Ranting about Tucson

It was about a week ago that the anti-governmentalist Jared Loughner opened fire at a Tucson Safeway that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was supposed to speak at, killing six people and injuring 13 others including the Congresswoman herself.  This situation is disturbing on many levels.  It’s unfortunate that this incident is probably going to make those we vote into office to represent us that much more inaccessible as a result.  Giffords was trying to do something low-key to reach out to her people only to end up getting shot in the head by someone who had obvious indicators of pre-meditated violence brewing within.  Other than the obvious tragedy behind the situation, there are a few other things agitating me about the Tucson massacre, as it is being called.

First of all, right before I moved here last year Arizona passed a law that residents are not required to have a concealed weapons permit (assuming there would be a background check completed when purchasing firearms).  That alone was enough to make me not want to move here seeing the direction something like that could go.  Now before anyone reading this starts freaking out on me because you think I want the government to take your guns away, hear me out.  I am not calling for stricter gun laws, but there is something reassuring about knowing the people who have them at least have a permit to do so meaning they are on record as owning a firearm.  Loughner is a prime example of why a permit might be useful as he was not required to have one in order to go to that Safeway with the gun ready to go.  I don’t have a problem with people having guns so long as they are responsible and actually know how to handle them safely.  If guns were banned altogether people would still find a way to purchase and use them regardless (kind of like recreational drugs) so really a ban is not the answer.  I don’t know what is, but I know I would feel better about living in this state if I knew the majority of people carrying weapons at least had permission and had been properly identified.  I am realistic enough to know even that would likely have not prevented Loughner from carrying out his scheme though and that’s probably the saddest part of it all.

That being said, I definitely think there should have been better safety precautions taken even though it was supposed to be a more casual gathering.  Whenever I go to a sporting event or something held in a large venue I have to go through a bag check as a purse-carrying female.  Why not do the same in this case?  Checking out the people attending could have alerted the authorities that the bulge under the clothing was something worth taking note of.  That does kind of defeat the purpose of holding down-home, small-scale political outreach events, but also helps with the safety of our representative and those who choose to follow them.

Here’s the other thing I don’t get: Giffords wasn’t even one of the more “controversial” politicians that could have been targeted.  Although new to this state and its political climate, Giffords is well-liked across party lines from what I have been able to gather and so I do not understand what Loughner’s beef is with her.  Why her as a target?  Which leads to my next point: that bastard is obviously mentally unstable.  And here’s the thing that really boils my water over that is he will likely have a defending attorney that tries to get him in on the insanity plea, thus preventing him from getting punished to the fullest extent of the law.

My thoughts and prayers go out to those impacted by this calamity.  I am relieved to see that Giffords’ condition is improving as I imagine her work in Congress is not yet completed as indicated by her survival.  I am curious to see what the future holds for the state of Arizona as a result.

Wow! Thanks, Airlines, for not Screwing Your Customers Even More!

The article of the day that riled me up was one in regard to “five airlines pledge no charge for carry-ons”.   Pardon me, but what the eff is that about?  Airlines are going to even CONSIDER charging for carry-on items?  You have got to be kidding me.  Because they aren’t raping their clientele enough on the checked baggage charges as it is. . .  I get that airlines are struggling because of the downturn in the economy and less people traveling for leisure since 2008, but making decisions like this is not going to help people want to travel more via fly airplane.  If anything, it will drive more people to the competitors who do not charge ridiculous fees.  

Hence why I prefer to fly Southwest.  Yes, the lack of seat assignment can be annoying.  However, the trade-off is you don’t have to pay to check your bags and they still pass out snacks for free.  Their airfare is reasonable and if you can hop in on one of their flight specials, they are usually the least expensive option depending on the destination.  

So, Spirit Airlines, while it is unlikely that I ever would have flown on your airline in the first place, come August 1st when you implement the $45 dollar carry-on fee you will have officially clinched the fact that I will never utilize your “service”, even if you were in fact the cheapest base fare available.

Mildly Annoyed

As I was reading regional news online today, I was somewhat perturbed to discover the article mentioning Twin Falls, Idaho absorbing 400 refugees into its area in 2010 for learning English and skills that can get the aforementioned refugees employment here in the United States.  Are you kidding me right now?  Even better, our President is allowing a total of 80,000 refugees from various countries to enter our nation in 2010.  That’s smart considering our economy is in shambles and we are posting a higher unemployment rate than ever seen in recent history.  One would think that with the way things are right now and considering our own country’s citizens are struggling for jobs that we may want to hold off on introducing 80,000 more unemployed people into our situation but apparently not. 

What is especially obnoxious to me is that we are $11.9 TRILLION in debt as a nation.  Who financially supports these refugees?   Our government.  Yes, the same government that is that far in debt.  And where do they get the money?  The taxpayers.  So, basically I am helping support people that are going to come here and compete with my friends/loved ones/acquaintances in the job market only to have my friends/loved ones/acquaitances remain unemployed or underemployed.   Why?  So I can feel good at night knowing I am helping save people from a bad situation in their own country?   Not to sound totally cold hearted, but I think the United States needs to be focusing on its own citizens right now and what they are going to do to remedy the situation with employment, skills training, and housing before aiding 80,000 strangers.

From what I can see here in Idaho, bringing in 400 more unemployed people to a small town is one of the worst things we can do.  Our last reported unemployment rate as a state is 8.9% which doesn’t sound too hideous until you take into account that there are only a little over 1.5 million residents in the entire state.  That means there’s approximately 133,500 unemployed people reported throughout the state of Idaho right now.  Since Twin Falls, Idaho only has a population of 64,284 as it is, 400 unemployed refugees may cause a strain on an already frail economy especially considering the 6.2% unemployment rate for that city alone. 

Perhaps we should choose less affected places when deciding where to place refugees coming to the US.  Oh, wait.  Right now there aren’t any.  Hmmm. . .

Loyalty in Spite of Pricing

Recently, I went to my usual Starbucks to order my usual drink with my usual pretentious requirements (iced venti non fat sugar free caramel macchiato).  I was all prepared with my usual $4.03 when the smiley barista said “That will be $4.19.”  What?

Starbucks has opted to slightly raise the price of their more complicated coffee drinks while lowering the price of the no frills menu items to maintain a competitive edge in the coffee market.  This came as a surprise to me as I try to limit my Starbucks consumption to once a week in an effort to counteract my addiction potential for “fancy” coffee drinks.  When I initially balked at the price, wondering if I had been mischarged only to have smiley barista explain the price hike, I assured smiley barista that I would continue frequenting Starbucks as my coffee place of choice.

Why continue going there when one can find significantly cheaper coffee elsewhere?  Answer: for the consistency, convenience, and experience.  I actually have  a non corporate, non franchised favorite coffeehouse in the city where I live but am only able to go there on occasion as there is only one location downtown and that is not convenient to where I live or work and usually when I am downtown it is not during prime coffee drinking hours.  Starbucks, on the other hand,  has four locations within a five minute drive to where I work and three within a five minute drive to where I currently live.  The drinks have a very specific “recipe” for them so I know that no matter what location I go to my drink should taste the same for the most part.  Top that off with the fact that the people who work at these Starbucks locations are eerily chipper all the time and will remember their regular customers and what that customer typically orders. 

What really made me like Starbucks as a company was when I read the book How Starbucks Saved My Life: A Son of Privilege Learns to Live Like Everyone Else by Michael Gates Gill.  That book was an eye opener to the Starbucks philosophy from a perspective most people would not be in a position to consider.  So while I can buy my coffee elsewhere, I remain loyal to Starbucks as a brand for reasons not involving the actual taste of their products.  Besides, what’s more elitist than ordering pretentious over priced coffee?

Seriously, This Show is Still on?

This morning I was unpleasantly surprised to discover that the show “The View” is still on the air.  One would think that people would eventually tire of women talking over each other and constantly arguing after 12 years, but apparently not.  This show perpetuates the stereotype of women being catty toward one  another.  Yes, it is empowering to be female and be passionate about expressing your opinions on politics, current events, etc.  However, there is a point where empowering reads as bitchy and I think the ladies on this show have reached that point for the most part.  Can someone please clue me in to what is so compelling about this show because I just don’t get it. 

I do have to take a moment to laugh at the forced creation of “diversity” on the show.  Oh, no!   The Asian girl left the show.  Quick, replace her with another African American woman so that the viewers forget this show is on a network primarily run by Caucasian males.  I will say that “The View” does make me exceedingly grateful for my DVR service so that I have better options for my pre-work television viewing pleasure.

Kanye West is Indeed a Jackass

I understand that President Obama is catching some flack for stating off the record that he thinks Kanye West is a jackass based on the rapper’s actions at the recent Video Music Awards.  Keep in mind our President is human and is also entitled to have an opinion on various non political matters.  This incident in no way, shape, or form affects how he is choosing to run our country.  If he wants to make a statement about an entertainer’s actions, then he should be able to do so without the public getting all judgy on him about it.  Yes, it was an off the record statement that got leaked, but seriously who cares?  If I were him, I would say “I did call Kanye a jackass.  That’s because he is.  Can we go back to discussing healthcare reform now?”  I get it, he’s supposed to set the example.  Blah blah blah.  I think anyone familiar with this particular celebrity would agree though so don’t fault the President for stating the obvious.

Just Say “No”!

As someone formerly in the finance industry who could totally see our current situation coming, I cannot even tell you how thrilled I was that the “Bailout Plan” did not pass through Congress.  Here’s my take on it: why should our tax dollars go to ensure that financially irresponsible companies with poorly enacted business practices can continue to exist?  Why is it my problem they so grossly mismanaged their resources?  I understand why the government wants to get involved, but it’s not like our country even has the $700 billion sitting in the bank in the first place.  So who do we borrow from to in turn lend to those failing companies?  Does that thought not concern you if you are an American?  It certainly concerns me.

I am far from being a mathematical savant, but even my simple brain can fathom some of the figures being thrown out.  The problem is that this plan in the long run could end up harming us more than helping us.  This is a panic solution to what is a temporary problem.  As with all things in life, this “crisis” needs to run its course.  And by the way, Senators, raising the FDIC insurance from $100,000 to $250,000 won’t help either.  Here’s why: the people who have that kind of money know the insurance limits and typically diversify their funds for that reason.  And if they don’t diversify those funds and the bank where they keep over $100,000 were to fail then it is their own damn fault for whatever they are out because all the banks have disclosures in regard to the FDIC limit that they give out at account openings.  Not to mention some of the financial products are ineligible for FDIC insurance benefits.  For those people that do not have anything over $100k sitting in a single financial institution, this portion of the plan does not apply to them or help them in any way and sadly it is those people suffering the most with this whole economic downturn thing since they are the ones struggling to pay their bills and at risk of losing their homes. 

As far as the stock market dropping goes, yes that is unfortunate.  However, those who put their money in stocks and mutual funds know that it is a complete gamble.  It’s like going to Vegas minus the excitement: you win some, you lose some. 

The answer is not for our government to allocate funds they don’t have.  Call it what you want: bailout, rescue plan, or whatever.  The government needs to go back to the drawing board on this one before doing something that could potentially be more economically devastating to the American people when it comes right down to it.  I recommend they call Suze Orman.  I am sure she has some advice for y’all on Capitol Hill.