“Going to college is a dream that promises intellectual excitement and creative thinking,” Jerry Brown said in a statement. “The Dream Act benefits us all by giving top students a chance to improve their lives and the lives of all of us.”

This is so true, just not for undocumented immigrants. We all want to work with people that are creative thinkers and improve our lives, but guess what, this is a dream. Dreams are achieved by hard work and determination, not hand outs or “entitlements”.

Are these students “entitled” to these funds? I am not saying that just because you are a documented U.S. Citizen that you’re entitled to these funds either, but they should get first dibs on them. This law really creates an economic discrimination against the current legal California Citizens, almost penalizing them for obeying the laws of the state. Entitlement seems to be the underlying theme to all of legislature and policy related to hand out/bail out programs. We constantly reward individuals for making bad decisions. So do we think by educating these individuals we eliminate these bad decisions? When do we start holding people responsible for their choices and actions? No matter if you are a documented or undocumented citizen there should not be any entitlement for anything not earned. The government makes it too easy for us to not apply our skills or learn new skills. This is a lot like training wheels on a bike, but due to these failed policies and laws of entitlements we will never take those training wheels off.

By no means is the message saying that these undocumented immigrants are not hard working, determined or deserving of these funds. While the pursuit of higher education is commendable and understandable, the point is that even if undocumented students were granted taxpayer funded aid for college, they would not be eligible to legally obtain a job in the U.S. The point is we are granting amnesty and free college funding to undocumented immigrants through this bill, but no one is paying attention and it has no long term economic benefit. This sends the message that if undocumented immigrants break the law by crossing the border, they will have the same rights and entitlements as U.S. Citizens. As someone who worked full time to put themselves through college this seems like it goes against everything learned along my journey to where I am today.

I will leave you with the Webster Dictionary definition of the word “entitlement”:

1a: the state or condition of being entitled : right b: a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also: funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

Ironic?

Which begs the question, why is it so easy to be dismissive of this “movement”?  The quick answer is the lack of leadership, the lack of credibility, and the lack of a coherent message and strategy.  A perfect example of these facts is the raw video I shot of the Occupy SF participants last Friday.

Certainly we can appreciate the passion, but is yelling, “F*** the Ferraris” going to resonate and add to your ranks?  Is posting 20 different signs with completely different messages going to connect with the target audience that can actually help make a difference?  Is standing shirtless on the side of the street going to get you a seat at the table?  Clearly rhetorical questions, but the barriers are easily highlighted.

So, should we just dismiss all of the “Occupy” protests?  Of course not.  Not until we’ve taken the time to understand what they’re truly after.  I’ll defer to outlets that do a far better job of outlining the Occupy mission (LA Times, Business Insider) and proponent web sites that articulate a more succinct message (We Are the 99 Percent, Occupy Together) to help with that.

And while I understand how easy it is to dismiss Occupy Wall Street and each of the other Occupy protests around the world, the movement is worth a little research, since they might actually be fighting for something we support.

So if this deal passes through Congress, the Democrats need to call the EGTRRA extension what it really is, the Obama tax cuts.

- Matt

===================

Also, here is New York representative Anthony Weiner questioning the President’s “fight“ on this deal with Republicans.

===================

UPDATE, 12/9: Well, that didn’t go as planned.

===================

For those entities able to centralize discussion enough to build loyal, constantly-tuned-in audiences, they have provided a platform for a crop of compelling media darlings that enthrall their listeners, viewers, and readers with seemingly earnest and passionate anecdotes and opinions with one principal goal: to elicit emotion. Indifference is the great killer of media careers, so in between offering the occasional laugh, the most successful media-types are masters of turning both compelling issues and seemingly innocuous events into the most profitable emotions of the day: disbelief, anxiety, and fear.

Rush Limbaugh, Jon Stewart, and Sarah Palin are three of the biggest names amongst these media personalities, current and former politicians, and political consultants. And although their on-air personas and devoted listeners would say different, most of these individuals recognize that their primary function is one of entertainment. Comedy Central’s Stewart has repeatedly noted that “it would be wrong to describe what he does as ‘journalism.’” And Glenn Beck, the Fox News firebrand du jour, shares that “I could give a flying crap about the political process” and notes of his organization Glenn Beck Inc., “We’re an entertainment company.” These successful members of the media know what sells and the American people are buying.

Now, do you ever wonder how much these talking heads earn? It’s natural to be curious, since these individuals reach out to us as peers, seemingly looking out for our best interest and sharing the stories the “media establishment” doesn’t want us to know about. But do they really endure the same social and financial struggles as Joe the Plumber and Mary the Schoolteacher? And have they cornered the truth market? Or do their roles as entertainers allow them the latitude to stay loose with the facts and/or conclusions? Hopefully we realize that such performers on a national stage have millions of reasons ($$$) to keep you coming back for more. Let’s look at the top-10 earners of 2010 as compiled by Newsweek (through independent research by Wealth-X):

10 highest-earning political figures of 2010 (includes earnings from radio, television, print, digital & speaking engagements)

Draw your own conclusions, but you can sleep easy…these folks aren’t struggling to make ends meet. And if their next radio or television appearance leaves you anxious or fearful, remember to take their act with a grain of salt. For the complete list, check out Newsweek’s Power 50.

- Matt

============

]]> http://www.nationalhustle.org/2010/11/political-discourse-americas-top-paid-pundits/feed/ 2 http://www.nationalhustle.org/2010/11/resource-factcheck/ http://www.nationalhustle.org/2010/11/resource-factcheck/#comments Sat, 06 Nov 2010 00:00:34 +0000 Matt Andrus http://www.nationalhustle.org/?p=1565 Now that we’ve survived the mid-term elections (barely), we can detox from listening to a long season of relative truths, half-truths, and bare-faced lies. But if you just can’t get enough political and social analysis, or really want to know if the President’s trip to India will actually cost taxpayers $2 billion, check out the nonpartisan FactCheck.org.

Since 2003, FactCheck.org has been providing a much-needed check-and-balance for the barrage of “news” and “facts” thrown at us on a regular basis, particularly during campaign seasons.  Its mission is described as follows:

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.

Every watchdog has its critics and alleged political leanings, but typically these attacks come from those whose claims have been debunked. We always have to diversify our knowledge base, so I highly recommend adding FactCheck.org to your resource arsenal.

- Matt

============

According to Pew Research Foundation polls, 25 percent of voters were 65 or older, up from 16 percent in 2008. And according to Pew’s exit polls, “41 percent of the people who voted Tuesday called themselves conservative, up from 32 percent in 2006 and 34 percent in 2008.” Surely the “enthusiasm gap” was alive and well.

But even with the Republicans’ resounding mid-term victory, Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, provided an astute perspective on the voters’ intent: “We’re on a pretty short leash here. We’ve told people we’d not only be better than the Democrats, but better than we were.”

Given Flake’s view and recent voter history, any failure to meet those lofty expectations might result in a greater liberal-/youth-voter turnout in 2012 and another House flip-flop. Let the water-treading begin.

- Matt

===============

Certainly an impassioned electorate spoke loudly and clearly with their votes, demanding accountability for the sad state of the economy, historically high unemployment, and a poisoned political environment. It seemed a few heads had to roll and those currently in power were the low hanging fruit. But can yet another apparent demand for “change” manifest itself into something more significant? Can we really expect the economy and vitriolic politics to improve over the next two years? I’m skeptical.

After all, many of the newly elected officials do not reside in the ideological middle (where most Americans sit), rather, we have selected individuals further to the fringes of our political spectrum. Surely sending politicians with fewer common interests and little appetite for compromise is not a practical recipe for cooperation. Not surprisingly, more political gridlock is on the horizon.

I hope I’m wrong, but as we saw on election day, “hope” only resonates with the citizenry for so long.

- Matt
==============

“Political freedoms (in the form of free speech and elections) help to promote economic security. Social opportunities (in the form of education and health facilities) facilitate economic participation. Economic facilities (in the form of opportunities for participation in trade and production) can help to generate personal abundance as well as public resources for social facilities.”

You might find this either basic or esoteric, but it certainly deserves some thought. Although I think he was actually discussing nation-building, if there is a formula for what makes America such a prosporous nation, Sen’s idea has provided the most accurate and concise I’ve ever seen.

- Matt

—————–

-

Although very few Americans had any reservations about retaliating against Al Qaeda and the Taliban after 9/11, the past eight years has seen many Americans become dissolutioned with our role in Afghanistan.  The Iraq War has diverted both military resources and public attention, resulting in today’s all-too-common questions: (1) What are we trying to achieve in Afghanistan?, and (2) Should we send more troops?

To help provide an updated perspective, Frontline aired “Obama’s War” last night:

- Matt

===============

-

- Matt

===============

-