My dream girl had bad credit

"Well, I married my dream girl.
(I married my dream girl.)
But she didn't tell me.
Her credit was bad.
So now instead of living in a pleasant suburb.
We're living in the basement at her Mom and Dad's.
No we can't get a loan, for a respectable home.
Just because my girl defaulted on some old credit card.
If we'd gone to freecreditreport.com...
I'd be a happy bachelor with a dog and a yard."

I'm sure most of you (who watch TV) will recognize this little ditty.

It's one of those clever Freecreditreport.com jingles.

It's catchy, but I am not too keen on the sentiment.

True enough, in this age of identity theft, seemingly limitless credit and a "gotta have it" culture, getting up to snuff with regards to one's credit rating/history is important.

But where the ad gurus at freecreditreport.com went wrong, was to tie a credit rating into date-worthiness. Which is not to downplay finances in relationships, many a domestic disputes are rooted in the family's bottom line. But to say I should've pulled her credit before marrying her is just asinine.

I used to work in mortgage where there were guidelines that dictated who was eligible for what loan, and credit score played a very large role in that determination. But it was not the ONLY factor. Just as there are many factors that play into the dating/marrying game.

Now I am single, and I'll admit, I have dismissed a lady based upon one (usually annoying) trait/habit. But I didn't pay someone to dig-up some information on the lady, which is effectively what a credit report does. I put in the leg work of actually spending time with her.

And something tells me that a discussion that starts with: "Honey, what do you think about pulling our credit before we get engaged…" ends very well.

Not only is it lazy to pass the responsibility of learning about your mate to someone/thing else, but it removes the human factor. And that's the fun part of dating.

Maybe the next step after pulling credit on your date is to exchange resumes. While that may sound funny, think about the recent popularity of online dating, services like eHarmony (of which I am a free member, which doesn't get you any dates, for the record) pretty much ask you to fill-out a dating resume and then turns to an algorithm to make love happen.

This "computer love" movement is interesting. As it is, I sit in a coffee shop, laptop open and IM with my friends as opposed to chatting-up the cute girl in the corner.

The fine art or face-to-face human interaction is being traded for a firewalled exchange of texts. With an occasional photo tossed-in to spice things up a bit.

That being said, freecreditreport.com isn't the anti-christ. Anyone who would pull credit on a significant other and allow the score to affect their relationship is. OK, maybe not the anti-christ, but a moron for sure.

Long story short, turn-off the laptop every now and again. Ignore the text messages and just go out into the world and interact.

And now I am going to do just that.

A shot of reality to stave-off the ‘Real World’.

So there's a writer's strike…

Sadly, that means the glut of reality-base programming foisted upon America is only going to increase.

I came across this article on MSN.com and was simply appalled.

'A Shot at Love with Tia Tequila' is a dating show centered on a bi-sexual woman's search for love and happens to be MTV's 2^nd highest rated show. While that doesn't sound mind-blowing, just consider that the show ranks in the top 15 of all cable programming. I just find that sad. Not that a bi-sexual is reduced to finding love(fame) on national television, but that enough people care to give it such high ratings.

Lord knows I can't wait until my own reality TV show chance to find the girl of my dreams…meeting ladies in bars or coffee shops is so 20^th century.

What do these kinds of shows say about American society? If these shows are based in reality, do they really reflect America? If so, I am very worried.

I was a fan of the 'Real World' in its first few seasons, it was innovative programming. The show offered a relatively unfiltered glance at youth culture. But even this groundbreaking cornerstone of "Reality TV" has lost its way and is now more T.N.A. and drinking than reality. The show that once blurred the line of documentary and drama has become a mere shadow of its former self.

The first few seasons of the 'Real World' offered casts that were diverse and for the most part, normal. Cast members were young folks who held real jobs, lived real lives and dealt with real issues. (At least as real as life can be when it's being filmed 24/7.) The first few years were genuine, which was hard to replicate once the stardom attached to these shows was realized. But sadly as the show became a hit, it fell victim to its own success and was re-tooled in favor of ratings versus authenticity.

It's sad to see such a promising genre of programming reduced to drivel like 'A Shot at Love with Tia Tequila.' The only creative thing about the show is the name and even that was pretty obvious.

Any shred of genuine portrayals/insights the genre produced in its early years, have been lost amid drunken shouting matches and bikini-clad hot tub hook-ups. What once offered unfiltered glimpses into the lives of others has been dumbed-down and boobed-up to the point of being mind-numbing.

The 'Real World' and reality spin-offs like 'The Hills' offer casts full of slender, busty, alcoholic, frat kids. As I sit in a trendy coffee shop near Seattle University and take stock of the people sitting around me, I see no one that fits that description.

The 'Real World' looks nothing like the world I live in and that is too bad.

And it's great…

It's too bad that such a powerful medium has been reduced to such terrible TV.

But it's great to see that the 'Real World' is in fact, far from it.

Maybe there's hope.

Insert “I am Thankful” quote here…

As a man who has been out of work for 5 months now, I could either be Thankful or Depressed as this holiday season approaches.

But as I sit back and ponder this mid-mid-life crisis that unemployment has foisted upon me, I have to say. I am pretty darn thankful.

And hopeful.

Where some folks in my situation would step back, examine their world and proceed to freak-out…I examine my situation and come away optimistic.

My life could be much worse, as I've had a couple close friends have bouts with cancer recently. That definitely helped to keep things in perspective for me.

I am not only thankful that my friends pulled through their illnesses, but thankful for the strength they exhibited in dealing with the illness.

They showed me that there is more to life than money, jobs and prestige. They showed me that life is something to be enjoyed while you have the opportunity.

I am also thankful for the support that many of my friends have offered during my "time of transition." Not once have I heard anyone doubt that I would do anything other than succeed. And to all of you, that has meant a lot to me.

I am also thankful for the time-off that unemployment has offered me. It has allowed me valuable time to reflect, re-evaluate and determine who and what I am and want to be.

Would I have preferred a less (financially) stressful opportunity to do this? Most definitely. But I am not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Overall, I am just thankful for being here, being healthy and being able to call my own shots.

I hope all of you have a great Thanksgiving.

I also hope you are able to take a moment in this busy holiday season for yourself to relax and ponder what you are truly Thankful for.

It's far too easy during the holiday season to focus on what you want, instead of what you have. I think if you take the time to recount what you have going for you, you'll find this holiday season far more enjoyable.

Forget Tim Russert, I tune-in to Robert Mak.

Election Day has come and gone.

There was quite a bit of talk surrounding this year's election, especially considering it's not a presidential election year. Though judging from the presidential campaign debates that seem to be on every other day, I could see how you'd think the presidential election had just taken place.

Quite a bit has changed since I voted in my first presidential election. It was the year 2000 and term limits were forcing my political hero, Bill Clinton, out of office. I had decided to keep the good times rolling by voting for Al Gore. Low and behold, Gore won! It was a close election, but it looked like Al had pulled it out.

Then something happened. Something that changed the way I looked at the world.

Gore, after winning the popular vote, lost.

I swore, after that bitter defeat, that I was never going to vote again. And I didn't.

Until 2004.

Another presidential campaign had come around and I wanted to elect anyone but George W. Bush.

But as a credit to Bush and his (or Cheney's) political savvy he beat another stuffy Democrat in John Kerry. (Side note: Do they make Democrats with charisma anymore?)

But another thing happened in 2004, the Washington State Gubernatorial race between Christine Gregoire and Dino Rossi. It was another close race reminiscent of the 2000 Presidential race. Gregoire ended-up the Governor of Washington State, winning by less than 200 votes. And I had again voted for the loser, Dino Rossi.

I was so disillusioned. Maybe it was because my candidate had lost both times. Perhaps it was because for the first time I realized how small I am in the grand scheme of things. Maybe it was because I had voted Republican for the first time in my life.

But I reacted to this "defeat" differently. I didn't take it sitting-down. I took it as a call to action.

I had always been a big talker about politics, but not much of a doer. I decided that if I was going to debate politics, I had to take part in the process. I had to vote.

So I rededicated myself to politics. Not just presidential politics, but local politics.

I realized that the local elections have a much greater effect on my everyday life. If I think Seattle has too many pot holes, there's nothing John Kerry or Al Gore would have done about it, I needed to look to the Mayor and City Council. When the voter's guide shows-up, I read it.

I now look at presidential-only voters as lazy. Americans are force-fed presidential coverage and it requires no real effort on their part.

But back to local politics.

The recent Proposition 1, the Roads and Transit proposal, was the barb in my bonnet this election season. I am not going to get into the nuts and bolts of it, but this proposition represented one of the single greatest tax increases ever laid before the public. The sales tax increases, for example, would affect me every day. So I had to vote.

For the record, I voted against Proposition 1. Not because I am against mass transit or think traffic in our region is fine. I simply thought the plan spent too much money and didn't do anything well. It was too big. You know the saying: A jack of all trades is a master of nothing? That is what this plan looked like to me.

But this Proposition was a perfect example of how important local politics are to the average American. And I still see far too many folks who complain, but are apathetic enough to take no action.

Now I am not advocating pitching-in on campaigns and standing on street corners holding signs. I am simply saying take 15 minutes to read a newspaper and get an idea of where you stand on ballot measures/candidates and take another 10 minutes to fill-out a ballot. If you have the time to complain, try to dedicate at least one rants-worth of time to educating yourself and taking action by voting. I think you may find that you feel a bit better about things…

And you just may elect someone who feels the same way you do.

PS- Here's a link to a great story in the P-I today by Robert Jamieson, Jr. It profiles a city council candidate and his encounters with Seattleites while campaigning. It exhibits some great examples of the "Seattle Nice" I talked about in a previous post.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/338778_robert08x.html

Jay-Z and Greenspan

So I just saw Jay-Z's newest video for "Blue Magic."

Jay is one smart hombre.

Instead of flossin' C-notes, he was flashing Euros.

It's quite a sad commentary on the state of the Dollar in relation to international currency.

See, hip-hop isn't all just flash, there's still substance there.

You just need to be bright enough to see it.

Are those Tevas or The North Face or Both?

What is the deal with Down Jackets, shorts and flip-flops?

Just this morning I have seen at least 4 people sporting outfits with each component.

Is it not enough that Seattleites (along with the Northwest in general) are known for socks and Birkenstocks?

I must admit, I wear flip-flops around the house year round. But my house is heated and I live alone.

I just don't get folks who rock flip-flops/sandals year round. Do they not realize that 43 degrees isn't so great for bare feet?

Here's the thing: If it's cold enough that you put on a Down Jacket and/or sweater, it's time to toss on some pants or least socks and shoes*.

Just tossing that out there.

Maybe it's me, but the Down, Shorts and Flip-flops just look a bit Schizophrenic. Much like something a 5-year-old would wear if left to their own devices.

They simply don't go together.

I am no fashion guru, but it irks me that the Schizophrenic few can give an entire region a bad name.

Here's some advice for the folks who just can't figure it out:

If you take enough time to shower and put on clean clothes, add an extra 30 seconds to the routine and toss some socks and shoes into the mix.

Your poor, poor toes, along everyone else around you will thank you.

And doing so should save you quite a bit of embarrassment.

*Please note that I did not recommend socks and sandals, which are unacceptable as well.

A Seattle boy gets a taste of the real Big Apple and this one didn’t come from Walla Walla.

So as I sit here in a trendy coffee shop in the heart of Pioneer Square, I am bombarded by a myriad of Seattle clichés: Tech-talk, black-rimmed glasses, hiking boots as acceptable work shoes, over-priced coffee, lots of fleece and even a couple flannel shirts, but do those ever go out of style?

Being amongst so much Seattle, I got to thinking about a recent trip to New York City.

Coffee shops are hubs of caffeine and chit-chat. But as I look around, the only folks chatting are those who know each other. I haven't been offered so much as a "Hello," or the famous Seattle look-up, quick change of expression and mouthing, but not actually saying "Hello" as you walk past a stranger.

I was reminded of a term first coined by Seattle P-I columnist Robert Jamison.

"Seattle Nice."

The crux of the term, as I understand it, says that Seattleites, while being very polite at first are pretty cold fish to strangers after an exchange of pleasantries. There's no real effort or inkling to say more than "Hello," to someone you don't know.

I have been guilty of being "Seattle Nice" many times in my life. In my defense, I was born and raised here.

I am perfectly happy to acknowledge the existence of fellow human beings, by nodding towards them, offering a smile and moving right along. The inclination to say hello and actually engage in conversation is about a foreign to me as say, breathing under water. It's just not something I'd ever do or anything I've seen anyone else do.

Which brings me back to New York.

Cold, hard, rude, New York.

My perception of New York, before traveling there a few times, was just what you see on TV: Big lights, lots of "Ay, Yos!" and rude New Yorkers in too much of a rush for anyone but themselves.

By comparison, my liberal all-welcoming enclave of Seattle seemed like just what the Big Apple needed, a healthy dose of Seattle-style Kumbaya.

Boy was I wrong.

As I started interacting with New Yorkers, I realized how superficial Seattleites were and how genuine New Yorkers are.

True enough, it takes a bit of chipping to crack the shell of hardened New Yorkers, and by cracking I mean saying, "Hello, how's it going?" But once that heavy-lifting is done, I found New Yorkers to be welcoming, genuine, curious and most-of-all helpful.

My first cab ride in Manhattan changed my perception of New Yorkers forever. I, unsure of even how-to hail a cab (Seattleites drive themselves everywhere), walk-up to a cabbie and tap on the window. After nearly causing the guy to have a heart attack, he wolfed down his curler and agreed to give me a ride. I then broke the cardinal rule of riding in an NYC cab, I told the guy I was from out-of-town and had no idea where I was going. But to his credit, instead of circling Manhattan and running-up the fare, he assured me my destination wasn't too far away and told me it should only take a few minutes.

Then he did something that surprised me, he asked me what it's like in Seattle. I shared a bit and then he did what I've found to be a common New Yorker trait, he actually engaged in meaningful conversation. I learned about his kids, where he was originally from and how he really wants to visit the West Coast. There was an authentic tone to the conversation that I didn't expect from a stranger, let alone a Lean Mean New York Cabbie.

This type of interaction played itself out many times during my various trips to New York, from people on the subway, to the guy at the corner store to bar owners. I actually came away from my last trip to New York feeling more connected to the neighborhood after 5 days than I do in my Seattle neighborhood after 8 months.

I think there's something to being in such a big place and being so anonymous that people just want to connect with other people. And it's easier to open up if you are never going to see the person again, quite a possibility in New York.

So what's the deal with Seattleites?

We really do keep to ourselves. We don't speak unless spoken to and rarely do more than answer the question once someone else has broken the ice.

Seattleites do have an air of superiority about them. A bit of the "I'm better than you are," can be quite off-putting.

Obviously, we (being Seattle) pretty much have it right. We just can't figure-out why no one else seems to get that.

So what can we do to remedy "Seattle Nice"?

A good first step is to avoid the fear that comes with interacting with someone new. Perhaps it's the gray weather, but Seattleites seem to be scared of strangers. I assure you, fellow Seattleites, the world isn't out to get you. Ted Bundy was an anomaly.

The fear induced in Seattleites by interaction is actually pretty funny, try this sometime to see it for yourself:

• Go to a coffee shop. (There are plenty of options for this in Seattle)
  
• Walk towards a table that is occupied by one person and make eye contact with the person sitting at the table.
  
• I bet you'll see a deer-in-the-headlights gaze as the person at the table is mortified by the prospect of having their personal bubble invaded.
  

We have a different perception of co-existing out here. I realized that my personal bubble was much bigger than the average New Yorkers and that doesn't aid in meeting new folks.

You'll have to get out of your comfort zone a bit. Think about it, if someone is sitting alone in a coffee shop, they probably wouldn't mind some company. By invading someone else's bubble and shrinking yours, you just may find life a little more interesting. By genuinely interacting with other people you gain experience, a couple good stories and maybe a new acquaintance.

And really, how bad can that be?

A few insights from an unemployed and single guy.

In case you didn't read the "About Me" section of this blog, I am unemployed and single.

Having been both for quite a while, I've begun to see some correlations between the two.

Specifically, how similar the process of applying for a job and asking a lady out, actually are.

Think about it, when unemployed you spend a good bit of time looking for the perfect job or at least one that's not too bad.

And when single, you spend the majority of the time at the bar (at least that's where I do most of my window-shopping) looking for the one girl who doesn't have sunglasses so big that you'd swear she bought them on a dare or at least a lady who might actually be cool.

This whole job search thing can be quite nerve-wracking. If not for the obvious reason of needing to pay the bills, but for the: I am going to spend the majority of my waking life employed in whatever activity this job turns-out to be. That is a lot of pressure.

The same can be said for looking for a lady. In theory, you date to find the woman you are going to spend the rest of your life with…that too, is a lot of pressure. (I'm not saying there's anything wrong with coming across a couple Miss Right-Nows while on the search.)

But all that aside, back to comparing the tasks of finding a job and finding a lady.

First off, there's the whole gussying-up to better your chances of finding that perfect job or lady.

In the case of the job search, you try to present yourself as best as possible, on paper. You dust-off the resume and use it to talk yourself up a bit. You buy fine paper, with a watermark, even. Just to show that you really care. And much like when you are hitting the town, you roll with a posse. In job search terms this posse is referred to as "References."

In the case of a lady, you do the same thing, but you present yourself in person. You shower just before you go-out, to ensure maximum "So Fresh and so Clean"-liness. You then toss on a nice shirt, one that even buttons-down. You then rally the crew for some back-up and hit the scene.

I'll admit, the approaches are not similar, but both are highly scrutinized. And in both you are trying to set yourself apart from everyone else.

In the case of the job search, the initial application is usually done online, but your resume is poured-over. You aren't guaranteed an interview, and if there are typos or anything wrong with the application you won't even get an interview.

In the case of a lady, the approach is far more difficult, as it is face-to-face. Your application is that button-down shirt, your shellacked hair and your approach. If she doesn't like what she sees, you won't even make it to the interview.

One observation in my recent job search is that group interviews seem to be the norm. As such, you'll have to know your resume inside-out and how it applies to the position you are applying for. You'll also have to be confident enough to speak-up in front of others who are trying to take the job away from you.

The same can be said for asking a lady out. Chances are you aren't the only game in town, if you've noticed her, so has another dude. And once you've bought her a drink (which means you are officially into the interview portion of the night) many poachers will be on the look-out to move-in and take the lady away from you.

Just remember, the interview is your chance to shine. You put-in the leg-work to get to this point, so now it's time to dazzle!

In the case of the job search, you have your resume and know the job description. So tailoring your responses is relatively easy. You simply tie past experiences to the responsibilities listed. You may have to adjust to a couple off-the-wall questions, but layer that with a bit of schmoozing and you should be on to the next interview. Maybe even one that only features you!

Now in the case of a lady, you do have a mental resume (sometimes referred to as 'Game') but no job description. This is where you have to engage in the fine art of conversation. Not only do you have to sell your finer points, but engage the lady to figure-out what she's looking for. You have to adapt on-the-fly and tailor your resume to her requirements. Do that, along with a sprinkling of compliments and you should be on your way to getting a date. Maybe even on that doesn't feature your crew!

What happens next is up to you.

Now I am no expert on getting a job or dating.

But the one thing I have learned is to remember to have fun with each.

An interview is the only time you are expected to talk- or even brag-about yourself. No one is more familiar with the topic than you. And remember that you are the biggest benefactor from the effort.

It's also not that big of a deal. There are plenty of jobs out there and plenty of ladies as well.

If you don't like your job, get another one.

If she doesn't pan-out, just move-on.

Whether looking for a job or a date, it's all about putting your best foot forward and meeting new people.

I've found that as long as you are putting your best foot forward, things tend to work-out for the best.

So keep your head-up and have fun.

A farewell to arms, at least Mack Strong’s arms (and legs)

I was deeply saddened this AM, to learn that the esteemed fullback of my Seattle Seahawks, Mr. Mack Strong, retired.

The epitome of a role-player, Strong has been a pillar of consistency in a 15-year career that spans all the way back to Rick Mirer and Brian Blades.

I am grateful for the many years of thankless service Strong provided to the, until recently, hapless Seahawks.

They don't keep stats on such things, so who really knows how great running plays were sprung by a Mack Strong block. I'm guessing quite a few, especially with Alexander running behind him.

He is a throwback to old-school football and a hard-nose player who was underappreciated in his time.

It is players like him that put the Team into team sports. He did all of the things no one else wanted to. He simply got the job done, better than most, for 15 years. That's commendable.

So I just wanted to say,

"Thanks again, Mr. Strong and enjoy retirement. You deserve it."

Are those low-fat Biscuits and Gravy?

This year I turned 28, which meant I officially left my mid-20s.

Such a milestone got me to pondering. (Which is what one does in an over-priced kitschy bakery…it makes you look deep.)

So as I sat in said kitschy bakery eating breakfast by myself, I was dogged by one simple question:

How old is too old for biscuits and gravy?

I mean at what point does one have to trade-in Sausage McMuffins and Black Coffee for Bran Muffins and Green Tea?

When you're a youngster, you can have whatever you want, no matter how terrible and it's chalked-up to "Oh, it's OK, he's a growing boy."

However, the only growing I've seen in recent years is in my waistline and credit card debt.

It makes me wonder, is this middle age?

I mean, I still keep a schedule similar to my younger days in college. I am more often at bars during the week than I am absent and I still wake-up dragging a bit from the night before. And I do own an mp3 player, a smart phone, multiple computers and know what Blog means…I am not that old.

But I digress, back to the biscuits and gravy.

They are truly one of the great breakfast foods.

I am pretty sure that they will be off of the menu after my first heart attack.

And yes, I am planning on a heart attack.

Don't worry, this isn't a nutritional diatribe in the vein of reputedly pudgy ex-President Bill Clinton who recently got full-calorie soda banned from public schools.

It's more a question of responsibility versus having fun.

I am not the first to ask the question or wrestle with the issue.

I just hope that the biscuits and gravy analogy hits home. As something that was enjoyed freely and undervalued as a youth and is sorely missed and over-valued as an adult.

So here I am at the crossroads of 401Ks and Xbox 360s.

How is one supposed to make sense of it all?

I feel like the late-20s are the Grimace to the early-20s Ronald McDonald.

One is the star of the show. The one everyone remembers.

And the other just has a large mid section.

So am I too old for biscuits and gravy?

Probably.

Will I order them the next time I am at the kitschy bakery?

Hell yeah.

Maybe I'll walk.

After all, the bakery IS only 6 blocks away.

Screw campaign finance, take a look at higher education

So I am sure most of you have seen those ads on TV hocking student loans.

Has anyone bothered to ask why we’re seeing those so often nowadays?

It’s been over a year since a cutback in federal funding for student loans.

Anyone see a correlation?

After doing a bit of research, and by research I mean typing “Student Loan” into Google, I came to some disturbing realizations.

First off, I am lucky. I am a college graduate and benefactor of the old student loan program. I also happened to graduate at a time when interest rates were at 40 year lows. I was able to consolidate my student loans and lock-in a rate below 4%. That’s darn near free money.

Especially when weighed against going the route some of my classmates, who charged books and other expenses on their credit card(s). At rates ranging from 9.99-24.99%, and being that most of their cards were “baby’s first credit card” the rates were at the higher end of that spectrum.

So the Federal Student Loan Program did me quite a favor. It allowed me to educate myself, paid for me while I was in school and created enough earning potential that paying my student loans off was a reasonable expectation. (The fact that I am now unemployed notwithstanding.)

The same cannot be said for those who allowed Visa, AmEx, or Mastercard to foot the bill.

Is starting-off in the world with 4- to 5-digit debt the best way for a young person to enter the workforce?

No.

But then again, I didn’t want to borrow the money to buy my condo. But such is the cost of being an American and living the dream.

There has been quite a bit of scrutiny of the credit card industry and the tactics they use, especially the targeting of younger college-age consumers.

One worry was that these poor college kids, who didn’t understand the financial ramifications of high interest credit, were being saddled with debt before they even finished college. Student loans were ok, as they were a bargain that was offered by the government for the betterment of American society.

Student loans seemed to be alright, until July of 2006.

That’s when the gravy train went away.

The sentiment behind the move seemed reasonable enough. Why should the government take the financial risk when plenty of private financial institutions were willing to?

We’ve all seen how good private institutions are loaning out money, just look to the mortgage industry. (Which I used to be a part of.)

By taking the government out of the mix, the move was promoting business. And the free market would keep rates at a reasonable level, as there would be multiple lenders to choose from.

Which is all well and good, until you start looking at the APR’s from these various lenders:
Astrive.com: Rate: 9.67%. Total finance charge & principal: $23,280.80
Thinkfinancial.com: 9.22%. Total finance charge & principal: $21,663.00
*All rates/finance charges are on a $10,000 deferred repayment loan with a 240-month term. Rates/fees are from each lender’s web site obtained on 10/4/7

All of the sudden, the reality of allowing the free market to determine how much it really costs to go to school doesn’t look too rosy.

If it’s a bad idea to give an 18-year-old a $500 credit card at 15%, how does it make sense to give that same youngster $10,000-30,000 at over 9%? And these are variable rates, meaning they can change.

Earlier, I mentioned earning potential, which is the idea that as a college graduate you can command more pay over the span of your career. According to the 2000 US Census, graduating from college nearly doubles one’s lifetime earning potential. Earning potential is all well and good, until you look at the real cost of college. Per the rate quotes above, borrowing just $10,000 will cost the average student ~$12,000 in interest. Higher interest means higher payments, which may mean that entry-level job coming out of college won’t pay the bills.

For the record, I went to a public university, graduated in 5 years and accumulated over $22,000 in debt. Yet, my relatively meager student loan payment allowed me to take a lower-paying job to get my foot in the door and establish myself. I am not so sure that will be an option for future college graduates.

Just imagine what school will cost future college students, as tuition, not to mention interest rates, continue to increase. According to the website postsecondary.org, tuition increases have out-paced inflation by 4.6%.

Which brings me to my point.

Is privatization of the student loan industry really in the best interest of the students? A simple look at the increased costs, will say no.

So is pricing education out of the reach of common Americans in the best interest of American society? The obvious answer is no.

As Federal funding of education continues to decline and the credit industry continues to contract, it returns college, once a luxury of the elite, to its exclusive status. As the rest of the world continues to educate itself to make its populace more competitive, America is taking steps backwards. One big example of this is the decrease in access to college education via finance.

By making college something that has to be paid out-of-pocket, the American dream is relegated to a relative few in America, effectively ending the American dream for many lower- to middle-class American families.

Is education really still the great equalizer?

Bush is no Michael Jackson

So I saw that President Bush vetoed the most recent incarnation of a bill that would have provided health coverage to children. And he did so in the confident, decisive manner we’ve all become accustomed to with his administration…behind closed doors.

I’d like to say that I am surprised.

But alas, I am not.

Bush has a history of putting children on the back burner if it means a happier federal budget. But I’ll come back to his track record in a moment.

First off, I’d like to point-out that this was a health care bill that, although carrying a $30 billion dollar price tag, had bi-partisan support. Almost enough support to over-ride Bush’s veto, almost. So it wasn’t like Bush was circling the wagons for a show of Republican solidarity in preparation for the upcoming election year. It was simply the president doing what he does best, which is whatever he wants to do, regardless of the effect on America’s youth.

That can be read many ways, Bush doesn’t care about young people’s healthcare, or he doesn’t care about young people’s education as I’ll lay-out in a moment or he simply doesn’t care about young people period. Perhaps because they cannot vote or he expects to ship them off to various parts of the world in HIS war on terror.

Healthcare should be a right, and it pretty much is. If anyone was to stride into an emergency room in serious need of medical attention, you’d receive it. The problem arises when the bill comes. And any doctor will tell you that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So why not allow kids to get regular medical attention, such as physicals?

The answer is that it would cost $30 Billion dollars. Which is roughly equal to how many months of fighting in Iraq?

Let’s look at education for another example of disregard for the welfare of America’s youth by the Bush administration. Some of you may remember the No Child Left Behind program. It was supposed to hold everyone accountable in order to allow our children to succeed in school and return America’s ailing education system to its previous “not broken” status.

But No Child Left Behind, much like the Patriot Act, allowed the Bush Administration to take a great idea and run amok. In 2001, the administration tried to cut back the Federal Free and Reduced Lunch Program, under the guise of No Child Left Behind. Citing numbers that stated the program was being misused, the administration wanted to look tough on any program that failed to pass muster. If getting tough on education meant kids went hungry, then so be it. They stated that the program was inefficient and that 20% or more of the children receiving benefits didn’t qualify.

In a classic misdirection that is the hallmark of the Bush Administration, the obvious point that 80% of the children on the program needed the food was overlooked. Which meant that 4 out of 5 children who were on the program actually qualified for the program. And I think most people would agree an 80% success rate is quite agreeable, especially for a government program.

Never mind the fact that taking food away from a child is one of the few proven items that harms development and prevents achievement in the classroom. How does it make sense to use a program, supposedly aimed and restoring the educational system, to hinder the ability of America’s youth to succeed in school?

But as has been the case for Bush, reason gives way to “The War on Terror” or “No Child Left Behind” or “Cowboy Diplomacy” or any other catch phrase that allows Bush to misdirect the American public and continue his bullish run though the proverbial china shop of American rights and civil liberties. We’ve already seen him secretly take away many rights we took for granted.

Now Bush is so emboldened, that he’s taken to removing food from the mouths of America’s youth and taking away their ability to visit the doctor.

Good thing we’re not a third world country or anything…