Have something to say?
Send an e-mail to robin@RT2024.com

The mail bag:

On December 27th, 2009, R. Bennison wrote:

[Regarding Dec. 23, 2009] I agree about immigration whole-heartedly. If ever you want to experience the -real- generosity of a community, visit a Brazilian rubber tree village with no electricity or running water where every morning they hike two miles to bring fresh juice and coffee and eggs to feed the white foreigners sleeping in their fields. My husband (yes, for three days, whee!) is South Korean and from a very humble family. He's the number one biomedical engineering student in his whole country, transferred to UC to be with me, and couldn't find a job in any lab no matter how qualified he was because they checked visa status first. If you don't already have a social security number or permanent residency, they immediately skip your application. He was actually hired for a job and the employer reactivated the search for a lab assistant after finding out Suyoung hadn't been able to get a social security number (because he hadn't been hired, a horrible catch-22). He's been on the dean's list every quarter at UC wit a 3.8 GPA and because so many have turned their backs to him, his family has had to take out a loan twice as much as they make in a year to pay for two quarters of schooling. His father, a kidney transplant survivor had to start working despite the advice of his doctor. When I talk to him in Korean and hold his hand, people give us sideways glances although I don't tell him. The white hegemony of this country needs to wake up to a world larger than suburban America and embrace the olives and mochas and peaches...without them, we'd have no taste buds with which to experience life.


Thanks for your thoughts. I'm sorry to hear that Suyoung has had to put up with so much garbage. I'm living in the Black-themed dorm at Stanford, and so don't often get a chance to hear about discrimination aside from black-and-white racism.

The "white hegemony," as you called it, is an interesting thing. I think every white person discriminates (as does every black person, every Hispanic person...every person in general; I'd quote Avenue Q's "Everyone's A Little Bit Racist," but I think it's more appropriate to say "Everyone's A Little Bit Discriminatory"). But the white people who are most flagrantly, hatefully racist I believe tend to come from lower economic classes. American "institutional racism" comes from the middle and upper classes of white folks - but out of all the middle and upper-class white people I know (and that's my demographic), I haven't met one person who's a flagrant, hateful racist.

The "white hegemony," I think, exists because of white guilt, rather than white racism. To reiterate what I said in one of my video postings, as long as people expect rich white folks to be tyrannical, rich white folks will feel threatened, and as long as they feel threatened they'll act tyrannical.
As always, I think that's a call to education, in two ways:

1) Educating ourselves about each other by interacting with and personally experiencing each other. 
2) Academically educating everyone to be able to effectively communicate and interact with the society and economy.

Best of luck to you both! California's a tough place these days; I hope you can find some people who don't think documents speak louder than actions.



A. Dennis, September 29, 2009:

[Regarding Aug. 8, 2009] Peacekeeping is great and definitely deserves encouragement and notice. Peacekeepers give their lives and their time to make the world a better place. I am very thankful for people who do anything at all to better another person's life.

But someone who does something good for mankind is not entitled to appreciation. You cannot ask for it, it is given. You cannot force respect on someone, you have to earn it.

Soldiers don't go around ordering people to show them respect. We have many people who do just the opposite. The reason we get respect for what we do is because we have done so many things that have made the people of America feel grateful. We don't want to see our buddies die, or even an enemy for that matter. We don't volunteer in hopes of recognition. We do it because we want to. We are not entitled to reward or respect and we do not give our lives to receive it. I didn't volunteer to go overseas in hopes that someone in an airport would thank me when I returned. In the army we believe in selfless service.

I understand peacekeeping organizations and groups are also giving selfless service. I just don't understand why they are fighting for recognition and honor. That is not why you serve. If that is why anyone has ever served in any type of way, they have not served with their heart.
Gratitude often follows those whom do not seek it, but give and give and give with no hopes of reward. Again soldiers do not ask for the things we are given. Some understanding people see what we need and try to give it to us, because we have given what they need: protection.


You're absolutely right that no-one should ever do service as a way of getting recognition and respect. I apologize for giving off the impression that's why the men and women in the military serve, or that noncombative service organizations are fighting for recognition.

I wish that the people in the Peace Corps and Americorps got the same level of respect as those in the military because that would be an indication that people have as much faith in the power of noncombative social change as in the power of military social change. Since the dawn of humanity, violence has been viewed as the most effective way to achieve a better tomorrow, but the world being as small as it is today, I think that those better-off working in collaboration with those in need accomplishes a lot more.

Those who serve outside of the military can't just be given respect, the way those in the military can't just be given respect. Serving to earn yourself respect is serving incorrectly. Instead, I hope that some day our international society will solve its problems by "waging peace", and the result of that will be greater respect for those in noncombative service.


A. Dennis, September 29, 2009:

[Regarding Sep. 17, 2009] When it comes to health care, even though it is great to give all we have in one direction to see an outcome, I find it hard not to think about the honest working man. Yes, everyone is in need to see a doctor from time to time and for some, unfortunately, too often. Life is not fair, but it is a fair argument to say it has its way of working things out. When the government tries to make this "ideal," fair life, it takes away this country's freedom.

Freedom isn't free. That is why friends of mine have died at war or have come back scarred forever, civilians suffer daily from poverty, and most definitely why many people do not have health care.

Government provided health care sounds about as accurate as saying, "Well, we don't want soldiers to die, so we won't send them to combat." Great, soldiers won't die, but America will have no protection, enemies will not fear attacking an unarmed country, and the USA would live in fear. Not so free, right? As you can see, this "everything can be perfect" idea coming from Obama is unrealistic and will rob us of our rights.

Who will be motivated to work hard when a good portion of their money is taken for those-who-do-not-work-at-all's health care? Why would I want to wake up everyday and work so someone else can reap the benefits? Why would I want to go put my life on the line for a country where I cannot even choose what doctor I see when I return and need medical attention? It takes a while to find a person who understands your problems from deployment; I doubt a government is going to know exactly for whom to provide.

How fair is this:
My father works to death, overtime and all. Because of his income I could not get a student loan. I could not go to college without joining the military first. My dad may have a high income but he also has six children, so he couldn't spare a dime for my school. As I bust my butt at basic training, my friend, whose dad chooses not to work because he doesn't want to, gets to go to school 100 percent for free.

Basically my question for a future president would be, what is going to happen when those of us who work hard decide to stop working because we are going to have everything provided by the perfect government anyways? Where will we find the funding then?


I would love the United States to be a "perfect" society, where every person generously donates to those in need, and those in need don't get greedy for donations. Unfortunately, like you said, that's not the way things work. People try to cheat the system into giving them money they haven't earned, or cheat the system so they don't have to give money. I don't believe these people are bad, lazy, or evil, they're just doing what seems to be the easiest way to live their lives as effectively as possible, just like everyone else.

So on the one hand, "Obamacare" won't work perfectly. On the other hand, like you also said, there are situations when people need emergency care and just can't pay for it. A government has a duty to make sure its people are cared for, and everyone needs a hand at some point or another.

I won't argue for Obamacare, though, and I won't argue for minimal government involvement. What I will argue for is Congress ending its habit of compromising on every bill to the point that it's a thousands-of-pages-long piece of bureaucracy that doesn't function.

My post wasn't written as clearly as I think it could have been. I want the government to go 100% for either Obamacare or "Zerocare." Basically, I want the government to take a risk, do precisely what half the nation wants, and see what happens. We'll be able to see then whether or not that half of the nation was "right", once and for all. The government never seems to do exactly what anyone wants it to, with the result that we're all still guessing whose theories work and whose don't.

My theory is that no matter what the government does, short of execution or putting people in camps, the population will probably be just as well off afterward. We'll always have problems, but more likely than not, as many of us as are surviving now will probably be able to survive afterward. Even though politicians and the press like to make every issue sound like the end of the world, the world doesn't seem to have ended quite yet.

I have a lot of faith in the ability of human beings to adapt, to pull through tough situations, and to get by. With that in mind, I want the government to just try something to see what actually works and what doesn't. It might be we can actually improve the quality of life for everyone.


M. Saudino, August 29, 2009:

[Regarding Aug. 25, 2009] I'll have to go and disagree with you about your third paragraph (Conservation of Prosperity, anyone?). Although there are factors like inflation the amount of money in the world can change. Perhaps you've heard the saying "Ghengis Khan ruled the world but he couldn't fly the Atlantic." As time goes on people invent new uses for money and new ways to spend it emerge.

That's a good point! If I understand you correctly, you're saying that, say, if Genghis Khan owned everything in the Old World, if Christopher Columbus went along and claimed everything in the New World, it would be adding to the total value of everything in the entire human world. Therefore, if the entire human world used one currency, more of it could be printed without any fear of inflation, since there would be more stuff to buy / own. I'll have to agree with you. That said, while new things are being invented all the time, usually it results in older things depreciating in value, which means the ratio of total money in the human world to total value of stuff in the human world stays pretty much the same. Someone still has to lose something in order for someone else to gain something.


D. Marsh, August 10, 2009:

I wanted to clarify what your views on Marijuana.  Did you want to legalize it for everyone as long as it was regulated by pharmacies or restricted in some way further or less?  And if you did want to legalize it I would like to point out the fact that it isn’t physically addicting but psychologically addicting, which is a much harder addiction to break one’s need for something.

I encourage the legalization of marijuana, but I don't encourage its use. Marijuana does pose risks to the people who use it, psychological addiction among them. It also alters one's mindset in a way that cigarettes, for instance, don't. That said, it seems very likely that marijuana will continue being used regardless of whether or not it's actually legal. Legalizing it will allow for much better regulation of how it's used, meaning we'll be able to develop better support systems for those suffering health problems from its overuse.Additionally, marijuana can be very beneficial to medical patients, and its legalization could produce a whole new industry.


L. Soldano, July 6, 2009:

Here are some ideas for discussion:  maybe you could talk on your web page about war profiteers?  Maybe you could throw in your position on the illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Israel (talk about war profiteering!)?  I mean obviously Haliburton and other huge "defense contractors" getting gigantic payoffs is one of the reasons for the continuation of the war.  And I'm surprised at your insight about "terrorists"[see: July 4, 2009 update]--haven't you ever thought that 9/11 might have been an inside job?

The existing negative connotations of "war profiteering" speak for my own feelings toward it. That said, I think it would be wrong to take direct action against companies that profit from war. To me, that sounds like attacking a result of a problem rather than a problem itself, not to mention it's not very economically friendly. Ideally, pursuing international education through noncombative service would take a big step toward ending war, and therefore war profiteering, too.

I'd like to see the United States stop dealing with the Israeli and Palestinian governments and take a grassroots approach to ending the conflict there, working through the masses, rather than the few politicians standing on top of the masses. Once we get the people to stop mistrusting each other so much, it'll be much easier to get the governments to cooperate. Today, were I President, I would pressure for a military ceasefire, and then launch education and awareness programs.

Good point about terrorists...I should be careful how I use that label. In this case, "terrorists" refers to the violent insurgents in the Middle East attacking innocent people and our troops. Yes, I've thought about 9/11 being an inside job. But at this point, there's not a whole lot of good to come from pointing fingers. If it becomes widely-accepted that 9/11 was an inside job, then that's just peachy, but it doesn't get us any closer to ending the conflict we started in the Middle East. Yes, we made a huge bungle by invading, I think. But hopefully we can do more than pull out from Iraq and Afghanistan and just pray for the best. This is a great opportunity to actually make something good come out of the conflict, and use our new influence in the regions to enlighten the people to what the Western world is really like: regardless of what our governments do, our people really aren't that bad.