The Workers' Paradise

We should all move to France. Really.

Forget all the cliches about snobbery, the consumption of garden pests and a lack of personal hygiene. Focus on jobs and working conditions.

First, almost as soon as you are hired into a job, you receive legal and social tenure. I’ve checked and that pretty much means you have to murder a co-worker to get fired. Better yet, healthcare is free and you only have to work 35 hours before overtime kicks in. Toss in five weeks off a year to decompress from the pressure at work, retirement at age 55, and France starts to look like a virtual workers’ paradise.

No wonder the whole country is almost literally up in arms about proposed changes to this system. First it was the students who felt dissed because someone raised the idea of delaying their job guarantees until they had been on the payroll for two years. The unions – and pretty much everyone in France belongs to one – are joining in to shut down La Belle France because they figure if the government can get away with changing the rules for young people, they’ll be targeted next.

We’d better hit the road right away, though. If the government buckles under the pressure, there will be maybe zero new jobs created in France for the next half century. And given the demonstrated proclivity of the French for strikes and riots, filling out an application for an existing position could provoke something akin to the revolution that cost a lot of folks their heads.

Get Off My Back Mountain

My ambivalence about whether to see Brokeback Mountain is turning me into a social pariah.

I enjoyed E. Annie Proulx’s short story on which director Ang Lee’s film is based when I read it a few years ago in the New Yorker. She’s a brilliant writer whose sparse prose quickstarts the imagination. I even recommended it to friends. But there was nothing in the story that left me eager to rush to a movie theater to see the screen adaptation.

Now, I am often asked if I have seen the movie. My “No,” usually elicits an expression of horror and the words, “but you have to.”

That’s when the problem starts. Time after time I am told Brokeback Mountain is a certified cultural phenomenon because it is a lushly designed, well-acted movie about two men in love that portrays their relationship as understandalbe (if abhorred in the film’s 1950s America) and in a manner that is accessible to contemporary, mainstream audiences. Really, how could I avoid participation in this seminal filmic event?

Well, I have my reasons and none of them even remotely justify suggestions I might be homophobic, as did one friend.

I've lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for more than 18 years and was far from naive before that. The fact that two good looking macho guys could fall deeply in love is somewhat less than a revelation to me.

Unlike what some people think, the film is hardly a first. There have been a number of widely released films about men in love over the years. Yes, some of them, like Le Cage aux Folles, and its U.S. remake, The Birdcage, portrayed one gay character as the epitome of a drag stereotype. But both of those films portrayed the campy Albin respectfully and humanely. Only someone with a heart of coal could fail to care about Albin's delimma or be amused by his solution.

There is also the fact that Brokeback Mountain is a chick flick. Change one of the sheepherders to a woman and you would have a dramatic version of Same Time Next Year, in which two people married to others meet once a year for a brief affair. It’s Sleepless in Seattle, with a sad ending. It's Casablanca without the context of a war.

I might see Brokeback Mountain someday. And, from what I’ve read about the acting, directing, and cinematography, I might even enjoy it. But if I do attend, it will be because I want to experience a movie, not get my liberal credentials certified.

Rumsfeld: We're Losing the War on Terror

WASHINGTON — America has made progress in the War on Terror, but the threat today may be greater than ever before because the available weapons are far more dangerous, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday.

"The enemy — while weakened and under pressure — is still capable of global reach, and still possesses the determination to kill more Americans — and to do so with the world's most dangerous weapons," Rumsfeld said in remarks prepared for delivery at the National Press Club.
(FOX NEWS)

Dear Rummy,
As much as it pains me to say this, I fear you went a bit over the top in your National Press Club speech today.

You see, my friend, pretty much everyone has known for years the terror boys would love to get their hands on nukes, germs or whatever. You mentioned this several times when citing the spread of WMDs as a justification for our nation's visit to Iraq. As you'll remember, we were unable to find any of those nasties so to raise the topic again might invite questions about your credibility.

(I loved the way you stopped just short of saying the bad guys actually had WMDs stashed inside their dish-dashes. Masterful rhetoric.)

I understand the purpose of your address to the nattering nabobs of negativism was intended to shore up support for the president's policies and actions. But to this friendly observer your comments could also have led the unlettered masses to believe we're losing the war on terror.

Take this for what you will, my friend, but I just wanted you to know some of us are still paying attentionn to what you say.

Bill

My Judicial Qualifications

Sam Alito is fully qualified to sit as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. So am I. So is my 80-year-old mother. So is the President of France.

I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

My confidence on this matter is absolute because neither the U.S. Constitution or federal law spells out a single criterion that a candidate must meet to join the eight other folks on the big bench. Zip.

Yes, a sitting president must nominate someone and at least 51 senators must approve. But that's process and says nothing about the nominee's suitability to make big judgments on big issues.

With this in mind, I want everyone to know that I'm ready -- eager, even -- to step onto the bench with Clarence, Ruthie, Dave and the rest of the gang. In anticipation of achieving my goal I have drafted the text of a statement by the second President Clinton announcing my nomination:

"Today, I am sending the Senate a message nominating Bill Bucy to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the impeachment of former Justice Antonin Scalia.

"That Mr. Bucy lives fully qualifies him for this job under the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Bolstering his credentials is the welcome fact Mr. Bucy has never attended law school, worked as a lawyer or worn the black robes of a judge.

"While Mr. Bucy's lack of technical expertise will require intense on-the-job training, I believe his learning curve will be steep. Besides, the clerks make all the decisions and write the opinions, anyway.

"Given that Democrats hold a solid majority in the Senate and most of them owe me big time, I anticipate prompt hearings and a swift confirmation.

"It's customary at this point to ask the nominee to make a few remarks. However, Mr. Bucy has extended his stay in rehab to ensure he has a clear head for the upcoming court term."

"As you might imagine, I won't be taking questions."

Thanks for the First Amendment

Let us give thanks for the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment is the foundation of the planet’s longest-lasting constitutional democracy. Within specific limits drawn over centuries, we can argue that the president is the spawn of Satan, worship toads, or publicly declare our support or condemnation of having sex with children.

The First Amendment protects the expression of ideas that might not sit all that well with the powers to be, whether governmental or as reflected in society. This once allowed a group of Nazis to march through Skokie, Ill, a largely Jewish community. It also allows anyone to advocate the violent overthrow of the government.

This virtually unbridled freedom is unique in the world. That it enables promulgation of ideas and words and pictures that almost anyone would find repugnant is a small price to pay for protection against the greatest tool of political repression: censorship of ideas. As has been made clear by centuries of experience, democracy cannot exist when people are denied the right to exchange ideas and openly argue their worth.

These principles are held so fundamental they are inculcated almost as soon a child can read and write. But they are ignored or even scoffed at by many sophisticated Western nations, our nation’s political and cultural allies.

This was clearly illustrated earlier this week when the British government warned news organizations they would be breaking the law if they publish details of a leaked document said to disclose President Bush wanted to bomb Arabic television station Al Jazeera. First published in the Daily Mirror newspaper, the document went on to say that Bush withdrew his idea only at the insistence of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

A former parliamentary aide and a civil servant were charged with a violation of Britain’s Official Secrets Acts, specifically a ``damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations.'' Thus, David Keogh and Leo O’Connor could go to prison for distributing a document that would do no more harm than cause embarrassment for the American president.

The Official Secrets Acts were first passed in 1911 so they are not a reaction to modern terrorism in an Internet age. They also allow the government to ban the news media from publishing stories the government deems not in its interests -- something called prior restraint, which cannot occur in the U.S. Great Britain has no written constitution, let alone a codified bill of rights. And one of its national legislative chambers is called the House of Lords, none of whose members are elected by the people they govern and have broad veto powers.

In the U.S., governments of both major political parties have sought to limit public scrutiny of their workings or their documents. But the First Amendment also allows citizens to seek redress in the courts and refer to that amendment as the reason they seek openness from those who govern them. Time and again the courts have ruled that the Constitution sets transparency as the default judgment in such cases.

Even when a political administration invokes the principle of “executive privilege” to keep private records of conversations such as those at issue in the UK case, it must justify its decision to a judge. And there is no law preventing an administration from releasing such documents.

At a time of year when we are supposed to reflect and give thanks for what enriches us, it is appropriate to be grateful for the fundamental freedoms given to us by the drafters of the First Amendment and to the elected officials who endorsed it. Without it the democracy we enjoy would not exist.

Email Stupidity

Washington super-lobbyist Michael Scanlon has pleaded guilty to charges he conspired to defraud Indian tribes of more than $19 million.

Why did he not take his case to trial? Probably because of a series of emails to partner Jack Abramoff in which he expressed boundless glee at pulling off his scam."I want all their money!!!" he declared in one. "Weeez gonna be rich!!!" read another.

Despite the number of big timers currently dressed in brightly colored prison jumpsuits because of a poor email decision, people continue to archive their felonious feelings as bits and bytes on some anonymous computer. Why?

First is hubris. Every one of them believes their scam is so impenetrable that there's no reason for discretion. Aren't they smarter than some $60,000-a-year FBI agent or assistant U.S. Attorney? The answer usually comes to them as a pistol-packing civil servant grabs their arm and guides them through a perp walk.

Sometimes they actually believe it's perfectly OK to bribe, steal and cheat so they don't care what they write. Many criminal defense attorneys prefer representing professional killers to working with white-collar crooks because they are tired of hearing: "Everybody does it. Why are they picking on me?"

A prosecutor once told me, "If it wasn't for snitches and the generally stupid behavior of crooks I'd be out of work." He might want to add 'email trails' to the list. Or is that part of the stupidity factor?

Desperate Tactics

Conservative Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Pa., stood before microphones and, his voice choked with emotion, declared American troops should be withdrawn from Iraq “as soon as is practicable.” Literally moments after he stepped away, no fewer than 14 Republicans lined up to denounce not only Murtha’s position but his personal integrity.

Rep. Jean Smith, R-Ohio, the most junior member of Congress, said she received a telephone call from a Marine colonel after the speech. "He asked me to send Congress a message: stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: Only cowards cut and run, Marines never do,” she declared. The White House lashed out with an ad hominen attack on Murtha, labeling him a liberal who sympathized with the opinions of “Fahrenheit 9/11” filmmaker Michael Moore.

The Republican House leadership pushed forward a resolution deliberately and inaccurately labeled as Murtha’s, that called for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. armed forces from Iraq. It was resoundingly defeated.

Unfortunately for his rabid and thoughtless critics, Murtha, 73, spent 40 years in the Marine Corps and the corps’ reserve, fought in the Korean and Vietnam wars and was wounded in both, earning two Purple Heart medals and a Bronze Star. Since he was elected in 1973 he has been one of the U.S. Military’s staunchest supporters on the House Appropriations Committee.

The GOP reaction to this event is akin to the last-ditch tactic used by a military unit about to be annihilated by a superior force: throw all resources into an attack hoping the other side will be so confused it crumbles. A combat veteran, Murtha would recognize the tactic.

And, as a veteran leader in both war and poltics, he won't be confused and will continue to hold his ground.

California Election Predictions

1. Whoever loses tomorrow will claim the other side used sleazy tactics and misleading advertisements to gull the voters.

2. If the proposition stripping the legislature of its redistricting powers passes, lawsuits will fly claiming it violates who knows how many other parts of the State Constitution.

3. Most taxpayers will forget the election cost them more than $50 million which could have been better spent on other things they really wanted -- regardless of what they wanted.

4. Countless news publications will once again question whether the California is governable by any kind of system.

Cynical? No. Just experienced.

Unintelligent Design

For thousands of years native Hawaiians believed that volcanic eruptions were a sign that the goddess Pele was angry, the Norse people believed lightning was sent by a ticked off Thor and folks in myriad cultures around the globe figured that murdering a virgin would ensure a good harvest for the tribe. Their thinking was based on a simple question: "You got a better explanation, pal?"

Now comes the "intelligent design" crowd, who contend the absence of a rational, scientific explanation for everything in nature is evidence an intelligent being or spirit created and guides all life.

More artfully put than in ancient times, their argument still comes down to, "You got a better explanation, pal?" and makes about as much sense as eating the heart of your enemy to gain his courage.

Breasts, Prostates, and Money

September is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.

This fiscal year, Congress budgeted about $485 million to research the cause and cure of prostate cancer, which is expected to kill 30,400 men.

Congress also allocated $850 million to research the cause and cure of breast cancer, of which an estimated 40,410 women will die.

That doesn't mean less money should be spent on breast cancer studies. But it does mean a whole lot more should be spent on prostate research.

Insuring Failure After Katrina

My home sits on the edge of a flood plain that hasn’t flooded in more than 40 years. My mortgage lender requires me to pay about $700 a year to insure my dwelling against flood damage. I don’t like having to fork over that money each year, but looking at it logically, I see the point.

New Orleans is located below sea level, below river level, and below lake level. It regularly suffers the ravages of tropical storms and hurricanes. Yet the majority of homes and business in the Big Easy never purchased flood insurance. In some Katrina-ravaged areas along the Gulf Coast, fewer than 10 percent of property owners thought it important. With different numbers attached, the same was true of property owners wiped out by the Midwest floods of 1993 and 2001.

Now, as then, thousands of angry people who volunteered to live in a flood zone but declined insurance are screaming for the government to bail them out, figuratively as well as literally.

More Religion in Schools

Kids today are denied a real chance to learn more about the world in which they live - a world that, because of air travel, the internet and immigration patterns is staring them in the face every time they look around their classrooms. To a large degree this is because anything involving religion is banned.

Religion, faith, belief – whatever label one cares to stick on it – shapes cultures (Islam v. the West.) It infuses politics (the Christian right in the U.S.) . It starts wars (the Crusades.) It sets the foundation of acceptable behavior in societies (the Ten commandments and Judeo/Christian ethics.) Understanding religions and their impact on world history deepens knowledge and helps people understand each other.

There is a wide gap between learning about religions and becoming religious. But too many people make the words synonymous. Reading the Q’ran to learn more about the basic tenets of the Muslim faith is no more likely to prompt a conversion than is reading the bible – either or both books. Jews who fled persecution and settled in the Ottoman Empire found a haven in the heart of Islam but didn’t necessarily embrace the religion espoused by almost everyone else they met on a daily basis. Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew and spoke Aramaic. Today, most people named Jesus are Roman Catholic and speak Spanish.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution bans the establishment of a state religion. But state religions exist all over the world, including in such democracies as Germany, the UK and Denmark. None of these countries block the study of the impact of religion on the world except the U.S., where some public schools go so far as to bar copies of the Declaration of Independence because it references God.

Public school students usually receive only the barest smattering of instruction on world religions before they enter college where even taxpayer-funded schools can offer courses and majors in comparative religion.

Denying younger students the opportunity to learn about the role of religion in life and history - both positive and negative - sets them back as they confront an increasingly mobile and multicultural society. If colleges and universities can teach about religion without trying to inculcate a particular creed, then surely public schools can, too.

The Blather Over China and Oil

Some of the wackier types in Congress are all worked up about the Chinese government's oil company trying to purchase Unocal.

They claim the purchase will threaten national security by giving a foreign government (and a commie regime, to boot) an economic lever that, if pulled, could stun the U.S. economy and bring democracy to its knees.

Nonsense - as usual. Not only is Unocal petroleum production a drop in the barrel, Congress has already handed the Chinese government an economic weapon of far larger caliber.

Let's take Unocal off the table immediately. Its domestic production is about 58,000 barrels of oil a day. That's about 0.8 percent of overall production and about 0.3 percent of daily consumption. Because oil is a globally traded commodity, such a shortfall could be easily replaced. So, even if the Chinese government shipped every single ounce of Unocal crude off to Shanghai, U.S. highways would still be jammed with SUVs with fuel left over for the tanks and planes needed to repel a Chicom invasion.

Anyway, there is a much bigger threat at hand.

Each year Congress raises the ceiling on the overall national debt, which as of July 19 amounted to $7, 860,109,040, 549.45. In March of 2005, China owned about $224 billion of that - slightly more than the cost of Iraq war to this point. That's money owed in U.S. dollars to the same Chinese government being kicked around the halls of Congress at the moment.

Fast forward about a year. Chinese Premier Wen Jiabo is still smarting from Congress' opposition to the Unocal deal. Then he discovers the nickname President Bush assigned him and it's even more offensive than "turdblossom," the monicker given to presidential adviser Carl Rove.

Wen throws a fit and starts an undeclared war - but leaves his soldiers in their barracks. Instead, he starts dumping his stash of U.S. government bonds on the market in great big chunks. Prices plunge and the Chinese government loses billions of dollars. But lots of other folks lose too because $3.3 trillion of U.S. debt is held by investors; state, local and foreign governments; and individuals.

Can we say global economic chaos? Yes, we can. And all because Congress turned over great power to a tiger and then twisted its tail over a trivial business deal.

Terror Dollars

Is the terrorist war on the West being run by MBAs?

Looking at terror in terms of business models and dollars - even if by reasonable estimates and guesswork - discloses that there are some pretty savvy bad boys out there. It's not just the people who finance terror, it's the folks who handle corporate strategy and day-to-day operations.

Neutralize the rhetoric and ideology, go up to 10,000 feet, and look at terror as an enterprise. What emerges from the smoke of the car bombs is a low-overhead, high return-on-investment operation that, by its very existence, forces competitors to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to stave off entry into their markets.

Talk about a New Economy.

Take the 2004 al-Qaida train bombing in Madrid. A few hundred thousand bucks to put the team in place, some stolen explosives, and all of a sudden there's a new government that quickly pulls its troops out of Iraq. Add to that the intangibles of global PR for the cause. The anti-war but studious New Priorities Project estimates the U.S. regime change action in Iraq will have cost taxpayers about $208 billion by the end of the year (www.costofwar.com).

Any business will tell you that it's expensive to find new employees. The Department of Defense spends more than $ 4 billion a year keeping its uniformed ranks filled. The Army, though, fell 42 percent short of its recruiting goals in April, even with the offer of $20,000 signing bonuses. Given that the majority of the current crop of terrorists come from the ranks of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims, and that the majority of them live in poverty, and that half of them are under age 25, al-Qaida and other groups need to offer little if anything to keep their units fully staffed.

Then there's customer service. The proposed budget for the Department of Homeland Security is $47.4 billion. That doesn't include all the other money spent on anti-terror stuff by the military, the CIA, the FBI, and virtually every other federal government department, all of which have security components in their spending plans. Be conservative, double the Homeland Security budget and total spending pushes $100 billion.

Do federal authorities stop potential attacks in the homeland all the time? Yes, they do. But, we're at 10,000 feet and looking at return on investment. At the cost of one car bomb and one dispensible fanatic, the U.S. government would spend tens of millions of dollars. on the investigation, congressional hearings, and new budgets to make sure "this won't happen again." Add in lost productivity as people turn their focus to the tragedy and figure who's making a profit.

If this war was played out in the world of high tech, Microsoft (the government) would find a way to purchase its small but innovative competitor (organized terror) and take it out of the marketplace. But in the world of global politics, terrorists don't want to sell - they want to become Microsoft.

Pseudo-ethics

There's been a lot of unwarranted self-righteousness among newspaper editors around the country in the wake of a Spokane Spokesman-Review investigation into allegations the mayor traded public benefits for sex with young men.

As part of its news gathering, the newspaper hired a private eye to dip into a gay online chatroom and seek confirmation of the mayor's screen name. To do this, the investigator posed as an 18-year-old and, well, chatted the mayor up.

Far too many editors around the country clucked at this technique, saying the Spokesman-Review was wrong to use subtrefuge to confirm information it already had. They claim strict adherence to the rule that reporters must always identify themselves.

Apparently these editors rose through the ranks without ever telling a lie or misleading someone to get a story. If they did, they undoubtedly gained all their experience writing for the Religion & Ethics pages.

"Hi chief, this is Bob Jones at the Times. I was just talking to the mayor about possible cutbacks in the police department. Can you confirm that at least 20 officers will be laid off?" Bob did talk to the mayor about possible cutbacks. But they mayor told Bob to buzz off.

Tom is at the bar of a restaurant popular with legislators. The senate majority leader - tanked - is standing next to him running his mouth to a lobbyist about his plan to kill the governor's tax reform plan. The next day Tom calls the senator, who denies any such plan exists. "But isn't that the information you gave (lobbyist's name here) last night?"

Reporter Ann never dates the powerful committee chairman but, then, she never really tells him she won't. Her pal Susan knows more about the Department of Water and Power than most of the people working there. But when she calls the supervising engineer seeking details on a controversial project, she acts like an airhead to wheedle the information out of him.

All of those reporters identified themselves, but all of them lied to the people they were talking to in one way or another. Such techniques are used every day by journalists - even at the papers run by people who talk a far better ethics game than they can play.

The Spokesman-Review didn't set out to probe the mayor's personal life. It wanted to test the credibility of sources who said the mayor misused his office in exchange for sex. By hiring someone more experienced in online investigations than its own reporters the newspaper demonstrated its commitment to fairness and accuracy. That's what really counts.

The Parties Are Over

About three million Californians have rejected all political parties, registered as independent voters, and, in the arcane jargon of the government, morphed into “decline to states.”

They are the fastest-growing segment of voters and, because they can vote in primary elections, Democrats and Republicans chase them like a frat boy looking for Saturday night action. But when election time is over and the pols are sworn in, they are treated exactly the way said frat boy treats his date the next morning.

There is a way to fix that, though: make everyone an independent. Amend the state Constitution to declare that all elected offices are non-partisan. Erase the Ds and Rs and Gs from ballots. Individuals could still belong to political parties, they just couldn’t run as a representative of the party.

Think lots of positive results and much entertainment.

If every candidate is independent, more could run. The traditional parties could still put up their anointed and give them the money the need to breathe in and out. But, so could other organized groups or parties– big business, enviros, gun nuts and even (dare we speak the word?) moderates. Over time, people would dole out campaign contributions to people who represent their interests rather than holding heir noses and writing a check to the lesser of two evils.

This system would also change how government is run Instead of a single party deciding who gets which parking space, coalitions would rule. Fiscal conservatives would band together during budget deliberations, but the same individuals would join a different club on gun control issues. There might be party positions on issues, but when there’s a dozen or more of them roaming the halls, compromise would rule.

Does this smell like a parliamentary system? Not to fine-tuned noses. The U.S. Constitution bars apportioned representation based on such factors as party identity, ethnicity, religion or birthright (ref: the House of Lords in the U.K.) Individuals, not party leaders, would assume office. One-person-one vote and winner-take-all would finally mean something.

(Note to cynics: Yes, the two main parties would continue to rule for awhile. But if just a few real Decline to States get elected all hell would break loose. That’s when the entertainment would start.)

The biggest challenge is to get the right words on a statewide ballot. Maybe Arnold “Let the People Decide” Schwarzenegger could pull it off as a lovely parting gift in 2010.

Social Security Rescue

Why not impose the 6.20 percent individual Social Security tax on all earned income rather than merely the first $90,000?

The conservative Heritage Foundation notes that only about 10.4 million wage earners would be affected nationwide. The Foundation also calculates a total of $1.2 trillion would be raised over 10 years, thus extending the Social Security System's solvency by seven years.

That means about 5 percent of all U.S. workers would pay more taxes to forestall or eliminate Social Security benefits cuts, extend coverage to more people for a longer period of time, and all without increasing the tax burden on 95 percent of wage earners.

It's a no-brainer for the 95 percent. But the GOP won't bite because they say raising taxes on anyone for any reason is something akin to endorsing incest. Better, they say, to cut benefits. For a large portion of the 95 percent.

The two most powerful Republicans espousing this view are President Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. Take a peek at their taxpayer-funded Golden Years plan.

Bush is already eligible for a $189,000 federal pension, an office, staff, postage, some travel, Secret Service protection, and a multi-million-dollar state funeral. Plus an endless stream of five-figure speaking engagements. Plus the book. Plus the movie rights, including final say over who plays him. (Mel Gibson, of course.)

Hastert's congressional pension would depend on a number of arcane factors, but the current average for ex-members with his level of tenure is about $50,000. Plus Social Security. Plus his pension as a former schoolteacher. Plus whatever he makes from speaking fees and product endorsements. (Hey, Bob Dole did it.) He's set.

And the 95 percent?

The typical American worker is a 40-year-old female earning about $22,000 a year. Should she give up waiting on tables at age 67, she would pull in about $11,196 a year at current Social Security rates. (Yeah, benefits are indexed for inflation, but that just keeps her even.) Bill Clinton spent nearly that much taxpayer money on postage last year.

Once everyone wades through the endless and fetid chatter on the issue, Social Security System changes will focus on politics. That means taking care of the constituency. And, for the Republicans, that clearly means the 5 percent, not the 95 percent.

Finger Food Finale?

Anna Ayala was arrested for allegedly faking the finger-in-the-chili incident at a San Jose Wendy's. Police said they grabbed her as soon as they discovered the finger showed no signs of having been simmered at 170 degrees, the Wendy's standard for chili.

As the late attorney Johnny Cochran might have said: "The finger wasn't cooked, so she was booked."

Jimmy vs. Arnold

California Democrats are giggling at the mere suggestion that Arnold’s popularity has taken a dive.

They need to get real.

Voters recalled Gov. Gray Davis to make it clear that the Democratically controlled state goverment was so out of step with what they want that it was square dancing at a hip hop club. To eliminate any possible confusion, they chose as Davis' successor a charismatic actor who promised to kick butt.

Now that Arnold's approval numbers have slipped below 50 percent, Demo leaders are drooling at the prosepct of a comeback. But their recent political group hug at the state convention masked the fact they have no real alternatives to charisma and slick messages. The best-kown among them is former Gov. Jerry Brown, who is looking to run again for a statewide office. But even though he's sleeping on a bed instead of the floor these days, his career peaked in the 1970s when Davis carried his briefcase as chief of staff.

Instead of recruiting candidates from geriatric wards, the Democrats need to fight glitz with glitz, Hollywood candidate with Hollywood candidate. No, not Rob Reiner – unless the debates consist of who's wearing the most expensive sweater.

There’s someone better.

He’s Hispanic and born to a working-class family. He holds two college degrees. He earned a U.S. passport at birth. He’s fought for the rights of minorities. He’s a solid family man. His wife is beautiful and has her own career. He starred in two major television series that gave him almost universal recognition. Women of all ages love him. He’s old enough (49) to deliver maturity but far younger than anyone in the state political spotlight.

His name is Jimmy Smits. Scandal-free, full of energy, and smart, Smits is the Demos’ man.

Smits is currently playing Rep. Matt Gonzalez, D-Texas, the charismatic underdog Democratic nominee for the presidency on the NBC show, “The West Wing.” That means the producers must decide if Gonzalez wins (and the series continues) or Republican Sen. Arnie Vinick (Alan Alda) takes over and the series gracefully eases into TV history. That can be handled, though, because the scripts for next season aren't finished.

What does Smits say? Who cares? Matt Gonzalez was ready to dump his political career and move back to Texas before he got dragooned into an ultra-long shot White House race. Maybe the California Dems can do the same kind of arm twisting on Smits himself.

Smits is defintely "signable" and his election is "doable." California voters chose The Terminator as governor and the polls show they're getting tired of his hyper-macho act. There's every reason to think the better looking, far more sensitive Det. Bobby Simone/Rep. Matt Gonzalez would be a viable replacement.

To make it happen, though, the Dems need to blow the dust out and say, as Arnie Vinick did in the West Wing season finale, "OK. Let's go out and win this thing." Either that or step aside and let the West Wing producers take over.


This post is also available at Blogger News Network.

High Tech Software Talk

They say: Enterprise Solution
They mean: We need to take over your company's computer and software systems to deliver any value.

They say: CRM
They mean: We have a searchable customer database just like everyone else.

They say: Integrated
They mean: We make nice with Oracle and SAP.

They say Scalable:
They mean: So is any other database worth a damn.

They say: Web-based
They mean: The earthquake hits, you're dead meat.

They say: World-class
They mean: Some geek in Ukraine bought our beta version.