While I typically keep personal things off this blog - I would be remiss if I didn't mention a few things about the best day of my life, my wedding to Beth, this past Saturday. The wedding was great - more than great - and I know the implications of the wedding will be greater. I get to spend the rest of my life with the woman of my dreams.
Here are a few things about wedding planning - its going to be hard on you and your soon to be spouse no matter what. A wedding is three things that typically don't go together - a ceremony, a meal, and a party - and you have to smash them together in a way that's seamless. And you have to take into account everything - how people will feel about this decision or that decision, and how it will affect your guests and the flow. For instance, we lit candles in memory of Beth's older brothers who passed at the ceremony, but the question came up, should we include my grandmother, who just passed? Ultimately, we chose against it because Grandma wouldn't have wanted to be mentioned at a Catholic ceremony, but even then we had to explain our decision to my Mom.
Anyway, take the fact that the party is the biggest party you will ever throw, and needing to take into account what everyone wants, and the fact that everyone has opinions on what a wedding should be, and suddenly, you get a ball of stress a mile wide. My poor bride nearly drove herself crazy just trying to make everyone happy. Also, I tend to be meticulous in researching everything, and that indecisiveness drove her crazy.
That said, we had great vendors, and all should be mentioned and honored here.
First, Founder's Chapel was spectacular, and Darlene Polak, the coordinator was phenomenal in keeping everyone in line, but in a easy going fashion. Father Lawrence Agi, the Chaplain at Mercy Hospital, was a true star, and everyone loved him. He was pretty much the perfect priest for us. Combine that with the "Holy shit, what an amazing church!" and great music courtesy of Annette Welsh, and the ceremony exceeded our expectations.
Second, Jim Turner, our florist, went above and beyond, and then went even further than that. Seriously, the flowers were jaw-dropping. I typically don't even notice flowers, these were amazing. Really, every decision he made was perfect - beyond perfect.
Third, we were very happy with Michael Lawrence Photography - Michael was recommended by a friend, and he got great shots while at the same time was unobtrusive, and willing to work with us. Of course, we still have to see our pictures, but he was great to work with, and I look forward to seeing them.
Fourth, our wedding venue, the Lafayette Hotel, put out great food, and was a beautiful venue. The staff, when we worked directly with them, were helpful and courteous.
Fifth, the guys at Miles Ahead, our wedding band, were equally perfect. They were mellow when they needed to be mellow, but got everyone dancing when we wanted them to do that. Everyone thought they were one of many highlights. You guys did great.
Sixth, Elizabethan Desserts did a fantastic job of getting us the best desserts, and did so at a reasonable price. I don't think anyone could've done a better job, and Elizabeth, we appreciate all you did for us. Fantastic stuff.
Lastly, I have a bit of unfinished business - I promised Beth that I would sing her a song at the wedding, but I forgot my queue. So, Beth, this is for you:
Monday, November 25, 2013
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Thoughts on the Mayor's Race, Other Mayors and NFL Bullying
Welcome to another episode of random thoughts blogging - unfortunately, I think this will become more and more common for me the busier I get. But without further ado. . .
1) I Have No Idea Who I'm Supporting in Race for Mayor of San Diego
In the aftermath of Bob Filner resigning (and actually pleading guilty to felony assault charges!), we in San Diego have a new mayor's race. While there are a fair number of candidates, there are essentially four who matter (because of money and connections): David Alvarez, Nathan Fletcher, Kevin Faulconer, and Mike Aguirre. Alvarez and Faulconer are currently City Councilmembers, Fletcher is a former State Assemblymember, and Aguirre used to be City Attorney. Aguirre and Alvarez are long-time Democrats, Fletcher just flipped parties, and Faulconer is a Republican who doesn't want to be known as such.
Now picking who I don't like in this race is relatively easy. Even though I respect Aguirre deeply, and hope to one day make as much money as a Plaintiffs' lawyer as Aguirre did, his tenure as City Attorney was messy. Not all of the mess was Mike's doing, but a good chunk of it was because he's an abrasive guy. As for Faulconer, well, his career as a City Councilman was relatively undistinguished. His two major pieces of legislation, banning booze on the beach and ending some pensions for City employees, aren't exactly gems in my book. His beach booze ban originally had a huge loophole in it that the City Council had to go back and fix. And on the pension thing, he played second banana to Carl DeMaio and Jerry Sanders, so he didn't have a lot to do with it. Add to that the fact that Faulconer is a diehard Republican, and is desperately trying to hide that fact, and yeah, you can see why I'm not a big fan.
So that leaves me with Alvarez and Fletcher. Alvarez is backed by the San Diego Labor Council, the San Diego County Democratic Party, and a fair number of people I absolutely respect. He's somewhat soft-spoken, and a dyed in wool progressive. So if there is someone who will carry Filner's vision of San Diego forward (minus the disgusting sexual harassment, of course), Alvarez is the guy. But. . .Alvarez leaves me flat. Plus, he's younger than me by several years. Ugh. Me old.
Fletcher, on the other hand, doesn't leave anyone flat. Everyone is running independent expenditures against him, and he's peppy. He fits into the Cory Booker mold of saving people, or talking them off bridges and stuff. In short, he looks like a mayor. And that's why the Republican Party is pumping money into this race - Nathan Fletcher, if elected mayor, doesn't stop there. He becomes Senator Fletcher, Governor Fletcher, maybe even President. The guy is a star, no doubt. And the lynchpin of his future success will be what he does as San Diego's mayor.
But. . .Fletcher's been a Democrat for less than a year. Before that, he was a Republican, and worked for terrible people like Duke Cunningham (who wasn't just awful because he accepted bribes, but was generally an awful person). So, I don't know how deeply his progressivism goes. Fletcher is also younger than me, but not quite as much. Ugh. Me old.
2) Toronto's Mayor Is AWESOME!!!
In my lifetime there have been two mayors caught on camera smoking crack - Marion Berry and Rob Ford. Until recently, I couldn't think of a bigger downfall than Berry's, who explained his crack smoking with the following timeless phrase, "Bitch set me up!" But Rob Ford took the cake when he explained that while he did smoke crack, he did so when he was in a drunken stupor, so its all good. Never before has anyone explained away crack usage through alcoholism. I. . .it. . .amazing. Just AMAZING. We're definitely at the stage where people from Toronto are so used to being asked about their mayor that they simply say, "yes, I know, my mayor's a crackhead," to everyone they meet. I feel for you guys.
3) Ritchie Incognito and Jonathan Martin:
Like a fair number of sports fans, I've been following the saga of Ritchie Incognito and Jonathan Martin. Obviously, this is a complicated story and there are a fair number of things we don't know. We think we know that the Miami coaches told Incognito to "toughen" up Jonathan Martin, a youngish left tackle for the Miami Dolphins. We know that Incognito extorted $15,000 from Martin to pay for a trip to Las Vegas that Martin didn't go to. We know that Incognito left a series of voicemails that threatened violence against Martin and his family, that used the "n" word, and that the harassment continued beyond Martin's rookie year, and was so bad that Martin up and left the team. We also know that the Dolphins suspended Incognito from the team indefinitely. We also know that the Dolphins' players are rushing to Incognito's defense, not Martin's, and that Dolphins' GM believes Martin should have violently attacked Incognito in response to the harassment.
So, I have a couple of thoughts. If the Dolphins' GM really thinks that way, he's an idiot. If Martin physically attacked Incognito, does Jeff Ireland really think that Incognito would take it? Or maybe, the two THREE HUNDRED POUND LINEMAN MIGHT GET INTO A FIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A LOCKER ROOM? Other players would jump in to break up the fight, between the nice guy who snapped (Martin), and the overall psycho (Incognito). Think there might be injuries, maybe? What if Ryan Tannehill jumped in, and broke his throwing shoulder? Is that the outcome you are hoping for Jeff Ireland? You dipshit.
Second, I can understand why the team is backing Incognito over Martin - the culture of the team is for older, "tougher" players to harass younger players. Rookies have to pay for dinners and other things of older players. Incognito was fulfilling the role the team wanted him to play. Martin's failure was that he reacted responsibly, but outside the team's norms.
Thirdly, banning "hazing" in the NFL isn't going to solve a problem like this. All groups need rites of passage - things that new people must do before they are fully accepted into the group. And rookie hazing is part of that rite of passage. But the problem is that the ritual aspect of the rite has been stripped away, and all that is left is unfocused harassment of younger players because there are no norms that both the older player and the younger player can be expected to adhere to. And that's what leads to the abuses that you see here.
And there is no question that there were abuses. Despite Incognito's alleged "honorary black man" status, he verbally, and perhaps physically attacked Martin. His use of the "n" word wasn't meant as playful banter, it was meant as a threat. It was used the way that the "n" word was originally intended to mean - that Martin was less than human, and who can be killed at any time. Also keep in mind that Martin WAS NOT A ROOKIE. His time to be harassed was supposed to be over. So, in that context, I respect Martin for getting out of the situation, and shame on the Dolphins for letting it happen. If I were the owner, I'd fire the coaching staff and my GM over this embarrassment.
1) I Have No Idea Who I'm Supporting in Race for Mayor of San Diego
In the aftermath of Bob Filner resigning (and actually pleading guilty to felony assault charges!), we in San Diego have a new mayor's race. While there are a fair number of candidates, there are essentially four who matter (because of money and connections): David Alvarez, Nathan Fletcher, Kevin Faulconer, and Mike Aguirre. Alvarez and Faulconer are currently City Councilmembers, Fletcher is a former State Assemblymember, and Aguirre used to be City Attorney. Aguirre and Alvarez are long-time Democrats, Fletcher just flipped parties, and Faulconer is a Republican who doesn't want to be known as such.
Now picking who I don't like in this race is relatively easy. Even though I respect Aguirre deeply, and hope to one day make as much money as a Plaintiffs' lawyer as Aguirre did, his tenure as City Attorney was messy. Not all of the mess was Mike's doing, but a good chunk of it was because he's an abrasive guy. As for Faulconer, well, his career as a City Councilman was relatively undistinguished. His two major pieces of legislation, banning booze on the beach and ending some pensions for City employees, aren't exactly gems in my book. His beach booze ban originally had a huge loophole in it that the City Council had to go back and fix. And on the pension thing, he played second banana to Carl DeMaio and Jerry Sanders, so he didn't have a lot to do with it. Add to that the fact that Faulconer is a diehard Republican, and is desperately trying to hide that fact, and yeah, you can see why I'm not a big fan.
So that leaves me with Alvarez and Fletcher. Alvarez is backed by the San Diego Labor Council, the San Diego County Democratic Party, and a fair number of people I absolutely respect. He's somewhat soft-spoken, and a dyed in wool progressive. So if there is someone who will carry Filner's vision of San Diego forward (minus the disgusting sexual harassment, of course), Alvarez is the guy. But. . .Alvarez leaves me flat. Plus, he's younger than me by several years. Ugh. Me old.
Fletcher, on the other hand, doesn't leave anyone flat. Everyone is running independent expenditures against him, and he's peppy. He fits into the Cory Booker mold of saving people, or talking them off bridges and stuff. In short, he looks like a mayor. And that's why the Republican Party is pumping money into this race - Nathan Fletcher, if elected mayor, doesn't stop there. He becomes Senator Fletcher, Governor Fletcher, maybe even President. The guy is a star, no doubt. And the lynchpin of his future success will be what he does as San Diego's mayor.
But. . .Fletcher's been a Democrat for less than a year. Before that, he was a Republican, and worked for terrible people like Duke Cunningham (who wasn't just awful because he accepted bribes, but was generally an awful person). So, I don't know how deeply his progressivism goes. Fletcher is also younger than me, but not quite as much. Ugh. Me old.
2) Toronto's Mayor Is AWESOME!!!
In my lifetime there have been two mayors caught on camera smoking crack - Marion Berry and Rob Ford. Until recently, I couldn't think of a bigger downfall than Berry's, who explained his crack smoking with the following timeless phrase, "Bitch set me up!" But Rob Ford took the cake when he explained that while he did smoke crack, he did so when he was in a drunken stupor, so its all good. Never before has anyone explained away crack usage through alcoholism. I. . .it. . .amazing. Just AMAZING. We're definitely at the stage where people from Toronto are so used to being asked about their mayor that they simply say, "yes, I know, my mayor's a crackhead," to everyone they meet. I feel for you guys.
3) Ritchie Incognito and Jonathan Martin:
Like a fair number of sports fans, I've been following the saga of Ritchie Incognito and Jonathan Martin. Obviously, this is a complicated story and there are a fair number of things we don't know. We think we know that the Miami coaches told Incognito to "toughen" up Jonathan Martin, a youngish left tackle for the Miami Dolphins. We know that Incognito extorted $15,000 from Martin to pay for a trip to Las Vegas that Martin didn't go to. We know that Incognito left a series of voicemails that threatened violence against Martin and his family, that used the "n" word, and that the harassment continued beyond Martin's rookie year, and was so bad that Martin up and left the team. We also know that the Dolphins suspended Incognito from the team indefinitely. We also know that the Dolphins' players are rushing to Incognito's defense, not Martin's, and that Dolphins' GM believes Martin should have violently attacked Incognito in response to the harassment.
So, I have a couple of thoughts. If the Dolphins' GM really thinks that way, he's an idiot. If Martin physically attacked Incognito, does Jeff Ireland really think that Incognito would take it? Or maybe, the two THREE HUNDRED POUND LINEMAN MIGHT GET INTO A FIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A LOCKER ROOM? Other players would jump in to break up the fight, between the nice guy who snapped (Martin), and the overall psycho (Incognito). Think there might be injuries, maybe? What if Ryan Tannehill jumped in, and broke his throwing shoulder? Is that the outcome you are hoping for Jeff Ireland? You dipshit.
Second, I can understand why the team is backing Incognito over Martin - the culture of the team is for older, "tougher" players to harass younger players. Rookies have to pay for dinners and other things of older players. Incognito was fulfilling the role the team wanted him to play. Martin's failure was that he reacted responsibly, but outside the team's norms.
Thirdly, banning "hazing" in the NFL isn't going to solve a problem like this. All groups need rites of passage - things that new people must do before they are fully accepted into the group. And rookie hazing is part of that rite of passage. But the problem is that the ritual aspect of the rite has been stripped away, and all that is left is unfocused harassment of younger players because there are no norms that both the older player and the younger player can be expected to adhere to. And that's what leads to the abuses that you see here.
And there is no question that there were abuses. Despite Incognito's alleged "honorary black man" status, he verbally, and perhaps physically attacked Martin. His use of the "n" word wasn't meant as playful banter, it was meant as a threat. It was used the way that the "n" word was originally intended to mean - that Martin was less than human, and who can be killed at any time. Also keep in mind that Martin WAS NOT A ROOKIE. His time to be harassed was supposed to be over. So, in that context, I respect Martin for getting out of the situation, and shame on the Dolphins for letting it happen. If I were the owner, I'd fire the coaching staff and my GM over this embarrassment.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Thoughts On Healthcare (Again), And Other Topics
Once again, another episode of random thoughts blogging, which always shows up when I haven't blogged in awhile for a variety of reasons, and end up with a more than a few blog posts in mind (but am too lazy to post multiple times). So here goes:
Rancid Horse Anus:
Now, you may not know what the words "rancid horse anus" has to do with health care, but bear with me. Currently, there is a kerfuffle du jour over the Affordable Care Act is over the fact that some health insurance plans were cancelled as a result of the new law. Now, keep in mind these health care plans were substandard, and don't provide coverage for preventative care and prescription drugs, but some people actually liked their health care plans.
Additionally, people are upset because Obama told them last year that if they like the health care plan they have, they can keep it under this law. But that assertion was based on a couple of assumptions, not least of which is that people wouldn't want to buy substandard health insurance if they didn't have to, just like people wouldn't want to buy rancid horse anus to eat if they don't have to.
Just as people are willing to eat rancid horse anus (because, I'm assuming, its a filling meal and has subtle barnyard aromas), some people are willing to buy crappy insurance. But just because they are willing to do so, or even want to do so, preventing the purchase of such crappy insurance (or rancid horse anus*) is probably a good thing because in both cases, the purchaser will get very sick.
In the case of the crappy insurance buyer, one of two things will happen when said person gets sick - either the buyer is unable to afford health care, or the buyer will buy better insurance so that his new insurance coverage will cover him. In either instance, we as a society are screwed. If the crappy insurance buyer stiffs his doctors, they will proceed to raise their prices to get the money the buyer stiffed them from the rest of us. If the buyer buys better insurance, that will raise the costs for the insurance company, which will lead to higher premiums. And either way, we as a society, end up subsidizing the crappy insurance buyer.
So, by making sure that every insurance plan is not crappy, the hope is that we avoid things that raise medical costs or insurance rates.
*In case you were wondering, I came up with the term "rancid horse anus" from my descriptor of the Chargers' play during the Norv Turner years. Actually, the term I used was rancid monkey anus, which I changed here because I'd assume that a monkey anus would be much smaller than a horse anus.
The Passing of Lou Reed:
Like a lot of people, I found myself somewhat shaken by the passing of Lou Reed this past Sunday. There has been a lot said about Lou Reed, that he was a bit of an asshole and a musical genius, and that is probably true (especially the musical genius part). For me, "The Velvet Underground and Nico" album has been a part of my music collection since college. They didn't, as Brian Eno once claimed, inspire me to form my own band, but that was because I formed a band well before I heard of them. WOO! EDC!!!!
With that said, listening to the Velvet Underground was my entrance into rock as art. Or put another way, everyone loves music and is into music. But there are some people who's love of music is well beyond their friends, who take music very seriously. And if those people are rock fans, they own a Velvet Underground album (or four).
But Lou Reed was more than just a rock star, he was the guy who sang about transvestites and doing heroin in explicit terms back in the 1960's. Now, I don't use drugs outside of caffeine and alcohol, but "Heroin" is probably my favorite VU song. Like Burroughs, Ginsberg, and the Beat Poets, Reed was a guide through worlds that my suburban, white, heterosexual ass will never know. And that's a good thing, because hearing all voices is important. Neil Gaiman's obituary of Lou Reed is especially poignant on this point. Go Read it.
Lastly, if you've never heard of Lou Reed or heard his music, go search it out. Its really, really good.
On Other Passings:
I don't like really dwelling on personal things on this blog. Its supposed to be about conversations, viewpoints, and the like, and not really about my personal life. But I would be an asshole to not mention the passing of my last surviving grandparent.
Of all of my grandparents, she was the one I knew the most, and her funeral was an emotional one for me. My grandmother was, as much as my mother is, a force of nature as much as she was a person. She raised five children, four of which were her own, while working as a nurse at a time when women were not expected (or sometimes allowed) to work outside the home. She was also a huge, huge partisan (a Republican!) who's force of will lead her husband to hide his Democratic leading tendencies (he was a Union guy) from the world. And that's how I will remember her, not just as a person, but as a presence of will. It is my hope that if I ever have a daughter, that she will have the same ferocity of spirit.
Goodbye Grandma.
Rancid Horse Anus:
Now, you may not know what the words "rancid horse anus" has to do with health care, but bear with me. Currently, there is a kerfuffle du jour over the Affordable Care Act is over the fact that some health insurance plans were cancelled as a result of the new law. Now, keep in mind these health care plans were substandard, and don't provide coverage for preventative care and prescription drugs, but some people actually liked their health care plans.
Additionally, people are upset because Obama told them last year that if they like the health care plan they have, they can keep it under this law. But that assertion was based on a couple of assumptions, not least of which is that people wouldn't want to buy substandard health insurance if they didn't have to, just like people wouldn't want to buy rancid horse anus to eat if they don't have to.
Just as people are willing to eat rancid horse anus (because, I'm assuming, its a filling meal and has subtle barnyard aromas), some people are willing to buy crappy insurance. But just because they are willing to do so, or even want to do so, preventing the purchase of such crappy insurance (or rancid horse anus*) is probably a good thing because in both cases, the purchaser will get very sick.
In the case of the crappy insurance buyer, one of two things will happen when said person gets sick - either the buyer is unable to afford health care, or the buyer will buy better insurance so that his new insurance coverage will cover him. In either instance, we as a society are screwed. If the crappy insurance buyer stiffs his doctors, they will proceed to raise their prices to get the money the buyer stiffed them from the rest of us. If the buyer buys better insurance, that will raise the costs for the insurance company, which will lead to higher premiums. And either way, we as a society, end up subsidizing the crappy insurance buyer.
So, by making sure that every insurance plan is not crappy, the hope is that we avoid things that raise medical costs or insurance rates.
*In case you were wondering, I came up with the term "rancid horse anus" from my descriptor of the Chargers' play during the Norv Turner years. Actually, the term I used was rancid monkey anus, which I changed here because I'd assume that a monkey anus would be much smaller than a horse anus.
The Passing of Lou Reed:
Like a lot of people, I found myself somewhat shaken by the passing of Lou Reed this past Sunday. There has been a lot said about Lou Reed, that he was a bit of an asshole and a musical genius, and that is probably true (especially the musical genius part). For me, "The Velvet Underground and Nico" album has been a part of my music collection since college. They didn't, as Brian Eno once claimed, inspire me to form my own band, but that was because I formed a band well before I heard of them. WOO! EDC!!!!
With that said, listening to the Velvet Underground was my entrance into rock as art. Or put another way, everyone loves music and is into music. But there are some people who's love of music is well beyond their friends, who take music very seriously. And if those people are rock fans, they own a Velvet Underground album (or four).
But Lou Reed was more than just a rock star, he was the guy who sang about transvestites and doing heroin in explicit terms back in the 1960's. Now, I don't use drugs outside of caffeine and alcohol, but "Heroin" is probably my favorite VU song. Like Burroughs, Ginsberg, and the Beat Poets, Reed was a guide through worlds that my suburban, white, heterosexual ass will never know. And that's a good thing, because hearing all voices is important. Neil Gaiman's obituary of Lou Reed is especially poignant on this point. Go Read it.
Lastly, if you've never heard of Lou Reed or heard his music, go search it out. Its really, really good.
On Other Passings:
I don't like really dwelling on personal things on this blog. Its supposed to be about conversations, viewpoints, and the like, and not really about my personal life. But I would be an asshole to not mention the passing of my last surviving grandparent.
Of all of my grandparents, she was the one I knew the most, and her funeral was an emotional one for me. My grandmother was, as much as my mother is, a force of nature as much as she was a person. She raised five children, four of which were her own, while working as a nurse at a time when women were not expected (or sometimes allowed) to work outside the home. She was also a huge, huge partisan (a Republican!) who's force of will lead her husband to hide his Democratic leading tendencies (he was a Union guy) from the world. And that's how I will remember her, not just as a person, but as a presence of will. It is my hope that if I ever have a daughter, that she will have the same ferocity of spirit.
Goodbye Grandma.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Contemplating the Shutdown
In some ways, its funny how life operates. Just as the government started its shutdown yesterday, so too did my firm shutter its doors. Of course, my firm simply moved from our modernist digs Downtown (that were way, way, way too big for us*) to a Victorian house in Little Italy.** Of course, we turned back on the phones, got the internet up and running, etc., and we are almost back in business (absent our paralegal, who's computer was dropped by the movers). Sure we are still sorting a few things, but we are almost back to full operating capacity.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the federal government. Its still closed(ish) and by all accounts, Congress isn't going to pass anything any time soon. So I wonder, what gives? Now yes, I am aware of gerrymandering creating a rump of Republican Congressmen and Congresswomen who come from districts where Obama lost by an average of 40 points (he won by 4 points nationwide), but gerrymandering has been part of American politics from the very beginning. Heck, the term gerrymander came from a newspaper in 1812. Now, is it more prevalent now than ever before? In some states, certainly.
Is it the egregious unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a Obamacare)? It may be a contributing factor, but I don't think its the main factor. I do think Republicans overstate its unpopularity because they don't take into account the fact that a number of Democrats oppose the law because it isn't single payer. If you take a look at the poll I just linked to, you'll notice that the ACA does worse among self-described Democrats (58% approval) than it does among Democratic-leaning independents (68%). This shouldn't be a huge surprise, because after all, ACA was created by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank. And its not the huge government run health care plan that most people assume it is - most people are going to have private insurance through their employer, just as they always have.
Additionally, there are lots of bills passed by previous Administrations that haven't been liked by Congress, and none of those ever resulted in a government shutdown. Instead, Congress quietly chipped away at those programs.
In the past 20 years there have been just two government shutdowns - in 1995 and today. In both instances you have a Democratic President and a Republican House. And here's where they also are similar - in both instances there were a large number of Republicans who did not recognize the legitimacy of the President. Remember Clinton was elected in 1992 with a plurality of the vote - he got 43% to George H.W. Bush's 37% (and Perot's 19%). Since Clinton didn't get a majority, and Republicans thought he was a slime ball (Slick Willy anyone), they didn't respect him.
With Obama, the same thing applies. There are Republicans that believe that armed rebellion may be necessary, that Obama has a secret plan to take away guns, and that Obama was born in Kenya. These individuals, in their gerrymandered districts, go out and elect morons. Or, as I like to say, the dipshit caucus.
But its more than that. The whole right-wing infrastructure is based upon gullibility of Republican voters. People watch right-wing television, and are flooded with commercials convincing them to buy gold at ridiculous prices. Or buy AK-47s and ammo, or any number of craziness. It needs people like Michele Bachmann or Louie Gohmert to advocate any number of ridiculous things which charges up the electorate and gets them to spend money. Notice that televangelism - so-called preachers on television getting people to give money they don't have so that the preacher could buy a cathedral - isn't all that big anymore? That's because televangelists all followed Pat Robertson to the much more lucrative game of conservative politics.
In that kind of charged environment, there is no room for compromise. Obamacare is the worst thing ever, and there will be death panels, and abortions and unspeakable horrors that come from affordable health insurance. There's no way to back down from that. People who don't support the extremes are naturally enemies. And those enemies get primaried.
Here's the last thing though - the rubes aren't the majority of the American people, or even the majority of Republicans, they are the plurality. Most Republicans, even Congressional Republicans know that Obama is the legitimate President of the United States. They want to move on, and would move on, except they are afraid of losing their seats (*cough*John Boehner*cough*). Even long-time conservatives are amazed at the developments.
Now normally, this is where the Democrats would cave. But I don't think that will happen. For one, the 2010 elections, and the subsequent redistricting pretty much eliminated the conservative, Blue Dog Democrats, who would be the ones pushing for some kind of compromise. By the way, the Democrats have already compromised by agreeing to the sequestration funding in the CIR. For another, they see weakness on the Republican side. And lastly, there is some ego involved - there's no way they are going to get rolled by the dipshit caucus, especially since Boehner has out and out said that the House Republicans are going to pull the same shit with the debt ceiling.
Sadly, I think we are in for a drawn-out constitutional crisis unless something major happens. And by major, I mean 20 Republicans break from the House Leadership, and maybe form a new political party.
*We got a good deal moving in, and were renting around 4,000 sq. ft., and could have put a bocce ball court in the middle of the office and be affected in the slightest.
**I'm digging my new office - its seemingly more intimate and bigger than my old office.
Unfortunately, I can't say the same for the federal government. Its still closed(ish) and by all accounts, Congress isn't going to pass anything any time soon. So I wonder, what gives? Now yes, I am aware of gerrymandering creating a rump of Republican Congressmen and Congresswomen who come from districts where Obama lost by an average of 40 points (he won by 4 points nationwide), but gerrymandering has been part of American politics from the very beginning. Heck, the term gerrymander came from a newspaper in 1812. Now, is it more prevalent now than ever before? In some states, certainly.
Is it the egregious unpopularity of the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a Obamacare)? It may be a contributing factor, but I don't think its the main factor. I do think Republicans overstate its unpopularity because they don't take into account the fact that a number of Democrats oppose the law because it isn't single payer. If you take a look at the poll I just linked to, you'll notice that the ACA does worse among self-described Democrats (58% approval) than it does among Democratic-leaning independents (68%). This shouldn't be a huge surprise, because after all, ACA was created by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank. And its not the huge government run health care plan that most people assume it is - most people are going to have private insurance through their employer, just as they always have.
Additionally, there are lots of bills passed by previous Administrations that haven't been liked by Congress, and none of those ever resulted in a government shutdown. Instead, Congress quietly chipped away at those programs.
In the past 20 years there have been just two government shutdowns - in 1995 and today. In both instances you have a Democratic President and a Republican House. And here's where they also are similar - in both instances there were a large number of Republicans who did not recognize the legitimacy of the President. Remember Clinton was elected in 1992 with a plurality of the vote - he got 43% to George H.W. Bush's 37% (and Perot's 19%). Since Clinton didn't get a majority, and Republicans thought he was a slime ball (Slick Willy anyone), they didn't respect him.
With Obama, the same thing applies. There are Republicans that believe that armed rebellion may be necessary, that Obama has a secret plan to take away guns, and that Obama was born in Kenya. These individuals, in their gerrymandered districts, go out and elect morons. Or, as I like to say, the dipshit caucus.
But its more than that. The whole right-wing infrastructure is based upon gullibility of Republican voters. People watch right-wing television, and are flooded with commercials convincing them to buy gold at ridiculous prices. Or buy AK-47s and ammo, or any number of craziness. It needs people like Michele Bachmann or Louie Gohmert to advocate any number of ridiculous things which charges up the electorate and gets them to spend money. Notice that televangelism - so-called preachers on television getting people to give money they don't have so that the preacher could buy a cathedral - isn't all that big anymore? That's because televangelists all followed Pat Robertson to the much more lucrative game of conservative politics.
In that kind of charged environment, there is no room for compromise. Obamacare is the worst thing ever, and there will be death panels, and abortions and unspeakable horrors that come from affordable health insurance. There's no way to back down from that. People who don't support the extremes are naturally enemies. And those enemies get primaried.
Here's the last thing though - the rubes aren't the majority of the American people, or even the majority of Republicans, they are the plurality. Most Republicans, even Congressional Republicans know that Obama is the legitimate President of the United States. They want to move on, and would move on, except they are afraid of losing their seats (*cough*John Boehner*cough*). Even long-time conservatives are amazed at the developments.
Now normally, this is where the Democrats would cave. But I don't think that will happen. For one, the 2010 elections, and the subsequent redistricting pretty much eliminated the conservative, Blue Dog Democrats, who would be the ones pushing for some kind of compromise. By the way, the Democrats have already compromised by agreeing to the sequestration funding in the CIR. For another, they see weakness on the Republican side. And lastly, there is some ego involved - there's no way they are going to get rolled by the dipshit caucus, especially since Boehner has out and out said that the House Republicans are going to pull the same shit with the debt ceiling.
Sadly, I think we are in for a drawn-out constitutional crisis unless something major happens. And by major, I mean 20 Republicans break from the House Leadership, and maybe form a new political party.
*We got a good deal moving in, and were renting around 4,000 sq. ft., and could have put a bocce ball court in the middle of the office and be affected in the slightest.
**I'm digging my new office - its seemingly more intimate and bigger than my old office.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
An Open Letter to Members of the San Diego Democratic Central Committee
Hello Fellow Democrats,
Tonight you will get to make a choice to endorse a candidate for San Diego Mayor. Choose correctly, and you can turn this election into a win-win for Democrats, progressives, and other left-leaning types. Choose badly and we can end up with Kevin Falconer as our mayor. Ick. And here's the choice you should make - endorse no one.
Now before I explain my reasoning, let me first give you a few bonafides. I used to serve on the Central Committee, and also served on the Executive Committee for the San Diego County Democratic Party, while also serving as the President of the San Diego County Young Democrats. Hell, I served with the three former chairs of the Party - Kennan, Bob, and Maureen - while I was on the Executive Committee. While I am no longer as active as I used to be (such is the practice of law), I am still a Democrat in good standing, and I think this blog speaks for itself.
Let me also say this - I don't have a dog in this fight. I barely know Fletcher or Alvarez, but know people who do, and they highly of both. I supported Aguirre for City Attorney, and loved his bulldozer mentality in City Hall, along with his stirring speeches at during our Central Committee meetings. So, really, I'd be happy with any of these men as Mayor (though I would've preferred Toni).
So, this letter isn't about picking one candidate or another, its about being smart. And right now, the smart play is to not endorse anyone. Here's why - as long as you do not endorse any candidate in this race, Alvarez and Fletcher (especially Fletcher) will go from Democratic club to Democratic club vying for endorsements. In the process, Fletcher will be pulled further and further to the left. This isn't just because he will be fighting for endorsements, but because he will spend more and more time talking to progressives, listening to them, and answering their questions. He will develop greater connections to the Democratic Party and to progressive groups. Alvarez, meanwhile, will get the lion's share of these endorsements. He's a strong progressive, he's smart, and well-liked. Even where he doesn't win, the competition for endorsements will increase his name ID.
In short, forcing both of these candidates to vie for Democratic club endorsements will strengthen both candidates in areas of weakness. Alvarez increases his name ID, and Fletcher becomes more and more involved in the Party he joined a few months ago. This doesn't happen if you endorse either candidate.
By the way, about Fletcher's conversion. Before we hold Fletcher's recent conversion from Republican to Independent to Democrat against him, let's remember that his conversion was a huge coup for us. Fletcher was a rising star of the Republican Party until recently. Let's remember that he's backed by Lorena Gonzalez, the most successful Labor leader we've had in San Diego in a long time. Let's remember that we poached with an eye towards his future run for public office and that Fletcher now is the frontrunner in the race.
What you should absolutely not do is endorse either candidate (or Aguirre). If you endorse Fletcher (he is the frontrunner, after all), you piss off a good Democrat in Alvarez, and Fletcher can ignore Democrats in his run for mayor. If you endorse Alvarez, you push Fletcher further to the middle, and we lose influence on a guy who could be mayor. Also, remember that more likely than not, one of these guys will run against Falconer in the run-off. So, we want both to be strong.
Now I know that you will be asked to endorse based on your principles, or based on your emotions, or based on connections, but you need to think strategically. Both of these men - Alvarez and Fletcher - are strong candidates, and both represent the future of the San Diego Democratic Party. Let's do what we can to build both of these guys up. That way, we end up with 1 guy as mayor, and the other guy as a strong candidate for a higher office further down the line. Its the smart play.
Sincerely,
Phat Jim
Tonight you will get to make a choice to endorse a candidate for San Diego Mayor. Choose correctly, and you can turn this election into a win-win for Democrats, progressives, and other left-leaning types. Choose badly and we can end up with Kevin Falconer as our mayor. Ick. And here's the choice you should make - endorse no one.
Now before I explain my reasoning, let me first give you a few bonafides. I used to serve on the Central Committee, and also served on the Executive Committee for the San Diego County Democratic Party, while also serving as the President of the San Diego County Young Democrats. Hell, I served with the three former chairs of the Party - Kennan, Bob, and Maureen - while I was on the Executive Committee. While I am no longer as active as I used to be (such is the practice of law), I am still a Democrat in good standing, and I think this blog speaks for itself.
Let me also say this - I don't have a dog in this fight. I barely know Fletcher or Alvarez, but know people who do, and they highly of both. I supported Aguirre for City Attorney, and loved his bulldozer mentality in City Hall, along with his stirring speeches at during our Central Committee meetings. So, really, I'd be happy with any of these men as Mayor (though I would've preferred Toni).
So, this letter isn't about picking one candidate or another, its about being smart. And right now, the smart play is to not endorse anyone. Here's why - as long as you do not endorse any candidate in this race, Alvarez and Fletcher (especially Fletcher) will go from Democratic club to Democratic club vying for endorsements. In the process, Fletcher will be pulled further and further to the left. This isn't just because he will be fighting for endorsements, but because he will spend more and more time talking to progressives, listening to them, and answering their questions. He will develop greater connections to the Democratic Party and to progressive groups. Alvarez, meanwhile, will get the lion's share of these endorsements. He's a strong progressive, he's smart, and well-liked. Even where he doesn't win, the competition for endorsements will increase his name ID.
In short, forcing both of these candidates to vie for Democratic club endorsements will strengthen both candidates in areas of weakness. Alvarez increases his name ID, and Fletcher becomes more and more involved in the Party he joined a few months ago. This doesn't happen if you endorse either candidate.
By the way, about Fletcher's conversion. Before we hold Fletcher's recent conversion from Republican to Independent to Democrat against him, let's remember that his conversion was a huge coup for us. Fletcher was a rising star of the Republican Party until recently. Let's remember that he's backed by Lorena Gonzalez, the most successful Labor leader we've had in San Diego in a long time. Let's remember that we poached with an eye towards his future run for public office and that Fletcher now is the frontrunner in the race.
What you should absolutely not do is endorse either candidate (or Aguirre). If you endorse Fletcher (he is the frontrunner, after all), you piss off a good Democrat in Alvarez, and Fletcher can ignore Democrats in his run for mayor. If you endorse Alvarez, you push Fletcher further to the middle, and we lose influence on a guy who could be mayor. Also, remember that more likely than not, one of these guys will run against Falconer in the run-off. So, we want both to be strong.
Now I know that you will be asked to endorse based on your principles, or based on your emotions, or based on connections, but you need to think strategically. Both of these men - Alvarez and Fletcher - are strong candidates, and both represent the future of the San Diego Democratic Party. Let's do what we can to build both of these guys up. That way, we end up with 1 guy as mayor, and the other guy as a strong candidate for a higher office further down the line. Its the smart play.
Sincerely,
Phat Jim
Monday, September 23, 2013
Labor Gets Trolled Again (?)
One of the most interesting aspects of the San Diego's mayoral special election is the existence of Nathan Fletcher. Fletcher fit the mold of the socially liberal, fiscally moderate, San Diego Republican that has been kicking Democrats asses for decades (See Sanders, Jerry; See also Wilson, Pete). Then hurricane DeMaio happened, and the San Diego GOP, which had avoided eats-its-young tendencies of the CA GOP, ate it young. Rather than backing Fletcher, or taking no formal position in the primary, it endorsed DeMaio big-time.
That lead to Fletcher (and his supporters) leaving the Republican Party to become a decline-to-state. And it created an opportunity. As I have said before, Fletcher is the classic little-ray-of-sunshine - he's everyone's friend, people who meet him instinctively trust him, and you end up agreeing with him. Oh, and he is an ex-Marine (I know, I know, there is no such thing), in a military town. Fletcher was a guy on his way up. If the Democrats could get Fletcher to become a Democrat, then they'd have a rockstar candidate in their back pocket. Ultimately, that's what happened. Lorena Gonzalez, Jess Durfee, and even Bob Filner, started wooing Fletcher pretty much from the get-go. Hell, I think they were planning this before the DeMaio endorsement. Either way, they got their man, and planned to stash him away for a few years, let him build up his progressive ties and run him for something.*
Of course, the best laid plans of mice and men. . .Filner ends up being a HUGE perv, resigns after 9 months in office, and Fletcher jumped in the race for Mayor as a Democrat. And, given his general inclination to being mildly pro-government (he actually voted for the State of California to spend money, something Republicans in the State Assembly do not typically do), his support of LGBT rights, and a his pro-biking environmentalism(ish), Fletcher is probably a Democrat at heart.
But of course, Fletcher isn't the only Democrat in the race. David Alvarez has a longer record of progressivism, and generally thought of highly. And so, the Labor Council is backing Alvarez. Or, rather, most of the unions in the Labor Council are supporting Alvarez, the rest are supporting Fletcher. In the meantime, Republican groups are attacking Fletcher because of his Republican past, and that he has "changed parties three times."
This past has sparked an interparty fight within Labor and the Democratic Party. The head of the local American Federation of Teachers (which represent Community College instructors), alleged that Lorena Gonzalez rigged the whole thing so that she could be an Assemblywoman. Nathan Fletcher's confidential Labor Council questionnaire was sent anonymously to create a minor shitstorm.
All of this reminds me, in part, of the recent District 4 campaign between Dwayne Crenshaw and Myrtle Cole.** Labor backed Cole full-tilt, even running misleading attack ads on Crenshaw, because Republicans were sending out anti-Cole mailers. As I noted then, Labor got trolled, and turned what should have been an easy election for them into a knock-down, drag-out fight.
And that's where I think we're headed in the San Diego's special election. This should be an easy election for Labor - Fletcher has the look of a frontrunner, and Alvarez, with mild union backing, could pull the race leftward, while at the same time raising his name identification. Properly done, this campaign could, and should be a win-win for the Democratic Party, the Labor Council and the City of San Diego. But, if the warfare continues, Fletcher will become more hostile to progressive groups, and we could end up with Falconer (the Republican), as mayor.
*By the way, Labor does this all the time because they have to. Republican candidates have, for the most part, deep donor pockets to pull from, and then use that money to gain traction. Progressive groups don't have that luxury, and need to have candidates who can hit the ground running.
**Cole's profiles in courage have thus far been stellar - during the campaign, she claimed that her opponent was a crackhead, practically admitted that the ad was false, and was the last City Councilmember to call on Filner to resign after the 16th or 17th woman came forward. I hate to say I told you so, but. . .
That lead to Fletcher (and his supporters) leaving the Republican Party to become a decline-to-state. And it created an opportunity. As I have said before, Fletcher is the classic little-ray-of-sunshine - he's everyone's friend, people who meet him instinctively trust him, and you end up agreeing with him. Oh, and he is an ex-Marine (I know, I know, there is no such thing), in a military town. Fletcher was a guy on his way up. If the Democrats could get Fletcher to become a Democrat, then they'd have a rockstar candidate in their back pocket. Ultimately, that's what happened. Lorena Gonzalez, Jess Durfee, and even Bob Filner, started wooing Fletcher pretty much from the get-go. Hell, I think they were planning this before the DeMaio endorsement. Either way, they got their man, and planned to stash him away for a few years, let him build up his progressive ties and run him for something.*
Of course, the best laid plans of mice and men. . .Filner ends up being a HUGE perv, resigns after 9 months in office, and Fletcher jumped in the race for Mayor as a Democrat. And, given his general inclination to being mildly pro-government (he actually voted for the State of California to spend money, something Republicans in the State Assembly do not typically do), his support of LGBT rights, and a his pro-biking environmentalism(ish), Fletcher is probably a Democrat at heart.
But of course, Fletcher isn't the only Democrat in the race. David Alvarez has a longer record of progressivism, and generally thought of highly. And so, the Labor Council is backing Alvarez. Or, rather, most of the unions in the Labor Council are supporting Alvarez, the rest are supporting Fletcher. In the meantime, Republican groups are attacking Fletcher because of his Republican past, and that he has "changed parties three times."
This past has sparked an interparty fight within Labor and the Democratic Party. The head of the local American Federation of Teachers (which represent Community College instructors), alleged that Lorena Gonzalez rigged the whole thing so that she could be an Assemblywoman. Nathan Fletcher's confidential Labor Council questionnaire was sent anonymously to create a minor shitstorm.
All of this reminds me, in part, of the recent District 4 campaign between Dwayne Crenshaw and Myrtle Cole.** Labor backed Cole full-tilt, even running misleading attack ads on Crenshaw, because Republicans were sending out anti-Cole mailers. As I noted then, Labor got trolled, and turned what should have been an easy election for them into a knock-down, drag-out fight.
And that's where I think we're headed in the San Diego's special election. This should be an easy election for Labor - Fletcher has the look of a frontrunner, and Alvarez, with mild union backing, could pull the race leftward, while at the same time raising his name identification. Properly done, this campaign could, and should be a win-win for the Democratic Party, the Labor Council and the City of San Diego. But, if the warfare continues, Fletcher will become more hostile to progressive groups, and we could end up with Falconer (the Republican), as mayor.
*By the way, Labor does this all the time because they have to. Republican candidates have, for the most part, deep donor pockets to pull from, and then use that money to gain traction. Progressive groups don't have that luxury, and need to have candidates who can hit the ground running.
**Cole's profiles in courage have thus far been stellar - during the campaign, she claimed that her opponent was a crackhead, practically admitted that the ad was false, and was the last City Councilmember to call on Filner to resign after the 16th or 17th woman came forward. I hate to say I told you so, but. . .
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Breaking Away From Politics
Since this blog is called Politics and Religion, and with national politics being depressing and all, I thought I would go with a religious post. And so, naturally, I'm going to talk about Pope Francis. After all, he's all over the news and Andrew Sullivan's blog.
So as a progressive, what do I think about Pope Francis? Well, I have to admit that I was a bit wrong about him. Initially, I thought that Francis was an extrovert in the style of Bill Clinton. Not in the womanizing kind of a way, but in the loving crowds kind of a way. Unlike Pope Benedict, Pope Francis seems to enjoy the politician aspect of being Pope. He likes the crowds, enjoys mingling with people, and calls people on the phone (he apparently opens with, "Hello, this is the Pope.") He also seems like he's not an asshole, buying a used car to drive around in and what not.
But what's interesting is that Francis' most recent interview, which has Andrew Sullivan practically twisting his nipples in delight, (you can thank me for the mental image later) is that Francis goes the opposite way. According to Francis, he is a dick, and his dickishness comes from when he separates himself from regular people and the community. So, he has to be engaged with the crowds and with the regular folk, lest his own dickishness comes out. Oh, and his past dickishness lead people to think he's a conservative, which he says he isn't.
How liberal Francis actually is remains to be seen, but there's something refreshing about a guy in power who knows his own weaknesses and owns up to them. Every person has to come to grips with their own inner asshole, understand who that asshole is, and try to keep the asshole in the dark hole where he belongs. Its the kind of inner reflection that I would expect from a Jesuit.
At the same time, I hope that this kind of inner reflection and charisma will lead Pope Francis and the Catholic Church to more progressive ways, such as allowing priests to marry, allowing women to be priests, and opening up the rules on contraception. I won't hold my breath on abortion, though. I also hope to see a Catholic Church more focused on poverty, union membership, and ending war - things that the Church gave up when it decided to fight the culture wars. And, of course, I hope that Pope Francis can help the Church reconcile itself with past, horrific, child abuse. I don't know if that's possible, but I am more hopeful with Francis than I ever was with Benedict.
So as a progressive, what do I think about Pope Francis? Well, I have to admit that I was a bit wrong about him. Initially, I thought that Francis was an extrovert in the style of Bill Clinton. Not in the womanizing kind of a way, but in the loving crowds kind of a way. Unlike Pope Benedict, Pope Francis seems to enjoy the politician aspect of being Pope. He likes the crowds, enjoys mingling with people, and calls people on the phone (he apparently opens with, "Hello, this is the Pope.") He also seems like he's not an asshole, buying a used car to drive around in and what not.
But what's interesting is that Francis' most recent interview, which has Andrew Sullivan practically twisting his nipples in delight, (you can thank me for the mental image later) is that Francis goes the opposite way. According to Francis, he is a dick, and his dickishness comes from when he separates himself from regular people and the community. So, he has to be engaged with the crowds and with the regular folk, lest his own dickishness comes out. Oh, and his past dickishness lead people to think he's a conservative, which he says he isn't.
How liberal Francis actually is remains to be seen, but there's something refreshing about a guy in power who knows his own weaknesses and owns up to them. Every person has to come to grips with their own inner asshole, understand who that asshole is, and try to keep the asshole in the dark hole where he belongs. Its the kind of inner reflection that I would expect from a Jesuit.
At the same time, I hope that this kind of inner reflection and charisma will lead Pope Francis and the Catholic Church to more progressive ways, such as allowing priests to marry, allowing women to be priests, and opening up the rules on contraception. I won't hold my breath on abortion, though. I also hope to see a Catholic Church more focused on poverty, union membership, and ending war - things that the Church gave up when it decided to fight the culture wars. And, of course, I hope that Pope Francis can help the Church reconcile itself with past, horrific, child abuse. I don't know if that's possible, but I am more hopeful with Francis than I ever was with Benedict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)