Forty years after a prophetic speech where a man declared his dream for a nation, November 4, 2008, proved that the dream is becoming a reality. American democracy once again has prevailed and now displays for the world its true definition—government for and by the people.
Americans put aside racial bigotries and political differences for the message of "change" Barack Obama inspired. Americans were not dissuaded by his race, but persuaded by his vision to take the country in a new direction. Irrespective of party affiliation, whether left or right, or our own beliefs, being objective, we saw a man that orchestrated a campaign that will forever change American politics and America. Young people, young and old, black, white and other…have become engaged in the political process in ways that are unprecedented. New records were set for early voting that resulted in lines stretched around corners resembling those at theme parks—the enthusiasm and thrill of the ride spilled-over where few were discouraged by long waits or inclement weather. Even those too young to vote have already been galvanized and impatiently wait their turns. There was also a groundswell of national and international media coverage that recorded history and broadcasted it around the world. America now sits on the precipice of regaining its place as the world's leader.
As a black man who has endured little to no inequality when compared to those who suffered many years before my existence, the election of a black president was hard to fathom. On election night, I, like millions of others, sat in front of the television with tears streaming down my face as a reporter announced, "We project Barack Obama will be the 44th President of the United States." I was unable to control the emotion sparked by the accomplishment of America. I also watched empathetically as others cried tears of joy. Even as I write these words, tears fall as reality continues to set in. For minutes as the final presidential results rang in, the U.S. class system appeared to be suspended—no one was a celebrity or average citizen, yet everyone was a member of a single party with a single mantra—Change! We were temporarily brought together by the words of our country's leadership from both the left and the right.
In Senator McCain's concession speech, he referenced Obama as being "my president" and delivered a message that conveyed oneness across political parties. He also avowed a sincere willingness to work with the incoming administration to rebuild the country.
President-Elect Obama said in his speech that he would be "president for all." He also spoke of his hope for America reverberating the campaign's catchphrase, "Yes We Can." I have newfound inspiration for this, "A New America."
Barack Obama's victory should serve as an inspiration to young men and women around the world, regardless of race, religion, culture and creed. This is not "A New America" because a black man is our leader, but "A New America" because we have reinvigorated the ability for its people to hope and dream. But even as we have cracked the glass ceiling, crushed many of our own mental limitations, lest we forget, we still have so far to go. Americans have made major steps toward realizing our individual promises while maintaining a unified message—"Change we can believe in."
I admit that my limited thinking and pessimism rested squarely on my own lack of vision that was based solely on my historical view of our society. Although I did not live it, my parents and grandparents have shared stories, I have read books and seen videos of blacks being hosed, beaten and killed because of their opposition to exclusion. There were many before my time that envisioned a reality of equality and others who saw it taking shape. What I saw as a bleak and seemingly irrevocable past helped to shape my view of a perpetual future of privileged white men as our national leaders. Many visionaries saw our past as mere obstacles to realizing America's promise. It had nothing to do with me not believing that a black man could be the leader of the free world, but my limited views of what could be.
In a letter from Nelson Mandela, first black president of South Africa, to Barack Obama shortly after becoming the first black president-elect of the United States, Mandela wrote, "Your victory has demonstrated that no person anywhere in the world should not dare to dream of wanting to change the world for a better place." It is my prayer and belief that our hopes and dreams will continue to spark progressive change in "A New America."
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
HIV/AIDS: An American Problem
HIV/AIDS were once known as diagnoses associated with homosexuals. However, in recent years, the reference has morphed into a “black problem” irrespective of sexual orientation. This reference that has been made even by The Black AIDS Institute and accepted by some in the medical community, politicians, and other black leaders, is very dangerous.
It is no secret that HIV/AIDS greatly impact blacks in this country more than any other group. In fact, the HIV/AIDS epidemic among blacks in the U.S. has been compared to the pandemic in parts of Africa. The Centers for Disease Control reported that black women between the ages of 25 and 34 are dying of AIDS more than any other cause of death. It is the second leading cause among black women between the ages of 35 and 44. Blacks represent about 13 percent of the U.S. population, but disproportionately makeup about 47 percent of the HIV cases in the country. Moreover, a black person with HIV is 2.5 times more likely to die.
The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief currently spend $15 billion annually in sub-Saharan Africa to provide medical treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS. The U.S. is the world’s leader in monetary support. President Bush recently signed a bill to increase support to $48 billion in 2009. With an obvious epidemic that is inclusive of major disparities, why are tax payers’ dollars being spent in exponential amounts in other countries rather than fighting the problems more aggressively at home? Increasing spending is not a unilateral presidential decision as more than 300 members of the house voted for the increase compared to a little more than 100 who voted against.
It is known that approximately 42 million people around the world are living with HIV or AIDS. In this country alone, there are about 1.2 million people living with HIV and another 40,000 with AIDS. Strikingly, 40,000 new cases are diagnosed each year with 54 percent of those among blacks. Atop of all of those statistics, it is estimated that about 24-27 percent of the HIV cases in the United States are undiagnosed. In other words, people are living with this incurable infection and may be unconsciously spreading it to other sexual partners.
When we start to look at the severity of HIV/AIDS and how Americans (not just blacks) are impacted, then it begins to appear almost surreal. Personally, I have watched many television programs that talk about this problem on the domestic and international levels. I always find myself in sheer amazement. However, I have been most amazed that black organizations and leaders are labeling HIV/AIDS “A black problem.” How often does a problem specific to certain groups yield apathy? A good example is black-on-black crime; what changed after the label? Crime among blacks increased.
HIV/AIDS is NOT a black problem, rather an American problem. Although blacks are hardest hit, other groups, including 34 percent of whites and 19 percent of Hispanics are infected. We cannot succumb to labels when the problem is greater than black, white or other. We need an army united to fight an otherwise losing battle. Quite frankly, if the belief is that blacks, including those who are aware and unaware of their HIV status, are not commingling with whites and other groups, then the problem is greater than we know. © Keydron Guinn 2008
It is no secret that HIV/AIDS greatly impact blacks in this country more than any other group. In fact, the HIV/AIDS epidemic among blacks in the U.S. has been compared to the pandemic in parts of Africa. The Centers for Disease Control reported that black women between the ages of 25 and 34 are dying of AIDS more than any other cause of death. It is the second leading cause among black women between the ages of 35 and 44. Blacks represent about 13 percent of the U.S. population, but disproportionately makeup about 47 percent of the HIV cases in the country. Moreover, a black person with HIV is 2.5 times more likely to die.
The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief currently spend $15 billion annually in sub-Saharan Africa to provide medical treatment for people living with HIV/AIDS. The U.S. is the world’s leader in monetary support. President Bush recently signed a bill to increase support to $48 billion in 2009. With an obvious epidemic that is inclusive of major disparities, why are tax payers’ dollars being spent in exponential amounts in other countries rather than fighting the problems more aggressively at home? Increasing spending is not a unilateral presidential decision as more than 300 members of the house voted for the increase compared to a little more than 100 who voted against.
It is known that approximately 42 million people around the world are living with HIV or AIDS. In this country alone, there are about 1.2 million people living with HIV and another 40,000 with AIDS. Strikingly, 40,000 new cases are diagnosed each year with 54 percent of those among blacks. Atop of all of those statistics, it is estimated that about 24-27 percent of the HIV cases in the United States are undiagnosed. In other words, people are living with this incurable infection and may be unconsciously spreading it to other sexual partners.
When we start to look at the severity of HIV/AIDS and how Americans (not just blacks) are impacted, then it begins to appear almost surreal. Personally, I have watched many television programs that talk about this problem on the domestic and international levels. I always find myself in sheer amazement. However, I have been most amazed that black organizations and leaders are labeling HIV/AIDS “A black problem.” How often does a problem specific to certain groups yield apathy? A good example is black-on-black crime; what changed after the label? Crime among blacks increased.
HIV/AIDS is NOT a black problem, rather an American problem. Although blacks are hardest hit, other groups, including 34 percent of whites and 19 percent of Hispanics are infected. We cannot succumb to labels when the problem is greater than black, white or other. We need an army united to fight an otherwise losing battle. Quite frankly, if the belief is that blacks, including those who are aware and unaware of their HIV status, are not commingling with whites and other groups, then the problem is greater than we know. © Keydron Guinn 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Diminish self-victimization
With rampant media coverage of crimes in society, it seemed appropriate to provide what I hope will be practical information that may or may not be new to readers. Some may find it hard to believe that we can be the motive behind our own victimization. This is not to imply that when we become victims of crime that we should immediately blame ourselves. On the contrary, it is a plea to get us to better understand how we may be contributors and as a result, potentially ward-off criminal predators.
Victimization is the process by which we become victims of crime. Coupled with that, victims oftentimes feel re-victimized as a result of treatment received in the criminal justice system. For example, rape victims may feel as if they have been raped again by the “system” when they are forced to recall the trauma or are subjected to a multitude of very intrusive medical exams. It has been reported that one of the main reasons that victims do not report crimes is out of fear of being victimized again (by the perpetrator and/or the “system” itself).
The theory of Routine Activities, though somewhat elemental in explanation, is quite dynamic. It discusses everyday behaviors and how they lead to opportunities for crime. Take this scenario for example: Andrea is a single woman who leaves home each morning at 7:25 to get to work by 8. On her way to work she stops at the local Starbucks to get her latte and bagel, which is normally around 7:42. When she leaves her job at 5:00 p.m., she works out at the gym until 6:30 and arrives home around 6:45 each evening. Andrea has breakfast with her mother every Saturday morning at the same coffeehouse. She attends Sunday morning worship service from 9 until 10:30. Are you starting to see a pattern?
Although the above is a fictional depiction, it may surely be someone’s daily activities. What is fascinating is that not only does Andrea know her schedule like the back of her hand, so do others she may not have considered. Neighbors, the clerk at Starbucks, co-workers, the attendant at the gym, and yes, her mother are all aware of her schedule, in whole or in part. The likelihood of any of the abovementioned persons having malicious intent is probably slim. However, this is merely an example of how criminals choose their victims.
Criminologist, John Conklin, posits that criminals select their victims based on the following factors: form of property, value of property and vulnerability of victims. Examples of these may include driving a nice automobile and/or consistently going places alone (particularly women). Given this, criminals are actively engaged in learning the patterns of individuals—their work schedules and other activities.
It is not a bad idea to make subtle changes in daily routines. However, when those subtle changes are not possible, there are many ways to at least give an impression of change. Investing in timers for lamps in various rooms of your home is one of many examples. Inviting a friend or family member along when shopping is never a bad idea. Most importantly, always be aware of your surroundings, be careful what information you share, and consciously make adjustments to your schedule whenever possible.
Victimization is the process by which we become victims of crime. Coupled with that, victims oftentimes feel re-victimized as a result of treatment received in the criminal justice system. For example, rape victims may feel as if they have been raped again by the “system” when they are forced to recall the trauma or are subjected to a multitude of very intrusive medical exams. It has been reported that one of the main reasons that victims do not report crimes is out of fear of being victimized again (by the perpetrator and/or the “system” itself).
The theory of Routine Activities, though somewhat elemental in explanation, is quite dynamic. It discusses everyday behaviors and how they lead to opportunities for crime. Take this scenario for example: Andrea is a single woman who leaves home each morning at 7:25 to get to work by 8. On her way to work she stops at the local Starbucks to get her latte and bagel, which is normally around 7:42. When she leaves her job at 5:00 p.m., she works out at the gym until 6:30 and arrives home around 6:45 each evening. Andrea has breakfast with her mother every Saturday morning at the same coffeehouse. She attends Sunday morning worship service from 9 until 10:30. Are you starting to see a pattern?
Although the above is a fictional depiction, it may surely be someone’s daily activities. What is fascinating is that not only does Andrea know her schedule like the back of her hand, so do others she may not have considered. Neighbors, the clerk at Starbucks, co-workers, the attendant at the gym, and yes, her mother are all aware of her schedule, in whole or in part. The likelihood of any of the abovementioned persons having malicious intent is probably slim. However, this is merely an example of how criminals choose their victims.
Criminologist, John Conklin, posits that criminals select their victims based on the following factors: form of property, value of property and vulnerability of victims. Examples of these may include driving a nice automobile and/or consistently going places alone (particularly women). Given this, criminals are actively engaged in learning the patterns of individuals—their work schedules and other activities.
It is not a bad idea to make subtle changes in daily routines. However, when those subtle changes are not possible, there are many ways to at least give an impression of change. Investing in timers for lamps in various rooms of your home is one of many examples. Inviting a friend or family member along when shopping is never a bad idea. Most importantly, always be aware of your surroundings, be careful what information you share, and consciously make adjustments to your schedule whenever possible.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
"What color is he?"
Don Imus has made another blunder by publically abashing attempts to mend his tainted reputation with what some consider another racist comment. During Imus’ radio broadcast, Warner Wolf, a Washington, D.C. based sportscaster, reported a story on Adam Jones (former Dallas Cowboys defensive back once referred to as Adam “Packman” Jones). Jones has had run-ins with the law and is currently suspended from the National Football League. Wolf reported that Jones had been arrested six times since being drafted by the Tennessee Titans in 2005.
Commenting on the report, Imus stated, “What color is he?” Wolf responded, “He's African-American.” And in what appeared to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, Imus stated, “Well, there you go. Now we know.”
CNN has reported that on a subsequent broadcast, Imus defended his comments positing that Jones was arrested six times because police were “picking on him.” In a seemingly aversive manner, Imus stated, “He's a football player. He is a lovely kid. He was out there having fun. What people should be outraged about is that they arrest blacks for no reason, and I mean there's no reason to arrest this kid six times,” Imus said. “They shoot blacks for no reason.”
Without qualitatively analyzing the comments, there are some obvious red flags flying. Given Imus’ historical charges of being a racist, one might assume that there would be careful steps taken to avoid such claims, particularly if they are not true. It was a little more than a year ago that he referred to the Rutgers women’s basketball players as, “nappy-headed hoes” after they lost their bid at the NCAA Championships. The team was dominated by black players and such a statement was considered racially and culturally offensive.
It is very easy to interpret a person’s words contrastingly to his or her intended meanings. By virtue of being human, we oftentimes straddle our own ethnomethodological (common sense) thinking and award people the benefit of doubt. In the middle rest assumptions of infallibility—“I know what was said” and “I know what was meant.” The way we teeter may depend on who and what was said. Is this not evident in all political campaigns?
My point is simply this, not one of us is perfect, which means we all have and will continue to make statements that will be misinterpreted. It’s how we follow those statements that will determine our master status. In Imus’ case, he has already previously made statements that were, according to him, “misinterpreted.” However, even after those comments resulted in his termination, he followed with other “misinterpreted” comments. At some point, misinterpretations become the speakers’ responsibility.
Let me provide an example of the transference of responsibility. Imus asked the question, “What color is he?” In this most contemporary time in which we live, ask yourself this question, “How long has it been since ‘color’ was used synonymously with race?” Is such a question only asked by racists? That’s not my suggestion. On the contrary, we remain “out of touch” with the evolutions of society, we tend to believe that what was done in the past suffices for the present and future. As a former employee of the NAACP, I have said “colored” is no longer applicable, which means it’s bad for Imus. But that’s only one example. © 2008 Keydron Guinn
Commenting on the report, Imus stated, “What color is he?” Wolf responded, “He's African-American.” And in what appeared to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, Imus stated, “Well, there you go. Now we know.”
CNN has reported that on a subsequent broadcast, Imus defended his comments positing that Jones was arrested six times because police were “picking on him.” In a seemingly aversive manner, Imus stated, “He's a football player. He is a lovely kid. He was out there having fun. What people should be outraged about is that they arrest blacks for no reason, and I mean there's no reason to arrest this kid six times,” Imus said. “They shoot blacks for no reason.”
Without qualitatively analyzing the comments, there are some obvious red flags flying. Given Imus’ historical charges of being a racist, one might assume that there would be careful steps taken to avoid such claims, particularly if they are not true. It was a little more than a year ago that he referred to the Rutgers women’s basketball players as, “nappy-headed hoes” after they lost their bid at the NCAA Championships. The team was dominated by black players and such a statement was considered racially and culturally offensive.
It is very easy to interpret a person’s words contrastingly to his or her intended meanings. By virtue of being human, we oftentimes straddle our own ethnomethodological (common sense) thinking and award people the benefit of doubt. In the middle rest assumptions of infallibility—“I know what was said” and “I know what was meant.” The way we teeter may depend on who and what was said. Is this not evident in all political campaigns?
My point is simply this, not one of us is perfect, which means we all have and will continue to make statements that will be misinterpreted. It’s how we follow those statements that will determine our master status. In Imus’ case, he has already previously made statements that were, according to him, “misinterpreted.” However, even after those comments resulted in his termination, he followed with other “misinterpreted” comments. At some point, misinterpretations become the speakers’ responsibility.
Let me provide an example of the transference of responsibility. Imus asked the question, “What color is he?” In this most contemporary time in which we live, ask yourself this question, “How long has it been since ‘color’ was used synonymously with race?” Is such a question only asked by racists? That’s not my suggestion. On the contrary, we remain “out of touch” with the evolutions of society, we tend to believe that what was done in the past suffices for the present and future. As a former employee of the NAACP, I have said “colored” is no longer applicable, which means it’s bad for Imus. But that’s only one example. © 2008 Keydron Guinn
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Employer response to inflation
There has been a tremendous amount of commentary on rising prices, not just at the gas pumps, but in every aspect of society. On the one hand, some pundits are blaming congress for a seemingly laissez-faire approach to oil companies. On the other, blame is being placed on oil companies accusing them of price gouging. The economic experts and politicians have all weighed-in on this crisis we all face as Americans, but what have they done as remedies to these problems?
It was only a few weeks ago when I wrote about the national average of gasoline nearing $4.00 per gallon. Well, the $4.00 mark has already been exceeded and is expected to continue the upward pattern in the days, weeks and months to come. Airlines are also being hard hit with the extremely high jet fuel prices that are landing in the wallets of patrons in the form of new fees. Fees include an unprecedented first checked bag fee or a $20 per passenger surcharge. One airline has gone so far as to completely discontinue the in-flight gourmet, two-course meal of peanuts and your beverage choice. Most recently, another airline laid-off 3,000 employees. A thought that continues to nag me is whether the price hikes that affect everyone are as serious as the measures being taken by many major American companies. The answer, though intriguing and obvious, to some degree, is outside the scope of this article.
The contrast to these steadily rising prices in virtually every industry is the fact that few employers are providing employees with cost of living increases. Hardworking Americans who depend on their weekly or monthly paychecks for basic survival are expending greater proportions in simply getting to work as well as putting food on their tables. Budgeting is difficult as prices are so unpredictable that it causes almost daily adjustments.
Granted, some employers are unable to pay increases that equalize employees with the costs of living. It is also true that many companies, particularly small businesses, may not be able to afford even the smallest increases. However, there are other ways that employers can improvise to assist employees. Some companies have devised shorter work schedules in hopes of preventing parents, for example, from paying penalties for extended childcare. A number of colleges and universities around the country have instituted four day (opposed to the traditional five day) weeks with estimates of students and employees saving hundreds of dollars annually on commutes—not to mention the savings for the institutions. These are only two of hundreds of options employers can explore to help ease the hardships faced by many of their best and brightest employees.
Employees have a responsibility to their employers. The same is true in the reverse. These relationships should be of reciprocal dealings to ensure productivity for both parties. There are few exceptions to society’s current woes, but the classes of people depending on their earnings to survive are hardest hit. Not every idea is practicable for all employers, but it is necessary to explore options that can be tweaked to suit a given profile. For example, researchers Kate Lister and Tom Harnish have shown that about 40% of American jobs could be done remotely (telecommuting). However, only 4% are currently using this method. Imagine the savings!
As employees work to make their employers look good, employers should make sacrifices that illustrate a commitment to their employees. © 2008 Keydron Guinn
It was only a few weeks ago when I wrote about the national average of gasoline nearing $4.00 per gallon. Well, the $4.00 mark has already been exceeded and is expected to continue the upward pattern in the days, weeks and months to come. Airlines are also being hard hit with the extremely high jet fuel prices that are landing in the wallets of patrons in the form of new fees. Fees include an unprecedented first checked bag fee or a $20 per passenger surcharge. One airline has gone so far as to completely discontinue the in-flight gourmet, two-course meal of peanuts and your beverage choice. Most recently, another airline laid-off 3,000 employees. A thought that continues to nag me is whether the price hikes that affect everyone are as serious as the measures being taken by many major American companies. The answer, though intriguing and obvious, to some degree, is outside the scope of this article.
The contrast to these steadily rising prices in virtually every industry is the fact that few employers are providing employees with cost of living increases. Hardworking Americans who depend on their weekly or monthly paychecks for basic survival are expending greater proportions in simply getting to work as well as putting food on their tables. Budgeting is difficult as prices are so unpredictable that it causes almost daily adjustments.
Granted, some employers are unable to pay increases that equalize employees with the costs of living. It is also true that many companies, particularly small businesses, may not be able to afford even the smallest increases. However, there are other ways that employers can improvise to assist employees. Some companies have devised shorter work schedules in hopes of preventing parents, for example, from paying penalties for extended childcare. A number of colleges and universities around the country have instituted four day (opposed to the traditional five day) weeks with estimates of students and employees saving hundreds of dollars annually on commutes—not to mention the savings for the institutions. These are only two of hundreds of options employers can explore to help ease the hardships faced by many of their best and brightest employees.
Employees have a responsibility to their employers. The same is true in the reverse. These relationships should be of reciprocal dealings to ensure productivity for both parties. There are few exceptions to society’s current woes, but the classes of people depending on their earnings to survive are hardest hit. Not every idea is practicable for all employers, but it is necessary to explore options that can be tweaked to suit a given profile. For example, researchers Kate Lister and Tom Harnish have shown that about 40% of American jobs could be done remotely (telecommuting). However, only 4% are currently using this method. Imagine the savings!
As employees work to make their employers look good, employers should make sacrifices that illustrate a commitment to their employees. © 2008 Keydron Guinn
Friday, May 23, 2008
Predatory Lending? Guilty as Charged
Contrary to traditional loans, payday loans are far different. Traditional loans have interest rates regulated by the federal government, installment payments, and oftentimes months or even years to pay the principal loan and interest. There are no federally imposed guidelines for payday loan agencies, yet individual states are responsible for their regulations. Currently, 13 states have either banned or limited the amount of interest payday loan agencies are allowed to charge consumers.
It is easy to see how the structure of payday loans are different from traditional loans based in large part on the criterion for borrowers. There are no extensive background or credit checks required by banks when borrowing money. Conversely, in most states, payday loans are restricted to the amount of money they are allowed to lend (usually not more than $1000.00), whereas banks are not restricted depending on the borrower’s credit worthiness and ability to repay, which is certainly not factored in with payday loans. Because of these very loose guidelines, consumers are able to borrow from multiple payday loan agencies simultaneously.
The Center for Responsible Lending estimated that payday loans are costing borrowers approximately $4.2 billion in predatory fees annually. Looking at this social problem on a local level, Louisianans are paying $311 million annually, which is third only to Missouri ($317 million) and California ($365 million). The typical loan amount in Louisiana is $325 with a 560% average percentage rate (APR). Payday loans generally carry APRs between 391 and 443 percent. Some of these loans can exceed more than 700% interest depending on consumer usage.
Unlike traditional loans, payday loans are designed to be renewed. However, loan renewals have been the catalyst for the $28 billion industry. The Center for Responsible Lending posits that the one-time two-week loan that payday loan agencies advance borrowers is virtually nonexistent. Ninety-one percent of payday loans go to borrowers with five or more loan transactions per year. Borrowers oftentimes return only to pay the interest on the original loan to renew it until their next payday. The typical payday borrower pays back $793 for a $325 loan. Ultimately, these agencies make their money on repeat and/or renewed business—not those customers who borrow the small amounts of money needed in emergency situations and completely rid the debt within the next pay period.
According to the Cable News Network (CNN), there are more payday loan agencies located in California than McDonald’s franchises. As of May 2008, Louisiana has approximately 998 payday loan agencies throughout the state that are registered with the Office of Financial Institutions. How that stacks-up against McDonald’s franchises is unknown. We could use Lafayette, Louisiana to paint the picture. To provide some idea of what Lafayette looks like, the US Census reports that as of 2006, there are about 115,500 people within the city’s limits. There are four McDonald’s locations with addresses in Lafayette, with quite a few more outside the city, but within driving range. Conversely, Lafayette has 36 payday loan agencies listed on the state’s registry. Using basic mathematics, there are approximately 28,500 people for every McDonald’s location in Lafayette compared to about 3,200 people for every payday loan location in the same city. Given these nonscientific data, it is assumed that Louisiana and California have something in common, which is probably the case for a number of other states.
Some people may feel forced into borrowing money from these predatory lenders for a number of reasons, such as a last resort to keep the lights on or to put food on the table. As a result, consumers assume a certain level of responsibility with payday loans. These predatory lenders are in business to make money. The more individuals patronize them with continued loan renewals and new loans, the more of a financial trap the consumer builds for him- or herself. Borrowing from one payday loan agency to pay another is simply a bad idea. Use them responsibly or you may become a self-imposed victim of an avoidable predator. © 2008 Keydron Guinn
It is easy to see how the structure of payday loans are different from traditional loans based in large part on the criterion for borrowers. There are no extensive background or credit checks required by banks when borrowing money. Conversely, in most states, payday loans are restricted to the amount of money they are allowed to lend (usually not more than $1000.00), whereas banks are not restricted depending on the borrower’s credit worthiness and ability to repay, which is certainly not factored in with payday loans. Because of these very loose guidelines, consumers are able to borrow from multiple payday loan agencies simultaneously.
The Center for Responsible Lending estimated that payday loans are costing borrowers approximately $4.2 billion in predatory fees annually. Looking at this social problem on a local level, Louisianans are paying $311 million annually, which is third only to Missouri ($317 million) and California ($365 million). The typical loan amount in Louisiana is $325 with a 560% average percentage rate (APR). Payday loans generally carry APRs between 391 and 443 percent. Some of these loans can exceed more than 700% interest depending on consumer usage.
Unlike traditional loans, payday loans are designed to be renewed. However, loan renewals have been the catalyst for the $28 billion industry. The Center for Responsible Lending posits that the one-time two-week loan that payday loan agencies advance borrowers is virtually nonexistent. Ninety-one percent of payday loans go to borrowers with five or more loan transactions per year. Borrowers oftentimes return only to pay the interest on the original loan to renew it until their next payday. The typical payday borrower pays back $793 for a $325 loan. Ultimately, these agencies make their money on repeat and/or renewed business—not those customers who borrow the small amounts of money needed in emergency situations and completely rid the debt within the next pay period.
According to the Cable News Network (CNN), there are more payday loan agencies located in California than McDonald’s franchises. As of May 2008, Louisiana has approximately 998 payday loan agencies throughout the state that are registered with the Office of Financial Institutions. How that stacks-up against McDonald’s franchises is unknown. We could use Lafayette, Louisiana to paint the picture. To provide some idea of what Lafayette looks like, the US Census reports that as of 2006, there are about 115,500 people within the city’s limits. There are four McDonald’s locations with addresses in Lafayette, with quite a few more outside the city, but within driving range. Conversely, Lafayette has 36 payday loan agencies listed on the state’s registry. Using basic mathematics, there are approximately 28,500 people for every McDonald’s location in Lafayette compared to about 3,200 people for every payday loan location in the same city. Given these nonscientific data, it is assumed that Louisiana and California have something in common, which is probably the case for a number of other states.
Some people may feel forced into borrowing money from these predatory lenders for a number of reasons, such as a last resort to keep the lights on or to put food on the table. As a result, consumers assume a certain level of responsibility with payday loans. These predatory lenders are in business to make money. The more individuals patronize them with continued loan renewals and new loans, the more of a financial trap the consumer builds for him- or herself. Borrowing from one payday loan agency to pay another is simply a bad idea. Use them responsibly or you may become a self-imposed victim of an avoidable predator. © 2008 Keydron Guinn
Friday, May 16, 2008
Gun Totin' Students?
With all due respect to those who have already weigned-in on Louisiana House Bill 199, I think another perspective is needed—a college faculty perspective (and maybe even staff). Now, I would not for a moment assume that I speak for the masses of faculty and staff. However, I am certain that there are others who share the same or similar views.
House Bill 199 is a piece of legislation that would allow persons holding handgun permits to conceal and carry those weapons on college campuses. If passed, this legislation could assist in setting nationwide precedence. What does this means for our colleges and universities?
Let me paint a picture. As members of the faculty, we are charged with imparting knowledge to students from our respective subject areas. In doing so, it requires us to employ new and existing measures to evaluate students’ understanding and comprehension of what we present. Students oftentimes disagree with faculty on how they have been evaluated and/or the outcome of those evaluations. These disagreements are perfectly acceptable. Part of the college hidden curriculum, particularly in sociology, is to prepare students to ask questions and question the answers. As we have too often seen, some students have misunderstood the premise of this curriculum.
I encourage all of my students to ask questions and when they disagree with my methodologies, they are free to consult others that may assist them in coming to some resolution, such as the chair of the department. Members of the faculty are frequently considered gatekeepers to student success in individual classrooms. Quite honestly, there are only minimal amounts of truth in that. We are awarded certain rights under academic freedom, but students have rights just as faculty. When we employ these various methods of assessing student performance, academic freedom does not require us to bend and break because students disagree.
Having said that, the mere idea of students concealing weapons is far from the bounds of my imagination, especially considering the somewhat hostile environment created on many college campuses. I would not want my safety or the safety of other students threatened. The fact is we work with diverse groups of students with diverse personal issues—we never know what troubles students face throughout the day translating into baggage that is oftentimes brought into the classroom. Their troubles could stem from home, problems with roommates, or even a simple difference of opinion with other students during class discussions. The suggestion is not that all students who face problems are those with handguns. However, how are we to know differently? Likewise, what assurances do we have that “permission slips” to carry handguns will protect us from inappropriate and improper use of these weapons. In this case, should we as faculty carry guns as well?
If we checked the case files of many of recorded school shootings in Louisiana and around the country, we would find that many of the culprits of these violent acts showed little to no evidence of an aggressive past. In fact, some of the offenders excelled academically.
To suggest that violence on college campuses in the past is the result of guns being in the wrong hands is an utter devaluation of the problem. Why would we add guns on campuses rather than doing actively enforcing preexisting policies? Coupled with that, there are trained and sworn officers on campuses with the legal rights to carry guns. Not only are they be charged with protecting the campus and its constituencies, they would potentially face situations resembling the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. © 2008 Keydron Guinn
House Bill 199 is a piece of legislation that would allow persons holding handgun permits to conceal and carry those weapons on college campuses. If passed, this legislation could assist in setting nationwide precedence. What does this means for our colleges and universities?
Let me paint a picture. As members of the faculty, we are charged with imparting knowledge to students from our respective subject areas. In doing so, it requires us to employ new and existing measures to evaluate students’ understanding and comprehension of what we present. Students oftentimes disagree with faculty on how they have been evaluated and/or the outcome of those evaluations. These disagreements are perfectly acceptable. Part of the college hidden curriculum, particularly in sociology, is to prepare students to ask questions and question the answers. As we have too often seen, some students have misunderstood the premise of this curriculum.
I encourage all of my students to ask questions and when they disagree with my methodologies, they are free to consult others that may assist them in coming to some resolution, such as the chair of the department. Members of the faculty are frequently considered gatekeepers to student success in individual classrooms. Quite honestly, there are only minimal amounts of truth in that. We are awarded certain rights under academic freedom, but students have rights just as faculty. When we employ these various methods of assessing student performance, academic freedom does not require us to bend and break because students disagree.
Having said that, the mere idea of students concealing weapons is far from the bounds of my imagination, especially considering the somewhat hostile environment created on many college campuses. I would not want my safety or the safety of other students threatened. The fact is we work with diverse groups of students with diverse personal issues—we never know what troubles students face throughout the day translating into baggage that is oftentimes brought into the classroom. Their troubles could stem from home, problems with roommates, or even a simple difference of opinion with other students during class discussions. The suggestion is not that all students who face problems are those with handguns. However, how are we to know differently? Likewise, what assurances do we have that “permission slips” to carry handguns will protect us from inappropriate and improper use of these weapons. In this case, should we as faculty carry guns as well?
If we checked the case files of many of recorded school shootings in Louisiana and around the country, we would find that many of the culprits of these violent acts showed little to no evidence of an aggressive past. In fact, some of the offenders excelled academically.
To suggest that violence on college campuses in the past is the result of guns being in the wrong hands is an utter devaluation of the problem. Why would we add guns on campuses rather than doing actively enforcing preexisting policies? Coupled with that, there are trained and sworn officers on campuses with the legal rights to carry guns. Not only are they be charged with protecting the campus and its constituencies, they would potentially face situations resembling the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. © 2008 Keydron Guinn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
