"Gonzo" Skip Gates

First, Obama did himself and the nation NO favors by answering the question received on the Skip Gates & Cambridge P.D. (CPD) incident.

Onto the incident. Through all the reports I think some things are able to be stipulated and this is how I think this went down:

Gates tried breaking into his own home with some help from a driver. Woman saw two men trying to break in the back door of house, called the CPD.

Gates got in the house, the driver left. I'm sure at this point, with all this annoyance with getting into his own house without his keys, Gates was already frustrated and ready to pop.

CPD roll up to the house, and ring the doorbell. An already agitated Gates is quick to get snippy and not wanting to show some ID because it is his house. Reluctantly shows his ID to CPD, with either the tacit implied notification that the CPD would then go away, or the CPD told him they just needed to see his ID and they'd be on their way (you know the old cop trick of asking just to see one thing, then it's another one thing, then another...). I think it's entirely fair for them to ask for his ID and for them to run a background check on a car computer of via dispatch. Just because your address is a match on your ID, doesn't mean you're always allowed to be there. Think restraining orders.

When the CPD doesn't go away, Gates already agitated, tired, wanting to go to bed, loses his cool; He begins shouting at the CPD because he feels he's being persecuted and thus, starts to make a scene.

Thing is, he is inside his house; Where it seems you can legally yell and be completely obnoxious to a cop. At some point the CPD walks out of the house...hold on...this was either on their own accord, or they asked Gates to take the discussion outside according to some reports...my guess is the former. Therefore, I think Gates, still angry as piss, follows them out of his house to finish giving them a piece of his mind.

I think this was a case of racial profiling. However, NOT by the CPD, but by the woman who phoned into the CPD in the first place.

Gates, in my view, clearly overreacted to epic proportions. However, when the CPD found out who he was, they should have left him alone. Walk away.

Both sides have tremendous egos, but the CPD had an obligation to walk away. That was their only misstep.

Healthcare Heartache Healing

Fixing our health care system is a hot topic that has the potential to make massive positive changes in the lives of perhaps hundreds of millions of Americans, and make the health care system run more efficiently and effectively for all. For the Record: All the bitching about government bureaucrats running health care from Washington is bogus argument, when private bureaucrats in for-profit insurance companies are deciding whether you can get even the most simple treatments for a cold sore.

Many solutions are being put forth by many well-meaning, and some not-so-well meaning people (*cough* big pharma *cough*).

The buzz if out there that we will not be able to snag a single-payer type of health care system. While, I am not inclined enough to cleanly give an opinion that I would feel firm about (yes, I realize this fact hasn’t stopped me in the past, nor will it in future), I am posting here to attack one idea that has been floated out there, something that Obama and his administration seems to embrace. I believe I recall him touting this idea during the campaign, so I would bet this will be in any health care legislation passed.

This idea is reflective of a pattern seen in my field of choice: education. The prevalence of using test scores of students to “reward good teachers” is unfortunately become a reality in some districts, or is on track to become as such.

Now we have the following idea in health care from the USA Today: “Reward doctors and hospitals not just for how many procedures they perform but how well their patients fare.” This idea sounds fantastic! I admit I liked it initially at first, but upon further reflection and analysis, there are significant drawbacks in my opinion that do not necessarily address some problems within health care.

Two other quick hits from the article:

“One of every four heart failure patients and slightly less than one in five heart attack and pneumonia patients land back in the hospital within 30 days, data show.” – A clear hazard of running a health care system for profit & having literally no focus on prevention. As people who have these problems aren't sufficiently supervised post-op and are often sent home too early.

“…patients have higher death rates at hospitals in the nation's poorest and smallest counties, compared with those in larger, more affluent areas.” – Similar to the problem w/ testing in education. (Yes, there are those examples of poor, inner city schools who are shining and getting a great %age of their students to pass their standardized tests, but they are far from the norm. Moreover, those who say the teachers at the other school in the inner city who aren’t able to get good testing schools are “failing” really don’t get the pathology of the inner city student and inner city life (I don’t either, given I am a white boy from middle America)) But, the bigger, better hospitals that have more money to pay the best doctors are, of course, more likely to have better a lower death rate.

Not only are the doctors more likely better and more experienced, those areas with more affluent socioeconomic status are also more likely to have healthier patients to begin with. Even more so, they are more likely to follow doctor’s orders via prevention (eating/exercise habits), and they are more likely to be able to follow doctor’s orders.

By instituting this policy, it would cause these already struggling hospitals to struggle even more when they don’t get MORE government funding. The system in America continues to be ass backwards. Two examples:

1. The credit industry charges lower interest rates to the rich who can easily make their payments, while they screw low-income people with ridiculous rates and make it incredibly hard for them to gain equity and capital.

2. Some proposals in education "reform" include hitting those failing schools whose students don't pass those stupid standardized tests with lower government funding.

Finally, there was also a report out yesterday noting the rate of mistakes made every year in hospitals by doctors and other staff that cause injury or even death. We MUST insist on further funds to encourage young people to encourage them to go into doctoring and nursing (just like Obama has discussed doing for education). There is an incredible shortage of doctors and nurses, and we haven’t hit the big boom from those damn Baby Boomers yet. These people are often overworked because there is such a shortage, and any legislation should give allowances for these grants and also some mandatory working hour limitations. I would argue most hospital mistakes are made because the people are ridiculously tired and have too many patients to keep track of. They need relief and we should demand they get it.

Three Convenient Arguments/Issues

1. Life really does start the minute the sperm enters and fertilizes the egg.

- As a pro-choice advocate, people of my ilk tend to argue that life doesn't begin until the child breaths after coming out of the birth canal. This is clearly balderdash, and anyone with a brain knows that life begins at fertilization. The argument goes that even though the egg is fertilized, it cannot have sustainable life outside of the womb. This is true, but it's still a VERY young human being.The proverbial bubble boy from a Seinfeld episode is a human being, he doesn't cease to be a human being simply because he can't live outside his bubble (much like a womb).

2. Violence on TV really does do damage to youngin's.

- As a massive free speech advocate, being the one issue I would be willing to die a fiery death for, I have always argued the position that television has no effect on young children when they are watching it. However, I have always believed this is false. My problem, and why I support those who argue this falsehood, is censoring television is NOT the right answer. Proper parenting is.

3. Whether or not being a homosexual is a choice really doesn't matter.

- Liberals and activists for homosexuals generally argue that being gay is not a choice. I happen to think this argument is moot. However, I support those who make the argument that being gay isn't a choice, it's ingrained at birth. This is the only clear way to battle the religious whack jobs in this country.

A Liberal's Affirmation

Since I started this humble blog, and ever since I've been talking politics smack...I have argued that as a bloke from the "Heartland," I knew the thinking behind right-wing wackos.

I have also argued that left wingers need to chill the fuck out when it comes to harassing Presidents we liberals are more similar to: Clinton & Obama.

Liberals are at a voting disadvantage of people who identify themselves as such. The data proves it via a new press release on some poll data.

Now, this could be a reflection of the word "liberal" being considered a dirty word by a large chunk of Americans due to the fantastic branding of the word by the Republican party and some people who actually hold a large portion of liberals views, but they can't bring themselves to face the reality that they are in fact liberals.

Tangent: I hate republicans, but they do know how to use language to brand something in such a way that liberals/democrats have never been able to match...we don't have quite the stomach for the cheap distortions the right is so willing to participate in...despite my pleas.

However, despite this effective branding, I think that this the poll shows a largely accurate picture of the political leanings and views of America's body politic. This country continues to lean right, although those days are numbered as the baby boomers go down the death trail of religious-wacko-tears.

White Men, Black people, Gays, & a movie

“Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner” – a great movie released in 1967 with the legendary Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn.

Also, a movie I think a majority of Americans still need to see today, as the attitudes addressed in this movie and the undercurrents addressed are still gnawing at the fabric of this great country.

Not, that I had any doubt about this, as I have always spoken out against the irrational, moronic people on the extreme right who think anyone not white and male MUST be taking SOMETHING from them…it has to be!

Moreover, I would love to see a studio re-make/re-format this movie and instead put two gay men or two lesbian women in this situation. Just to address the same type of prejudice and attitudes found in the original screenplay.

Transgendered law takes a hit

The Calif. State Supreme Court = douchebags.

The California voters said they didn't want gay marriage, so you went with it eh? If they voted to re-enslave all African Americans, would that be okay too? This ruling is sloppy, lazy, and bad law that will likely be used as precedent in some other ruling.

This totally lame ruling has set back transgendered rights in this country...

The Paradox of the Black Vote

Proposition 8 in California and 2 others like it in other states passed.

These banned gay marriage. There is a paradox of the black vote in America.

The jesus-loving black people who fought bigotry, racism, and brought this country to it's epic accent with the election of Barack Obama...are bigots themselves...bigots against gay people.

It's a sad sight to see really. These people, this group of people full of fortitude for generations have allowed themselves to become what they fought so hard against, just in another facet.

The huge turn-out in the black vote essentially doomed any chance of these referendums failing...ensuring gay rights would continue to be set back.

I hate jesus freaks for sure, and these great people, these blacks who have fought against persecution and hanging for generations sadden me and frustrate my rational mind. Religion, used for years against black people, is such a bitch.

I concur completely

In this article entitled, "The Huxtable Effect..." by ALISA VALDES-RODRIGUEZ highlights the effect of The Cosby Show on a generation of young people.

This is me. My favorite show when I was a kid was the Cosby Show and it's still one of my favorite all-timers. If I catch it late at night surfing around it only take a few minutes to recall the episode events and occasionally, I can recite lines.

I have come over the years to firmly believe that this show largely shaped my worldview and my politics. Being raised in a conservative, church-loving house, who didn't really care or concern themselves about world events...I am the antithesis of that from which I grew up.

I am an atheist, liberal Democrat, who thinks more macro than micro when it comes to my worldview.

Blue-Dog Democrats –vs- Progressives

During the Democratic convention, there was an argument played out between the Blue-dog Democrat and the Progressive Democrat mythology of campaigning (at least on the TV punditocracy patrol). The two competing wings of the party strain to claim their hold on the direction of the party, while trying to win the White House.

These two camps in the Democratic party are at odds. Progressives (like the fantastic Ms. Maddow) contend that the Democratic Party haven’t proposed real reforms, spoken “the truth,” and thus, they keep losing elections.

The other camp, the Blue-Dog Democrats, contend the party must be more moderate and tone down the gay rights, anti-gun language/rhetoric, in order to appeal to the center of the country and not appear so out of touch with “traditional American values.”

Let’s take a long, hard, self-reflective look at which wing's argument of the Democratic Party holds more water with their current idea of how to affect change in this country by electing Democrats to the White House consistently (term after term):

Blue-Dog Democrats – centrist (Democratic Leadership Council) Democrats who are like former President Bill Clinton. Triangulation, and offering modest reforms (step-by-step) is the best way to not only bolster the parties hold on power, but to also enact meaningful change that can take hold while maintaining power long-term.

Progressives – Democrats who are socially liberal and populist type in nature. Raise taxes on the wealthiest portions of the population to distribute the wealth more fairly…almost a socialism kind of thing. Support those inner city communities and provide programs to help those people dig their way out of poverty.

There are many reasons why the Democrats haven’t won more than 1 Presidential election (I don’t count Bill’s 2nd win) since 1978: this B-squared (blow-hard blogger) has a unique perspective to draw from, and I believe I know the real reasons for failure and how Dems can hold that important Presidential power and why the Presidency is the most important political office that Dems must be willing to give up virtually anything to get that office.

Why is the Presidency the most important office to hold?

** It goes to the modes of change in the history of this country. Change in this country, traditionally and historically, has come in one of two forms: 1. Supreme Court Rulings and 2. a popular President using the bully pulpit to call upon the people or make a case for a specific change. A political party can hold both houses of Congress by massive majorities, but without a President to sign a bill they are largely screwed and still don’t have the pulpit to address the people with one, consistent voice. Even with no control over Congress by vote, the President’s party holds significant power by setting the agenda and being able to allow bills to even get to the floor much less a vote on them.

1. The Presidency must be goal number one, above all else. If we want sweeping “Progressive” reforms (eg: Brown –vs- Board of Education, Roe –vs- Wade), the Supreme Court is the easiest, fastest why to force people to change in a radical way. However, this method is a long-term approach that is largely untenable. It is also a potentially divisive method, as we shall recall previous examples of SC rulings.

2. The other way to bring consistent change via Presidency is through enacting step-by-step reforms. When teaching children, we teach small steps to build upon small steps in order to effect a change of skill level. What we don’t do is give students a number line, review the names of the numbers, and then say “Time to start adding!” No, no, no. You skipped the step of explaining what the numbers mean. America will not vote consistently for a candidate who calls for radical ideas/reforms (eg: giving gays the right to marry). This country is not built to make such changes voluntarily and will be easily deterred for supporting such a candidate by the demonizing opposition.

* My unique perspective comes from growing up in “the Heartland” of America, while still holding these far left views. When you grow up in these Republican areas (the state I hail from has voted Republican for president for years on end) you get to know HOW these people think, even if you come to despise it. The old axiom here (of sorts, I don’t recall exact wording) holds true: “To know thine enemy is to defeat thine” enemy”, or “hold your friends close and your enemies closer.” The progressives don’t get the enemy, they don’t understand their enemy…they believe that if they just explain their positions, they can defeat/win-over the rural American, white voter.

Whoever said “the truth shall set you free” was right, but it is not applicable in the case the progressives want it to be. Their truth, they believe will set these rural voters “free,” but do they really want to be “free,” and their definition of “free” stands in stark contrast to what progressives would interpret “free” to be.

Onto the reasons why the Democratic Party has failed to achieve the Presidency:

1. THE MESSAGE – Look I am a progressive liberal. I want marriage rights for gays, I want to legalize marijuana, I want broad abortion rights, education about sex in schools, free condoms, legalizing and regulating sex workers of all stripes, complete removal of any mention of any “God” in public and on our currency…but the Progressives are like OCGM….they don’t get it.

I love the liberals, the “crazy” liberals (like Sen. Barbara Boxer, Sen. Diane Feinstein, Florida’s Robert Wexler, Ms. Maddow, Mr. Olbermann). I would most likely vote for them any day of the week and twice on Sunday’s. But, what they have never understood or refuse to “get” is that you don’t win national elections with those types of views in today’s America.

Progressives - Like it or not, you must play to the middle of the country in order to win voters in a national election, as Bill Clinton did in 1992 (but, even then, Perot helped him a ton). We can get the change we believe in, the change we support, the change the people stuck in lower middle class need, but it can only come through a massive wave (5-6) of Supreme Court nominees, or through incremental change that shows those resistant middle America voters that all WILL be okay if you open the door a creak. And creak-by-creak we can get what we want. But by going for all the marbles at once with someone too progressive, too liberal, we make it far to easy for them to shriek with fear of the unknown.

It is also apparent to this blogger that (as I believe I have also written somewhere on this blog) the right-wing has a much easier case to pitch with. Trying to explain a federal bureaucracy is infinitely tougher than saying, “They are stealing your money for their pet projects, so lets lower taxes and get our money back.”

It is also apparent to this blogger that Democrats have consistently done a shitty job of clearly explaining how lowering taxes for individuals and families can come back and cause higher taxes from the state you live in, and higher costs for car/house maintenance because the roads are worse, which causes more accidents and general automobile problems. Democrats have also done a shitty job nationwide election cycle after election cycle of clearly/concisely explaining how those low prices at Shit-Mart lead to lower paying jobs, and jobs being shifted overseas to keep profits up. In short, the Democratic Party has been abysmal at demonstrating that lower taxes will result in higher costs elsewhere that will retard their quality of life.

2. ORGANIZATION – democrats are also perennial losers in national elections because their organizations are not nearly as streamlined as the republican bases is…it can’t be. First, the republicans build through churches, and rural Americans who support more conservative views tend not to move out of their house, thus making them easier to find. Liberals, who tend to live in or near big metropoli, are more transient, and harder to keep track of. Moreover, progressives are so diverse in their views, interests due to the endless possibilities in the metropolis that they don’t tend to join a huge homogeneous group like rural church-goers.

Unions have traditionally been strong allies for organizing support for democrats, but that has shown to not be either reliable enough to get those voters to turn out (which I wouldn’t think is true), or more likely, unable to get the large numbers of voters the church’s get. Moreover, union jobs have vanished at a dramatic pace, and even these people are also typically in working class areas (eg: car factories) in the rural areas, which have some of those votes stripped by the social church group issues.

Republicans are great at cranking out their base vote, and it has helped for many, many elections nationwide. This is another reason why Dems have been unsuccessful.

3. CAMPAIGN TACTICS/STRATEGERY – perhaps my biggest gripe of all with the “Progressive” wing of the party. Every single time I hear from these people, they want to run a principled, decent, above-board campaign…which is why we keep losing.

Politics, as they say, is the ultimate American blood sport. But, the high and mighty left wing of the party refuses to acknowledge this fact and work within the full parameters of the current system, whether you like the system or not (this blogger has made clear in previous posts that he hates the system as is).

The right wing is exceptionally good at attacking Democrats negatively. “Liberal” has become a dirty word. “Progressive” has become a dirty word. We have been branded as “soft.” Liberals often say they won’t “lower themselves” to match the tactics of the Republicans. Therein lies the essential problem.

No one likes negative political ads. But, again this election year, we have seen they are effective and damaging. Obama, who should be easily winning this election in the polls, and had a massive lead over OCGM, has seen his lead shrink to miniscule levels, if not go below OCGM. Why did this happen? OCGM, and Dubya in 2000/2004 to Gore then Kerry, did exactly what they know how to do: They ran negative ads subtly and not so subtly calling Obama un-American, and un-patriotic, and a Muslim.

The Democratic Party and its candidates have been pathetic when it comes to attacking their opponent. Moreover, they’ve been overly nice and deferential when attacking their opponent. As I’ve called for on this blog before, the Democrats MUST grow some gonads and run negative ads that hit hard on the nominee of the day.

Even if it’s not negative ads, Democrats need to be better at framing an issue. What was the inheritance tax, is now called the death tax because some Republicans focus-grouped how to re-frame the issue and make it a winner. Democrats have sucked at this for years, and we need to be better at being able to effectively re-name something that suits the progressive ideals. Progressives need to not be so high and mighty on their totem pole and demand that any Presidential Campaign they support must run on the highest of ethical principles possible. I’m all for campaign ethics reform, but by not playing dirty like Republicans you lose a ton of ground by not running negative, nasty ads back at them. Middle Americans want someone who is going to fight for them and what they need. But, how can they support a candidate who shows no fight, no spine…not even for him/herself? Middle Americans see weak candidates when Democrats go the high and mighty route, not to mention them being offended by the mere suggestion that a campaign is better than them (which is what it sounds like to these voters). It sounds elitist, and smug…something which turns off Middle America.


4. PATHOLOGICAL FACTORS – Democrats have demonstrated again and again that they do not understand the pathology of the Middle American voter. Pathology, defined as “the structural and functional deviations from the normal that constitute disease or characterize a particular disease,” in this case the disease refers to the life of a rural voter, is what defines the behavior of an organism. It defines and determines the thinking of an animal. It is, essentially, their worldview. Not understanding the enemy’s worldview has been a damning and harsh reality the Democratic Party has had to live with for low these many decades.

Growing up in that pathology that was constantly reinforced by the culture surrounding my young childhood, allows me to greater understand their worldview (how they think and why they think it). Some of this is not rocket science; It’s basic knowledge you can get from an entry-level freshman college psychology course.

As mentioned earlier, people tend to fear the most what they do not understand, and people do not understand how the federal government can work for them and make their lives better. They are afraid of the federal government (in reality, they should be afraid of the feds, so I can’t blame there) because they don’t understand how it really works. What they believe to be true about the federal government has been largely taught by right-wing propaganda, because (and this goes back to number 1) they have been more effective at getting their message out.

The pathology of the white Middle American voter is not a complex one to grasp. These are largely simple people with simple views and sorry to state, simple minds. They see broad change as a dangerous threat to their livelihood. These are people who can accept small changes at a time, if you frame it the right way and don’t attempt to shove it down their throats.

Looking back at desegregation brought about by the Supreme Court, which is the one way that we can have sweeping change in this country. People fought that for generations because they were shoved into it; Hell, some in the wacko-south still gather young white men and feed them psychological poison, telling them that black people are not the equal of the white man. The confederate flag is SLOWLY dying and going away as the older generation, but young at the precipice of that historical change in this country, are dying off. The late Sen. Strom Thurmond, risen from the dead and given some sodium pentothal, would still most likely harbor the same KKK-type views he held for decades. He just masked it better as he got older.

I am not calling Middle Americans (rural voters, lower middle class voters) KKK members in hiding. I am merely demonstrating that they don’t take to radical change well at all and it is more likely that you win them over with solid reasoning, a plea for equality, a plea to their better nature, and concrete ways that changing X policy will benefit them now and their children of the future.

This is why the Progressive message will never appeal to these voters…yes, I said never. Progressives (including me) want to move to fast, to quickly, and it makes these voters cautious that the Democratic Party is trying to pull the wool over their eyes and take their guns, let gay people have sex in public gardens, and hold flag burnings in the town square every weekend. Naturally cautious these people are, so it is best to provide baby steps of progress.

5. OVERALL – one final thing to note here is the idea of recurrence. I say recurrence in the sense that with following the Clinton/triangulation/Blue Dog Democrats plan short term, we can build a strong case and well of support for Progressivism long-term.

These voters don’t trust government because they don’t get the machinery of it, but they also don’t support it because it has failed them in the past. Why has it failed? Democrats who may have gained power based on promises of grand plans (sweeping reforms), put into place plans to address problems for real people, but that takes time to set up, and the republicans come along 4 years later and lay out their simple, effective message: Democrats have taken tons of your money, have you seen any benefits from it? Invariably the answer is “No.” Not just because it takes time, but because Republicans who may hold power in the Congress impede this progress. Remember the shut-down during the Clinton years that inevitably caused Monica-gate? That was because the Republicans, who had control, refused to deal with Clinton and screwed him and the Democratic party in the long run by killing themselves in the short run.

This causes voters in these areas to give up and vote Republican to get their money back from the government because they didn’t see any benefits from the money they gave. And whatever benefits they did see, they don’t really see it because Democrats fail to keep on message (back to #1).

By giving up, this causes the collapse of these programs in their infancy (eg: Welfare to Work, HeadStart) despite demonstrating great results.

Following the Blue-Dog Democrat approach we make/enact/implement small reform after small reform that shows that when implemented properly, the programs we enact do benefit whitey in America. As the momentum builds and Middle America starts to see the progress and how it’s not destroying their lives, but making their lives better, they will be more likely to raise children who see those benefits and support such causes, while parents will be slowly brought into the fold.

This is how you build a base of support, a base of disciples, a base of indoctrinated people. You start with small, but meaningful reforms that soften up the voter, and prove to be enriching to them, and that in turn, creates the positive vibes for deeper, longer lasting reform. All of which can put America on a path to Progressive values in a generation.

These are the reasons why this left-wing liberal who supports those crazy causes highlighted within this post, supported the moderate (perhaps even conservative) Hillary Clinton as the Presidential nominee. I didn’t like Hillary because of her views, because of some sick man-love for Bill (tho, I do love Bill)…I supported her because she met all the criteria to be ELECTED to the White House. Most importantly, perhaps, given this 24/7 media/news cycle with bloggers, the attack chops to fight, fight, fight.

Progressives, in the short term have consistently been pushing a seriously flawed argument for getting Democrats into the White House in a consistent manner.

The Blue-Dog Democrats (& DLC), while I despise many of them (eg: Harry Reid, John Murtha, Evan Bayh) for their lack of leadership on several issues, have the right idea…Democrats all-around have just done an abysmal job of addressing reasons for failure #1-4.

The Progressives need to step aside for the time being and let the Blue-Dogs do their work. The Progressives are sabotaging the work done by Blue-Dogs year after year with their outrageous rhetoric and infighting within the party that doesn’t allow the party to speak with one, consistent voice. And speaking loudly, clearly, effectively, and forcefully with one, consistent voice is how you frame issues, and win Presidential elections.

We do have better ideas. We do. But better ideas, not explained well, and not fought for, are worth nothing. The Democratic Party can do better for itself, and can do better for America’s lower middle class if they are given a chance to do so.

The every 4 years running debate I have going

I have a friendly debate every 4 years with someone I'll call: Oregonman.

We have a recurring debate and speak to each other roughly every 4 years just in time for the Presidential elections. We have had this debate running on 8 years, and through what is now our third Presidential campaign (2000, 2004, & 2008).

He is one of those Progressive types who doesn’t get it. His dream candidate in 2004 and this election year was Dennis Kucinich…the very liberal House Representative from Ohio. Aside from the fact that the man doesn’t look Presidential at all (and campaigns are becoming more about optics/stagecraft), his issues are so left that were he to be elected by the Democratic Party for President, he would be easily beat in a landslide of epic proportions. The young vote, (who has yet to consistently show up to vote - something that worries me about Obama) who supported him, would be thrilled with him as a candidate. However, he is easily painted by the right-wing as a guy who will raise your taxes, take your guns, remove all morality from everyday life, etc, etc, etc. He would have ZERO chance because of the reasons outlined in my ridiculously long-ass post.

Oregon-man doesn’t get it. He believes, misguidedly so, that if Kucinich would just be able to get his message out to the masses…his views/proposals would be so convincing people will show up at the polls in droves. Almost a Dick Cheney-like thinking of “we’ll be greeted as liberators” when he talked about the Iraqi people pre-invasion. It’s pure utopia…pure sycophantic view. Let’s assume Democrats got over all the hurdles and Kucinich was able to get his message out consistently, cleanly, without bias from the Republicans; People wouldn’t be showing up in drives to support this message of Kucinich and people of his ilk…they’d be showing up in droves screaming, “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!! We don’t want gay rights!!! Legalizing drugs? Are you insane?????”

Sometimes people aren’t ready for a message, even if it’s the right message. Progressives who continue to pursue this strategy are only continuing to hurt the prospects of a successful Democratic Party.

Think like a lower middle class, Middle American, white voter who is afraid of change. Step-by-step is the only rational, reasonable, effective, and winnable way to carry the Democratic message.

A new guard

There is now talk of the car companies going to the Fed to get "help," just as did Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

There has got to be a way to changed this system. Has to be a new way to measure if a company is doing well, not just for it's stockholders, but for the long-term health of the country.

Stockholders want profit, thus CEO's need profit and are given great incentive to "cook" the books when they're consistently given millions of dollars.

Perhaps there's some way to establish a base salary for each big CEO of a company as such. Then put any "bonuses" they may get into some type of escrow account where they cannot have meaningful access to it for say...5 years, to give some proof that what they did, the steps they took bore out in the end. Or if they didn't, some type of monetary penalty can be deferred from this escrowed balance and a check can be cut after this supposed 5 years.

It's almost like they do in construction. Have the building built, on budget, within a given time frame, with all the inspections done, and you get a big bonus at the end. However, as we are seeing with the new Redskins' football stadium, there is now a pending lawsuit between the contractor who said he earned the bonus cash, and the owner who apparently is being a tight-wad jackass and refusing to pay.

But, then who would be the judge(s) of such a system, and how would they not be subject to being bought off (eg: mobsters)? And what would be to stop the next CEO from tanking the company just to screw over the guy he replaces. Not normally a problem, I suppose. But in the situation over at Disney between Eisner and Iger (I believe it was, Eisner's potential successor who left Disney) was so bitter one got the feeling that they'd rather stab themselves and the other in the back than to give any credit to the other.

There has to be a way. It's a damn shame to screw autoworkers who were "guaranteed" lifetime coverage by the company and to have that stripped away, and then adding insult to injury, the company comes to the Fed for a payout?...I think not!

Any American car company seeing a bail-out should be laughed out of the office. I apologize to those people who will SERIOUSLY be economically hurt by this, but I suspect most of the real damage has already been done. I am fine with picking up their health-care tab, as I assume we basically are already.

But, to the American car-makers who insist, in fact, persist, to make shitty cars, with shitty gas mileage...fuck 'em. Their product has been shit for going on 20 years and if they are too myopic to see that, then that's their problem.

Honda, Toyota are two of the most selling cars in America now? Why? Because they are cheaper?...hardly. It's because they are damn good cars that can be counted on by-and-large for a good 200,000 miles. Moreover, they don't build 50 different cars over 10 different brands, they do what they do and they do it well.

Why are Mercury, Buick, Dodge, Chrysler even brands anymore? How much money is wasted building Mercury's that never sell? No matter how popular Mr. Woods may be, he doesn't make me want a frickin' Buick either. The entire brand of Dodge is a complete farce, they in and of themselves are a complete joke. And Chrysler is so bad, even Mercedes couldn't save it.

Just like the airlines. They got to big for their own good. Their service went to shit, their planes went to shit, and now their companies are going to...you guessed it...shit.

Good riddance.

A serious WTF?!?! Obama moment

According to this report from Bloomberg news, Obama has outspent McCain to a ridiculous portion.

To which I say...how the fuck can this be?!?! That said, all I mostly see in this market are negative ads from McCain, and a few puff ads from Obama.

This is the core of the problem. Obama talks sweet, he's cute...he's lovely...he wants to run a "different kind of campaign"...well, congrats you jackass...to paraphrase Dubya, "You're doin' a heckuvah job Obama."

Negative ads work...how many times must Liberals be smashed over the bleeping head to get this simple message.

John Kerry didn't get it until it was too late, and it appears Obama isn't getting it either.

Negative ads are smarmy, crass, rude, nasty, un-American...but dammit, they have been proven election cycle after election cycle to work and work VERY well.

THIS is exactly why many of us were supporters of Hillary. She could take a hay-maker, and she could throw one right back.

McCain has spent scant money on negative ads that were inflammatory, un-American, and have been full of utter lies. But, by doing so, McCain has torn down Obama and gotten free advertising on primetime political shows because they are so inflammatory.

No matter how many times Campbell Brown, Brian Williams, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, or even a FoxSnooze person say these ads are PATENTLY bullshit...white-bred America will naturally assume they are just another part of the liberal media and will believe and take hold of un-challenged accusations.

Congrats Obama. You have wasted $57 million dollars on cute, little, puff pieces that did NOTHING. Hope you start swinging the proverbial bat like a mother-fucker.

For if you don't...it will be Kerry all over again. And this SLAM DUNK of an election that should have been, will MURDER the Democratic party as it stands, and it will set back civil rights/liberties for a century (via the inevitable right-wing nut-jobs McCain will appoint to the Supreme Court to give the Republican base more appeasement).

You wanted the future of our country in your hands Obama...you now have it. The future is up to you...it's all up to you.

I plead you: Start getting nasty, and do it quick.

Autism Spectrum Disorder & the Public

An interesting article popped up on MSNBC.com today about Autism.

Adam Race, a teen who weighs over 200 pounds, was recently banned from his families' church (I cannot pass at taking a free jab at those damned Christians who continue to not practice what they preach). A judge upheld the ban on Adam, citing the Priest's claims of some behaviors that would most people would consider to be very disruptive.

I'm not here to argue Adam should be allowed back in the church; His mother, Carol, says the claims were exaggerated, but who knows really?

I will, however, continue to be amazed by the sheer stupidity of parents in this country. There are clearly some Autistic students who should NOT be taken into general public areas by the parents, but there are some who can handle such things.

If the claims were true about the peeing his pants, I can see the church's case. However, kicking a student out of church because he occasionally makes loud noises and may bolt for the doors as soon as church is over...these are lame excuses. It's called compassion you Christian asshats!! It must have been widely known within the church that Adam had some problems, and people who attend said church would know to ignore his flare-ups when they occurred. Moreover, they could have dismissed church for Adam and his family first before everyone else, that way he didn't "run people over."

If his mother/family didn't let the church know about Adam's diagnosis, then they made a serious mistake. Parents with children identified with Autism MUST take some responsibility here both for their children, and for the public to be aware.

Finally, as noted earlier in this post, there are some students who are so afflicted with the disorder that they become untenable to take into public (I worked with a little girl who I would never take into public without some strong adult reinforcements). But, the comments of Jason Goldtrap, who has a brother identified with Autism, is a total duchebag.

He's right that there is a place for institutional supports/centers, but when he talks about his brother who seems reasonably self-sufficient and able to identify that he wants to stay out and about...there's a disconnect in his brain where I don't think he "gets" the difference between functional Autism and non-functional Autism (not real words, but my made up type of diagnosis). Also, it is clear that some changes need to be made when it concerns Goldtrap's older nephew (who he says is 21), saying that there are times the police need to be called because he gets so violent.

This is another facet of how the health care insurance and general industry are screwing Americans. There should be some insurance funding there to get this 21 year old some help.

Bottom Line: As always, parents need to have some freaking discretion and take some responsibility for the health and well-being of their children. Socialization is an important goal for Autistic students, but not when it becomes violent and overly disruptive.

Bush will fail this test too...AGAIN!

As Russian forces obliterate the independent state of Georgia, they wonder where the West is at.

Ironically, Georgia was one of the real members of the "Coalition to Liberate Iraq," being the country to come in 3rd place when providing resources when the US Government called.

So, guess what? Now it's our turn to help them. I predict Dubya will wave buh-bye to the Georgians, and watch them go down in flames...literally. I'd hate to get into a pissing match with Russia (another "Cold War"), but we should help these people with whatever we can, as soon as we can.

Content Rules & TCOMM Act of '96

Perhaps the biggest disappointment for me during the Clinton Administration (beyond “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”) was the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCOMM) that he passed. I have a feeling that, in retrospect, he even may regret this decision now, though that is pure speculation on my part given that Bill came in being a free-trade kinda guy.

The TCOMM was a horrific piece of legislation that essentially deregulated the entertainment industry. Business “advocates” (*cough* lobbyists) argued that this would be good for consumers. They argued the same lame arguments they always throw out: Increased competition, lower prices, better customer service, etc.

And what have US consumers gotten the past dozen years since the inception of this albatross? Let’s see:

1. The small baby bells and other small companies that were doing great work were swallowed up by the big boys and assimilated. Eliminating any real sense of competition.

2. Shittier customer service than we could have possibly imagined from BOTH the cable and phone companies.

3. Prices for basic services have gone through the roof (eg: I had Comcast Cable for one calendar year, for the 2004 Presidential Election (I’m such a political-whore I HAD to have cable). In the span of that one year my bill started at $38-39 per month and when I canceled it was at $52 per month).

4. And until recently, shittier television programming, and shitty movies choices.

Lotta shit there. The fallacy of the free market system is that when the big boys eat the young, it allows the big players to essentially collude and set the market price and quality of customer service, and why would they set prices lower and offer good customer service when the only other choice is the same crap with a different brand name? There’s no incentive to give customers truly good service at a REASONABLE price.

However, this blogger new the time would come: The britches a given company chooses to inhabit by taking over and/or merging with another Goliath company…the shit starts a runnin’ o’er. Finally, it appears in some areas of the telecommunications/entertainment industry, the britches have proven too big to fit all the shit in them.

Vertical Integration refers to the idea that a business (eg: General Electric, or Time Warner/AOL) has the ability to develop, produce, and then distribute its product all in house within one giant over-reaching company. Soon after TCOMM, this became the industry model to maximize profits because you don’t need to outsource any part of your business, thus keeping all profit. Other examples would be the Oil Companies and American Apparel who tightly controls their product from the shirt making, to the designs, to the sale of the apparel.

Time Warner (TW) liked this idea, as did other giant conglomerates back in the late 90's. And they attempted to develop, produce, and then distribute their own content, via in-house offerings like MTV, Warner Bros., TNT, and even AOL through internet-based content, etc. However, as they did this, they along with other companies found it untenable to seriously put good content forth because of the sheer bureaucracy and red tape within their own companies…and they have suffered.

Great article in this Sunday Times by Tim Arango looking at how TW’s new CEO, Mr. Jeff Bewkes, has begun to rehab the company and sell off portions that he found too much of a pain in the ass to run and do it well. He’s looking to sell off or share a minor partnership share in AOL with another company.

More telling is the interesting note on GE and how after the Olympics, they may be looking to sell off parts of their conglomeration. Unfortunately, I am betting that these companies will simply trade problems, as Bewkes and TW may be looking to buy whatever GE may offer…but, at least this may be a demonstration of the industry finally "getting it" and moving in right direction.

I am, sad but true, a brand guy. In general, I love brands. I have seen improvement in the writing and content of television on cable because of some of the shifting focus on establishing great content. These companies may finally be realizing they cannot rely on their own writers, and having diversity within writing and producing leads to better content, a better product, and ultimately, happier consumers who WILL buy their content if they get their act together.

As the saying goes: “Baby steps, baby steps.” Let’s hope more CEO’s in the industry see the message: Pay writers and pour money into diverse content. As I’ve argued before, it’s not big name actors/actresses that matter in the ultimate success of a film, it’s great writing. As the writers of “My Big, Fat Greek Wedding,” and more recently, “Juno” can attest. As they were two "sleeper" movies that became blockbusters due to word of mouth about the great movie (the great writing).

Moreover, ask HBO and Showtime how they became as big as they are today. It wasn’t because HBO aired old movies, and it wasn’t because Showtime aired soft-core porn every Saturday night…it is because they spent money on finding/developing shows that brought great writing, and then great actors to the forefront.

Total Disappointment

I was wondering why the MSM hadn't jumped the Enquier story on the now true Edward's story.

I think while I wrote at the time I wouldn't be surprised...I am still stunned this broke today.

I loved his rhetoric, loved his message. I am supremely disappointed at this relevation. I don't much care about infedelity. But, to have this come now damages the party. Let's home this has a single weekend newcycle and it is over.

Apparently they met in 2006 in NYC, so if Kerry had pulleed it out in '04, this probably wouldn't have happened.

No matter though, this one hurts...really hurts.

Psssst...

I am currently standing in a church, and I feel dirty. I will need a shower after leaving such a place of dishonor and filth.

An Obama WTF? Moment

This blogger has been busy: first on a fantastic vacation with my people, then this little paper thing I bitched about 2 days ago...HOWEVER...

I have hit a WTF???!!!????!!!! moment with the presumptive Democrat nominee.

A week ago I believe, I read some headline about Obama being "open" to the offshore drilling...uhhh, 'cuse me?

"Open" to it? What the fuck is that????

I'm smelling a patented Democrat waffle the likes of Kerry in 2004.

Drilling offshore shouldn't be on the bleeping table. PERIOD.

While perhaps trying to "court" those dumbass white males voters with KKK-reptilian minds...he is destroying his base, and WORSE Obama looks like a TOTAL pussy on this and it makes him look feeble and weak in the "heartland" voters minds.

Any longtime readers of mine, or those who know who I am, I generally prefer the Bill Clinton method of triangulation.

However, that's when the election is razor thin. By all estimates, this SHOULD be a cakewalk for Obama.

When ahead by as much as Obama should and WOULD be...you don't give up policy ground, especially when you are correct and the argument for your decision is so blatantly clear.

I understand why Obama's advisors may have let this out, even if they have no intention of really going along with the policy. But, with those white males we have learned that they respect your decision when you at least claim it's because you base it on a principle...whether it really is a principle or not (*cough* Dubya).

Whites males were sold that principle shit, at they at it up with nar a doubt.

Stick to this principle Obama, you look better and are better when you do so.

On Cheney - a ghoulism thought

Seeing how the scars, the emotional and physical damage of the Viet Nam War are playing out politically here 4 decades past the hellish war...

And seeing how veterans were treated like shit by predominantly Republican Administrations...

And seeing how those very veterans tend to ironically vote Republican, and all "Patriotism" issues and war issues swing into the Republican plus column without serious thought by these veterans...

I have just had a brainstorm curiosity. As ghoulish, and sick as Cheney clearly must be, I ponder if he looked to re-establish a new constituency of veterans who were shoved into a meaningless, unwinnable war (see Vit Nam), will be indoctrinated of sorts to vote Republican, and subsequently be treated as trash by those Republican administrations.

All to engender a new population of Republican voters to replace the Viet Nam'ers who are beginning to die off, and maintain a hold on the American Democracy through a dogmatic viewpoint that has been taught to them (eg: brainwashing).

It's a sickening thought, and a dark thought, that while Cheney is evil...not sure he's THAT smart.

Unfortunate After-effect but...

Local Boston TV affiliates are currently reporting on a story that the Boston PD has had to have a presser about;

David Woodman, a 22 year old young man, died yesterday. This came 11 days after he was stopped and arrested for having an open container of alcohol during the celebration after the Celtics won their 17th NBA Championship.

Woodman was clearly intoxicated according to officers, and when they approached him, he attempted to flee. After a "short pursuit" the police caught up with Woodman, and subdued him, and after already having called for an EMS because he was intoxicated, Woodman showed signs of duress and they re-radioed the EMS when it became evident there was a bigger problem.

Woodman, who had a pre-existing heart condition, was drunk, ran from police, and was properly put to the ground by police. It's a sad occurrence, but baring a longer, more in-depth investigation, the parents suit which seemingly will be field for wrongful death (they've already hired a lawyer) should be immediately thrown out.

There is a basic rule, anyone and everyone knows: You don't run from the police. You will be caught, you will be physically hurt because they will TACKLE you to the ground, and in the wrong situation you could be shot.

It's sad, but Woodman had it coming. I have little sympathy for jackasses who drink themselves into a stupor and get busted for it. I take a very hard line against alcohol people...a very hard line. My position is simple, get busted for drinking a driving once, get your license suspended for 30 days. Get busted twice...license is gone for a year. Three times, gone for five. Fourth time...say bye bye to license for 30 years mo fo.

American's fascination with escape and drinking to excess has to stop, and it's not just young people who are to blame. It's the advertising companies, it's tv, it's movie, but more damning, it's parents themselves who glamorize and make it OK to drink to excess. Pathetic.