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’