Legalized Racis........I Mean The Rockefeller Drug Laws

A set of laws enacted by one of the Tori Spellings of American politics, Nelson A. Rockefeller,
the Rockefeller Drug Laws have successfully taken non-violent criminals possessing moderate amounts of recreational drugs off the streets and jailed them for years.
In 1973, Rockefeller -- who sort of looks like a cleaned up version of Chicago Cubs broadcaster Harry Caray -- was in his final year as governor of New York State. Before he left, his administration enacted drug laws that were allegedly in place to help curtail drug related crime and take down drug kingpins, but somehow managed to accomplish the opposite.
At the time they were enacted, the laws made no distinction between marijuana, cocaine or heroin; selling two ounces or possessing four ounces of any of them would land one in jail for 15 years to life. Also, the law made no distinction between a first time offender and a career criminal. Pot was dropped from the equation in 1979.
In 79', the legislature also amended the law, raising the amount necessary to trigger the 15 to life penalty. But then, the mid 1980's came, and with it did the use of crack in the inner-cities. The government claimed they tried their best to curb crack use, but when PSAs from Pee-Wee Herman and Clint Eastwood didn't work, they had to take a different course of action.
In 1988 the amount of crack necessary to send one to jail for 15 plus years was reduced. If you were caught with 5 grams of crack, you would receive 5 years in prison. In order for the same penalty to be trigged with powdered cocaine, you would need 500 grams of the drug.
By 1997, the number of whites only made up 5.3% of the drug felon population while blacks and Latinos accounted for 94.2%. In 1996, blacks and Latinos made up only 23% of the states population but accounted for 85% of those indicted on felony drug charges.
Minority women were especially hit hard by these laws, as many children in inner cities were raised without mothers in the 1990's because of the Rockefeller Laws. In 1990, 61.2% of women jailed in New York State were convicted of drug offenses. Only 32.2% of men were incarcerated in the same year for on drug charges.
In 2004, the state legislature passed a small reform to the Rockefeller Laws, slightly reducing some sentencing and taking other small baby-steps in the right direction.
The real issue the state government continues to ignore is the effect that short, cost effective drug treatment has over imprisoning non-violent criminals.
A study by RAND's Drug Policy Research Center in 1997 concluded that effective drug treatment is 15 times more effective in curbing drug use than mandatory minimum sentencing. The same study showed that keeping an inmate in jail for one whole year costs $32,000 while the cost of an effective drug-free outpatient care program costs only $2,700 to $4,500 per person.
Think this doesn't effect SUNY students? Since 1989 -- ironically, the year after the necessary crack limits were lowered to jail offenders -- SUNY's annual funding from the state has dropped from $1.3 billion to $800 million. New York state now spends $1.7 billion annually on prisons, compared to the slightly less than $1 billion they spent in 1989.
Help rid our state of this outdated, costly and racist piece legislation that has ruined too many lives already.

Compound Interest In My Own Words (Round 2)

Moneychimp.com

I finally gave in to the second website that comes when you Google "compound interest." I'm terrible with numbers. I tried searching through all the others that came up, desperately trying to come with a definition and an understanding of what compound interest is.

So I gave up.

I tried my hardest to avoid using one of the 1,500 online compound interest calculators, but I couldn't. Turns out that I was just overthinking. I kept convincing myself that there was this crazy concept I wasn't getting, a missing equation I couldn't possibly understand or maybe I just wasn't carrying the one over to the next column.

According to Moneychimp.com, if you invest $1000 over three years with four percent interest that compounds annually you end up with $1,124.

After several hours of excruciating financial breakdowns, calculators and pie charts I realized that you only need to know 5th grade math to execute this equation and I decide to break it down.

The first year, you invest $1000. 4% of $1000 is $40. Your total over the first year is $1,040.

The second year your money is invested, you take the $1,040 you earned the first year, and add 4% of that. 4% of $1,040 is $41.60. Add $1,040 and $41.60 together and you get $1,081.60, your total for the first two years.

The third year your money is invested you start with that $1,081.60 and, once again, add 4% of that to the total. 4% of $1,081.60 is $43.26. Add that $43.26 to the $1,081.60 and you get.....

....$1,124.86!!!

So easy a moneychimp can do it.

How an Idea Becomes a Law

How an idea becomes a law in New York State is a lengthy process, so let me somehow try to sum it up in a few paragraphs. Lets say there's a large group of concerned citizens out there who want, I don't know.......free ice cream on Mondays.
First you a need a whole lot of people who would want free ice cream on Mondays and they'd need to have a pretty good reason for it.

So, let's pretend that a recent research study conducted by the State Health Department shows that the more people eat ice cream, the happier they are. You and a couple hundred, maybe thousand, of your fellow supporters argue that since there is scientific proof that ice cream makes everyone happier, there should be free ice cream on Mondays for everyone. You argue that, if everyone who works or goes to school receives free ice cream every Monday then they're less likely to be upset about going back to work or school after every weekend is over, thus increasing work place productivity and grades.
You and your fellow supporters contact your local senator. You write or email a report to this local senator that's several pages thick, arguing why New York State would be a more productive if everyone simply received free ice cream on Mondays. After some deep thought, and recognizing the lack of campaign contributions from the local ice cream workers' unions, your senator is convinced this is a good idea for a law. The senator now turns your idea into a bill, the "Free Ice Cream on Mondays Act of 2008."
Your senator now proposes the "Free Ice Cream on Mondays Act of 2008," before the State Legislature. Once everyone in the legislature familiarizes themselves with the proposal, it is sent to what's called an "appropriate committee." The committee weighs the pros, cons, costs and overall effect the "Free Ice Cream on Mondays Act of 2008," will have if enacted. A public hearing is also called in most cases so the politicians can gather information on what the public thinks of the bill. Oddly enough, in an election year what the public thinks about a bill may be more important to the politicians than what they actually think about the bill.
Now the appropriate committee has agreed on the actual written format of the "Free Ice Cream on Mondays Act of 2008." The bill is presented to the rest of the State Senate and then to the State Assembly. You and your friends may as well get comfortable, because in New York State the process of having the majority of either side of either branch come to a consensus may take quite a long time............
.......18 months later and the "Free Ice Cream on Mondays Act of 2008" has been passed!!! Now the only obstacle is Governor Patterson, who has 10 days to veto the bill. Having a sweet tooth himself, Governor Patterson decides not to veto it, despite numerous threats from the executives of Haggan-Das, Ben and Jerry's, Cold Stone Creamery and the local chapter of the United Waffle-Cone Manufacturers of America. Free ice cream for everyone!

Myself In Seven Words

If I had to sum up my life in seven words, it would be:


Where did all the time go? Damn...

Compound Interest In My Own Words

Here's a short story to explain what compound interest is to those who may not be familiar with the term. The story will revolve around the interaction between two characters; Gary the Gambler and Larry the Loanshark.

Gary the Gambler lives in Anytown, USA and has made a nice living as a insurance representative. Gary is married with three children and doesn't drink, smoke, or use drugs.

But Gary has a vice, he likes to gamble.

Larry the Loanshark works in "Waste Managment." He moonlights as a bookie taking friendly wagers on sporting events. Larry also provides loans to those who are not approved by a bank or or who prefer not to use one. Larry charges a slightly higher rate of interest than most banks will. Our government calls this usury, but Larry likes to think of it as a public service for the less fortunate. Often times, the people who cannot pay Larry on the wagers they lose will take out a loan with Larry, a convenient way for Larry to kill two birds with one stone.

When people don't pay Larry, he becomes agitated. After several weeks of non-payment Larry sometimes has to take matters into his own hands. To prevent this from happening as much as possible, Larry the Loanshark charges his clients 25% of what is owed to him already every week they don't pay -- referred to as interest.

Larry then adds that interest to the money -- referred to more commonly as the principal. When Larry adds the interest to the money owed, he is compounding the interest to what is owed to him, hence the term "compound interest". This is not to be confused with "pounding" which is what Larry will often do to someone's kneecaps if they refuse to pay him.

Lets flash forward to week 5 of the NFL season. Gary the Gambler is on the phone trying to figure out how he owes Larry the Loanshark so much damn money. After all, it was only a couple of friendly wagers.

"30 grand!" screams Gary. "How is that possible! It just started with a $1000 bet only a month ago. Please come on, give me another week, please Larry! I'm good for it, I promise. How did it get this high anyway."

"Why compound interest of course, Gary. I told you, I charge 25 points (a term for 25% in the underground business world) a week whenever you don't pay. It's not something I enjoy doing Gary, but it needs to be done."

Here's how it came to be:

-Week 1. Gary the Gambler bets $1000 on the Indianpolis Colts. They fail to cover the spread. Gary doesn't pay up. Now, Gary owes the $1000 plus 25% of that to Larry the Loanshark or $1250.

-Week 2. Gary thinks to himself, "I can make this up quick," and puts $2000 on the Cincinnatti Bengals. They fail to cover the spread. Gary doesn't pay up. Now, Gary owes the $1250 from last week plus the $2000 from this week, totaling $3250. Now add on the 25% compound interest and Gary owes $4062.50.

-Week 3. Gary thinks he can make it back again. He bets $5000 on the New England Patriots. They fail to cover the spread. Gary doesn't pay. Now Gary owes another $5000, totaling $9062.50. Add the 25% compound interest and Gary now owes $11,328.13.

-Week 4. Gary, once again, tries to make up for lost ground. He bets another $5000 on the Denver Broncos. They fail to cover the spread. Gary doesn't pay. Now Gary owes a total of $16,328.13 before adding the compound interest. Once added, Gary now owes $20,410.16.

-Week 5. Gary is getting desperate. He puts $10,000 on the Buffalo Bills. "A sure thing," Gary tells himself. "After all, the Bills are undeafted and the Cardinals haven't won anything in years. The Cardinals win 41-17. This brings us to today, as Gary now owes $30,410.16. If he chooses not to pay, Gary the Gambler will owe another $7,602.54 in interest for next week.

Larry the Loanshark is growing impatient and demands some money. Gary the Gambler tries to explain that he could not get a 3rd mortgage on his home because of the sub-prime crisis, couples with a deflating economy. Larry doesn't care and Gary has to sell his car and boat to make payment.

If only someone had explained to Gary the dangers of gambling and the concept of compound interest.