Anything Worth Doing, is Worth Doing Right, Right?

I don’t think I am alone in saying that this country has gone to shit. It is pointless for me to mention all the areas that we, as a people, are screwing up; ask anyone and they will give you their own gripe-list to which you must listen intently and not disagree. Everyone in this country is an expert on where we came from, where we are, and where we are headed; every opinionated person out there thinks they have the answers and should have their own radio show so as to open the eyes of those addle-minded fools whose opinions differ from their own. People will tell you our issues stem from a lack of family values, or the media, or the education system, or the government, or some other weird and twisted source that is corrupting America not unlike a rotting apple.

However, I feel that the source is much less divisive than these others. I can’t honestly believe that the sad state of this country in so many areas is dependent on such a specific subject. I don’t think liberals are the downfall of this country; I can’t think that, since I am one, and the idea of being the source of all our problems tends to rub me the wrong way. I don’t think it is the government ruining this country. I just can’t abide the fact that education alone is the key to our return to supremacy. The media bandwagon, I can almost jump on that, but I prefer to point the finger at an impressionable public, easily swayed and influenced by the entertainment and news industry; they have no power if we think and question and are not easily influenced by their wares. No, the source of our fall from grace as a powerful nation is simply the lack of a driving force behind what made us great; ambition.

Ambition is what made this country what it is and literally carved out the constitution, declaration of independence, and the bill of rights. It was an ambitious endeavor to overthrow the imperial powerhouse of England and the Queen. It was ambitious to pursue Manifest Destiny, and so on and so on. We have lost this ambition, I think, in these days of difficulty. It may be a lack of ingenuity or a simple feeling of being crestfallen and disenchanted with an increasingly complicated and cynical world. It seems that the drive to rise up, overcome, and make a place in the world for ourselves and future generations has fallen by the wayside as many live paycheck to paycheck and dodge collection agency phone calls. This is now going to take a strange turn as I flip the beginning of this piece to get to the heart of my idea. I think when there is a lack of ambition, the vacuum it leaves behind is filled with a very dangerous attribute, complacency; and nowhere is this more apparent than in the criminal element in America.

America used to be number one with a bullet, literally, back in the roaring 40’s. I would go back further to the old west, but I feel the criminal element then was not as sophisticated as it became from the 30’s to the 60’s. In this time period you had an incredibly capable, powerful, and organized group of criminals operating simultaneously in a frame of time that held the likes of “Baby Face” Nelson, Bonny & Clyde, and the foremost criminal mastermind Al Capone. This is the last era we had in this country of truly great criminals with empires and laundering schemes that make Bernie Madoff look like a third rate pill-pusher from Beverly Hills. These were men with ambition and goals which made them millions of dollars, ownership of police forces and government, and infamous figures in a time of great growth in this country. This is the kind of criminal element we lack today.

The ambition of America has moved to other countries in other forms. Where as the likes of Al Capone squeezed protection money, bought judges, and smuggled whiskey, Mexican drug lords are moving just that, drugs, on a massive scale. Acres of poppy fields in Afghanistan funds the likes of Al Quaeda on a mythical proportion. The closest thing to organized crime has to be the Yakuza, started in the 17th century, and today still lives on. This is where we have come to, we outsource everything to Japan, including organized crime. As far as I can tell the rest of the world has gotten better, and more involved in illicitly illegal crimes while we, as a nation, have stopped turning out masterminds of any kind. You now see corruption in corporate America, not in outright criminals on the streets. Today we here of Ponzi schemes and insider trading instead of shootouts in New York between rival gangs, or bootleggers gunned down crossing the border from Canada. The headlines aren’t exciting and intense, they have become truly scary and horrifying, but for very white-collar reason. This is a result of complacency in the common criminal and a lack of good role models.

Case in point. About a month ago, when the idea of this piece came to me, I was in a Von’s grocery store grabbing some food and I got a six-pack of beer. When I was looking over the beer selection I noticed a tall man, disheveled and shifty-eyed, looking over the beer as well. I really thought nothing of it; in Ventura it is not uncommon to see a clearly homeless person deciding between Mickey’s and Foster’s 40’s by the pair to get them through the evening. I bought my groceries and made my way to my car in the parking lot, thinking about nothing at all, when I heard a woman holler from the direction of the store. Whipping around instinctively, I spied the same man from the beer section moments ago, walking briskly out of the store with a 24-pack of Natural Ice with two female employees in a jogging pursuit.

“Sir! Sir! Come back here, you didn’t pay for that! Sir!” The portly female cashier shrilly hollered after the man who continued speedily down the sidewalk paying no attention to the voice, never casting his gaze anywhere but straight ahead and down. As the second, willowy woman, came up behind the first, she made contact and with an outstretched arm, grabbed at the built-in handle on the beer case, and spun the man around. Oddly, on-lookers in very close proximity did absolutely nothing as two, short women faced off with a petty thief. It was no scuffle though, and it lasted about two seconds as the man spun, tugged very gently with his grip on the beer, and then seemingly just gave up. He let go, pulled a 180, and continued on his way, silent, and quickly disappearing in the direction of Seaward and the beach, as the jolly-looking cashier took the beer back inside.

Now there is much that is surprising in this situation. I have to say that the two glaring, lesser topics that stand out are the fact that the man was pursued out of the store, by two women no less, and the fact that no one did anything at all to assist the women, or apprehend the man. First off I have always been told to NEVER pursue anyone out of an establishment that I worked at. Do not be a hero, because there is no telling what could occur when you are out of your turf, and you never know who you are dealing with. Secondly, that no one came to the aid of these women of diminutive stature as they went head to head with a tree of a man is kind of shocking. From memory I can count about six men and women in immediate proximity to the occurrence that did little more than watch and actually back away. Chivalry clearly was incapacitated that day.

The greatest shock to me, the cynic that I am, was more about the possible decision making process of the assailant; this is where the ambition comes in to play on a very specific and case by case basis. In this case I see a total lack of ambition on his part. IF you are going to steal beer, and possibly go to jail for the crime, there are two things you need to keep in mind. First is that you need to pick a location where you can make a speedy get away or you can disappear quickly in to a crowd. Secondly, and most importantly, is if you are going down possibly, then you had better swipe some decent beer for your trouble. For God-sake, if I was going to steal I would rather get pinched for a 12-pack of Sam Adams than a 24-pack of Natty Ice; take me in to the station for piss flavored beer and I would be thoroughly embarrassed.

A lack of ambition and a self-defeating mentality is what leads to stealing shitty beer. It would stand to reason, for any one I may ask, that they would rather steal good beer than cheap, but this poor man decided very specifically that he wanted to swipe this beer. There was a process in his mind, that he wanted, nay, deserved, this Natural Ice, and not a finer well-crafted expensive beer. His mindset is that he did not consider the quality of the product he was stealing. A more ambitious man would look to the top shelf, get a good beer, or forget the beer entirely and try to hide a bottle of Wild Turkey or something in his shirt to get his drunk on. If he isn’t thinking quality, as he was not with his beer-run selection, then it must have been about just getting drunk, and a bottle of devil’s juice is much more effective than 24 crap-tastic beers. What led to this choice was a lack of ambition, and to a lesser extent, a negative self-image.

When compared to the criminals of the past; bootlegging and transporting illegal brew, gunning down the competition, and strong-arming entire neighborhoods, the man at Von’s is pretty pathetic. Where might he fall on the education ladder? Maybe he finished high school, maybe only part of high school, or maybe he never even got there. Where did Al Capone fall on the education ladder? A mastermind of his level must have gone to Harvard…I doubt it. I am betting that he did not even have a high school diploma, I’ll look this up later. I am betting that besides the odd accountant and lawyer at his disposal, the ilk of  Al Capone’s actual organization probably did not have a very high IQ, and were not college grads. So how did they get to where they got, on par educationally as the common thief, and yet they took over America and drew international attention as great criminals? Again I say ambition.

The men of the times of Capone, Dillinger, and Nelson, were thieves and criminals. They knocked over banks, scared city councilmen, police chiefs, judges, et al., and all while running amok in public and being very well known. Capone was like a celebrity, interviewed often, a public face and a household name, and the man was a wild villain for Christ’s sake! Yet all of these men had an eye for the big time, and sights set on riches and success outside the reach of the long arm of the law. They worked their way up from common street thugs and small timers to heavy weights of celebrity while being unequivocally guilty of unspeakable crimes most of the time. These men built themselves up from nothing with little education, initial means, and some street savvy that they applied to quickly rise through the ranks of great American criminals.

This is an ambition that is hard to come by today. It cannot go without saying that it has become more difficult to rise to a power like Capone inside the borders of America with the complicated and tireless, 24/7 work ethic of national and international agencies.          Today there are more people watching you with more authority, resources, and dedication, than ever in our history. So I do concede that it is very difficult to become a great criminal, and robbing banks is just about impossible, so a modern day Dillinger is out, too. But it does not mean that you can’t, as a common criminal, raise your sights higher so as to achieve something greater than a small score, like a fucking 24-pack of liquid crap. The long con, the hustle, the schemes, laundering, and the possibilities for thievery are still very live today. There is a great vacuum yet to be filled by the bygone gangsters of the past, and there is no reason that a high school grad with barely a penny in his pocket can’t commit himself completely to starting a company, or criminal organization, from the ground up.

This is the key that is missing, besides ambition; organization. It is time that we stop looking out for ourselves and our immediate needs and begin to organize. The Mob is the greatest pyramid scheme ever devised, and if Amway is still fucking advertising on TV, then there is no reason that the Mob can’t make a comeback on an epic level. I am sure it is very complicated, expensive, and treacherous business, but if the lender’s can get a bailout after fucking up as bad as they did, then I think a decent criminal can keep an illegitimate business going like the good old days. Think about the power of coming together and the deniability that comes from a large organization set on one goal of controlling an area and market. After a little elbow grease and blood spilled, I am sure you can get a legit butcher shop, an accountant, a lawyer, a couple of judges and cops, and then start laundering dirty cash and become a pillar in your community. Today we are looking for heroes, no reason you can’t fill those shoes. All it takes is a little commitment to something greater than yourself.

To be clear, I am no criminal, I may be dodging creditors and surviving paycheck to paycheck, but I’m a decent guy trying to make a living. I see myself as ambitious, and I think this is the quality we are missing on a whole, a hunger for something more, and the willingness to go after it, even take it, if we must. Ambition is what we all need, and I think it can work at all levels, even in the gutters and the dregs of the criminal element in this country. Capone was probably no more educated or wealthy when he was starting out than the homeless man at Von’s, but Capone had something in his criminal mind that yearned for more, and never settled for Natty Ice; Capone swiped Moet, and then sold it at 3/4 price to turn a profit, he was a businessman. He, and the men of his time, saw opportunity and had the wear with all to feel that it was in their grasp and they could do it, with less smarts than I have, and it is still possible today if you are only willing to allow yourself to dream…of being Al Capone. I am not advocating crime or criminal unionizing, but if you’re gonna do it, look to our forefathers and Dillinger for some inspiration on how to set your sights high and be ambitious; or at least steal some decent fucking beer for Christ’s sake, it’s embarrassing.

I didn’t want Habeas Corpus anyway, so there.

The saying goes that history is written by the victors. This is of course true because the reality is that the victors are the only ones left to write it most often. But in sports I find that history remembers more than just the victors, the first placers, and the number ones; sports history records, more than any other kind of history, the unbelievable errors and losses in the annals of history. The three instances that come to mind are Bill Buckner, with his missed ground ball in game six; Chris Webber’s TO at Michigan in the NCAA Championship game; and most recently the fourth & 2 call by Bill Belicheck against the Colts. There are so many more and any fan of any team has their own specific list of worst moves ever they can prattle on about endlessly over beers in Any Tavern, USA.

The ball gets dropped from time to time, and in sports they make note. It becomes part of the myth and history of your franchise, not unlike in politics. Republicans/Democrats in America is treated the same way as a Lakers/Celtics rivalry discussion. Every little mistake, over-rated player, bad call, and crushing defeat is tallied and exploited for your opponents humiliation just as every victory and all-time legendary record is hoisted above your head like a Heavyweight Championship belt. This, in the end, is how we decide winners and losers in sports, but not in this endless game of musical house majority that is democracy. There is no W-L record we can really rely on for this, so we simply point out all-time bad calls and presidents while trying to defend our worst moments with crooked refs and no instant replay…wait, I’m confusing my metaphor with reality now.

Well on the list of great political bloopers on the Democrats side we have some doozies; McGovern in ’68, fucking Eagleton; Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky; public option/death panels, just to name a recent few. The Republicans are no slouches though; they got Iran/Contra; Korea, which one might say was the beginning of defense spending so thanks for that Truman; and the greatest scandal in American history, Watergate, and Nixon overall; republicans win the ‘lousiest president’ debate. But now we have Obama to thank for possibly topping the all-time list of ‘disappointing/ineffective’ presidents with his most recent motion to support extension and only minor language changes to the Patriot Act; he called it a hastily written piece of shoddy legislature during his campaign and promised to see that it was changed to restore civil liberties and rights…doesn’t look so “shoddy” from the oval office now, does it.

Barack has been on a rampage, it seems, to make every bad decision he can and this is no different. He flat-out broke a promise, extending three specific portions of the Patriot Act set to expire at the end of this year, but worst of all he tried to sneak it in under the radar attached to the Pentagon bill which was mostly about spending issues. The genius of this was that 95% of the items voted on were on finances, from military budget, federal debt ceiling increase (if it’s a ceiling, why can we just raise it, we remodel our debt/income house when ever we want, not much of a ‘ceiling’ if you ask me), and a myriad of other items. This is also going on in the quagmire that is health care debate and voting. With all this, the white house issued letters and statements to get this voted on and that they supported an extension.

After this and all his other blunders thus far I have become completely soured on him. First watering down the health care reform, then ridiculous spending, the lack of reform, lack of transparency, the Afghan surge, the Guantanamo Bay BS, now the Patriot Act!? I now understand that Obama really does not care for the civil liberties and the human rights of the American people or those in our custody. It appears he is simply writing another chapter in the “Bush” book, not getting a new book of his own. He has green lit continued wire-tapping, e-mail tapping, and seizing of business records under the Patriot Act. There is also the system of the “sneak-and-peak”, where any agency is allowed to break in to your home, without warrant or notifying you in any way, just to see if they can find evidence to get a legit warrant to prosecute you, and come back with that, and seize all evidence legally.

This is in addition to the suspension of Habeas Corpus for prisoners, which is in effect in America, Guantanamo Bay, as well as military detention bases in ‘war zones’ like in Bar’am. So in addition to not closing Guantanamo Bay, denying rights to trial, prosecution, and legal council, he is now continuing the legislation expanding government power beyond the letter of the law, allowing his administration to continue the rights violating practices that were fear-mongered in to place by Dick Cheney and his administration, I mean the Bush administration. This is the greatest disappointment for me, I was sure the Obama would become a great leader repealing and discontinuing heinous practices as these mentioned, returning America to the level headed, diplomatic nation that it once was. All I can see is continued war and abuse of extended powers like a military junta more than anything else.

You have to understand that these laws were put in place under extensive stress, fear, and panic. The nation as a whole was willing to hear any argument and willing to sacrifice a little now for the greater good on the back end. We gave up civil rights to restore relative safety. What happened was illegal activities and use of laws that was never intended; the “sneak-and-peak” has been used for drug related activities in far more instances than in any terrorist investigation. The abuse was ok then, we needed someone to throw down the gauntlet and go to town for this country, and we had just the redneck to do it. In that time of uncertainty this nation was impressionable and easily swayed, so laws were broken and we were able to accept it as a temporary, necessary invasion in the name of peace and security.

What we have now though is a complete disregard for the lessons we should be learning from those most bloody times. We need to admit that these laws were unconstitutional, hasty, and did not even serve a purpose to the end for which they were designed. As a nation we gave the thumbs-up to the Patriot Act, then, because we knew that a full review and a long drawn out debate would come to pass when the Act’s time was up. This did not occur, no discuss happened, it was a small part of a massive bill that was up for a vote. More time was allotted for the defense budget and estate tax than went to the reinstatement of my God-damned civil liberties. As far back as November of 2008, people like Adam Cohen of the NYTimes was writing that many were feeling that Obama could hear and weigh the arguments of those that see him as a chance to end this Act and take governmental power back to a pre-9/11 status. Barack Obama would be a voice of reason, as he said he would be during his campaign, and pull back the reigns of a government run amok, restoring this country to a time of innocence, before our vulnerability was so savagely revealed to us.

Still, today our prisoners with suspected ties to terrorism don’t get their rights, none at all in a war zone prison; we can still put prisoners under rendition, the practice of changing custody of one of our prisoners to a foreign country with more lax standards of human rights in order to extract what we want; we can wire tap; read your e-mail; break in to your home or business LOOKING for cause to come back with a legal warrant, and all this in the greatest country in the world!? The proletariate, you, should be up in arms over the laws of a savage time continuing in to this presidency one more day than they set to last for. An abuse of power like this is something we would embargo Cuba for, threaten Iran for, speak strongly against N. Korea for, and yet you and I are the victims here with no one to speak for us except condescending senators and representatives.

The fear we live in and the concerns of the American people have changed. We have now allowed our foreign policy to determine domestic issues; this is the way to ruin and a state of martial law now continues on our soil despite having the eyes for 20/20 hindsight. You must realize that your stripped away civil liberties will continue on simply for political gain. Same as with the increased debt ceiling and dropped public option, the Patriot Act was extended so the republican party had less cannon fodder for the 2010 mid-term elections. These crucial policy decisions were made not for what was best for the American people, but what was best for the democratic power structure. Time and time again this country, the people that make it more than just real estate between Mexico and Canada, has been dropped by the wayside for the good of political power and industry. The trickle down effect works in reverse when it comes to policy, we at the bottom of the pile get pissed on first.

The gavel was replaced with a gun eight years ago. Justice was found on the business end of an M-16, and we were fine with justifying the means to the end through the red filter of rage. America was willing to set aside the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as well as grant the President powers far beyond those set forth by the checks and balances our founding fathers created, or those approved of by the U.N. From 2001 to 2004 we were willing to believe anything and from 2004 until 2008 we were powerless to stop the monster we had created in our post-9/11 Frankenstein phase as we watched it tear countries asunder, including our own. With Obama we were to get all of the benefits of living in the greatest country on earth, from the bottom up. He stood as a beacon of hope for change; not to something new, but to something old, from a time before we lost our innocence in Manhattan and became afraid of our own shadows and those that operated in them. For me the last of those dreams, the constitutional rights of 2000, has died, leaving me no longer hopeful, but weary, of Obama’s last three years in office. You are my Buckner, Barack Obama, you made the list.

Ho, Ho, Ho-ly Shit…

…are you seriously NOT officially campaigning for Governor yet, Brown!?

or: RIP Poizner Campaign, June 2009-not soon enough

It has been a few weeks since I wrote on the election, which looking back over what I missed, is not a big loss. As per usual the four major candidates are pretty much in a holding pattern with none of them gaining or losing much ground, as a recent poll shows. There is only so much stock I can put in public polls taken of only 2,004 Californians, but that sampling size isn’t so bothersome when it is measured against other polls that have one glaring similarity, no one gives a shit yet. As of right now more people don’t know, or don’t care enough about the candidates to have an opinion. With possibly the most pivotal election in state history on the line, it seems that the holiday spirit has, until now, sucked anyone’s interest in milling through the pile of information that is there for the reading on every single candidate, choosing instead to fist fight soccer moms for holiday gifts.

2010 is a crucial year for both parties on a national level. Both parties are worried about the upcoming election, the republicans are so worried that they designed their ‘purity test’ to weed out and cut all ties to moderates in trying to appeal to their conservative audience. The democrats should be mighty worried in the house and senate as their recent policy activity and their presidency has had what one might call ‘a rough year’. With so much on the line in every office that means something, it seems that the public-at-large is more interested in Tiger Woods’ adultery and endorsements than who might be leading this country for the foreseeable future. With so much on the line it seems ridiculous that American voters aren’t informing themselves on the local elections and the measures that might be up for a vote so far in advance, so as to arm themselves against the propaganda that flies as the time for a vote draws near.

My biggest concerns reside with Jerry Brown as he has yet to officially announce his candidacy for Governor of California. Meg Whitman has spent major cash to garner the numbers she has got in the recent polls, and she is creeping up on old Brown. If that wasn’t enough, Poizner, God bless his heart, announced that he will FINALLY drop about $15 million of his fortune in to his campaign, though this is coming as too little too late for the far-third running GOP candidate. With his two major opponents ramping up with major cash Brown still feels like a southern gentleman sipping a mint Julep on the bench swing of his fine plantation, paying no mind to the banjo hillbilly music and musket fire baring down the road straight for him. Brown is perfectly content to stroke his mustache and dab the sweat from his brow with a handkerchief he tucks neatly in to the breast pocket of his Hudsucker suit on such a balmy afternoon. The fucking Rednecks are arming up, it’s time to declare war, you soft headed Kentucky colonel!

When Brown first announced that he was forming an ‘exploratory committee’ to look in to running for Governor, back when Newsom was still scampering about like a wild eyed idealist, I thought it was very savvy. Slow and steady wins the race, so let the little tike tucker himself out and then hide away in the biosphere of San Francisco to figure out what went wrong. It is only then, after Newsom was gone that I thought Brown would rise and bellow from the mountain top that he was the once and future king of California, and he would be the man to lead us in a better direction. As of yet, Brown has piled on the fundraising for the campaign coffer, so when there is a campaign he will be plenty funded to face off against the independently wealthy dillusionals that think somehow if you can run a company you can run a state…still looking for THAT logical connection.

Brown is now looking to be a little senile as his GOP opponent Meg Whitman has started to buy the very votes and recognition she needs to compete with old man river. She has spent millions hiring the best campaign team she can and has blasted the airwaves with terrible ad after ad of misinformation and non-descript rhetoric to start to get in to the homes and the back of the minds of the voting public. Brown’s ‘wait-and-see’ approach is now starting to cost him the inherent lead he had, his handicapped score, over the opposition, which was fine when they were no one and he was going to go official soon, but now it seems he has waited too long. It would be ill-advised to announce this soon before Christmas, and he would get lost in the commotion of the holidays before the New Year, so it seems that his best bet is to officially announce his candidacy and go on the offensive towards the end of the first week in January, another three weeks away!

I cannot understand what he is waiting for. Thus far Tom Campbell is now up to 20%, second to 34% of Whitman, which is a gain over the last poll, closing in on Brown leading everyone with 42% support. Now, I will admit that yes, in any hypothetical scenario Brown can beat the pants off everyone, but he is trailing dearly under age 35 with little to no recognition of him, which is where a campaign would come in handy so he could reach the younger likely voter! If the old bastard would make some serious appearances and go on the campaign trail, like everyone else in this race, then I think he would have stronger numbers than he already does. Instead he sits up in his ivory tower, doing God knows what, while the GOP natives are building ladders to snatch him by the hair and toss his ass in to second place in the polls. Whitman is foaming at the mouth for support and as far as I can tell Brown is actually dozing off on the political sofa watching Conan.

The climate right now is perfect for Brown to swoop in and take this state, it could not be better. With a major crisis in place, put there by government spending and a celebrity republican who has grown more moderate by the year, his record of service and fiscally responsible ideas in addition to his championed fight for businesses and groups against fraudulent and illicit corruption, you might as well put an “S” on his chest for what he could do with California. I know that there is a resistance to career politicians right now, a recycling of politicians as it were, but Brown has every scenario he needs to win, including fat cat millionaires with little to no experience, and associations with lacking voting records and mired in conflicting policies and actions; he’s up against a very wealthy version of tweedle-Dee and tweedle-Dum…and Tom Campbell.

Whatever his reasons for not jumping in, his strategy once he is in the race is clear, he needs to reach those under 35 who do not know the California he ran. Brown needs to appeal to a similar base that Obama appealed to. I know, those people are now kinda feeling unceremoniously penetrated without the courtesy a reach around, but what works in his favor is that this state brims with those that want change from the path we are on, and the antithesis to what Schwarzenegger was is what Brown can be. Brown can be charming, disarming, and can speak in a way that can move people to action. No one in the running now can hold a candle to the record of service Jerry Brown has had for the ‘people’ throughout his career in this state. Brown is synonymous with California and success as well as defending and working for people, not companies and corporations, which is sadly who gets the help and makes the decisions in America these days, and the very entities Poizner and Whitman are famous for making. If Brown can reach the younger voter and drive home the point that he has been there, done that, and can do it again, derailing this bullet train to “Fuckedtown”, then he will be fine, but first he has to be on the ballot!

On another note I would like to say a fond farewell to Steve Poizner on this campaign in 2009. Steve has filled me with laughter as much as shock and anger, and it would not have been a fun ride without him. Despite his $15 million he is dropping on his campaign he is currently riding a very pitiful pony in third place with 9% approval rating, far behind the thoroughbred double digit geldings that Whitman and Campbell are riding. I foresee him dropping out of the race in the next few months. It is simply not his year with Whitman being such a formidable millionaire to campaign against. There is only really room for one rich, white person with no experience in each race for public office, and that person is Meg Whitman. Poizner, with his goofy look and inventing GPS shit and computer stuff cannot hold a GE lightbulb to Whitman’s appeal and ebay prowess. Between these two, Whitman has the recognition of success and the vague, ambiguous policy rhetoric designed and manufactured by a crack team of blood thirsty shysters, and old Poizner hasn’t a chance as “insurance Commissioner”, which no one gives a shit about.

Poizner’s days are numbered being that, with six months to go, the best he can do is volunteer teach at some po-dunk school or sit with 6 people in a room and call it a ‘small-business council meeting’ while Whitman rubs elbows with McCain and waxes nostalgic on insider trading deals with Mitt Romney. The poor bastard has no clout, a shitty record of contradicting himself, and worst of all no pizzazz or flash. Whitman is visibly more approachable, warm, and is a better public speaker. Whitman is like a terminator T-1000 model, designed and programmed for one purpose by the Cyberdine Cybernetic campaign team she has assembled to mobilize Skynet and destroy Steve Poizner. He has not quit yet, but I would not be surprised if he is out before March. He has no business getting in to a public debate at single digit poll numbers with the likes of Whitman, Campbell, and Brown; imagine Beatrix in the wedding scene from Kill Bill, but with a town hall format.

Whitman probably feels pretty good right now seeing the numbers she has, but I can imagine her surprise to see Campbell, with almost no resources, trailing her moderately closely this late in 2009. I am sure she felt that she could be 20 points ahead come December, but Campbell has been killing it with great platforms, sick deficit balance proposals that even I like, getting him on a debate stage with her would rocket his numbers. This is what Campbell needs to hold on and hope for, he just needs to stay within 15 points on Whitman until March, and once Poizner is out and GOP debates come in to play, he can crush her on the public forum. I can see the headlines “Campbell Crushes in Debate; Whitman stunned.” If I were a Republican I would be voting to Campbell, the guy has his shit together and his fundraising is going a little better so I feel a chance for the guy up to the primaries if he can get his name out there and get some of the seriously undecided/uninterested voters on his side.

I don’t have any stats to back this up, but I have a theory about the general voting public and their voting decision making; Party, Pandering, and Pussy. First off people in general election often vote along the party lines, this is where you have your liberal and conservative bases that will vote along the party lines every time without fail. This is who they identify with and often these are the ‘registered’ reps and dems. after this base you have the moderates and middle of the road guys, who vote for the person that panders to their needs and desires of the moment. Whatever the candidate can do to fondle the cockles of this groups heart, they will do just to get the vote and support. This fringe group living in political purgatory is gold for a majority vote and is where all ads and campaign promises and policies are aimed at, so with enough pandering a candidate can get them. After this you have the scatter-brained, who just don’t know or don’t pay enough attention and just vote on here-say and gut; they vote for the one they least think is a pussy. This odd amalgam of people follow a simple set of rules, they want a Governor that can kick your Governor’s ass, so to speak. Not saying they aren’t informed, but they don’t really care about pandering and don’t have enough of an opinion to be swayed by policy, they just look at a guy, read a headline and look for the most badass quote, “Hey, that guy is no pussy”, sold.

Whatever the voter’s outlook, the campaigning for 2009 is over. It would take a monumental announcement or headline to grab attention away from shopping and egg nog, not to mention ringing in the New Year with loved ones. So for now I think our candidates are circling Newark airport due to heavy fog until January 2010, which is going to be a fire storm of a month with new cash flowing in to every candidate’s campaign coffer at one level or another. The guns will be drawn, Brown will finally throw his hat in the ring and will hit the ground running as the GOP loads up cash cannons and fires them in every direction just for attention. The debates will be three way, one GOP candidate is leaving the fold to save face and lick their wounds, I’m looking at you Poizner, and Brown will have successfully waited out two candidates which will make him seem so wise. This has been a hell of a race so far and I am looking forward to more campaign blunders, misinformation, a complete disregard for decency, and an undermining of everything these candidates are trying to achieve. I might get another one of these campaign pieces in before the end of the year, but if I don’t I want you to remember: Poizner is a tool, Campbell is a dark horse, Jerry Brown might be Yoda, and of course Whitman came back in time to kill John Conner…seriously.

Grand Old Party Purity: Get tested every six months…

to avoid an outbreak of moderate views and ideas

or: in case of a ‘moderate ideas’ outbreak, take Purivax every day until you again hate gays, immigrants, and rekindle your love for guns. (side effects may include rash, dizziness, prolonged spells of irrational fear, misinformation on all political topics, a predisposition to simply scream instead of reasoning with opposition, anal leakage, and even supporting G W Bush for re-election. If side effects continue, contact your nearest republican representative for a job, immediately.) Purivax, wouldn’t this country be great if we had a moat?

For many years leading up until now the very driving force of hope and joy has been sucked out of my life force by one story after another of truly despicable and shocking actions by those vested with the responsibility of representing the proletariate they were elected to fight for. Week after week and year after year, the will of the people has been largely ignored, as well as the masses of the world, as America, specifically the GOP, ran rough shod over every human right and possibility of progress this country has had on a myriad of topics. When Obama was elected, or was campaigning even, this country began to polarize in a way that I had not seen in my lifetime. As he became president and started enacting his decisions on policy and action, the outraged tides were stemmed no longer, and the tidal wave of irrational fear and neo-racism came rushing in from all sides. I felt that there might have been a real chance for bi-partisanship in this country despite this, but I have been so wrong. Though Obama may claim to want it, I haven’t seen it, and if the GOP’s new purity test is any indication, the conservative right has now galvanized to shun even moderates who represented the possibility for across-the-aisle progress in this country.

If you haven’t been obsessed with politics as I am, then you may not have caught wind of the new ‘purity test’. It is a list of ten policies and platforms that every republican running for office in 2010 must adhere to so as to receive support from the GOP in their election. The ten items include opposing Obama-care, bills like the stimulus package, anti-amnesty immigration laws, protecting the defense of marriage act, and supporting the right to bear arms, among others. Every candidate must meet at least eight out of ten of these items to qualify as a conservative republican and be eligible for support in fundraising and endorsements from the far-right GOP. The test was designed to weed out moderate republicans in the coming elections; with no support from their party, moderate candidates would die leaving an opening for the GOP supported, far-right candidates to run for office in the house and senate.

I want you to think about this for a minute, I mean really think about the message the GOP is sending to the public and it’s party. The GOP is saying that if you aren’t with us eighty percent then you are not with us at all. It is no secret that I feel the GOP has entrenched itself for legislative war up until now; this proposal now stipulates that no traitor shall be given quarter, and no nay sayer shall be in rank and file of their army. The GOP has essentially stated that they are now requiring every candidate to either give not an inch, no bi-partisan consent, and to hold true to ideologies of the conservative core of the party, or they can join the drum march in to a communist Soddom and Gammorah ushered in under the guise of ‘responsible governing’. The party is now cutting out anyone that isn’t completely with them, requiring them to play ball or they will be excommunicated from the party to fend for themselves on their outlandish ideas of a moderate nature.

When I thought about this I found a few things quite funny as well as terrifying. When I first heard about the ‘purity test’ consisting of ten items I immediately thought that it could not have been a coincidence that the conservative, religious-right came up with ten rules to campaign by, or be shunned in to damnation…c’mon, ten commandments maybe? The party decided that they needed a list of ten mortal ‘sins’ to judge men by as an election came around. Someone decided that ten, exactly ten, items needed to be highlighted that required adherence, so as to get in to heaven..I mean, the RNC. I find it so funny that the religious arm of the conservative party, an all too powerful group of decision makers with puppeteering hands, had to pick just ten. If you look at the rules I see that there are two that sound very much alike, as if they had nine, but needed to fill to conjure images of Moses handing down platforms and policy reform to live by…I’m guessing they think Moses would have run for the Senate.

When I heard the term ‘purity test’ I then became cold and fearful, my laughter dying out. A purity test? Could it be that a bunch of lawmaking, rich, white men decided that they needed a system by which to measure the purity of those in their party, and to a greater extent, the length to which they would go to achieve it? The last time a bunch of white men sat around in a room talking about purity, a million people vanished and Poland had it’s worst tourist season ever; just saying. Hey, if the TEA Party can call Obama “Hitler” then I think this is a fair situation to turn the ‘light of the third reich’ on its head. I find it a very scary proposition for the possible progress in those brave people willing to open their minds to moderate views, that could represent a populous well, when their party has got a knife to their GOP umbilical cord. The sweat needs to be pouring on the brow of those willing to hear legitimate concerns from the left right now. There they are pouring over their voting record and policy moves to make sure they qualify, or where they can fudge the results to fit in the new cement boots of a helplessly desperate party center.

What does this all represent? How has the party become so hostile and unyielding in their policies so as to take it to the extreme of a political contract? I cannot understand how the members of the republican party can stand idly by as those willing to explore moderate compromises are burned at the electoral-stakes as witches. I think it shows a complete lack of respect for the times we live in and the possibilities that are out there. The Grand Old Party is showing its age as it is not willing to embrace a growing population of those Americans, even republicans, that are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun legislation, and pro-health care reform. I know that Obama, and nobody so far, has it right on every issue, the times today have complicated these issues, but I think it is damaging to us as a nation to have one of the two parties unwilling to budge or support anyone that is open to hearing new ideas and constructive criticism to the point that you must sign your ability, as a representative, to re-evaluate your stance as you mature and new information or concerns come to light. Nothing can be gained if we are not willing, first, to truly be open to change.

I am outraged at the audacity of the GOP to literally hold a career ending gun to the heads of those wanting to make change and do good for the public, though in a misguided way, and to stunt their ability to be sentient beings. You are handicapping some of the greatest young minds your party has to offer and you make no apologies for it. If it were me, and I was a republican (shudder), I would be the first to stand up and say “hey, isn’t our conservative party lines and exclusive party policies what lost us every source of power we had in 2008?” Just saying. This party was supposed to be rebranded, remember that? Where a bunch of republicans sat around in what looked like a Pizza Hut and talked about the party ‘rebranding’ and then they placed a black guy as their party representative, Michael Steele. I remember that, do you, GOP? Was this the rebranding, because this feels more like branding…literally branding your party members like cattle on the farm as your intellectual and literal property. Save a horse, ride a Republican.

There is a more nefarious idea I explored as the republican’ts put this out, do you want to elect anyone who signed it? As a republican I would fear two things. First I would fear that my representative was so conservative that they would qualify, and secondly, that my representative trying to get elected would fudge their record or lie to get the GOP support by signing it. Either way the country and the constituents lose. If they are so conservative that they qualify, then progress on the myriad of rights, amnesty, and reform policies would never be explored, even as information and concern changes with time. Your representative would have to ignore moral and constituent’s imperatives to re-evaluate just so as to adhere to these strict guidelines. In this situation the will of the people and this country would not be done. Secondly, if they lie or scheme their way in to the good graces of the party, do you want a slime-ball like that representing you? Would you want someone willing to disavow their own guiding principles in favor of GOP support and funding? They are essentially selling out for money even before they get in to office, there is no way that person has the moral aptitude to represent you and stand up for what is right when they feel it is time, no matter the cost. Either one of the candidates represents the worst possible option when faced with the fallout of not getting with the conservative program.

There may be an upside to this though, as the liberal that I am. The ten commandments as they stand (let’s just call them what they are) would not allow for Sarah Palin, based on her record and platforms, to qualify for support from the party and therefore could not get a nomination to office from the Republican party. This is great news as that maverick can not play the Washington game with her ‘shoot from the hip’ kind of ‘tell it how it is’ mentality. Little Miss Land of the Midnight Sun would have to jump on the GOP bandwagon or get trampled to get to the white house. How great is it that she could not get the support to make a run, unless she recanted, went back on her word, morals, rogue persona, and let the party ‘handle’ her to get to the white house. She would have no footing, if this list stands long enough, from which to run for office. She could not run as a republican representative without the nomination, so she would have to run as an independent…Hardy-fucking-har-har. Hell, they would send Nader back out there just to beat her, and how great would it be for Palin to suck republican votes away as an independent leading to an Obama landslide in 2012!?

The new party line of “qualify or fuck you, Commy” is going to weaken the party in the end. This kind of mandate will further fracture the party, alienating a moderate republican base and hurting the party in 2010. The question of “are you GOP pure?” will come up and will be a platform for candidates to campaign on. This test of GOP balls is a shining example of some of the fundamental issues Obama faces trying to make headway with these fastidious conservatives. They have their heads in the sand on the direction of this country and where it will inevitably lead as causes rise, oppressed groups get larger, and the issues for middle-america become more dire. They will be hurting themselves by saying that they accept no treaty and no compromise. Digging in their heels like this seems to be an appeal to the TEA Party movement and an all out ass-presentation to those involved supporting the 9/12 project. Don’t think that the GOP doesn’t have a specific demographic in mind when trying to retake seats of the senate in many conservative states that flipped on them.

The GOP is attempting to shun those that could be a key asset to showing the party’s aforementioned “rebranding” in the future, opting instead for a party manifesto to weed out the unsavory characters eroding what this country stands for…hmmm, seems there was this guy Karl who had a manifesto once (turn around is fair play after all). I cannot pretend to not see what the religious-right base is trying to do. I have to say that if you are trying to reach out to new voters and appeal to lapsed republicans after a decade of screwing up, the last thing you wanna do is push someone that you are trying to pull in from the ledge of a 15 story building. The action you should be taking is inclusion, open dialogue, and free exchange of ideas which could lead to those on the fence choosing your dead republican grass over our brown liberal grass. This oathe-like list has done little but to disheartened those of us that wanted bi-partisan progress, and scare the shit out of those in your party that don’t fornicate in a pentagram covered in the blood of a thousand enviro-activists while rhythmically chanting the names of all republican presidents. You can’t blame them for doing some house cleaning though, because when you are trying to stage a national coup for power you can’t have any pussy moderates standing in your way examining the ‘consequences’ of your ‘actions’. Heil, Reagan!

‘Tis the Season…For Equating Love with Money

It’s that time of year, the holiday season, where you seemingly feel an overwhelming urge to grit your teeth and bare the discomfort to spend time with judgmental people you dislike the other ten months of the year. You sit and eat meals, you send christmas cards, and you also fight tooth and nail to the death for the best deal on a flat screen TV you don’t need in a house that is getting tougher to afford so you can watch assholes on Survivor in 1080i HD. Indeed, this season of barfight-like kerfuffles in the aisles of Toys ‘R’ Us and Best Buy across the nation to appease little Timmy and Susan Q American so as to keep them from hating you to the point they cut their wrists when off their meds, is a testament to the real spirit of the season as it stands today. It wasn’t so long ago that gift cards were lame and price tags on gifts were taboo, as you shopped with thought and care as to get the right thing for those special people in your life so as to light up their faces with joy and wonder. What it has become is the tabulation of a P&L sheet as to see how much you spent and what profit you may have made while sliding all the thoughtless plastic tender in to your wallet to get the things no one knew you well enough to know you might want. ‘Tis the season…

I remember when I was growing up and Christmas came around. As a youngster I rarely received gift cards, if ever. As a tiny tot I got a check from Grandma, but that is as close to a Best Buy card as I got; what I had under the tree were actual gifts wrapped with care and purchased with thought by those that loved me. When I got to ravage that pile of commercialized wonder I opened item after item, knowing I had wanted every one, and that ‘Santa’ had me in mind when every enslaved Elf built it…ok, not really, but you get the point. When I was a kid you bought people stuff, you actually went out and shopped. You thought long and hard about that thing you saw them looking at six months ago and they just never got for themselves, or that item of conversation in passing while waiting for a table at the Sizzler on some idle Sunday evening. These were the days when people put real care in to what they gave to you, and vice versa.

When I was growing up my mother always taught me to take the price tag off of things I was wrapping. In my mother’s eyes the price of something was between you and the poor, suicidal clerk at Cash/Wrap 1 who rang you up, no one else. My relationship to the price tag was that of a sin confessed between me and my priest, not for others to know. The greatest of follies in gift giving was for there to be any remnant of the price tag, so before wrapping you carefully inspected every crevasse to ensure that no evidence of the monetary value was present, even though the poor recipient would be walking through Target the next week and take a gander at the $19.99 discount price you snagged it at. A present was to be a gift and the price tag was removed to both keep the recipient from feeling guilty if you spent a lot, and to keep you from feeling foolish if you spent only a little. Money was taken completely out of the picture and gifts were to be given in ernest, never making either party feel like they got gipped, or owed, in the exchange.

There was a shift a long time ago as I got older. When I got in to my teens it started innocently with gift receipts from Grandma in case I already had one, or didn’t like it. With Grandma it was acceptable, what did she know, I only saw her three times a year; birthday, christmas, and thanksgiving; so it was forgivable that she was out of the loop on my interests and desires. After all, with Grandma it was really only talk of my grades in school and what I wanted to be when I grew up; would it have killed you to talk about anything but my job, really? But it started with my parents once I got a bit older, receipts with every gift, and now Grandma wasn’t the only one rolling out the money. My parents didn’t write me a check, that was Grandma’s gig. How weird would it have been to get a check from your parents at 12 years old? “Don’t cash it ‘til Friday, love you.” Parents started giving you cash and then some generic gift that seemed like an afterthought to the money, like they felt they couldn’t give you JUST cash, so they got you a piece of Coca-Cola merch or an eight ball skull. Thanks…for the money.

Thought in gifts was taking a turn at this point and once I hit puberty it was less thoughtful than ever. First off, your parents just asked you what you wanted in advance, if you weren’t dropping hints with with Sunday newspaper ads open to what you wanted, circled and highlighted as they drank their morning coffee. So they never thought about you, they just didn’t want you pissed when they got the wrong thing, you were distant enough already, so they just asked. So, if they got you something it was exactly what you asked for. Worst was when they would call you from the store and play the “Hey, what was that thing you mentioned last week, my co-worker was trying to get something for his son, your age?” game, and you had to play coy like you didn’t know what was coming home with your name on it.

Then went the wrapping, my parents and friends stopped wrapping things themselves. If they didn’t get it wrapped by some poor sap at the store then some girl scout troop was wrapping your gifts for you for donations so they could go camping in Spain in the summer to get their ‘running of the bulls’ merit badge or something. What’s even worse is the bag, you know the one, $2.99 and stuff with tissue paper with handles for easy transport. You see someone pull out the bag by the handles like it’s left overs from a Thai joint and plop it down in front of you, and you go through like a grocery bag making sure that you got everything before putting everything back in to it and tossing the tissue paper. By the way, how much does that bag take the fun out of ripping open a wrapped package!? I mean, there is no great reveal satisfaction when you look down in to a bag, but when you viciously strip a gift naked, then we’re talking some Christmas cheer.

Now we’ve skipped forward and the whole system is plastic today. Rare is the truly thoughtful gift. Price tags and receipts are standard on all gifts and they are given with the disclaimer, “you’re so hard to shop for, the receipt is in there in case you don’t want it,” gee, thanks for giving me an errand for Christmas, my favorite time of year to jam in to crowded streets and get stabbed for an Elmo doll, so glad to get back out there once my stitches heal. Now we don’t even give gifts, we just give the ‘gift card’. Boy did those make a huge leap. Remember when they were like paper gift certificates that sometimes looked like fake money. Now they went digital looking more like credit cards, good way to train up the little ones for a life of debt, get them comfortable with plastic early. So now we don’t even try, and we don’t wrap, and we don’t think. We instantly decide, at the register, what you are worth and what store we think you might like; Bath and Body Works for women, Sears for men, and Best Buy is gender neutral.

When did this happen? When did we go from taboo price tags on thoughtful gifts to arbitrarily assigning a person in our lives a monetary value on a piece of plastic? Well I guess I could go in to deep psychological and social issues and trends in the nation that have curved towards simply passing economic funds from one consumer to another, allowing them full buying potential leading to money spent beyond the gift card value on full priced items after the holidays which lead to higher profits in the first fiscal quarter of the following year which can float stock prices on publicly traded companies keeping liquidity intact allowing for a better projected earnings sheet in the next year, but that might just be a little convoluted. I could go on to say that the advent of the gift card in the shape of any normal credit card is the greatest invention since poker chips, removing the true value of money and replacing it with an item of almost no value except the agreed upon terms, which removes the ability to spend said item anywhere but at the table/store. The genius behind the gift card is actual turning cold hard cash in to funny money that has value in only one location; the gift card is actually worse than money since you have now limited it’s buying power to just one chain, locking your money up in them like a goods & services bank until you withdraw the money in the form of a liability(item) with limited longevity. Genius.

I think we can blame commercialism and the fact that once you turn 15 you become a bitch to shop for until you turn 40. Sadly, this is the prime target market for consumer propaganda to be designed for; everyone in this category is the prime spender with disposable income and emerging identity and status issues for which to compensate. Before puberty and after the midlife crisis image is less of an issue, before 15 you aren’t secure, but you don’t really notice the differences in status and in items as much, after 40, generally, you have accepted yourself and lived long enough that you can cast those types of impulsive behaviors aside (you stop giving a shit), my father not included, he bought his first house and first Harley in 2009…he’s 48. Well in this market there is so much stuff to buy that no one knows exactly what you want at any given time, what you wanted last month is not necessarily what you want this month, so people err on the side of caution and get you money to a place where you can get the stuff you want, yourself. The exchange of gift cards is not so much trying to please someone as it is not wanting to disappoint them with a poorly thought out purchase.

Why is there this shift though? My mother raised me to hide how much was spent, and to get someone something they really wanted so they never would return it, receipts were never included either. Now it seems that if a gift is given it was purchased so as to not just be buying everyone gift cards. Gifts have turned in to place holders for thoughtfulness and are bought in haste, wrapped by someone else, and given to you with a disclaimer and the means by which to return them, in addition to a gift card so you can get what you want…shit, now I’ve got to go to two stores Saturday, a full day of shopping, for me. It seems that we have grown comfortable with the recipient of your gift card knowing exactly what they are worth to you at any given time when they calculate what you spent and figure out what that equals in love. It’s like a supply and demand chart, where the love and the money intersect is where the price of the gift card will be, less love equates less money. After all, you’re not going to give Bob Q Jackass from the office a $100 gift card and your wife the $5 one…think about it, I’ll put together a graph later.

In this country we have gotten so busy and fear the embarrassment of giving the wrong gift that we have been bullied in to giving out funny money to the people in our lives. This disconnection with the good ol’ days of scratching price tags off of carefully wrapped items has fallen just short of Grandma’s $25 dollar check and turned in to the game of the gift card. No longer are we scared of letting people know just what we think of them at a time like this. I fear the distaste for our families during the holidays has seeped to the surface and is now poisoning our shopping. We now relish in giving people $10 gift cards to Applebee’s to passive aggressively tell Uncle Rich he can shove his snooty corporate-job digs. Every one of us is guilty of giving the gift card, the modern equivalent of a new tie for dad, but now we give them to everyone and expect the same in return so as to get our money back. But now the hostage exchange of gift card for gift card can really stick the shame to a friend when you give them fifty and they only give you twenty five. Like savvy Wall Street brokers we’re investing gift/shame equity in our friends and loved ones so as to turn a profit somewhere down the line. I’m just spitballing here, but let’s leave the gift cards to Grandma and actually get a thoughtful gift, carefully wrap it, a watch the disappointment fill your sister’s eyes when she rips it open on Christmas day and sees how little you actually care, like Jesus intended. Happy holidays, folks.

Palin to replace Oprah in 2011?: Harpo-a-no-no

Oh, let the screed begin. My goodness folks I read something today, on Journalismgossip.com, that just about knocked me out of my seat. If you are a regular reader, that would be about three of you and you know who you are, then you know my stance on the GOP and to a greater extent on Sarah Palin. I have written at length about her and the issues I disagree with the GOP on, which is just about all of them, and this woman seems to have nine lives in her, she just won’t die out. I have a hard time getting my head around her disgust for the media; a media that is the only reason she, or any one, is anybody. She seems to lash out at everyone around her while never taking responsibility for herself or admitting that she is politically illiterate and inept in speaking on policy or even what newspapers she reads. The latest speculation made by Jon Friedman of MarketWatch is so extensively riddled with logical holes and of such an inflammatory nature that even I was horrified, and I’ve written the phrase “raping the bill of rights”. His argument that former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin would be a ‘shrewd’ choice for succeeding Oprah on her show in 2011 is ludicrous. Do you want to live in a world where you hear Sarah Palin and her campy advice delivered via her shrill voice in one hour blocks in the afternoon? I don’t either.

We all know Sarah, she’s the woman that looks a lot like Tina Fey, and we know her history. We have all heard her speak, seen the Couric interview, heard her skewer the very media she feeds on while hocking a best-selling book, which needs media coverage to sell. We have heard her pass the buck in every direction but her own. She has lambasted the McCain people for ‘handling’ her, though, if you’ve been in this country a decade as a sentient creature, you know that every campaign and candidate is ‘handled’. A campaign is a performance, an act, of epic proportions, and is the most delicate, expensive Broadway production to orchestrate; Sarah, if you didn’t know this going in, it is your own fault, your ignorance of the national scene is of your own doing. This is the Sarah we know, an orator of the poorest quality drenched in hypocrisy after her morning breakfast of ‘stupid flakes’ that stumbled haphazardly in to our lives. I am sorry I didn’t see it coming when I was living in Alaska, I could have warned you all.

This is Palin, and as Jon Friedman would like you to believe, this is the best candidate to take over for Oprah when she steps down from her throne as the queen of the talk show. Seriously? Jon, have you ever watched Oprah? Did you see the Couric interview? There is no possible way that you think that Palin is a good fit for day time television, she can barely speak about anything but Alaskan fishing and her daughters ex without slipping up every other word. Oprah garners a high and deserved respect form her viewers, and frankly everyone in this country, as she is a mindfully measured and educated woman. Oprah has carved out the most epic talk show during the day that rivals the ‘institution’ and ‘tradition’ that Carson on the Tonight Show carved out in late night. Oprah is epic on an international scale that rivals Princess Diana in her lifetime. Palin is not suited for day time talk, especially not Oprah’s turf; the best Sara can muster is a poor impersonation of Kathy Lee, or at best a tundra redneck version of Elisabeth Hasselbeck, but Oprah she is not.

There are a myriad of reasons Palin would not be the best choice for the position. Sarah Palin was a politician, she quit her last job (I hope it really is the last) and if she fosters any delusions to be in politics ever again she needs to focus on that. Let’s say she does take the Oprah spot somehow, do you think she can justify leaving after a month to go campaigning for the 2012 general election? It is not unlike her treatment of the position of Governor, but it is close. No way, so if she wants to run in 2012 it would make no sense for her to take such a pivotal TV position in the public spotlight and then leave abruptly to run for President. It would just be more quitting, and her record really can’t take another withdrawal from responsibilities. The timetable alone would make it impossible for her to run in 2012, which I think would be her goal.

If Palin were thinking about taking this gig and running in 2016 for GOP candidate then it is a whole new conversation. She might be able to justify taking such a public position during the interim time before the election in 2016, but how could this adversely effect her viability as a Republican candidate? If she were doing the show she would not be able to take a public office of some kind. Do you think she could campaign in 2016 as a former partial-term Governor of Alaska dating back to 2008, 8 years ago? That could not be her only public service. ‘Talk show host’ on her resume would not put her in a good light as a candidate in six years for anybody but her followers that love her not matter what. Palin would not be able to learn more about government, put together a track record of service, and good policy decisions to campaign on. She would be the host of “Sarah”, not a public servant ready to lead this country. You cannot go from competing with soap operas for rating to competing with Democrats for votes, she would get crushed.

My second concern is that she would be an utter failure. Palin would get beaten mercilessly in the rating by openly gay Ellen and the drop dead gorgeous Tyra Banks. Palin, a former Governor, would be pummeled by a gay woman and a swimsuit model, as much as I would pay to see that three way in action, how would that look for a woman who would be seeking the highest office in the free world to tarnish the Oprah legacy and be beaten by women she thinks are a sinning, second-class citizen and a media whore…embarrassing.

There is no way Palin could do the kind of shows Oprah did, on some of the subject matter Oprah addressed in such a careful and respectful manner. Oprah did those shows that could really make skin crawl and somehow was able to put her audience at ease with it. Sarah Palin would not be able to do the same show, and if, as Friedman suggests, they take a more political angle in programming, there isn’t a soccer mom out there that wants to try and wrap their heads around sensitive, complicated issues while folding laundry and keeping an eye on kids back from school after a long day. The programming of a more political show in Oprah’s slot would be a disaster. Palin’s ratings would drop like Conan replacing Leno at 11:35. Conan was a God for the late night drunken crowd. His audience was more off-color, risque, and lewd, with a sense of humor that Conan fit perfectly. So fits Palin in to her specific base that loves her no matter her faults and defends her every blunder, but she does not fit the national audience, we know that, there have been more than a couple of polls and a 2008 election that proves that. These are the very same polls you should be looking at for market-researching her as a replacement for a day time talk goddess like Oprah.

The biggest issue I would see is the hypocrisy that would be evident if she were to join the media machine which has been her scapegoat for everything she has had to ‘endure’. This is the same woman that went on SNL, playing to the machine. The same machine she hates hocked her books for her with reviews and coverage. The machine has now kept her in the public spotlight, this awful machine that puts out propaganda and twists her words…indeed, that machine. East coast biased media is the source of all that is wrong with this country, the decay of traditional family values. Palin, you cannot talk of ‘traditional family values’, you don’t have a traditional family; is the media today the reason your daughter got knocked up out of wedlock? In the old days she would have been stoned as a whore…how ‘bout them traditional values, I’m going biblical on your ass, so beat that.

Palin cannot, with a straight face, say that she can join this liberal media while holding on to her values and shooting from the hip, not on network television. Friedman contests that she could be uncensored. CBS would not accept a politically biased show on the air in that slot. The audience would not respond to it, and you can bet advertisers would pull out while other stepped up. Palin would probably not fit in this slot just based on the inherent demographic and the design of the show for the last 24 years. From a corporate view CBS taking on Palin, a former GOP candidate for vice president, with not so secret desires to be president one day, would be at risk at getting themselves in a quagmire with NBC and Fox News as the show went on and she said things that were inflammatory or worth talking about. Palin would definitely be ‘handled’ by executives and be subject to constant ridicule from all fronts. If she thinks a show like this would help her in any way, she is as ignorant as I thought she was. The regular fodder she would provide for the comedians and pundits out there would cause her more of the ‘suffering’ that she is apparently sick of. It would make no sense for her to put herself in a daily position to be shot at regularly by those same people she would stand next to in rank and file as part of the American media she seemingly despises yet lives vicariously through. You can’t say you hate the media if you have a facebook page or a twitter account, it’s not allowed!

Palin is better off leaving the talk shows to those with the intellectual stamina to be interesting and entertaining all the time. She does not have the chops to jump through TV hoops and gimmicks. As such, if she can’t do TV at all then I definitely don’t think she has the chops to be a politicians, which is more hoop jumping, performing, and careful word craft that only the best snake oil salesmen can do. I just don’t think Palin has the sales pitch for either of these jobs. That being said, with time and the right people around her in a political office she can rise above being the butt of jokes and really become a powerful politician, not just a popular face; the difference here is staggering, which she doesn’t understand. Palin cannot do a talk show if she wants to be in politics, and can’t be a politician if she wants to do a talk show. She needs to make up her mind as to how she wants to profit off this fame, and I hope she gets a show no matter how bad it is, because she is political poison today and makes a laughing stock of her party. If she truly wants to be a public servant and make a difference then she needs to get back in to politics and be a sponge of learning and start making lasting policy decisions she can campaign on. If she does this, actively grows as a politician and ups her governing IQ, staying away from being a talk show host (radio or TV) then I think she might actually pose a threat as a candidate at a national level, until then she stands as a pretty punchline, mixed with Alaskan disgrace, and a hint of hypocrisy. A great talk show guest, but definitely no Oprah.

Obama-to-date, Never has more been expected in less time, with fewer resources, under greater scrutiny

or: How’s he doing so far?

I have been putting off this piece for a while because I have wanted to hold off criticism until President Obama reached either a key decision or his one year mark, whichever came first. Unlike many of my opposing party opponents I have fought hard to reserve judgment, giving Obama a chance to begin to get his head around the true scope of all of the issues that faced his administration from day one. Sadly we have come to the ‘key decision’ moment as of Tuesday with the troop surge in Afghanistan, and now I feel we can rightfully look back at his track record and begin to cast a vote, as a supporter, on what direction I feel that we are moving in; at this point we can now piece together the puzzle of what Obama may intend with his administration, and the manner in which he is coming to, and executing, the courses of action his administration is enacting. From the controversial ‘public option’ and flawed ‘cash for clunkers’ program, to his ‘Bush Doctrine’ surge approach in Afghanistan, and doomed-from-the-start decision to bail out car makers and to a lesser extent the lending and banking market, Obama seems to be garnering little favor within his own party, across the aisles, or in the public sector, with every decision he makes.

Barack Obama basically campaigned on the same platform that every party opposing the presiding party does, more change and less of the same. There was nothing very different in his campaign than any other candidate may have spoken of. What set Obama apart was his rhetoric about transparency, ending the war, and better living conditions in America for the middle class. He spoke of lowering taxes, saving the economy, putting people back in to jobs and ending the kind of things we had become accustomed to under Bush. One of the biggest things, to me, was his willingness for open debate before massive bills were set in motion; periods of time where the public could weigh in and really get a sense of what was going on. Many of these things, and of the myriad of others, have either failed to come to fruition or are stalled in action.

First I want to address one situation where he seemed to have the best of intentions and caused a firestorm of controversy, the “cash for clunkers program.” It seemed innocent enough, give Americans a credit for a new car if they brought in an old vehicle that was less safe and fuel efficient than what was on the market today. This was seemingly a great concept, an innocuous situation for Americans to upgrade to a new car. The idea was two-fold, get older, fuel inefficient cars off the road, improving emissions, and to give the car market, which was floundering, a much needed boost. I think it was more than two fold though in the down side. What it did was get a lot of cheap cars, that could have been paid for in cash for people or young drivers to have as first or alternative cars. Then it also got a lot of people deeper in to debt taking on a car payment that they might not really be able to afford, and certainly did not have before, further straining the budget of Americans. Lastly it had one last, unforeseen outcome, the most popular car sold as a cause of the program…Toyotas.

The program had good intentions, a program to improve safety and emissions while boosting the economy, which is not a bad idea. The result of putting struggling Americans deeper in to debt for something they truly did not need by dangling an irresistible deal in front of them seems to really further corner us in to difficult debt to income ratios. This coupled with the job market continuing to fail, after the program closed, has probably resulted in a lot of missed payments and repossessions crushing many of the people that thought they were getting a great deal, blinded by 4,500 bucks. The program was wildly popular, almost too popular, and resulted in great criticism of its planning and execution, but it never exceeded the approved funds Obama requested, only the initial investment after it went too well. As we will see, this lack of thought of the repercussions of his ideas in how they affect the middle-class American long term is symptomatic of a slight disconnection in what we really need, not what he thinks we want.

One of the largest decisions, and one of the first, was the all-too-unclear bailout program to keep large industry and banking afloat in a terrible economic crisis. This is a massive, complicated, and unfinished issue with a long time to go before we can really judge the effects. This spending is still going on with more money to go out, industries just starting to see the effect it has had, and so many ways of looking at it my head spins just trying to tackle the lot of the issues. As complicated as it is, I think there are a few clear facts I can sift through. We have, to date, spent about 3 trillion dollars, total, according to CNNMoney.com, 73 billion of which has been paid back. This 3 trillion is only part of the total 11 trillion that was approved, but so far the repayment has only been about 2.4% of what we shelled out.

I did not want to go in to the private sector and buy up GM, did not support it one bit. I think that the government should not really own, with my tax dollars, any assets of a private corporation that has failed to compete with a good business plan. I know this is controversial, but getting bailed out only keeps bad companies afloat where new ideas, business models, and smarter men and women could step up and run things right. You cannot give money to a failing company and expect the same people who ran it in to the ground to make better choices. This is the definition of insanity, to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different outcome. Even despite our best efforts companies still claimed bankruptcy! So we threw money at them, and wouldn’t you know it, failing companies that were making bad decisions made more bad decisions; gee wilickers.

I can kind of see the need to bailout car makers, they are a huge part of the American economy and employ tens of thousands of Americans on living wage salaries, so to let them fail would put a lot of people on the street quickly. So I see the move to give them operating capital to absorb toxic assets and market share losses. Where the bailouts lost me was capitalizing the likes of AIG and Fannie Mae directly without providing relief to the people that were struggling to pay these people off. I agree completely with an idea Jon Stewart mentioned on more than one occasion, to send those funds to the people who could then give it to the companies. Look, if I got a check for $15,000, you bet your ass I was sending 90% of that to those people I owed money to. I would pay off every credit card and cut huge chunk out of the principle balance on my student loans. As a result I have felt relief on my monthly expenses, cut down on my debt to income ratio, and the lenders got their money anyway. In this scenario everyone wins, not just the industry, but the people who needed it. As it stands I am still crazy in debt, the economy is still struggling, and no one has won.

The other concept I liked with the likes of paying off the banks and helping the American people in the process would be for the government to have taken that money they provided with the condition that the funds be spread out across the board at 10% of the principle balance on every loan or credit card. The money now goes directly to the company and I still feel the relief. My monthly payments go down, the industry now has liquid assets again, and we all win in this scenario as well. Obama didn’t need to send every American a check, but the effects of that money, those billions and trillions that have gone out to support the companies should have had a direct effect on those that fuel the economy, the people. The amount of money I owed, my monthly payments, or my debts completely should have disappeared when, now, not only my payments were going to the lenders, but my taxes I paid the government, were going to the lenders. I was double and triple paying Fannie Mae! This is symptomatic of a much greater issue this country’s people face, industry trumps people. The government is quick to support the industry, to keep the machine going, without any of the effects or cash going directly to us, the Americans who work to make this country move, those of us that are working and are paying taxes.

So here we are coming to the economy as a whole, something I won’t even begin to try and dissect in any manner other than philosophically. To be honest I really don’t get the minutia that comes with being an economist, so I am not one, but I do think that I can speak on some ideals we seem to hold to, despite the failing efforts they produce every day. The stance I take is that there needs to be some form of regulation, especially with the money we poured in to it, and the companies that got are money, we get to decide how it gets spent. I am disgusted at the news of massive bonuses with my tax dollars, you failed you blood sucking bastards, I was taught that bonuses are for successes, and you have had NONE! I also think that a free market can be only so free before corruption and greed cloud the eyes of everyone in it. Investors, quick money guys, and those that ignored the signs of failure and denied that growth would end, should not be allowed to continue to work without severe regulation and oversight to secure that it does not happen again.

As far as I can tell the money these people have gotten has been abused, misspent, and in some cases has disappeared without explanation. To the limit of my understanding the market is getting better, but a lot of industries are still slowing drowning or are gaining little ground on where we once stood as a relatively stable country. The President just started handing out blank checks without many, or any strings. When you give a ‘loan’ like this with money that isn’t yours to people that fucked the real earners of said money, you had better have a ton of strings. You cannot leave these screw ups to their own devices as you have given them a get out of jail free card; there is going to be the same orgy of misuse and BS that got them to the point they needed my, our, help. Regulation in the free market is necessary. When you take your dog out in public you have to put them on a leash because it is for their safety if they get too excited and dart in to traffic, and the safety of others as they may end up incidentally or accidentally hurting someone. This is simple civic responsibility and this kind of basic regulation, even those 20 foot retractable leashes, is necessary for the free market big dog to avoid horrible tragedies as the one we are trying to overcome.

Health care reform was a massive platform Obama spoke from. He wanted affordable health insurance for all Americans. This is quite vague but it is basically what he campaigned on. However, the reform he is putting forward is far from what he promised, intended, or will even get, as this thing makes its way to a vote. There are many items that he should have included, he said would be included, but has failed to come through on. One of the major items he campaigned on was passing the Freedom of Choice Act, the lack of reproductive health care at the ‘heart’ of the act, and among many others the importing of prescription drugs and a list of items pertaining to the elderly and those on Medicare, all of which aren’t in there. What he has put forth, as far as I can tell, is such a watered down version of what he promised that it barely resembles what he set out to get, and it still won’t garner enough support to pass. With this bill he has failed to address a lot of key issues, the debate of the insurance companies failing upon passing, the ridiculous ‘death panel’ phrase which is total bunk, and the idea of rationed care and killing your grandmother have made this an outlandish cartoon despite the fact that it is not nearly as partisan as he would like.

So many issues in relation to health care and insurance companies stems from people’s fears. I think they are largely unfounded and apocalyptic at best. Far too many think that the public option is anything but an option, as if setting this forth would force people to take the health care. His optional plan is just that, an option, you do not have to use this health care. Private industry will be just fine, if it were to pass, simply based on the fact competition is good for the marketplace; this is the sole reason the free market works as it does. If there was no competition there would be a monopoly by one company, and a monopoly is bad for consumers since they can do what they want and you have no choice but to take it. Competition drives down prices and improves services and goods because they are fighting for your business. Do you think insurance companies operate in a way different from this model? They fight for your business just as hard as any TV maker fights to sell you the best product at the cheapest price. It is in the interest of survival of a company where the customer wins.

Where does this fear come from? Well it may come from news outlets sensationalizing ideas and rumor as they twist small words and phrases in to the death nell for grandma. The news industry is where the average American is going for their info as there are few, if any, Americans that actually sit down and read the health care bill. This breeds ignorance, a lack of fact finding on our own, and what happens is the news outlets feed us what they think we should know, scaring all of us who don’t know any better. This nation is scared, and it is easy to whip us in to a frenzy right now because we are all so ignorant, coupled with a blind trust of our media outlet of choice, that we can be easily imprinted with suggestion. It is not totally the fault of news media, it is also our general ignorance, or warped misinterpretation, of history and true definitions of things like ‘communism’ and ‘fascism’ that let those around us convince us that the ‘public option’ is the linch pin in Obama’s quest to realize Mussolini’s Italy.

I love the idea of health care reform. I don’t have health care, so you can put as many bureaucrats as you want between me and a doctor, as long as I eventually get to see the doctor. I am one of those who need to see a doctor, a dentist, and an oncologist, because I could you a tune up, but I am also one that thinks that there may be another way to get me there than those that are being presented as the clear cut options. My feeling is that we can work within the system we have with some regulation, incentive, subsidizing, and careful analysis that can insure everyone, strengthen competition, and NOT provide a public option (government health care) at all.

My first idea is kind of three fold in that there are multiple items that need to be enacted, and they can be done so incrementally, while still keeping the system relatively unchanged. The first step in my process, let’s call it ‘Plan B’, is to go to insurance companies and decide which policy fits for you as an individual or family. You decide how much coverage you want and with which insurer you want to do business. The caveat is that you must get quotes from three different insurance companies to find the best deal. The legwork on this front is done by the people wanting health insurance just as if they were going to buy it themselves. The second step is done by the government as they determine what your financial assistance needs will be. This can be determined in the same manner as section 8 housing; taking in to account your income, tax bracket, average monthly expenses, assets, credit score, number of dependents, etc. The government decides how much assistance you qualify for; in some cases this amount you qualify for may be more than the policy you want/need, so you may be able to even get better coverage than you shopped for, and for others the short fall of the difference between assistance determined and cost of the policy is then covered by the individual.

What I think Plan B provides is many positive things. Number one, there is no government interference. They simply determine what coverage amount you qualify for and then, if you want more coverage, you cover the difference. It also allows for the consumer to shop the best deal and get whatever coverage they want, in whatever configuration. Thirdly it works within the current system, actually increasing the customer base of insured Americans and therefore making those in the industry richer without cheap government competition. The competition will continue to be between insurance companies, which will benefit consumers with better, cheaper services as the competition for dwindling amounts of new customers gets fierce. Imagine how hard they will fight for the last uninsured American, they’ll give him the moon!

This plan works within the constraints of the current model. It also hinges on Americans that pay their taxes, so illegal immigrants without SS#’s or tax returns can’t get the service, which will please the group of people that fear insuring non-Americans. No one can argue that it does limit government meddling in this sector of the free market, increases insurance company revenue (imagine the stock increases), and provides the American people with assistance as well as the option to get more coverage than the government determines you can be afforded. In all I think it eliminates the public option, the most feared and heated topic of the current bill, and will probably cost the US government less than the current plan, as well as insuring every American on some level. As far as I can tell this might be the best course of action we could take to please everyone.

I do have another option, similar to the last, but definitely different enough to warrant calling it ‘Plan C’. This is the option where the government gives tax breaks and incentives to companies that reach out and provide a service of their own on state levels to insure all Americans. A bit more ambiguous and open to criticism, the government would placate those insurance companies willing to lower premiums and extend a health care plan of their own designed on a sliding scale based on criteria similar to that the government would use in Plan B. So the insurance company determines that you should be able to afford a specific amount, and will credit a portion, or all of it to you, the consumer. If you want further coverage then you can buy it by spending the difference. So if the insurance companies design their own, low income/uninsured plan on a sliding scale/case-by-case basis, then the government will provide them with tax breaks and maybe subsidies on more expensive procedures, in return for taking the initiative to insure all Americans.

There are pros and cons to this one though, that are not present in Plan B. The incentives mentioned hinge on the fact that insurance companies that want these breaks would not be allowed deny coverage or discontinue coverage for anyone…ANYONE. They can no longer break policies or play the little games to deny coverage or drop policies, without government oversight. This means that once insured, if the companies want the incentives, they need to prove that they are humanitarian in nature and will not leave anyone in the lurch for any reason but non-payment. Also, incentives would stipulate that lapsed plans based on non-payment are still effective until 6-straight months of non-payment based on hardship. If someone loses their job then the insurance company covers them for up to six months, allowing a grace period of coverage for a person to get the means to continue paying, and still being covered in the interim in case of incident. In addition it does allow for some fraudulent companies to create loop-hole filled policies for these new customers, but with regulation of the industry I think we can avoid this.

As I said, Plan C is a bit more complicated and malleable as to exactly how ‘need’ is determined, the amount of government oversight, and as to how these plans can be expedited in to existence, but I think it still is better than a government run health care system as it continues to work within the constraints of the current system while insuring many, and with the proper amount of oversight, can keep them insured. Both plans B&C are not without flaws, but if Obama were to present either one I think he would be pleasantly surprised as to the amount of support he may get.

The insurance and prescription drug lobbyists are all too powerful and influential in Washington. I would go as far as to say that they are scary for politicians to cross, even for the good of the people. But if we can convince them to play ball and be the shysters they are while helping the people, then they may not even realize that they are doing a good thing, going along with it given that either plan is more money for them and minimal government interference. Can you even imagine a world where every citizen of the US is insured through a private insurance company? It is total market saturation for the insurance companies, what’s not to love about that Obama? Whatever does come out of the health care reform, it will not be Obama’s vision, or anyone’s for that matter, but I think we can get a lot closer to the idea of ‘every man, woman, and child’ being insured if we work to reform, not overhaul from scratch.

Unlike these past topics that have been addressed in some manner, for good or ill, there is one section of the population that has been largely, if not entirely, ignored, the gay community. Obama during his campaign was a champion of the people and a lot of those people were gay and lesbian. He got massive support and endorsements form the national and local organizations working for gay rights on different issues. To date though, Obama has done nothing for them, except reassure them that change is coming at a dinner they held in Washington, coupled with a rally, some months ago. Obama had, really, three major platforms for the gay community, basically giving them everything they wanted from a ‘rights’ perspective.

Obama said he would repeal the ever fiery policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. This policy has seen hundreds of gay men and women booted out of the military; some from positions as invaluable as translators in the middle east to men and women on the ground doing the fighting and dying. This policy has undermined the very status of the soldier, fighting for the country and freedoms that they don’t even have, while trying desperately to hide their identity in utter danger for the likes of you and me. Obama also spoke of ‘bullying’ states in to treating same-sex couples with full equality to all of the same rights in family and adoption laws. Basically, every right a heterosexual couple has, which would be a huge step forward for this community and this country. Third major platform was a big one, to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act which opens up all of the same federal rights that heterosexual couples have, to every civil union and legally recognized union in the gay community.

These three things alone would be a great milestones for this country, but taken as a whole, if he accomplished all three of these campaign promises would place the gay community at nearly eye-level and give them an openness and security to truly pursue happiness in this country for the first time in their history. Imagine not being able to marry the person you love, or being able to visit them in the hospital, or being able to adopt a child, or even just be open about who you are at your core. Can you even fathom having to hide a big part of you while you die for the rights of this country, some of which don’t even extend to you? No, you can’t, unless you are gay, and then I am preaching to the fabulous choir. Any one of these items would be great, Obama, just pick one. DADT could end tomorrow, DOMA could be done quickly, and pressure on the states would take time, but repealing DOMA would definitely open up the flood gates at some state levels.

Not one of these has been addressed in any real manner. All of them are ‘stalled’ or ‘not yet rated’ according to Politifact.com; not yet rated means he hasn’t done anything at all to rate on the subject. The White House is not using strong language on the subject, deciding instead to push those decisions ‘down the road’ as the President has ‘a full plate’. Well no shit, he is the president, his plate will forever be full. There will never be a time in any president’s tenure where they will be bored, there is always multiple things to do, multi-tasking is the life’s blood of a presidency. A full plate is no excuse, it would not take much time to draft legislation to repeal these laws and them file them with congress for a vote. The amount of effort is less than the health care legislation and requests of fund for bailouts. In comparison these little things are weekend projects, there is little to do. Hell, we’re not even writing new laws, we’re just erasing old ones, it could not be simpler, and yet nothing is done. Good luck getting re-elected if nothing is done on the front of gay rights before your next campaign.

One area where I think Obama has shined is reaching out to the world and repairing bridges to create at least the illusion that we again want to work to create a better world over all. Obama has visited more foreign leaders and countries than any other president in history in his first nine months in office. His missions of good will and garnering friendship throughout the world are a testament to his willingness to create a stronger America through diplomacy and shared interests. Now I don’t care how low he bows or what you may criticize are his follies in these visits, he has yet to throw up on anyone, and he has spoken of creating lasting relationships and even human rights in places like China. Obama has done a great deal to show his appreciation for international foreign policy, and he has to, we owe a lot of people a lot of money, especially the aforementioned China. Our debt to other countries as they have financed much of the work we have done to repair this nation and fund our wars has garnered a need for him to travel and sit face to face with the people we owe billions to. So as much as his visits are of good will, they are really for selfish reasons of working with nations to whom we owe a favor and a deepening debt.

Though these trips have an ulterior motive in them more often than not, his work with the UN and other international agencies is not without merit. His trip to Copenhagen was much for the pledge to limit emissions, and he has spoken on more than one occasion against nuclear programs in hostile countries as well as measured criticisms of bunk elections and human rights violations. Obama has done more to be vocal on an international level than many before him, which is both a blessing and a curse. One could argue that he is simply trying to garner favor in lieu of actually doing anything specific. He is out there, jet setting the globe, to position himself to be Andy Taylor in Mayberry as he works to squash terrorism. Really, in essence it may be a simple rebranding of the same agenda, he seems to be trying to get support on being such a ‘good’ guy. But I feel it is more a genuine hope that as we meet and understand one another, a face to face promise or meeting gets him a support on subjects that may earn him a sneer and hesitation if he were less accessible, and this seems to be part of the legacy he wants to leave; a President of the US in service to not only his country, but those that agree to conditional help in times of crisis.

This brings us right to the reason for this piece, the heart of the matter as it were when I began writing this thing three hours ago, Afghanistan. Now I have refrained, to date, from writing even a single piece on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan because I feel it is for far greater minds than mine to contend with. I feel that in my short life of 25 years I have neither the experience to draw on, or the scope of first hands accounts of watching a war unfold, to truly speak as even a moderate authority on the subject of our current predicament. Though I research, read, and watch documentaries, on many conflicts and scandals of the past, I feel that my opinion is that of a true idiot savant and is taken with nary a grain of sand. I do, however, feel that this damn incursion in the middle east has gone on long enough, and the situation we are in is our fault in the first place, so we do have some responsibility for cleaning it up; but it simply is not that simple.

I tire of writing this piece, it has gone on too long and has covered far too many subjects, but I need to press on as we are now getting to the most important part, the climax, as it were. There are two major, driving forces that have led us to the quagmire we find ourselves in at the moment. I won’t go over how we got here from day one at 9/11, it has been milled through far too much already. The basic cause was a thirst for blood, we were offended by the audacity of the attack and we wanted revenge. Revenge is no way to start a war…wait, I said I wouldn’t do this, so I’m not. The first driving force is that we will never win. There, I said it, so let it sink in. Not only will we never win, but we can’t ever win. We are fighting religious zealotry with diplomatic and military force, one does not connect to the other. You cannot eliminate terrorism that is born of a misuse of a religious doctrine unless you eliminate the religion…and that sends us right back to the Inquisition, or worse, the Crusades. That is not our stance after all, we are all about religious freedom, so let’s face the fact that as long as these different peoples exist, and we, the US, exists, they will hate us and plot. It even goes to deeper issues of the holy land, chosen people, racial suppression, as well as a control of regional resources. We can never hope to end the fighting unless we want to just nuke the place and start over, for as long as there are generations being born, there will be those that take things too far.

This is what this is all about anyway, taking things too far. We have been at this thing called the “War on Terror” for eight bloody, intractable years with no end in sight. While I am here, I think I have said this before, but I’m saying it again, you cannot win a war on a ‘noun’. A war on the feeling and weapon of ‘terror’ is like declaring a ‘war on sadness’ or a ‘war on happy’, a losing battle with no clear enemy or foundational strategy. What now, oh yes, the second driving force, it was fucked up when we got here, and we only fucked it up worse every time we’ve left. Think about it. Corrupt Karzai is a man of our making in Afghanistan, and little known fact, we put Saddam Hussein in power! We appointed him, or at least created the situation where he could take power. Follies of this kind on our part, backing the wrong ponies, goes all the way back to Vietnam at least, maybe further, and span the globe.

The middle east, every time we have touched it, is worse off than before we showed up and our activities in, and occupation of, those countries has only fueled anti-american sentiment among the populous. As far back as the Afghan-Russian war, or Kuwait, et al, we have really just messed it up more than need be. Every time it seems we back the wrong horse as well, creating terrible situation that are only different, not better, than the last one. We really owe this region an apology, if it weren’t for all the oil and money in the region we really would never have shown up, but Allah put you on top of our God’s oil, so we gotta get us some. Our meddling has only made things worse, from providing arms, to removing governments, we have made one misstep after another, like we have so often in the past. I would argue that our last great foreign policy decision was crushing the third reich, and we had to level whole countries in the process to do it.

Our involvement overseas is happening, no matter how much screwing up we’ve done, we’re here now, and motives be damned, we need to figure out how to relatively stabilize the region enough so we can get out. Obama’s speech was just like every other president’s war speech, and far too close to Bush’s for my liking. So I’m not gonna break it down, it’s been done, check a website. But I will comment that 30,000 is the exact amount of troops Bush, I mean Cheney, sent to Iraq during the surge. I guess it worked ok, so Obama is doing the same. One good thing is a time table, we cannot afford financially, or through the cost of life, to fight a protracted war so I appreciate a final date. Obama is following through on his campaign promise he made to redirect troops and resources to Afghanistan after he took office. After careful consideration and what seems to be a very measured approach, he is doing so with naysayers on all sides of him.

This is typical, the republicans are criticizing a democratic president when he is doing the same…exact…thing…Bush did, literally down to the number of exactly 30,000 troops, and he still can’t win with these people. I see the wisdom in Obama’s move, let’s get the initial goal accomplished, quell an Al Qaeda uprising in the Pakistani/Afghani border region, give the Afghani government a trained fighting force and a foot hold in their country, and then bring our boys home after beating the bajeezas out of what may be left of the terrorist networks we let get out of hand. I can see this, and I appreciate him trying to get out of Iraq and trying to finish the job in Afghanistan, and I even more greatly appreciate that in his speech he never said the word ‘win’, because we cannot and in all actuality we never would or will, win. This is a losing battle simply based on the fact that kids will grow up to be extremist and we can’t be wiping out generations of kids, so they will be back and better than ever, eventually. Shit, kids own AK-47’s, this mixed with shi’ite/Suni & Jewish/Muslim hatreds are going to breed some seriously badass, bat shit crazy SOB’s. Period. All we can do is kill who is around now and reload for when those kids hit puberty.

I know this seems like a defeatist attitude, but I am simply a realist and the war and bloodshed in that region will continue long after we have left, and gone back in, and left and gone in again, and then probably still be going on after we go in again and limp out one more time. The cycle of violence and hatred will never be broken because the fight is not just between us and the extremists. They declare war on everyone, so they fight amongst one another, against countries, religious peoples, racial groups, etc. They care not for our involvement, if we leave it just means they have more bombs for the markets they would have used on our humvees, so no, I am not optimistic about building a lasting democracy in the middle east. There is simply too much for us to contend with, and even if we kill every single ‘terrorist’ we cannot shoot racism, we cannot bomb prejudice, and we just can’t eliminate the threat of battling for the holy land. I don’t expect you to win Obama, I expect you only to get us out one day, because no republican or democrat can command a military to turn back the clock on more than 2,000 years of blood soaked sand, and it’s not our place to try.

Indeed. Ten pages later and now we are here, together, both exhausted and a little flustered by this spine-jarring journey from one wretched idea to the next. If you are still reading this then I sincerely hope you got something out of it, if not then I am sorry, you just wasted a portion of your life on me and my screed; there are no refunds! It is not my contention here that I know better than Obama, or that I don’t support him, it is simply that I disagree with the execution of certain acts and policies that have had, what I believe, were foreseeable consequences that seemingly no one saw in the planning. This man was given an impossible task with hopes of a large portion of this country weighing heavily on his shoulders even before he took office. In no way do I think he has failed as a President, he has plenty of time to address many more issues and bring this country in a better direction. What is next for America only Obama knows, I think I see a glint in his eye like a half-mad Willy Wonka. At some point he will grab us, tip his hat, give us a topsy spin, and as our heads clear we can look around, at the path we took, and the now-clear genius of every orchestrated step that seems so logical only now that we are in the magical place he knew was our only plausible destination the entire time.

Epilogue:

Then again, if he ruins this country, it’s better than the alternative, and as such I am stating that I would rather be fucked by a young black man than an old white guy. Here’s to you, Obama.

Two Faced Nations Cannot Garner Trust in International Community; US Must Set Example

America has for some time now been a supposed beacon of fighting for human rights and fighting tyranny in our foreign policy. On so many occasions, when declaring war, or addressing the nation, Presidents of all kinds cite our freedoms, democracy, and human/civil rights, as a cornerstone of our efforts. We have been ‘underwriters’ of freedom for fifty years now. A nation that has fought for the greater good and wants to bring peace and democracy to everyone that deserves it, while bringing those that oppose it to justice. This has been our mantra for as far back as my research has found.

In recent times though, we have been neglecting human rights here at home, and recently a debate has started to brew over providing those very rights we stand for to those that we deem undeserved. Presidents Obama spoke of closing Gitmo by January 2010, but in recent months has realized that it will not happen in that time frame. Gitmo stands as a facility the houses ‘detainees’ that are connected to terrorist organizations and have ties to Al Qaeda networks with aspirations of hurting innocent people in the name of Allah and to fight oppression. These people have been tortured, harassed, and humiliated over the years and have denied every right that we, as a nation, stand for.

In recent months the talk of closing Gitmo has caused a firestorm of debate about what to do with these detainees. It seems that no prison wants them, and no one wants them on American soil. We all seem content holding them, off American shores, and just imprisoning them out of sight and out of mind. The issue presented, of putting them in our prisons, is that they may convert prisoners and be able to plot further American attacks once out of Gitmo. My contention on the subject of putting them in American prisons is that they will have no more power there than in Gitmo. What do you think American citizens in prison would do if they found out a terrorist was being transferred to their prison? I believe that those terrorists would be dead in about 24 hours. They would be killed by the Americans in our prisons. Isn’t this what the blood thirsty patriots want? The lives of those connected to 9/11 dead?

These terrorists, no matter how ‘evil’, have been denied the very human rights we as a country have declared wars to protect. As men in the custody of US forces on a military base makes them POW’s or at the least prisoners. The issue with them coming to US prisons would mean that, to put them there, they would have to have access to council and stand trial for their crimes. You can’t put someone in prison who was not tried and sentenced. So what this means is that we would have to try every one of them based on evidence of their crimes and sentence them. This process could take years, and I am betting ten bucks against a bucket of clams that some of the cases would be pretty thin to say the least. So we don’t want to face the fact that we may have to release them based on a lack of hard evidence in our beloved justice system. We are all content keeping them as ‘detainees’ and denying them everything this country represents.

Let’s say we were willing to try them and presented the evidence we had against each of them, do you think they can get a fair trial in this country? That is one of the stipulations of the justice system in selecting a jury, a ‘fair trial’. You must be convicted by a jury of your peers…they really don’t have any peers in this country and I would have to claim a mistrial if they were convicted. There is no place in the industrialized world that would garner them a fair trial in any real sense of the word. These men would never get a fair shake in America, or with any of our allies. And once they are in the system their defense team could claim mistrials, file appeals, question evidence collection, counter sue for human rights violations, unfair trials, et al. They could be released based on shoddy evidence chain of custody. We would have to face that our hatred and fear of these men might be largely unsubstantiated, then we might actually feel bad about how we have treated them, God forbid we need to apologize for our actions.

There is the very acceptable idea of extraditing the prisoners to their home countries for trial. Why not? Afghanis, Pakistanis, et al, would be sent home to stand trial. Would it be corrupt? Probably. But then we can wash our hands of it and stop being the human rights violating country that we are. Besides, let’s just say that they got to walk free after a corrupt trial, we are sending a ton of troops and forces back in to Afghanistan, we’ll find them at some point (we know what they look like) and we can execute them as casualties of war without looking like barbarians just using capital punishment while in our custody to kill them. This is really the only logical way to close the facility, and get what we Americans think we want, blood.

What if we did what a lot of men might want to see. Just let them loose on America streets and put up posters of their faces. Just let them loose in America and see what happens. I am pretty sure that Americans would be just fine with the nation declaring open season on these men. Martial law would provide immunity for all Americans to grab a gun and shoot these men on sight. In about 48 hours every single one of them would be dragged through the streets and hung from light posts along Mina Street in Anytown, USA. What, too barbaric? Well you don’t want them in our prisons, you don’t want trials, don’t want to extradite them, and they simply cannot stay at Gitmo, so what do you want? Do you even know?

The real issue is that this nation is participating in an act that is deplorable, detaining ‘suspects’ without any of the rights that American law dictates they must have. I doubt that any have been fairly tried. I doubt that any have seen a legitimate lawyer, and I know for a fact they have been very mistreated under the Geneva convention and well as UN agreements. We have acted as beasts in treating these hostile prisoners with almost no respect for the human rights we seemingly have shed blood to protect and spread. The activity of holding them at Gitmo without trial or conviction is the same practice the Nazi’s used with Jews and allied forces POW’s in WWII. It is the same type of practice we used on American soil when we put Asian-Americans in camps without any evidence of wrong doing or conspiracy against the US. Right this second, as we speak, men are being treated in the same way the Nazi’s treated us, and Americans, as whole, seem to be ok with this practice.

America is now going to put in to action a troop surge to root out Al Qaeda forces and establish a stable Afghanistan spreading peace, security, and human rights in the region. Our underlying motive is always security and respect coupled with rights that every man deserves. As a side note we spread democracy, which inherently includes the pursuit of justice. As a nation we have a very rickety soapbox to speak from if we continue to mistreat and deny our ‘detainees’ the very rights we are trying to spread overseas. This nation cannot hope to truly achieve its goals if we say one thing and participate in actions that run contrary to our foreign policies. If we are to truly accomplish the goals we hope to, and are to gain the trust and admiration of countries and their populations we must first and foremost lead by example. Bush even said that we would not stoop to the level of the terrorists, and we have in our treatment and rendition of those we held captive; some may argue that this has only strengthened their resolve creating an intractable situation overseas. We must be a beacon for other countries to aspire to in every way if we are to be a model of international citizenship. The days of our father’s “Do what I say, not what I do,” mentality has passed if we are to inspire trust and develop relationships with those that we influence.

The Symbolic Duality of Our Stance on Immigration

The polarization and the conflicting ideals in this country have divided this country since its inception. From day one the emergence of democracy has created a firefight of different ideals that we have felt, as a nation, we should subscribe to. As times have changed, and with them our stand on issues, we have grown and matured with our age. This country was founded by foreigners to this land taking it by force and calling it our own. We invaded this land, tricked those who deservedly were here first and then stood as a beacon of freedom once we gained our independence. We are a nation of illegal immigrants that claimed ‘manifest destiny’ and therefore took what we felt entitled to. We then forged a country, once we felt we were one nation, after killing for and stealing the land we could take, and now we defend it against ‘all threats, foreign and domestic’. Oddly enough, this country of illegals who created laws that established our citizenship are now showing a lack of clarity of how we feel about our lands with conflicting messages; the statue of liberty stands on one border as a wall is constructed on the other.

It is not unlike other times in history where this country has been confused about its identity. The very phrase of ‘all men created equal’ was written without certain men in mind, and of course women. Since our declaration of sovereignty we have molded the words and ideas we used as a credo to fit our own agenda. In the previous quote we redefined the word ‘all’ to fit our definition. This country is notorious throughout history to mold its words to fit its mission. We have never been a nation to really apologize for our mistakes in any real fashion, and we do the same now, fully contradicting the very thing that made this country great, immigration.

Other issues we can cite are feeling of civil rights throughout history. Women were great, as long as they stayed in the kitchen and out of the workplace. We were fine with them, on paper, until they wanted rights. Gays are the same way, we’re ok with them, in theory. No one is prejudice of course, we all are ‘tolerant’ of alternative lifestyles…until they want some rights. Now it’s hands across America to protect the sanctity of marriage; a sanctity with a divorce rate of more than 50% nationally. I guess we heterosexuals redefined the word ‘sanctity’ when the vows we took in front of GOD were seen as flexible. Or maybe it was the time we felt that, as a nation, blacks are fine to be free, but not in my schools. ‘Equal but separate’ was the name of the game, they were totally accepted, but not in white establishments or to receive white services. This kind of bigotry, racism, and sexism, is not dead today; these feelings and ideas have now been relegated to the closet right next to our feeling on foreigners with whom we are just fine, to a point.

In New York is the Statue of Liberty. The great green bitch that stands as a testament to this countries awe-some beginnings and resolve to truly be a free nation. She sits on Ellis Island, the largest immigrant reception point, in its time, where people streamed in off boats to try to secure a free life in America. From the Irish to the Italians and everywhere in between they came, and we accepted them without question. Our population became more immigrants than anything else; they were many ‘American born’ citizens after all. That statue was unveiled in 1886 and has stood ever since as a symbol of the strength, prosperity, and freedom that we are a beacon for. We hold her in the highest regard and like to think we hold to those same values that she represents…or do we?

While the statue of liberty stands as a symbol on one coast, the border fence between Mexico and America stands as another. Along the nearly 2,000 mile border we have been constructing a fence to keep Mexicans out. In 2008 it has been reported that about 345 miles of fence has been constructed. We have been actively pursuing the creation of a fence to keep people out of our country. This fence is supposed to keep out illegal immigrants as well as limit drug trafficking in and out of America. What it does is neither of those things with illegals pouring out of Mexico and drugs and drug related crimes actually rising in Mexico and our border regions. It s ineffective at best and a symbol of our change in ideals and moral compass as we now want to protect our interests and industry from these people wanting a new life on our shores…hmmm, seems not too long ago we were welcoming those same types of people.

I love this country, I do. America is one of a kind and despite her many, many flaws I would rather be a citizen nowhere else. I love the rights, freedoms, and beauty this country has to offer and appreciate that I don’t live in fear; I may live in a state of being nervous or angry sometimes, but that is a small price to pay for what it affords me. I did not immigrate to this country, I was born in San Diego…kind of like Tijuana though when you think about it. I did not earn my status as an American by doing anything but taking my first breaths on the shores of this country. Some have not been so fortunate and they want the same opportunities that I have gotten by default. I know this is a very complicated issue, a fiery, debatable one where no one is ever going to be ‘right’, but I think that it is something we need to take a good long look in the mirror to decide how we really feel.

My problem here is not the fence, it’s not the statue, it’s that they both stand simultaneously and we point to either one depending on the point we are trying to make. At Ellis Island there is an inscription that reads:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

You can read through this and seem the gleaming beacons of hope, acceptance, and promise, that this statue represented in us as a country during that era. Now it seems that we have become jaded and now this is ‘our land’ and we want to keep it that way. There is a sense of entitlement and protectiveness that we have lost since we first read, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free.” Now it seems we don’t want the masses, don’t care about you, the foreigner. The wall along the Mexican border runs roughshod over everything this country, and to a lesser extent, this statue represented in a golden age of truly free immigration in this, a country of great opportunity.

Now I know that in essence I am talking about ‘illegal’ immigrants from Mexico. There is a process, a whole BS system they need to go through, tests and oaths need to be taken, and they must wait patiently while the slow gears of the system churn out Visas and green cards. Well, I remember a few history books that never mentioned that BS at Ellis Island, when many of your ancestors immigrated here for a better life. I don’t ever remember that talk of learning about Presidents and American history to get in. As I understand it, at Ellis Island you registered a name, sometimes it got changed, and you made your mark, and then you were in. Welcome to America…what happened to that? That unregulated passage after seriously treacherous journeys are why we are the country we are. That influx of immigrants and hard working people just wanting a job and freedom are what literally built this country, brick by brick and beam by beam. The people that streamed in, that were welcomed to our shores are the reason we prospered, the reason we became a power, they are the life’s blood of our history; without them this country would not be half of what it is had we closed our borders or deported those people as we do now.

The advent of this idea of security mixed with fear and closet racism has created a duality in this country where we say one thing and mean another. You’re welcome to come in, on our terms though. These conflicting symbols speak to the complicated and partisan era we live in as we try desperately to live up to the ideals that founded this country while protecting what it is today. Without immigration this country simply would not exist, without the free-for-all mentality we took with immigration in the past, we wouldn’t be the relative super-power we have become. We cannot hold our heads high while the statue of liberty stands right along with the wall. Either we tear down the wall and look to her meaning and our history on how we handle immigration, or we throw a tarp over the statue of liberty; we aren’t living up to what she represents if we stay the course in relation to citizenship in this country. But now we seem content with where we are and now we want to close the book, keep people out, because there is this sense that they are stealing or ruining our country…Liberty’s inscription “With conquering limbs astride from land to land” represents these wide open arms bridging a gap that she fills; welcoming, safe arms to embrace “the homeless, tempest-tossed” upon her shores as they come. This is an image I no longer see in America. We no longer live up to her call for a land open to all to pursue happiness; we have failed her, and as a result we have failed ourselves. 

Well if it isn’t our old friend, the two-faced politician

or: Brown smartly appeals to younger voters, GOP entrenches for further in-fighting

The gloves have come off for the holidays; the season of pomp and cheer being replaced with an air of accusation and jeering. It seems that the three major candidates are already dealing with crises, the GOP candidates especially seem to still be trying to separate themselves from one another and, by smearing the next guy, trying to make it a vote that consists of just ‘not voting’ for the greater of the evils. Brown has had few PR issues and is now making some smart moves appearing at a fundraiser recently to get out and damage control the ‘recording scandal’ while Whitman and Poizner and both dealing with yet another round of unflattering facts coming out under scrutiny of the platforms and merit badges they point at to show their qualifications. So early in the campaign these candidates are already doing more repairs than improvements to their campaigns as this shapes up to be less of a ‘race to the Governor’s office’ and more of a pushing and shoving match to grab the last slice of pizza at a frat party.

Steve Poizner, third place GOP candidate with essentially no chance of winning even a ‘participant’ trophy at this point, has been cut down in some of his claims that, under his leadership as Insurance Commissioner, the state has seen a reduction to insurance costs to the tune of nearly $2 billion. Analysts at Consumer Watchdog seem to conclude that this figure really is inflated by $800 million since these cuts were set forth by Garamendi, Poizner’s predecessor. The Mercury News goes further to explain that Poizner, in fact, made some changes in May of 2008 to actually make it easier for insurance companies to hike up rates in certain sectors totaling $282 million in price increases. Poizner’s people, of course, defend his actions by saying that necessary changes were made and cite that the decreases of overall cost are factual, and no matter who initiated the changes, Poizner approved them and set them in motion.

Here is where you need to question the facts. There are facts that contradict one another under Poizner’s actual effect in his position. You could argue that he has simply been a custodian of the Garamendi legacy as insurance commissioner while doing little of his own work. It seems that Poizner’s people, as with all other candidates, cite facts, and they are facts, that paint him in a good light. They aren’t all out lies, what is more closely related to the reality of the situation is that the facts have been shaped and are stated as vague enough that you can’t call him a liar or a lame fish because he gets to tote the accomplishments of the office he hold and does not have to state what he has actually done. This creative manipulation of stats and facts shows up again when he beats the drum of cutting department cost by 15% overall and cutting staff by some 200 or so. Those numbers are a bit inflated and it seems that he should not be claiming this as his accomplishment being that the mandate for those cuts came down from legislature and the Governor due to the state deficit. So Poizner really should be claiming that he was able to operate within the constraints of a failing economy in California; he’s a good ‘Yes Man’.

Jerry Brown has faced a similar issue in the ‘recording scandal’ that was never really a scandal per say. Like Poizner’s claims being ambiguously inaccurate but not entirely a lie Brown has faced the same scrutiny in his poorly handled internal investigation of the incident that saw one of his senior aides resign. But Brown has chosen a very clever strategy of finally taking the offensive in fundraising and doing something that is entirely necessary in his campaign, he is reaching out to those that don’t remember ‘Brown’s California’…the young people. In a stroke of genius, in my opinion, the 71 year old Brown spoke at a club on the Sunset Strip to a group of 20, 30, and 40-somethings, called the Generation for Change. This is who he needed to reach out to, those that either were not alive or have no real recollection of what he did as Governor so long ago. This is a group of progressive professionals that may only be able to recall Brown in his ’92 bid for President, which failed, so it is vital that he reach out to this voting base and either change the impression they have of him, or give them an impression at all.

Brown, in ’92, ran on a campaign finance reform idea that he would accept a maximum of only $100 dollars from individuals and organizations; smartly he has abandoned this platform commenting that it is impossible to do this today in a state race and that if Whitman was willing to return the contributions to her campaign and take back the nearly $20 million of her own dollars she has spent then he would agree to a $100 maximum contribution rule for this election…unlikely though. Brown was able to get the group to laugh, he very creatively explained away claims that he changes all the time, “Well, if you are alive and if you are listening and you are growing, you will change, because the world is changing, and if you still were where you were before, you are dead.” He was able to outline the problems we face in California with a deficit, but he spoke to the fact we all seem to forget, that California has a state wealth of $1.6 trillion…it’s not all bad since our deficit is only about 1% of our overall wealth, this can be fixed.

I have to say here that I have a growing respect for the ‘campaigning Brown’. He is making a lot of good decisions thus far in so many different areas. The fact that he let Newsom burn himself out was a savvy decision on his part, to say the least. Brown has also now started to reach out to the younger voters with an air of charisma and has handled the recording scandal very well hushing it down to mere whispers. He is positioning himself with his record as a man of age, a career politician, that has changed with the times and is human in his maturing and changing over the years. It has to be said that he has also done a great job in highlighting issues of the election in a light of optimism and speaking in more constructive and positive terms, also avoiding name calling and negative ads, which can’t be said for his opponents. Brown is on a roll with great poll numbers and alliances with powerful players to get through the primaries unopposed and unscathed. When the debates start is when he may be tested, but by then there will be so much negative press for his opponents that it seems he will have no problem cutting them down as inexperienced opportunists with very negative, short histories in his beloved state.

Now we come to Meg Whitman…wow, this woman is running an insane campaign right now that seems to keep springing leaks that money can’t plug. Most recently she has had to contend with tax returns that only further highlight her inabilities as a recent conservative convert and business woman. Recent tax returns show that a foundation she is a director of contributed $200,000 dollars to the Environmental Defense Agency in the struggling delta of California. This is the same group that, since running for Governor, she has criticized and come out against as an opponent of development and farming jobs. She gave the group she is campaigning against money to support them, odd to say the least. Being that she only recently started voting, and the fact the only more recently she registered republican, in addition to he funding of projects she now opposes shows she is trying to pander to the conservative right to get in to office without regard for what she really believes.

If this weren’t enough two other facts have come out to destroy her claim of being a savvy business woman. I have written before of her poor record of running Ebay in the last few years at the company, nearly ruining Skype, and now there is more facts to support this claim. As with many different foundations in 2008 it took a bit of a hit with the failing markets, but her foundation took it particularly hard, at the rate of nearly 50% loss of equity. This might have something to do, though, with the fact that about 79% of the company’s value was represented in Ebay stock at the start of 2008, by the end the number was closer to 15%. This coincides oddly with her sitting on the board of directors at Ebay until late 2008. at the start of the year stock value was at about $33 a share, when she left they sat at under $15, since she left Ebay entirely they have seen an increase of stock value to nearly $24 a share under the direction of new acting CEO Donahue. A weird coincidence to say the least; though some losses were inevitable in 2008, under her direction in the last few years, during a national crisis, she has not performed well to stop financial blood letting in ventures she participates in. Anyone can succeed in a good times, but we need someone who can succeed during crisis, her record speaks for itself on this front.

Where we find ourselves is at a point when the three big names in the campaign are at very different points of decision. I feel that Meg’s projected $150-million dollar campaign will get her to the general election, but that is simply because her GOP rivals just cannot compete with her name recognition and propaganda team. Brown will skate to the general election with ease and he has yet to officially be in the race. Poizner has some serious soul searching to do as he is not closing the lead Whitman has and has no chance against Brown if he made it to the general election. Poizner should try to save face, dropping out soon, and reload for a position in the state people give a crap about before he jumps in to the Governor’s race. The primaries will embarrass Poizner as Campbell and Whitman enjoy very large leads over him now, and Campbell has done less than anyone!

I think that the opportunistic, flawed politics of the GOP candidates is going to fail, it is not genuine and they will not be able to contend with Brown’s views and record as things like immigration, reform, and a history of service in California come in to play. Poizner and Whitman will lose some of the conservative base with their history and their position on abortion that pandering and flip flopping on other views won’t make up for. The hubris of the rich elitists will not sway the people of California when matched against the life of service Brown has tucked up his sleeve; this is the Achilles Heel that will become apparent as middle american California hits the voting booths.