's Commercial Property

2007-09-11T18:08:00.000-04:00

In planning and running my own business, I’ve always tried to think of a lot of different ways to be creative and safe with my money. I came across a really interesting idea as I thought about the best ways to go about getting my business’s first office space. That idea being to purchase my commercial property personally, and not with my business.

In reading about starting, growing and expanding a business, there are all kinds of reading materials in print and on the web. And when they address the top of acquiring office space, many of them point toward taking out relatively long leases or purchasing properties with the company’s money.

However, even assuming you have the money to do those things, I do not think they are the best routes to take. The problem with taking out a lease is that you don’t see any of that money. That is a complete loss every time you add it up. And as a business person, you certainly are not about taking losses.

And then when you have your business entity purchase your place of business, the mortgage payments are not deductible. Thus, you end up paying taxes on money you don’t have. Once again, that is something no business owner wants to do.

So what’s my proposal? Well, I’m not suggesting by any means that I am some type of financing genius, or that I am the first person to come up with this solution. But I have researched the topic a lot, and there is very little mention of my answer to this problem, especially in mainstream publications.

The answer for a business owner in acquiring their first or new office space, as I said before, is to buy it personally. This allows the business owner to then lease the property to their business. In turn, the business plays business owner rent, and rent is deductible from one’s taxes.

I really do not see how this solution can be trumped. Obviously, if you are a mega corporation, a business owner being the owner of the property would be an issue of compliance for the other major contributors to the company. But if you are the sole owner, there are no legal issues that can be brought to your attention in renting out a property to your business, so long as you offer a “fair and reasonable” monthly renting fee. And yes, you can make a profit off of your business.

My number one suggestion is that you form a separate entity, preferably a Limited Liability Company (LLC), have a 100% stake in the company, and purchase the house with that. That way, your rental to your company can in no way be misconstrued as anything other than a legitimate business transaction, and making a profit can certainly be considered business. Because anytime you do business with real estate, you always want that extra shield of protection, even if your customer is yourself. And make sure to classify your LLC with an S-corporation tax status, so that you don’t get double taxed.

Is Brooklyn Bridge Falling Down?

2007-08-20T00:06:00.000-04:00

You would think that the tragic bridge collapse in Minnesota would be reason enough for all of America to begin addressing their infrastructure problems immediately.

Not so fast my friend.

The latest inspection of Brooklyn Bridge resulted in a rating of 2.9…on a scale from 1-7! That was a barely passing grade, and thus just “good enough” to not result in closing down one of the nation’s most famous bridges for at least another 2 years.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t feel the same way about walking across the Brooklyn Bridge as I would have prior to becoming aware of its 2.9 rating. With such a poor rating, how could anyone? And yet, the government still doesn’t seem to want to take the appropriate measures to ensure New York City’s resident commuters that this 124 year old bridge is completely safe.

With reports that the Brooklyn Bridge has structural, design or maintenance problems, the government is still reluctant to raise the money to take care of it. But it’s not just a local issue, the city’s government is only taking its orders from the federal sentiment. Bush actually dismissed the idea of raising the federal gas tax to pay for infrastructure repairs, and yet most infrastructure specialist say that such revenue is required if we are to stop living in danger of even more damage.

Despite Bush’s dismissal of raising taxes, the Brooklyn Bridge is still scheduled for repairs in 2009; a project that is supposedly going to be federally funded. However, it’s a pretty popular opinion that the money for such a task will not exist with out a raise in taxes.

Sometimes I just don’t understand the social contract that this government has with its people. The idea that we give up a completely free way of life for the betterment of all, the protection of this nation’s people and an overall better life for civilization is starting to wear thin.

Politics is weighing down the social contract, and the paper is about to break into pieces. And until the government starts putting our lives before re-election, our bridges might be next in line for falling apart.

Madame May I: Yes, You May

2007-07-09T07:45:00.000-04:00

Wow! That must be one serious list of names.

On July 5^th, a US District Court Judge in Washington D.C. lifted the restraining order on the DC Madam’s list of phone records. Thereby, DC Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey, is free to sell, distribute, publish or sell her phone records from her escort business in the nation’s capitol.

I never really understood how on Earth they were able to put any type of restraining order on the phone records. Afterall, she hasn’t been convicted of anything. But that’s the problem with our legal system, we say no one is guilty until proven so, but when one’s innocence is a detriment to our own beliefs and causes, we say to hell with justice.

Why would there ever be an order to stop someone from sharing their own private records when the person is not yet proven guilty. I understand the legality of the issue, where the sharing of said information could be a distraction to the case. But so what? Does public knowledge of the information effect the judicial process? Does it change the veracity of the documents and the facts? No. So to put a restraining order on Palfrey’s phone records is nothing but a biased attempt to save the ass of those prosecuting her.

Freezing one’s property or assets requires that their be some extraordinary circumstances, and those just aren’t evident in Palfrey’s case. The government actually raided her property and did not take the records, which leads me to believe that they were never that important… that is, not until some important people on that list made getting those records a matter of importance.

Is it wrong to scream conspiracy? Maybe, especially when there is very little proof of it. But what else am I supposed to think? There’s no reason to keep the D.C. Madame’s records secret, especially when everyone wants to see them. There’s no reason that a major broadcasting channel (ABC) chose not to broadcast the list (after attaining it) right before it was set to do so, in an act that would have made them millions of dollars.

I rarely believe in conspiracy theories. But damn! When a conspiracy theory comes a calling, you answer the phone like a Congressman waiting for a call from the D.C. Madame.

Forget NYC 2030, What About SanFran '07?

2007-06-29T07:00:00.000-04:00

Well San Francisco did it again. They beat New York at its own game. With NYC 2030 in the works, San Francisco shows Mayor Bloomberg and all of New York that they won’t wait until 2030 to start saving the planet.

San Francisco’s Mayor Gavin Newsom has said no to bottle water. Citing that bottled water is a burden on the city and on the environment, Mayor Newsom has issued an executive order banning all city departments from purchasing bottled water, effective July 1^st. As of December 1^st, 2007, they can’t even buy bottled water for water coolers.

As you know, plastic is like the Terminator, it’ll always be back. In fact, it never goes away. Plastic doesn’t deteriorate, and thus disposing of it is a very expensive process. From the making of plastic, transporting it and disposing of it, plastic is just a strain on the environment. By Mayor Newsom getting rid of plastic in San Francisco, there environment will be just that much better. Over a billion plastic bottles go to California’s landfills each year.

Have you seen the commercial where the team of business people is on a mountain lift tow and their cart gets stuck in mid air, hundreds of feet above the ground? One guy starts yammering about how if everyone should think good thoughts and the lift will just to work itself out in a matter of time. Of course nothing happens. And then one of the other guys finds an emergency start button, and it works.

Well, Mayor Newsom pressed the emergency start button, and Mayor Bloomberg apparently likes to think good thoughts. And while I applaud the idea of NYC 2030, I would much rather see NYC 2007, and then NYC 2008, and then NYC 2009. I know governments and businesses like to see the big picture and look years down the road, but if we don’t start taking care of the environment now, there might not be an NYC to save in 2015, 2020 or 2030.

Gas and Energy on the Rise

2007-06-22T07:00:00.000-04:00

Well, here we go again. Another month and another rise in the Consumer Price Index. It rose 0.7% in May, along with the Core Rate of Inflation going up 0.1%. And while the Core Rate really didn’t rise that much, it’s still pretty indicative of the rising prices in America, in that it doesn’t take into account food and energy, which are the significant factors in the rise within the Consumer Price Index.

With food and energy (i.e. gas) prices going up, that meant many nonmanagement employees had to take pay cuts. This caused the average weekly earnings for this group to fall for the second straight month.

So this is great, huh? Food and gas are going up, and earnings are going down. This would all make sense if we lived in a Bizzaro economy.

What it’s basically coming down to is that people can’t afford to do and buy other things. Afterall, people have to eat and they have to go to work. And in places and societies where stealing food and walking to work aren’t options, people are going to fork over the money they need to do those two things.

It would be nice if the Federal government would lower interest rates, but the small increase in the Core Rate will give them just enough reason to not have to do that. This means that the people on Wall Street will continue to celebrate, while the banks join along in harmonious song titled, “I’m Collecting All Your Money.”

A lot of the inflation, which annualized at 2.7% in May, can be attributed to housing cost. Paying the gas bill is obviously a large part of that, and the 3-5% increases in beef, poultry and pork aren’t helping consumer costs either. So what will the government do?

Nothing. Not yet. Obviously, it’s too early to say whether inflation is or is not an issue in the market, and so the government can't really fix this one. At least not as long as an increase in food and energy costs don’t spill over into other parts of the economy. So the government will sit back and slowly analyze what’s going on. In the meantime, let investors continue to cheer as stocks and bonds go on the rise, along with their hit single.

Chart provided by the NY-Times.

Universities Royally Screwing Students In The A**

2007-06-15T07:00:00.000-04:00

As a U.S. college graduate, I can attest to one thing that many of us have in common…

I hate student loans!

Granted, I was assisted by several scholarships and grants throughout my undergraduate career, but needless to say, those barely covered my ass. I’m now in debt up to my eyeballs, and if I were to make the standard payment on my loans from here on out, I might be done before social security….maybe!

But more outrageous than my own student loan debt, is the way that universities have been playing with the lives of precious undergrads across this nation. For years, universities have been royally screwing students in the ass. They have been accepting gifts, everything from shares of stock to travel and entertainment tangibles, from banks, and other student loan lenders, and then in turn they offer these gift-giving lenders’ loans to students with no other options.

Talk about taking advantage of our youth. These universities that are supposed to be educating us, teaching us lessons and preparing us for the real world, are selling our debt, 25 years worth of debt for some, directly to the devil. But I guess getting sold out is a lesson everyone should know, so who better to teach to our youth than a prestigious university?

Thank God though that the United States finally decided to step in and do something about this. Although it’s entirely too late, considering this issue came up in Congress in 1995, it’s great to see that the U.S. will put limits on university ties to student loan companies and banks.

These new limitations will prevent universities from accepting “gifts” (a term that is not clearly defined in the new legislation) from lenders, and also requires that they offer at least 3 different lending institutions when communicating with potential student borrowers.

The new laws will stop students from being steered like cattle into the hands of bribing lending institutions, but it still won’t ensure that students are going with the lender that best fits their needs. Not to mention the new legislation only applies to federally backed student loans. This means, that the underhandedness and “wink-wink,” “nod-nodding” will still play a part in the $85 billion student loan industry.

And while the U.S. still plans to further put an end to this, I cannot ignore the fact that they have a long way to go regulating the student loan industry. New York’s Attorney General, Andrew M. Cuomo, uncovered several undisclosed relationships between lenders and universities. And complaints about such relationships have gone relatively ignored by Congress.

Now, I’m not against the loan industry. Afterall, they make education possible for millions of students. But there is a big problem when borrowing funds for your education becomes a lot like asking a loan shark for loan money. Students should not be steered into lenders by educational officials who are supposed to be a part of a higher learning experience. Universities already sell their souls to publishers, alumni donators, technology companies and potential advertisers.

How about selling their souls to the people who purchase them with their future and years and years of debt?

The students!

Top 5 Reasons The Soprano's Ending Was Horrible

2007-06-11T07:00:00.000-04:00

What in the hell was with that ending? David Chase, creator of HBO’s "The Sopranos," took one of the most hyped series finales in the history of television and came out looking like more of a whimpering buffoon than Tony Soprano’s son, AJ!

Here’s why that ending was one of the worst ever:

5. BAD TIMING – The series ending episode of "The Sopranos" competed with 2 other highly valued television programs. Game 2 of the NBA Finals aired concurrently with the Soprano’s, and last year’s Game 2 garnered over 12 million viewers. The Tony Awards also aired Sunday night, after having an audience of just over 7 million viewers last year. The Soprano’s are averaging just over 8 million viewers per episode this year, and if they wanted to return to its peak viewer-ship of 11 million (in 2002) for its final episode, it definitely could have picked a better night.

Side-note: It probably helped Tim Duncan and Tony Parker, of the San Antonio Spurs, quickly dismantled Lebron James and the Cleveland Cavaliers.

4. GUTLESSNESS – There are two kinds of leaders. There’s the one that takes responsibility for everything, good or bad. And then there is the type of leader that picks and chooses where he takes the blame, but then goes ahead and takes all the credit. David Chase is clearly the latter. He created a great series and delivered a final season that had built up tremendous tension, monumentous momentum and intellectual intrigue into the series’ final episode. And to end the show, he took the route that was the most cowardly, he let the viewers decide the ending because he couldn’t take the pressure of being critiqued if his ending wasn’t well received.

3. NEW PLOT TWISTS – While some may see the insertion of new plot twists into the last episode as creative and new, I think it was rather misplaced. The FBI agents issue with his “woman,” the possible indictment, Janice coming after Uncle Junior’s money and several other things, were all unresolved and quite misplaced. They were interesting, but the whole time I was watching them, I was thinking “Okay, what’s the deal with Tony?”

2. TOO MUCH SENTIMENTAL BULL – Nobody watches The Sopranos for its lovey-dovey nature. While Tony Soprano’s soft side and faults are contributing factors to the show’s success, if he was just a nice guy, we wouldn’t care about all of that. But throughout the final episode, Tony is either getting sappy with Uncle Jr., reminiscing with Janice or giving into AJ. Tony doesn’t choke anybody, order a hit, and he barely even curses. We don’t even get his reaction to Phil’s death. Technically, we don’t even know that Tony ordered the hit; for all we know, it could have been insinuated that the New York mafia should take out Phil themselves during the sit down they had with Tony and Little Carmine.

1. TOSSING TONY – Why didn’t David Chase just have James Gandolfini sit this last episode out? Other than the first couple of minutes and the sit down with the NY family, Tony’s character was nothing more than a supporting role. And then in the end, when David could have turned all that around, he hides Tony’s relevance in a sea of ambiguity. In the final scene in the diner, we see Tony reaching for his gun (maybe), and watching his surroundings. The scene, however, is more about what’s going on around him than it is himself. I understand what Chase was saying about the meaning of life and how no matter what walk of life you come from, it’s all about being with the ones you love, eating good food, playing sports, talking and “focus on the good times,” but come on! There’s no conclusion with Tony at all. Not one! Yeah, he realized the aforementioned motto, but he’s come to that conclusion before. Are we supposed to assume he’s settled on smelling the roses for the rest of his life?

Come on Mr. David Chase, you could’ve done a little better. I know it’s hard, and I know you probably would’ve gotten ripped no matter what you did, but at least if you brought a conclusion to Tony’s character, you would have went out with some dignity, instead of going out like Pussy…”Big Pussy” Bonpensiero that is.

I've Got No Money... But Economy Good?

2007-05-24T07:00:00.000-04:00

With rising gas prices and a declining house market, it would appear that the economy really wasn’t doing all too well. But the facts would dispute such a claim. Truth is, the struggling economy hasn’t prevented consumers from doing their thing…consuming!

The clothing industry is seeing sales soar above last year’s numbers and even past analysts’ projections. Kohl’s, Nordstrom, Sacks and J.C. Penny private lines are seeing significant increases in their sales number thus far in 2007.

However, low-end clothing stores, such as Wal-Mart and Macy’s are struggling. In fact, they are performing well below market expectations, and revenues are considerably down from last year’s first quarter of sales.

So basically, middle income to high-end clothes are selling and discounted clothing lines are not…?

J.C. Penny had a 13% increase in profits for their last quarter ending May 5^th. Practically half of Penny’s clothing sales are attributed to its private label brands, which are geared towards a middle and upper income consumers.

Kohl’s, another department store merchandiser, had a 25% profit increase. Obvioulsy, their sales destroyed market projections, but they also plan to add more private label brands and luxury items to their inventory.

Nordstrom’s experienced a 19% growth rate in their profits. Their department store’s clothing lines rose revenue by over $160 million due to an increase in internet sales. Nordstrom will be adding more designer clothing lines to its stock to continue their growth in sales.

So while the low income consumer is struggling to buy gas, middle and upper income households are buying luxurious clothes and designer fashion wear.

Obviously, the economy is going just well for private label buying, high-end consumers, but it’s not going so well for those who can only afford discount clothing.

Wal-Mart, the biggest retailer since Fred Flinstone sold rocks, has experienced a huge hit in revenue sales in comparison to last year. Wal-mart saw its same-store sales drop 3.5% in April, and only a .6% increase for the past quarter, well below the market projections. The hit was said to be caused by a drop-off in clothing sales, where Wal-Mart’s discount clothing lines drastically under-performed. Federated Department Stores, Inc. (Macy’s) also has announced that their profit targets were not reached for this past quarter.

You know, when people cannot afford to buy $6 jeans from Wal-Mart, there is a real problem in society. Whereas the question was once “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” The question now is, “Which one comes first, driving to the store naked, or leaving the store with a new shirt but no gas in the car?” That’s pretty much what the low-income individual is forced to decide between. And obviously he or she is choosing to drive naked, because you need gas to get to work, and even Wal-Mart’s prices can’t compete with that.

So while the upper and middle-income buyer continues to purchase high-end clothes and designer labels, the rest of the populace will continue to wear old clothes and struggle to sell their houses.

So why is the economy doing so well for everyone but Joe Schmo?

I don’t have the answer. Everything I read keeps feeding me bull about how the economy is struggling, but the middle income households aren’t having any problem buying designer fashion, while middle to low-income families can’t afford to shop at Wal-Mart anymore.

But this situation that we are in is just a microcosm of how our government is running this nation. Everything that gets passed in Congress in reference to “supporting American economy” is just another way to make the rich richer. Lowering the capital gains tax, lessening tax obligations on the sale of second houses, and tons of other “taxbreaks” and laws don’t serve the average American, just the one on verge of going on a shopping spree.