A Fork in The Road

The road seemed straight and sure. We made a big course correction in 2008 but we've been motoring along since. Slowly, but surely.

There have been a few potholes to trouble us, and a couple of detours along the way. And once or twice the road has been closed due to a collision of wills. But mostly we've been moving ahead, toward a destination just out of sight over the hill. When we get there the road will ease, and we can rest a while.

But now we are staring at a fork in the road. We are being told by two different groups that only one path (theirs) will get us to the desired destination. The other path (not theirs) will either lead to ruin or will loop back on our previous path and cost us in time and money.

Luckily, it's not too hard to pick a path. One of those groups had control of our direction in the past, and they had us routed over a cliff. Hence that course correction. It would be plain stupid to take direction from them again. At least not until they give us a look at their map.

The Rally: We Are Still Here

I wasn't sure what I was hoping for from today's 'Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear', hosted by Jon Stewart (with assistance from Stephen Colbert), but I think I got more AND less than I expected.

Let me explain ...

Part of me was hoping Stewart would say some of the things the politicos in the Democratic party, including the President, were afraid to say about the conservatives running for (or are already in) office in this country. I was hoping he could just blurt out exactly what destructive political games they are playing - humorously, of course. The President either won't, or can't spell it out, he just beats around the bush on the subject. And it's never funny.

But no, The Rally was mostly apolitical. And that was the Less.

I was also hoping for a bit more from the stellar cast of his show, but his crew were used sparingly, though fairly effectively, including a cute bit with Jon Oliver as 'Peter Pan'.

Stewart surprised though, with his address late in the event, in which he squarely blamed the media (mostly cable news) for inflaming passions and magnifying differences out of their real proportions. It was an effective speech, and anyone hearing it had to believe afterward that we aren't so far apart after all. Stewart said the only people in America not working together were in Washington, DC and in the media, and that statement rang true.

I hadn't expected him to make such a thoughtful speech. And that was the More.

Also adding to the experience were the performances (brief though they were) of Cat Stevens (aka Yusuf Islam) and Tony Bennett. Sounding as good as ever, and looking healthier than he ever did back in the day, Stevens sang 'Peace Train' as part of a comic battle with a rusty Ozzy Osbourne, who sang 'Crazy Train'. Bennett belted out an abbreviated 'America the Beautiful' more powerfully than anyone his age should be able to. Truly good stuff.

In the end, will the thousands who showed up at the Mall in DC - estimated at anywhere from 70,000 to 250,000 (can't anybody count at these rallies) go home transformed in some meaningful way? Will the millions more who watched on TV?

Probably not. Those who made their way to DC were almost certainly all Daily Show and Colbert Report fans already. As were most of the viewers at home. Those conservatives who tuned in or turned up will probably wait to hear what their leaders say about the event, before they make up their minds to despise and ridicule it.

But the Rally did let those in power - and those trying very hard to get back into power, know that there exists a very large group of Americans who hate the nastiness of current politics and government. A group who, when aroused, can make things happen - things like the election of the nation's first african-american President, and the bench-clearing of the Republicans who steered us into War and economic distress.

We may be disenchanted with Mr. Obama, just as Jon Stewart, once a strong supporter, clearly has become, but we are still here. The Rally to Restore Sanity was just a reminder.

Demoralized in DC

The news is grim and getting grimmer all the time. It seems the Democrats are set to lose the House and possibly the Senate.

That may be happy news for conservative-types and fans of Glenn Beck, but it bodes ill for those of us who suffered mightily under George The Younger.

It wouldn't be so bad if this judgement was being rendered at the end of a full four years. By then, if a light couldn't be clearly seen at the end of the tunnel, you could safely say they'd got it wrong. But just 2 years? How impatient are we as a society?

Of course, even supporters must admit the Democrats haven't run the show as well as they should have and we hoped they would. And that realization has come at great cost to the Dems. Even if their disheartened fans won't vote for Republicans or Tea-Partiers, they may not vote for Dems either. In politics, apathy among your base is fatal.

And to add insult to injury, the press seems to have lost all sense of journalistic integrity in reporting the run-up to the midterms. They are making wild statements, like 'President Obama's policies are widely unpopular'. That's just not true.

Obama's policies may be unpopular and widely-so among Republicans, Tea-Partiers, and conservatives in general, but not among the great mass of the populace that voted Obama into office in 2008. That group is merely demoralized that more couldn't be done. That Obama was not able to get the Republicans to work cooperatively to solve our nation's problems. That bipartisanship didn't work (and was scrapped as a lost cause early on).

Right now, it looks as if the conservatives who stonewalled every effort by Obama at governing this nation have achieved their goal: to energize their followers and demoralize the Democrats'.

Let us hope that the reversal isn't too extreme, and that a relatively balanced Congress results. Perhaps with neither side having a 'super-majority' more compromise might be necessary, despite political enmity.

California Vs Eric Holder?

If you were visiting California from just about any other state (Oregon and parts of Colorado excepted), you'd be forgiven for believing marijuana was already legal. After all, you can get it from a plethora of 'medical' vendors, and there seems no shortage of 'doctors' who will write you a note.

But you'd be wrong. Marijuana is still most definitely illegal in the Golden State. Voters will be given a chance to change that on November 2.

I won't go into the arguments for and against the proposition (#19) that proposes legalization. I am more interested in what will happen if the measure is passed. US Attorney General Eric Holder has stated the DEA will not recognize the state law and will aggressively enforce the federal statutes.

This potential conflict will give the thoughtful among us a reason to reflect on the old question of State's Rights in a Democratic Republic. Some will come to the conclusion that California has no business passing laws that contradict federal law. Others will conclude that drug laws shouldn't be national, but should be decided at the state level.

I have no strong opinion one way or the other, except for this: I dislike laws that make a substantial portion of our otherwise law-abiding population into criminals. And I dislike the crime and violence that follows illegal drugs.

I'm not sure legalizing marijuana is the right solution, but cracking down on the kids that smoke it sure isn't.

It will be interesting to see how things play out on November 2, and in the aftermath if the proposition passes. It has the makings of an interesting legal drama ...

Bilge

I don't think I am overstating when I describe politics today as 'bilge'. The campaigns for Governor and US Senator in California are particularly 'bilgey'.

I don't know whether I've ever seen another set of elections where the negative adds outnumbered the platform presentations by such a large margin. My fellow Californians and I barely know what these candidates stand for and plan to do if elected. We just know how horrible they feel our fates will be if we elect their opponents.

We hear, for instance, courtesy of Meg Whitman's campaign, that Jerry Brown would raise our taxes to the point of impoverishing us all, without blinking an eye. And we also know he represents politics as usual - albeit the 'usual' circa the early eighties, whatever that was.

We hear, from Brown's campaign, that Meg Whitman is a non-voter, a hypocrite on immigration, and possibly a criminal racketeer. Plus she's rich, and that can't be good.

On the Senatorial front, we have 'Carly' vs The Boxer. Carly paints the boxer as a demagog who spends senselessly from her imperious throne in Washington. The Boxer paints Carly as a heartless boss who tosses workers aside in the name of profit, and who'd outsource the whole economy if given half a chance.

I say it's all 'Bilge'. I get no freaking idea from any of their campaigns what these folks would really do if elected.

Wait - I take that back. I'm forgetting the little bit of 'positive' adds there have been. Let me see ...

Brown: he's experienced. Older, wiser, level-headed. Pragmatic. In other words he won't be the same old Brown who dated Linda Rondstadt. Shame, really.

Whitman: she knows how to run a business. Now if only governing were like running a business. Clueless.

Boxer: she's improved things for returning vets. What else, oh - she voted to give Bush the power to engage in war in the first place, putting all these vets at risk. Tough sell, Babs.

Carly: Hmm ... she ran HP? And she off-shored thousands of jobs? She has a haircut that reminds me of Jane Lynch's character's coif in 'Best in Show'? What the heck else is there?

Like I said, 'Bilge'. May as well close your eyes and randomly choose. May the better 'Bilge' win !

All About Banks

What is a bank?

Is it a place to keep your money safe?

Is it a place to get a loan when you need money NOW but don't have enough under the mattress?

Just what is a bank?

I heard once that a bank was supposed to be a place where you put your money so it won't get stolen, or so you won't lose it, where it will be harder to spend it unwisely.

And,

While your money is sitting around in the bank, the good folks there will put it to productive use by lending some of it to others who need to buy something big, like a car, or a house, or a kidney transplant. They'll charge those needy people a goodly but fair vigorish to earn a profit, and give some of it back to you in the form of earned interest on your money.

Seems like a nice place. Good for your money. Good for others. Good for you.

But are there banks like that today? Post-Eco-Meltdown, I am not so sure.

In those institutions still called 'banks', your money seems at risk of being whittled away by service fees which overmatch the pitiful interest the bank pays (o.5% anyone?). And that's before your account gets siphoned by skimmers and identity thieves.

In 'banks' today, you have to earn practically the equivalent of TOP TOP SECRET clearance in order to be squeaky clean enough to get a loan. And even then that loan may not be as much as you really need or come with terms you can really manage.

So, what is a bank?

Right now mine seems like just a database that tracks the numbers that define my economic existence. It's a middle-'man' and a spreadsheet for my purchases and my income, taking a little off the top for its trouble.

That's useful, but not really a 'bank', it seems to me.

Give me a loan and prove me wrong ...

Whitman's World

I imagine our world would appear differently, when viewed by richer, more privileged eyes than I can muster.

It certainly seems that way, given the unfolding saga of Meg Whitman's undocumented 'alien' housekeeper. Ms Whitman seems not to understand exactly why this revelation is a problem to her.

Whitman is running for governor of California, and has lived (if not voted) in the state, so she should be well aware of the true nature of undocumented workers - and most especially those who care for our homes and children. In the Golden State there's an unofficial, and largely unspoken policy on the subject: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', i.e., don't ask whether your domestic service provider is illegal, and they won't tell you.

To most Californians, whether Meg Whitman paid an illegal to take care of her house is immaterial. It's no big deal. Hypocrisy is. And so is the apparent abandonment of someone who was 'like family' when their illegal status became a hurdle to the governorship.

In Ms Whitman's World, it seems people are expendable to expediency. In the end, the effect on Whitman's campaign will depend on how much this incident defines her ethics and morality to the voters, not whether she used an undocumented worker in a state where that is the norm rather than the exception.