Continued... I'm HATIN' Featured On The BuzzKlub

Happy Friday, good Haters!

Here is the continuation of my participation as a panelist on The Buzz Klub, hosted by Bintu ‘Honey b.’ Kabba.

As always, I welcome your comments and feedback.



#KeepOnHATIN'

I'M HATIN' Featured on TheBuzzKlub

Recently, I was fortunate enough to be asked to participate as a "Beehive" panelist on The Buzz Klub, a contemporary adult web and television series hosted by Bintu ‘Honey b.’ Kabba. Topics of discussion included if 'age is just a number' when dating, domestic violence among celebrity couples and their influence on our culture.

Take a look :-)



Be sure to visit The Buzz Klub online at http://www.thebuzzklub.com/ and view past episodes, including one that featured our favorite men's fashion blogger, TheCuffLink. Also, subscribe to The Buzz Klub's YouTube Channel 

#KeepOnHATIN'

In Response to Reader Comments RE: I'm HATIN': Because They Want to Take Away Your Right to Vote, Black People!

I must say, SR, I love our banter! Thank you for your comments. I tried to post my response under your post but was censored by Blogger for talking too much (i.e. over character limit).

I’m glad we can both agree that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should just BE, and never have to be renewed.

I'm also happy to know I’ve found a friend who shows the same disdain for the electoral college/voting process as I do.

We would almost have a record 3-for-3 on this topic, but I must disagree with you and affirm that, in my opinion, the current laws regarding identification for voting DO have racial suppression implications.

Let me explain…

I think, when it comes to race relations in this country, you see things in black and white, whereas I see things in black, white and all shades in between. To you, at least from what I can gather from a host of your comments on I’m HATIN’ over the years, said issues are either “Racist” or “Not Racist.” I, on the other hand, assess the issue and see some as having racial implications and some not having biases, at all. Both mindsets are neither right nor wrong, just respectively different.

Allow me to respond to your points in an organized fashion:

Point #1: You say, “This is one of those examples where just because it affects one race more than another, we automatically assume it's the white guys fault.”

My Response: I never said it was the white guy’s fault. You see at the end of the post, I give readers recommendations for how to combat the new laws to ensure their rights are protected.

Point #2: You say, “One of these days, minorities are going to need to take some responsibility, when fair, and man up to things they should already be doing. How in God's name do you not have an ID and you’re an adult?”

My Response: I agree. I am not saying we should play the blame game. I am saying we need to see the new laws for what they are and act accordingly. Every adult over the age of 18 should have some type of photo identification. But, let’s be real, we know that many people don’t. For example, veterans, those formerly incarcerated, newly/recently accepted American citizens, hearing/visually impaired individuals, and generally, people who opt not to operate a vehicle; for whatever the reason, not to be judged by you or I, some people just don’t have ID or a current/valid photo identification card. That’s just reality. But just because you don’t own a card with your picture on it doesn’t mean your right to vote should be taken away.

Point #3: Regarding your comment on the statistics and number of people affected and possible data inconsistencies

My response: You’re right. We can’t be totally sure about just how many people it will affect because the government agencies that are supposed to supply the numbers and information have yet to do so. All we have is “may,” “might” and “proabably’s,” based on the numbers that are available. But you must admit, a very depressing picture is painted with the numbers we do have. Also, answer me this, if you can, why did our beloved Governor vote for a law, not knowing just how many people it would affect? You’d think that would be a HUGE consideration for a decision such as this. Is there something he has to gain by signing it into law? I would LOVE to see the breakout of those who do NOT have ID and their specific party affiliation. I would be willing to bet, those without proper ID probably tend to lean more Democratic… seeing that it is heavily documented the African Americans, Hispanics and low-income individuals tend to be registered Democrats.

I bring up the point of Hispanics for a reason; in this post, the headline points directly to black people, however, in the first line of the post, I say “African Americans, and ALL PEOPLE OF COLOR,” which includes Blacks (not necessarily African American (i.e. West Indians and Africans fall under this category), Hispanics, Native Americans and even Asians, my friend. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, even though it was fueled by the Civil Rights Movement, ensures the rights of everyone of every race.

I think you can find some more value in my thoughts through this article/opinion piece I saw on NBCLatino, please read the excerpt below:

“Puerto Ricans in Pennsylvania are uniquely burdened by the Voter ID law.  In 2010, to cut down on identity theft, Puerto Rico invalidated all previously issued birth certificates (Puerto Ricans were required to apply for new ones with enhanced security features).  For Puerto Ricans in Pennsylvania, who account for about half of the state’s Hispanic population, this means they have to go through two sets of bureaucratic hurdles to obtain ID for voting, one in Puerto Rico, and another in Pennsylvania.” - http://nbclatino.com/2012/07/30/opinion-voter-id-is-offensive-unjust-and-un-american/

Also, in answer to your question of “And, can you name another, valid way to prevent voter fraud without requiring ID?” No, I can’t except by the outrageously expensive and invasive ways you mentioned above, but I have to ask, why is it absolutely necessary? The excerpt below, again from NBCLatino, explains my just HATE for why these laws need to exist in the first place…

“For starters, our country does not have a voter fraud problem.  In 2011, the Republican National Lawyers Association listed 400 voter fraud prosecutions over the last decade.  That works out to less than one case per state per year.  A five-year investigation by the Bush Department of Justice found virtually no evidence of voter fraud.  In Pennsylvania, the state government concedes there has not been any voter fraud in the state.  None.” - http://nbclatino.com/2012/07/30/opinion-voter-id-is-offensive-unjust-and-un-american/

Point #4: You say, “The 2011 census says 83.8% of PA is White and 11.3% is Black. Statistically speaking, this law affects more Whites than Blacks. So…how is that racist again? Let’s dig further. Because 2011 isn’t out for some reason, the 2010 census says 41% of Philly is White and 43.4% is Black. This is even playing field – so it affects both.”

My Response: Your numbers are a bit skewed. The 2011 census says that 83.8% of PA is White. That is kinda true. When you look at that same census report, you will see a line that reads “White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2011” which represents 79.2%, which is a better represented number. Many times the census counts mixed race Caucasian Hispanics as “white” as opposed to “Hispanic.” So, the 79.2% is a better represented number. Even with the number clarification, you are right in saying that it still affects a larger number of whites, but you can’t deny that it does affect a great number of minorities (more than 20%).

As it pertains to Philadelphia, White persons, non Hispanic, represent 37% of the population, blacks 44.3%, Hispanics 12.6%, Asian 6.6%, Native American .8% and Pacific Islander .1%. The minority vote comprises roughly 63% of the vote for Philadelphia – no where close to an “even playing field.”

And regardless of what the numbers say, whether it affects 99% of voters or .0001%, it is NOT acceptable to disenfranchise any voter. Period.

#JustSayin

I'm HATIN': Because They Want to Take Away Your Right to Vote, Black People!

Image Captured From:  http://doonesbury.slate.com/strip/archive/2012/07/25

Listen up, my fellow African Americans, and all people of color, this post is aimed directly at you.


Our right to vote is being challenged and you don’t even know or care enough to get enraged, engaged or active in the discussion.


I’m HATIN’


Did you know that the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Act the prohibits states from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color," has to be renewed every 25 years? Yes, tis sad but true. And lawmakers are seemingly getting smarter at devising ways to disenfranchise people of color to keep us away from the voting booth and from exercising our right to vote.


Wikipedia states, “In July 2006, 41 years after the Voting Rights Act passed, renewal of the temporary provisions enjoyed bi-partisan support. However, a number of Republican lawmakers acted to amend, delay or defeat renewal of the Act for various reasons. One group of lawmakers led by Georgia congressman Lynn Westmoreland came from some preclearance states, and claimed that it was no longer fair to target their states, given the passage of time since 1965 and the changes their states had made to provide fair elections and voting. Another group of 80 legislators supported an amendment offered by Steve King of Iowa, seeking to strip provisions from the Act that required that translators or multilingual ballots be provided for U.S. citizens who do not speak English. The "King letter" said that providing ballots or interpreters in multiple languages is a costly, unfunded mandate…


The bill to renew the Act was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on July 13 by a vote of 390-33, with support from Republican House leadership, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. The U.S. Senate passed the bill 98–0 on July 20. President George W. Bush signed the bill in a morning ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House on July 27, 2006, one year in advance of the 2007 expiration date. This extension renewed the Act for another 25 years. The audience included members of the families of slain civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks. Also in attendance were the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond and other prominent African Americans.”


Does anyone else think it is LUDICROUS that there are members of the House actually voting AGAINST the Act, or that, at this point in our “post-racist society”, the Act has to be renewed at all?


Fast forward to today, right now, as we speak, new laws have been created and put into place that can largely effect this coming presidential election and future voting rights. Voter registration requirements are changing and, if you’re not careful, you won’t be included, and will ultimately be stripped of your God-given right to select the men and women who govern you.


Voter registration and proof of identification are the latest in attack tactics. The New York Times reports, “Advocates say the laws have nothing to do with voter suppression and are about something else entirely: ensuring the integrity of elections, preventing voter fraud and improving public confidence in the electoral process in an era when photo identification is routine for many basic things, including air travel.”


Let me be the first to say that loss of confidence in the electoral process was NOT a direct result of not asking me for ID when I come to the polls, but rather, the entire electoral college process, in which a candidate can win the “popular vote” but can still lose the election. Riddle me this, how can someone win a majority of all of the votes, when counted, reflecting all voters who came out to the polls that day, and still lose the election, based on an indirect election process that specifies how many electors each state is entitled, to cast a vote for President and Vice President? (Electoral College: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States))


The New York Times goes on to say, “Thirty-three states have passed laws requiring identification for voting. Five — Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kansas, Tennessee and Georgia — have, what are called strict photo identification requirements, meaning voters must present specific kinds of photo IDs before voting. Six states — Michigan, South Dakota, Idaho, Louisiana, Hawaii and Florida — have less strict photo requirements, meaning voters may be able to sign affidavits or have poll workers who recognize them verify their identities.”


Let’s look at Pennsylvania for a moment, shall we?


Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, who recently signed the law requiring new identification measures, fielded a reporter's question on the subject, recently in Pittsburgh, and couldn't remember the forms of ID he's requiring his constituents to have. Take a look…


Well, Mr. Corbett, here’s a refresher; Your new law mandates that voters be required to show an acceptable photo ID on Election Day. All photo IDs must contain an expiration date that is current, unless noted otherwise. Acceptable IDs include:

• Photo IDs issued by the U.S. Federal Government or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (including the Department of State Voter ID Card)
• PA Driver’s License or Non-driver’s License photo ID (IDs are valid for voting purposes 12 months past expiration date)
• Valid U.S. passport
• U.S. military ID- active duty and retired military (a military or veteran’s ID must designate an expiration date or designate that the expiration date is indefinite). Military dependents’ ID must contain an expiration date
• Employee photo ID issued by Federal, PA, PA County or PA Municipal government
• Photo ID from an accredited PA public or private institution of higher learning, including colleges, universities, seminaries, community colleges and other two-year colleges
• Photo ID issued by a PA care facility, including long-term care facilities, assisted living residences or personal care homes

- http://www.votespa.com/

Meanwhile, the number of Pennsylvanians who might not have the photo identification necessary to vote this November has more than doubled: at least 1,636,168 registered voters, or 20 percent of Pennsylvania voters, may not have valid PennDOT-issued ID, according to new data obtained by the Philadelphia City Paper. In Philadelphia, an enormous 437,237 people, or 43 percent of city voters, may not possess the valid PennDOT ID necessary to vote under the state's controversial new law.


SO, what can we do?

• Contact you local legislators, congressmen and voice your concerns. Stay abreast to the current legal battles regarding voting laws and rights.
• Fight fire with fire – Learn the new rules and regulations of your state and update all of your identification cards. State ID’s, Driver’s License anything that has a photo of you.
• Register to vote! I know I blogged about my ambivalence toward voting in an earlier post titled, I’m HATIN: Because Voting and New Logos Aren’t Fancy, but it is still important to be a part of the change you wish to see. Follow this link to find out how you register: http://www.eac.gov/assets/1/Documents/National_Mail_Voter_Registration_Form_English_2%2015%2020121%20Cor.pdf

Keep HATIN’ Alive

I’M HATIN’: Because The ‘Right to Bear Arms’ Should Not Give You The Right to Become a One Man Army

Image From: http://media.modbee.com/

Let’s talk about gun control.


I’m not going to argue the validity and necessity of our constitutional right to own and operate an automatic weapon; I am going to argue that we have a constitutional right NOT to be shot in the ass!


Apologies if I began this post a bit aggressive, but it KILLS me when national tragedies like the recent Aurora, Colorado shooting, in which innocent moviegoers experienced a rain of fire as gunman, James Holmes, without warrant or known cause, burst into a midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises," dressed head-to-toe in combat gear, tossed gas canisters into the crowd and opened fire, causing the death of 12 people and injuring more than 79 others.


Our President and his opponent held press conferences with “heavy hearts,” and were deeply saddened by the events that took place, but neither said very much exude confidence that events like this won’t happen again, or address the real, underlying issues, which are that our process and procedures for acquiring weapon permits, licenses to carry and the actual purchasing of weapons, needs a major overhaul.


I’m not sure why the founders and creators of our great constitution saw fit to have our right to “bear arms” as the second amendment (seems like so many other rights should have come before this) or why we, as Americans, have bastardized this right, but stricter gun control is needed and no one seems to be saying it. And for that, good readers, I’m HATIN.’


Let’s begin with the process of obtaining a license; in my research I have found that you do NOT need a license to own a gun! You do, however, need a license to carry a concealed weapon, but more on that later. So, what is needed to purchase a gun?, you ask; only to fill out minor paperwork and be 1. Over the age of 18 to purchase a rifle or shotgun, and 21 for purchasing handguns, machineguns, etc., 2. Not a convicted felon, and 3. Patient… wait time is typically between 48 or 72 hours for processing. Honestly, it seems easier than getting a driver’s license.


Now, if you wish to hunt, you must go through and pass a state sponsored Hunter’s Safety Course, typically 10 hours of training, over a two-day period.


As it pertains to obtaining a license to carry a concealed weapon; Wikipedia explains, “While there is no federal law specifically addressing the issuance of concealed carry permits, 49 states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry certain concealed firearms in public, either without a permit or after obtaining a permit from local government and/or law enforcement.”


Here are just a few of my problems with the current gun laws:
Why doesn’t the exam, in part, consist of a psychological evaluation? I hate when someone owns a gun, kills a bunch of people, then tries to escape persecution by using the “insanity plea.” Adding a “psych eval” as part of the permit/license process keeps guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. Also, it takes away, in part, this pathetic attempt for getting away with murder. Win Win!


Why is there no oversight on the number of weapons any one individual purchases? And why is there not stricter control of internet sales? Only after a horrific crime does some source/expert come out of the woodwork and say “Well, the individual had an arsenal of 80 pistols, 50 shot guns, 10 AK47’s and the atom bomb. Who knew they would be a danger to society?” Ummm… I did. Anyone who chooses to become a one man army is capable of being a danger to society. For example, in the recent Colorado shooting, CBS News reported, "Through the Internet he (Holmes) purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition, more than 3,000 rounds of .223 ammunition for the assault rifle, 3,000 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition for the two Glocks in his possession and 300 rounds for the 12 gauge shotgun." Yea, he didn’t plan to do anything dangerous or harmful.


CBS also affirmed that “Sources say over the past several months, Holmes spent about $15,000 as he was putting together his deadly arsenal -- guns, chemicals, explosives, and ammunition.”


Why does the law differ, with regard to age, for certain types of guns? Because all 18 year olds, who can’t legally consume alcohol, should undoubtedly have the right to own a shot gun! That makes TOTAL sense. #SarcasmRules


Why is there no mandated training for operating a weapon, as part of the sales process? We’re encouraged/made to take classes for operating a car, motorcycle, commercial truck, why not for guns? Both, if left in the wrong hands, can kill someone.


And my list of questioning could go on forever…


Allow me to end this post by saying that I fully understand and respect the notion that “Guns don’t kill people; People kill people,” but, where I find fault is people killing people… with GUNS!


#NowRunTellDat

Image From: http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com 

I’m HATIN’: HATED It – School Daze

So, here are a few issues from last week, surrounding the teen and young adult population that are still just cause for HATIN. I’ll try to keep this short and sweet.

Image from Dunaiji.com    

Twitter Beef between Chris Brown, Meek Millz, Drake and Rihanna

Let this INSANITY end!

It’s the typical “he said, she said” scenario, where everyone is talking big but, at the end of the day, NO ONE CARES.

This is how it all went down – Meek Millz started the online squabble by tweeting
"You took me off your song cause she let me watch da throne #dreamsandnightmares," Presumably a cheap shot about Chris Brown and his recent decision to not feature Millz on his soon-to-be released song, "Don't Judge Me." Millz added, “Taking these hatin’ ni88as bi***es every time”. Presumably speaking of his alleged romance with singer/actress Rihanna, Chris Brown’s former flame.


Brown, not new to “Twitter-Thugin’,” responded indirectly by tweeting “She's a dream chaser! There are alot of dreamers so she'll be running forever!", referenceing Millz mixtape, “Dreamchasers.”


Millz retorted, "Dese chicks belong 2 da game... not u! Never get confused and think that's all u!"


Drake, who has publicly acknowledged his feelings for Rihanna, jumped in to Meek's defense, writing on Twitter, "Oh that's your ho? That's our ho too. Lol. We get gyal eeeeaasy."


Brown, in an effort to have the last word tweeted, but than later deleted, "I'd like to send the bullshit a BiG FUCK YOU from the bottom of the ballz! Lol.. Real nigga! Goodnight!" He then tweeted, “This would be a dope ass movie!!!”


Rihanna, also not one to shy away from a good Twitter beef, especially one surrounding her, responds to the madness by saying “The best part is that EYE get to choose.”


DONE! This is high school drama in the worst kind of way.


Say it with me, ya’ll… HATED IT!

Image from  GlobalGrind.com

Athletic Scholarships to Rich Kids

So, the world is upset that Justin Combs, son of Sean “P Diddy” Combs, received an athletic scholarship to UCLA to play football. My advice?... Get Over IT!

Critics are attacking Justin for accepting the scholarship offer when his father, who’s estimated net worth is upwards of $550 million dollars, could easily afford the $54,000 annual tuition.

When did family earnings begin coming into play for athletic scholarships?

I think that people forgetting the fact that a Division I football scholarship is a significant achievement. Forbes estimates that there are roughly 250,000 high school seniors playing football each year and only 1,500 or so receive a scholarship to a BCS school. Telling Justin that he shouldn’t accept the scholarship diminishes the work he put in to get the offer.

What work, you ask? Well, Justin graduated with a 3.75 GPA, defining a model student athlete, and puts in more than 40 hours a week for football conditioning, practicing and school work.

Not only that, apparently the kid is talented enough to get recruited by top-notch schools/programs like UCLA.

Justin took to Twitter last week to defend his scholarship saying, “Regardless what the circumstances are, I put that work in!!!! PERIOD.”

Nuff Said!

Would we even be having this conversation if it were Donald Trump, Bill Gates or the Jolie-Pitt kids? I don’t think so.

Still HATIN’

A Follow-Up to I’m HATIN’: Because The Student Loan Forgiveness Act is NOT What We Think It Is

Recently, I had the pleasure of speaking with the folks at Let Your Voice Be Heard Radio about the thoughts expressed in my last post, I’m HATIN’: Because The Student Loan Forgiveness Act is NOT What We Think It Is, and the topic of the Student Loan Debt Crisis.


Click below to listen to my interview segment



Click below to listen to the full radio broadcast (recommended)

I’m HATIN’: Because The Student Loan Forgiveness Act is NOT What We Think It Is

Like most American’s, I have utilized bank, Federal Subsidized and Unsubsidized loans to pay for my college education. And, I too, like many Americans, am still paying… 

Recently, there has been much talk about The Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012, House Bill H.R. 4170, and as of Wednesday, April 25, 2012, a day known as "1-T Day" - the estimated date on which student loan debt will officially hit a mind-boggling ONE TRILLION DOLLARS, everyone is searching for an answer to this crisis.

Hate to break it to you folks, but H.R. 4170 is not the “God-send” you’ve been waiting for.

High interest rates, 10-year forgiveness plans and the fact that colleges and universities aren’t being held responsible for their part in the crisis, leave me undeniably and certifiably HATIN.’

Edjuma-HATIN’

Let me first dive into The Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012 and what most civilians think it stands for.

Pegged as a “legislation designed to lend a helping hand to those struggling under massive amounts of student loan debt,” the bill, proposed by Robert Applebaum and submitted into the House of Representatives by Rep. Hansen Clarke, aims to do the following: 

• Create a new “10-10 standard” for student loan forgiveness, in that if you make payments equal to 10% of your discretionary income for 10 years, your remaining federal student loan debt would be forgiven. If you have already been making payments on your student loans, your repayment period would likely be shorter than 10 years. The amount you have already paid on your student loans over the past decade would be credited toward meeting the requirement for forgiveness.  
• Cap federal student loan interest rates at 3.4%.
• Consolidate private loans by converting them into federal Direct Loans, then enrolling the new federal loan into the 10/10 program.
• Reward graduates for entering public service professions like teaching and firefighting and provide incentives for medical professionals to work in underserved communities. 
• Jumpstart the economy by creating jobs and increasing American purchasing power 
• Create jobs by increasing consumer demand for goods and services.    
• Incentivize students to be mindful of educational costs and for colleges and universities to control tuition increases. 

If you ask me, it’s all smoke and mirrors.

Here are my major issues with the proposed bill, as it stands:

Familiar Schedule – The repayment schedule looks almost identical to what we have been paying. A majority of loan holders signed promissory notes that span a 10-year timeframe. Am I wrong?

1. The 10/10 Rule – 10% of your discretionary income is completely subjective, and if I’m not working, like the 4.1% of college graduates in the US aren’t (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics - http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm), than 10% of $0 is ZERO. Stop calling my house for payments. A recent Rutgers University study found that, in a simply random sample of recent graduates from four-year universities, only 53 percent held full-time jobs. And, with jobs scarce, many graduates are forced into service jobs that don’t fit the expensive qualifications they’ve just spent four or more years acquiring. What’s more, the fine print of the bill reads that an individual, under the new plan, would have to successfully complete 120, on-time, up-to-date payments, over the 10 year period, for the remaining balance to be expunged. 120 perfect payments? Good Luck.
2. Cap On Loan Forgiveness – The cap of $45,520 is a bit unreasonable when you look at how much money one can spend on a college education. Let’s say, for example, I pay $40,000 per year to attend my college/university of choice. At the end of my four years, I owe $160,000. So, I now take my shiny diploma and begin working (if I’m lucky) and pay a whopping $900 per month for my loan (which is more than some people pay in rent/mortgage), some going to principal and some going to interest. After 10 years, I’ve “only” paid $108,000; Meaning that I still owe $52,000+ that CAN’T be forgiven. BULL-ISH
3. Eligibility Requirements – My guess, many of us, who have been paying off student loans for years, are not eligible for much in this new program. Especially those who are near completion. Again, it is subjective, and on a case-by-case basis, held between the borrower and a secretary of the Federal government.
4. 3.4% Interest Still Seems High – If this bill REALLY wanted to held students, it would do an introductory rate of 0% for the first three years and increase, incrementally, up to 3.4% through the life of the loan. This would provide an incentive for borrowers to pay back faster, and, for those out of work and under hardship, would allow them to pay down the principal first.
5. Colleges and Universities Aren’t Made to Help Rectify the Crisis they Created 
   College education is a profitable business. It is documented that since 1980, the average tuition for a 4-year college education has increased by 827%. Since 1999, average student loan debt has increased by 511%. That is RIDICULOUS! As long as colleges and universities are able to jack up the price of education to whatever they want, no amount of debt/loan forgiveness will help. This bill needs to begin with the schools, both private and state funded. There should be something in this bill that provides incentive for colleges lowering/capping costs, i.e. schools charging more than $40,000 in tuition are not eligible for Federal grant money. Let’s hit them where it hurts; their wallets.

Attribution: Christopher Weyant, The Hill

But, don’t just take my word for it, educate yourself and read the entire bill, both the legal document and the simplified version, and make your own judgments.

For a brief summary of H.R. 4170′s main provisions, go here: http://tinyurl.com/7akydbk

To read the full version of the actual bill itself, please go here: http://tinyurl.com/6txure8

To read answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012, please go here: http://tinyurl.com/8xh4csd

Ultimately, the bill does address the fact that there is a crisis among working Americans, but I think… no, I know, we can do better than this.

Broke and HATIN’

I’m HATIN’: Because “Ho” and “Housewife” Are Now Synonymous Terms

Original photo from http://wtfnsfw.tumblr.com/page/13   

I guess we have finally proven our mother’s wrong… Apparently MANY people will buy a spoiled/milk-less cow, after it has seemingly given away all of its goods for free… just ask Wiz Khalifa, Chad Ochocinco, and Kanye West.

We can now affirm to the generations of women who have come before us, with clarity, and, a laundry list of examples, that the old adage of not, “buying the cow when you can get the milk for free,” no longer applies to 21st century men.

Even as I write this, I can’t help but wonder exactly when the tides changed; when did “wifing” publicly promiscuous women become the new social norm?

Let us speculate, shall we?

I believe that he concept of “turning a ho into a housewife,” is as old as man, itself, and, while the topic has been covered extensively lately, with the emergence of supercouple Kanye West and Kim Kardashian, it is one that has new implications.

Through research on the topic, including surveying a number of single men, I have attributed the reasoning behind this phenomenon to two different rationales:

• The “Captain Save a Ho” Complex, and
• The Male Ego

Let the HATIN’ commence

The “Captain Save a Ho” Complex – This concept stems from the typically, and categorically classified “good guy” types, who fall for emotionally unattainable women. They see “SOS” signs when dealing with any particular woman, and feel it their need, desire and overall purpose to save her, whether from her situation or herself.

After years of teaching our men to be chivalrous, courteous, kind and a respecter of all women, are we truly surprised by these actions? When we look at fairytales of our day, in which, both, men and women are brought up watching, we see that the handsome prince, in some way, shape or form, saves lil’ miss princess. In Cinderella, the prince saves her from her wicked step mother and sisters; in Sleeping Beauty, the prince saves her from an eternal slumber; in Snow White, the prince saves her from a wicked queen; and even in The Wizard of OZ, the all powerful wizard save Dorothy, and her band of misfits, from all of the individual problems that plague them.

This concept to be one’s savior is learned, not inherited.

The Male Ego – This goes without saying, the male ego can either bring about the exponential rise or demise of a man. I whole heartedly believe that a man’s actions, and I do mean all actions, are for the love, affection or attention of a woman.

Starting from birth, a man’s actions vie for attention from his mother (or mother-like figure) and extend through adulthood to potential mates.

As it relates to our topic of conversation, many men are looking to attract the attention of women who are unattainable or heavily desired by other men. It increases his reputation and bravado if he can, not only attract this type of woman, but keep her. He’s looked upon as a guy who’s got it all figured out; the Swag; the proverbial Junoesque. In his mind, by obtaining the “unattainable” he is now who every other man wants to be and who every woman wants to be with.

When it all comes down to it, Ho vs. Housewife, Good Guy vs. Bad Boy; everyone has a past. The rules of dating, I have found, are simple in that there are no rules, and, ultimately, things will be what they are. Should I be angry that Amber Rose is cashing in her stripper stash and becoming Mrs. Wiz Khalifa? Eh, not really. Should I pity the “Good Girl” for not being chosen by her “ideal” guy, even after maintaining her virtues? Absolutely not! My advice; find happiness and love wherever you can and learn that what is for you, will be for you, instead of chasing what you believe to be “ideal.” It will save you years of US Weekly subscriptions and therapy bills.

And that’s the bottom line because I’M HATIN’ said so.

HATED IT: Tatted Up… Thumbs Down!

Let me preface this post by stating, for the record, that I like tattoos. I can appreciate the art and beauty in body ink and feel that those who elect to mark their bodies are completely in their right to do so. To be completely honest, I, myself, would like a tattoo - more as a symbol of my life and learned experiences as opposed to a fad or “cool” thing to don. Recent tattoo news has me confused, a bit angry and completely HATIN’

Let’s examine the evidence, shall we?

Rihanna the “Thug” – I see you shaking you head already. Can someone please explain to me why, oh why, did pop star/singer Rihanna get a tattoo of Tupac’s infamous “Thug Life” tattooed on her knuckles.

It must really be a rough, hard knock life for millionaire pop singers.

Does Ri-Ri know that “THUG LIFE” is an acronym? Does she know that it stands for “The Hate You Gave Little Infants Fucks Everybody,” which, in the words of Tupac, himself, means “what you feed us as seeds, grows, and blows up in your face, that’s Thug Life.”

But, maybe I’m being too hard on her. Maybe, just MAYBE, she really does know that “T.H.U.G L.I.F.E” represents a code for the streets, designed to give order to the rise of gang violence and drug dealing. Word Yo! She can relate.

GTFOH!

Georgia Mom Arrested for Allowing 10-Year-Old to Get Tattoo – This is a crying shame and another case in point, as to why parenting skills need a complete overhaul.

Chuntera Napier was arrested for allowing her 10-year-old son, Gaquan Napier, to get a “memorial tattoo” for his 12-year-old brother Malik who died after being hit by a car. Ms. Napier said she had no idea it was illegal for him to get one, even with her consent.

In news reports Ms. Napier is quoted saying “She was touched by the request” and, my personal favorite, “What do I say to a child who wants to remember his brother? It’s not like he was asking me, ‘Can I get Sponge Bob?” Napier said. “He asked me [for] something that’s in remembrance of his brother. How can I say no?”

Umm, very easy, Ms. Napier... NO or Not until you’re 18 years old.

Now, I don’t believe she should have been arrested, but I honestly don’t understand why, as opposed to letting her son get the tattoo, she didn’t suggest that her son opt to memorialize the deceased by starting a foundation in his name, creating a vigil or new street safety measures at the site where the boy was killed. ANYTHING ELSE. Why was the tattoo even a consideration?

Sigh!

Officially HATIN!

HATED IT: A Week in Review

New to I’m HATIN’ is “HATED IT:A Week in Review” - a new segment where I will give you, good haters, topics/people/news/issues of the past week, that have just cause for HATIN’. Again this is an open forum and your submissions and feedback are encouraged.

Let’s begin…

Jay-Z, Beyonce and Baby Blue – You already know why. Moniker aside, the hype surrounding the birth of this kid is RIDICULOUS and Jay and Bey seem to be LOVING it. How was the baby born Saturday and papa Jay already has a devotional song, featuring baby Blue (already got her singing hooks and writing credits) on the Billboard charts? WTF? Also, the fact that the supercouple dropped $1.3 million dollars to buy the floor of the hospital, to have the baby, is insane. If they wanted privacy, why not have it at home and take the $1.3 mil and buy themselves an entire hospital staff? No, instead they piss off new mothers and fathers who, ultimately, want the same thing they want – to see their child brought into the world, happy and healthy.

Republican Primaries – Referencing the post “I’m HATIN’: Because A Rant, By Any Other Name, Still Sounds SWEET” is this REALLY the best we can do America? REALLY? Also, voter turnout at these things is so low, saying that any one candidate is a “frontrunner” is nonsense, hogwash and hooey.

Casey Anthony – PLEASE SHUT UP! This woman narrowly escaped murder charges as it relates to the death of her one-year-old daughter, Caylee, and now she just won’t go away. First, she start’s putting out YouTube videos, then she fires her lawyer (the one who got her off, mind you) for not securing her a high-priced, high-profile interview with media and now she claims that little baby Caylee was the result of date rape. SIGH! Casey Anthony, you escaped life in prison; do us all a favor… DISAPPEAR

I’m HATIN’: Because is “Minimizing” the military REALLY the best option

I’m not sure if it’s just my paranoia, but when news regarding the 2012 Pentagon and Military budget was released, and I hear our Commander in Chief say that it is necessary to “Minimize the Military” and its spending, I began to pack my bags. Next stop… anywhere but HERE. Needless to say, I don’t believe this new tactic will bode too well for the American people, and for that folks, I’m HATIN.

Let me explain.

I believe that cuts should be made in our military spending, but the issue lies in where our limited, almighty dollar, will garner the best return on investment.

Obama’s proposed cuts to the military, as a New York Times editorial explains, “Is based on the idea that the country must be smarter and more restrained in its use of force… It will mean a significant reduction in the size of the Army and Marine Corps. But it doesn’t minimize the fact that the world is a very dangerous place and says the country must still be ready to fight a major land war — although one lasting for years would require another buildup.”

The new tactic shows perceived confidence in dealing with national threats by air power, intelligence, special operations or innovative technologies, like drones.

The Times explains that Mr. Obama wants to “spend less on nuclear weapons and focus more resources on naval and air power in the Strait of Hormuz, to contain an increasingly assertive Iran, and in Asia, to moderate and counterbalance China’s ambitions.”

And, the Pentagon plans to shrink the Army even below current targets, dropping to 490,000 soldiers over the next decade.

Now I’m confused… I thought he wanted to cut spending to the Marines? Are the powers that be aware that the Marines are a large part of the USA's naval-based defense? And what about the idea of cutting the number of "land" soldiers, only to build it back up if a war breaks out and lasts longer than expected? Wouldn't that take time (that we don't have... Hello, we're engaged in war) to build up a new force of soldiers, ready to fight?

#DidntThinkThisThrough

This is where I begin to raise an eyebrow… It doesn’t make much sense to me to shrink/cut soldiers, who, mind you, just returned from fighting two land-based wars, and are trained to kill. Talk about a reason to go "postal." Do we REALLY think that taking away their jobs and cutting their benefits is a proper "Thank You" for their service, or that they would actually stand for it? I think NOT. Why are we eliminating their jobs as opposed to reassigning them to DEFENSE.

I feel that we have a backwards way of thinking here and believe our country to be a bit delusional when it comes to how the world perceives U.S. To put it bluntly – Everyone HATES us. So, as we end our respective wars, and perfect our naval and air strike tactics, it is IMPERATIVE that we reallocate some of those budget dollars on protecting our borders.

Someone please explain to me the usefulness of an unemployed soldier, especially when cuts could be made in many other areas of the military, without the dangerous backlash the current plans could evoke. Here are just a few areas the US could scale back on:

• Hiring/Pay Freeze for Government Officials, Congress and the Pentagon – It’s not fair that the civil service folk and soldiers are the first to experience cuts when we acknowledge a deficit.
• Wasteful Spending on Unsubstantiated/Unnecessary Weapons – If we’re focusing on Air and Water attacks, put a halt to, at least for the time being, on the development of weapons that cannot be used in those two ways.
• Payments to NATO - Obama sought in his address to minimize the military costs to the United States by saying NATO will now take the lead. But the fact is that the United States pays the largest share of NATO’s budget — a key omission by the president.

Live Free, Die HATIN’