The Average Man

BLOG BREAK

2010-03-06T15:53:00.000-08:00

I'm sad to say that I think my blogging is going to head from little to none for a while. I've had a great deal of fun spewing out my political views over the last few years, and I'm proud to have added my little voice to the big debates surrounding everything from Iraq to the Santa Barbara News-Press nightmare. But sometimes one has to face the fact that there is a time to take a break and recharge.

Anyway, you never know what the future brings ... When Sarah Palin is elected President in 2012, I'm sure I'll be right back here yelling at the world.

Peace!

Trekking Left

THIS IS WHY ...

2010-02-13T16:36:00.000-08:00

... AL FRANKEN DESERVES TO BE THE SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA!

IT ALSO SHOWS WHY CABLE COMPANIES ARE EVIL!

OBAMA TAKES THE GOP TO SCHOOL

2010-02-02T18:07:00.000-08:00

Sorry I haven't been blogging much ... been crazy busy lately.

Anyway, if you haven't heard about this, Obama recently attended a House Republican retreat in Baltimore on Friday and spent about an hour just fielding questions from angry Republicans. I know it's a little long, but it is really something to see. I mean, the talking heads are saying that this is the best political theater they've ever seen, and I pretty much agree. And I would dare anyone to say that Bush or McCain could have done this.

Heck, I'm not even sure Clinton could have done it ...

To see a link to the video, please click here.

PUPPY WEARING SWEATER

2010-01-10T16:23:00.000-08:00

Having a bad day? Just look at this puppy wearing a sweater!

THE AVERAGE MAN WISHES YOU ALL ...

2009-12-24T13:55:00.000-08:00

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

HEALTH CARE IS "LIEBERDIZED"

2009-12-17T10:47:00.000-08:00

For the first time since the election, I feel truly upset and defeated. More than anything else, I just really wanted true health care reform with a public option that would finally put those bastard insurance companies in their place. But thanks primarily to that tool of a jerk, Joe Lieberman, that is not going happen.

There was a great write-up by Bob Cesca on Huffington Post this morning that captured my feelings quite well. Here's part of it ...

I'm pissed off.

I'm pissed off at health care reform. I'm pissed off at this endless process of emotional highs and lows and exhilaration and dejection and history and infamy.

I'm pissed off that President Obama "thanked" the independent senator from Connecticut even though the senator nearly killed health care reform this week.

To that point, I'm pissed off at Joe Lieberman. I'm pissed off at his childish, vengeful, opposite-day hackery. I'm pissed off at his giant pie-shaped head and his passive aggression. I'm pissed off that he enjoys government-run Medicare benefits while opposing government-run insurance for the rest of us.

I'm pissed off at the Senate. The whole Senate. The rules, the senators, the color of the walls, the fact that a doof like Chuck Grassley can actually be elected to it. Multiple times. I'm pissed off that even though we finally have a 60 seat supermajority, it's dysfunctional and Harry Reid is in charge of it. I'm pissed off that senators of both parties receive government-run primary care from the Office of the Attending Physician, while denying it to everyone else.

I'm pissed off at cable news and the establishment press for focusing more on The David Letterman & Tiger Woods Underpants Party than the substance of health care reform.

I'm pissed off at Rahm Emanuel and I'm pissed off at the "scary profane a-hole" mythology that's built up around him, and how he only seems to use his powers of intimidation to bully the left.

I'm pissed off at the Republicans. I'm pissed off at their ongoing self-contradictions and lies and bumper sticker sloganeering. I'm pissed off that around 55 Republicans are on Medicare, yet they oppose government-run health care for the rest of us.

I'm pissed off at Tom Coburn's bulbous Dirk Diggler haircut.

I'm pissed off at having to compromise while a handful of lopsidedly powerful conservadems get whatever they ask for.

I'm pissed off at the Senate health care reform bill. I'm pissed off at the House health care reform bill. I'm preemptively pissed off at the conference report, too, and I don't even know if we'll even get that far.

Exactly! And even though I just want to say "screw it" to any kind of reform at this point, I suppose I have to agree with Mr. Cesca on this point as well ...

And I'm pissed off that my progressivism leads me to the unavoidable conclusion that if we don't pass health care reform now, innumerable bad things will continue to happen due to the fact that there's a very serious health care crisis in America. I'm pissed off that I can't, in good conscience, allow my anger to coerce me into believing that we should "kill this bill." I'm pissed off about that, too ... But it undeniably makes sense to take the deal. If progressives successfully convince enough Democrats to kill the bill, do we really want to be the group that plunged the last blade into the back of reform?

Anyway, I don't know, maybe Glee will cheer me up ...

AUTO-TUNE: GOOD OR EVIL?

2009-12-13T14:33:00.000-08:00

Since there exists this intense debate (at least in my head) regarding the use of auto-tune by the cast of Glee, I thought it would be a good time to post the newest "Auto-tune the News" segment ...

AN AMERICAN IN LONDON

2009-11-21T13:03:00.000-08:00

In light of today's Senate Health Care debate, I thought I would post this funny comic strip sent to me by Queen Whackamole

STORMTROOPERS' 9/11

2009-11-12T17:50:00.000-08:00

TOO SOON?

BYE, TRAVIS!

2009-11-02T17:21:00.000-08:00

By now, I think everyone has heard the wonderful news that Travis Armstrong is leaving the Santa Barbara News-Press. What you may not remember, however, is that I was the first one to break this news way back in August of 2008. Here's what I wrote ...

I heard a rumor from Travis Armstrong's dog walker's mother's cousin's friend that he is thinking of resigning from the Santa Barbara News-Press. Apparently, his soul is so tortured by his complete and utter failure as the News-Press Opinion Editor that he can't find the inner strength to continue on with the position. According to my super-secret contact (who remains with Dick Cheney in an undisclosed location), Travis has been pondering this move for some time: "Ever since the News-Press meltdown a couple years back," says my contact, "Travis has been increasingly troubled by his declining professionalism in dealing with the Santa Barbara community. After particularly nasty editorials regarding the city council, he's even been known to look in the mirror and say '@#$% you, Travis' over and over. The situation is pretty bad."

When I pressed my contact on the specifics of Mr. Armstrong's recent tumble into depression, he (or she?) thinks that his obsession with Marty Blum is really starting to wear on his conscience. During one particularly down state, Travis was overheard saying, "Man, I blame her for everything from gang violence to gas prices. Heck, I even follow her around now and take pictures for no particular reason. What's wrong with me!?" Travis is so upset about his treatment of Mrs. Blum in recent months that he's even considering printing her response to his next unsubstantiated false allegation ... maybe.

As if these revelations weren't big enough, a friend of a friend of a friend told me that Travis even called Brian Barnwell at home last week to chat about the decision to leave the NP. According to this even more top secret contact, Travis said to Barnwell that he doesn't understand where his fascination with the former city council member comes from. "Even though you're out of office, I can't stop writing about you. " said Armstrong, "I just don't find any of the new people very interesting, you know? I'm sure I will hate one of them eventually, but for now, I get more joy out of writing about how your recent vacation to Disneyland is destroying our community."

Anyway, I'm sure Mr. Armstrong has good reasons to want to leave the News-Press, and we wish him the best of luck. Maybe San Jose will take him back. I hear their mayor is an easy target.

I also heard from another of my sources that Marty Blum -- upon hearing the news -- was quoted as saying, "Who's quiting now, poopy-head!?"

FRANKEN-STUFF

2009-10-24T14:47:00.000-07:00

One of the things I loved about the The Al Franken Show on Air America Radio was the rotating list of cool regulars. It is, in fact, Al's show that made me an instant fan of Howard Fineman and Jonathan Alter (just to name a couple). But I think my favorite guest might have been Friday staple Joe Conason. Here's a bit about him from Wikipedia ...

Conason was a regular guest and a guest host on The Al Franken Show, where he had the distinction of being the only guest with two theme songs. He made an appearances every Friday as a commentator, as well as co-judging with Al their weekly quiz show Wait, wait, don't lie to me.

So, anyway, I was kind of excited this week to see that Noozhawk has added Joe to the list of syndicated columnists they carry. And not only that, but the first column they printed is an excellent discussion regarding health care. It starts off this way ...

Popular disgust over the fat premiums that financial executives bestow upon themselves is burgeoning, and rightly so. Those Wall Street piggy banks are filling up with billions upon billions of government-subsidized dollars.

But anyone infuriated by the grossly inflated compensation of the masters of finance should check out the incredible earnings of the top executives in the health-insurance business. They’re among the most highly paid suits in the country — not owing to any skill in providing health care, which they don’t do, but because they have succeeded in denying care, quashing competition, driving up costs and winning federal subsidies for their companies.

Joe goes on to give more details on the evilness that is the health insurance industry and then ends with this ...

They blatantly curtail competition, lobby for federal subsidies, boost premiums, ration care and cut access, while insisting that a public option would cause all those terrible consequences. Obviously, they believe that the rest of us are chumps. And they may well be right.

You go, Joe!

Since I began this post talking about Al Franken, I'd really like you all to watch this brief clip of Al questioning a woman from the Hudson Institute (over health care bankruptcies) ...

Now, THAT is how you fight for Americans!

OBAMA VS. FIRE

2009-10-18T00:17:00.000-07:00

I can't help but notice that the increase in frequency and intensity of California wildfires has some of my Santa Barbara friends a little spooked as of late. Well, no need to fear fellow citizens, Obama is on the case ...

Obama To Enter Diplomatic Talks With Raging Wildfire

IS OBAMA NOBEL-WORTHY?

2009-10-10T01:03:00.000-07:00

So, one of my Republican friends chats me today to dogmatically state that it is indeed "absurd" and "shameful" that Obama should receive the Nobel Peace Prize. While I was able to get him to back off the shameful comment, he's still pretty convinced the whole thing is absurd.

Now, while I can understand those who feel the President hasn't accomplished enough for this prestigious honor, I think maybe (lighting rod) Micheal Moore said it the best in his recent post. And I especially enjoyed this quote ...

P.S. Your opposition has spent the morning attacking you for bringing such good will to this country. Why do they hate America so much? I get the feeling that if you found the cure for cancer this afternoon they'd be denouncing you for destroying free enterprise because cancer centers would have to close. There are those who say you've done nothing yet to deserve this award. As far as I'm concerned, the very fact that you've offered to walk into the minefield of hate and try to undo the irreparable damage the last president did is not only appreciated by me and millions of others, it is also an act of true bravery. That's why you got the prize. The whole world is depending on the U.S. -- and you -- to literally save this planet. Let's not let them down.

I so agree with this!

Anyway, if this entire political jibber-jabber has you down, I suggest you watch this video of pigs the size of teacups. I mean, how can you be angry after that? ...

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Truth is an Absolute Defense

2009-10-02T09:57:00.000-07:00

Freshman Florida congressman Alan Grayson went to the House floor yesterday and described the Republican health care plan as "don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly." The Average Man promptly went to his website and gave him twenty bucks. Apparently I wasn't the only one, as he raised $100K yesterday!

Now, even better -- he goes on the Wolf Blitzer show and Does. Not. Back. Down!

YEAH!!!

Now let's see if some other Dems will learn a lesson.

NEIL PATRICK HARRIS RULES!

2009-09-23T14:15:00.000-07:00

Since I'm a proud tv-aholic, I feel the need to say a few words about this year's Emmy Awards Show ... Firstly, I have to strongly emphasize up front that -- even though many of my shows didn't win anything -- this year's broadcast was infinitely better than the last one. I mean, who thought having a bunch of reality show people host the Emmys was a good idea? This time, on the other hand, it was hosted by the increasingly impressive Neil Patrick Harris. And he was probably the best host I've seen in the last 10 years.

Other than that, though, I honestly couldn't say anything better than Ken Levine did in his recent entry on Huffington Post. Here are a few of my favorite observations:

Yay for Kristin Chenoweth, who won for a show that ABC canceled. Her voice is so squeaky high anyway that when she started to cry garage doors all over America went up. But her emotional speech felt very real and heartfelt and after directing her last sitcom, I'm relieved that I didn't kill her career.

The Reality Show montage: five minutes of angry people being bleeped. This is the "excellence in television" we're celebrating tonight.

I was ... happy for Tina Fey and Alec Baldwin (although I would have been happier for Jim Parsons). [Note: Jim Parsons is on The Big Bang Theory; the show of which I recently saw a taping.]

Jeff Probst -- Best Reality Host. Hugh Laurie can't win an Emmy but this guy now has two for saying, "Wanna know what you're playing for?" every friggin' episode.

Family Guy might've won for Best Comedy had they campaigned. [Note: Family Guy gets some love!]

No one who watched any of the mini-series or movies-for-television had the slightest clue what the Dr. Horrible bit was all about.

No big surprises for the honored shows. Mad Men, 30 Rock, The Amazing Race, The Daily Show. All well deserved. But if Lost, Dexter, Family Guy, or The Colbert Report had won I wouldn't have been that upset. [Note: Again, more Family Guy love!]

Considering that Ken Levine was a former head writer for MASH, I probably shouldn't be surprised that I agree with all of his observations. At any rate, if you enjoyed Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog, you HAVE to watch this bit they made just for the Emmy show:

WHY PRIVATE INSURANCE IS EVIL

2009-09-09T17:31:00.000-07:00

In honor of Obama's health care speech today, I thought I would do another quick post on this all so important debate. First, I want to give a shout-out to a nice little article that I read on the Indy's site today; it really hits home all the reasons we need to get this thing done. Here's my favorite part ...

I trust the V.A., Medicare, and Social Security far more than an industry that takes profit made by denying coverage to millions and hands it over to lobbyists to make sure that the common guy doesn’t ever get a break.

One of the saddest things I see recently are the misinformed people at political rallies shouting down politicians trying to express themselves. They say they are afraid of socialism while they collect their Social Security checks and rely on Medicare. They say they don’t want a government plan, but they are willing to let a CEO making $30 million a year decide that millions of people be denied insurance so their profit margin moves up. I don’t think they are hypocrites, I think they really must be afraid.

I think that pretty much says it all. But, if this guy's story doesn't get you, then watch ...

We are better than this!

HEALTH WARS: A NEW HOPE

2009-08-31T17:04:00.000-07:00

So, it looks to me like the health care debate took an interesting turn recently. Outside of Teddy's unfortunate demise, I've noticed a little bit of a sea change in some recent town hall meetings. Before I get into that, however, I want to repeat my disgust for those right wing organizations and satanic insurance companies that encourage clueless nutjobs to crash real health care discussions and yell things like "I want my country back" or "Obama is a Nazi." I mean, I'm all for a constructive argument, but what do these kind of comments have to do with anything remotely health care related?

Okay, back to my original point ... I was perusing The Huffington Post the other day and saw the headline McCain Evicts Angry Woman From Town Hall ... Honestly, I almost didn't read the thing, because I was sure the woman in question was probably ejected for stating her support for the public option or something of that nature. But it turns out that the post was actually quite interesting. Here's a couple quotes I really liked:

After McCain opened it up to questioning, one man angrily pointed at him and asked the senator why he deserves a better health care plan than him.

"I'm trying to get it for you," McCain told him. "We'll do it for you. We'll make it affordable and available to you."

Other audience members in the crowd of 2,000 told McCain about their medical problems, such as HIV and multiple sclerosis.

McCain urged them he would fight for health care reform but reiterated his opposition to President Barack Obama's plan to create a government option to compete with private insurers, arguing that it would be the eventual end of private insurers in the U.S ...

... When McCain was trying to answer questions from reporters after the town hall, one audience member yelled at him that he gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from insurance companies every year.

In a voice of feigned surprise, McCain said "Really? I didn't know that."

So, here's my question: What exactly are you trying to do to help those people, Senator McCain? Because all I see from you and your party is a group of selfish politicians agreeing to vote against any Democratic proposal and going out of their way to protect private insurance companies that (frankly) could care less about the people of Arizona.

Anyway, after reading that, I was like, "Finally, some genuine anger about real health care issues!" But wait: it gets better ... Not too long before McCain's town hall, there was actually another one held by Senator Tom Coburn where a woman in the audience cried when she told her story of a sick relative and health costs. Coburn answered with the following:

"What's missing from the debate is us as neighbors helping people who need help," he said.

I think the absolute absurdity of this was expressed quite well by a blogger named Kitty commenting on another site:

How's that, senator? Is the solution to throw a bake sale every time one of our neighbors gets sick? How many cupcakes will it take to defray the cost of a heart transplant? How many cookies do we need to bake to pay for a child fighting leukemia? Should a neighbor stop by to hook up a patient to the chemotherapy bags? Maybe we should do away with Medicare and get all the grandmas in the kitchen cooking up goodies to pay for all these health costs, including their own.

Very well said.

So, here's the thing ... When Republicans are confronted with real people fighting real health problems, they clearly have no solutions and no compassion. Let's just hope that a few more of these kind of town halls make people wake up to that fact.

BEST WEEK EVER!

2009-08-25T17:48:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm back from my vacation, but I'm having a difficult time thinking of something to write about this week. The big political thing on my mind is health care, but I'm just too upset about the whole process right now to say anything constructive.

So, instead, I'm going to list all the amazing things that happened to me last week ...

Sunday - I met up with a high school buddy of mine in Burbank, and we went to a cool little restaurant/bar called Fiamme (in Thousand Oaks) to see Jana Anderson and Sharon Celani perform. These two women are backup singers for Stevie Nicks, and they were nice enough to chat with us after the show and take a couple of pictures.

Monday - My friend and I spent most of the day at Universal Studios. If you haven't been on The Simpsons ride yet, you must do it asap!

Tuesday - The last event for my Burbank trip was a taping of the CBS show The Big Bang Theory. Despite the fact that we almost didn't get in, it turned out to be a great evening. And guest star Lewis Black was just f'ing hilarious!

Wednesday - I turned 41, drove back from Burbank, and went to (my favorite place) Hollister Brewing Company with the wife and friends for a b-day outing.

Thursday - After 18 torturous months, I got my (second set of) braces off. FYI, I'm not doing that a third time no matter how bad my teeth get.

Friday - A group of us headed down to San Diego and caught a Padres game. Before the game, though, some of us went to (another favorite place of mine) The Neighborhood. Much wonderful beer and food was consumed.

Saturday - The big event of the week was the Stone Brewing Company 13th Anniversary Beer Festival. This day included massive drinking of great beer, massive swimming in the pool, massive amounts of great food, massive playing of Wii, massive playing of pool, and massive tiredness on Sunday.

I'm not sure if this was my best week ever, but it's definitely my most eventful in recent memory. Anyway, here's hoping I have something interesting to write about next week.

TV WILL ROT YOUR INTELLIGENT DESIGN

2009-08-14T00:00:00.000-07:00

So, it seems that my Comic-Con excursion was not nearly long enough to satisfy my geeky nature. Thus, I will be off again next week to see a taping of The Big Bang Theory at the Warner Brothers lot.

If you haven't seen the show before, it's basically about two white and nerdy roommates who live next door to a hot blond. Add in a couple of geeky co-workers, and you have a show.

Anyway, here's a nice little video (put together by a fan) using the cool theme song written by the Barenaked Ladies.

HEALTH SCARE

2009-08-05T17:34:00.001-07:00

So, I'm still really upset about the whole health care debate, but my anger has now shifted from Obama and Democrats to the American people themselves ... Based on polling, it seems that the non-stop lies and scare tactics used by conservatives is actually working; the public has started to back off from their desire for real health care reform and a strong public option. What just drives me crazy, though, is the fact that the folks being tricked by these talking points are the same exact people whom the insurance companies are going to screw as soon as they get sick. Why don't people understand that!?

Anyway, here's Keith Olbermann's Special Comment On Health Care Reform. Once again, he's right on ...

COMIC-CON!

2009-07-17T20:32:00.000-07:00

Soon I'll be off to the San Diego Comic-Con ... one of my favorite things in the whole world. Thus, I probably won't be blogging for a couple weeks ... but wanted to leave you with a couple things that made me smile:

First is this picture of a dog in China that is nursing two baby pandas after their mother abandoned them. Now, tell me you're not having a better day after seeing that?

Second is this thing called Auto-Tune The News, which -- I think you'll agree -- is the only way to watch the news:

PUBLIC OPTION NOT OPTIONAL!

2009-07-12T14:53:00.000-07:00

I need to vent for a couple minutes here ... I am becoming increasingly annoyed and frustrated with the health care debate going on in Congress right now. Specifically, I am tired of Obama and the spineless senators in Washington being so wishy-washy on the public option. They keep talking about bipartisanship and compromise, blah, blah, blah ... Look, what we should have in this country is a single payer system that covers everyone. Since that is "off the table," however, then a public option IS THE COMPROMISE!

There was a great editorial in the New York Times recently that outlined some of the horrible tactics used by private insurance companies. Here's a piece of it ...

A House oversight subcommittee took a close look at a particularly shameful practice known as "rescission," in which insurance companies cancel coverage for some sick policyholders rather than pay an expensive claim. The companies contend that rescissions are rare. But Congressional investigators found that three big insurers canceled about 20,000 individual policies over a five-year period — allowing them to avoid paying more than $300 million in medical claims.

The companies typically argue that the policyholders withheld information about pre-existing conditions that would have disqualified them from coverage. But the subcommittee unearthed cases where the pre-existing conditions were trivial, or unrelated to the claim, or not known to the patient. When executives for the three companies were asked if they would be willing to limit rescissions to cases where the policyholder deliberately lied on an application form, all said they would not. This tactic will not be ended voluntarily.

Meanwhile, the Senate Commerce Committee was getting an earful from a former head of corporate communications for Cigna, a big health insurer. He charged that the industry deliberately confuses its customers by making it hard to obtain information about its practices and issuing incomprehensible documents.

He also charged that the companies "dump the sick," through rescissions and by purging small businesses whose employees’ claims exceed what underwriters expected. They are often hit with huge rate increases intended to force them to drop coverage.

I'm sorry, but that is simply unacceptable ... which is why I'm feeling much the same as Bob Cesca in his recent Huffington Post column. Here's a bit of it ...

If President Obama is truly serious about changing the way Washington operates, he'd begin to aggressively hector the entourage of lawmakers that I've not-so-affectionately nicknamed the "Coalition of the Corrupt and Spineless" (COCS) -- the Democratic Senators who have very obviously been bought off by the healthcare lobby, along with other almost-as-awful Democrats whose cowardice is only matched by their weakness of will.

Throw down, Mr. President ...

... There can be no denying that the COCS are flagrantly and unapologetically legislating against -- what's the word? -- overwhelming super-majority popular support for the public health insurance option. And why is that? I can't recall another example in recent memory when the collusion of lobbyists, corporate PACs and members of the United States Senate has been quite this obvious.

We can only conclude that the COCS are entirely ignoring the will of the American people because they're hiking the Appalachian Trail with the healthcare industrial complex.

Here's the thing ... Every single one of us is probably going to get pretty sick one day, and I'm tired of feeling like that event will be filled with non-stop insurance nightmares. I actually have a great insurance plan (generally speaking), but I don't feel at all comfortable. Why? Because -- if I were to need thousands of dollars worth of medical care -- I think my insurance company would drop me in a second (or maybe refuse to pay large chunks of my medical bills).

The fact is that 76% of Americans want a public option, President Obama wants a public option, and pretty much everyone thinks that insurance companies are the devil.

So, why is this so f'ing hard to get done!

Why American Policy SUCKS

2009-07-01T20:54:00.001-07:00

This is so amazing, I'm just gonna reprint it completely.

From La Vida Locavore:

Out of curiosity I decided to see who was spending the most on lobbying in America. And Oh My Goodness - NO WONDER our policy sucks. No wonder it's nearly impossible to pass health care reform that provides all Americans with affordable care, a global warming bill that doesn't suck, and the Employee Free Choice Act. No wonder we're in these two stupid wars. I know everyone's aware of the problems lobbying poses to our country, but good lord, if people saw the sheer magnitude of it (and the comparatively paltry amounts spent in the people's interest) they would be outraged. So here goes. Here's the list of the top 100 (ranked by amount spent on lobbying in Q109). Enjoy.
I pulled up all of the reports for first quarter 2009 but over 20,000 items came up (and the report only shows the first 3000). OK, try again - all reports for over $1 million for first quarter 2009. This time a little over 100 came up (including AIG, who spent $1,250,000 on lobbying during that period).

So here's how to read this list: These are the amounts spent by the corporations listed. However, many (if not most) of these corporations ALSO contract out to private lobbying firms, so the amounts you see here MIGHT not be the total amount they spent on lobbying in Q109. For example, Monsanto spent $2,094,000 for its in house lobbying but then contracted out to Arent Fox LLP; Lesher, Russell & Barron, Inc. ($60,000); Ogilvy Government Relations ($60,000); Parven Pomper Strategies ($40,000); Sidley Austin LLP; TCH Group, LLC ($50,000); The Nickles Group, LLC ($63,000); The Washington Tax Group, LLC ($40,000); and Troutman Sanders Public Affairs Group ($30,000) - for a total of $2,437,000 in first quarter 2009.

Health Care, Health Insurance, & Pharma
3. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America: $6,910,000
6. Pfizer, Inc: $6,140,000
12. American Medical Association: $4,240,000
18. American Hospital Association: $3,580,000
19. Eli Lilly and Company: $3,440,000
37. America's Health Insurance Plans, Inc: $2,030,000
39. CVS Caremark Inc: $2,005,000
47. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association: $1,800,000
49. GlaxoSmithKline: $1,780,000
63. Merck & Co: $1,500,000
65. United Health Group, Inc: $1,500,000
69. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc: $1,460,000
76. Novartis: $1,347,134
87. Abbott Laboratories: $1,260,000
89. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP: $1,250,000
92. Medtronic, Inc: $1,238,000

Oil
2. Exxon Mobil: $9,320,000
4. Chevron U.S.A. Inc: $6,800,000
7. Conoco Phillips: $5,980,935
16. BP America, Inc: $3,610,000
20. Marathon Oil Corporation: $3,380,000
45. American Petroleum Institute: $1,810,000

Defense
5. Lockheed Martin Corporation: $6,380,000
11. General Electric Company: $4,540,000
28. Northrop Grumman Corporation: $2,570,000
30. Boeing Company: $2,410,00
51. Honeywell International: $1,760,000
73. Raytheon Company: $1,360,000

Telecoms
10. AT&T Services, Inc: $5,134,873
14. Verizon (excluding Verizon Wireless): $3,760,000
21. National Cable and Telecommunications Association: $3,370,000
23. Comcast Corporation: $2,760,000
68. Motorola, Inc: $1,470,000

Automotive
22. General Motors: $2,800,000
27. United Services Automobile Association: $2,590,244
52. Ford Motor Company: $1,750,000
84. Toyota Motor North America: $1,290,000
86. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers: $1,264,400

Financial
32. Financial Services Roundtable: $2,260,000
33. Prudential Financial, Inc: $2,180,000
41. American Bankers Association: $1,890,000
61. Visa, Inc: $1,540,000
74. Investment Company Institute: $1,359,917
75. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: $1,350,000
82. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.: $1,310,000
90. Citigroup Management Corp: $1,250,000
90. Credit Union National Association: $1,250,000

Biotech
36. Monsanto: $2,094,000
40. Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO): $1,920,000
44. Bayer Corporation: $1,843,672

Railroads
24. Association of American Railroads: $2,759,545
54. Union Pacific Corporation: $1,717,108
71. BNSF Railway: $1,400,000

Life Insurance
42. American Council of Life Insurers: $1,867,075
44. New York Life Insurance Company: $1,840,000
64. State Farm Insurance: $1,500,000
93. The Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company: $1,237,000

Other
1. Chamber of Commerce of the U.S.A.: $9,996,000
8. National Association of Realtors: $5,727,000
9. U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform: $5,480,000
13. AARP: $4,090,000
15. Southern Company: $3,650,000
17. Altria Client Services Inc: $3,580,000
25. Amgen, Inc: $2,750,000
26. National Association of Broadcasters: $2,600,000
29. Edison Electric Institute: $2,550,000
31. Fedex Corporation: $2,370,000
34. Textron, Inc.: $2,140,000
35. General Dynamics Corp: $2,101,945
38. International Business Machines (IBM): $2,030,000
43. United Technologies Corporation: $1,860,000
46. Recording Industry Association of America: $1,810,000
48. CTIA-The Wireless Association: $1,790,000
50. Time Warner Inc. $1,780,000
53. The Dow Chemical Company: $1,735,000
55. American Electric Power Company: $1,716,913
56. Microsoft Corporation: $1,650,000
57. Qualcomm, Incorporated: $1,620,000
58. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc: $1,600,000
59. L-3 Communications: $1,580,000
60. Exelon Business Services, LLC: $1,540,000
62. Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc: $1,530,000
66. Norfolk Southern Corporation: $1,485,026
67. Koch Companies Public Sector LLC: $1,480,000
70. American Airlines: $1,450,000
72. Oracle Corporation: $1,390,000
77. Air Transport Association of America, Inc.: $1,340,000
78. Disney Worldwide Services, Inc.: $1,330,000
79. Sepracor, Inc: $1,324,157
80. National Association of Home Builders: $1,320,000
81. UPS: $1,316,426
83. Siemens Corporation: $1,300,000
85. Duke Energy Corporation: $1,282,770
94. Distilled Spirits Council of the U.S., Inc: $1,230,000
95. Business Roundtable: $1,220,000
96. Wellpoint, Inc: $1,220,000
97. American Wind Energy Association: $1,212,504
98. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: $1,206,427
99. National Rural Electric Cooperative Association: $1,200,000
99. CBS Corporation: $1,200,000

Good. Freaking. Lord. Is this really more cost-effective than simply obeying laws?

FINALLY!

2009-06-30T16:56:00.000-07:00

After several months of Norm Coleman assishness, Al Franken is finally named the second Senator (elect) from the great state of Minnesota. Go Vikings!

Anyway, it is now time for the Democrats to grow a pair and get something substantial done. I, for example, want real health care reform WITH A PUBLIC OPTION. If the Dems -- yes, including you, Obama -- can't get this done now, you are going to lose seats in 2010 ... and probably should.

TL Out!

STUFF

2009-06-25T22:11:00.001-07:00

I know I haven't posted in a while, but (I swear) I couldn't actually get to the site. Anyway, here are a couple things that are totally awesome ... First, look, a kitten sleeping in a wine glass! How cute is that!?

And then there's this ...

Fossil remains
Second, an archaeological team, digging in Washington DC , has uncovered 10,000 year old bones and fossil remains of what is believed to be the first Republican Politician....

Funny, right!?

OBAMA IS TREKKING LEFT

2009-06-07T21:09:00.000-07:00

I know Obama isn't perfect, but (I'm sorry) I just love this guy ... I can't help it. First, we find out that he reads Spider-Man. And now we find out he really likes Star Trek. Here's an excerpt from a recent Newsweek interview:

And the last movie you saw?

Now, movies I've been doing OK [with] because it turns out we got this nice theater on the ground floor of my house … So Star Trek, we saw this weekend, which I thought was good. Everybody was saying I was Spock, so I figured I should check it out and—[the president makes the Vulcan salute with his hand].

Very good.

Yes, absolutely.

Did you watch that when you were growing up?

I used to love Star Trek. You know, Star Trek was ahead of its time. There was a whole—the special effects weren't real good, but the storylines were always evocative, you know, there was a little commentary and a little pop philosophy for a 10-year-old to absorb.

A lot of U.N. stuff.

Yes, exactly, right.

I swear, Barack might just be the coolest guy on the planet right now. In fact, he might just be the coolest guy in the entire United Federation of Planets.

Remind me again why I don't watch pro basketball?

2009-05-29T08:41:00.000-07:00

Now first of all, let me say that I loves me some pro football -- I can imagine no better weekend than watching two games on Sunday afternoon, then watching another one that night. (Not that I get do that anymore with two kids in the house, but I can dream, can't I?) Especially when it gets down to the final few minutes of a tight game, when every play counts, and one team digs down and makes something amazing happen to win it.

So last night, after putting the aforementioned small people to bed, rather than go back in the office and work like usual, I flipped the TV on, and lo and behold, it was the second half of the Cavaliers vs. Magic, NBA Conference Finals. The Magic were up three games to one, so the Cavs were fighting to keep their season alive. While I play regular hoops on the weekends, I've never watched much of it on TV. But I figure hey, this game oughta be good!

And for most of the half, it was exciting -- the lead changed hands a bunch of times, and it was tied up going into the fourth. This guy in particular seemed to having a great time on the court, with a big smile, and even bigger shoulders:

Seriously, what is up with his shoulders? Are there steroids that affect only your shoulder muscles? And how does that help you in basketball? Well, I was about to find out...

As the fourth quarter started, the announcers kept saying that if the Cavaliers were going to win it, Lebron James would have to take over the game. James hadn't done much up to that point, but hey, he's the NBA MVP -- this should be good! We gonna see some insane Michael Jordan-type aerial acrobatics? Or impossible Kobe Bryant falling-backwards-with-someone's-hand-blocking-his-eyes three pointers?

Not quite. James did indeed take over the game, basically by holding onto the ball for 20 of the 24 allowed seconds, then dropping one of HIS huge shoulders and steamrolling through whoever was between him and the basket... FOR WHICH THE DEFENDERS WERE CALLED FOR FOULS.

What the hell? You're standing there, somebody plows into you, and it's YOUR fault? Apparently it's also illegal to even THINK about blocking anyone's layup, as every exciting breakaway was negated by a whistle, no matter how incidental the contact appeared on the replay. Just as the pace of the game would quicken, everything would stop so someone could stand there...and shoot...free throws.

As the final seconds approached, the Magic were down by just a few points. Did they fight hard to get the ball back and make up those points? No, they began fouling the Cavaliers ON PURPOSE, in order to stop the clock and dare the Cavaliers to...MAKE TWO FREE THROWS. Apparently, fouling on purpose at the end of the game is a winning strategy in professional basketball. These are the best basketball players on the planet, and they have to foul each other on purpose to win? How is this professional? Let me try that on the guys this weekend, and see how it goes...

So instead of a thrilling, athletically inspiring, all-out struggle for victory in the final seconds, I got to watch twenty minutes of guys standing by themselves, spinning the ball around and pondering it deeply. Either that, or they were trying to imagine where else on their bodies they could still fit tattoos.

And after each shot, they got hi-fives from their teammates WHETHER THEY MADE THE SHOT OR NOT.

I was pondering deeply why the two teams don't just show up, hold a free-throw contest, give each other hi-fives and call it a day.

So just for S&G this morning, I looked up free throw shooting percentages for last week's games to test the theory:

Last night: Cavs 79%, Magic 68%, game winner: Cavs
Wednesday: Lakers 76%, Nuggets 74%, game winner: Lakers
Tuesday: Cavs 83%, Magic 70%, game winner: Magic (by 2 points)
Monday: Nuggets 75%, Lakers 68%, game winner: Nuggets
Sunday: Magic 76%, Cavs 74%, game winner: Magic
Saturday: Nuggets 89%, Lakers 70%, game winner: Lakers
Friday: Cavs 80%, Magic 68%, game winner: Cavs
Thursday: Nuggets 78%, Lakers 77%, game winner: Nuggets

Six out of seven NBA Conference Final games won by the team that shot better at the line. The seventh lost by a single basket.

And if we keep going...

Wednesday 5/20: Magic 85%, Cavs 70%, game winner: Magic
Tuesday 5/19: Lakers 83%, Nuggets 65%, game winner: Lakers
Sunday 5/17: Lakers 78%, Rockets 64%, game winner: Lakers
and Magic: 80%, Celtics 80%, game winner: Magic

...and so on.

Tonight, 6pm: Lakers vs. Nuggets. To be decided by ten guys taking their time to carefully and methodically put a ball in a hole 12 feet away.

Me? I'll be getting some work done.

.

I NEED A GREEN CARD

2009-05-24T20:58:00.000-07:00

Oh, great, Trekking Left is going to go on another rant about illegal immigration!

Nope, this post is about a different green card ... Saturday night was my monthly trek to Sings Like Hell with my buddy, Patrick. And the headliner was a band called The Greencards.

All I can say is, wow, this group is good. They have kind of this rockabilly thing going on, so it does lean a little heavy on the country side. But the combination incredible strings and heavenly voices just completely blew me away.

This song is one of their slower ones, but you get the idea:

Anyway, they sounded just like this live. Perfection.

ANOTHER THING REPUBLICANS DON'T GET

2009-05-17T16:12:00.000-07:00

This Studio Briefing entry from a few weeks ago made me laugh, but I forgot to post it ...

Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert has become the subject of an academic survey conducted at Ohio State University titled "The Irony of Satire: Political Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Report." The survey, conducted among 332 undergraduates, concluded that many conservatives believe that Colbert is on their side. As reported by today's (Wednesday) Chicago Tribune, the researchers observed that "conservative viewers often don't comprehend Colbert's "deadpan satire" and process his messages "as being conservative, Republican, and disliking liberals." The study was uploaded on Colbert's website beneath the headline, "Science Proves Stephen Colbert Also Popular With Conservatives."

This also reminds me of the time a while back when the The White House actually had one of Colbert's interviews on their web site without even realizing that he was completely making fun of them.

So, how can anyone be the member of a party that doesn't get sarcasm?

I HEART BILL MAHER

2009-05-11T15:08:00.000-07:00

For those who know me well, it's no secret that I'm a huge fan on Bill Maher. Outside of maybe Al Franken and Jon Stewart, no one is better at being incredibly insightful and funny at the same time. And his show Real Time With Bill Maher is probably (alone) worth the ten bucks I pay per month for HBO.

Anyway, the last episode of Real Time was so good that I just had to share ... It had a stellar panel that included George's new hero Matt Taibbi, TAM's new hero Naomi Klein, and my hero Seth McFarlane (creator of Family Guy). It's just a great combination of really smart people talking about the important issues that we discuss all the time in our little circles. Please watch:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Totally worth watching, right?

THIS DEBATE IS TORTURE

2009-05-04T17:17:00.000-07:00

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I wanted to say a couple things about Obama's decision not to punish those who committed acts of torture (on the condition that they were following the guidelines outlined by Bush's "Justice" Department) ...

Let me start off by saying that I generally agree with the anger expressed by many liberals regarding Obama's actions here. I mean, the argument that "they were just following orders" didn't fly for the Nazi's in WWII, and it shouldn't fly in this situation either. Heck, even the two likable soldiers in A Few Good Men didn't get off scot-free after Nicholson admitted to giving them a "code red" (I know, I have to relate everything to movies or television ... I can't help it). Anyway, I think the reason this excuse doesn't hold water is expressed pretty well by Kieth Olbermann's Special Comment on the subject.

Having said that, I have to admit to feeling a whole lot better after reading this story in the Washington Post regarding the intense debate in the Obama administration as to whether or not they should release those torture memos. I, of course, recommend reading the whole thing, but I would like to focus on the following quotes from the article:

Five CIA directors -- including Leon E. Panetta and his four immediate predecessors -- and Obama's top counterterrorism adviser had expressed firm opposition to the release of interrogation details in four "top secret" memos in which Bush administration lawyers sanctioned harsh tactics...

...Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had said he supported the disclosures because he saw the information's release as inevitable and because the White House was willing to promise that CIA officers would not be prosecuted for any abuse. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen sided with Gates.

Seated in Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's West Wing office with about a dozen of his political, legal and security appointees, Obama requested a mini-debate in which one official was chosen to argue for releasing the memos and another was assigned to argue against doing so. When it ended, Obama dictated on the spot a draft of his announcement that the documents would be released, while most of the officials watched, according to an official who was present. The disclosure happened the next day.

So, I had two main thoughts upon reading this:

1) Even though I disagree with Obama's decision not to prosecute those people who abused the detainees, I do think Obama deserves a great deal of credit for releasing those memos at all. That took courage in my opinion.

2) How cool is it that Obama handled the situation the way he did, and how happy are we that we have a president who approaches situations this way instead of simply "going with his gut" or some such nonsense.

Finally, I do still hold out hope that there will be justice and was heartened by Barack's later statement:

With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there.

At the end of the day, aren't those really the guys we want behind bars anyway?

Understanding Conservatism

2009-04-27T09:49:00.000-07:00

Awesome, awesome article by Tom Jacobs @ Miller-McCune today on Alternet:

"Morality is not just about how we treat each other, as most liberals think," he argues. "It is also about binding groups together and supporting essential institutions."

"With all that in mind, Haidt identified five foundational moral impulses. As succinctly defined by Northwestern University's McAdams, they are:

• Harm/care. It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering.
• Fairness/reciprocity. Justice and fairness are good; people have certain rights that need to be upheld in social interactions.
• In-group loyalty. People should be true to their group and be wary of threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty and patriotism are virtues; betrayal is bad.
• Authority/respect. People should respect social hierarchy; social order is necessary for human life.
• Purity/sanctity. The body and certain aspects of life are sacred. Cleanliness and health, as well as their derivatives of chastity and piety, are all good. Pollution, contamination and the associated character traits of lust and greed are all bad.

Haidt's research reveals that liberals feel strongly about the first two dimensions -- preventing harm and ensuring fairness -- but often feel little, or even feel negatively, about the other three. Conservatives, on the other hand, are drawn to loyalty, authority and purity, which liberals tend to think of as backward or outdated. People on the right acknowledge the importance of harm prevention and fairness but not with quite the same energy or passion as those on the left."

Crazy, huh?! Best of all, it reveals how people with different moral prorities can come together on issues -- i.e.

"Haidt notes that the environmental movement was started by liberals, who were presumably driven by the harm/care impulse. But conservative Evangelical Christians are increasingly taking up the cause, propelled by the urge to respect authority. "They're driven by the idea that God gave man dominion over the Earth, and keeping the planet healthy is our sacred responsibility," he notes. "If we simply rape, pillage, destroy and consume, we're abusing the power given to us by God."

Brilliant.

TAM

HOPE FLOATS

2009-04-20T19:13:00.000-07:00

Since The Original Average Man (TOAM) recently made reference to Naomi Klein's funny and insightful article in which she assigns hope-based terms to disappointed Obamaniacs, I was inspired to make a couple comments of my own ...

Like many Obama fans, it seems that TOAM woke up this morning with a nasty Hopover; defined as:

Like a hangover, a hopeover comes from having overindulged in something that felt good at the time but wasn't really all that healthy, leading to feelings of remorse, even shame. It's the political equivalent of the crash after a sugar high. Sample sentence: "When I listened to Obama's economic speech my heart soared. But then, when I tried to tell a friend about his plans for the millions of layoffs and foreclosures, I found myself saying nothing at all. I've got a serious hopeover."

Okay, maybe I'm still a little drunk on the Obama Kool-Aid, but I'm not quite there yet. Although, I do admit to being on a little bit of a Hoper coaster lately. At any rate, just to show that I'm not completely in the tank for Barack, I am jumping on Naomi's quest to banish Larry Summers from public life. I have to admit that I didn't know much about the guy before this election, but the more I learn, the more queasy I get. In fact, I'm currently in the middle of Ms. Klien's awesome book The Shock Doctrine, and it seems that Larry's embracing of "disaster capitalism" goes quite a ways back. And here's part what Naomi Klien says about him in this recent column:

... that's the problem with Larry. For all his appeals to absolute truths, he has been spectacularly wrong again and again. He was wrong about not regulating derivatives. Wrong when he helped kill Depression-era banking laws, turning banks into too-big-to-fail welfare monsters. And as he helps devise ever more complex tricks and spends ever more taxpayer dollars to keep the financial casino running, he remains wrong today.

So, yes, I'm still in love with the idea of hopey. But let's call a duck and duck: Summers smells fowl, and I hope he gets kicked off the island.

Having said that, though, my other great hope is that my lefty friends aren't running their feelings through the InstaHope-A-Matic and won't soon develop Hopelash.

Peace Out.

TL

OBAMA RESPONDS TO THE LEFT

2009-04-15T00:12:00.000-07:00

If you didn't see Obama's speech on the economy today, you really should. If interested, you can see it here. Anyway, I thought it worth mentioning the defense of his economic plan from some on the Left like Paul Krugman. Here's part of it ...

On the other hand, there have been some who don't dispute that we need to shore up the banking system, but suggest that we have been too timid in how we go about it. They say that the federal government should have already preemptively stepped in and taken over major financial institutions the way that the FDIC currently intervenes in smaller banks, and that our failure to do so is yet another example of Washington coddling Wall Street. So let me be clear - the reason we have not taken this step has nothing to do with any ideological or political judgment we've made about government involvement in banks, and it's certainly not because of any concern we have for the management and shareholders whose actions have helped cause this mess.

Rather, it is because we believe that preemptive government takeovers are likely to end up costing taxpayers even more in the end, and because it is more likely to undermine than to create confidence. Governments should practice the same principle as doctors: first do no harm. So rest assured - we will do whatever is necessary to get credit flowing again, but we will do so in ways that minimize risks to taxpayers and to the broader economy. To that end, in addition to the program to provide capital to the banks, we have launched a plan that will pair government resources with private investment in order to clear away the old loans and securities - the so-called toxic assets - that are also preventing our banks from lending money.

So, I don't know if Obama is right or not about this stuff, but he sure sounds like he knows what he's talking about when you listen to the speech. He's a very impressive man.

NIXON DEBUNKERED

2009-04-11T19:38:00.000-07:00

With back-to-back trips to Sacramento and Las Vegas recently, I haven't really had much time to blog. Plus, I was tired of talking about the crappiness that is Tim Geithner anyway.

So, on a completely different note, my passions for politics and television merged recently with this little gem from a March 24 Studio Briefing entry ...

The liberal online news magazine Truthdig has uncovered a recording among the infamous White House tapes of former President Richard Nixon in which he denounces a 1970s' episode of Norman Lear's All in the Family that dealt with gay issues. Speaking to presidential assistant John Ehrlichman, Nixon remarks that he became so enraged by the episode that "I turned the goddamned thing off. I couldn't listen any more." But it is clear that he must have seen the entire show since he mentions some of its final scenes. In the recording, which includes an unexplained 14-second bleep, Nixon remarks, "The point that I make is that goddamnit, I do not think that you glorify on public television homosexuality. The reason you don't glorify it, John, anymore than you glorify whores. ... We all have weaknesses and so forth and so on, but goddamnit, what do you think that does to kids ... when they see that?" Later, Nixon says that he was angered by the show not on moral grounds. "Why it outrages me because I don't want to see this country go that way. ... You know what happened to the Greeks. Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure Aristotle was a homo, we all know that. So was Socrates, but he never had the influence that television had."

And here you thought you already had enough reasons to dislike Nixon.

TOI - PART DEAUX

2009-03-25T20:19:00.000-07:00

So, my friends George and Patrick, didn't even budge a little regarding my argument that the Dems should think about backing off Obama right now. Well, not one to go down without a fight, I decided to devote another post to my comments on their comments. Here goes ...

- You are both poopy heads.

- Okay, I read the Rolling Stone article ... Here are my brief high level thoughts: I totally agree that it's a very thorough account of the history behind this financial mess we're in, and I actually do share the feelings of the author (as well as those of you two). But that was never really my point. I mean, yeah, I'm pissed that the Republicans deregulated everything and that Bush's incompetence made a bad situation worse. And yeah, the rich have been getting richer, and the middle class has been getting screwed. That -- I would argue -- is one of the reasons we elected Obama in the first place. I think the key question is whether or not Barack really intends to maintain that pattern; where his heart is. It is my feeling that - based on his policies and budget -- his intention is to reverse the trend, no?

- I don't know Heilbrunn from Adam; I just enjoyed the post because it sort of mimicked the way I've been feeling about the Left over the last few days. Just because he's a hack, doesn't mean he's wrong about this issue.

- For the record, I am not suggesting that Democrats should be like Republicans and check in their brains at the door. All I am saying is that we should be looking at the bigger picture here. If you analyze Obama's budget, you certainly can't argue with the fact that it is extremely progressive. The main problem in my opinion is that he is going to have this gigantic fight on his hands just to push through all those worthy goals, and the Repugs have already shown that they are going to do everything in their power to stop it and to stop him. So, what chance does he have if the Left is already declaring him an economic failure after only 2 months? No, we don't have to be sheeple, but yes, I think it's important to be generally united behind Barack right now.

- Let me try to put my thoughts into a bigger context ... I am not saying that I agree with Geithner's philosophy. And I am also not saying that Obama is king and that you guys shouldn't say anything bad about him. What upsets me is this idea that Wall Street "owns" Obama and that his approach to the banking crisis is proof that he's in bed with these guys. If you truly believe that, then how can you trust anything he does? Sure, criticize all you want, but call it a mistake or bad judgement or whatever. Because the implication I heard at dinner was that Obama is doling out money to rich banksters as payback for all those campaign contributions. If you really think that's true, then Obama is just some sleazy politician. Well, I'm still all about the hope thing, and I choose not to believe that.

- At the end of the day, the question is not about how angry we are at the past; it's about what do we now. Sure, it would feel great to nationalize all the banks and kick the bastards out. But as I said last night, Obama is already fighting off claims that he's a socialist from every direction. So, taking over the banks could actually be political suicide. And if that's true, then forget about all the other good stuff that you do acknowledge he is trying to do.

- Batman is not Bush.

Sincerely,

Trekking Left

TOI

2009-03-24T23:09:00.000-07:00

I have a new motto today: TOI ... Trust Obama's Instincts. Right after the Repuglican convention way back in September, I wrote an entry defending Obama against all the left leaning critics saying that Obama wasn't angry enough to beat Palin ... er, I mean McCain. And, at that time, I told Obama to stick to his plan and to just keep doing his thing.

Well, it's a few months later, and it seems that Obama has a new liberal assault to fend off, and that's the arrows being thrown at his recent economic plan. Now, for the record, I'm not an economist; nor do I pretend to understand the chaotic world that is Wall Street finance. And it's also fair to say that I'm generally not a big fan of Geithner's overall philosophy regarding the solutions to this banking nightmare. Having said that, however, I really do think we tear down Obama at our own peril.

I kind of thought I was the only one having these feelings until I read this recent entry on Huffington Post. I hope Mr. Heilbrunn doesn't mind, but I'm going to break from tradition and print this post in its entirety:

The chorus of criticism of President Obama's economic plan has been almost deafening, and it isn't coming from Republicans but Democrats. Sure, the Republicans are engaging in scare tactics about tens of trillions in deficits, but it's the liberal naysayers such as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman who've been the real critics.

They should lay off. Krugman's lamentations about Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's bank rescue plan simply don't add up. Is the plan perfect? No. But it does provide a road map to recovery, one that can be amended in coming weeks and months. Krugman's complaints, by contrast, reek of theology. The notion that a Wall Street cabal has captured Obama and that taxpayers will be on the hook for the bad bank loans rests on the assumption that the economy won't recover. But if the Geithner plan works -- as I suspect it will -- then these objections will seem picayune and pointless.

Perhaps the most perplexing aspect of the liberal attack on the Obama administration is that it betrays a kind of pathological political death-wish among Democrats. When Ronald Reagan was trying to extricate America from recession in his first term, Republicans weren't denouncing him. Democrats, by contrast, seem to have no compunction about flaying their president a few months into his first term as courting failure. No doubt they depict it as concern for his success. But it remains astonishing that a variety of pundits and lawmakers continue to underestimate Obama, who is, by a wide margin, the most shrewd and thoughtful president America has had in decades. Will Obama rescue the economy? Yes, he can. But not if the Democrats try to stop him first.

Here's the thing ... This economic crisis is like nothing we've faced in the history of this country. I may not be happy with Geithner, but he's the man Obama picked, so I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he turns out to be a disaster, then I'll be the first to say I was wrong. But for the moment, let's stand together behind this guy, because I'm just not all that interested in setting the stage for President Jindal.

MORE FRANKEN WATCH

2009-03-20T23:36:00.000-07:00

Interesting interview with Coleman's lawyer yesterday. Here's part of it ...

Joe Friedberg, attorney for former Sen. Norm Coleman's recount effort, seemed to suggest in a MN radio interview yesterday that Democrat Al Franken will wind out on top when the three-judge panel finishes reviewing the counting process. Friedberg says that he's "done" but that the case could drag on for some time.

Q. Joe, are you done?
A. Yes, I'm done.

Q. Let me ask you in a different way. Is Norm done?
A. Well, I think that we have been trying this case with the appeal record in mind, and that's where we're going, and it's going to be a very quick appeal, and then I will know whether or not it worked.

Q. Well, when you say quick appeal, are you confident that you are going to lose the case in front of the three-judge panel? By losing the case, I mean Norm ends up with less votes.
A. I think that's probably correct that Franken will still be ahead and probably by a little bit more. But our whole argument was that it was a constitutional argument, and it's an argument suitable for the Minnesota Supreme Court, not for the trial court. So we will see whether we were right or not.
...

Q. We could still be awhile before this thing gets decided?
A. Yeah, I think that's clearly true.

I have to admit to being torn on this one. I mean, I can't complain about Al being the "winner" by most accounts. But, how long can Coleman drag this thing out?

And, by the way, if Coleman takes this thing to The Supreme Court or whatever, does he realistically have any future in elected politics?

YOU GO, CHRIS!

2009-03-14T17:17:00.001-07:00

While most of the world has been focusing (and rightfully so) on the weirdly surreal battle between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer, I've actually been slightly more interested in a couple of recent Chris Matthews interviews on Hardball. For the record, Mr. Matthews runs hot and cold with me ... I have, in fact, read a couple of his books. But, over the last few years, he's generally made me more mad than glad.

Anyway, I think that I may have to give ol' Chris another looksy after I fell upon his interview with Ari Fleischer last week. You can catch it here if you'd like (and you really should), but in a nutshell, Mr. Fleischer was trying very hard to defend W.'s record as president, and Chris would have none of it. The entire interview was incredible, but I really want to focus on how it ended:

Fleischer: "After September 11th having been hit once how could we take a chance that Saddam might strike again? And that's the threat that has been removed and I think we are all safer with that threat removed."

Matthews: "I'm proud that we no longer have an administration that uses that kind argument...and the American people are too."

Fleischer: "Well, Chris, we all know where you stand.

Matthews: "And you as well sir."

Now, you might have read that and said yourself, "So what, I know Fleischer is a tool?" No, no, no ... read that first statement again. Who might strike again after September 11th? That's right, after all this time, they are STILL trying to convince us that Saddam was involved in 9/11. Unba-freakin-lievable!

I actually thought I was the only one to catch this. I mean, Huffington Post, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews himself all discussed this amazing interview, but none of them mentioned the huge (intentional) blunder by Ari Fleiser. I really felt the need to write someone (anyone!) and ask why no one is talking about this.

Well, the next day, I got my wish. And I got it in a big way ...

I truly believe that the biggest (and most under reported) story of the decade is how Bush duped the entire country into believing that the Iraq War was revenge for 9/11. It may be too little too late, but at least someone in the mainstream media finally had the guts to call someone out on this BS.

Thank you, Chris!

YOU MAY BE GAY!

2009-03-01T12:19:00.000-08:00

RIGHT WING RALPHIE can help ...

Well, I wanted to embed this funny little cartoon, but I couldn't figure out how to do it. Anyway, click here to see it.

YES PECAN!

2009-02-22T15:38:00.000-08:00

Ben & Jerry recently created "Yes Pecan!" ice cream flavor for Obama.

Here are some suggestions floated around for a W. based flavor ...

- Grape Depression
- The Housing Crunch
- Abu Grape
- Cluster Fudge
- Nut'n Accomplished
- Good Riddance You Lousy Motherfucker... Swirl
- Iraqi Road
- Chock 'n Awe
- WireTapioca
- Impeach Cobbler
- Guantanmallow
- imPeachmint
- Heck of a Job, Brownie!
- Neocon Politan
- RockyRoad to Fascism
- The Reese's-cession
- Cookie D'oh!
- Nougalar Proliferation
- Death by Chocolate... and Torture
- Freedom Vanilla Ice Cream
- Chocolate Chip On My Shoulder
- Credit Crunch
- Mission Pecanplished
- Country Pumpkin
- Chunky Monkey in Chief
- WMDelicious
- Chocolate Chimp
- Bloody Sundae
- Caramel Preemptive Stripe
&
- I broke the law and am responsible for the deaths of thousands...with nuts

TOO MUCH NOOZ HAWKISHNESS - PT. 2

2009-02-17T17:03:00.000-08:00

I think I need to stop reading the Noozhawk comments sections. The ignorance from (most on) the vocal right is just too upsetting. Having said that, I wanted to share with y'all that I pointed out the generally conservative leaning readership over there and seemed to have put them slightly on the defensive. Here's what they wrote:

[Editor’s note: Actually, Noozhawk readers run the gamut from conservative to liberal and everything imaginable in between, including some odd combinations that seem contradictory to me. But I want to emphasize that Noozhawk truly welcomes all points of view. Partisanship doesn’t offend us, but please be respectful. Thanks.]

I guess I'll take their word for it, but it often seems that I'm the only one representing the left half the time. Can I keep doing it? YES I CAN! ... maybe ...

COLEMAN WATCH

2009-02-11T17:30:00.001-08:00

In my on-going obsession with Al Franken's run for the Senate, three recent events have me a little concerned. First, there was the news that Norm Coleman's lawyers convinced the court to review some rejected ballots that were (apparently) all hand-picked from heavy Republican districts. Then, there was this rather Divine blog entry from Smart Politics. Here's the most important quote:

When asked about the recount and how it is affecting him personally, Coleman said he starts every day with a prayer and that he knows “God wants me to serve.”

And finally, there was this gem from Huffington Post about some big-wig GOP fundraiser for Coleman:

Propping up Coleman's legal campaign has proven a win-win for the GOP. The party continues to hold on to the possibility of picking up the seat, but they also keep Al Franken from becoming the Democrats' 59th caucusing member. And with the Minnesota election likely to remain unresolved until April or May, Franken's absence will loom large over many of the intense, filibuster-inducing legislative fights in Congress.

So, in summary, the G-O-P and the G-O-D are now pulling out all the stops to prevent Franken from taking his seat in the Senate.

Should I be worried?

TOO MUCH NOOZ HAWKISHNESS

2009-02-02T17:31:00.000-08:00

In an a genuine attempt to embrace President Barack Obama's message of bipartisanship, I have been attempting to refrain from my usual instinct to go one-on-one with the many conservative columnists and bloggers in Santa Barbara. I mean, hey, my guy won; I don't have to be arrogant about it. That being said, I do admit that some of the writers over there at Noozhawk really know how to push my buttons. In fact, it wasn't even one day after Obama defeated McCain that I had to read this kind of crankiness from them:

In his acceptance speech Obama acknowledged those of us whose vote he didn’t get. He claimed to want to earn our trust. Fine. We aren’t going to agree to socialism because we work hard for our money. Share the wealth of the shadow banking bandits — not ours — We-The-People. We want our borders secured and our country protected against radical Islam. We don’t think it’s fair to nationalize health care without nationalizing the legal profession ...

Okay, TL, let it go ... It's just a little ranting from a sore loser.

So, I tried to lay low for a while, hiding my eyes from such vitriol and just enjoying the Obama victory. But, no, the much too prolific (and curmudgeonly) Harris Sherline couldn't even give me a week to soak in Obama's inauguration before spending an entire column trying to rip it (and him) apart. It's just a speech, man; why all the rage?

Okay, TL, take a breath.

Let's be constructive and talk about a few of Mr. Sherline's complaints. We'll start with this:

Whose "collective failure"? The fault lies with our politicians, who have steadily expanded the role of government in the economy and have been unwilling to restrain spending.

You're joking, right? The main reason for our current economic nightmare is years of Republicans deregulating everything they could get their hands on. In other words, we're in this mess because government's role has been severely restricted; not expanded. And that spending you want restrained so much ... Well, let me remind you that Bush has raised our national debt more than all other presidents in history COMBINED. And wasn't it your hero, Reagan, who said deficits don't matter?

Anyway, here's the next quote I'd like to look at:

So far, his vision doesn’t seem to include fiscal restraint. With something on the order of $2 trillion of new spending in the offing, I don’t intend to be led somewhere I know is wrong.

Again, where was your anger when Bush was spending us into the ground, huh? I mean, NOW you guys care about fiscal restraint!? The fact is that almost any economist worth their salt will tell you that we have to pump money into the system right away to get the economy moving again. Yes, it sucks, but now is not the time to worry about deficits.

And then there's this gem:

It’s hard to know where to begin with this litany of ambitious goals. Who knows what any of this means, except perhaps his health-care prescription, which he seems to think should be some form of nationalized health care. This is a formula for a health-care disaster. Socialized health care has never worked as promised in any society, generally downgrading the quality of care and causing rationing.

As I've blogged about before, this is my favorite conservative talking point; it's one of those things that it is totally not true, but if you say it enough, people believe it. I don't want to get off on a rant about health care, but here's a quick quote from the recent MSN article on this subject:

Americans get the poorest health care and yet pay the most compared to five other rich countries, according to a report released on Tuesday.

Germany, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada all provide better care for less money, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

"The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes," the non-profit group, which studies health care issues, said in a statement.

So, you don't want the government running health care, Mr. Sherline? Well, guess what, I don't want Wall Street running it either. We all know how well they do with our money.

Next one:

This is a repudiation of the use of torture and the presumed abuses of the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA). However, Obama does not offer any alternative to protect the nation? He has already signed an executive order to close Guantanamo — without having the slightest idea of what to do with the prisoners there and without any agreements with other nations to take them.

It's no secret that Guantanamo has done more to recruit terrorists than anything besides the Iraq war itself. And throwing someone in the slammer with no trial and (often) no evidence is un-American and unpatriotic. How would you like it, Mr. Sherline, if they did that to you? Obama's people are going to review the case of every person held at Gitmo (imagine that), and he will figure out what to do with each and every one of them. And for those who can't be set free or sent to other countries, what do you actually think will happen to them? Do you really believe they are going to be dropped in the streets of Santa Barbara or something? Please.

Finally, Mr. Sherline ends with this:

At the risk of being pilloried as another negative, nay-saying conservative, my take on Obama’s inaugural address is that it was long on platitudes and short on substance. The most important message he conveyed to me is his intent to turn America into another socialist state.

Here's what that sounded like to me ... I don't mean to be critical, but Obama is a Commie.

The reality here is that the negative, nay-saying conservatives have been in charge of all branches of government for most of the last eight years, and look where we're at as a country right now. I know you'd like us to lose our collective memories in regards to Bush's America, but that's not going to happen.

We tried it your way ... time for change.

RUSH LIMBAUGH IS A BIG FAT IDIOT

2009-01-22T17:21:00.000-08:00

... is the title of Al Franken's 1996 book about the Right's most popular comedian.

So, I don't know why, but the title of that book popped into my head when I heard about these recent comments from Mr. Limbaugh (when asked to compose a 400-word statement about his hopes for Obama's presidency):

“Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” ... See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.

Okay, first of all, it was 8 years of Republican "conservatism" that mostly lead to the current horrible state of our union. And, secondly, doesn't hoping Obama fails mean hoping the country fails?

I have better titles for Limbaugh than idiot, but this is a family show.

GUPTA MAKES ME ILL

2009-01-13T18:01:00.000-08:00

I'm a little behind on this story, but I wanted to make a quick comment about Obama's pick of CNN star Sanjay Gupta for Surgeon General. Generally speaking, I don't have anything major against the man. But -- immediately upon hearing his name -- I was reminded of the the following exchange between Dr. Gupta and Michael Moore (discussing his film, Sicko) ...

As I blogged about at the time, the big problem I have with Mr. Gupta is that he (and many others) seemed to care much more about attacking Michael Moore than getting fired up about our crappy health care system. Here's what I said at the time ...

The best example of this phenomenon is the recent debate between Dr. Sanjay Gupta and Michael Moore on CNN. Dr. Gupta, who generally agreed with the message of the film, could have spent his energy talking about the corruption in hospital administrations and insurance companies. But he chose, rather, to discuss some nonsense about how some of Moore's numbers were from the BBC and how other reports had slightly different numbers. Nobody fudges numbers better than the Bush administration, but I never see CNN challenging them so aggressively?

It seems that there are a number of people in the Senate unhappy about this pick; I for one won't be overly upset if they don't confirm him.

NORM COLEMAN "OFFICIALLY" A HYPOCRITE

2009-01-06T18:56:00.000-08:00

Anyone who knows me will tell you that I am a complete and unapologetic fan of Al Franken. I mean, Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right has to be one of the best (and funniest) political books ever written IMHO.

Anyway, as you might expect, I've been obsessively monitoring the roller coaster ride that is the Minnesota recount, and I was finally able to breath a little sigh of relief when The Minnesota State Canvassing Board "officially" declared Franken the winner. Before I get too excited, however, I have to deal with (loser) Norm Coleman's inevitable challenge of the election results. Here is a recent quote from Mr. Coleman:

I really believe that the people of Minnesota want to get this right, no matter what side of the aisle you are on ... Until these issues are settled, any attempt to seat a Senator who is not properly certified violates Senate precedent, and usurps the will of the people of Minnesota.

Now, I'm obviously not happy about this challenge, but that's not what really ticks me off. No, what I'm mostly upset about is that no one in the media is remembering this little story that came out right after the initial election results in November had Coleman ahead. Here's a quote from that Star Tribune article:

Coleman urged Franken to waive his right to a recount, saying that the prospect of changing the result was remote and that a recount would be costly to taxpayers (about $86,000).

"I just think the need for the healing process is so important..." Coleman said.

So, Mr. Coleman, I'd like you to think long and hard about the following:

1) The prospect of changing the election results is remote.

2) All your court battles are going to be costly the taxpayers.

3) Now that Franken has won, the healing process is just really so important.

I look forward to your concession speech!

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

2008-12-19T14:07:00.000-08:00

Since I get some time off work, I'm going to take some time off blogging as well (not that I've been overly prolific lately anyway).

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

THE AVERAGE MAN IS, UM, A MAN

2008-12-13T15:52:00.000-08:00

I'm still too busy (and lazy) to write a long post this week. However -- for some weekend fun -- I ran The Average Man through the Gender Analyzer today. And the verdict is ...

We think http://www.average-man.com/ is written by a man (61%).

Whew, I sure wasn't looking forward to changing all references from MAN to WOMAN on this site.

PROP 8 - THE MUSICAL

2008-12-06T16:53:00.000-08:00

Got too much going on this weekend to write a long post, but I wanted to say that -- if you haven't seen this -- you should (and it does indeed prove that Jesus is Black) ...

MY BOOB TUBE IS SAGGY

2008-11-30T17:17:00.000-08:00

For any television junkies out there, you may be interested in the on-going saga that is the Screen Actors Guild (or SAG) negotiations. In a nutshell, the SAG leadership -- like the Writers Guild before them -- is thinking about a strike in order to try and receive a better contract. Here's some recent news from Studio Briefing on the matter:

Wednesday's announcement by the leaders of the Screen Actors Guild that they will conduct a strike authorization vote next month -- raising the possibility of a strike as early as January -- has had the unintended effect of swelling the signature count on the "No SAG Strike" petition being circulated online ... Meanwhile, the British trade publication Screen Daily, has published an editorial in which it observes that a strike would affect the movie business internationally. "It is not unreasonable for Screen Actors Guild President Alan Rosenberg to point out that 'You can't use hard economic times as an excuse to sell out the future,'" the editorial says. "Well no. But the studios are also right to point out the foundations for that future have not yet been built and this is the wrong time to fight over the spoils."

I'm going to be honest and say that -- while I was totally behind the WGA strike -- I've actually been arguing against this one. It may be completely selfish on my part, but the TV industry that I love so much has never really recovered from that event, and I feared that a SAG strike would pretty much just do it in completely. In addition, I have to admit that I was with those folks who've been saying a strike in this economy just doesn't make any sense. I mean, who cares that people get a few more Internet royalties if no one has a job?

Well, you know what? ... I've completely changed my mind on this issue; the following are some recent events that motivated my change of heart (broken down by network):

ABC - As I mentioned in the last blog entry, my favorite show in the whole world, Pushing Daisies, was cancelled last week due to low ratings. And ABC, in the same announcement, stated that another wonderful show, Eli Stone, is probably gone as well.

NBC - Two new shows from last season that really struck a cord with me are Chuck and Life, but NBC just recently stated that neither of them are on the schedule starting in January. The network did, however, give the beyond dreadful (and incredibly low rated) Knight Rider a full season pickup.

FOX - The very low rated (and terribly boring) Sarah Connor Chronicles just got a full season pickup, but FOX also announced that (genius) Joss Whedon's new show, The Dollhouse, is going to be on Friday nights; virtually guaranteeing its demise.

CBS - I don't watch any of the eighteen CSI shows, so I don't really care much about this network.

Well, there you have it ... EVERY SINGLE ONE of the new shows from last season that I like is either gone or soon to be gone, yet a bunch of crap is being spared. So, what "television industry" exactly are we trying to protect by avoiding a strike here? Is it the one that continues to replace quality entertainment with shows about wife swapping and mean nannies?

Yes, it is true that Pushing Daisies never recovered from the WGA strike, but neither did anything else. The solution to low ratings isn't to constantly cancel and replace things (or continuously shuffle them around the schedule); it's to nurture the stuff that's actually good. This is a concept that the idiot suits in charge never seem to get despite making the same dumb mistakes every year. Is it any wonder that people are watching less TV than ever?

Therefore, since it looks as if nothing I like is going to be on past January anyway, I say LET'M STRIKE! I hope all the networks tank.

SAVE THE DINOSAURS?

2008-11-23T15:39:00.000-08:00

I have to admit that I'm really torn on the whole concept of bailing out the big three auto makers. My heart says to let'm go down, but my head thinks that could be extremely bad news for the country.

Before getting into that, however, a little background ... I am pretty opinionated when I want to be (or even when I don't), but I'm not generally arrogant enough to think I could run a business better than most. For example, I've said many a time that I am not "a finance guy" in advance of expressing to my thoughts on the whole Wall Street situation. Having said that, there are two areas where I -- in all modesty -- feel you could litterly plop me down in the CEO chair and receive far superior results than you're getting from the knuckleheads in charge today. One such area is television: I mean, who cancels Pushing Daisies but gives Knight Rider a full season? But that's a post for a different day.

The main area I'd like to discuss is the automobile industry ... Long before $4 a gallon gas, I was telling anyone who would listen that the first U.S. company to own fuel efficient cars would be the "winner" in this arena. And I distinctly remember some friends calling me naive when I said that -- the day I took over as CEO -- I would demand that all our cars be hybrids. I also remember arguing that these old school thinkers in charge of GM, Ford, and Chrysler need to be replaced with a Steve Jobs type who could innovate and shake things up. "It's just not that easy," my friends would say. Well, who's having the last cry now?

So, my inspiration for writing this post was a recent op-ed piece by Thomas L. Friedman titled How to Fix a Flat. In the column, he starts off by saying the following:

How could these companies be so bad for so long? Clearly the combination of a very un-innovative business culture, visionless management and overly generous labor contracts explains a lot of it. It led to a situation whereby General Motors could make money only by selling big, gas-guzzling S.U.V.’s and trucks. Therefore, instead of focusing on making money by innovating around fuel efficiency, productivity and design, G.M. threw way too much energy into lobbying and maneuvering to protect its gas guzzlers ...

... And it included endless lobbying to block Congress from raising the miles-per-gallon requirements. The result was an industry that became brain dead ... Nothing typified this more than statements like those of Bob Lutz, G.M.’s vice chairman. He has been quoted as saying that hybrids like the Toyota Prius "make no economic sense." And, in February, D Magazine of Dallas quoted him as saying that global warming "is a total crock of [expletive]." ... These are the guys taxpayers are being asked to bail out.

Amen, brother! As one of my friends often points out regarding his newest vehicle: "This is basically the same car I was driving 35 years ago." Can you imagine if the computer industry ran this way? Friedman then goes on to talk about placing conditions on such a bailout and ends this way:

I would add other conditions: Any car company that gets taxpayer money must demonstrate a plan for transforming every vehicle in its fleet to a hybrid-electric engine with flex-fuel capability, so its entire fleet can also run on next generation cellulosic ethanol.

Lastly, somebody ought to call Steve Jobs, who doesn’t need to be bribed to do innovation, and ask him if he’d like to do national service and run a car company for a year. I’d bet it wouldn’t take him much longer than that to come up with the G.M. iCar.

Hmm, demonstrate a plan for hybrid-electric and then call Steve Jobs? Where have I heard that before? So, yes, I will say without hesitation that I could have single-handedly saved the U.S. auto industry. But my phone never rang :(

Okay, now that I got that "I told you so" moment out of my system, the question still remains of why we should help these horrible people who have spent that last half century doing everything in their power to ruin their own companies. Well, simply put, the loss of jobs that would result from them going down could very well throw us into a depression, and I don't think you can underestimate how many Americans are linked in some way or another to this industry. If unemployment wasn't steadily rising (and the credit markets weren't frozen), then I would say to let them go into bankruptcy. But I'm just not sure we can afford to let that happen in this financial climate.

That being said, I reluctantly agreed with the Wall Street bailout a few months back, and that has pretty much been a dismal failure. It seems that many of the banks -- rather than opening up lines of credit -- just hoarded the cash or used it to pay for bonuses, dividends, and even luxury trips. What's to say that these idiot car executives won't do much of the same?

So, should we bail them out or not? ... I just don't know. Do you?

WHAT NOW?

2008-11-19T17:20:00.000-08:00

Uh-oh, I think this might be me :)

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

OLBERMANN ON PROP 8

2008-11-13T08:48:00.000-08:00

Okay, WOW!

44. BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA

2008-11-08T14:42:00.000-08:00

So, I was asked yesterday why I haven't posted anything since the election. Well, the answer is ... I simply can't find the words to express my feelings. Seriously, I keep thinking I'm going to wake up any moment and watch McCain on MSNBC giving a press conference to announce his Chief of Staff or something. But it's not a dream, is it? Or maybe it is a dream in the best possible sense. After eight dark years that is W.'s reign, we just elected a smart man; a good man; a genuinely compassionate man; and yes, a black man. Who would have thought?

We're not a perfect nation: a few states (including mine) collectively decided to add hate and discrimination into law (I guess gay is the new black). And it sure didn't take long for my victory bubble to deflate a little after reading this ugliness in Noozhawk. I mean, does the following sound at all "gracious" to you?

Yet, if Obama proves himself, we will gladly give him his due. But he’d better protect our country. And he’d better rein in his spendthrift Democrat majority in Congress ...

Right, it's the Democrats who have spent us into the ground. Then, there's this ...

I’m sorry to find many of my “liberal” friends are psychological bullies who seek to silence genuine questions using insults and attacks. Such tactics are no doubt effective with some people — by intimidating them into silence you can convince yourself that they agree ...

Right, it's the liberals who yelled "Kill Him!" and "Terrorist!" at their rallies. And finally, there's this little gem ...

In his acceptance speech Obama acknowledged those of us whose vote he didn’t get. He claimed to want to earn our trust. Fine. We aren’t going to agree to socialism because we work hard for our money. Share the wealth of the shadow banking bandits — not ours — We-The-People. We want our borders secured and our country protected against radical Islam. We don’t think it’s fair to nationalize health care without nationalizing the legal profession ...

Huh?

So, no, we clearly aren't there yet. But let there be no doubt: Today is a good day in America.

TL MAKES HIS FINAL PUSH

2008-11-02T11:54:00.000-08:00

Well, the election is just around the corner, and this is probably my last post before Tuesday. So, I'd just like to reiterate how excited I am to vote YES for Barack Obama and NO on Prop 8. I'll leave you with a couple of funny videos to bring the points home:

Opie and Ritchie make the case for Obama ...

Hmm, gay marriage doesn't affect me at all ...

VOTE!

WASSUP 2008

2008-10-30T17:00:00.000-07:00

The really cool thing about this video is that those are the original actors ...

An Average Look at the CA Propositions

2008-10-23T10:58:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm sure by now we're all settled (or even entrenched) in our votes for President, Senator, Congressperson, etc. However, most of the state and local propositions were a little less well known to me when The Average Man finally sat down to fill out the ol' absentee ballot. So I took a look through the recommendations from several trusted sources and, for the most part, averaged 'em out.

They are:
Santa Barbara Independent
Los Angeles Times
League of Women Voters
Democratic Party of Santa Barbara
Click any of those links for details on their recommendations.

STATE MEASURES:

Prop 1A: High Speed Rail
Independent: Yes
LA Times: Yes
LWV: Yes
SB Dems: Yes
Average Man: Yes

Prop 2: Farm Animal Cruelty
Independent: Yes
LA Times: No
SB Dems: Yes
Average Man: Yes. LA Times says agriculture will move out of CA to avoid it, but that doesn't seem likely. Plus, it's just the right thing to do.

Prop 3: Childrens Hospital Bond
Independent: Yes
LA Times: Yes
LWV: Yes
SB Dems: Yes
Average Man: Yes

Prop 4: Parental notification before abortion
Independent: No
LA Times: No
LWV: No
SB Dems: No
Average Man: No

Prop 5: Nonviolent Drug Offenses.
Independent: Yes
LA Times: No
LWV: Yes
SB Dems: Yes
Average Man: Yes. Has its faults, but a step in the right direction towards treating drug use as a medical rather than criminal issue.

Prop 6: Mandatory Prison Sentencing
Independent: No
LA Times: No
LWV: No
SB Dems: No
Average Man: No. Costs billions, puts more people in jail. Enough, already.

Prop 7: Renewable Energy
Independent: Yes
LA Times: No
LWV: No
SB Dems: Yes
Average Man: A tricky one. I'm 100% behind the idea, but not sure how well this will actually work. Figuring it might fail, voted yes to show support.

Prop 8: Prohibit Same-Sex Marriage
Independent: No
LA Times: No
LWV: No
SB Dems: No
Average Man: Absolutely NO. WTF is wrong with people that care who marries who? This looks like a cruel (and obscenely well-funded) attempt to get conservatives to the polls when they know their boy McCain doesn't stand a chance in CA.

Prop 9: Victims Rights
Independent: No
LA Times: No
LWV: No
SB Dems: No
Average Man: No. Not that I really understand the details, but it would apparently would give families of crime victims more say in the justice system. Revenge does not equal justice. Let the laws do the job.

Prop 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Independent: No
LA Times: No
LWV: No
SB Dems: Neutral
Average Man: No. This one's definitely a scam. It's largely funded by oilman T. Boone Pickens, who wants cars to run on natural gas, which he apparently has a ton of. Let him pay for his own pipelines and fueling stations.

Prop 11: Redistricting Reform
Independent: Yes
LA Times: Yes
LWV: Yes
SB Dems: No
Average Man: Yes. Makes redistricting non-partisan. Makes sense that the party opposes it, but it's the fair way to handle it.

Prop 12: Bond to Help Vets Purchase Homes
Independent: Yes
LA Times: Yes
SB Dems: Yes
Average Man: Yes. Times calls it "the best deal on the ballot" since the money is paid back. And regardless, it's the least we can do.

LOCAL MEASURES:

Measure A: Road Repair & Safety
Independent: Yes
LWV: Yes
SB Dems: Yes
Average Man: Yes. Another no-brainer.

Measure G: Utility Fees
Independent: Yes
SB Dems: Yes
Average Man: Yes. Continues an existing tax on phone bills that goes towards roads, police and firefighters.

Measures H & I: Property Tax for Schools
Independent: Yes
LWV: Yes
SB Dems: Yes
Average Man: Yes. 50 bucks a year to our struggling public schools? You got it.

There you go! Hope it helps.

PALIN AS PRESIDENT

2008-10-21T16:28:00.000-07:00

A few people sent me this link today. If you want a way too much fun way to (shudder) visualize Sarah Palin in the Oval Office, this is a must see!

A few simple instructions:

Run your mouse over things.
Click when you see the arrow turn into a hand.
Click on the spinning globe for different responses to different points on the map.
Open the windows, doors, and desk cabinets.
All sorts of fun to be found!

Protest Wendy McCaw with your dollars

2008-10-11T10:42:00.000-07:00

The Exceptional Wife and I went and caught Citizen McCaw again last night at the Fiesta. Still an excellent chronicle of what went down two years ago (and continues to do down) with our local paper. And made even better with some streamlining of footage, and new info. If you can't get out to see it this weekend, pick up the DVD from their website for $20 -- these brave guys are thousands in the hole from making the movie, and every bit helps.

After the flick, the union was passing out flyers that list the local shops that still advertise with the NP (as of 10/8/08):

DOWNTOWN:
Santa Barbara Athletic Club
Hayward's
Enterprise Fish Co
Santa Cruz Market
Churchill Jewlers
Esau's Cafe
Mountain Air Sports
Lazy Acres
Home Improvement Center
Cabana Home
Santa Barbara Eyeglass Factory
One World Imports
Rugs and More/Antica Furnishings

UPPER STATE/DE LA VINA
Chuck's Restaurant
Tremblay Financial
Hot Springs Spa & Patio
Holser and Bailey

AUTO DEALERS
SB Chrysler Jeep
SB Nissan
SB Volkswagen
Graham Chevrolet
Hughes Auto

MONTECITO
Silverhorn
Fillippinis Financial Group

So if you shop at one of these places (and support the fired reporters), ask to talk to the manager, and let 'em know how you feel. Personally, I won't shop at any advertiser that supports this newspaper (or read the paper myself) until Wendy McCaw recognizes the union, as she is obliged to do by law and has been ordered to do by the court, and agrees to keep her opinions away from the news reporting.

Banking away from WAMU

2008-10-08T12:18:00.000-07:00

The Average Man got his very first bank account at WAMU, way back when it was GW. Since moving to SB, I've often contemplated moving to a smaller, local bank, but with no specific complaints, also never found a reason or the time to actually do it.

But with the collapse of WAMU and buyout by JPMorganChase™®©, now seems like the time. While the Average balances are way under the $100K FDIC insurance limit, WAMU's sub-prime scamming pisses me off, and besides, bigger is hardly ever better when it comes to customer service. So the Average checking and savings are gonna go local.

Unfortunately, I have no clue which one to choose. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust seems to have a lot of branches around, and hey, it's got Santa Barbara in the name. But yesterday I saw an ad for Montecito B&T that says they don't charge for ATM use anywhere, which would be nice. And now that I've been looking around, I see others, like Community West, Mid-State and Los Padres.

So I need your help -- if you use a locally owned bank, how do you like it? Are the locations convenient? If you've had a problem, how's the customer service? How's the online banking? Any other reasons to choose one over another? Thanks in advance!

On another subject, the Average Man needs no help choosing his new favorite restaurant: SLY'S in downtown Carp. The Exceptional Wife and I shared dinner there last week and it was PHENOMENAL! There's nothing super fancy on the menu, just comfort foods. But everything was made with quality ingredients and what seemed like incredible attention to detail. The onion strings were impossibly light and crispy, the filet mignon chili nice and spicy (but not too hot), and the scalloped potatoes 'n' cheese was nothing short of love in a dish. After we split two unbelievable desserts, I felt like I might explode, but man was it worth it. Mmmm mmm mmm!

On second thought, forget the bank, we're just gonna spend all our money there.

VOTE YES ON PROP 2!

2008-10-05T18:52:00.000-07:00

Just because we eat'm, doesn't mean we have to be cruel ...

THIS IS YOUR MCCAIN ON THE ECONOMY

2008-09-28T18:28:00.000-07:00

If you want a good indication of how comfortable John McCain is thinking about the economy, I beg you to watch his reaction in the clip below when asked about the subprime mortgage mess. Then, I'd like you to ask yourself if he's the leader we've been waiting for ...

His reaction can only be described as TERROR.

On a separate note ... I've been having a few discussions with friends lately about the Palin-Biden debate this week, and I've been (in the minority) arguing that she is going to "win" the thing. My feelings as to why she will do well can be summed up perfectly in this fake headline by the writers of The Daily Show:

PALIN EXCEEDS
EXPECTATIONS IN VP
DEBATE: REMAINS
UPRIGHT, DOESN'T DROOL

Welcome to George Bush's America.

WHY THE EMMY AWARDS SUCK

2008-09-23T16:35:00.000-07:00

I can't go another minute without making a quick statement about this year's Emmy Awards. Those who know me will tell you that I watch a great deal of television (probably too much), so the Emmy's are actually often more exciting for me than the Oscars. Over the last few years, however, I've become increasing irritated with this particular awards show. I could go on and on as to the reasons for my outrage, but let's just say that I can't for the life of me understand why the academy isn't falling all over themselves to give an Emmy to Hugh Laurie, and yet, James Spader has like four!? I mean, I love Boston Legal, but please.

Anyway, this year's Emmy Awards might be the last straw for me. I'm already disgusted with all the "Reality TV" that permeates the airwaves these days, but to have the Emmy's be hosted by reality television people is just insulting to those of us who try to convince others that quality TV does exist out there.

But that's not what really set me off ... When the writer of the HBO mini-series John Adams was making his speech, he started off by saying something to the effect that his work reminds us of a time when presidents could talk in full sentences. He barely got that out of his mouth before the network CUT TO A COMMERCIAL! You can read more about it here.

So much for free speech.

RETHINKING THE BLAME GAME

2008-09-16T18:27:00.000-07:00

Now that the pit bull with lipstick has given McCain a "surge" in the polls, it seems that everyone (and their dog) can't wait to jump in and tell Obama how's he screwing this thing up. For example, the politically adept Arianna Huffington recently stated that it's time for Obama to find his inner anger. Here's a quote ...

To fully become the transformational leader we need, Obama must demonstrate to the American people his capacity for indignation -- for the kind of ferocious passion that fueled King and Nelson Mandela. He has to fight fire with fire, and wield anger in the service of what right, true, and good. The fierce urgency of now demands nothing less.

Likewise, the self-described apolitical Thomas L. Friedman felt the need to get in the conversation this time around and give Obama some tips about changing his calm temperament ...

I confess, I watch politics from afar, but here’s what I’ve been feeling for a while: Whoever slipped that Valium into Barack Obama’s coffee needs to be found and arrested by the Democrats because Obama has gone from cool to cold.

This is just two high profile examples, but let's not forget about the countless other posts on the blogasphere with a similar theme. Here's a quote from one of my recent favorites ...

Is Obama now going to let himself get moosed by a parochial Alaskan know-nothing because she's a woman? ... Time to get mad. At Palin. At McCain. At the Bushes (yes both of them) ...

... Your move, Senator Obama.

Of course, for every Huffington and Friedman, you'll find others who are telling Obama that he must be very careful not to come off as an "angry black man" (Oh, the horror!). So, what's the poor guy to do?

In the past two presidential elections, I'll admit that I was complaining as loudly as anyone about the missteps of the DemocratIC candidates. Like many others in 2000, I would constantly ask why Gore wasn't showing any genuine emotion. I mean, do you think the Oscar and Nobel Peace Prize winning Gore of today would have lost to Bush? And in 2004, I kept yelling at Kerry to vigorously defend himself against the swiftboat attackers. Think of how different it might have been had Kerry come out swinging after those ads instead of wind surfing.

Well, you know what? ... I'm not playing the Democratic blame game this time. With the exception of some minor cases where Obama might have zigged instead of zagged, I'm not seeing how Barack has done anything horribly wrong to this point. So, I have a new philosophy for this election ...

If -- after the last 8 dark years of Bush destroying the world -- the American people would actually elect a clueless, Republican, neocon, war hawk simply because he plucked an inexperienced, Republican, neocon, good looking, Super-Christian, wolf hunter out of obscurity and stuck her in front of the cameras to distract them from the real important issues of our day, then America gets the leaders it deserves! And if the "liberal media" once again lets Republicans say and do whatever they want while (at the same time) micro analyzing the Democrats, then Obama probably never had a chance in the first place. Therefore, when President Palin finishes Bush's job of driving the country into the ground, I will not be blaming Obama this time around; I will be blaming us.

If you want another piece of unsolicited advice, Senator Obama, then here's mine ... Just keep doing your thing, brother, and I'll be proud to stand behind you.

Your move, America.

John McCain will Raise Your Taxes

2008-09-12T10:57:00.000-07:00

well, unless you're a zillionaire, of course....

From the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution):

"Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise."

Heck, even the conservative Business Week admits that Obama's plan will benefit the middle class far more, and, unlike McCain and Bush's plans, will pay for itself rather than leave us further in debt.

Here's a Washington Post article with a graph that makes it pretty clear how both plans will work and who gets the beneifts.

Now, lest you feel sorry for those poor zillionaires who will have their taxes raised (or think you're going to become one of them in the next 4-8 years), here's some facts:

- Right now capital gains are taxed at a maxiumum of 15 percent. So if you work hard and bring home a paycheck, you get hit with 25 or 30 percent, but if you sit around while your money makes you more money, you pay only 15. There's no reason that income shouldn't be taxed the same. This will account for a lot of the "increase" on the wealthy (while the rest involves closing tax loopholes that let US companies "operate" overseas and avoid paying income tax altogether, which is flat-out wrong and un-American).

- I say "increase" because the top tax rate has actually been falling steadily through the last century. Fifty years ago, the top earners paid a whopping NINETY percent in taxes. Reagan & Bush The First dropped it from 70 way down to 31, which also accounts for a lot of the debt they racked up. So it's not unreasonable to bump it back up to 39, which, incidentally, is where Clinton raised it to in 1993, and he not only paid down the debt and left us a surplus, but we had the biggest growth of our economy in decades.

As for how McCain will actually raise your or my taxes, it's pretty sneaky -- he wants to tax employer-provided health care benefits. (and give a credit that's a fraction of the average cost for most families). So if you get wonderful, inexpensive health care coverage through your job, prepare to be stung.

And lest you think that McCain's plan might somehow make health care less expensive overall, this Economic Policy institute analysis shows that Obama's plan will cover a far greater number of people for less money. Crazy!

Them's the facts. If you read or see or hear differently, consider who's talking to you, and how much money they make.

WHY SARAH PALIN SCARES ME

2008-09-06T15:12:00.000-07:00

For the first time since this long presidential race began, I am truly depressed. Even though there have been a number of ups and downs over the last few months (Jeremiah Wright anyone?), I have been continuously comforted by the fact that no one cares about the Republicans. And no matter how bad things got for the Dems, the country remained excited about the possibilities of the party. Could we have a black man or a woman as president? Could this field be any more talented? For the Republican side, on the other hand, it was always one big yawn.

That all changed on Wednesday night when an unknown Alaska governor named Sarah Palin came out of the mountains and -- to my great fear -- slam dunked her speech. And in one 36 minute interval, the GOP now has momentum, energy, and excitement: things they've completely lacked up to this point.

"Why so worried," people ask? "I mean, she's totally unqualified to be VP, and people will see that." My response: will they? If the Thursday morning Palin-gasm by the "liberal media" is any indication, I can totally see the -- often idiotic -- country falling in love with this woman's plucky spirit and down home values (whatever) but never really knowing that ...

- she thinks God wanted the Iraq war.

- she thinks God wants an oil pipeline through Alaska.

- she think creationism should be taught it schools.

- she thinks global warming is not man made.

- she doesn't believe in a woman's right to choose (under any circumstances).

I mean, she's pretty much Bush with lipstick (or maybe worse?), but here you have Wolf Blitzer calling her an "American hero" after one well delivered speech. Ugh, I think I'm going to throw up.

So, can we say anything negative about her to shake people back to reality? Of course not. What about her 17-year-old pregnant daughter? Oh, the family values, abstinence only crowd is telling us that this is a private matter. Would it be a private matter if Obama's kid was 17 and pregnant? Okay, so what about the fact that she has no foreign policy experience? Oh, Alaska borders Russia, so she's got that covered (still can't believe the liberal media lets that fly). Oh, and of course, she's an expert on energy, because ... um ... she thinks drilling is good? What about the fact that her only experience before governor is mayor of a small town? Oh, well, Barack Obama was a community organizer 20 years ago, so I guess they're even. I could go on ...

Why do I have this sinking feeling that McCain is going to walk into the Oval Office in January, and it's going to be because of a 36 minute speech on Wednesday night? Call me a pessimist, but I'm just so sick and tired of hearing Democratic concession speeches.

Happy Labor Day

2008-09-01T19:37:00.000-07:00

Lest we forget exactly why it's called "Labor Day"...

(click to view larger)

A big thank you to Gompers and the rest of the brave folks that put their lives on the line to give us the 5 day/40 hour work week, worker's comp, and holidays like this one.

And thanks to Today's Inspiration for the pic.

SB NEEDS SOME TOUGH LOVE

2008-09-01T13:11:00.000-07:00

I am generally proud to be a Californian and very proud to live in the great city of Santa Barbara. But the last few weeks I have felt anything but proud. Because, you see, I am witness to potentially one of the biggest blunders that we may ever make as a community. As The New York times recently reported ..

Santa Barbara County became a symbol of the national environmental movement’s passionate opposition to offshore oil drilling when an oil spill devastated its coastline in 1969. On Tuesday, it became a symbol of the changing national mood as its board of supervisors ... voted 3 to 2 on Tuesday to end the county’s opposition to offshore drilling ... Three weeks ago, the Public Policy Institute of California released a poll showing that 51 percent of Californians now approve of offshore drilling, a 10-point increase in a single year ...

This devastating bit of news got thinking about how our fear of terrorism has allowed us the sit back and watch our civil liberties slowly disappear. And now, it seems, our fear of high gas prices may result in me having to watch those ugly oil rigs reappear. You've probably heard this stuff a hundred times by now, but let me lay out once again why offshore drilling will do nothing to help gas prices:

- A decade for results: Even Bush himself is telling us that it may take more than a decade before we see any benefit from offshore drilling. Let me say that again: 10 YEARS!

- It's a land grab: More than half of the oil leases given to the oil companies have not been developed. So, why do they need our coasts? Let me say that again: OIL COMPANIES CAN DRILL ALL THEY WANT RIGHT NOW!

- The oil goes on the open market: Do you really believe that the oil off our coast will go right from the water into your gas tank? No, it will be sold on the open market. Let me say that again: YOUR OIL WILL GO TO CHINA!

- It will have almost no impact on gas prices: By some estimates, opening up offshore areas to oil exploration might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents. Let me say that again: FOUR CENTS!

So, Santa Barbara, let me ask you ... Why are you willing to muck up MY COAST in MY COMMUNITY for absolutely no benefit to you and your family? Is your eagerness to do something about high gas prices blinding you to the cause of doing something right? If you really think this is a good deal, I have a bridge in San Francisco that I'm dying to sell you. And to Supervisor Brooks Firestone, who cast the deciding vote here, this oil discussion reminds me that your family's beer gives me gas.

Should Santa Barbarans be angry about high gas prices? Your damn right you should be! You should be angry that big oil has spent billions to prevent you from driving fuel efficient cars. You should be angry that automobile companies have not spent the last three decades working towards cars that run on alternative fuels. You should be angry that our world is heating up at an exponential rate. But most of all, you should be angry that the mind-bogglingly incompetent Bush administration has so easily convinced you that offshore drilling will help at the pump.

Yes, this is a sad time for me. And you can bet that ten years from now -- when gas prices are still high -- I'm going to stand by my ocean front property on upper State Street and yell over the sea of oil rigs that, "I TOLD YOU SO!"

W's PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY

2008-08-17T13:31:00.000-07:00

Some Monday fun (sent to me by a friend) ...

PLANS FOR GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY ON CAMPUS OF SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY

The Bush Library - Next time you are in Texas, plan to visit! The George W Bush Presidential Library is now in the planning stages. The Library will include:

The Hurricane Katrina Room, which is still under construction.

The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you won't be able to remember anything.

The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't even have to show up.

The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.

The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.

The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, which no one has been able to find.

The National Debt room which is huge and has no ceiling.

The 'Tax Cut' Room with entry only to the wealthy.

The 'Economy Room' which is in the toilet.

The Iraq War Room. After you complete your first tour, they make you to go back for a second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth tour.

The Dick Cheney Room, in the famous undisclosed location, complete with shotgun gallery.

The Environmental Conservation Room, still empty.

The Supremes Gift Shop, where you can buy an election.

The Airport Men's Room, where you can meet some of your favorite Republican Senators.

The 'Decider Room' complete with dart board , magic 8-ball, Ouija board, dice, coins, and straws.

The museum will have an electron microscope to help you locate the President's accomplishments.

HOLY COMPARISONS, BATMAN!

2008-08-10T13:16:00.000-07:00

So, there I was; quietly enjoying a cup of Stone's Bitter Chocolate Oatmeal Stout, when my buddy, Patrick, decides he wants to throw down ... "Just saw THE DARK KNIGHT," he says, "and I think Batman is George Bush." WHAT!? I couldn't have heard that correctly. "In fact," he goes on, "that whole movie is just a Republican wet dream." I'm literally too stunned to speak. I don't think he really understands what he's saying. I mean, telling me that Bush is under that cape and cowl is like telling a little kid that Elmo is really the Bogeyman; I simply refuse to be bated into this discussion.

But Patrick is persistent. He goes on to -- I'll reluctantly admit -- make a strong case: Bruce Wayne is just a rich, white guy who will do whatever it takes to catch the evil-doer terrorist killer (that would be the Joker). And to get the job done, he will even break a few laws if necessary. For example, using cell phone technology to spy on every citizen of Gotham is perfectly acceptable behavior for Mr. Wayne, and utilizing a little bit of torture to extract information from your enemy is just a necessary means to an end. Sound familiar?

Okay, okay, stop; I can't take it anymore! My tiny mind just can't wrap itself around this argument. I've been a loyal fan of Batman since as long as I can remember. I know Batman, and you, Mr. Bush, are no Batman. Yes, it's true that Batman is what they call an "antihero;" unlike boy scouts like Superman, he constantly walks a fine line between right and wrong. And quite frankly, I'm happy that this movie tackles the kinds of issues relevant to our society. Good movies do that. I also think it's a good thing that Batman faces moral dilemmas and is pushed to do bad things. That's what makes him -- and all of us -- interesting people. But is he Bush? Let's discuss ...

Here's the thing: Bruce Wayne becomes Batman because his parents were killed by a thug. As a result of this traumatic experience from his childhood, he chooses to devote his life to fighting crime. Unlike certain presidents, however, he has a strict moral code that he always follows. First, he never uses a gun (no shooting your friends in the face for this guy). Second, he never kills under any circumstances. Can Captain Death Penalty say that?

You want to compare the Joker to Osama. Fine, let's do that ... When the Joker kills hundreds of people for no reason, Batman doesn't try to convince Gotham that the Penguin actually did it. But that is exactly what Bush did when he duped this country into believing that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. For those who STILL don't believe Mr. Bush actually wanted to do that, then maybe you should read Pulitzer prize winning journalist Ron Suskind's new book "The Way of the World." Here's a part of what Mr. Suskind wrote for The Huffington Post ...

The Iraq Intelligence Chief, Tahir Jalil Habbush -- a man still carrying a $1 million reward for capture, the Jack of Diamonds in Bush's famous deck of wanted men -- has been America's secret source on Iraq. Starting in January of 2003, with Blair and Bush watching, his secret reports began to flow to officials on both sides of the Atlantic, saying that there were no WMD and that Hussein was acting so odd because of fear that the Iranians would find out he was a toothless tiger. The U.S. deep-sixed the intelligence report in February, "resettled" Habbush to a safe house in Jordan during the invasion and then paid him $5 million in what could only be considered hush money.

In the fall of 2003, after the world learned there were no WMD -- as Habbush had foretold -- the White House ordered the CIA to carry out a deception. The mission: create a handwritten letter, dated July, 2001, from Habbush to Saddam saying that Atta trained in Iraq before the attacks and the Saddam was buying yellow cake for Niger with help from a "small team from the al Qaeda organization."

Hmm, very un-Batman-like behavior if you ask me. See, unlike Bush, Batman doesn't want to manipulate the public for his own questionable ends; he just wants to catch the actual bad guys. What, on the other hand, motivates W.: money, power, oil, greed? Hard to say. And as for the spying thing, we all know that Batman blows up the surveillance equipment at the end of the movie, because even he understands that it is "too much power for one person." Does anyone believe for a second that Bush would ever come to that same conclusion?

So, Batman and Bush are the same? No, Batman is the man in black who's devoted his life to the betterment of society. He fights for the downtrodden and struggles against corrupt government and corporate officials. He has no selfish motive other than to try and make the world a better place for all of us. Yes, Virginia, there is a Batman ... and his name is Obama.

TRAVIS QUITTING?

2008-08-04T20:09:00.000-07:00

I heard a rumor from Travis Armstrong's dog walker's mother's cousin's friend that he is thinking of resigning from the Santa Barbara News-Press. Apparently, his soul is so tortured by his complete and utter failure as the News-Press Opinion Editor that he can't find the inner strength to continue on with the position. According to my super-secret contact (who remains with Dick Cheney in an undisclosed location), Travis has been pondering this move for some time: "Ever since the News-Press meltdown a couple years back," says my contact, "Travis has been increasingly troubled by his declining professionalism in dealing with the Santa Barbara community. After particularly nasty editorials regarding the city council, he's even been known to look in the mirror and say '@#$% you, Travis' over and over. The situation is pretty bad."

When I pressed my contact on the specifics of Mr. Armstrong's recent tumble into depression, he (or she?) thinks that his obsession with Marty Blum is really starting to wear on his conscience. During one particularly down state, Travis was overheard saying, "Man, I blame her for everything from gang violence to gas prices. Heck, I even follow her around now and take pictures for no particular reason. What's wrong with me!?" Travis is so upset about his treatment of Mrs. Blum in recent months that he's even considering printing her response to his next unsubstantiated false allegation ... maybe.

As if these revelations weren't big enough, a friend of a friend of a friend told me that Travis even called Brian Barnwell at home last week to chat about the decision to leave the NP. According to this even more top secret contact, Travis said to Barnwell that he doesn't understand where his fascination with the former city council member comes from. "Even though you're out of office, I can't stop writing about you. " said Armstrong, "I just don't find any of the new people very interesting, you know? I'm sure I will hate one of them eventually, but for now, I get more joy out of writing about how your recent vacation to Disneyland is destroying our community."

Anyway, I'm sure Mr. Armstrong has good reasons to want to leave the News-Press, and we wish him the best of luck. Maybe San Jose will take him back. I hear their mayor is an easy target.

[Editor's Note: Nothing in this blog post is remotely true.]

TIME FOR SOME MORE VACATIONING

2008-07-20T12:26:00.000-07:00

Well, soon I'll be off to one of my favorite things in the whole world: The San Diego Comic-Con! If you're in town that week, keep a look out for me ... I'll be the nerdy one with the superhero t-shirt.

And should you need a politics fix while I'm gone, I'm sure there will be plenty of campaigning ...

WE LIVE IN BUSH'S ECONOMY NOW

2008-07-13T13:04:00.000-07:00

So, I was running by the newsstand the other morning and came across a headline in the LA Times titled IndyMac Bank seized by federal regulators. It starts off this way ...

The federal government took control of Pasadena-based IndyMac Bank on Friday in what regulators called the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history.

It then goes on to say ...

The takeover of IndyMac came amid rampant speculation that the federal government would also have to take over lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together stand behind almost half of the nation's mortgage debt.

Welcome to the Republican economy, ladies and gentlemen! If you're a large corporation, feel free to do whatever you want to make a profit. And -- should you fail -- no worries: the government's got your back. If however, you're just an average American, don't complain to us about your economic struggles. Because -- as McCain's chief economic advisor, Phil Gramm, said -- you're all just a "bunch of whiners." I think these recent financial events were summed up nicely by Newsweek's Daniel Gross ...

Should Washington intervene and explicitly do what has been implicitly assumed all along--backing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's debt--critics on the left will correctly claim that it's another example of privatizing profit and socializing risk.

Yep, that is in fact exactly what I'm doing right now. And this whole banking fiasco also got me thinking about the airline industry. Here's a quote from a recent article on the subject ...

US Airways Group Inc. is among a consortium of 12 U.S. air carriers asking the U.S. Congress to address the actions of oil speculators, whom they blame for escalating fuel prices ... The airlines’ chief executives say regulatory oversight of market speculation has declined in recent years, and the industry sees a need for reform to ensure speculators do not overheat the market to a point that hurts the consumer.

Is it just me, or do you interpret this as the airline industry basically begging the government to regulate more? All of a sudden DemocratIC principles seem a little more attractive, huh?

OBAMA: TO THE MIDDLE!

2008-07-06T11:36:00.000-07:00

Let me start off by saying that I still love Obama. He should be President in a big way, and a few recent events aren't going to sway me! But, jeez, man ... could you be a little more subtle with your mad dash to the middle. I mean, I know this is what politicians have to do to get elected these days (I guess), but let's not forget what got you here and the passion that many of us have for your positive stance for the things we care about.

Let's be honest: this was not a good couple of weeks for Obama. First, he opted out of public financing, and I'm not even going to try to spin that one (on the other hand, I really can't blame him either). However, I'm genuinely angry about the FISA thing. He should not support that horrible bill ... period! And then came this recent gem from an article on MSN ...

Democrat Barack Obama struggled Thursday to explain how his upcoming trip to Iraq might refine, but not basically alter, his promise to quickly remove U.S. combat troops from the war.

Rut-Ro!

Democrats keep saying we want someone who will win in November. And I suppose it could be argued that Obama is just doing what it takes. Although, I think Arianna Huffington might have the right idea in her post titled Moving to the Middle is for Losers. Here's a portion of it ...

Running to the middle in an attempt to attract undecided swing voters didn't work for Al Gore in 2000. It didn't work for John Kerry in 2004. And it didn't work when Mark Penn (obsessed with his "microtrends" and missing the megatrend) convinced Hillary Clinton to do it in 2008.

Fixating on -- and pandering to -- this fickle crowd is all about messaging tailored to avoid offending rather than to inspire and galvanize. And isn't galvanizing the electorate to demand fundamental change the raison d'etre of the Obama campaign in the first place? This is how David Axelrod put it at the end of February, contrasting the tired Washington model of "I'll do these things for you" with Obama's "Let's do these things together"

In a previous post, I also argued that Obama would be better than Clinton due partly to the fact that he wouldn't run the same loser playbook as Gore and Kerry. Prove me right, Barack.

I'd like to end with a little more about Obama's position on FISA. But rather than listen to me, you should listen to this ...

THE TRUTH ABOUT "ABOUT OIL"

2008-06-29T14:54:00.000-07:00

Why does it seem as if I spend most of my time these days trying to provide a liberal counterpoint to the increasingly Right leaning columnists inundating our local news sources? It started with Travis Armstrong at the The Santa Barbara News-Press. Then came The Daily Sound with its slow thinking Conservative Turtle. And now we have Noozhawk ... Over the last couple of weeks, local resident Harris Sherline has written two columns about our current oil crisis, arguing that the root of all evil is those pesky environmentalists and that the poor oil companies are really the victims in all this. Please read them yourself here and here to see what I'm saying.

I knew we were in trouble when Mr. Sherline started out his first column with the following:

Congressman Steve King recently observed that The Heritage Foundation has convincing empirical data "that the people that are advancing this cap and trade want to slow our economy down, want to reverse our economy, and they know that if they shut down energy, they back the economy off, and they are doing it all because they worship Mother Nature" (Glenn Beck, "Anwr or Bust!" May 21).

Here's some advice: If you want to provide a "fair and balanced" argument about energy, don't start off by quoting The (right wing think tank) Heritage Foundation and Glenn Beck. That would kind of be like me starting off a column on energy by quoting MoveOn.org and Michael Moore. I may generally agree with these two entities, but you get my point? And likewise with Glenn Beck: I mean, this is the guy who said the following to Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress:

I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies ... I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way.

Well, THIS American does not feel that way! Anyway, there are two major themes that Harris and others on the Right are trying to push lately regarding the oil crisis. First, there is this absurd idea that oil companies are not really making money. Here are a couple of statements that he points to:

» For American companies to compete successfully in the world’s oil market, they must be financially strong enough to carry out huge, complex energy projects that require enormous long-term investments. Exxon Mobil, for example, spends around $1 billion a day just for day-to-day operations and to make the necessary capital investments required to stay in business.

» "Since 2002 the U.S. oil and natural gas industry has earned about 8.1 cents per dollar of sales — exactly the same as all U.S. manufacturing, excluding autos. Not much of a windfall," the editorial said.

This so reminds me of pharmaceutical companies that try to convince us they are really broke due to the fact that they have to spend so much on R&D. Here's my counter: If that was the case, they wouldn't be called PROFITS now would they? The fact is that Exxon Mobile made like $11 billion in profits last quarter. And do you think they spent all that money looking for new oil sources or whatever? No, Exxon Mobil actually bought back about $8 billion of its own stock in the first quarter of 2008. Now, I'm not going to sit here and pretend like I completely understand the oil business, because I don't. But please don't patronize me with this argument that oil companies don't really make money.

The second major point made by Mr. Sherline is that the reason we're paying so much at the pump is due to the fact that bird loving, tree hugging, hippy environmentalists are preventing poor Exxon from drilling on more U.S. land. Here's another excerpt:

» "The Interior Department notes that most of the oil and 40 percent of the natural gas under public lands is off-limits to drilling. That’s about 19 billion barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas," the editorial said.

One wonders what the people who want to prevent us from developing our own energy resources are trying to accomplish. My guess is that, like so many other matters that are critical to the economic well-being of our nation, such decisions are made on the basis of politics, rather than what’s right or is best for all Americans.

As someone correctly pointed out in the comments section of this column, "First of all more than half of the oil leases given to the oil companies have not been developed. It is not due to environment constraint but because the oil companies have chosen to do so on their own accord." That's exactly right, and Joe Biden made the same point on Meet The Press last week. The commentor goes on to say, "the deregulation of the energy companies by the Bush Administration. (The Ken Lay Admendment). Has directly contributed to the futures trading speculation that has raised oil prices way beyond the level that supply and demand would dictate." Well said.

As I stated before, I don't pretend to be an expert in all things oil. But please don't try to sell us this false bill of goods. The reality is that we need to get off (what Bush called) our addiction to oil. And the solution to an addiction is not to get more of what you're addicted to from someone else. Plus, even John McCain's own experts say that opening more land to offshore drilling (for example) wouldn't even help gas prices for about a decade, if at all. No, what's definitely "best for all Americans" is for us to start focusing on conservation and alternative energy ... and we need to start now.

In his columns, Mr. Sherline likes to talk a lot about conspiracies. Well, if you saw the movie Who Killed The Electric Car?, you would know that there actually has been a conspiracy by the oil companies, auto companies, and some government officials to keep alternative fuels off the road.

But, in this case, the conspiracy is real.

GONE FISHIN'

2008-06-12T15:10:00.001-07:00

Can liberals like me take a vacation now and then? YES WE CAN!

See you in a couple weeks.

AN OPEN LETTER TO DALE FRANCISCO

2008-06-08T19:54:00.000-07:00

Dear Dale,

Before your recent election victory, you and I had a little debate regarding alternative transportation. I was for it; you -- while not against it -- didn't really see the value. Here is a quote from your rebuttal to my comments in which I referred to you as defeatist:

It is not "defeatist" to note that private transportation's overwhelming popularity is due to the choices and convenience it provides. It is far more realistic to work on technologies that improve private transportation--i.e., making it more green--than to continue in a policy of "encouraging" people to "get out of their cars," when there is little empirical evidence that such measures work.

I don't know if you read it or not, but I responded this way:

Why not do both? And what's the evidence that such measures don't work? I've been to Toronto, Paris, London, and Amsterdam in the course of the last few years, and public transportation is just awesome -- and highly utilized -- in those cities. Would you tell them it doesn't work? I might agree with you that a strategy to "get people out of their cars" would be a hard sell "today," but we're not talking about today; we're talking about the future.

Well, it's beginning to look like the future might just be here. In case people may not have noticed, the average price for a gallon of gas just surpassed the $4 mark for the first time in history. And this unfortunate benchmark got me thinking about an article I read a few weeks ago titled Gas Prices Send Surge of Riders to Mass Transit. Here's part of it:

With the price of gas approaching $4 a gallon, more commuters are abandoning their cars and taking the train or bus instead ... Mass transit systems around the country are seeing standing-room-only crowds on bus lines where seats were once easy to come by. Parking lots at many bus and light rail stations are suddenly overflowing, with commuters in some towns risking a ticket or tow by parking on nearby grassy areas and in vacant lots.

Now, I wouldn't imagine that Santa Barbara is to this point yet, but it doesn't seem as if gas prices are going down any time soon. Thus, it might be in Santa Barbara's best interest to continue strengthening our public transportation infrastructure rather than going in the opposite direction. Your recent positions, however, don't encourage me. For example, The Daily Sound quoted you as saying the following about dedicated transit lanes:

To me, any practical implementation of the idea of dedicated transit lanes is going to be astonishingly expensive … This would not be the time to be spending upwards of half a million dollars that we don’t have.

When is the time, Mr. Francisco? Should we wait until gas is $8 a gallon? I would ask that -- in light of recent events -- you reevaluate your hard line positions on this issue and consider the changes going on around the country. The NYT article I referenced earlier ends this way:

"Nobody believed that people would actually give up their cars to ride public transportation," said Joseph J. Giulietti, executive director of the authority. "But in the last year, and last several months in particular, we have seen exactly that."

Hmmm, I wouldn't say nobody believed it.

Sincerely,

The Average Man

BILL O'CRY-LY

2008-05-27T17:53:00.000-07:00

From one of last week's Studio Briefings:

Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes phoned NBC chief Jeff Zucker last summer and threatened to "unleash" Bill O'Reilly against NBC and its parent, General Electric, unless Zucker reigned in MSNBC host Keith Olbermann, who was regularly attacking O'Reilly (as "the worst person in the world") and Ailes himself, the Washington Post reported today (Monday). The complaints were later echoed in phone calls to Zucker from Rupert Murdoch, chairman of News Corp, which owns Fox News, the Post said. After the appeals failed, O'Reilly began an assault on GE chief Jeffrey Immelt, accusing him and his company of supporting the Iranian government. "If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt," O'Reilly said during one broadcast. GE spokesman Gary Sheffer insisted that "nothing we supply ... to Iran is in any way endangering U.S. troops." He said that News Corp execs "tell us if the attacks on O'Reilly end, the attacks on GE will end."

I love this story on so many levels that it just makes me feel warm and fuzzy on the inside ... Fox News has got to be the biggest bunch of cry babies on the planet. Day after day, they spew forth nothing but vitriolic hateful garbage against the Left. Yet, if one person dares to call them on their BS, they run around like a two-year-old who just had their ice cream cone stolen.

Let's not forget it wasn't that long ago that O'Reilly and company tried to sue Al Franken for using the term "Fair and Balanced" in his book title. And -- as you may recall -- they were literally laughed out of court.

My message to Keith Olbermann: Bill O'Reilly is indeed the worst person in the world, and I hope you keep saying as much ... every ... single ... day.

P.S. BTW, did you know that Halliberton also does business with Iran? I wonder if Fox News ever brings that up?

2008-05-22T22:46:00.000-07:00

"The energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our nation. These are facts. And we simply must face them.

"I am tonight, setting a clear goal, for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977. Never.

"I will soon submit legislation to Congress, calling for the creation of this nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20% of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000."

-- Jimmy Carter, July 15, 1979

Wouldn't that have been nice about now? Instead, big oil poured tons of money into Reagan's campaign, and his first decision as President was ordering the solar panels torn off the roof of the White House.

Are we better off than we were 30 years ago?

ALAN SHORE VS. THE SUPREME COURT

2008-05-18T15:47:00.001-07:00

If I had my own TV show, and the goal was to write an episode that perfectly dealt with all the problems of The Supreme Court, I'm not sure it would be possible to top this ...

Sadly, The Supreme Court has to be scolded by a fictional character, because no one would be able to pull this off in real life.

In case you missed it, that little exchange between Alan and Denny Crane when Clarence Thomas says, "Hey!" was a the result of a bet made by Denny that Alan couldn't make Thomas say something during the trial. Because, you see, Clarence Thomas never speaks; never asks questions; nothing. He's what they call in the legal business ... incompetent.

IF IT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR BOB BARKER ...

2008-05-11T18:32:00.000-07:00

Part of being a tree hugging, latte sipping, arugula eating elitist liberal is that I am required to care about animal rights. Thus, at the expense of taking a stand on which Wendy McCaw might agree, I feel the need to talk about a recent Independent article titled Supes Pass Spay/Neuter Ball Back to Staff. After spending about 5 minutes trying to figure out exactly what that means, I dove into the story. If you don't want to read it yourself, here's a quote that pretty much sums it up:

Legislation addressing this issue [pet population problem] and coauthored by Assemblymember Pedro Nava is making its way through the state: the California Healthy Pets Act, a two-year bill from 2007, which would require owners to spay or neuter most dogs and cats. All registered purebreds and animals used for herding, as well as police, service, and rescue dogs, would be exempt, however ...

This isn't the first time I've heard of such laws being bandied about in California, and I've actually had past discussions with some of my friends regarding this important issue. What fired me up enough to write this post, however, can be summed up with another quote from the article:

The matter was in front of the Board of Supervisors May 6, and more than 120 people showed to speak at the meeting, the room split for and against a countywide ordinance ...

The room split ... really!? I've heard the arguments, read the debates, thought about the issues; and for the life of me, I just can't understand who would be against this. Yet, half -- that's right, half -- the people showed up at the meeting to fight it.

Here's the thing ... our animal shelters are hugely overcrowded. By one account; 160,000 dogs are euthanized each year in California due to the simple fact that there is not enough room to properly take care of them. That means that nearly one out of every four dogs is ultimately euthanized in our shelters. Think about that. I mean, how can you not support a law that might help this situation?

It seems to me that the only people who have a legitimate reason to be against this (e.g. breeders and such) would be exempt. So, who are these 60 people that felt strongly enough to go in front of the Board of Supervisors and argue that this is a bad idea? What is the downside here? I really want to know.

In those discussions with my friends, the only real argument made against such an ordinance was that it would reduce the diversity of dogs and that we would end up with nothing but purebreds. I have sympathy for this opinion given that I've owned nothing but mixed breeds in my life. However, I just don't buy that this would be the ultimate effect. The fact is that a law such as this would not completely prevent dogs from reproducing; there would still be strays running around and -- let's be honest -- some people would simply ignore the law (as they do with all laws).

If this ordinance were extremely effective, my gut tells me it might reduce the number of dogs in shelters by half. That would be phenomenal! And guess what: it would increase the chances that those remaining dogs would actually be wanted.

Imagine that.

EW, I'VE BEEN MEMED!

2008-05-07T11:05:00.000-07:00

Since Clinton defeated Obama by only a slim two point margin in Indiana, I think he should ... just kidding, Patrick. Nope, no politics today. Instead, I've been memed by Amy:

Here are the rules:
A) The rules of the game get posted at the beginning.
B) Each player answers the questions about himself or herself.
C) At the end of the post, the player then tags five people and posts their names, then goes to their blogs and leaves them a comment, letting them know they’ve been tagged and asking them to read your blog.

1) Ten years ago I was...
getting used to being a first time home owner and dog owner.

2) Five things on today's to-do list:
Buy a card for someone
Read blogs
Pickup this week's comic books
Pickup dinner on my way home
Watch Top Chef

3) Things I'd do if I were a billionaire:
Buy a Montecito mansion with an ocean view and then staff it with people to take care of us.
Make movies for fun and not care if anyone watched them.
Open a "boutique" movie theater in Santa Barbara that serves food and drinks (even during the film); and hire large bouncers that kick people out WHO HAVE CONVERSATIONS BEHIND ME DURING THE MOVIE!

4) Three bad habits:
Stress and worry too much.
Don't keep in touch with old friends.
Over-think things.

5) Five places I've lived:
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Watertown, Sound Dakota
Boulder City, Nevada
Columbia, Missouri
Santa Barbara, California

6) Six jobs I've had in my life:
Bus boy
Pizza deliverer
Dish washer
Resident assistant
Database programmer
Database administrator

I think all the other bloggers I know have been memed already, so I'll have to skip that one.

STEWART ON SCALIA

2008-05-03T16:00:00.000-07:00

For someone who thinks the Supreme Court is mostly a bunch of yahoos, it's been a difficult few months as I've been forced to listen to the likes of Thomas and Scalia pimp their books on all my favorite shows. Case in point, Antonin Scalia recently took up two segments on 60 Minutes, and I had to endure Lesley Stahl constantly point out his charm, followed by him making such nonsensical statements as the fact that his social conservative views don't affect his judicial decisions ... whatever ... Then, he follows up that gem by stating he was depressed by many past court decisions but that "things are better now." Thanks, Bush!

There were so many things to be upset about in the interview that I wasn't even sure how to verbalize my anger. Luckily, Jon Stewart took care of it for me in his oh so brilliant manner ...

EVOLUTION SCHMEVOLUTION

2008-05-01T19:01:00.000-07:00

If you're one of those strange people who believes in evolution (I do), you may have been a little nervous about Ben Stein's new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (I was). This entry from today's Studio Briefing might make you feel better (I did) ...

At The Movies' Cohost Roeper Responds To Critics
At the Movies with Ebert and Roeper co-host Richard Roeper wrote today (Thursday) that he has been accused of "liberal bias" for not reviewing the "intelligent design" documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed on the TV show. In his column in the Chicago Sun-Times Roeper insisted that no liberal conspiracy was involved in the omission. "Expelled wasn't screened for us," he wrote, but given the attention the film has received he finally managed to see it. "Wow," he concluded, "What a piece of garbage."

PELOSI DOESN'T GET IT

2008-04-26T21:51:00.001-07:00

The following is a quote from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi regarding Hillary and Barack running together ...

I don't think it's a good idea...I think that first of all that the candidates, whoever he or she may be, should choose his or her own vice presidential candidate. I think that's appropriate. That's where you would see the comfort level on not only how to run, but how to govern the country and there's plenty of talent to go around ..for a good strong ticket. I'm not one of those who thinks that that's a good ticket.

So, here's my question ... What good does it do for one of them to pick a VP based on "comfort level" or some such thing if they lose to McCain? The point of having them run together is not so they can govern more effectively or whatever; it's to prevent alienating millions of Democrats who would stay home if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. That's the big fear right now after this nightmare battle they're waging.

My opinion is -- if you really want to be elected President in November -- you better suck it up and consider your rival. It's not unheard of ... Reagan picked Bush after all.

EDWORDS

2008-04-23T18:21:00.000-07:00

Now, this John Edwards I would have voted for ...

ZELL AND MCCAW: SOUL MATES

2008-04-20T14:39:00.000-07:00

As other bloggers have observed recently, there is a somewhat eerie connection between Sam Zell and Wendy McCaw. Mr. Zell is the billionaire eccentric who recently purchased the Tribune Co. (owner of the Los Angeles Times), and Ms. McCaw is .... well, you know. Another interesting connection shared by these two newsroom owners is an awesome decline in newspaper subscriptions since taking over their respective companies. To be honest, I only had a passing interest in these similarities until I read a Studio Briefing entry titled "Zell Goes On The Air -- Unbeknownst To Him." Here it is ...

National Public Radio's All Things Considered has played excerpts of a talk delivered by Tribune Co. owner Sam Zell to the company's top Washington journalists in February. In it, Zell accused of the journalists of not generating revenue for the company, "so all of you are overhead." He maintained that Tribune employees -- the company owns 23 TV stations and 11 newspapers -- have failed to find ways to attract more viewers and readers. "Three guys in a garage create YouTube, and we've got 800 people in Chicago [Tribune's headquarters] who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground." Since Zell took over the company, Tribune outlets have been hit with substantial layoffs and cutbacks. "And I promise you the next 60 days will be even more tumultuous," Zell added. While he declined to discuss his remarks with NPR, his lawyer, David Bradford, told the public broadcaster: "He's somebody who speaks the unvarnished truth."

Well, he speaks unvarnished something. At any rate, this got me thinking about Wendy's feelings towards the Santa Barbara News-Press employees. For example, when the meltdown first occurred back in 2006, the Independent reported the following regarding her "Note to Readers" ...

In that note to readers, McCaw dismissed the mass exodus of high ranking editors from her paper, "as disgruntled ex-employees," who left because she would no longer allow them to abuse her paper by using the news pages as a loudspeaker for their hidden and not-so-hidden political agendas.

The following year, attorney Barry Cappello gave us some more insight into Wendy's opinion of her journalists ...

Mr. Cappello said newspapers are anachronisms, and journalists have failed to realize this ..."The meteor has hit. We’re watching the end of the industry," he said. "Journalists think they can write what they want when they want. I don’t know if that can survive in this age."

So, here's my question ... What other cases have you heard of where the owner of a company blames all the employees for the company's problems? I mean, don't CEO's get paid hundreds of millions of dollars because they are responsible for the well being of their businesses? Think about this for a minute: these two people actually used a public forum to basically say that their entire staff is a bunch of morons. Most of us have worked for companies that employ a large number of people, and I'm sure all of these companies have had their fair share of problems over the years. But imagine how you'd feel if the owner went to an event or wrote a letter and stated that the company's ills were due to the incompetence of all the workers.

Over 50 people have quit or been fired from the News-Press since July of 2006. That is a HUGE number of people compared to the size of entire News-Press staff. And Wendy would actually have you believe that every single one of them had to go because of their unwavering desire to place bias in the paper. Are you kidding me!? Likewise for Mr. Zell; he wants you to believe that his company is losing money because 800 journalists don't know what they're doing. Well, I've got news for both Sam Zell and Wendy McCaw: that's not how it works. You don't get to buy a company, run it into the ground, and then say everything would be fine if not for those pesky idiots who run around and do their jobs all day. If that were the case, Wall Street would call for the ouster of the employees; not the executives.

How nice would it have been if Ms. McCaw and Mr. Zell held a conference call early on with all the employees and said, "You know, times are tough. But you are all great folks, and we're going to get through this, because you are some of the most professional people I've ever had the pleasure to work with." That's what you call leadership. Instead, though, these two chose to declare war on the very people they need to succeed. And they both seem to have a disdain for the very profession in which they chose to be involved.

I have to wonder what Zell and McCaw see upon viewing a hole in the ground.

SC ON THE TV

2008-04-12T17:53:00.000-07:00

From Studio Briefing ...

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has spoken out strongly against allowing courtroom proceedings to be televised -- be they those of the high court or lower courts. As reported by Broadcasting & Cable, Scalia said on C-SPAN's Students and Leaders: "To make entertainment out of real people's legal troubles is quite sick. ... You want to entertain the public? Hire actors and put on Perry Mason or something. I don't think it is right to make enjoyment out of litigation, civil or criminal." He said that he would not be opposed to gavel-to-gavel coverage of Supreme Court proceedings on C-SPAN, but, he said, for every person watching such coverage, "there would be 100,000 who would watch a 15-second take-out from the C-SPAN feed. And I guarantee you that the 15-second take-out would not be characteristic of what we do."

And what exactly do you do, Mr. Scalia? Because, from what I can tell, all you do (along with Thomas, Roberts, and Alito) is rule in favor of every Bush-backed, neo-con, far right piece of garbage that comes through your (not so supreme) court. I think what you really fear is the public getting a glimpse of how incompetent this court has become. I would just love, for example, to see the audience "entertained" by Thomas asking no questions and stating no opinion ... unless, of course, it's to rabidly defend Bush's Guantanamo Bay fiasco.

I say, "Lights, camera, action!"

EPA BAILS OUT GREKA'S OIL

2008-04-06T14:07:00.000-07:00

If you've been paying attention, you know that Greka Oil & Gas Inc. has spilled more oil around here recently than the Governator uses to fill up his Hummers. And it seems that no amount of public or private pressure has encouraged them to adequately clean up its messes. Therefore, it looks as if the EPA is going to step in and do it for them. Here's a portion of the recent Santa Maria Times article on the subject ...

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is taking over the cleanup of an oil spill in Santa Barbara County after failed efforts by Greka Oil & Gas Inc., a company whose long record of inland oil spills could soon lead to new legislation.

Officials announced the federal takeover of the Bell lease site in Santa Maria today, saying Greka has not removed petroleum-contaminated soil in a creek in the two months since the spill.

Greka, which state officials have called California’s worst inland oil polluter, has been responsible for three spills at the site since last summer totaling more than 29,000 gallons of crude oil and toxin laden water.

“That they’re federalizing this is a big deal,” said Steve Edinger, assistant chief of the state Department of Fish and Game. “It’s basically the EPA saying ‘We need to step in and make sure the environment is taken care of and cleaned up.’ It’s not something that happens very often.”

If you're like me, you probably read the headline "EPA federalizes cleanup of oil spill at Greka site" and gave it about ten seconds of thought before moving on to more exciting news items. Well, I'm glad I gave it a another look, because -- if you'll indulge me -- I'd like to show how the Greka issue really points to a more disturbing trend. And I'd like to start by talking about another quote from the article ...

Robert Wise, who works at EPA’s Superfund division, scoffed at the idea that the company headed by Randeep Grewal does not have the funds.

“There’s really no question as to whether Randy Grewal has the money — oh yeah, he has the money,” Wise said. “The question is whether he wants to pay for this.”

Yeah, that is a good question. If not him, then who? Let's come back to that ... As I stated in a previous post, the recent government bailout of Bear Stearns really left a bad taste in my mouth. It's not that I necessarily blame the Fed for taking this action, but I am mostly disturbed by the fact that Bush would bail out a corporation while, at the same time, refusing to help the average man who is losing his home ...

"It’s not the government’s job to bail out speculators," Mr. Bush said, "or those who made the decision to buy a home they knew they could never afford."

What the Greka and Bear Stearn incidents really bring to light is a fatal flaw with the "free markets will fix everything" philosophy. These corporations (and many like them) want to have their cake and eat it too. They claim that government regulations are unnecessary and inhibit profits. But look who has to jump in and save them when things go bad. I think Bill Maher said it best on a recent episode of Real Time ...

"They (Corporations) believe in the free market for profits but they want to socialize losses."

That's exactly right. And it leads us right back to the question of who pays when these types of events occur ... We do!

OBAMA VS. CLINTON

2008-03-29T13:34:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned in a previous post, I am hooking my cart to Obama's horse. This didn't seem to be much of a "controversial" decision when I made it, but now that the campaign is getting ugly, I find myself defending him (as well as myself) on a more frequent basis. Specifically, I have a good friend at work who supports Clinton, and we've spent countless lunch hours debating the merits of this race.

My friend does not necessarily dislike Obama, but he thinks the man is just too green for the job of President. "What has he done?" is a frequent quote. He also agrees with the Clinton camp that Obama hasn't been properly vetted by the media. The Reverend Wright thing, he argues, is a perfect example of the type of thing that would take him down in the general election. In addition, Clinton has shown she's a fighter who will do anything to win. That, he states, is what is needed in November.

Like my friend, I do not dislike Clinton (although, her attempt to get the Michigan votes to count really bugs me). But my belief is that he -- along with many of her supporters -- is hugely underestimating what the right will throw at her in the general. Obama, I admit, is a little bit of an unknown. But it seems to me that he has the charisma and message of hope that was missing from Gore and Kerry ... and now Clinton. Her argument about winning the "big states" is weak in that it assumes he can't. The important thing isn't whether or not he can win California and New York. No, the big question mark is whether or not she can win any state other than those won by Gore and Kerry. I'm just not sure. As for Reverend Wright: well, if that's all it takes to ruin a candidacy, then you might as will give the Republicans the keys to the White House now.

Having said all this, we both now have a separate worry ... can either of them beat McCain? I would have said "absolutely" a few months ago. But now, I have to admit that I'm starting to feel as if all the fighting between them could be their undoing. If this battle goes all the way to the convention in August without a clear winner, it seems that McCain is handed the election. The common thought is that there just isn't enough time for the Democratic nominee to "catch up" to McCain from a PR standpoint. Whenever Bill Maher has a Democrat on his show, he says, "Everyone is saying you can't lose. So, tell me, how are you going to lose?" It seems we have our answer.

The governor of Tennessee has proposed a solution that I think everyone should promote. At the end of all the voting in June, the superdelegates should be forced to make a decision. They can (and should) vote their hearts, but they cannot wait until August. No matter how you slice it, they will have all the information they need by that point to make up their minds. So far, the DNC has been unable to do anything to make this situation better. And I argue that -- if the Dems can't at least do this -- maybe they are too stupid to win.

WHAT'S UP WITH ALL THE WHINING?

2008-03-23T12:56:00.000-07:00

Like most Americans, I have a morning routine that one interrupts at their own peril. And for me, one important element of that routine is watching a few minutes of The Today Show before I head off to work. For some strange reason, I just don't feel quite ready to tackle the day if Matt, Meredith, Al, and Ann haven't given me a rundown on the big stories facing our nation. So, you can imagine how grumpy I was last week when my Today Show experience involved witnessing part of an interview with Dr. (of Physiology) Laura Schlessinger pimping her new book Stop Whining, Start Living.

Rather than go with my instinct, however, to throw the remote at the television, I decided to attempt a little self help and take in some of Dr. Laura's sage advice. And you know what? ... She's right! There is a great deal of whining going on in Santa Barbara lately. In fact, Dr. Laura's wisdom got me thinking about some prime examples of major whining taking place around here ...

- When the News-Press accused Jerry Roberts of downloading porn, Dr. Laura was pretty whiny about the public's negative reaction to Wendy McCaw's actions. Then, a few weeks later, when her son was accused of the same thing, she whined, "We hope all news media outlets will respect his privacy ..."

- When a former NP Healthspan columnist stated that Dr. Laura has "the cajones to preach against tolerating diversity" in one if his columns, man, you would not believe the whining that occurred. Dr. Laura whined-up such a storm that it resulted in the firing of his editor and the resignation of the columnist himself.

- Come to think of it, what do you think lead to her intolerant label in the first place? Hmmm, maybe it was Dr. Laura constantly whining that gays and lesbians are 'abnormal,' 'aberrant,' 'deviant,' 'disordered,' 'dysfunctional,' and 'an error.' That would be my guess anyway.

In the Amazon.com book description for Dr. Laura's new tome, it states that Stop Whining, Start Living encourages whiners "to reject negative thoughts, emotions, and attitudes; shift perspective; open up to gratitude and goodness; and embrace obligations to loved ones and the world in general." Sounds good. I think a great place to start would be for Santa Barbarans to reject the huge steaming pile of negative thoughts, emotions, and attitudes that come from Dr. Laura and the News-Press as a whole.

Yep, it's definitely time to push out those bad emotions and embrace the good. For example, the gigantic collective 2,000 person whine that occurred when Dr. Laura's picture popped-up on the screen during Citizen McCaw was just quite unproductive for the public's healing process. I mean, booing and hissing is very negative behavior.

So, thank you, Dr. Laura. I very much look forward to a lack of whining over the next few years ... from all of us.

I GUESS BAILOUTS ARE OKAY NOW

2008-03-16T18:24:00.000-07:00

From ABC News ...

Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson Sunday defended the Federal Reserve's recent bailout of investment bank Bear Stearns.

"The right decision here, I am convinced, was the decision that the Fed made, which was to do things, work with market participants to minimize the disruptions," Paulson said in a "This Week" interview with George Stephanopoulos.

From George W. Bush ...

"It’s not the government’s job to bail out speculators," Mr. Bush said, "or those who made the decision to buy a home they knew they could never afford."

Bailout for big corporations: no problem. Bailout for joe schmo getting kicked out of his home: no way. This is what I hate about the Republican philosophy.

CITIZEN McCAW: MUST SEE FILM OF THE YEAR!

2008-03-09T11:56:00.000-07:00

As was the case with many in Santa Barbara, I was eagerly awaiting the premiere of the sold out CITIZEN McCAW at the 2000 seat Arlington on Friday evening. Sitting in the theater amongst the many brave folks who had either quit or been fired from the Santa Barbara News-Press, I have to admit that I had a few butterflies. Would this film live up to expectations? Would the crowd leave that theater with a sense of -- if not closure -- at least satisfaction.

Well, I certainly had no reason to worry, because the movie is great by any standard. And I have to admit that I'm even a little jealous ... As someone who dabbles in filmmaking myself, I remember telling anyone who would listen that the News-Press meltdown would (if done right) make for an outstanding documentary. Lack of resources in conjunction with my fear of Wendy's lawyers made me drop that idea faster than people drop their NP subscriptions. It only took about 5 minutes into CITIZEN McCAW, however, for me to realize that the right people took on this important subject and did it with true care and professionalism.

Instead of attempting to write some sort of review or critique of the film, I thought it would be more fun to simply give you a few insights from a group of friends just chatting about it. After the the documentary ended, I went out for a couple drinks with fellow bloggers I'M NOT ONE TO BLOG, BUT... , Big Table, COOKIESINHEAVEN, and one former News-Press employee. Here are few of the highlights from our discussion ...

BIAS - There did seem to be a little disagreement amongst the group as to whether or not the film was 100% successful in not making it appear completely anti-Wendy. As director Sam Tyler emphasized in the post-film Q&A, every attempt was made to get the major NP players on camera to tell their side. Since Wendy and company would have none of that, the filmmakers were forced drop in written quotes from Ms. McCaw and others where appropriate. The comment was made that, if the film is going to play outside of the Santa Barbara area, it will need to be tweaked some to make Wendy come off a little less unlikable. Personally, I don't feel that way. It seems to me that the quotes from Wendy sound completely absurd only because we all know her and know the story. But someone in Iowa, for example, won't see it that way. In my opinion, you simply can't make a documentary about this subject without Wendy smelling bad.

THE FUNNY - I made the observation that the film would not have worked nearly as well without the Santa Barbara Independent's Nick Welsh. A good documentary needs to cover all the emotions, and Mr. Welsh was pretty much all the funny in this one. I've never seen Nick speak before, but I felt he was really impressive here. He came across to me as natural and charismatic without a hint of nervousness. And all the laugh-out-loud lines came from his lips. Everyone seemed to be in agreement on this point, although some felt that his stuff might have to be reigned in a bit for a global audience.

ANYTHING WE DIDN'T LIKE? - At the expense of hurting someone's feelings, the general consensus in the group was that the illustrations didn't work. They weren't bad in maybe another context, but for the purposes of this movie, they looked too comical in what should have been serious situations. They made you chuckle at inappropriate moments and briefly took you out of the film.

BLOGS - I just can't write about CITIZEN McCAW without giving a little shout-out to our little blog. There is a section in the movie where they talk about how the News-Press mess triggered interest in many new on-line publications and blogs in the Santa Barbara area; the best example being Craig Smith. But imagine my surprise when The Average Man itself actually popped-up along side the likes of edhat and BlogaBarbara as examples of this phenomenon! Made my day, I have to tell ya.

GENERAL FEELINGS - Everyone at the table felt the movie was outstanding on the whole. And to be honest, this group (myself very much included) can be quite opinionated. So, I think it's a tribute to the creators that we couldn't find a whole heck of a lot of bad things to say. As Sam Tyler said in the Q&A, it's a tough thing to keep an audience's attention for 90 minutes. But the pacing here is spot on, and I think it will very much work outside of our little community. The comment was made that this is a movie you really don't want to screw up due to the high level of emotion by so many affected by Wendy's actions. So, bravo to Mr. Tyler and his team for pulling it off.

It will be interesting to see where the documentary goes from here. There was talk of it possibly playing on PBS or HBO. And it might even make a theater run. Let's hope everyone in the world gets a chance to see it!

If you missed the show on Friday, two additional screenings have been added at the beautiful Marjorie Luke Theatre located at 721 E. Cota Street in Santa Barbara: Saturday, April 5th at 8PM and Sunday, April 6th at 3PM.

THE GREEN PATH TO BETTER CARS

2008-03-03T16:42:00.000-08:00

A recent article in the Santa Barbara Independent titled The Future of Biofuels Takes Root in S.B. has once again fueled my interest in fuel. And given the fact that the Dale Franciscos of the world don't have any love for promoting alternative transportation, it seems to me that our vehicles simply can't go with the status quo.

But saying you need better cars is one thing; getting there is another. Perform a few searches with The Google, and you'll see that there are certainly no lack of great ideas out there. From hydrogen to jatropha plants, it seems that everyone is feverishly trying to make a better auto. My recent conversations with friends on this subject, however, have had much less to do with technology and everything to do with politics. Case in point: I'd like to summarize a recent debate I had with Big Table, inspired by his interest in compressed air as a fuel source. In a nutshell, here's what we discussed ...

The Average Man - The excellent documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? has turned me into a cynic. The sad plight of the 1970's EV1 has convinced me that removing our dependence of foreign oil will never be about the technology. Because the best ideas in the world will be squashed by the millions of dollars that big oil and big automobile companies with pump into the hands of government officials in order to make sure things stay the same for a long, long time. Or at least, things will change at a snail's pace. It is for this reason alone, that my hope sits almost exclusively with the plug-in hybrid. In my opinion, this is the "gateway drug" our society will need to move from where we are today to where we need to be tomorrow. Not only do these cars get great mileage, but if you really want to be green, you will have the ability to charge your car when not in use. And if we're really lucky, there's even talk of being able to use your idle car to feed energy back into the grid. The important thing for me, though, is that a plug-in hybrid still lets the oil companies and car companies use their dirty oil. And thus, they will play along and slowly adapt to change.

Big Table - He thinks I'm living in the past, and I need to get over it. The 1970's was a lifetime ago, and the world is much different now. High gas prices, global warming concerns, terrorism, informed youths ... all these things are the reason that technology will win out over politics. The oil companies and auto companies are dinosaurs, and the asteroid is coming fast. These industries are so set in there ways and beholden to stock holders and such that they will be incapable of adapting. Thus, the young, fresh start-ups creating cars that run on things like compressed air will be the small mammals that survive the blast. We will have cars that run on alternative fuels, but they won't come from the likes of GM and Ford.

As much as I like to be right about things, I'd love to lose this one.

2008 BUMPER STICKERS

2008-02-25T17:56:00.000-08:00

Some of these are pretty funny ...

1) When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46

2) 1/20/09: End of an Error

3) That's OK, I Wasn't Using My Civil Liberties Anyway

4) Let's Fix Democracy in THIS COUNTRY First

5) If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran

6) George Bush: Like a Rock. Only Dumber

7) You Can't Be Pro-War And Pro-Life At The Same Time

8) If You Can Read This, You're Not the President

9) Hey, Bush Supporters: Embarrassed Yet?

10) George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Will Have to Fight

11) Already smarter than George Bush! (On a baby's t-shirt)

12) America : One Nation, Under Surveillance

13) They Call Him "W" So He Can Spell It

14) Cheney/Satan '08

15) Jail to the Chief

16) No, Seriously, Why Did We Invade?

17) Bush: God's Way of Proving Intelligent Design is Full Of Crap

18) Bad president! No Banana.

19) We Need a President Who's Fluent In At Least One Language

20) We're Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them

21) Is It Vietnam Yet?

22) Bush Doesn't Care About White People Either!

23) Where Are We Going? And Why Are We In This Handbasket?

24) You Elected Him. You Deserve Him.

25) Impeachment: It's Not Just for Sex Anymore

I NEED A SHIELD AGAINST BLUE CROSS

2008-02-18T14:40:00.000-08:00

I've written several posts on this blog regarding the controversial topic of universal health care (if you're interested in a couple of them, click here or here). The tone of those posts was more on the "hey, here's some information" side of things ... but now I'm genuinely angry. On the front page of Tuesday's Los Angeles Times was a little gem of a story titled Doctors balk at request for data. I highly recommend reading the story yourself, but here's a quote that sums it up quite nicely:

The state's largest for-profit health insurer is asking California physicians to look for conditions it can use to cancel their new patients' medical coverage.

Blue Cross of California is sending physicians copies of health insurance applications filled out by new patients, along with a letter advising them that the company has a right to drop members who fail to disclose "material medical history," including "pre-existing pregnancies."

"Any condition not listed on the application that is discovered to be pre-existing should be reported to Blue Cross immediately," the letters say. The Times obtained a copy of a letter that was aimed at physicians in large medical groups.

I have to be honest here: I read things like this, and I have to ask why anyone on either side of the political spectrum would say that this way of doing business is, um, healthy for our nation. In Michael Moore's movie Sicko, he emphasizes early on that the film isn't about the people without health care; it's about people with it. This letter to doctors by Blue Cross is exactly the type of thing he's talking about. You see, Blue Cross and their ilk have a great little scam going: don't cover anyone with pre-existing conditions. And if someone gets really sick, try everything in your power not to cover them any longer. Another quote from the article:

Patients in a raft of lawsuits accuse the insurers of canceling coverage over honest mistakes and minor inconsistencies on applications that they contend are purposely confusing. Victims of cancer and other serious medical problems often are unable to get new coverage once their insurance has been rescinded and they may go without treatment when they need it most. Suddenly swamped by medical debt, some people have lost homes and businesses.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are running around in Texas and Ohio right now trying to convince you that this needs to change. But all it seems to take is someone like Rudy Giuliani to yell, "Socialized medicine! Socialized medicine!," and we all run in fear. Well, let's get real .... Blue Cross doesn't care whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. If you have a pre-existing condition, they don't want to have anything to do with you. And if you have insurance -- and get really sick -- they will try to drop you. It's that simple. This letter reveals their true intentions.

People who don't want to change the state of our current health care are afraid of government bureaucrats running the system. Fine, I get that. But I ask you to think about Blue Cross's actions and ask yourself if corporate bureaucrats controlling your health is any better? The fact is that a corporation will do everything they can to maximize profits, because that's what they do. And you know what: that's okay. However, in the case of medical insurance companies, that means only covering healthy people. And that's wrong!

For what it's worth, I'm writing this as someone with a good job and top-of-the-line private insurance. And, yet, I still worry ... for all of us.

I MAY BE LEGEND

2008-02-11T18:03:00.000-08:00

This is my last movie review for a while ... promise :)

QUICK PLOT SUMMARY
Will Smith plays Lieutenant Colonel Robert Neville, a man who appears to be the last survivor of humanity. In an ironic twist of fate, the cure for cancer mutates into a virus (side effects may include death or turning you into a zombie), but Neville is mysteriously immune to the bug. The benefits of surviving this plague are suspect as Neville spends his days in a desperate cycle of foraging for supplies, trying not to be eaten by infected humans, and searching for a cure. The movie is based on a 1954 book of the same name.

MY REVIEW
As I left the theater upon viewing I Am Legend, I couldn't help but feel a little uneasy. The film is certainly enjoyable, and it would be hard to argue that Will Smith doesn't deliver on all fronts. But none the less, uneasy was my mood. It wasn't until a couple hours after the film that it hit me, and I started to think about the Tom Hanks' movie Castaway. In both cases, the story centers around a man who is truly alone in the world and must learn to survive in the most hostile of environments (although, I think I'd take Hanks' situation over Smith's). The other similarity between these two vehicles is the emphasis on lack of human interaction and its negative effect on the mind. For Hanks, it is the volleyball, Wilson, that gets him through the tough times. For Smith's character, Robert Neville, it's his dog.

So, what does Castaway provide that I Am Legend lacks? Simply put, Mr. Neville could stand to catch a break or two along his journey, but no substantial victories were to be found. Now, I'm certainly not arguing that movies short on happiness are taboo, but in a film like this, you really do need to give your audience some hope intermingled with your tragedies. The moviegoer wants a reason to follow you through the adventure rather than simply experiencing two hours of physical and emotional torture. They need the hero to be, you know, heroic.

Again, I don't mean to imply the film is bad, because it's not. But it has issues. Over and above the high bummer quotient, I would also argue that it doesn't do a stellar job of paying off some of the setup. For example, the film is sprinkled with flashbacks, giving the audience some background into the events leading up to the destruction of humanity. Nothing wrong with that, right? However, the movie constantly teases us with images of Neville's important role in the virus outbreak but leaves us hanging as to what that role ultimately turned out to be.

I recently spoke to a couple friends who went to I Am Legend, and they felt the film was too short and ended abruptly. I don't necessarily share that opinion, but it would have been nice if the ending were more ... um ... satisfying.

MY RATING
3.5 Stars (Out of 5)

MY RATING WHEN I READ THAT WILL SMITH MIGHT BE A SCIENTOLOGIST
0.5 Stars (Out of 5)

A DIFFERENT KIND OF WAR

2008-02-05T17:02:00.000-08:00

To help relieve mind of things other than Super Tuesday and election results, here's a review of Charlie Wilson's War.

QUICK PLOT SUMMARY
Tom Hanks plays Charlie Wilson, a Democratic Texas Congressman who led the U.S. effort to secretly arm the Afghans against The Soviet Union. Julia Roberts plays wealthy activist Joanne Herring, the main motivator for Wilson to join this cause. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is troubled CIA agent Gust Avrakotos who guides Wilson through the complex political and international hurdles involved in arming a country to fight the Soviets. The film is based on a true story and a book with the same name.

MY REVIEW
I have to be honest and say that I went into this film with a little bit of a bias. It's been my long held opinion that Aaron Sorkin is the greatest screenwriter on the planet. From A Few Good Men to The West Wing, Mr. Sorkin has proven time and again that his ability to effortlessly intertwine dialog with intelligence, drama, and wit is unparalleled. Add to that the fact that the movie stars Tom Hanks and is directed by Mike Nichols, and you have to wonder if it's possible for Charlie Wilson's War to be anything less than stellar. Of course, a perfect meld of talent does not always a great film make (The Da Vinci Code jumps to mind).

So, it is with much enthusiasm -- and maybe a little relief -- that I can unequivocally state that Charlie Wilson's War doesn't disappoint. Not only is it a great film, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that between Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, the best thing in the film is .... Phillip Seymour Hoffman. If you can find a better example of someone coming out of left field and completely taking over a movie, please tell me. I experienced so much joy watching him play CIA agent Gust Avrakotos that I thought maybe the movie should stop in order for someone to walk into the scene and hand him an Oscar right there. It's just too bad for him that Javier Bardem chose this year to be uber-creepy in No Country for Old Men.

Since it is political season, I feel compelled to mention that the topic of the film isn't exactly a warm fuzzy. I mean, it wouldn't be a stretch to state that Charlie Wilson indirectly (or maybe directly) led to the horrible tragedy of 9/11. For those who might feel that way, I would just ask that you watch the film and judge for yourself. Charlie Wilson as portrayed by Hanks, is certainly not without flaws (the naked hot tub scene that launches the film is a good example), but neither is he the devil. It's a complicated issue, and he's a complicated man. But the decision to see this movie is not at all a complicated matter.

MY RATING
4.5 Stars (Out of 5)

I HEART JUNO

2008-01-28T17:52:00.000-08:00

Believe it or not, I do have other interests besides politics; one being movies. So, here's my attempt at a movie review for the little gem of a film called Juno. It's seriously the best movie I've seen in some time ... and yes, even better than (favorite to with the Oscar) No Country for Old Men.

QUICK PLOT SUMMARY
Ellen Page plays Juno, a smart-mouthed teen who finds out that one dumb chair related move with boyfriend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera) leaves her with child. After an uncomfortable trip to the local planned parenthood center, Juno decides to give the baby up for adoption. Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner play Mark and Vanessa Loring, the couple Juno chooses to be the adoptive parents. And speaking of parents, Juno's are played with class and style by Spider-Man's J. K. Simmons and West Wing's Allison Janney.

MY REVIEW
It's a rare treat when one has the opportunity to witness the birth of a superstar. But that is indeed how I felt watching Ellen Page command the screen during her remarkable performance in Juno. I can think of only a handful of actors who can be at the same time charming, soulful, witty, sad, and uplifting in a single role. Yet, Page pulls it off with an ease that makes one slightly jealous. This movie is chalk full of seasoned thespians, but she takes a back seat to none.

Sometimes one great performance is all you need carry a film, but luckily for us, everyone is at the top of their game here. Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner play the seemingly perfect couple that hopes to adopt young Juno's baby. They are in fact so sugary nice, you expect to see them in a picture frame sitting on a shelf at Sears. As the film progresses, however, you begin to feel that something is not quite right with either of them. And it is a tribute to their performances that a simple look or a couple of words can reveal so much. Garner may be the most surprising of the two given the Alias-esq roles for which she's so well known. Who would have thought you could so easily fall for her as an uptight yuppie?

J. K. Simmons and Allison Janey also deserve a shout out as Juno's father and stepmother respectively. Earlier in the movie, you really want to dislike these two. He is ex-military; she reminds you of some strange librarian you might have seen in junior high. But like Bateman and Garner, there is much more to them than meets the eye, and peeling back the layers of their personalities is a fun ride.

Finally, I can't forget Michael Cera, who perfectly melds his Arrested Development innocence with adult complexity as he dances through the land mine of impregnating his 16-year-old girlfriend.

The beautiful script by former stripper Diablo Cody is the glue that binds all this brilliance together. Her characters are so smart and funny, you kind of wish their words were your own. And don't for a minute think you know where the movie is going. Because just when you want it to go one way, you're pulled in a different direction. All the directions, though, are ones you will desire to follow.

MY RATING
5 Stars (Out of 5)