Thoughts on the election.

Let's get down to it. It's only one week after the election, and I have to admit I was surprised to see none other than Bill O' Reilly make nothing less than an astute analysis of Tuesday's Presidential election.

“The voters, many of them, feel this economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff." Opined O' Reilly. "People feel that they are entitled to things."

Well, maybe a little less than astute. Stuff. Things. Two words my third grade teacher insisted that I never use as answer to a question. So, to help out Bill O' Reilly, I thought I would share what some of those "things" are.

I expect the government to pay me social security benefits when I reach old age.

I expect public schools to teach our youth. I expect our public colleges and universities to educate people of all ages.

I expect our government to protect people from predatory lending and usurious interest rates.

I expect to have water on my tap that is clean and safe to drink.

Social Security: You paid for it, you are entitled to it.

I expect that when I call 911 to report an emergency, someone will pick up the phone.

I expect -- nay -- demand that every returning war veteran come home with a job waiting for him or her.

I expect these things not as charity, but as services owed to me as a taxpayer.

I have been a taxpayer ever since I was 10 years old, when I paid sales taxes on my Gatorade and Skittles purchases. Two decades later, I pay taxes to the feds, to the city and state of New York, to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Social Security. And Medicare. I'm not living off the government; I am a paying customer. And a loyal one. No matter who wins, I am not going to Canada. 

I also have my liberal fantasies. A world where billionaire investors pay a higher percentage of their income on taxes than their secretary's. Where our public schools have enough teachers to educate every child. Where every single man and woman with the talent and motivation has a job. A world where every paycheck is enough to afford a roof over one's head. No more ghettos. No more shoddy public housing projects. A world where people have enough to live on so that they have something to live for.

That's the America I dream of.

Are these dreams far fetched? Perhaps. Maybe to idealistic. Then again--perhaps not. Consider the journey we have traveled in just a few short years.

In 2004, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts legalized gay marriage. Opponents cried foul. Outrage! They said. Activist judges ruling against the will of the people. The legislature must decide.

Last year in New York, the state legislature did decide. Democrats and Republicans voted together and without compromise to allow marriage eqaulity in their state.

Proponents rejoiced, but again, the opposition cried foul. Wrong! They shouted. Out of touch politicians should not make decisions like these! The will of the people can only be decided by ballot initiative!

Last week, the people decided. In Maine, in Maryland and in Washington state, gays got down on one knee and proposed marriage equity on the ballot. In each state, the voters saw the proposal for marriage equality and said, "I do!" The people have spoken, and they left absolutely nothing to doubt with the firmness of their conviction. 

That wasn't all the voters said. In Colorado, voters saw the war in drugs and said, no more. No more locking up otherwise law abiding citizens for small possession of Jamaican lung confetti. The Louis Armstrong cigarette is now legal.

A Civil Rights issue? Absolutely. In 2000, the predominantly black Weaver High School in Hartford, Connecticut held an election for Senior class president. The candidates were, and I kid you not, Al Gore and George Bush. Two young African-American students who happened to have the exact same name as two candidates for U.S. President. If that George Bush, or if that Al Gore, had been caught for possession if marijuana, could they have expected the same lenient treatment as the white men who share their same name? Could they expect to find careers in government and the private industry if they had served jail time?

Reforming our drug laws in such a way to separate marijuana from other, more serious substances like crack and heroin is no doubt good policy. Reforming our drug laws in such a way that chemically addicted individuals get the treatment they need instead of jail time is good policy--for all of us. And it is the way of the future.

Perhaps then my liberal dream of economic freedom is not so far-fetched after all. Reducing massive income inequality is also a social issue--perhaps the greatest social issue of our time. Ideologues may shout and holler that to do is Communism. That a doctor should earn more money than a janitor. And there is some truth to this. A doctor has more training and skill to do his job then a janitor. But why, why, should a doctor earn less money than a Kim Kardashian, an Alex Rodriguez, or a Bill O' Reilly?

I refuse to believe that Kim K is worth $18 million a year

More importantly, we must understand that a janitor too, saves lives. When he or she mops the floors and cleans the toilets, that janitor is preventing the potential spread of dangerous diseases that could potentially kill someone. The chemicals a janitor uses to clean an area, if mixed improperly, could be fatal. Make no mistake: Janitorial work is serious skilled labor.

So yes, while a doctor is entitled to a generous salary, so to is the person who mops the floors and cleans the bathrooms. A janitor by no means should make as much money in a single year as a neurosurgeon, but that janitor should make enough to pay his or her bills and lead a decent lifestyle. There can be no excuse for workers of any trade to live in poverty. None.

And who knows what the limit for one's potential can be. Maybe that person who is scrubbing the floors of the hospital today is doing so in hopes to pay for college. Perhaps that person may go on to make a big discovery that makes solar energy affordable, or develops a new medicine that can combat cancer. If we ensure that everyone has a chance in life, we all benefit. And if that means that the Mitt Romney's and Warren Buffets of the world should pay the same percentage if their income in taxes to achieve that goal, so be it. I'm sure they will be fine. Perhaps better than they ever imagined. Perhaps reducing our great economic divide will be etched in stone and made the law of the land. Perhaps I am not so naive to dream after all.

And I have a feeling that no matter who you voted for on Tuesday, on many levels, you agree with me. 

Is Chris Christie the Adele of Politics?

In the age of Taylor Swift's auto-tuned harmonies and long in the wake of bubble gum pop Backstreet Boys and Justin Timbetlake, we have Adele. Grammy winner, YouTube born superstar and a voice that sings with a passion and intensity. Unfortunately for music lovers, it is the kind of passion and intensity that William Butler Yeats wrote about.

It hurts--to hear her sing!

But I can understand why she has her fans. She sings from the heart, if not the vocal chords. And her nails on the chalkboard crooning is a welcome departure for many from the highly manufactured, manicured and machinated stars that produce process music. Adele sings like a rose, thorns and all.

And then there is Chris Christie. Unemployment in New Jersey is higher than the national average. He has blamed public school educators, mass transit projects, and the entire Camden Police Force on the state's ills. When Christie makes the news, it's usually because he's shouting at a constituent.

In an era where politicians speak in extremely careful, measured tones, perhaps voters find Governor Christie's style a bit refreshing. And after the storm, even I have to admit that the man did a good job paging Clark Gable when he told Fox and Friends that quite frankly, he just didn't give a damn about Mitt Romney.

Maybe not the first person to tell off Fox and Friends, hopefully not the last.

Robert Dole Remembers Senator McGovern

In case you missed it, former Senator Bob Dole had some very lovely words for his late friend and longtime partner, George McGovern in Monday's Washington Post. I say partner because the men spent decades working together in Congress and again, as administrators of the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.

Sometimes competitors; always friends.

It's a great article, and Dole's humility in both describing the greatness in achievements that the two shared over seven decades makes is informative and inspiring. I also couldn't help but read this article and recall a recent television appearance in which the late Senator McGovern made a very good point about working with those who you sometimes disagree with.

The article, titled, "George McGovern, the man who never gave up," is available here. The link below has the television interview with Oklahoma Network. One who you sometime disagree with might be competitor, but such a person is never an enemy.

Thank you, Senator McGovern. Today we mourn a winner.

George McGovern has died. Forty years after forever changing the face of the Democratic Party, and just two years after skydiving on his 88th birthday, the former Senator and Presidential candidate passed away in hospice care at Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

An illustrious man who led an illustrious life.

This blog had attempted, only slightly tongue-in-cheek, that the humble man from the prairie make another run at the presidency, not only for the good of the nation, but to rectify a false perception that McGovern's views on peace and prosperity were some how outside of mainstream political thought. Sadly, George McGovern made the news throughout much of the last year for his failing health rather than a resurgence in his political ambitions.

However, in death, his views have once again come to light, serving as a stirring reminder that this country is much better off for his noble, if ultimately unsuccessful campaign for the White House four decades ago.

But although the ultimate prize of winning the Presidency in 1972 may have been unsuccessful, many of George McGovern's visions certainly did come to fruition. Specifically, I refer to the moment that gave the Senator the loudest applause during his nomination acceptance speech:


"I am here as your candidate tonight because in four administrations of both parties, a terrible war has been chartered behind closed doors," thundered McGovern. "I want those doors opened and I want that war closed!"

The war did close, after those doors did indeed open. His signature platform came true. Do you doubt me? George McGovern brought new people into the political process, not the same hacks who had managed Presidential campaigns in years prior. His Dallas, Texas campaign office is a shining example of McGovern's open door policy. That office was managed by a young law student from Arkansas by the name of Bill Clinton, and his girlfriend, Hillary Rodham. Paid staff also included an 18-year-old African-American from the streets of Dallas by the name of Ron Kirk, who later become the first African-American mayor of that very city, as well as Ann Richards, who would become Texas' first female governor. Oh yeah, Steven Spielberg worked at that Dallas office ,too.

This is not the work of a "loser." This was a man of great foresight whose impact has helped this nation for generations. This is the work of a winner.

World War II is but one example of a lifetime of service.

And at the risk of sounding overly partisan, it is important to remember that his opponent in 1972 was nothing short of a loser. It is important to bear in mind that in less than 24 hours of this writing, Lance Armstrong may be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. At the very least, one can make a rational argument that Lance was on a level playing field with his competitors during that time period, virtually all of which have tested positive at some point in their careers for performance enhancing drugs. One cannot say that Richard Nixon was competing on a level playing field with George McGovern.

Watergate revealed that Nixon was a cheater, and the organized break-in at McGovern's national campaign headquarters was merely the tip of a massive iceberg. How massive? One example might be the destruction of the Ed Muskie campaign during the 1972 Democratic Primaries. Many recall Senator Muskie broke down crying during a public speech in New Hampshire. What less people recall is that self-proclaimed Gonzo Journalist Hunter S. Thompson speculated that Muskie was under the influence of a hallucinogenic drug at the time of his public breakdown. This startling allegation would seem like one of Thompson's absurd rantings, if not for the fact that in his biography of Richard Nixon, straight-laced reporter Anthony Summers did research into Nixon's campaign tactics. Guess what? Summers  found evidence that Nixon campaign operatives had indeed spiked Muskie's coffee with a hallucinogenic drug!

That is merely one example that we know about. We may never know how many others. Examples like  these should serve as a reminder that calls to eradicate poverty, promote racial harmony and fight discrimination, and promote the causes of peace and justice are not outside of mainstream political thought, but rather hardcore American values.

Two years after this photo was taken, someone else was flashing a piece in disgrace.

And that is how we shall view the late Senator George McGovern. We view him as a man who dedicated his life to make not only his country but the entire world a better place to live. We view him as a winner. Thank you Senator. We will miss you greatly, and we will admire you good work close at hand always.

A New York Punk Rocker's Definitive Assessment of Mitt Romney

Dateline New York:

It's after midnight. I'm tired. I have to go work another 10 hour day tomorrow. But a good friend of mine asked me to help make this video about Mitt Romney go viral. Folks, I hope it does. The friend in question is none other than Hal Ruzal, a long-running CBGB's regular when the Lower East Side had rock-n-roll character through and through. Now the frontman for Kilifax, he still plays up and down New York City with his unique style of punk rock, blues guitar, and a funnier, louder, angrier version likeness of Phil Ochs.

A rare shot. Hal doesn't normally air guitar because it's obviously beneath him.

Prompted by candidate Romney's admission that he doesn't care about nearly half the American public, Hal released this video from a recent show at Desmond's Tavern on Park Avenue and 29th Street. Curiously enough, Ruzal actual wrote the guts of this song in the 1980s about Ronald Reagan. Listen and you'll agree: it works on just about any Republican presidential candidate!

And let's really do our work to make sure this song goes viral. Yes, Romney will go down in flames come November, but before Mittens becomes a historical footnote, let's have some fun with him.

It's Curtains for Mittens.

I had nothing to do with the clandestine video that captured Mitt Romney in all his obnoxious glory that has made headlines this week. I had absolutely no advance knowledge about said video when I declared that President Obama would win a cakewalk against li'l Mittens. And until this video surfaced, I didn't realize the full scope of Mitt Romney vast, laughable ignorance.

These aren't one percenter's they are working stiffs! Well, certainly stiff.

Back in 2008, Mitt Romney came across as mildly intelligent. Perhaps this illusion was made possible by the utter incompetence of George W. Bush. At least this Romney character had the ability to construct sentences without coming across as someone who struggled as if English was his second language. As George Bush would say, I "misunderestimated" this guy. I completely "misunderestimiated" how dumb he is.

Sure, there's the obvious math problem in saying that those who don't pay taxes are lock for Obama. Former Slate man Tim Noah has very clearly deconstructed that argument. Yes, there is the disturbing realization that a the candidate of the party of Lincoln is openly indifferent to nearly half the country--a disturbing contrast when one considers that our nation's first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, found it in his heart to visit wounded Confederate soldiers in Virginia a week before his assassination. Now Mittens criticizes wounded veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan as freeloading, irresponsible moochers who are "dependent on government." What a creep. In case you didn't notice, the party of Lincoln is now the party of Lincoln, Rolls Royce and Bentley.

The video itself makes for incredible juxtaposition with the Mittsters words. While butlers are serving $2000 bottles of champagne and clearing the table, Mittens and company are talking about how they are the "middle class," who are getting screwed by high taxes. I just seems unbelievable that someone who makes more money in an hour than most people do in a decade could claim to be a person of modest means. And in their infinite wisdom, they have concocted what they deem a fair solution.

Raise taxes on the poor and middle class. Raise taxes on the rich. Cut government programs that serve the general public and keep millions out of poverty. Use that money to make the rich even richer. That's his tax plan. Good luck trying to win over voters with that policy.

Maybe Mitt Romney can get a laundry ship named after him, too.

It would seem nothing short of madness for someone born into more wealth than most could ever attain sulk and complain that he needs more money--and he needs you to give it to him.

I was hoping I could use what little time I have to updating this blog into building the future that I believe in, that I have always believed in ever since I was in third grade, when I found a book in the school library about John F. Kennedy. This is the country that put a man on the more for no other reason than to prove we could do it. Now, we have an entire political party who claims that we can't afford Social Security, because if Alex Rodriguez were to pay the same percentage of his income in payroll taxes as a Yankee Stadium parking garage attendant, than Flake-Rod would lose his motivation to be employed, and there will be no joy in Mudville.

Folks, better times are coming. I am sure of it. Sure because as putrid as it was to watch the Catcher's Mitt sulk about how the Kenyan Socialist has destroyed America, I can sleep soundly at night knowing that the Mittster will soon fade from public memory faster than the New Kids on The Block.

Hasta La Vista, Romney. Na na na, hey hey, goodbye and goodnight. Sleep tight, and don't let the Vulture Capitalists bite.

This just in: President Obama . . .

Will the White Sox win the pennant?

Breaking news: a new poll has confirmed that that 2012 is shaping up to be a close race. President Barack Obama only leads challenger Mitt Romney among registered voters, likely voters, swing state voters . . .

Okay, I get it. Then I again, one of the principle reasons for starting this blog was to point out that virtually any Democratic candidate, even the 90 year-old George McGovern, would win this election.

The traditional news media outlets don't want to frame the story in that fashion. Why? Because they want to keep you glued to the TV, or your smartphone, or keep your news "paper" subscription. This just in: Barack Obama holds a slim lead over Mitt Romney . . . again!

Reading these polls under the pretense of drama is almost hysterical. Dead heat! Say the headlines and the pundits. Dead heat? If one takes all the polls conducted recently, then averages them together, President Barack Obama has a lead somewhere three and six percentage points. Granted, the margin of error in these polls is generally 3.1 percentage points, but what is the likelihood that every single one of these polls conducted by Rasmussen, Gallup, Quinnipiac, etc. is at the extreme end of the spectrum in Romney's favor? It's a virtual impossibility.

This map bears a striking resemblance to one I saw four years ago . . .

So let's commit to doing ourselves a favor. If someone badgers you to donate to President Obama's re-election campaign, politely decline.

In 2008, not only did I donate what meager funds I had to offer to then-Senator Obama, but I purchased several of his books and gave them out as gifts to friends who considered him an unknown quantity. I wanted people to see what this young, Barack Obama was as person and what he was capable of.

I didn't stop there. I donated my time as well. After the indecisive "Super Tuesday" during the Democratic primaries, I knocked on doors and made phone calls in the time leading up to the "Texas two-step." That's right: Texas. The one state that has both a primary and a caucus. I was a delegate for Barack Obama at the Democratic Travis County Convention. Wouldn't ya know it? BO won the Texas Caucus. The rest is history.

I wasn't naïve enough to expect extreme act of magnanimity from the man. I just didn't think he would communicate to the American people that I was part of the "professional left" that was destroying the country. Ouch. And he still asks me for money? What does he need it for?

That's a good question. What a nice way to send a message to our representatives in Washington to learn how to actually commit to an annual budget rather than to use foreign creditors as constant cash cow to keep the gears moving.

Rosie, Rockwell and Roosevelt are right!!

But I mean to be optimistic. Better times are coming. The crazy cyborg-human named Romney will lose, Obama will win, and this country will have another chance to get back on the right track towards reducing unemployment and attacking the myriad of complex problems that plague not only the United States, but the world. Yeah, I still have hope for change, and I'm not giving up.

Let's commit to maintain our commitment. Global Warming, environmental degradation, crippling infrastructure and income inequality are just some of the most pressing problems that need fixing. Can we fix them? If we band together in our communities, if we sacrifice like our parents and grandparents did during times of stress years ago, and if we are more careful with our finances, we can make progress. So, in three words, Yes We Can!!

I may work 50 hours a week, but I will find time to share actual solutions towards some of our most pressing problems. Some policy proposals that state and local governments can adapt, others lifestyle choices that can enable us to be the change we wish to see in the world. If a white guy from Kansas can  become America's first black President, surely we, as Americans, can band together on a scale not seen in decades to meet the challenges of today to have a better tomorrow. Yes. We. Can.

Was Clinton Eastwood the Fifth Column last night? Or had he just been drinking?

Normally, I can't wait for the Republican convention to end. The four day pack of lies that generally goes unchallenged by the media was such a gross display of falsehoods that even the press winced. In the meantime, the base of the Republican Party went wild.

But I'm sure I wasn't the only one who got a kick out of Clint Eastwood's "speech" last night. Was it even a speech? What was the deal with that empty chair?

After I saw the speech, I was scratching my head, too!!

For the few who missed it, the star of Unforgiven and  Gran Torino decided that he would crash the GOP convention with a speech between him and President Obama, the latter being represented by a chair. Was the chair some sort of metaphor? Like when a faux rancher is said to be "all hat and no cattle?" Is guess Obama is just another long-legged beauty queen who is silent on the issues that matter?

That's would I would have presumed, but apparently, this chair was quite talkative. Eastwood had to constantly remind the chair to "shut up." What was he basing this on? Has Obama been trying to keep the star of In the Line of Fire out of the public eye?

What made the Oscar winner's bizarre speech so puzzling is that Eastwood is no stranger to politics. He once served as mayor of Carmel-by-the-sea during the 1980s, and has spent the last two decades serving of various state commissions in California. How could someone familiar with both entertainment and politics be so bad? Was he trying to make Fred Thompson look good by comparison?

What had me must confounded was Eastwood's rant against lawyers serving in the Oval Office. "Take that Adams! And Jefferson! And Lincoln! And 22 other Presidents!

Maybe the chair represents the wooden nature of  . . . Oh I give up!

"Lawyers can see both sides of the issue," said Eastwood. "Always playing Devil's Advocate!" The crowd cheered--sort of. Perhaps many of them were subdued because they were lawyers themselves. Eastwood's loudest cheer of the night came from trumpeting Romney's tenure as a businessman, but was back to nervous laughter and subdued applause when he called for Obama to expedite troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. Weird.

Rachael Maddow, the most intelligent voice in broadcast journalism, was dumbfounded by Eastwood's conversation with said chair. "I guess he's 82," she said, trying desperately by figure out what we all had just seen.

I don't understand why someone in the crowd shouted out "make my day!" to Eastwood, either. Did that mean that said shouter wanted to shoot Clint Eastwood to shoot him in the face? Or was said person hoping that the Dirty Harry star would say the line, and then pop a few into the crowd? When everyone joined in, asking to "make each other's day," were they entering some sort of mass murderer/suicide pact? It wouldn't seem so far-fetched after watching someone have a conversation with a chair for ten minutes, speaking to a group of people who clamor for the right for schizophrenics to carry assault rifles into movie theaters.

I don't want to continue speculating, because it's just mean, and Clint Eastwood is a man I have respect for. Also, one of my reporters in the field enjoyed a soaking wet embrace with Newt Gingrich last night. I'll have more on that later. Until then, good day, and good luck!

Hopefully, these are Final Thoughts on Chris Christie

 Every so often in the political realm, we here lingual play on the term "political party." In the 1994 film Forest Gump, the autistic Forest apologizes for spoiling a "black panther party." As surely as the sun rises in the East, eccentric Pepperidge Farm delivery truck driver Ralph Ferrucci has run under the banner of the "Guilty Party." The obnoxious, egotistical Chris Christie can add himself to that list after tonight. I don't care what kind of party one is hosting, but if I see this guy, I'm heading for the door.

We should notify the world's top-notch anthropologists  that we have found the missing link!

Has the Huffington Post Jumped the Shark?

Back in my high school days, I remember taking a study break in the school library when a friend notice something unusual for the setting.

"They're playing Metallica on the radio," he said.

It would have seemed unfathomable: heavy metal in a high school library! Alas, this was 2000. It wasn't 1992 anymore. Once something becomes mainstream, it loses some of edge.

Do you want your tax dollars paying for this nonsense?

The same can now be said of the Huffington Post. What started as a combination of sledgehammer headlines about the major news stories of the day, coupled with new left commentary, is slowly but surely joining the ranks of the mainstream media that it for so long has protested.

It's not just the merger with AOL or the birth of Huffington Post television that marks this occasion. Rather, it is quality of Huffington Post's new found homegrown reporting that recently has made a disturbing editorial statement.

In an exclusive write-up, Huffington Post's Lia Shapiro covered a story about the State of California's decision to outlaw gay therapy. Fair enough. It would seem that anything advertised as a "medical treatment," yet provided absolutely no value, should be illegal. The fact that gay "conversion therapy" results is numerous suicides is even more cause for condemnation.

But that's not quite how Ms. Shapiro sees it. "There aren't any scientific studies showing that the practice [gay conversion therapy] actually causes harm" opines Shaprio.  Yet in the following sentence, she contradicts herself: "Anecdotal reports of depression, even suicide, abound, and a task force convened by the American Psychological Association found the practice to be both harmful and ineffective. "

Harmful. Ineffective. Might cause sudden death. If gay conversion therapy were a consumer product, the public would be screaming to take it off the shelves. But hey, if Huffington Post is going mainstream, it has got to present both sides of the story. 

I can only wonder if Ms. Huffington, herself once a prominent political conservative before she discovered that her husband of 11 years was bi-sexual, believes that gay therapy is the harmless practice that should be unregulated. All I can say, I sincerely hope not.

Fund Medicare with More Jobs

Jobs are good for the economy. This fundamental tenant is so basic, that it is beyond my comprehension that anyone could think otherwise. Sadly, many people do, and some of them are in positions of power. In the midst of an election for the Office of President, now would be a good time to state the obvious in hopes we can get our country on the right track.

A job creates many jobs. That is the reality of the marketplace. We are all based on a system of interdependence. Working together to solve problems creates prosperity. One such system that we have is Medicare.

Jobs are a good thing. Let's not lose sight of this.

Medicare works on the same tenant as Social Security: younger workers pay into a general fund, and that fund becomes available to them once they retire. Various cost-saving measure, some prudent (Obama's), some nefarious (Ryan) are the topic of discussion right now, but a policy that would be both a necessity to the viability of Medicare would be to simply add more people to the workforce.

The premise is simple. Right now, the unemployment rate is 8.3 percent. By most accounts, approximately 14 million Americans are looking for work. If the Federal Government were to seriously make an effort providing jobs, such an effort would not be onerously difficult.

Our highways are literally falling apart. Our mass transit is dysfunctional in most of our major cities--if a city even has any form of mass transit at all. Even in New York City, home to its iconic subway system, is not without its flaws.

Take construction of the Second Avenue Subway. Not only is this project a full seven decades behind schedule, but once complete, it will provide a lower level of service than the elevated train lines it was meant to replace! Not only are we plagues with high unemployment now, but simply getting to and from work in this country is a disaster!

This is a problem of which we, as a society, have direct control over. We can increase our budget allocation to hire workers to fix bridges, plug potholes, and yes, update our crumbling mass transit system to something that was at least good as what we had at the turn of last century.

14 million jobs should be a major campaign issue. The median annual income for the American worker currently stands at $26,363. If 14 million people were to be added to the workforce, it would add an extra $369 billion into workers pockets. At current tax rates, these new workers would increase Medicare receipts by over $10.7 billion annually. Projected over 10 years, this would over $100 billion to Medicare.

With more workers, we could actually build this stinkin' thing!

And that's merely projecting the median salary. Most jobs created by government pay substantially more than that, much to the ire of today's modern conservative. Most workers employed in such a massive, large scale jobs program would make more than a paltry $26k per year. If we project the same number of jobs with a salary that is typical for said job, amount of money earned would likely to double, to nearly $540 billion in salary, and an extra $22 billion into Medicare per year.

How would the Feds finance such a program? Well, we may have to raise taxes on job creators like Lindsay Lohan and Alex Rodriguez, but I'm sure they will find it in their infinite wisdom to deal with it. And in the meantime, the rest of us can enjoy getting to work on fixing America.

As Michael Jordan would say, Just Do It!

Dick Cheney's backtrack on the Disaster from Alaska: Why it's good for society that Sarah Palin stays in the news

Ah, Sarah Palin, how we've missed you.

Not for your views on government, not for your television shows, or your ghastly ghost-written memoirs.

No, we miss you because every time we see you, we are reminded as to what a total laughingstock the Republican Party has become.

 Please--don't retire from whatever it is that you supposedly do.

Laughingstock, like Woodstock, but instead of Hendrix, the Who, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, you've got Romney, Boehner, and Palin. The very notion that any Republican could win a national election with their outwardly extremist views and cartoonish public personas is laughable.

Lobbyists may have succeeded in preventing Federal action on climate change, meaningful financial reform and instilling a progressive income tax, but when Dick Cheney is afraid to speak ill about Sarah Palin, at least we have something to laugh about.

Yes, Palin. The half-term Governor of Alaska who hasn't held elective office in some time--and most definitely won't ever again. If she were to run, George McGovern would steamroll her in a landslide.

That probably won't happen. But it's fun to see her straw-man character in the news. After all, it makes great fodder for satire. I spoke with Hal Ruzal, a legendary CBGB's rock 'n' roller who currently fronts Kilifax. He told me that his band will play his "Sarah Palin" song at his next  show on August 17th at Fontana's. The original CBGB's may be long gone, but Fontana's is in the heart of the Lower East Side, located on  Eldrige Street between Delancey and Grand. I strongly urge all fans of satire and music to attend.

Am I plugging Kilifax? Heck, I just think everyone should share the joy--the joy of mocking the disasta' from Alaska!

That's Friday, August 17th. If you've already made plans, change 'em!

In the meantime, see if you can figure out why this video didn't go viral back in 2008. Maybe it just needed better recording quality? You be the judge!

America needs jobs, jobs and more jobs.

Want to fix the deficit? How about our national health care fiasco? What about persistently high unemployment? High crime rates in our inner-cities? Can anything be done about our poor performing public schools? What about student loan debt after graduation?

The answer to all of these problems is the same: jobs, jobs and more jobs.

I am sick and tired and also fed up financially with the bogus right-wing talking point that government spending does not produce jobs. That is silly. Government spending produces many jobs.

Here is one small example. Take Rosie the Riveter. Government Spending created her private sector job as manufacturing technician. So, Rosie has a job.

From the Rosie's Rivets to Rockwell's canvas: jobs are good for everybody.

Rosie's job also supports other jobs: it enables her to buy essential items like food, rent and utilities. That's money for the grocer, the banker, the electric company, and the gas company. And those companies have employees, who, thanks to Rosie and the government, have jobs.

That same government that produced Rosie job has helped produced other jobs: the engineering crew to design and test the airplane that she helps build, the managers who supervise her, and the janitors who wash the floor every day. Thanks to to the government, all of these people have jobs.

And then there's the king of American illustration, Norman Rockwell. Thanks to the government, he's got a job. Well, in his world, it's more like a gig. But it's a paying gig. None of this work for free "exposure" nonsense.

Right now, America needs jobs. Millions of them. These jobs are not luxuries. This country has work that absolutely needs to be done.

Many of our schools suffer from overcrowding. Studies show that classroom effectiveness declines precipitously if there are more than 23 students per classroom. So, make it a federal law. From this day forward, no primary or secondary school shall have a student-to-faculty ratio greater than 23 to 1. If a school district can't afford the extra staff, the federal government will pick up the tab. Bam. 250,000 teachers. Hired. A quarter million new jobs.

Moving on, I am fed up and disgusted when hear news reports about unemployed veterans. That is absolutely inexcusable. How many police officers does Detroit need? Or Chicago? What about Camden, New Jersey? Despite what Tom Brokaw says, our returning Veterans are more than skilled for the modern work force. What employer wouldn't want somebody who had the skills to do the job assigned to them from day one? Lock and load another 100,000 or so jobs. Again, if local districts can't absorb the extra cost, the federal shall pick up the tab.

Some people who are reading this might be thinking, wait a minute, Kevin, how is the Federal government going to pay for all this? To that I say, I understand your skepticism. Certain Federal spending projects have failed to create wealth and instead, made money simply disappear. We can help our country return to fiscal sustainability by reversing the damage caused by such boondoggles.

One such financial government calamity was the Cross-Bronx Expressway. Undertaken in 1953, the project required untold billions of dollars and a full two decades to complete a mere six and half miles of highway.  This highway removed business and apartments. As a result, a six and half mile stretch of revenue producing commerce and residential areas became a persistent revenue money hole. And no, it does not enable motorists to get across the Bronx any faster than local roads.

Never a good way to get around. But we do have a better option.

But should we give up? Should we surrender and begrudgingly accept the aforementioned problems? Nay, we should double down. Our mass transit system lags behind that of every industrialized and industrializing country in the world. As a result of our congested freeways and inefficient mass transit, American businesses lose billions of dollars in lost productivity, while motorists collectively waste approximately two billion gallons of fuel every year sitting in rush-hour traffic. It is past time to pay any cost, bear any burden, and provide whatever critical updates to our national infrastructure by any means necessary. And if that means bitch-slapping the corpulent Chris Christie into accepting money for mass transit from New Jersey into Manhattan, so be it. (I doubt will come to that, but like I said, any means necessary).

This is work that absolutely, positively, needs to be done. This is the work that was poorly articulated, and often insufficiently funded during the American Recovery and Re-Investment Act of 2009. The scale was to small, the need poorly articulated, and nearly 1/3 of the funds were not "stimulus dollars" but tax cuts. And tax cuts, while sometimes beneficial, can cause financial hardships when directed towards the wrong group of people.

In order for the United States, and by extension, the global economy to recover, the United States most adopt a progressive tax code. Income inequality causes financial hardship, as lower and middle-income earners are unable to have the necessary funds to participate in the economy, economic growth evaporates. When a small group of people have far too much purchasing power, and the majority; too little, the consumer price index is thrown of kilter. Housing prices in Manhattan illustrate this trend perfectly: The average rent on that island is over $3,400 a month. Who can afford that? No one earning less than $100,000 a year, that's for sure.

So things need to change. Now. Not only do the Bush tax cuts need to expire, but America must adapt a similar tax rate to what we achieved in the Johnson administration. He may have made a terrible mistake paying for a war that never should have been started, but under Johnson's leadership, this country enjoyed sustainable, bubble-free economic growth and a balanced budget.

President Obama is going to win, if for now other reason than the fact that Mitt Romney is a loser. That much is clear. What is sad is that Obama will set a dangerous precedent. If an incumbent can win re-election with 8 percent unemployment, what motivation does any sitting politician have to do anything about our unemployment crisis?

Economic forecasters are predicting, as they have been since 2009, that unemployment will remain persistently high for the next four years, and unless this country enacts major policy change, the naysayers will be correct. The best of course action? Take 'em out to dinner and win them over. That seems to work for Goldman Sachs.

Here's to hoping that Barack Obama feels emboldened with his recent Supreme Court victory and doubles down against his anti-jobs opposition. Based on the lukewarm support this blog as been getting for its chosen candidate, Obama may after all be a stronger candidate than George McGovern.

Should schooldchildren over the age of 12 be allowed to ride a bus to school?

In light of the disaster of humanity witnessed the Karen Klein video, coupled with a 2005 study from the Journal of School Violence reported that two incidents of bullying occurred for every bus ride they monitored, I couldn't help but wonder that the school bus is a system that does more harm than good.  So I asked myself, should any school student over the age of 12, excluding a disability, be allowed the opportunity to ride a bus to and from school every day?

Is it finally time to send this Levithian machine to the scrap yard?

Perhaps because I come from such an anti-bus prejudice, my opinion should be discounted. Then again, perhaps I'm on to something. Throughout the the 20th century, the bus has been perhaps the lowest form of human transportation imaginable. Why? Because buses are load. They smell awful. They emit noxious diesel fumes that can cause difficulty breathing, and even ultimately lead to heart attacks and/or cancer. When I was in high school, I couldn't help but think that my local board of education was sending me a mixed message when they drilled into each and every student that cigarettes were bad for you, and then lined up a dozen of these diesel beasts and idled them for about an hour at the front entrance of our school. Whether or not you took the bus, or were simply walking to track and field practice, like I did every day, you were stuck breathing that sticky, smelly crud into your lungs.

Then there's Global Warming. When I was in second grade back in good ol'e 1992, I was inspired by my public teachers, by ubiquitous Public Service Announcements, and all those books flying off the shelves that gave YOU simple instructions on how to help the environment. That's right. YOU. Not "them," those nameless, faceless engineers, CEO's, politicians and government bureaucrats. This cadre of clowns had failed to resolve the environmental crisis that they had collectively created, but all of us, the little people, working to together, could solve these problems. (Said book has since been updated and is available here on Amazon)Yes, I'll say it again: it was inspiring. What message does the public school send when a public school touts the message of environmental urgency, and then facilitates those who are perfectly physically capable of moving around on their own means, to partake in an activity that could potentially destroy human civilization as we know it?

Maybe one should ride a horse if they need to get to school?

Maybe I'm being over the top. Maybe. Then again, maybe I'm concerned also about this generation's obesity crisis. The last half-century has seen the number of children who ride their bikes to school drop dramatically, and this drop has seen an almost equal rate in rise of childhood obesity. In 1964 50% of kids rode to school and the obesity rate was 12%. In 2004, 3% rode to school and the obesity rate was 45%. 

With technology like this, your child will never be late again!

 This blog post may not bring about the overnight change I'd like to see in public policy, but it's definitely inspired me to go out recommend that my uncle get a Trek 7.2 Fx for my cousin as a sweet 16 birthday present, and also remind my sister that her recently-turned 10 year-old is due for a larger bike this season.

What do you think? Have I gone of the rails? Should kids ride their bikes to school and listen to records instead of Ipods like in 1964? Should we keep loading them on the bus and hope they aren't on the receiving end of the relentless taunting? Or perhaps an ultra-futuristic personal jet pack is the solution to get our kids to and from school ever day.

Your thoughts?

Zuckers! Facebook finally starts its road to ruin

I have been waiting for this.

Keep smiling, take your billions, and get out of here!!

Unfortunately for me, unlike Mr. Zuckerberg, I have an actual job that requires actual long hours for very little pay. So I didn't make time warn others about the debacle that is unfolding as a result of Facebook's long anticipated Initial Public Offering (IPO).

Facebook is an interesting business model. A classic example of right place, right time. The quartet of founders for this "social media" machine had a leg up over MySpace in that it wasn't plastered with hideous advertisements at every turn, and the vast majority of users were who they said they were.

But that was years ago. It seems like every fortnight Facebook has changed it's layout again, changed its privacy settings again, and put up more hideous advertisements in a desperate attempt to make even more money. Now that Facebook is a publicly traded enterprise

Facebook is an enterprise whose reach has exceeded its grasp. It owes its numbers not to popularity, but perceived convenience. With recent news that Facebook is enticing users to post their "organ donor" status as  a means to further harvest cash, coupled with the companies disastrous IPO, and history of employee spying on workers of the clock, it's only a matter of team before Facebookers depart en masse to one of the many, equally convenient, slightly less Orwellian social networking sites.

Well, the letter may be just hope, but hey, a man can dream!

In the meantime, check out these ten alternatives to Facebook here.

The Trouble with Barry

He seemed so gutsy. He inspired more than Hope, he inspired Chutzpah.


In 2007, while his Democratic Primary opponent, Hillary Clinton was busy poll-testing her the popularity of her maiden name, Barack Hussein Obama was building a grass-roots network of volunteers and campaign staff that would help catapult to one of the biggest presidential upsets in modern history. And that was just round one. Obama's victory of McCain was even more historic.

Keep thinking, Mr. President. Think before capitulating.

Not only is Barack Obama the first black president, he was the first non-incumbent candidate to receive more than fifty percent of the vote since George H.W. Bush in 1988. Heck, he was the first Democrat to win more than fifty percent of the vote since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Obama drew comparisons to John Kennedy, and he was the first candidate from either party to go directly from the U.S. Senate to the White House. Heck, he was even the first non-incumbent Democratic candidate to receive more than fifty percent of the popular vote since Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.

Kennedy. Johnson. Roosevelt. Names that belong the history books, and not without good reason. Names associated with Medicare, Medicaid, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Peace Corps, Social Security, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

The list goes on and on. Programs that the poor and middle class take for granted. Programs that enable the poor to escapes the harshest aspects of poverty, and in some cases, climb out of poverty altogether. One would think that simply being America's first black president would be a major confidence booster. That, paired with widespread voter support and initially high approval ratings among the public,  would put Obama in the same class as some of his popular predecessors.

What happened? Today, Virginia governor Bob McDonnel begrudingly admitted that that the 2009 Economic Recovery and Re-Investment Act (aka the "Stimulus Package) had helped Virginia.

GOP straw-men like McDonnel can't even stand up to cable news anchors!

Gee Willikers, McDonnell-Man, I can think of a lot of ways in which major sectors of Virginia's economy are entirely dependent on the Federal Government! Is Bob McDonnel dumb enough to really believe that the Pentagon in Arlington or the CIA's headquarters in Langley are private enterprise projects, made possible by the economic policies of Republican governors?

The question of whether or not potential VP-pick McDonnel is dumb enough to believe his own lies is irrelevant. '08 Obama was great at understanding the concerns of others, acknowledging where people's concerns came from, and expressing (what we thought) were his heartfelt beliefs.

President Obama has been President Obummer. Although America is certainly better off with his policies, however meager they have been at mitigating this countries greatest economic crisis in over 70 years, America wanted better. Sure, he talked about bi-partisanship. He also talked about policies that would provide affordable health car for all Americans, reforming the country's broken student loan-shark program, and yes, ending tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent of all Americans.

Why doesn't Obummer channel Obama? It wouldn't seem too difficult to gently remind Americans that a program a single-payer program like Medicare provides universal health care for all Americans over the age of 65, at lower cost and with better results than any private-sector counterpart. Or that Pell Grants are a better means of making college affordable than Sallie Mae.

These are easier arguments for one to make than it would be to explain a relationship with a fiery pastor like Jeremiah Wright. One need not juxtapose America's rocky past--and present--race relations in order to let unpopular tax cuts for wealthy simply expire, or to justify eliminating the earnings cap on Social Security taxes for the top 10 percent of all income earners.

But he doesn't. He waffles. He wavers. He's afraid of a fight. Or maybe he's just too moderate. He said so himself. Or maybe Obama just wants to go back home to Chicago.

I thought for sure that Obama had his heart set on a second term, especially given his consistent lead in the polls, both popular vote and the electoral college. But after reading about how much Obama enjoyed his visit back to Chicago, I couldn't help but think he is just too timid.

And that's the trouble with Barry: too timid. He wields executive power with the zeal of a zombie. And nobody quite knows what to do with his corpse of a presidency.

Holy Moses!! The stain of New York City's "Master Builder" strikes again in California

I just finished reading The Power Broker, Robert Caro's ultimate documentation of documentations about Robert Moses, a man who innocuously obtained government power through the New York State Council of Parks, then proceeded to become the most powerful man in government in the city and state of New York. Every park constructed between 1925 and 1968, every bridge in that era and every highway bears the mark of Moses. From the southern tip of Manhattan's Lower East Side all the way to the Co-Op City in the Bronx lie the many of the housing projects of Roberts Moses. And the UN on 42nd street? That's his work, too. And Lincoln Center. And the New York 1964 World's Fair. And Shea Stadium.

Coming soon! And by soon, we mean 2025! No, 2030, or 2040 . . .

Such power was not popular with the public or with government officials of his era. In 1953--in the middle of the Robert Moses Era--mayor-elect Robert Wagner, Jr. resolved that Moses would be able to maintain two of his city titles. Moses would remain New York City Parks Commissioner and New York City Construction Coordinator, but he would no longer remain on the City Planning Committee. Wagner did not tell Moses of his intentions, and on inauguration day, merely re-affirmed Moses on two of his three positions. When Moses learned that Wagner wouldn't grant him the the third, Moses was furious.

After the pomp and circumstance the ceremonies had passed, Moses barged into Wagner's office. Why wasn't he allowed to retain his seat on the City Planning Committee? Wagner panicked. A mistake, said the newbie mayor. A mere oversight. It won't happen again. With that, the "Master Builder" walked into another office in city hall, helped himself to the proper stationary, and wrote himself another term to the City Planning Committee. Sign it, said the old man.

Question: Who does that? Who has more power than the mayor? Why should an unelected official have power of the will of the people? The Power Broker brilliantly documents Robert Moses' ascent to power, his abuse of power, and subsequent loss of power. All empires exceed their grasp at some point, and fall. The book made for a gripping read, more like a thriller than a historical record. And now that I've finished reading, I feel a little empty inside.

Never, ever trust a man who looks like Al Capone.

That was, until I saw that the California High Speed Rail Authority has approved $68.4 billion in bonds for construction of a bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco. On the surface, this is good news. A high-speed rail line in the United States is more than five decades overdue (Japan's bullet train has been running since 1964, the same year Robert Moses ran the World's Fair finances straight into the ground). Problem is, the California State Legislature had only approved $45 billion. Before I read the power broker, I would have chalked this $23 billion error to human ineptitude. The likely reality is more sinister.

One tactic Robert Moses utilized to steamroll opposition to his government projects was to understate the costs. Once the project had started and the funds ran out, Moses would simply request more money from the state legislature or the city council. If we don't provide more funds, Moses would argue, all the money thus spent will have been for naught!

 At the start of his career, few cared because his projects generally provided more good than bad. For Example, in the construction Jones Beach State Park, Robert Moses spent the entire budget allocation on the foundation for the bathhouses. Not the bathhouses themselves. The foundation. When he was done, few cared that he had gone over-budget because the finished product was so impressive.

When the finished product was not so impressive, the public got angry. The untold billions Moses spent on projects of absolutely no value to the city of New York, such as his many worthless expressways that provide no value to the city of New York, nor any convenience to the motorist--is a cost that New Yorkers are still paying today. 90 percent of New York State's public debt is attributable to ""Authorities," legal complexities that exist under the guise that a private development corporation can deliver results better than the government. Those who wish to see a return to the great public works projects of the 1960s, or the successful government economic policies of the 1960s would be wise to see the detriment of the Robert Moses governing style and the problems inherent with "authority."

In this case, liberals need to understand the case of ire against government spending. In the private sector, it is understood that to impress a customer or client, the business must under-promise and over-deliver. If a project is going cost $100,000, then provide an estimate for $100,000. Billing a customer for $60,000, then asking for $25,000, then $15,000, is a good way to gaureentee you won't see that customer again.

Will Democrats learn from this? Wouldn't it be easier to document the true costs of a project, up front, then explain the benefits? The other tactic--downplaying the costs and dealing with the fallout later, hasn't worked in decades. Robert Moses gave public works a bad name, and that was almost half a century ago. Boston's Big Dig, while a worthwhile endeavor, is probably the only large-scale public works project that has been able reach completion since the Johnson administration. And what good was done by under-selling the costs, or cutting corners in construction of the tunnel to save money? What good did that do?

What can we do? Heck, the next time your conservative friend rails about how the "government can't do anything right," just let them know that they are partially correct. They just need to substitute the word "government" with "private development corporation."

Breaking News: Romney wins Hawaii!

Networks aren't allowed to call an election before the polls have closed, but an exclusive leak of early returns has shown Romney to win decisively and severely over his four rivals in the central Pacific.

"The Hawaiian Islands are lovely chain," said the victorious Romney. "I've got business partners who own some of them."

How many islands do you own, Willard?

Clint Eastwood should savagely beat down on Karl Rove and David Axelrod

Seriously. One could write a college dissertation on Clint Eastwood's sort of creepy, very patriotic Super Bowl Chrysler ad, but the ad has metamorphosed beyond merchandising.

Right now, the one minute spot is an advertisers dream: it has made news; it gets repeated on television without anybody paying for it. Goldmine.

I'm not even quite sure how put phrase my own thoughts on the matter, because apparently Karl Rove and David Axelrod have told me what I should think about it.

Rove's response was, as usual, a baseless lie coupled with character assassination.  On the bright side, Rove's words were stupid enough to induce uproarious laughter.

“I was, frankly, offended by it,” said Rove. “I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.”

Um, okay. I guess the ad had too much hope and unity and Rove went ballistic. I guess it just goes to show how much the Republican Party is focused on letting us know that our country has been on a one-way track to the underworld ever since January 21st, 2009.  And that the fact that people have jobs, well, that just makes things worse!

Okay. Whatever. Karl Rove doesn't like the ad. I guess that means Obama's people love it, right?

Not so fast. Thanks to the genius of twitter, David Axelrod was able to share his douchbaggery to the masses within seconds.

“Powerful spot." Tweeted the twit Axelrod. "Did Clint shoot that, or just narrate it?”

Hey Punk! Maybe we should stop sending jobs overseas and rebuild at home!

From his tweet, I can't tell if Axelrod should have utilized a medium that would allow to speak more than 140 characters to further explain himself, or if he should have just kept his mouth shut and enjoy the game like everybody else.

But what is Axelrod saying? That Eastwood's words don't matter, simply because he didn't direct the commercial? Is he afraid that Clint Eastwood will make a run for president?

If that's the case, it underscores how much President Obama doesn't know how to play it cool. But what better can we expect from a man to full of cowardice to simply let the Bush tax cuts expire?

And when it comes to re-election, he's worried about Mitt Romney? Aka, BarMitt RomnObama? I guess Obama's losing sleep about actress Roseanne Barr, and the thought about Dirty Harry making a run has the President not feeling lucky at all.

What do you think? Should Clint go for it? Who cares if he's a Republican. Obama sure governs like one! Or should we call on McGovern once again? And does anyone want to fill in the scantron dot for macadamia nut farmer Roseann Barr?

Whatever. Maybe I should just watch Gran Torino again.