A Frank commencement speech

I am a UMass Dartmouth graduate (Class of 1994).  The first time I took the American Eagle bus home from New Bedford to Boston in 1990, the people wandering around the Third Street bus terminal were sketchy, and one person who angrily attempted to get into the bus station scared the living daylights out of all of us.  Fall River was marginally better, although still not a place to hang around casually.

Thinking closer into Rep. Barney Frank's statement, "I think you now got a hoodie you can wear and no one will shoot at you," during the UMass Dartmouth commencement exercises, his statement signifies something more profound.

The "hoodie" Frank was talking about is the hood you wear when you graduate (and in 1994, I had the hoodie, but the darn cap flew off), as compared to the hoodie worn by the streetwise to hide their faces.  If you rise from hustling in the streets selling drugs, pimping, stealing, gangbanging and such to improving your life through education, then you're taking the hoodie that you used to intimidate others and tossing it aside for a life you don't have to hide behind. 

Yes, in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, it sounds pretty insensitive and flippant for Frank to say this.  But think about Trayvon Martin donning a graduation gown, and then it becomes clear - unless you're a real coward, no one would dare shoot at someone with a graduation hood.

What's wrong with coffee and eye candy?

You've seen the ads for Marylou's coffee - pretty female waitresses in pink shirts singing the virtues of their coffee in commercials.  It's certainly not Hooters, for Pete's sake.

I would prefer to be served by a competent waitstaff - male or female, regardless if they're tall, skinny, short or fat.  What matters most is rapport - if you get someone snide, nasty, huffy, a space cadet, super-phony or just not wanting to be there, chances are you won't come back.  If you give me extra napkins, refill my drinks quickly, put in an extra donut or two (not that I need it, but I still appreciate it), chances are I'll come back.

That's the allure of Marylou's.  This red-blooded American male likes flirtation from pretty waitresses - especially those who will serve me coffee with a wink and a smile.  I find nothing wrong with a woman saying, "What'll you have, hon?" knowing that I'm there to hit on them or ask them if they need a boyfriend.  They're selling coffee, not massages or lap dances.

So what burr is itching the sensible shoes of the Feds to sue Marylou's for discrimination?

I think the Feds are concerned Marylou's is only picking pretty women, but it also works the other way around: the Fed's can't tell a business they must hire people from certain protected political lobbies so they can assuage themselves of their teeming guilt.  And that's exactly the motivation: trendy pressure group of the month didn't get hired, pretty Patriots cheerleader-type got hired instead, time for lawsuits.  It'd be funny if I were served by a middle aged man in a pink shirt (this would be a perfect job for Jon Keller, just for laughs), but as long as he gives me the correct order, I'll come back.

I agree with the company VP, Ronnie Sandry:

“Attractive is in the eye of the beholder. They’re just all fun, upbeat girls[...]It’s the personality. It’s the way you’re treated. That’s what we reach out for. It’s all shapes and sizes and colors."

Amen.

(Dying) Spirit of Radio

Donna Halper comments on the sale of WFNX to Clear Channel Communications.

Commercial radio is dying for certain, but equally at the hands of MP3/iDevices, greedy media conglomerates, and lackluster, talent-free psuedomusicians who are bred by record labels to be pretty and safe, not to go "outside the box" with 35 minute jams (Allman Brothers), eight-movement art-rock symphonies (Yes), politically-charged hard-left agitmusic (Rage Against the Machine) and thirteen minute progressive rock operas (Rush - the reason for the title of this entry, as Donna Halper discovered Rush and brought them out of Canada).

And sad to say, college and public radio won't fill in that void, but for a different reason: limited funds preclude them from putting forth what the audience desires, and to do so they must pump for money.  Pirate radio stations won't fill that void either - you got to play the FCC's licensing game or else.

Musical Darwinism is fun to watch until you're the format that becomes obsolete.

Personal comment: I went to school just steps down the street from the original WBCN studios (1265 Boylston Street).

Free - to eat a Quarter Pounder with cheese

I love this great opinion piece by Kerry J. Byrne, a food and drink writer of the Boston Herald.

The government is not going to get a nation of anorexics, vegans, or perfectly proportioned people any time soon - because the very first attempt to regulate eating will make the American Revolution look like a shoving match.  No nation but in America can someone select what they want to eat, how much they want to eat, and at what price point they want to pay for what they eat.  We don't follow the anorexic or

I like going to b. good, which is burger joint that sells much healthier burgers and so forth.  A full meal with fries and a shake costs about $12 - and often I can afford it.  However, I also like to go to Burger King for a bacon double cheeseburger for half of that cost.  I can either have a yogurt parfait at Au Bon Pain, a yogurt shake at b. good, or ice cream at Ben & Jerry's (or a local joint).

Now, if you have $3 and you can feed yourself pretty well on that, you're lucky.  It might be true that we have healthy food deserts (but you also notice there are plenty of lottery and liquor oases), but if there is food and it sates us until the next meal, then someone's telling a big fat lie.  Moreover, if you can buy that meal off the dollar menu at Wendy's and work all 800 calories off in a day, bless you.  No one's forcing a gun to your head to do jumping jacks and mountain climbers - just move around and keep active.

How about this neat idea from a mother with three children - you can still have junk food, but you gotta work for it.  If there's a McDonald's three miles away, the Happy Meal is yours if want to walk for it.  Or if you want to go to Sonic, we take the dog too and give it a run.  I think that's a marvelous idea - work for your junk food, make it slightly more difficult to access (no knee-jerk food fascism such as bake sale bans and getting into a lathering snit over 2800 calories shakes - unless you've had major dental work and can't eat solid foods), and get some exercise in the bargain - it'll make you at least hungrier for it!

Byrne is certainly right about one thing - we aren't active enough.  I'm not and I'm free to admit it - I work 8-9 hours a day at a desk, and the last thought on my mind on the way to work or on the way home on the bus is exercise.  I could get a bicycle, but I like to ride with my huge noggin al fresco - no helmet.  When we aren't active, even if we're on a strict macrobiotic hypervegan diet, we gain weight.  The worst thing we can do is nag people to death to lose the weight, but given an appropriate, non-obnoxious incentive to do so, and people will flock to it.

Take out the fear of getting injured or being a victim to violent and non-violent crimes, and all those poor people who are overweight will be healthier.  It'll certainly knock down the Potemkin food deserts and the fun out of marching lockstep in the streets, extolling the virtues of Puritanism gone amok.

Mistresses for Obama

I agree with John Podheretz: Obama's campaign using story of Julia to connect with women voters in this campaign is odd.

The ad is not exactly childish as Podheretz states, but I see it as more that women should resign themselves to being a mistress of the government.  A mistress (or kept woman, however you like) will do everything to keep their government happy (voting for them without fail) in exchange for being showered with gifts - even if it means giving up all they have, including equal rights, equal pay, the right to vote, the right to work, self-respect, independence, and so forth.

Gotta be a sweet deal, right?  If you're a woman who believes government should do everything for you, then you would do it.  If you're a woman who believes government does fine by you without you putting on your six-inch stilettos and lacy Victoria's Secret lingerie set, you'd be giving the patented mother's stink-eye to these plans, which is simply to get women to vote for Obama and be promised the sun, moon, and stars while rolling back decades of women's advances.

An interesting question: what would the National Organization of Women say about this cartoon?  Would they give Obama so much hot tongue and cold shoulder they decide not to donate campaign cash, or would they demur and approve of it, while tacitly muttering under their breaths that this is wrong, but as long as the don't want to see a Republican in the White House, they better keep quiet?

Slouching towards Prohibition in New York City

I don't drink, but it amazes me when I come to New York City (or go to New Hampshire) and see beer in convenience stores, or when I occasionally go to a bar and see that they have "2 for 1 drinks" on sale.  That's because Massachusetts has a pretty strict way of controlling alcohol.  (Only Kansas and Pennsylvania have stronger laws.)  For instance, you cannot have more than two drinks at once or a single pitcher of booze for yourself.  You can't have drinks for free or as prizes.  This was all done to prevent drunk driving, alcohol poisoning, and a whole laundry list of social ills.  And if you're planning on selling alcohol, be prepared for a long wait - until someone gives up their liquor license.

Massachusetts has banned Happy Hour - the ability to purchase drinks for free or at a discount - since the Dukakis administration raised the legal age from 20 to 21 to avoid a 10% cut in Federal funding.  It was the only state in the nation to do so until Utah passed their own Happy Hour ban effective this year.

New York City's Department of Health wants to follow in Massachusetts' footsteps in New York's five boroughs by banning Happy Hour.  All well and good until you get to the core of the intention, quoted neatly by an anonymous member: "Everyone is a child."  And that is the crux of the movement - everyone must be pure as we are, and we must eradicate all temptations of sin from the public - otherwise, we will punish everyone for their sins until they are.  And it's not just liquor - cigarettes, food and other things get the same zealous fanatical treatment - all cloaked in the guise of a "war" against a phantom enemy.

Laws like these are really a "war" on choice - you should be able to eat that 1400 calorie burger without some government drone snatching it off your table and giving you a celery stick, just because someone else eating that same burger died a week ago.  Hence, with drinking, if your limit is two drinks because you don't want to be buzzed on the way home, why should you be punished for not being able to purchase lower-cost drinks when another person drank six beers, four shots and a vodka and ended up in the hospital with alcohol poisoning?

In short: the NYC DOH is attempting to enforce a sumptuary law - based on their morals, which is no one should be fat, drunk or high on their watch, and (ab)using these laws to control others' habits.  It's really a backdoor way to prohibition.

Uncle Sam Wants You...actually, a little slice of your 401(k)

For those of you who have 401(k) plans, you realize the true benefits of the plans.  You can put up to $17,000 a year tax free (more to "catch up" if you're older), and your employer contributes an additional amount, up to $50,000 between employer and employee.

Uncle Sam wants a little slice of your 401(k) contributions to cut down the national deficit.

The proposed plans would involve the following:

• Imposing a 20-20 rule, where contributions would be cut to 20% of yearly income, and the combined employer-employee contribution would be $20,000.
• Contributions would no longer be excluded from income and would become taxable income.
• The exclusion from taxable income would be replaced with an 18% credit.

Here's how it would work:

A person earns $50,000 a year and contributes to the $17,000 limit.  Their employer contributes 50 cents for every dollar, meaning their account becomes $25,500 a year; when they compute their taxes, however, they can state they have $33,000 in taxable income, and in effect pay in the 15% bracket, rather than the 25% bracket.  They would pay $4,950 in income tax rather than $6,250.  If the person begins contributing at 25 and retires at 67, they would have $1,071,000, even before compounding.

With the new plan, the person earning $50,000 can now only contribute 20% of that amount, or $10,000 a year, rather than $17,000.  (Their employer still contributes 50 cents on the dollar, so the person receives $15,000.)  As these contributions are now taxable, the person's taxable income remains at $50,000, as likely the contributions would be paid after tax, firmly putting them in the 25% bracket.  Not only would they pay the $6,250 in income tax, they would lose the ability to fund the extra $10,500 that was previously untaxed.  Even with the 18% credit, or $2,700, they would still lose $7,800 in previously untaxed income to the IRS.  If the person begins contributing at 25 and retires at 67, the loss is $327,600.

If the employer decided not to contribute, however, the person's losses 401(k) would escalate to $15,500, or $12,710 with the 18% credit.  If the person begins contributing at 25 and retires at 67, the loss is $533,820.

I've always been against 401(k) accounts because I consider them extremely vulnerable - if not to the massive fluctuations of the stock market, then to the temptation of the government to raid something that employees might need to have income (which will be taxable anyway) if they choose not to work.  At the very minimum, people will curtail their 401(k) accounts severely or not fund them at all if they lose their untaxed (and income-saving) appeal.  Moreover, the middle class will be upset that they have to bail out another entity - last time it was Wall Street through a severe drop in the stock market, then it was credit card industry through higher interest rates, and this time through the government through a severe reduction in untaxable contributions.

If this doesn't work, the government could always seize the $18 trillion in all 401(k) accounts, pay off the $16 trillion deficit, and return the remaining $2 trillion in government bonds.  It would touch off a firestorm of rage and anger from the middle class, who would then rightfully see this as theft of retirement by the government.