Wandering Bell

Disneyworld of course....

2012-01-21T13:54:00.000-08:00

They're Missing The Point

2011-12-07T20:32:00.000-08:00

If you have a notice from any of my previous posts, I really, really do not like this whole Occupy movement. From where I sit, with having to drive by and walk by these protesters, the sense I get is that they're a bunch of Americans who forgotten that there Americans have decided to act like Frenchmen and whine about the inequities of the system. I understand that some people believe that visible protests like this can somehow solve the situation, but I think that they're more effective ways of moving the ball forward them by throwing what is in effect a temper tantrum by adults.

That being said, my opinion was starting to change about the Occupy people when it was announced that they were intending to form a credit union. I thought, finally they want to do something constructive. Instead of whining about the problem, they decided to use the system to fix the problem.

It remains to be seen if the intent is followed through by the Occupy people who are trying to get the credit union plan off the ground.

Here in San Francisco, city leaders have been alternating between joining the protesters and trying to gently guide them to a less touristy visible location. The one that's been proposed is somewhere in the Mission. And although it sounded like some of the Occupy lunatics were in favor of moving to a new location, they couldn't get a consensus so nothing really came of that.

Finally, Da Mayor decided that the eyesore and public-health problem needed to be dealt with. So we sent in the police and the fire department to evict the Occupiers. (I'm wondering if any of my tenants rights friends are gonna get calls from these people wanting to sue for wrongful action. I can just see this happening.) Predictably, Occupy nuts have vowed to "retake" their campsite at Justin Herman Plaza.

These people don't seem to get the whole idea. It's like they want to occupy just to occupy and that the grounds that they occupy is more important than getting their goals met. Whether it be Zuccotti Park in New York or Justin Herman Plaza in San Francisco, the idiots of Occupy seem to believe that sitting tenants doing nothing but chanting, drumming, protesting will bring about a better situation.

It won't.

Simply occupying a piece of real estate does not bring about the change in the system that seems to be needed (what the change needed is up to is up for debate). It's not about the real estate, it's about people and the opinions that those people have. Unfortunately, the occupying nuts think that street theater is more important than substantial change. It seems that in their mind, it's either arrival wish and or nothing. And does anyone think that revolution is the right way to go or should it be through evolution?

What would call the founding of this country, the American Revolution, was not really revolution. We broke free from the British monarchy. We did not, however, some least create a whole new concept of what the rights of citizens should be. We merely distilled and codified the rights which common people had been asserting against the English crown together with newer ideals coming out of the Enlightenment. Compare that with the French Revolution or the Chinese Cultural Revolution and I think you know which type of revolution you want to be a part of.

Hopefully the cops have to deal with these idiots don't have to suffer too much. They certainly don't need the aggravation for simply the enforcing law.

The Hypocrisy of OWS Movement

2011-11-17T14:15:00.001-08:00

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Wow, that last post....

2011-11-17T14:14:00.001-08:00

Was my 1000th?

I wonder if anyone ever read it who wasn't related to me? Oh well.

Evictions Are Serious People

2011-11-15T11:27:00.000-08:00

So you are a renter. And for some inexplicable reason bad stuff starts to happen. You lose your job. Your roommate bails on you. You get sick. You have a fight with a neighbor that gets loud. And then the notice to quit comes.

Guess what? You have just entered the eviction process. Except in California, legally, we don't call it the eviction process. It is know as an unlawful detainer. And for tenants, it is not a happy place to be.

Why? Part of it has to do with the nature of the unlawful detainer proceeding. Its quick. Its limited in what issues can be brought up. It favors the property owner, but then that is the casse with almost all landlord-tenant rules.

Another part of the problem is because most judges do not like unlawful detainer cases. They're messy. Often times at least one of the parties is representing themselves. They keep judges away from more interesting, or important, cases. Also, in counties where there is rent control, the judges often times do not have a clue about the rent control laws and how they interact with state law. There's a whole analysis that I'm not going to get into in this article about that, but needless to say, judges will bend over backwards to avoid having to make a decision, in some counties, when they can construe the facts in such a way as to make easier decisions. Don't think so? Take a look at some of the unpublished decisions out of San Francisco Superior Court's Appellate Division, especially on the issue of Civil Code section 827. Something else I'll have to write about in the future.

But back to my main point. If you are a tenant, you face an uphill battle if you find yourself in an unlawful detainer. You do not want to find yourself there.

So how do you avoid it? You take steps to protect yourself. First one, act like a grownup. Just because you are not the owner of the property, does not mean you should not just ignore problems. If the heater does not work, send you landlord an email. Don't just call him and leave a message. Grownups leave paper trails. When you were a kid, you could ask your mom for some money to do something (like say buying lemons for your lemonade stand). Your parents, if they wanted something, needed to put it in writing (whether it be a loan, a permit, a business license. Why? Because the paperwork spells out what they can and cannot do. It also spells out what theother side of the agreement can and cannot do. That way, later on when someone is claiming that they have the right to do something, there is actual evidcence of it.

Second, think about your well being. That's right, be a little selfish and think about what is good for you. The landlord is getting something for themselves, its called money. Now, if you want to ensure that you are getting something for that exhorbitant amount of money which you pay in rent each month, you have to look out for yourself. What does this mean? If there is a problem, do something about it. Now, you can't make major repairs or alterations under most leases. But for those types of things, the landlord is responsible. How will they know to act responsibly if you, the renter, do not take steps to make sure they know about it. Furthermore, if you do not keep a file on things, how will you be able to present a defense should things go south in your living situation? With the proliferation of smart phones and cloud drives, how hard is it to image your documents and save them into a file? Not very. But if you ignore it, and lose the information, don't think for an instant that the landlord will save you by giving you a copy. Remember, the landlord is working for his self-interest. You should do the same.

Third, don't be greedy. A little contradiction here? Perhaps. But when I say don't be greedy, understand that the law requires the rental unit to be habitable, not four star certified. If you are paying $1100 a month, do not expect that the landlord will come in and change the carpets every six months and install granite countertops. If you think that way, its going to lead to conflicts. And conflicts between landlords and tenants rarely end well for the tenant.

Four, don't be an ostrich. An ostrich closes its eyes, sticks its head in the sand and hopes tha the predator does not kill it. A tenant who ostriches is one who will soon be looking for a new place to live, more likely than not with an eviction on their record. If the landlord notifies you of a lease violation, do not ignore it. See if its valid. If it is, correct it. If its not, then tell them IN WRITING. Refer to the part of the lease that makes it their problem, or gives you the power to do something. If it is a Notice to Quit (whether it be 3, 30 or 60) take it seriously.

Now, if you have hit the point where the landlord is seeking to do an eviction, do not be ashamed and ASK FOR HELP. Let me say this again: do not be ashamed and ASK FOR HELP. Too many tenants ignore a notice to quit. Its the precurors to an unlawful detainer action. Unless you are an attorney who pracitces landlord-tenant law, the odds are you do not have enough information to represent yourself. If you want to try and keep your home, rented as it may be, then you should seek out a lawyer's advice on what to do. Will it cost money? In many cases the answer is yes. Is it worth it? In my experience, having a lawyer represent you significantly increases the chance that the tenant will have a better outcome.

Now for the people who say to themselves, "I can't afford an attorney", and actuallly cannot, there are other options. Many counties have a pro bono program which may be able to assist you. In San Francisco, the San Francisco Bar Association's Volunteer Legal Services Project coordinates pro bono placement for low income people in unlawful detainers and other types of cases. For people who do not meet the eligibility requirements, there are panels of attorneys who have agreed to take cases on at a reduced fee.

While you are looking for an attorney, remember, you are on a ticking clock once you have been served. You have 5 CALENDAR DAYS in which to file and serve an answer. That means, if you get it on a Tuesday, your answer must be on file with the court by the end of Monday. If you get served on a Thursday, your answer is due on Tuesday. They do count the weekend days unless the final day is a weekend or holiday. Then the due date beceoms the next court day. Failure to answer means that the landlord can get a default and then a default judgment against you. That means they can get the sheriff out to physically remove you from the property.

For those of you in rent controlled jurisdiction, do not for a minute believe that your rent board can save you from this by filing a complaint with them. They can consider it, but the unlawful detainer case filed in the superior court will take priority and precedence. State court trumps municipal administrative agency hearings almost every time.

So what should you do while you are looking a lawyer, make sure that an answer gets put in. In some counties, there are organizations which help pro per (self-represented) tenants to file answers. In San Francisco, there is the Eviction Defense Collaborative. They will help you to file the appropriate paperwork. They charge a small fee, on a sliding scale fee, that is more than worth it.

If you do not take an unlawful detainer seriously, no one will for you. Losing an unlawful detainer case, either because you defaulted, by not showing up, or at trial because you did not have any documentation about what was going on between you and the landlord, it will effect you for years. It will be reported on your credit, Furthermore, there are agencies which landlords use to see if a prospective tenant has been evicted before. It will make finding a new place that much harder.

Take it seriously. Protect yourself. Get help.

My Thoughts On Ten Years Ago

2011-09-11T22:11:00.000-07:00

I cannot say what I want to say. So this is what I'll go with for today.

“Remember what Amalek did to you on the road, on your way out of Egypt. That he encountered you on the way and cut off those lagging to your rear, when you were tired and exhausted; he did not fear G‑d. Therefore . . . you must obliterate the memory of Amalek from under the heavens. Do not forget.” (Deuteronomy 25:17–19)

Dancing With The Stars (Or Is This The Weakest Lineup Ever?)

2011-08-30T10:01:00.000-07:00

I know that Dancing With The Stars is never going to be a show filled with A-List people, and that's alright. However, there was some anticipation for this seasons where apparently the producers were told they could do just about anything they want to stop filling the rosters with D-Lister has-beens. There were reports that the idea was to get some high profile celebs, even though Snooki's name kept getting tossed around.

So what did we get? We got.....

A D-List Kardashian (I mean really, the brother. Not even one of the sisters who headline the trainwreck that is the Kardashians? Instead we get Robert Kardashian who's most notable act is that he cheated on a Cheetah Girl. Woohoo.) He has been paired with Peta Murgatroyd, who is not a newcomer to Dancing With The Stars. She has been on both the Australian and American versions as one of the professional dancers before being promoted. Although with a promotion like this, maybe she'll be wondering if its not the booby prize.
A C-List Laker in Ron Artest (yes, an active, striking, NBA player whose greatest moment came when he charged into the stands after a fan he incorrectly believed threw something at him during the Pacers-Pistons brawl back in 2004.) Anna Trebunskaya will have the job of breaking this bronco.
A D-List soccer player named Hope Solo (alright, its a little mean. She is arguably the best known of the US Women's Soccer team but the way we view soccer in this country, that only gets you to the D-List. Plus, there's her little problem with authority - she was kicked off the team once - and then there's the fact she got scored on to lose the Women's World Cup.) She is paired up with Maksim Chmerkovskiy. Given her history of not being afraid to speak her mind, this could go bad quick.
Kristin Cavallari who I'm not sure even qualifies as a star. (I mean, really. Her show The Hills is off the air. She's done a couple of guest spots on other shows and had a role in an independent movie that very few people have seen. Her chief claim to fame seems to be that she just got dumped by Jay Cutler.) Mark Ballas ends up with the hot chick again. Perhaps he can make a silk purse of this sow's ear.
Chaz Bono. Famous for being related to famous people and having a sex change operation. Maybe its the fact that I live in San Francisco but that just doesn't seem that exotic. Karina Smirnoff has the task of teaching Chaz how to dance like a man. (Yeah, that's mean I suppose.)
David Arquette. Arguably a C-lister. At one time was a B-Lister. Being divorced by a B-Lister. But, he fills their requirement for a recovering addict I guess (see David Hasselhoff and Steve-O). Lacey Schwimmer, rather unsurprisingly, was given this oddball (and I say that in a good way, well sort of). I feel bad for Arquette. He has to deal with Lacey's insanity.
J.R. Martinez, filling a double quota (Soap Opera Dude and Inspirational Man). Cheryl Burke will be dancing with him.
Elisabetta Canalis A D-Lister in the U.S. now that she is no longer attached to George Clooney. Derek Hough returns and is given the model. Hmmmmmm. Was that the price for his return?
Nancy Grace. A D-Lister so inappropriately named (can you really think of anyone with less grace in their makeup?) who seems revel in leading lynch mobs from the safety of her TV studio.
Chynna Phillips. The D-Lister "Christian" celebrity. Oh joy. I suppose she's famous but since last Wilson Phillips album, when has she really popped up on anyone's radar? And she has Maksim's younger brother, Valentin, as her partner.
Carson Kressley. I suppose he wants to tell everyone how to look good naked or something. Oy. Kym Johnson, who I'm sure doesn't have a problem looking good naked, will be tasked by him.
Ricki Lake. Possibly a C-Lister. I can't be too mean. I don't like to be mean. Its just I'm annoyed. Tristan MacManus, another promotion from the ranks of the DWTS professional troupe, has her. Could be interesting to see what these two do since there's so much unknown here.
Ryan O'Neal apparently is withdrawn. He would have been interesting. But apparently his knee replacement surgery recovery is not far enough along for him to compete. His replacement is Carson Kressley.

So that's the line up. Color me so underwhelmed. At least in the past there were people I was interested in or liked. No Olympians. No champions (though Artest has played for good teams). This one. I mean I'm sort of curious about Hope Solo, but not that much.

With a gun to my head, I have to say Hope Solo is my pre-season pick for the women. I know I have her picked to be the train wreck waiting to happen, but maybe. For the men, I have to go with J.R. Martinez, even though he has a few things going against him (he has burns on his face from serving in Iraq, not a lot of name recognition since he's only had 3 years on a soap). However, he's got Cheryl Burke and she knows how to train competitors who can please the crowd and please the judges.

Whether I tune in to this 13th season remains to be seen.

What Has Israel Done For Peace In The Middle East?

2011-08-29T18:43:00.000-07:00

A lot.

I Feel Like Leo McGarry Right Now...

2011-08-17T10:22:00.000-07:00

....after looking at the probables for 2012.

Seriously, is this what our choices are going to be? Where the hell is the Good Man (or Woman) who will step up and run. The current occupant of the Oval Office is definitely not it. The current GOP slate makes me want to pinch my nose.

Is this seriously the best we can offer?

What Was Wanted, What We Got...

2011-08-16T19:46:00.000-07:00

This is what the nation wanted when we voted back in 2008...

What we got instead is....

History of English Language

2011-08-11T20:24:00.000-07:00

There's some in the later bits that had me laughing out loud. Yes. If you have guessed, I am that much of a geek.

2011-08-03T12:43:00.001-07:00

Stephen Fry is one of the few actors that I like to listen to when they aren't in character

Interesting take from across the pond

2011-08-02T12:42:00.000-07:00

2011-07-27T19:13:00.001-07:00

Angrybell took the Hardest Gary Gygax Quiz in the World and got 60%!

You are a Gary Gygax Myrmidon. You are mighty in the ways of Gary Gygax. You're probably a First Edition or OD&D player, and I wouldn't be surprised if you had an original copy of the Chainmail rules.

Understanding the UN's Treatment of Israel

2011-07-14T13:14:00.001-07:00

File This Under Inappropriate?

2011-07-11T17:26:00.000-07:00

So... I'm still kinda reeling on this one.

This is not my case. I am helping out a friend of mine, an attorney, on a restraining order and divorce matter. My friend is an early thirties woman who has, in her own words, acted a magnet "asshole men" since she got out of college. Not sure why is started then, but it did.

This case involves a wife who has had enough with being the husband's punching bag, and just wants to get away from the guy. So she went to my friend, we'll call her Jen, to expedite her escape. I got roped into this mess because Jen is a very good criminal attorney but is iffy on civil procedure questions.

Iffy is a kind way to describe it. But I digress.

The other side has turned what should be a simple hearing into another trip to Volga. They've conned the judge into giving multiple delays while they've subpoenaed everyone in site while hiding the money and conducting a campaign of terror against the client through his proxies.

Isn't family law great?

So amidst all this, we've gotten to know opposing counsel really well. I by letter (since I've done all the letters) and her in person when they've talked. As she describes him, he starts off by insulting our client, then he insults her while proclaiming his client's virtue and announcing that this is nothing more than a shakedown by a vengeful spouse.

Charmer right? But wait, there's more. He is 68 years old, divorced, and has urinary problems (as in he has to go to the bathroom every 10 minutes or he'll lose control). We'll call him Attorney U.

Today, they got to go head to head again in court. They were sent out, the judge reserving decision, with orders to "Work something out!". Eventually they did (about what I figured the result would be and told her we should plan for). At the end of it, this is the conversation that happened:

Attorney U: So that's settled. You will get your client to sign off on it. .. I can tell you are intrigued by me.
Jen: What makes you say that?
Attorney U: I can tell by the way you look at me.
Jen: I have no idea what you are talking about.
Attorney U: How about dinner on Thursday?
Jen: Excuse me? You're joking.
Attorney U: No. Dinner Thursday. You and me. Call me about it.
Jen: I'll call you about the deposition schedule tomorrow.
Attorney U: Great. When you do, you can tell me what time to pick you up.

My friend tells me this. Whats worse, she says now, after he has been such an ass, that she is curious. Hopefully she will let this one remain a mystery.

Light Fluff, Summer Movies, And Who Is Better...

2011-07-07T19:40:00.000-07:00

I could post about some real issues. Really. But angrybabybelle has been sick (nothign too serious, just a virus) and its exhausting. So its just light stuff for right now. Grandma (as opposed to Lil'G, the other grandma) gave Mrs. Angrybell and I a day off.

So we went to the movies to answer the question of which would be better female lead for a transformers movie.

First up, we had the plucky contender.....

Vicky's Own Devon Doll

VS.

The Tennessee Temptress

And the unanimous decision, based largely on hotness and which least adversely affected the movie (Mrs. Angrybell set the criteria.)....

If we had gone on acting ability... a friend of mine put it best when he said "Rosie Huntingdon Whitely makes Megan Fox look like Meryl Streep." However, Mrs. Angrybell and I both have this to say for the loser:

Its her first real role.
She put up a good challenge.
But in the end, the curves of Michael Bay's Megan beats Rosie' lips.

Could we get anymore inappropriate?

As far as the movie goes, its what a summer blockbuster movie should be. The only question I really had was if the writer of the movie was watching The Longest Day and the D-Day, The Sixth of June when he wrote it. Watch it. Seriously. The last third of the movie, once they get to Chicago looks like it was taken directly from those movies.

Tinker Tailor

2011-06-30T15:37:00.001-07:00

I remember watching part of this back when it was a miniseries on Masterpiece Theatre.

I am curious to see if it lives up to the original (even though I know, I should still read the book, bad Angrybell).

2011-06-28T12:19:00.000-07:00

Delta - We Love Our Money More Than Our Principles

2011-06-23T20:32:00.000-07:00

Maybe you have heard that word came out today that Delta Airlines has entered into a code sharing partnership with Saudi Arabian Airlines. As part of this deal, if you are Jewish, have Jewish-sounding name, or have any sort of religious items which are offensive to Islam (meaning anything not Islamic) then you won't be allowed to on those shared flights. The original article was here. But now apparently US Today has pulled it down and replaced it with this.)

Now, Delta is saying, throught its blog,

First and foremost, I think one of the most important things to mention here is that Delta does not discriminate nor do we condone discrimination against anyone in regards to age, race, nationality, religion, or gender.

They don't discriminate. They just partners with airlines who do.

That said, some have raised questions about whether Saudi Arabian Airlines’ membership in SkyTeam means Delta is adopting any type of policies that could present barriers to travel for some passengers, including Jewish customers. For this particular concern, it’s important to realize that visa requirements to enter any country are dictated by that nation’s government, not the airlines, and they apply to anyone entering the country regardless of whether it’s by plane, bus or train.

We, like all international airlines, are required to comply with all applicable laws governing entry into every country we serve. You as passengers are responsible for obtaining the necessary travel documents, such as visas and certification of required vaccinations, and we’re responsible for making sure that you have the proper documentation before you board.

This is a bunch of bullshit. I try not use profanity too much, but there is nothing else to call it. This is a company scrambling to cover it ass and say that its really not their fault that they are going to participate in discrimination

Delta has a choice of who it does business with. Its not this little issue of Saudi Arabian Airlines' discreThey chose to get into bed with Saudi Arabian Airlines. Saudi Arabia Airlines does not just fly to Saudi Arabia. They fly all over Arab world and the world in general. What happens when your code share flight turns out to be a Saudi flight that goes through another city? That's right. Get ready to experience dhiminitude.

Yet Delta chose to partner with them. No one forced them. They just decided that it was more important to make an extra few bucks than have any principles.

Remember who you giving your money to the next you look fly somewhere. Do you want to give it to someone who discriminates? If you do, Delta will happily partner with someone who does.

As an added thing to the Delta blog. Apparently they will not take comments. Its like they are taking a page from Jimmy Carter handbook. No debating their pronoucements, especially when they are wrong, it seems.

Seriously, What Is Wrong With Attorneys These Days

2011-06-17T23:57:00.000-07:00

What is the problem with lawyers these days? It seems like so many of the attorneys I deal with are being disingenuous when they say they want to resolve a matter. Why? Because if I start trying to work out a solution the same refrain comes back every time: Why don't we wait until mediation?

That is perhaps the most assinine thing. Unless of course you enjoy spending your client's money for a mediators time, as well as the attorneys time.

What is the problem with trying to get the ball rolling so that when it does come to mediation, if it must, that instead of trying to bridge a huge chasm at $400 dollars an hour, its just the last 3 outs of the game?

I understand that in some cases, the sides are so far apart that only a mediator may be able to get one or both of the sides to make the compromises necessary to get a settlement done. However, it feels like an excuse they use to avoid having to do work. This way, instead of the attorney being responsible for a settlement, at least in the eyes of an attorney's client, they can place all the blame when buyers remorse comes on the fact that it was really brokered by the mediator and the client signed off on it. Have we as lawyers really gotten that bad? Or that lazy?

ADR was originally billed as the cost-effective way to end cases prior to trial. However, instead of doing that, they've become mini-trials, even when its mediation and not arbitration. Think I'm wrong? Take a look at the mediation brief that gets submitted. More often then not, its not just a little road map so that the arbitrator gets an idea of whats going on. Rather they are essentially trial briefs, previewing the case down to the last bit of evidence. Sure, it supposedly gets all the cards on the table. However, if you have an attorney who is not walking malpractice, then they should have already brought the bad cards to the client's attention.

ADR has its place. However, lawyers have become over-reliant on the mediators to accomplish the job. This is bad for both the attorney, and even more so, for the clients who have to pay the mediator's salary. And lets face it, they all don't look like Kate.

So next time, why not talk to your opposing party first. Whats the worst that can happen? You go the meidator later and drop a few grand of your client's money there. But at least you took a stab at being an attorney and not just someone who spends other people's money needlessly.

We fund this organization

2011-06-17T10:45:00.001-07:00

Why then do we allow it to go after Israel at the behest of Iran, Egypt, Bahrain, Venezuela, and other countries where human rights violations routinely happen? Why do we not insist that the people who use tanks, guns, and abductions cloaked as police actions to be held accountable?

Because apparently its much easier to go after the liberal democracy than a repressive regime.

What do the California Legislators and Nathaniel Ford Have In Common?

2011-06-17T09:07:00.000-07:00

They're both receiving more money than they should for failing. At least Nathaniel Ford will soon be gone, happily depositing his $384,000 severance package (equal to approximately a year plus benefits). I guess its better than paying him nearly $700,000 to wait until his contract expires. Heaven only what kind of a mess he could have turned the system into with what he claims are his "leadership" and a "management" abilities.

On the other hand, we're stuck with the legislators in Sacramento for few more years. And unfortunately, we the voters are too stupid to choose people, from either party, with actual ability and a desire to serve rather than ones who just want a cush job where they can enjoy the graft from the special interests groups.

Whats brought about this? Have you seen the budget they produced in order to meet the June 15 deadline? The Democratic leadership, in fear of the impending June 15 deadline, forced through a budget that Governor Brown characterized as full of spending gimmicks, accounting skulduggery, and cuts to programs. No reform of the budget. No hard choices made. Just whatever was easiest got cut so they could produce a budget.

So Governor Brown vetoed it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not one who wants to see taxes raised, which is where I differ with the governor. But I do want to see a real budget put together. Not one that is easy to pass but does not fix the problems which we here in California are facing.

Both parties share in the blame for this mess that is occurring. The Dems for being irresponsible about the budget they rammed through, as well as their failure to seriously discuss reforming the spending that goes on here in the state (pensions anyone?) and the Republicans for not compromising on certain (but not all) issues.

Apparently when we passed that referendum last year, requiring them to pass a budget, we all missed that part in the fine print. The budget only has to pass the Legislature. There is no requirement that it be signed into law by the governor. That was a mistake. Maybe we ought to correct that at the next possible time. It might be too late for November, but how about we make it clear: no one in the legislature or the Governor's office gets paid if the work they're required to do isn't finished.

So enjoy your ill gotten gains. One of these karma will catch up with you. One can only hope its at Mr. Ford's next job interviews and the legislators next election.

Hopefully, the MTA Will Take This Task Seriously...

2011-06-15T17:17:00.000-07:00

But what I wanted to say was: Mr. Ford, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Good riddance to bad trash. The only problem is, it seems that the MTA is not upset with him. To my mind that means they're going to get another appeaser rather than a doer as the next head of Muni. And that is exactly not what this city or this system needs right now.

Sadly, it looks like the powers that be down at Civic Center want to keep the job in house. The SFGate is suggesting that the inside track is being held by Friends of the Mayor, or happened to be Ford's chief deputy (Ed Reiskin or Carl Rohan, respectively). This does not instill me with confidence.

Anyone who wants to call Nathaniel Ford's term in office a success needs to consider one thing: there was a voter revolt because things had gotten so bad on his watch. When the voters have to go to the ballot box to force Muni to put its house in order, that is a clear sign of failure.

Epic Failures By MTA and Local 250-A

2011-06-13T21:30:00.000-07:00

I am starting to wonder if the Muni Operator union is taking advice from the Yasser Arrafat diplomacy playbook. In case you don't know, it was once summed up by Abba Eban as "Never missing a chance to miss a chance." Luckily for them, they were saved from themselves today by an arbitrator.

How were they saved from themselves?

Well, after voting down the unbelievably outrageous deal that Mr. Ford and the MTA offered them, it was sent to binding arbitration. The arbitrator, who coincidentally brokered the deal in the first place, ordered it in effect. Carol Vendrillo, in her decision, wrote "It is the opinion of the mediator/arbitrator that the terms of the (proposed contract) on the disputed issues represent the best resolution of these protracted labor negotiations and are in the best interests of both the parties and the riding public[.]"

Now, I am going to confess to a bit of bias here. I do not think that Ms. Vendrillo should have been the arbitrator. Ms. Vendrillo has an impressive number of years working in this type of situation. However, she was the neutral that helped broker the deal. In my experience, I've found that after a while, this makes them favor the deal that they help author. This could be lead to some bias if they are later called upon, as she was in this instance, to pass judgment on the deal she brokered.

How did Muni employees miss a chance?

Let's start with how Local 250-A, the Muni Operators union described the proposed deal. On their website, they stated,

In collective bargaining this year, MTA sought to reduce our total compensation by nearly 20% through numerous threatened changes to our MOU. With your support and strength, we were able to negotiate a Tentative Agreement under which you lose no wages, no premiums, no allowances and no benefits. Moreover, under the Tentative Agreement your monthly healthcare costs will substantially decrease, and MTA will continue to pickup the 7.5% employee pension contribution. We were also able to eliminate the absenteeism policy (Bulletin 10-039) which MTA unilaterally imposed last year, increase report time, and obtain a grievance process that ends in binding arbitration like all other City employees have.

Now for those who have not been following the Muni saga here in the city, the MTA, surprisingly, tried to get tough on absenteesim last year. They had the radical notion that if you are calling in sick, then you need a sick note. Despite the fact that this reduced absenteeism, one of the leading causes of why Muni was spending so much on overtime (because of the scheduling rules in the agreement which has expired) on drivers. Yet, this "radicial" policy has been eliminated from the proposed agreement.

Yet another example of Nathaniel Ford's dynamic leadership. Upon discovering a program that increases productivity, revenue, or efficiency of the system, at all costs it must be eliminated!

But ti might not be over yet. Some of the Muni drivers are talking walk out even though it would not be sanctioned by the union.

How did Mr. Ford and the MTA fail?

In looking at the agreement, it seems that it was even worse than what Nathaniel Ford was touting. No change to compensation. Increases in spending by Muni, without corresponding increases by the drivers, for their healthcare costs. Increase in protection for operators who fail to show up for work. No real reform of how the pension works.

What is almost more troubling than the money and pension reform aspects, is the proposed change in safety. As of now, Muni is averaging over 2000 accidents a year. Its drivers are found to be responsible in just 25% of those incidents. Yet when compared to other transit agencies of similar size or larger, the number becomes more curious. East Bay AC drivers are found at fault 30% of the time. Seattle and Portland drivers are found to be at fault 33% and 47% the time respectively. Now, maybe SF drivers are better. But in watching them cut me off on occasion, I can't believe that. The numbers seem just too neat on the SF Muni drivers part.

Now, add into that that under the new rule, if the accident's property damage value is less than $15,000 or less (and with only minor injuries to boot), then no action can be taken against the driver.

Read that again. Does that make sense? I'm not saying that a driver should lose his job over a minor fender bender. But maybe there needs to be some discipline to get the point home on how you drive a massive wheeled vehicle that could cause serious damage or loss of life. It seems that Nathaniel Ford and the Local 250-A are being more than a little cavalier with their attitude towards safety.

Make no mistake, Nathanial Ford just proved that he is not the man for this or any other job. He had support, he had the upper hand, and he was more concerned about appearing to "spike the football" than getting a contract that served the interests of the citizens of San Francisco.

The operators won. There is only partial concessions on work rules. In the end, nothing else changed. The operators are laughing all the way to the bank on this one. No meaningful change which favored the citizens of San Francisco were made with regards to pensions, absenteeism, or pay. For failing to meet the goals, they will continue to be rewarded as some of the highest paid drivers in the country. The MTA will continue to hemorrage money. And this means more cuts to services.

In terms of numbers, Muni is running, currently, at $21 million deficit. This deal will only start to make a dent in that as it is projected to save them $38 million per year over three years. In other words, a little over $12 million per year. Guess where the rest of the deficit is going to come from.

Thank you Mr. Ford and Muni drivers for wrecking Muni and leaving the taxpayers and the fare-payers to make up for your shortsightedness and venality.

Below the fold is the decision.

Arbitrator Award

Well... Muni is still a mess

2011-06-06T23:25:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow the MTA gives the people of San Francisco another gift: price increases!

Isn't that just amazingly good. I mean, anytime they can't manage their budget, its the ridership who gets to pay the price. Our unelected, and apparently unaccountable MTA leadership has managed to increase the cost of ridership while decreasing the service.

But hey, at least the operators are getting paid their exhorbitant salaries. I mean, its only fair that the union gets to stick it to the rest of San Francisco.

But I guess I shouldn't complain that much, I mean after all Nathaniel Ford, who apparently is failing at getting hired away to anywhere else in the country did take a 2 percent pay cut earlier this year. That means he only makes $308,837 this year. That $6,000 dollar pay cut he took really benefitted the ridership.

(In case you wanted to know, the mayor of San Francisco makes $252,000 - and he took a $7,000.)

Now, as this is going on, Muni is negotiating its labor contracts. So far, they have gotten two to the "tentative deal" phase, meaning that the union membership has yet to approve it. The IBEW contract will save a forecasted million dollars. The same situation is going on with the operators union (Local-250A). Their proposed deal will save $21 million over three years (or $7 million or so per year).

However, the problem with the operator deal is that they still do not address some of the fundamental problems going on with Muni. First, the operators are still going to be making an obscene amount of money. No cuts in pay. Not cuts in starting salary pay. And all it guarantees is a freeze for 3 years. Second, they still do not make any contribution to their pensions. All that Mr. Ford's wonderful negotiating has done is getting the union to accept the use of more part time drivers. That was not even the bare minimum.

Wonderful.

Mr. Ford had virtually every bit of support going for him. The Board of Supervisors and the people of the city were dead set against the sweetheart deals that the operators have had for far too long without any corresponding performance on their part. Yet for some reason, this is going to be allowed to happen because our elected leaders are unwilling to do what is necessary to complete the reform of Muni started by the Prop G movement.

Another opportunity missed. But hey, rather than deal with a real problem, San Francisco wants to debate circumcisions.

Ford needs to be sacked. The unions need to be put in their place and reminded that their rank and file is here to work for the people of this City and not vice versa.

Buster Posey

2011-05-26T20:45:00.000-07:00

So its almost been 24 hours since Scott Cousins, of the Florida Marlins, ended Buster Posey's season with a devastating hit. As the rules stand right now, it was a clean, legal play.

Now, baseball does not have a lot of contact. And I am one of the first to say that the MLB has gone overboard in protecting the players. For instance, that ridiculous rule where the umpires can warn the benches, meaning that any further hit batsmen will result in automatic ejections, is a mistake. It allows cowards to get away unpunished because the Leagues never do anything to them.

However, there are a few places where contact occurs on the diamond. Usually you see it at either second base or home plate. In MLB, the rule governing base-running is found in 7.0 of the Official Baseball Rules. Now, the danger of a injury causing play at 2nd base is diminished mainly because the runner has to stay within a prescribed area and has to make an attempt to reach the bag. If the umpire finds that the player was trying to take out the player in breaking up a double play, as opposed to making his primary attempt at reaching the bag, and they can be called out.

Where the big collisions tend to come is at home plate. Unlike second base, the runner can overrun the base and still be safe. Until last night, perhaps the most famous collision at the plate came between Pete Rose and Ray Fosse during the 1970 All Star Game. In 12th inning, Rose barreled through Fosse, forcing him to drop the ball, allowing him to score the winning run.

The collision resulted in a separated shoulder for Fosse. Some say that it was this injury which cut his career short. Even if it wasn't, it was still enough of a blow to send him to the hospital.

Now, there have been some other big collisions. In Giants lore, there is Nate Schierholtz during the Beijing Summer Olympics.

Big time hit. Clean play. Sure, the catcher went down hard and had to go to the hospital, but there was nothing inherently dangerous about the collision. He took him with his body, not with his head.

Now there was the play last night in the 12th inning. My problem is not that Posey got hit. That's part of the game. The problem is, Cousins essentially speared into him by going head first. That to me is the problem. Could Cousins do this? After all, it was very similar to my eye to what Rose did Fosse. There's nothing against it that I can find in the rules. I think that a narrow rule to cover this because it would allow for runner to try and dislodge the ball, but at the same time, it would limit the chance of a serious injury.

When I was trying to make the high school team and about to make the jump from Little League to the next level (I forget which) I went to a baseball camp. They showed us the Rose-Fosse collision. They said "You only get to do this if you are Pete Rose. Its legal, but if we see you do this, that's it."

Taking out the catcher is part of the game, but allowing guys to essentially dive head first into catchers is just not safe at all. The college rules apparently do not allow this. The game does not seem to suffer there. Why not implement a similar rule in the Majors?

And the Winner Is...

2011-05-25T20:25:00.000-07:00

Congrats to Hines and Kym. They are the champions of Season 12.

Quick Hit of Madness

2011-05-24T09:28:00.000-07:00

So I haven't been writing much about DWTS. Stuff came up. I've been watching, but its hard to blog it with whats been going on around here.

Here are my thoughts pre-final final night. First, the freestyles were anemic last night. Only Hines and Kym really took a risk with their routine. It was interesting, but I'm still not sure that I liked it. Also, for the first time in weeks, it didn't look like Hines was having fun out there. Instead he looked nervous. His quickstep was very good. The judges love him and it seems that the critics do too. The problem is, I think he's benefitting by being back-lead most of the time by Kym.

Chelsea and Mark's dance was nice. A little weird. At the same time, the flashing lights on their hands and feet were fun and distracting. Also, the choice of music was... not the best. I understand, I think, where Mark was going when he chose the music, I just don't think it worked for the end result.

Kirstie and Maks did what they could. Despite losing 38 inches off her waist line (that's almost one Angrybell), she still looks like she is running out of steam in her routines. And it happens every dance. SHe starts out really good, but halfway through the routine, she's straining to hang in there. She put up a game effort, but really she is not supposed to the winner here. She's tried. She has shown up, put the work in. I just feel that she gets outdanced by either Hines or Kym.

I really think Chelsea should win. However, I suspect that Hines is going to walk away with the mirror ball.

Just a thought for next season (not that anyone would ever listen to me). Instead of a judge's choice dance like this year, how about a judge's choice insta-dance. That way we see if the competitors have learned to dance or learned how to do routines. Just a thought.

Whatever way it ends, this will be the closest finish since they redid the scoring.

2011-05-17T16:04:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, it's just not worth trying to be nice and professional. And yet, I still say "please" and "thank you" and I still call everybody by their proper name and not by some diminutive that I've created my head -- unlike some people with a bar card. But I'm telling you, it just isn't worth it some days.

Take for example today. I have a case where I'm representing someone who was charitably described by their best friend as someone that you would drink with, but never let them hold your wallet. This fine upstanding individual is being sued because of a business deal gone bad. From what I gather of the other side, they are either delusional or really desperate for money. And that makes this whole case so much more fun because, after the deal went horribly sideways, no one had any money.

With that setup, you'd think that the opposing counsel would have a sense of perspective. Not so much. Matter of fact, I think he believes that I actually work for him. Either that or he thinks that I'm sitting on all the money. So this is a letter that I wanted to send him today after one of our lovely conversations:

Dear Atty. Idiot:

I am writing to follow-up on the lovely conversation today that I had with you and some of your subordinate associates. I wanted to say just how much fun I had being insulted and belittled. As a matter of fact, the last time a conversation was that enjoyable for me, the dentist was taking out my wisdom teeth.

I fully sympathize with your inability to get information out of my client. The problem is if you insist on asking him these questions and demanding these documents you will never get them. There's a simple reason this: he doesn't have them. We keep telling you who might have the documents, but you insist on telling us that we have them. it seems that the only way that you will believe that I do not have these documents, or the my client does not have these documents is that you physically searched every nothing cranny of my office. Trust me, if I had them I would've shut them down your G-d-damned throat already. Then, I would've danced a little jig is you threw them up and realized that no one has any money out of this deal.

While I appreciate that you believe that I work for you, I have checked my bank records and can find no evidence that you pay my salary. Furthermore, nowhere on the law offices of angry Bell is there any record of you being a partner or managing partner of this firm. Therefore, when I don't have an answer for you five minutes after you make a demand of me during one of our enjoyable telephone conferences, I will feel free to say "Fuck You". After all, if you insist on acting as if I work for you, why should you be any different from the partners who he used to work for back at Underpaid, Abused, Mistreated & Belittled.

Cordially,

Angrybell

Fortunately for me, Mrs.Angrybell told me that that would be a bad idea.

I don't get paid enough for this case.

Release The Photo Already

2011-05-05T09:50:00.000-07:00

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Not that I agree with everything Jon Stewart says, but once again he's pretty close to my way of thinking. Let's treat Bin Laden like nearly every other bogey man we've run to ground in our history. Release the photos.

Bin Laden Couldn't Run Forever

2011-05-01T19:58:00.001-07:00

All I can say is, whatever way he went down, it was too wasn't painful enough for what he did. Thankfully, it sounds like it was done by the US and not someone else. It also seems that he may have been killed by SEALs who were sent to get him (though whether they were supposed to kill or capture him has not been stated yet).

To whomever did the job, thank you.

Dialogue

2011-04-27T13:58:00.000-07:00

Did this in response to the article I read over at ElderofZiyon who was quoting from Nick Cohen's piece here.

If the Big Firms Are Too Precious For This Case, I'll Be Happy To Step In

2011-04-25T14:48:00.000-07:00

And not because I relish actually winning the case.

Let's back up here. Some of you may have heard how the House of Representatives, because President Obama has refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act, took some money from the Department of Justice's budget. This money was to be used to pay former U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, a partner at King and Spaulding, The idea was that Mr. Clement would act as the attorney for the House of Representatives who would be seeking to intervene in the case.

Gay rights groups, predictably when seeing their chance at an easy win dropping, brought pressure to bear on King and Spaulding. What was surprising was the gutlessness of the firm. Today they announced that they were withdrawing from representing the House of Representatives. The head of the firm where Clement now works, Robert D. Hays, Jr., stated that the firm was withdrawing because "Last week we worked diligently through the process required for withdrawal,[.]...In reviewing this assignment further, I determined that the process used for vetting this engagement was inadequate. Ultimately I am responsible for any mistakes that occurred and apologize for the challenges this may have created.”

In many reports, its being stated that the real reason is that LGBT groups were putting pressure on the firm. Mr. Hays has spent the better part of two decades defending mass tort litigation against corporate giants such as GM (defective cars) and companies which pollute the groundwater in particular and the environment in general, as well as defending claims based on recalled medical devices while championing the idea of preemption against tort cases. However, apparently the thought of someone calling him a bigot for defending a law, as opposed to being a corporate shill who seeks to deny compensation for people and communities damaged by corporate greed, was too much for him and others in the partnership. So they withdrew the firm from representation.

Maybe the only one with any moral fiber in the higher echelons of King and Spaudling in Mr. Clement. He has resigned from the firm in protest over the action by his partners. In his letter,which was released, he stated,

...I resign out of the firmly-held belief that a representation should not be abandoned because the client's legal position is extremely unpopular in certain quarters. Defending unpopular positions is what lawyers do. The adversary system of justice depends on it, especially in cases where the passions run high. Efforts to delegitimize any representation for one side of a legal controversy are a profound threat to the rule of law. Much has been said about being on the wrong side of history. But being on the right or wrong side of history on the merits is a question for the clients. When it comes to the lawyers, the surest way to be on the wrong side of history is to abandon a client in the face of hostile criticism.

There is more to the letter, but that paragraph right there sums up what law this is about for lawyers.

When it seemed this would be a half million dollar fee earner for the firm this year, there seemed to be no problem for the leaders of King and Spaulding. But once it got uncomfortable, they showed their true colors and abandoned ship.

For our system to work, there has to be lawyers willing to defend both side of the argument. King and Spaulding only seems to remember this when, apparently, when the cause is politically acceptable in certain sectors (e.g. defending terrorist detainees at Guantanamo). But its not just when the client is a cause celebe or a heart strings case. Sometimes the unpopular position has to be defended or represented because otherwise the system breaks down.

John Adams, one our early patriot leaders and later the second President of the United States, knew this. He was the man who accepted the job of defending the British soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre. He had to defend these men in a court in a town which had become vehemently anti-British and vehemently anti-army as a result of the Massacre and other legislation passed by Parliament. He did not defend the British soldiers because he liked them. Adams was already one of the leading Patriots in Boston at the time. He took the case because it ensured that the system would operate freely and fairly. When he recevied threats he did not back down, he did not quit on the British soldiers. He fought the case out to verdict.

Apparently King and Spaulding are not cut from the same moral or ethical cloth as John Adams.

If the House of Representatives is willing to go with a solo, I'd take the case. Not because its a law I think should be on the books, but because our system of justice demands that it be defended.

I'd like to say I was surprised at Muni's latest idea...

2011-04-23T15:50:00.000-07:00

But I'm not. I mean, what else can we expect from an agency that cannot fulfill its core function. Or from a leader of that agency who has demonstrated time and time again that he does not want the job, and demonstrates it consistently by begging to be hired as far away as possible while neglecting his job here.

What am I talking about?

Apparently Muni, after decades of ignoring a law on the books, has chosen now to suggest increasing parking fees in San Francisco. As some of you may know, almost every garage in San Francisco offers a deal that if you park by a certain time, usually 9 or 10 a.m., then you will get a prices break. This can be, for San Francisco, significant, because the fees can run from $35 dollars for the day and up. Combine this with parking ticket fines of $65 in the downtown area and $55 in the rest of the city, and its difficult to find a reasonable way to park your car. Under the MTA's proposal, this will be abolished.

However, San Francisco continues to operate under the delusion that because it has decreed a "transit first" policy, that it actually has a transit system that meets the needs of the people living and working in the city. Apparently, someone has not clued in Nathan Ford at Muni or the Supervisors that simply decreeing it does not make it happen.

Sad facts: the buses don't run any near to their target goals. Service has been cut and fares have been increased.

So who is going to take the hit for it? The people who commute into the city and the people who are so frustrated with inefficiency and unreliability of Muni that they drive instead.

Gee thanks Muni.

How about we do something that doesn't increase the cost to those who foot the bill here in San Francisco. How about we start by ensuring that the fares get collected, regardless of race or economic status (which for Muni would be a revolutionary concept apparently). How about fixing the travesty that is the contract with the operator's union (or better yet just breaking the union entirely).

Then, once Muni has cleaned house, and dealt with the real issues rather than grasping at "low hanging fruit", then come back to the community and ask for more our money.

Nathan Ford and the Operator Union Local 250-A need to be dealt with. One needs to lose his job. The other needs to be shown that they are not worth what they think they are based on their performance.

Sad but True....

2011-04-22T14:32:00.000-07:00

We Know Who Is Answering The Phone at 3 a.m.

2011-04-21T18:49:00.000-07:00

But has he done enough to earn another four years in office? When the phone is wrong, has he made the right choices? Has he made choices at all?

Dancing With The Stars American Week Edition

2011-04-18T23:18:00.000-07:00

Ok, what moron came up with this idea? Let's have an American themed week on a week where most of the people are dancing very foreign/international dances. I mean really, a samba to "Sweet Home Alabama"? Why not just say "Ralph, we're stunned by your vote totals and we're going to do whatever it takes to make you look bad so that the others have a chance to knock you off. Sorry."

But before we get to the rest of the dances, let's talk Kendra. For a woman who insists she is tough and powerful, I've never seen someone with so much of a glass jaw when it comes to taking criticism. What am I talking about? Apparently she cannot take constructive criticism labeling Carrie Ann Inaba's criticisms from last week as belittling and embarrassing. Let's get something straight, the only thing embarassing is her attitude.

Mrs. Angrybell was stunned when Hines Ward and Kym came out. As she put it "It was Officer and a Gentlemen meets a fringed lamp without any hip action." And please, a rumba to "G-d Bless The USA"? That was just cruel. Not sure what dance Carrie Ann was watching. The 9s from the judges on that one were totally out of left field.

And really, can someone please, please, please make Maksim put his shirt on. Between the faux tattoos and a chest that rivals mine for needing to get to the bench press, its a miracle that the FCC has not slapped it with an indecency fine already. I can't even tell you about the dance,... I was too stunned by the outfit, the lack of competant hairography, and the Maksim... being Maksim.

The scores this week were nuts. On the one hand, you had Macchio & Smirnoff and Jericho & Burke getting hit with every little technical deduction. Then you have to judges gushing over the dreck that Kendra and Louis through out there. To be fair, Louis was going with the spirit of the song, but Kendra's stomping all over the floor did not make it a dance.

The one thing that needs to happen: people need to start voting for Chelsea and Mark. She is good. She is probably the best of the female dancers left. The problem is America not voting for her. She does not deserve to be in the bottom. Hopefully people saw that this week. Fortunately, Mark resisted his urge to do something odd and showcased her doing a good party samba to that Miley Cyrus song.

So where does that leave us?

Who I'd like to see go home: Kendra. She's whining and complaining.

Who I think should go home: Kendra. Petra did enough to hang on, and for some reason the judges were gushing over their dance.

Who is getting hosed this week: Surprisingly, its not Macchio (though he is a close second). Its Chris Jericho. He's doing a lot better than I expected out of him and he's showing he really wants to do well. Give the dude a vote.

Who needs your help this week: Chelsea. She deserves to go on.

Royalties To Orwell Are Going to Be Due Soon

2011-04-15T18:21:00.001-07:00

The Daily Show - Slashdance - Democratic Deficit Reduction Plan
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

While I'm Thinking On Government Reform

2011-04-13T13:53:00.000-07:00

Is this a bad idea? As I was looking at news, I saw that BART is going to have to pay $1 million in severance to the outgoing director. And then I remember that Nathaniel Ford, who still hasn't managed to find a better job than being the head of the MTA here in San Francisco, has what is essentially a pay or play contract that makes it economically almost impossible to terminate. And I wonder to myself, whiny are entities funded by our tax dollars paying CEOs as if they were the heads of GM or Goldman Sachs?

Essentially they are just hired civil servants, right? I'm not trying to put down civil servants. I'd like to go back to being one. But why should the head of an agency that underperforms, as in the case of Mr. Ford, have a golden parachute that makes it nearly impossible to get rid of them. Especially when he has made it clear that he does not want to stay in the job.

Maybe we need an amendment to the city charter which prevents these types of contracts are being offered or allowed. I know the argument is that it will cost us good people at Lulu's two other municipalities. But so far, it hasn't brought us anybody who's delivered on any of the lawfully mandated minimum requirements either.

Obama Has To Be Pushed Kicking And Screaming To Act Like An Adult

2011-04-13T13:37:00.000-07:00

So earlier this year president Obama proposes one of the most ludicrous budget proposals floated by a sitting president in decades. It completely ignored the work done by the deficit reduction committee, a committee formed at his request, which issued its report late last year.

This budget, coming in at a whopping $3.7 trillion, showed that the president was completely not serious when it came to the question of how to deal with the budget deficit. (This budget claims to hold spending of $3.7 trillion, however other commentators have noted that the true cost of this budget could actually be closer to $5.8 trillion.) In fact, although he touted the proposal as one which would reduce the deficit, most, if not all, of the savings contained within the proposal would not occur until after Obama left office. That is, if he left office in 2016. In fact, most of the savings contained in his proposal were not actually savings at all. What they were, two thirds of the time, were simply a freeze in the amount that we would be spending. In other words, we still spend the same and not have to reduce anywhere.

Does that make sense to anyone else? What credit card company accept the argument that you have increased your spending, but merely maintain the same level but she did that sometime in the past?

Then we have the Republicans trying to make political hay out of this. A lot of them were recently elected on the promise they would cut $100 billion from the federal budget this year. The problem was, they seem to only target the parts of the budget which were controversial among their base. High on their list were Planned Parenthood and NPR.the problem with the Republican version of cutting the budget deficit is 1) the cuts were too small and 2) they did not address the problem of entitlements.

When they finally did manage to push through their cups, it seems the Republicans were just as dishonest about what they were cutting as the Democrats are in what they are "investing" in. Instead of actually cutting expenditures, it seems that the majority with the GOP managed to do a budget deal with the President that averted the shutdown, was to merely not spend money which has not been spent yet.

Add into that the problem of the debt ceiling and you think that some people would start taking process of reforming the budget a little more seriously.

It took the threat of a government shutdown for President Obama to his knowledge that maybe his proposal might not be on target. So then we get today's address from the president. after months of talking about "winning the future", and being confronted with Congressman Ryan's budget proposal (not perfect, but at least its an honest attempt to deal with the problems), that maybe something had to be done to look like he was going to do something about the problem. After all, he is up for election next year.

And nothing gets Obama working at the thought that he may have to campaign to on to his job.

So what does he do? He becomes a born-again believer in the deficit reduction commission of 2010 (aka National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform)! Except, he really doesn't. He just says that he wants to adopt some of the proposals of the committee that he created. And then ignored.

President Obama starts with the overused trope that, "We have to live within our means, we have to reduce our deficit, and we have to get back on a path that will oust to pay down our debt[.]" (Gee, you mean all those people who've been deficit hawks may actually have a point?) But, it wouldn't be a president Obama policy speech if he didn't have someone to blame for the problem that was going on. Fortunately, he can go to his old standby and blame President Bush for all problems. Nice to know that our president has his priorities straight and fixes the blame before he does anything else.

When the president finally deemed to describe what his plan would involve this is what we get:

Approximately $770 billion in nonsecurity, discretionary spending cuts through the year 2023. This would be coupled with $360 billion worth of cuts over the same period to mandatory spending. allegedly this would save approximately $1.1 trillion.. Heaven only knows if this is actual cuts or simply spending freezes, which don't actually reduce the amount of money we're spending. The

When it comes to the big problems, Medicare and Social Security, the President was much more vague as to what he wanted to do. the president Obama's plan, there will be no reason to the Medicare retirement age nor a switch in how payments under Medicare made. With regards to Social Security, president Obama was even less specific, although he did take the position that Social Security is not in crisis nor is it contributing to the deficit problem.

Apparently, Social Security is solvent because it still has assets. The assets which Social Security has are not cash on hand because that's already been spent. The assets which so security has our bonds which a purchase from the federal government. In order to get the money they would have to redeem the bonds from the federal government. Which would mean the government have to issue more bonds and take on more debt in order to pay the Social Security payments which people are entitled to. So no, I guess Social Security isn't insolvent, yet. It's just that the federal government is going to have to come up with a whole bunch of money to pay back to Social Security for the loans that it's taken out from Social Security over the years. (I would suggest you read this article written by someone a lot smarter than me on the subject.)

The President Obama's minds that must sound perfectly solvent and not a drain on the budget. To me it sounds like a house of cards about to be blown over.

The President's position seems even more absurd if you look at what he actually said in his speech. President Obama stated,

Up until now, the cuts proposed by a lot of folks in Washington have focused almost exclusively on that 12%. But cut to 12% alone won't solve the problem. So a serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, it takes on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget. A serious plan doesn't require us to balance our budget over night-in fact, economists think that with the economy district to grow again, we will need a phase I approach-but it does require tough decisions and support from leaders of both parties. And above all, it will require us to choose a vision of America we want to see live in 10 or 20 years down the road.

It's so nice to see that everything on the table means we're not going to talk about Social Security and Medicare changes.

President Obama went on to say that would be wrong to make changes to Medicare and Social Security because in 10 years it would affect a person who turns 65. That is, a hypothetical person who, 10 years from now, turns 65. 10 years is an awful long time to readjust your planning for the future. You can do a lot in a decade. Apparently, President Obama does not have the faith in the American people to make adjustments given a 10 year lead time.

Not content to believing that the average American is incapable of making any future plans, President Obama began to make the case for increasing taxes and decreasing the amount that Americans get to keep their own money. President Obama states, "Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, like homeownership for charitable giving, we cannot ignore the fact that they provide millionaires average tax break of $75,000 while doing nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn't itemize." To that end, the president is going to propose more changes to the tax code by restricting the amount of itemization deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.

Part of the reason why Americans donate to his right thing to do. Another part of why we donate is because it's something that we can write off our taxes, an incentive that the government encourages. In fact, in 2006 for instance, the donations by Americans equaled 1.7% of the total economy for that year. In terms of total dollars, those in the top tax brackets give more than those in the bottom. Percentage wise story is different.

In a way, this is an interesting insight into President Obama's philosophy. He is a liberal politician. And in this country, liberals give less of their money to charity then conservatives. To President Obama's mind, going after itemization such as charitable donations make sense. Why? Because, if the governments job to provide, and not the individual or local community groups.

In addition to calling for restrictions on itemization, President Obama then makes a rather interesting comment. He states, "But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That's why I'm calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple-so that the amount of taxes you pay isn't determined by what account and you can afford."this is curious for a number of ways. First, it suggests that individuals are escaping paying their tax liabilities a far higher rate than say corporations. Second, it seems to indicate that he wants to radically change the tax code in some fashion. Disney suddenly wants to go with a flat tax? I find that to be highly unlikely. Which brings me to my third question: is this president Obama's way of saying that he intends to start asking for a VAT tax?

(If you wish to read the entire speech, you can find it here.)

In short, this was another "hope and change" speech that ignores reality. President Obama is short on specifics, and long on platitudes. He calls on people to remember the better days that existed in the past and to hope that they will exist in the future while promising not to make any fundamental changes to massive burdens which are driving the deficit in this country.

Once again, President Obama refuses to deal with the problems this country faces and instead promises to continue the "bread and circuses" policy has been the heart of his administration. it seems that I President Obama's mind, there is no sacrifice worth taking today that can ensure the future tomorrow because to do so may cause someone discomfort.

While I do not like the idea of losing some of the cherished itemization benefits than current US tax code, I realize that there may come a time when those will have to be changed or abolished in favor of a system which adequately provide for the needs of the country. However, it is my belief that changes need to be made now and not in the future. plans for the future should be made based off of the worst-case scenario and not the best case scenario. It is also my belief that before we begin taking property away from people, whether it be through direct taxation or through amendments to the tax code which would abolish the advantages provided to a wide range of people through homeowner mortgage deductions or Roth IRAs, that we first make serious cuts alterations to the programs which we already have and have paid for.

Classical Week Madness On DWTS

2011-04-11T22:51:00.000-07:00

Alright, so if you haven't been paying attention, there's a little scandal brewing on Dancing With The Stars. It seems that Karina Smirnoff has posed for playboy. And she didn't clear it, or it seems notified, the show. This all started when Hef went and let the cat out of the bag in a tweet. Now, some stories are saying that if this is indeed true, DWTS is taking a dim view and will end her tenure on the show. Apparently, the ABC image makers are not pleased about this and view this as Karina sullying the reputation of the show for posing in Playboy.

Excuse me? This is the pot calling the kettle black. Over the past few seasons, they have been putting up celebrities who are known primarily because they have posed in Playboy (um...hello? Kendra this season and Pamela Anderson in season 10, Joanna Krupa in season 9, and Holly Madison in season 8 have all graced the pages of Playboy nude.) The ABC and DWTS need to get over themselves and let her go on. Its not going to make DWTS any more tawdry.

Back to our regular questions. Mrs. Angrybell wants to know if Brooke Burke is pregnant. Otherwise, she says, Ms. Burke needs to can her stylists for putting her in something that makes her look as big as Kirstie Alley.

Thankfully, this week the DWTS production crew told us who was dancing what. It didn't make sense to go through the whole introduction thing for the baby pros and then not tell us which pair is dancing which dance each week when they are so made up that its hard to tell.

Romeo and Chelsea lead off doing a paso. He has the right demeanor, but his steps, at least int eh begining are not confident enough. As it goes on, he starts to become more confident, but there are transitions where the flow stops and it hurts the dance. And then at the end, there is the gratuitous shirtlessness as he gores the cape. I'm not sure why he is goring the cape, he's supposed to be a matador and they gore the bull. Mrs. Angrybell would give it 7s. Instead, the judges went with a 7/8/8 for 23.

Kendra and Louis follow that up with a Viennese Waltz to "Time To Say Goodbye". She's got posture problems. She is making the right steps, but somehow is not getting the rise and fall down. During the spin, she got very afraid, and it caused her to blow it a bit, fortunately, Louis held her up. This dance is a bit of a dog's breakfast. Her arm are not strong, which is throwing her frame all over the place. At leat the death spiral went well. This was not a pretty dance. Mrs. Angrybell found herself in agreement with Carrie Ann for once, but that was about sexy and elegant comments. The 18 was a gift.

Anna and Sugar Ray are up to do a Viennese Waltz. All I can say is Anna looks tough. She may almost be as tough as my mother, who has been known to put the fear of G-d into combat veterans, but that's another story. Too much mucking about in the start of the dance. This is much better than what we saw from Kendra. The problem is that they went a little too much ballet in this dance and its over powering the viennese waltz flavor. It was a marked improvement over last week. He looks elegant. he flowed when they were in hold. My only criticism with the choreography is that it felt too ballet-ee. Sure, he's got some technical problems and sure his frame could have been better at times, but it was an improvement. Well he got better than 20, with the 21.

Dmitri and Petra are trying to get angry for their Paso Doble. They got a good song, whose name always escapes me. She has some stunningly ungraceful moments in this dance. I know it hard. But she is supposed to flow. There are a lot of transitions in this dance so far where she looks like she is stopping and then starting again. When she is in hold, things are uneven. Not good. Not terrible. But problematic. Its like a step sideways from last week. Bruno was watching a different dance. Either that or he felt like an hour was down and he hadn't gotten to start one of his almost stripteases. This 23 was too high.

Ralph and Karina are looking to come back from the rumba with this week's Viennese Waltz. The acting in the beginning was scaring small children. But then they got into the dance. He's actually got some heel leads in where appropriate. Len may cry if he realizes this. This song enforces a very slow tempo for the waltz, but he is doing a good job with it. It just looks like he is letting his bum out too much sometimes. The 25 felt a little low. I dunno, almost felt like there should have been a little more there.

Hines Ward and Kym are up looking to build off of last week. This week they're doing a paso doble. This is interesting. Where Romeo looked intense, even when his feet weren't showing the intensity, Hines' face does not look intense to start off, but his steps are intense. As it goes on, the two start to become in sync. I would not call this a perfect dance, but its being done very well. There is only one little hiccup towards the end where it looks like they got a little crossed up with their hands. The 25 was good, I think there should have been a second 9 in there.

Chelsea and Mark are up to do a Viennese Waltz. Her frame is nice. her footwork has a common problem of nocies. She is dancing it on her toes mostly. This is preventing her from always getting the nice rise and fall of a waltz. She really threw herself into that spin at the end. Shows how much she trusts him, which Kendra clearly did not with Louis. It was good. Not great. Bruno needs to work with his expelliarmus a bit.So there was a 26.

Are Chris and Cheryl up for the paso this week? Let's find out. They got a good song with the Sorcerer's Apprentice song. He has the look down. His footwork looks confident too. If I didn't know better, Id swear he was leading this dance. It was really good. The only time that it seemed to not look right was when he was stepping over her as she rolled in his hold parallel (more of less) to the ground. What Len was talking about in his critique was shading. He liked it. What would have made it better was if he had found a way to show an increase in the intensity and the force of the dance. They got hosed on the judging with the 23. It should have been a 25.

Kirstie and Maksim are up last tonight. Its a Viennese Waltz. With her hip injury. Why is it htat the singers have better dresses than Brooke Burke? Kirstie starts off the dance slightly ahead of the beat. And then her shoe falls off. But she laughs it off. There was some nice stuff there. The problem was, she was ahead of Maks. Now, when a guy does it, its not so noticeable. The problem is, she is supposed to be following Maks. The 22 was a gift.

So who should go home? I think its time to say good bye to Kendra. Her dance was not good. She is cracking. Its best she goes home now before something bad happens and she looks really bad. The flip side is Kirstie. She had a bad dance. The 8 from Bruno was a freaking gift. The question is do you penalize her for a bad dance, as opposed to Kendra who has been uneven at best.

Hosed of the week: Chris Jericho. That dance was much better than I thought it would be, but it just wasn't reflected in the scores. If you are looking for someone to vote for, give him your vote, he probably needs it.

Elections Matter - 2012 Starting Up

2011-04-05T15:38:00.000-07:00

So I'm still reeling from the fact that my beloved San Francisco Giants managed to drop three of four to the hated Los Angeles Dodgers over the weekend when Monday morning rolled in, and I discovered another reason to darken my mood: President Obama is in fact going to run for reelection. under some thinking, somewhere, it's not like president Obama had a choice. He's the officeholder, therefore, he is supposed to run for reelection.

Because apparently, that's the way it's supposed to work.

In America, we can to reelect our president's. Good bad or indifferent, the incumbent officeholder usually beats the challenger. It doesn't take a PhD in history to see that's true. President Reagan and President Bush, the younger, both managed to hold onto their jobs despite having large portions of the population vehemently against their policies. President Clinton did not have nearly the problems of either Reagan or Bush, the younger, plus he had the damage of writing a pretty good economy into the election. In the past 30 years, the only president to be unseated by a challenger was President George H. W. Bush (or Bush, the elder). Bush, the elder, had the misfortune of writing a weakening economy into the election which was coupled with a lack of vision of how to move forward.

If you look at the numbers, President Obama should lose.

President Obama was elected on the promise that he would restore hope in effect change. You made a grand list of campaign promises which included closing Guantánamo Bay, restoring American prestige abroad, strengthening the economy, doing something about the foreclosure mess, and reforming health care. So let's look at what he's done.

He failed to close the Guantánamo Bay prison. Whether or not President Obama has restored American prestige abroad depends on your viewpoint. If you prefer the United States to be the contritional apologist who expresses remorse for nearly every action taken in the foreign-policy arena over the past 10 years, coupled with indecision and abdication when it comes to decisions about international crises, then yes, President Obama has restored the United States' prestige.

When it comes to the foreclosure crisis, president Obama did proposing get past a plan which was supposed to encourage resolution that would allow people to keep their homes. However, the plan was so weak, the mandates ineffectual, and the incentives essentially nonexistent, that it has been roundly viewed as a failure. As he demonizes Wall Street fortes profiteering over the foreclosure debacle, he has created a new regime of rules which are designed to prevent a future housing bubble crisis. Yet, under his administration, there has not been an investigation or prosecution, that I am aware of, of any allegedly guilty party.

I suppose it's easier to talk about going after Wall Street rather than actually trying to enforce the laws which are really on the books.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Victory Lapse - Obama Transparency Award

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

Then there is present health care's great gift to this country: health-care reform. Sold to the American public, which so far hasn't been willing to buy it, as a panacea for all problems. In one hand, it's supposed to make us healthier and give more people access to healthcare done under the current regime. On the other, is a deficit cutting tool which will bring balance back to the budget. So successful is this piece of legislation, that since its passage health-care costs have actually increased. Not only have costs increase, but the administration has been handing out waivers (essentially passes which allows certain groups to not have to conform with the law) to at least thousand entities.when you combine a waverers and the increasing costs, question has to be asked: what good is health-care reform if it only makes the problem worse?

Finally, there is the economy. Obama may not wrecked it, but there is little to show that he's actually helped. In 2008 and 2009, when TARP in the stimulus package were being debated, numbers were produced by Obama's team showing that without these packages unemployment would run up to 8% in 2009 and than 9% in 2010. with the stimulus, they confidently predicted that unemployment would peak at 8%. is April 5, 2011, the unemployment rate stands at 8.8%.

Stolen from Ace.mu.nu

At the beginning of his term, the job losses were understandable. He was in fact inheriting a mess. However, after a while, that became the only excuse for what was happening. And President Obama never failed to remind us that this was not his fault.

Apparently, President Obama does not subscribe to the theory of "the buck stops here".

Broken promises. Ineffective laws. Lack of progress. And he thinks that he deserves to keep his job for another four years. Why?

Well according to the ads that he already has up and running on the web, its because people trust him. And it may be that a plurality (about 46%) of the people in this country do trust President Obama. It shocks the hell out of me because he has done absolutely nothing to earn that trust.

So we'll have to ask yourselves between now and November 2012, is why should we vote for this man? For one thing, even after four years in office, it appears that he values only one thing: remaining president. He does not lead. He allows others to take the initiative and then hold a press conference to correct misconceptions opposition that he subsequently claimed as his own, even though it was staked out by another subordinate member of his party.

He has not reached across the aisle to produce a bipartisan legislation, something he stressed in his previous campaign. Why is that? Because he's consistently taken the position that is palatable only to the extreme left of the Democratic Party. He has been as divisive, in his own way, as Bush, the younger, was from 2000 to 2008.

The question of whether or not bipartisanship is actually desirable is debatable. There have been long periods of time in this country where the parties were bitterly divided, the nation succeeded. The reason we were successful was because both parties realized that at the end of the day if you wanted to retain power, and they needed to either win the argument or achieve a compromise that benefited them. From 2006 until 2010, the Democratic Party controlled Congress. From 2009, onward, they also controlled the White House. In that time, they were unable to deliver substantial progress on any of the issues which are important to the people of this country with the sole exception of healthcare. Judging on those results, as well as the writer which they continue to trot out about what their plans and visions are for the future, how can we say that these people should retain the White House?

President Obama has been ineffective. On at least two occasions during his term of office he has consciously taken actions which are contrary to his duties as president has laid out in the Constitution of the United States. He should have been impeached. If we as citizens vote this man another term of office, and we say that what he has done meet with our approval.

President Obama does not merit nor deserve another four years in office.

Joyous Madness in the Post Lacey Era of Dancing With The Stars

2011-04-04T22:31:00.000-07:00

Oh it is so good to say that. Lacey Schwimmer is gone. I'm actually bummed that Psycho Mike is gone, he was kind of fun.

Thank you DWTS for letting the baby pros do a bit before the dancing to show us what it should look like. Maybe some of the people in the audience will remember it when its time to boo down Len. Nah. Judging by the way the girl did the rhumba, Edyta has some competition from the baby pros.

Mrs. Angrybell reaction to Brooke's outfit was, "Well... yeah... Noooooooooooooooo!" Apparently, the rebellion of the costuming department against Brooke Burke continues.

Wendy Williams and Tony Dovolani lead-off looking to build on last week. But which is the real Wendy? Last week or opening week? DJ Saved My Life, interesting choice for a foxtrot. There was some Tony gropage there. This is not working real well as a song. The other problem is she is not very fluid. Her footwork is more of stomping in this one and her frame is nonexistent at times with really week arms. At the end, Tony looks like "I don't know what that was ... well they can only hate us so much." The 15 was generous in my opinion. This was not good.

Chelsea and Mark are looking to get back in the judges' good graces. It almost looks like Mark is more in touch with his feminine side than Chelsea is. Angrybabybelle was trying to learn the dance along with Chelsea. So let's see this cha cha cha. Takes too long to get into the meat of the dance. Len wont love that. Her hip movement is not great, but its there. Her footwork could be better, but she is having the same problem that Kendra had in the first week with not getting her legs fully straight. They stayed in the syllabus of moves, but it was not her best dance this season. The judges were confused, because Carrie Ann was right, she did look like Julianne. 7 and two 8s (from Bruno and Len) was crazy. Its almost like the fix was in on this dance.

Chris Jericho and Cheryl are up now. Good grief, he chose "Let It Be". Ugh, just such a downer song. His footwork is not bad, but he is not getting the hip action he should be. Mrs. Angrybell says "Cheryl is so good because she makes her partners look so good." This may not have been intentionally sexy, but it was. It was a very good rhumba. Now I have to completely look at this year again. If it wasn't for that weird hip action or non action. And of course, Carrie Ann is all but sobbing. Given the way tonight has gone, the 21 is right on.

Kendra and Louis. Oh dear, what is her "thing" going to be tonight? This rhumba is going to be interesting. And it starts off in smoke. Maybe Louis needs to rethink that. No one can see her and she trips going down the stairs. She has hip action, but its not going the right way with the music. This costume is causing her problems because she keeps having to readjust her hands to deal with its flowingness. At times, this dance looked great. At times, it looked messy because her legs once again were not extending fully and it was taking away from what would have been a good dance. Guess they need to go to another yard sale for a new smoke machine. Len was right, there was an improvement. Carrie Ann is back to hitting the pipe with the review she is giving this dance. 23 seemed a little high. I would have given it a 7.

Romeo and Chelsea Hightower doing a rhumba. In his leprechaun shoes. Hip action was pretty much non-existent until he passed Chelsea through his legs. Its nice. Its nothing special though. He wasn't comfortable with this dance. Either that or he is about as divorced from his emotions as L. J. Gibbs. The 20 was generous. It could easily have been 18.

Hines Ward and Kym doing a samba. He looks confident. He is getting his hips into, more so than any of the men tonight. However, he is not quiet getting the good boucne that you see in teh samba, and part of that I think is he is taking such large steps at times. It was pretty good. It just seemed odd because the song is not what I would think of as a samba song normally. I'm split on this dance., It was good, but was it good enough? Dunno. Apparently, the new rule is if Carrie Ann is wearing her engagement ring, she will give effusive reviews proclaiming everything as the greatest ever. Bruno gets caught up in the Carrie Ann tsunami. A 9 and two 8s. Mrs. Angrybell thinks he got an extra point because Carrie Ann is no longer an old maid.

Petra and Dmitri doing a ... waltz to You Raise Me Up. Her frame is pretty good. Her problem, even obscured by all the fog, is ok with the problem she is doing the dance on her toes. This means that hte rise and fall is not natural and has to be forced. It looked great because she got the flow, but technically, it had some problems in the feet. Overall, a significant improvement over the last two weeks. Len's 9 was a little too much. The 25 was .... high, but given the way this week is heaidng, I suppose its not that out of whack.

Sugar Ray and Anna are hearing the bell. This should play to him this week because he is doing the Paso Doble. Sugar Ray mustve called in a favor to get that Lets Get Ready To Rumble dude. The dance was good, not great, but definitely going in the right direction. Given the way his improvement is going, he's not going ot go that far. But he is going to be safe for a while, given the votes. The 20 was fair.

Kristie and Maksim are up next to do a rhumba to Somewhere Over the Rainbow. Right out the gate it is a train wreck, but the recovery is good. Something went wrong on the first move and Maks went down hard. He looked like he was having to really gut through that performance. He may need to go the doc and have that looked at because it looked really painful. Of course, I'm not sure who could support that amount of weight. Kristie, on the other hand, did what she could do. She is not the most flexible of the contestants, but her footwork was pretty good.

Ralph and Karina. Mrs. Angrybell can't get over the wedding dresses which were in fashion back in 1987. Let's see this Stay Gold rhumba. Arms are better but not where they need to be. His footwork is pretty good, but is holding his hips level. Its not easy for a guy to get the hip action going, but he is having as much trouble, but in different ways, than Chris Jericho. Mrs. Angrybell's feeling was "It was an ok dance, but the song was gawdawful." Seriously, though, Ralph Macchio looks like a 20-something dating a cougar rather a 50-something married to a 50-something. Mrs. Angrybell believes that Mrs. Macchio is in fact Scorpius. The 21 was not great and Ralph is clearly not happy with it

Going strictly on the dancing tonight, the one in jeopardy has got to be Wendy Williams. Front runners has shifted given the way that Macchio's dance was judged. Chris Jericho or Hines Ward are arguably the favorites, given this week plus the fact that they were building on good performances last week.

Have I Figured It Out?

2011-04-01T11:01:00.000-07:00

And no I'm not talking about why Bochey refused to play fundamental baseball last night against the Dodgers. Don't even get me started on what you should do in a one run game when your team has not been hitting and you get a lead off walk.....

Moving on. To figuring out what President Obama is thinking of when it comes to Libya.

After dithering for weeks, and failing to consult with Congress, Presidnet Obama ordered U.S. military forces into action over Libya. The mission, of kinetic action as they liked to call it in the Obama Administration, was ostensibly to establish a no-fly zone. However, its quickly turned into a ground attack mission to support the rebels, even though President Obama will not admit to it.

Today, the Obama Administration announced that as of Saturday, US air combat assets will be withdrawn from Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR (previously known as Operation ODYSSEY DAWN aka bombing-Qaddafi-in-the-hopes-that-he-will-relinquish-power-to-the-rebels-whom-he-has-on-the-ropes-and-will-probably-exterminate-in-order-to-prove-Obama-is-not-indecisive). The reason given? The Obama Administration hopes that our NATO partners will take up the slack.

Why is he doing this? I cannot tell you. There does not appear to be another crisis which poses an imminent threat to our national interests for which the air craft currently deployed to UNIFIED PROTECTOR are needed. If there are, everyone has been strangely silent about it. Yes, there is fighting going on around the world and, yes, the United States military is in the middle of some of it, but its not like we're fending off an invasion of South Korea.

Why do I think he is doing this? The cynical part of me thinks this is one more chance for Obama to try and defy logic and reason while at the same time throwing our allies under the bus. Libya, as evil as Qaddafi is, has not been a vital U.S. interest in years. Most of this has to do with the actions of Reagan and Bush. Why? Reagan's raid in 1986, as well as other actions, showed Qaddafi's impotence at projecting power even to the so-called "Line of Death". Bush, that would be George W. Bush, cut the deal in 2004 which ended the Libyan nuclear program. An even more cyncial part of me believes its because the poll numbers supporting this have dropped off quickly. Great. We're starting wars to support his poll numbers now?

Is he doing this because the mission has been completed? Well, let's take a look. Qaddafi's forces seem to be maintaining the upper hand in the fighting that over the last few weeks. There are reports that the rebel forces are down to maybe 1,000 active fighters, who ill-equipped, ill-disciplined, and lacking in munitions, and it appears that the desert tribes are remaining somewhat loyal to the Qaddafi regime.

So what has President Obama's military action done? Has it ended the threat of a massacre of the rebels and the civilians who passively supported them? No. Its merely put the day of reckoning off a little.

Last week, President Obama said,

To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and — more profoundly — our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.

But apparently every single statement there is a lie. We have a responsibility as a leader because of what the United States is. Yet, with his declaration today, we abdicate, again, our position of leadership in this crisis. We remove from the operation our Navy and Air Force, which has provided the bulk of the combat power, and leave the operation in the hands of a NATO force which is not unified in either purpose or capabilities. The statement released indicated that the U.S. would reconsider the use of combat air craft if the situation became dire enough. So I guess it would mean that President Obama will "wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves" before he continues to take action.

This decision, however, does more than abandon Libyans opposing Qaddafi. Its an action that will embolden other evil-doers who wish to take by force what they are not entitled to have by any other means. Why? Because they see evidence that our nation is unwilling to complete the tasks for which we volunteer. Because they see evidence that our nation will not support the aspirations of people attempting to throw off a tyrannical dictator. Because they see that we are weak.

And when people believe that the world power is weak, that is when dangerous things begin to happen.

So actually, no, I have not figured out why President Obama is doing what he is doing. It makes little sense. He is removing nearly half of the combat strength of UNIFIED PROTECTOR. The largest member of the coalition now is France, with 33 aircraft involved, supported by its carrier. Apparently, President Obama is ignoring the lessons of Rwanda and Srebrenica, both places where the U.S. stayed out of the way, allowing our European allies to act alone without out us.

Apparently, the Obama Doctrine can be summarized as this "The United States will act only in the interest in protecting the reputation of Barack H. Obama and only so long as there is clear support to be found in the poll numbers."

Or am I missing something?

I Guess Its Time To Bash Tenant's Rights Again

2011-03-30T16:42:00.000-07:00

As if it's not hard enough being a tenant in San Francisco...

Today on SFgate.com, the webpage the San Francisco Chronicle, there was a headline link to one of the blogs which stated, "Why are so many S.F. Homes vacant?" Underneath that, the subtitle reads, "San Francisco has a higher rate of vacancies than the state and surrounding counties. Is rent control to blame?"

Because that's not in the least bit priming the pump for some more anti-tenant rhetoric, is it? I suppose that's the way the responsible journalism organization makes its money. It takes a target that easy to not like, in this case those awful tenants, and then suggests a problem that may or may not be caused by them.

The big selling point of the "article" is that vacancy rates in San Francisco are hovering around 8.3%.However, a paragraph later, the author notes that vacancy rates in California are hovering at 8.1%. Somehow, a .2% difference represents a drastic difference in the vacancy rates and therefore must mean that there is a problem in our fair city.

Well, if you look at the census data itself, you will see that in fact California does have a vacancy rate throughout the state of 8.1%. and if you bother to look at the last column, you'll also note that there is a margin of error of + or -.2%. so if you do that really complicated map that you learned in the first grade, and you subtract 8.1% from 8.3%, then you will find that there is only a .2% difference. Or you might find that San Francisco's vacancy rate the margin of error.

But I guess it makes for a better tagline to blame the tenants for a problem that doesn't exist. What else should we expect from a paper that ignores have problems, unless it doesn't fit into their nice and neat worldview? And a big thank you to the author of that blog, Jenny Pisillo, for giving such a fair and balanced piece which will only serve to give the landlord lobby one more piece of ammunition to use against the tenants. Perhaps she can go back to doing what you do best, which is highlighting houses for sale and their prices.

Before the First Reveal Madness, Week Two of Dancing With The Stars

2011-03-28T22:28:00.000-07:00

Opening question for this week: Did the Taliban get control of Brooke Burke's wardrobe. Usually she's in something that makes her look like what she is. This week, its either she's heading in from a funeral or they've decided that the "stars" are tired of being upstaged by her.

Going into tonight, the one who has to turn in a big performance has to be Wendy Williams. She had a terrible first week, which frankly did not look like there was going to be much in the way of redeeming qualities hidden in it. It was Master P bad, but with effort.

This week Anna and Sugar Ray drew the lead-off spot doing the Jive. Thee kicks and flicks are not as crisp as they need to be, but then this is the second week. His posture, which was the problem last week is not as big of a deal, but he has a hunch to the way he moves sometimes, which I think is a remnant of being a boxer. But when he gets into open, he looks like he is having fun and doing a good job at the same time. It was ok. I'd give it a six. Len comes out and calls him on all the technical things. I think I'm agreeing with Bruno this time, there was something there, but it needs to be refined and sharpened. Sixes and a five for seventeen.

Kendra Wilkinson and Louis were up next. This week they are doing the quickstep. Oh hell, Kendra has her first breakdown this week. Mrs. Angrybell says that a tomboy would not be out there crying. Louis starts her out in open, which might hae been a mistake because she got off beat pretty fast and that does not look good. When they get into hold, she does better, but she keeps pulling away from him and not putting her hip on his. She is also having balance problems because I think she is missing steps. Her posture is mostly ok, but she could be locked in tighter with her arms. The problem I think was the choreography. Louis started her off in a hard thing for a novice, namely the open routine, and then she never really recovered her confidence. This is step back for her. What dance was Carrie Ann watching? She saw something that neither Mrs. Angrybell nor myself saw. I think that Carrie Ann is starting to affect Len's judgment based on what he said. Fortunately, Len comes back with the right score of a 6. Coupled with Carrie Ann's 7 and Bruno 6 and its a respectable, for the 2nd week, 19.

Next up is Chelsea Kane with Mark. Mrs. Angrybell approves of this week's deviation from the Florence Henderson look. They are doing a jive. To a song that I cant even tell what the heck it is. She is going for it. She is a little flat on her feet,but her kicks are good. Angrybabybelle is dancing along with them, so it must be entertaining her. The first problem was the song. Its would not be my first choice for a jive. Mark went a little too far with it, but what choice did he have with this? So of course, Carrie Ann calls them on it. This dance was not Chelsea's fault. She did what Mark told her to do. The question is, how much do you penalize her for it. The 18 was correct score based on what happened (a bit of a penalty but not a crippler), even if it came about oddly.

Christ Jericho and Cheryl came up next for a quickstep. Mrs. Angrybell, during the Jericho solilquoy on strong wood, said "He needs to be Joby wood!" They drew a better song for the quicksept. He starts off with a good frame and his footwork is looking respectable. He even manages a smile. He does some nice kicks and flicks, much sharper than Sugar Ray in thejive. I actually really liked it. For a big guy who didn't seem to move well in his last dance. One other thing he did better than the others so far tonight Len hits it: bright, breezy, fun. 23

Petra and Dmitri, doing a jive. It gets better when the clothes came off because the start was not good. Mrs. Angrybell thinks she is off. I think she starts slow, but she is getting better as things are going and then there is somethign that went horribly wrong right before the trick. I think she was thinking too much about the trick that it dominated her dance to the point where things went bad. Then Dmitri puts her up on the desk for a bit. This was nice to look at but not that good. Mrs. Angrybell felt like she was not sharp and very wooden. Compare her dance to Stacey Keibler a few seasons back and that is what a tall girl should look like doing the jive. Len is spot on when he said short skirt, bad technique. The 6s were overly generous. There should have been one or two fives in there.

Kirstie Alley and Maksim were called to the floor to perform a quick step. Black Horse and a Cherry Tree. Maksim starts her out in an open. She looks like she was hanging on to the routine for dear life and then looks better once they go into fhold. For big woman, she is moving well in hold. She has a good frame for the first half, it starts to weaken as the dance goes on, but she is right on his hip whens he is supposed to be and that makes the dance look better. For example, her left arms starts to drop and her bum starts to sneak out and that affected her balance. The problem is she starts to tire as the dance goes on and that hurts her posture starts to suffer. Len was too harsh with that 6. The score was a 20.

Psycho Mike and Lacey of the Tragic Hair are hoping to avoid elimination with their jive. Mrs. Angrybell thinks he looks scared. Lacey has been shopping in Edyta's closet and it doesn't look good on her. There are parts of this dance that are good. His kicks and flicks are very sharp and spot on. The problem is, he is not linking his moves together. Its like nice combination and then move to where the next move will be. At times, he had the footwork down, but he was more stomping than dancing. He made it look good though. It was a definite improvement. 17 was a fair scored for that.

Romeo and Chelsea are up to show if Romeo can improve on a good start. You're The One That I Want is the song. Mrs. Angrybell doesn't feel Chelsea's hair is right for the timeperiod for this song. He is a little too far away from her in the dance, but his arms are locked in. It feels loose, not sharp. Its not a bad quickstep, its just... lack in in polish I think. Mrs. Angrybell counters that the song may have driven the movements. All I can say, Jericho did better. I think Len may have had a stroke when he calls this dance the dance of the night. And yet, they earned a 23.

Wendy Williams and Tony Dovolani are looking to redeem themselves. Let's see if this is another train wreck. Its a quickstep that starts off with mucking about, yeah Tony, Len is going to love this. The kicks and flicks in the corner were ok, precise but not sharp. When they did the next set, they looked better, but not by much. And then there is mucking about at the end. It was better than last week, so its an improvement. Mrs. Angrybell felt she was trying to be small and not big. Of course, Carrie Ann views it entirely differently. And Len smacks Tony with the "economical" comment. That should read "Tony, you need to have your partner dance the dance more and not hide her with mucking about you twit." A 17 is spot on for this one.

The Karate Kid and Karina (I guess it would be bad to call them team KK and K). Mrs. Angrybell believes that Ralph and Demi sold their souls to the devil to look this good. They start off the jive strong. He looks like he is having fun. Mrs. Angrybell is reminded of Drew Lachey when she watches him.. There are times when it seems loose or not fully in control on his part. Its a good routine, but he set a high bar for himself after last week. He has some stamina problems like Kirstie. Len says it better when he called it "frantic" at times. The 21 was fair.

Hines Ward and Kym Johnson got to follow up Ralph and Karina doing a quickstep. Like all the other guys tonight, he has been dancing primarily on his toes and not doing the properly footwork. Its not a slap, its just something I haven't mentioned at all. His posture seems to be hilding which is good for a guy with shoulder problems. Mrs. Angrybell points out that he looks like he is in a little pain doing that. It was good. It was fun. I'm a little mystified at the love for this routine. It earns a 23, which is what Jericho got.

Alright, so we've seen them all twice. Who should go home? Its either Psycho Mike or Wendy Williams. The best of the men, surprisingly it could be Chris Jericho... if he keeps up the work. The more consistent top of the board for the men is Ralph Macchio. Sugar Ray looks out of his element. He'll hang around for a while because he has a fan base, but he does not look like a contender. Romeo is a bit of wild card here. If he continues to progress, he will become a real threat.

The women are a little more interesting. Wendy Williams is thanking her lucky stars that Psycho Mike is there, because it gives some people an excuse to keep her on the show. The best of the women right now is Kirstie Alley. She is having fun. She is able to keep up with choreography. Her downside is that she is out of shape and tires during her dances. Petra looks like she will hang around for a while, but she is not showing much. Kendra Wilkinson is kind of the wild card here. She has some athletic ability and she showed promise in the first week, but then took a step back this week. The biggest threat, or would be if she has a fan base from her Disney/Jonas fans, is Chelsea Kane. She moves well. She keeps up with the choreography. Her greatest liability right now, oddly enough, is Mark and his occasional flights of fancy.

Who should go home: Psycho Mike.

New CIA Program...

2011-03-27T15:36:00.000-07:00

CIA's 'Facebook' Program Dramatically Cut Agency's Costs

Opening Night Madness

2011-03-21T23:09:00.000-07:00

Opening Night is here at last. Here we go.

First up is Chelsea Kane and Mark doing a Foxtrot. Mrs. Angrybell wonders if Florence Henders knows that Chelsea stole Mrs. Brady's hair style while Jan was complaining about Marsha. Its not bad. The problem is the footwork is not spot on, but she's faking the flow until she tried to do the side by side kicks. She has the character of the dance, but her footowrk needs help. She is not getting the heel ball changes. She had a couple of stumbles. It could stand some improvement. Who is sitting in for Bruno tonight. No gushing. Constructive criticism. Whats up with this? Sevens across the board, but then again she is the first through the door.

Next up Wendy Williams and Tony Dovolani took the floor. Mrs. Angrybell is stunned by her. Poor Tony, he drew the waterworks. And all this over the cha cha cha? Whats going to happen when she hits the two dances. This is not looking good for Wendy. Mrs. Angrybell is shocked by the lack of rhythm from her. She is heavy on her feet. Now I cannot figure out if this is nerves or if we have finally found this year's Kenny Mayne. There's nothing good here other than the fact she managed to stay up right. Six weeks for this? Oh dear. Len's line of the night nominee: "Your dumplings are boiling over." If she wants to survive, if thats possible, she's going to have to get much lighter on her feet. 5s and a 4. They were being kind to her.

Mrs. Angrybell just wants to stay that whatever that thing on Brooke Burke's dress is just wrong.

Hines Ward is going to be Kym Johnson's project this year. She has her work cut out for her. Let's see how he handles the cha cha cha. He needs to get his bum in. Its substituting his bum for hip movmeent, but it gets better as the dance moves along. He gets combinations of moves down and then he has a little hiccups when he starts to think. He alternates between stomping and and footwork. There is hope in this dancing. Mrs. Angrybell calls for 6s. Ward benefits from the train wreck of Wendy Williams, but still Bruno scares everyone, including Angrybabybell. He ends up with 7s across the board.

Petra Nemcova is hoping that she follows in the footsteps of Brooke Burke and not Paulina Poriskova . And she draws the foxtrot this week. She's dancing on her toes too much,but its not looking bad. Dmitri and Petra got a nice song for this dance, which helps. Dmitri has kept it nice and simple, and restrained his impulse to do things that Len hates, right up until the end. I'm curious to see what she can do with an up tempo dance. Bruno again comes up with the good comments about linking together all the movements. Apparently Carrie Ann saw a lift. The lift police rides again. She scores 6s across the board. Mrs. Angrybell thinks at least one of the points comes for being a Tsunami survivor.

Chelsie Hightower is off to find out if Romeo shares the dancing gene his father, Master P, has. Mrs. Angrybell thinks Romeo looks like the mating of Urkel and Will Smith. He is very flat on his feet when he steps and looks way too serious for a cha cha cha. Mrs. Angrybell thinks it must be dancing with a frong because his tongue is always out. He is heavy on his feet and his hip movement is not there. But that is because of his footwork. Mrs. Angrybell felt like he was off beat, but a marked improvement to Master P. Damn, Bruno and I are sharing a brain tonight. I amscared. The score of 19 leaves me mystified as to how Carrie Ann went to 7 for him.

Sugar Ray Leonard comes out with Anna. I am curious to see what will happen. They are starting off with foxtrot. Interesting song, Power of Love, never though of it as a foxtrot. He is a little stiff, and his shoulders are up by his ears. This is going to be hard because of posture. Footwork is not where it should be, but he looks comfortable in the open which is rare for an early week dance. He seems to want to put a little showmanship into it. He, like many of the other men so far tonight, is heavy and flat on his feet. If he wants to get better, he needs to get his posture together. Another Lenism for the night "Foxtrot is fine wine and caviar. That was beer and pizza." Carrie Ann once again is the soft touch and gives him a 6. He ends up with a 17.

Kendra Wilkinson is the anchor around Louis Van Amstel's neck this season. Mrs. Angrybell, who was a huge fan of the Girls Next Door, is afraid for this cha cha cha. Of course, Holly did not set the bar that high for her. Footwork is ok, but she is not getting a lot of hip action going on. She looks lost in the open, which is not surprising. Mrs. Angrybell feels like she is not finishing her movements because she is late. She is not embarrassing, but not great either. Louis is not making this easy on her. I feel like he is saying, "Either sink or swim. If you suck, I'm outta here quicker." It was nice to see Hef and his fiancee out to cheer her on. And Len explains what the problem is, she never got full extension off her legs. She scored sixes for an 18.

Ralph Macchio has Karina Smirnoff to help him. He looks good for being 49. Mrs. Angrybell says "Do not embarass the Italians!" The Irish/Lithuanians in the audience couldn't care. He is not bad. He needs to get his steps a little smaller, but he is going big with his hands, but just not full extension on some of his moves. Karin gave him a tricky foxtrot with a lot of little movements to do. His posture at times slips away when his shoulders go up. But that open side by side int he mid point of the routine was pretty good. The final spin was not pretty, but overall, it was food. Bruno liked it. Len is right so far, best foxtrot of the night. The 8s were appropriate for tonight.

Chris Jericho and Cheryl Burke doing a cha cha cha. He is heavy on his feet and Cheryl is keeping him pretty stationary. This does not bode well. He is trying to get some hip action in there, but its only when he really focuses on it. He is not getting the steps in right, its almost looking like a jive. Cheryl may have an early season this year if the lack of content for him is any predictor. I'm not sure that Carrie Ann was watching the same dance, because there is no way that dance was a 7 this week or any week. Mrs. Angrybell wants to know what Jericho has on Carrie Ann for blackmail.

Then there is some DJ named Mike Catherwood with Lacey Schwimmer. Lacey's hair has gotten worse. Mrs. Angrybell is willing to take up a collection to put us out of her misery. Finally, they get to the foxtrot portion of the night. Psycho Mike is trying, but he has some problems. His posture is variable. His footwork is, ... well... yeah. I don';t think that the Karate Kid needs to worry about this. It was not as bad a train wreck as Wendy Williams, but who knows, given a chance he could find that ability. Mrs. Angrybell wants to know if Lacey was trying act as a cellphone tower in that outfit. Wow, he pulls a 13 with a 5 and two 4s. Ugliness.

Lt. Savik, I mean Kirstie Alley comes out with Maksim. I'm not sure who is showing more chest, Kirstie or Maksim. They also got the best song for the cha cha chas tonight with Cee Lo Green's F-You. For someone as heavy as her, she moves a lot lighter on her feet than many of the other women. She is even getting some hip movement in there because she is getting her legs to extend. This was not a typical Maksim choreographed dance, since he kept it pretty simple and managed to make her look good in the process. I kinda of liked it. Two 8s and a 7 for 23.

This is a little unusual. The two best stars (Kirstee Alley and Ralph Macchio) so far are two of the oldest, with a third (Sugar Ray Leondard) looking like he might have a shot at improving. On the other hand, the younger ones are not showing up too well. Chelsea Kane is ok. Romeo needs help, but has a lot of work.

If Wendy Williams is not careful, she is going home next week. Of course, Chris Jericho may want to give her a run for her money.

Favorites have to be Kirstie Alley and Ralph Macchio.

Obama and Eisenhower

2011-03-12T15:59:00.000-08:00

There is a civil war going on in Libya. Egypt is relatively quiet for the moment, but disturbing questions are starting to be asked about the military's commitment to elections. Japan has just undergone a massive 8.9 earthquake, followed by tsunami, and now looks to undergo a possible meltdown at two of its nuclear facilities. Along with all this, there is an economic recovery that is barely producing any jobs, a massive debate over the future of public employee unions in America, and don't forget there are soldiers fighting for us in Afghanistan.

So where is President Obama? He's playing a round of golf. Again.

Now before we.. I... condemn him too quickly for playing another round of golf, let's take a step back and look at the original Golfer-in-Chief: President Dwight David Eisenhower.

According to records, President Eisenhower played golf on average twice a week while in office. He was known to shoot 3 holes before breakfast when he was leading the liberation of Europe during the Second World War.

But then, maybe President Eisenhower earned the right to go hit the golf balls twice a week while president. As president, he quietly had a list of accomplishments which, if you put them in the context of his time, were pretty impressive.
When it came to civil rights,

He appointed judges and got them passed despite fierce opposition from Southern Conservatives who saw those appointees as an attack on segregation and Jim Crow laws.
He got Congress to pass the first civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. Sure, it was not as strong as the law he originally hoped would pass, but it was the first step by any U.S. president to redress the problems of equality in eight decades.
He appointed officials who desegregated Washington D.C.

In other areas,

He met the challenge of posed by the Soviet launch of Sputnik by revamping and updating the way we went about teaching students with the National Defense Education Act.
He helped establish a foundation that would prove to be invaluable for the advancement of science and technology by authorizing the creation of NASA and DARPA.
He pushed for the creation of the Interstate Highway System.

He was no slouch when it came to foreign policy, national defense, or the economy:

He got a cease fire signed to end the fighting in the Korean War. More than 50 years later, that cease-fire still holds.
He ended the Suez Crisis by refusing to give France and Great Britain carte blanche in Egypt and using economic power to stop the military campaign in order to prevent Soviet intervention there.
Oversaw possibly the most successful U.S. peacekeeping mission when he ordered troops to Lebanon as part of Operation Blue Bat to prevent the overthrow of Lebanese government.
He kept the national debt low and held inflation to almost zero.
He refused to become actively involved in Vietnam, despite French pleas for a ground commitment from the US.
He completed the process of desegregating the U.S. Armed forces.

Did I mention he probably also suffered from Crohn's Disease, had a heart attack while in office, and a stroke to boot?

Not everything that Eisenhower did was perfect. He made mistakes. One of the greatest was his failure to help the Hungarian rebellion. Another was his decision to force Britain and France to stop their reconquest of the Suez Canal. But when something needed to be done, he took action.

Meanwhile, we have President Obama. During his term of office, he has managed to do the following:

Pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Unemployment hovered near 10% nationwide, only dipping to 8.9% two years after its passage.
Passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Health Care and Education Reconcilliation Act of 2010. Together, these two acts make up healthcare reform. Healthcare insurance costs became more unaffordable.
Passed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009.
Closed Guantanamo prison and took the enemy combatants captured out of the legal limbo which they existed.
Took a stand against dictators who oppressed their citizens.
Used his office to help effect peaceful change in the world.
Helped to end the U.S.'s dependence on oil from unstable/unsavory sources.
Ended DOMA.
Held a conference on Bullying.
Repeatedly promised he would stop smoking.

Ok. So the last one was a little petty, but then again, President Eisenhower went cold turkey and quit a 4 pack a day habit.

When there was a crisis, Eisenhower lead. Sometimes it was by showing that he was not concerned about the problem, that it would not hold him hostage. However, he took action.

Conversely, Obama has talked a big game about what he would do as president. How he would deploy smart diplomacy to deal with emerging threats around the globe and all sorts of other promises.

However, when push came to shove, Obama did not live up to the moment when it came in the Middle East. In Egypt, he dithered. He sent confusing messages. At one point he seemed to back Mubarak. At another he seemed to back the protest movement. But only after events outraced his press releases, did the Obama Administration finally take a stand. Sort of.

The problems in the Middle East are still not over. In Libya, there is a civil war going on between Gaddafi's ruling gang and the rebels. Right now, it appears that the rebels, after some initial successes and defections from Gaddafi's forces, are losing. What has the U.S. response been? He directed the Secretary of State to consult with U.N. Human Rights Council over possible human rights violations as the conflict began. He refused, initially, to deploy the US Fleet to evacuate U.S. and foreign nationals from Libya, preferring to have the State Department charter two ferries, which were delayed for days as they were not capable of sailing through the Mediterranean Sea to Libya from Malta in inclement weather.

Meanwhile, France, Britain, even the Arab League (with its long history of supporting Arab dictators) have all scrambled to do something about what is going on in Libya. Even though their armed forces have been recently gutted by a massive cuts to their Budget, Britain ordered its special forces to rescue trapped workers. Prime Minister Cameron has worked to try and organize a no-fly zone over Libya to support the rebels. French President Sarkozy has recognized the rebel government in Benghazi.

President Obama's response was to issue the following statement:

We welcome this important step by the Arab League, which strengthens the international pressure on Gaddafi and support for the Libyan people. The international community is unified in sending a clear message that the violence in Libya must stop, and that the Gaddafi regime must be held accountable. The United States will continue to advance our efforts to pressure Gaddafi, to support the Libyan opposition, and to prepare for all contingencies, in close coordination with our international partners.

That is who we elected? A man who professes to believe in human rights, democracy, and freedom, but is unwilling to come out and state simply that Gaddafi/Mubarak/Name-your-oppressive-dictator must go?

Somewhere along the way, it appears that while playing golf, President Obama has forgotten whose office he sits in. In his most explicit statement on Libya, Obama stated,

The United States also strongly supports the universal rights of the Libyan people. That includes the rights of peaceful assembly, free speech, and the ability of the Libyan people to determine their own destiny. These are human rights. They are not negotiable. They must be respected in every country. And they cannot be denied through violence or suppression.

In a volatile situation like this one, it is imperative that the nations and peoples of the world speak with one voice, and that has been our focus. Yesterday a unanimous U.N. Security Council sent a clear message that it condemns the violence in Libya, supports accountability for the perpetrators, and stands with the Libyan people.

He deplores the violence, but will not call for the change which is necessary to end the violence. He makes a statement that is inoffensive to all, but helps none. He decries the abuses of universal human rights, but does not state that the United States categorically rejects the depredations of Gaddafi. He does not call for him to relinquish power. He does not state that we will do anything to help them, other than to issue another press release at the appropriate time. Why? Because he is hoping that the UN will speak with the "one voice".

Hoping for salvation from the UN is a sure way to see yourself destroyed. Ask the people of Bosnia how well UN intervention worked for them. Or the people in Israel when the rockets fell on them from Lebanon. Or the Ivory Coast. Or the Congo. Or ... well you get the idea.

Yesterday, when asked at a press conference point blank whether Gaddafi retaining power was accetable, President Obama answered by stating

Going back to the Gadhafi question, you know, when you say, "Is it ever acceptable?" I mean, what I think what you're asking is, you know, are we going to do -- engage in any potential military action to make that happen?

When it comes to U.S. military actions, whether it's a no-fly zone or other -- other options, you've got to balance costs vs. benefits. And, you know, I don't take those decisions lightly.

A follow-up question was asked about this, specifically pointing out claims by the Gaddafi regime that he was winning the fight against the rebels and what the U.S. response was. Obama responded by stating,

I continue to believe that, not only the United States, but the international community, has an obligation to do what it can to prevent a repeat of something like what occurred in the Balkans in the '90s, what occurred in Rwanda.

And so, part of, for example, maintaining 24-hour surveillance of the situation there is for us to have some sort of alert system if you start seeing defenseless civilians who were being massacred by Gadhafi's forces.

I believe that Gadhafi is on the wrong side of history. I believe that the Libyan people are anxious for freedom and the removal of somebody who has suppressed them for decades now.
And we are going to be in contact with the opposition, as well as in consultation with the international community, to try to achieve the goal of Mr. Gadhafi being removed from power.

So essentially, the Administration's, Obama's, policy is that we will consult with others and hope that someone else does the job. No call for his removal. No statement that we would do anything other than observe the situation while the "international community" does something about the problem.

Let me clue you into something. Unless the United States intervenes, it is unlikely that anything will get done. Why? Because for better for worse, it is this country that alone has the ability to project power effectively anywhere on the globe. The Chinese do not have that ability yet. The Russians lost that ability. Since 1945, this nation has been the only one with the ability to effectively intervene at any spot, in any crisis. Sometimes we have done so. Sometime we have chosen not to. And sometimes, against our better nature, we have chosen to intervene on the wrong side for the sake of Cold War-expediency.

This may very well go down as one of those moments in history when a choice could decide whether a people would remain in bondage or would be helped to freedom. And President Obama seems content to allow them to be placed back into the shackles of oppression.

In 1956, Eisenhower was confronted with a similar situation. In fact, it might have even been trickier because of the other factors which affected it. In October 1956, the Hungarian people began a revolution against the Soviet-backed Communist dictatorship. Although there were initial successes, the Soviet Union eventually stepped in, deploying 22 divisions to bring the country back into order.

Eisenhower supported the revolution, but did not do it in concrete terms. He instructed Radio Free Europe to broadcast propoganda and advice to the rebels. Yet, at the same time he was diplomatically opposing the Soviet-intervention, he had to deal with the problem of another intervention in the Middle East which undercut his ability to be more forceful with the Russian intervention. Furthermore, there was the very real chance that to offer concrete support for Hungary would spark a Third World War with the Soviet Union.

In this instance, there is the nation of Libya, which has been governed for far too long by a repressive regime under Colonel Gaddafi. It has sponsored terrorism. It has launched wars of aggression with its neighbors. It is not in the midst of a bloody civil war that began because Gaddafi chose to use violence against what has been reported as peaceful protests. Libya is alone. Libya is isolated. There is no Russian bear acting as her guarantor. Indeed, it is highly probable that even Al Qaeda would not send its jihadists to prop up Gaddafi's cult of personality regime.

Yet we do nothing. Our president does nothing. And we fail in our test.

Presidents do not have to be perfect in their response. But they have to respond. Eisenhower responded to Hungary to limit of the ability of the United States to do so without triggering a what would have become a nuclear war. President Obama has chosen to do nothing while he shoots a round of 18 at Andrews Air Force Base.

The other thing that seems to differentiate President Obama from our previous presidents is that he seems to have no moral compass. There is nothing that seems to outrage him. Agree or disagree with President Bush, but you knew exactly where he stood on whether something was right or wrong. President Eisenhower was clear where he thought this country should go. He believed that the government should stay out of the market as much as possible, but accepted that there were certain, defined exceptions to this rule. A man who had built his reputation in war tried to put our nation on a road to peace with the Soviet Union, but not at the expense of the hazarding our safety in the process. The best that President Obama can say is that someone is "on the wrong side of history". The same could be said for the Africans who were enslaved and sent to all parts of the world as part of the slave trade. It does not make the slave trade right. It does not excuse us from acting as a nation to help the oppressed when we can because "history" will take care of the problem for us.

What a president has to do is to act. Eisenhower understood that. He may have played his cards close to the vest, but at the end of the day, you could follow a line to see the action which he took. The same cannot be said for President Obama.

iPad 2... I'm still learning iPad

2011-03-02T14:05:00.000-08:00

That's not to say that it isn't a bad thing. From what I am hearing about the newer version, its supposed to be thinner and with two cameras.

I know some people are thinking, why multiple cameras on a tablet? Well, for one, I hope that the makers of some of the fax software out there, like say eFax, will update their iPad apps to take advantage of this. I would readily pay their per page charge over trying to photocopy stuff at the library or when I am off at a depo and want to send a document back to my co-counsel.

Now, if Apple will please just tweak its printing software so that it works with any wireless printer instead of just the approved bunch of HP, I would be in heaven. But with the multiple cameras, tweaked OS to fix the printing problem, that's two of my major complaints about the iPad.

Lineups for DWTS Season 12... At Least For Now

2011-03-02T00:26:00.000-08:00

So here are the pairings as they have been reported, so far, for season 12 of DWTS. It was already announced that Derek Hough would not be participating, but from my point of view the bummer is no Edyta.

Chelsea Kane (from Disney's Jonas show) is with Mark Ballas.

Hines Ward, of the Pittsburgh Steelers, will be dancing with Kym Johnson.

Chris Jericho, WWE Wrestler, will pair up with Cheryl Burke

Kendra Wilkinson, one of the orignal Girls Next Door/Playboy Model/Reality Star, will be with Louis Van Amstel.

Petra Nemcova has been paired up with Dmitry Chaplin.

Mike Catherwood, radio DJ, will be with Lacey Schwimmer.

The Karate Kid, Ralph Macchio will dance with Karina Smirnoff.

Tony Dovolani will try to guide Wendy Williams to the Fabulous Mirror Ball Trophy.

The guy knocked down by Dicky Ward, aka Sugar Ray Leonard, will dance with Anna Trebunskaya.

Romeo comes back to try and actually make it to the dancefloor. I'm sure that Chelsea Hightower is hoping for the same thing, because she probably does not want to contemplate dancing with Romeo's back up: Master P.

Kirstie Alley will have to weather the storm that is Maksim Chmerkovskiy's ego.

And as a final note, what kind of geek would I be if I didn't include a picture of Kirstie Alley as she should look, with Vulcan ears.

Something to Think About Before You Go To A BDS Rally

2011-02-27T16:08:00.000-08:00

Image from http://www.standwithus.com

The BDS movement is about one thing: supporter oppressors and instigators of violence. The BDS movment is not about peace, equality, or human rights because it supports undemocratic, violent organizations which are committed to violating human rights whenever possible.

If you believe in human rights, if you believe in liberal ideas, if you believe in peace, then you have to ask yourself, who does the BDS programme actually support?

Image from http://www.standwithus.com

In Honor of the Upcoming Apartheid Week... Some Inconvenient Facts About Israel and the Arabs

2011-02-26T15:19:00.000-08:00

Click on the image to enlarge. Shamelessly stolen from WallofLies.org.

More Dancing With The Stars Rumors (2011 Rumors III)

2011-02-26T12:29:00.000-08:00

This is just a quickie... but the two names that are getting thrown about a lot are:

Faye Dunaway

and

Christine O'Donnell

Now, Faye Dunaway, I get. She is a legitimate star, albeit one whose light has dimmed as she has gotten older and she's gotten fewer roles. Christine O'Donnell though to me is a little more of a mystery. Sure, she was the darling of the Tea Party last year, at least until the witch stuff started to come out, but otherwise, she is a failed candidate for senate.

I know which one I'd be more intrigued to see.

Impeachment

2011-02-24T21:49:00.000-08:00

President Obama should be impeached.

It may come as a shock to those reading, but I do not admire President Obama. I disagree on his approach to healthcare, leadership, and foreign policy. I think that his version of "sound economic policy" is best described as bread circuses. I think his position on gay rights has been, at best, lackluster. How could someone who seriously attempts to cast himself in the progressive or liberal democrat mode seriously suggest that they do not support equal rights for all when it comes to something as fundamental as marriage? Yet throughout the campaign, and as recently as this year, he has refused to fully support equal recognition of all persons in this country to receive the benefits of rights that we have reserved only for heterosexual couples.

His latest attempt, however, to shed his image as a Johnny come lately to the idea that homosexuals should have the same access to the same fundamental rights is fundamentally wrong. It is also, I suggest, an abrogation of his duty as President. It does and should be viewed as a high crime or misdemeanor.

On Wednesday, President Obama instructed the Attorney-General to cease defending the Defense of Marriage Act(DOMA). By doing this, he abrogated to himself the determination of whether a law is constitutional. He also refused to do one of the duties for which he swore an oath. Something that it seems the mainstream press is missing, he is also creating a precedent for executive nullification.

DOMA is and always has been an example of American legislation at it's worst. A law designed to deprive a class of people from a right recognized as fundamental to everyone not in that class. It was one of President Cinton's greatest failings that he signed it into law, rather than forcing Congress to override his veto.

From the Clinton Administration until yesterday that law has been defended by the Justice Department. Although President Obama refused to endorse equal protection for gay rights, he has always stated that he was against the law. Yet, when he had the backing of the electorate and near supermajority in Congress, he refused to do anything about the law. He did not seek to have legislation introduced to excise the law from the books. He barely made mention of it from 2009 until 2011.

In short, he had the opportunity and the means to do something about the law but refused to act.

Now, in a cynical move, President Obama has decided that the law is unconstitutional. As such, he has instructed Attorney General Holder to cease defending the law before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The case before the 2nd Circ, v. , is about whether or not the law is constitutional.

Here is the first problem with President Obam's action: it is not his decision to make. As anyone who has passed eighth grade history should know, much less someone who claims to be a constitutional scholar, the federal government is made up of three separate, co-equal branches. They are the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch.the legislators of the Legislative Branch, otherwise known as the House of Representatives and the Senate, draft and vote on the laws. The Executive has the authority to veto the laws, but, just as importantly, must execute and uphold the laws. Finally, the Judicial Branch adjudicates disputes over the laws, including whether the laws are in fact constitutional.

I defy anyone to point to a clause of the U.S. Constitution or its amendments to show where the Executive Branch, or the president himself has the power to make a binding determination that a law is unconstitutional when it has been passed and signed into law.

Yet that is exactly what President Obama has done.

Now the argument may be made that he has not instructed the various departments of the government to cease enforcing the law. However, with the law under attack and at issue in a court, he has essentially instructed the Attorney General Holder to allow the case to go into default, to not answer the appeal.

In boxing, it's called taking a dive.

Now, some people ask, why is this important? It's important because it sets a precedent for how future presidents will carry out their duties. Will they uphold all the laws? Or just the ones that they find fit their style or the needs of a special interest group.

For instance, what if the next president is a social conservative. And what if this social conservative decides he is not going to uphold the law repealing DADT. And when it is challenged by some group as being unconstitutional, he orders the Attorney General to decline to defend the law. Insert any controversial law there and you could have a future president do what President Obama has done.

This gets our Republic into a dangerous area. It confers upon one man the power to overrule legislation which has been validly passed.

It is wrong. It is a violation of President Obama's oath. By following this illegal order, Attorney General Holder should likewise be held accountable.

A president, no matter how well intentioned, has the power to act as a king would.

President Obama has committed a high crime or misdemeanor. He has broken his oath of office. He should be impeached.

Too bad that the members in the Senate, in either party, lack the moral courage necessary to take the appropriate steps. It is even more unfortunate that the press has been hailing this decision, giving their imprimatur and adding legitimacy to his action.

No matter how right the ultimate intention may be, in this type of situation, breaking the law, breaking the oath, is never justified. There is a system in place to deal with this. President Obama had the opportunity to avail his administration of the system. Yet he has chosen to abdicate his duties and has ordered his subordinates to follow his lead.

Like other presidents who violated the law, President Obama should and mist be held accountable. He should be impeached and forced to stand trial.

Otherwise, the system means nothing. The Constitution is dead letter and ceases to act as a restraint on any sitting president. And our rights are committed to the whim of an elected tyrant.

President Obama must be held accountable for his actions as the Constitution demands.

MUNI Chief May Leave... Good Riddance

2011-02-20T18:55:00.000-08:00

So San Francisco's Muni head may be getting a new job. Reports are that he is in the running to take over the Washington D.C. airport authority.

Guess what? Let him.

Let him go under-perform somewhere else. Let him go mess up and overspend in another locality.

Above all, let him go so that we can try someone new in the position. Someone who might have the gumption to stand up to the unions without the rest of the city having to get involved. He's been inadequate since he started in 2006.

Under his watch, he failed to take the steps necessary to bring Muni into compliance with its mandated targets. He failed to keep service from being cut. He failed to make sure the fares got collected.

In short, he has failed.

However, and I'm sure that some out there want to, if you want to look at his accomplishments, he brought the city together. That happens when you increase fares twice in five years. That happens when you slash service across the board because he and his staff could not get it together to do more than "limp along." And he succeeded in bringing down the approval of Muni to its lowest levels since 2000.

A list any bureaucrat would be proud to brag about, I'm sure.

But his proudest accomplishment, I am sure, is ending the program that cracked down on fare cheats. Apparently, Mr. Ford agreed with special interest groups who complained that being forced to pay the fare was "classist" and "racist".

If I had the power, he would have been out of a job the first time the system had to cut service to the people of San Francisco. Let's hope the Washington D.C. airport people are as snowed by his resume as the SFMTA has been. Unfortunately for us, the Washington transit people weren't, otherwise he'd have been gone by now.

With Mr. Ford hopefully going, things need to change at Muni. First off, the Muni employees need to be brought back to reality and that means the next contract needs to bring their salaries in line with the economic realities, not the fantasies of the union heads. Second, the $315,000 salary for the head of Muni needs to go. If it stays, it has to be conditioned on performance. We are letting our City's department heads fail with no repercussions. That needs to change. Muni is the poster child for San Francisco's failure right now (though wait a week and I'm sure that will change). It needs to be rehabilitated, from top to bottom.

We want to be a transit first city? Fine. Then we have to have a transit system that makes that goal. Right now, its not. That must change.

Dancing With The Stars Rumors II (Pre-Season DWTS)

2011-02-19T16:52:00.000-08:00

So its looking like there are finally some leaks about this season's cast for Dancing With Stars. It appears that two of the pros will definitely be back. Louis Van Amstel will be there (meaning that there will be a short female among the professionals) and Lacey Schwimmer (which means that obviously there is no Santa Claus otherwise he would've read my letter.)

As far as "stars" go, some of the rumors lately have been centered around Wendy Williams. The support for this is that she is planning to put her show on hiatus for a little while. The little while would be the same time that Dancing With The Stars will be airing.

Another rumor has been about Kendra Wilkinson being a contestant this season. That one I am not so sure about. She just announced she is pregnant again and I do not think that ABC's legal department or insurers are ready for an injury to occur to a pregnant woman.

One of the weirder rumors that is floating about is that Carlos Leon may be in the cast. Apparently, he has been expressing interest in joining the show. Now who is Mr. Leon? He's Madonna's ex-husband and the father of her daughter, Leon. The man is famous for impregnating Madonna. Does that really make him a star or unlucky?

Then there is the report that Candace Cameron Bure is joining the cast this season. You may remember her better as DJ Tanner on Full House. More recently, she has been on a show called Make It or Break It on ABC Family.

Thankfully, it is being reported that Rev. Al Sharpton has turned down DWTS. Again. A better question is why did they bother asking him once?

For me, the question is: will Edyta be back? And if she does, how badly will the producers hose her again?

I May In Fact Just Be A Curmudgeon

2011-02-16T12:34:00.000-08:00

So if you haven't guessed, I have now, and pretty much always been, a geek. I was that guy playing D&D, working in high school journalism while doing speech and debate. The only thing I did not do was watch anime in the original Japanese because I got so frustrated trying to read quickly and watch what was going on the screen.

When I did speech and debate, I did it through a fairly hard core program that as a group had a lot of success. Those who coached me were rarely touchy-feely types who were overly concerned with my self-esteem. They were concerned with turning me into a polished speaker who could hold an audience's attention and grab judges votes. Self-esteem came from doing well.

And that brings me to what happened recently. A call went out for judges to judge a competition (it was a mock-trial competition). Now I never did mock trial back in the day, but I have judged it a few times, though not for a few years. The last time I judged, I was told to make my comments constructive, and not to just tear down the student being judged. Which I think is the way to do it.

However, the other day, when I went to judge, I was told by the organizers to be as positive as possible. Huh? Whats the point of my judging and critiquing their presentations and questioning if not to tell them how to get better?

Apparently, the self-esteem is the big thing because, as one of the organizers said, "Some of these student's don't come from the most economically advantaged backgrounds." We warned about criticizing too much because it might deter them from coming back.

Let me get this straight: you want me to overly positive in my comments and to refrain if possible from the negative aspects of what they did because the students are poor? That's all the more reason they should be fairly and justly criticized. I'm not saying I, or any other judge out there, should tear them apart because we can. If people want to improve, then they have to know what areas need to be improved upon.

So when the time came to give the critiques, I went last. I was really hoping that the other judges on my panel were going to show me the way, because they were both former participants in mock trial and had been judging regularly (as opposed to my last judging experience which was happened pre-9/11). And what did they say? They both gushed over the participants and how well they did, without offering a single criticism.

Did they not see how both sides failed to answer direct questions posed to them in the pre-trial phase? These questions were not out of left field. They went to the heart of case that the students were going to try. I was not expecting Theodore Olsen-type answers, but really the questions each had a simple answer that should have been a core value for either side. For the prosecution it should have been all about the victim. For the defense team, it should have been all about the constitutional right at stake.

I know what its like to work hard at that age and be critiqued by someone who has little familiarity with either the competition or the substance of what is being argued. But I also know how valuable fair, constructive criticism was compared to the "Great job" only ballots that I got back from some judges.

So here are a few of the things that I did not get to say last night, mostly because one team left without asking for any feedback. And for that team, it was a serious mistake, even though they got the conviction. They are:

Don't turn your back on the jury.
Don't stand so that you are the only person who can see the witness. Yes, your suit jacket was nicely pressed, but I would have rather heard what you had to say and your witness' testimony. Its not a conversation between yourself and the witness. Its a conversation between the witness and the jury that you are prompting.
Cross Examination is cool, but its easier. The better mock trial attorneys I saw were the ones who were able to bring out the story on direct.
Just because cross examination is cool doesn't mean you go up without a plan. Know where you are going. Simply getting admissions are useless if you have not teed up the issue earlier so that the jury knows its important.
When arguing the pre-trial motion, known what your core value is and stick to it. Don't dance around the questions that the judges will ask you. If you are asking the judge to do something and he asks you how it goes in line with something else in the document universe (like another decision) find a way to bring it on to the ground you want the judge to rule on. For example, the other day the case dealt with a law on cyberbullying. In the packet there were cases going both ways. The judge threw up relative easy question on how you distinguish between this case being litigated and one where a restriction on free speech was upheld. For the defense, you need to go and distinguish it head on. The teams I witnessed, both talked around the point, seemingly afraid to stand up for their position. It undercut their advocacy. There is not a perfect answer, but there were multiple options for ways to handle it.
Both sides needed to listen better to the testimony which was being given. Both sides missed beautiful straight lines because they were wedded to their prepared questions and did not deviate from the order that they were written. The other side opens themselves up, go for it. The worst that can happen is what...? Its not like anyone is really going to go jail here. Have fun. Try it out.

And finally there is one comment to a female participant lawyer that there is no way I would ever be allowed to say to the group and I would be hesitant to say it to her directly, but I will here. You know who you are. That skirt is only appropriate in a courtroom where David E. Kelly is running the show. Really.

By the way, Mrs. Angrybell, who has been reading this as I have been typing it confirms that, yes, in fact, I am a curmudgeon.

A Reason Why The Debt Ceiling (And Government Debt) Matters

2011-02-10T17:50:00.000-08:00

So its been a while since I put something up. And I had started a number of postings on whats going in various parts of the world. But this afternoon, I was reading about the Suez Crisis in 1956 and it reminded about why some things are more important.

For those who were failed by their history teachers, in 1956 Gamal Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Originally, the Suez Canal was owned by the French and Egyptian company which built the canal. Called the Universal Suez Canal Company, the stock of the company was held by French and Egyptian investors, most notably the Egyptian government. But the Egyptian Government ran into a severe financial crisis in 1875 and had to sell the shares. The shares were purchased by Great Britain. So, basically you have an Egyptian corporation whose shareholders were either French investors or the British Government.

Gamal Nasser, the president of Egypt in 1956, had earlier embarked on a policy of deliberately confronting Great Britain and other Western Powers. This resulted in Egypt drifting into the Soviet orbit during the Cold War. By 1956, with Britain's power waning, and France coming off the recent defeat at Dien Bien Phu, Nasser was ready to cut all ties with the west in bid to assert the primacy of Egypt in the Middle East. He ordered his military to physically seize control of the Suez Canal. As soon as the canal was seized, which it was by surprise, he froze all the assets of Universal Suez Canal Company, and ordered the forced sale of all the stock from the shareholders, thereby nationalizing the company and the canal.

Now, the British and the French were not prepared to take this act of thievery lying down. The only problem was the U.S. The Eisenhower administration had no desire to get embroiled in some flap in the Middle East. The United States had already been snubbed by Egypt when Nasser recognized the People's Republic of China. In retaliation, the US withdrew its support for the Aswan High Dam project, a move that some commentators believe was the trigger for Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal. Despite the cooling relations with the Egyptians, the U.S. failed to demonstrate any leadership in the situation, content to sit on the sidelines on this one.

With the U.S. failing to commit to any actions, the British and French enlisted the aid of Israel, who were suffering from the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran (in the Red Sea) which effectively closed the port of Eilat in Israel, in a plan to regain control of the canal. The result became known as the 1956 Sinai Campaign or Sinai Crisis.

On 29 October 1956, the IDF executed Operation Kadesh. Paratroopers and mechanized columns struck Egyptian positions in a blitzkrieg-style attack. Within days, the IDF had captured the whole of the Sinai Peninsula, including Sharm el Sheik in the south, which was the base from which the blockade of Israel was managed and directed. Having seized control of the Mitla Pass, the IDF was within 30 km of the canal, on 2 November 1956.

As part of their agreed plan, Great Britain and France initiated their operations on 31 October 1956. Known as Operation Musketeer and Operation Telescope, depending on phase of the operation, British and French forces invaded the canal zone, seizing control of strategic points and expelling the Egyptian Army after a short fight. By 6 November 1956, the military operations were concluded.

Although successful, the British, French and Israelis soon had the rug pulled out from under them. The Soviet Union began to threaten that Britain, France and Israel did not withdraw, it would lend Egypt military support. At the same time, the US was caught between trying to support the Hungarian revolution while reconciling how to support its allies in their endeavor in Suez. Unfortunately, the Eisenhower Administration could not, especially with the spectre of Soviet intervention becoming a reality. Trying to favor the Hungarians, the US forced the British and French to withdraw and the Israelis to surrender almost all of its gains in the war.

How did it do this? The primary power involved was Great Britain. However, British finances, which had been rocky for years, were being buoyed by the United States holding millions of pounds sterling worth of bonds which had been issued by the Bank of England. Because Britain's losses in recent years had been so bad, it was applying to the IMF for emergency funds. The IMF funds were denied to Britain by the United States. Eisenhower, to make his point, unmistakably clear, instructed his Secretary of Treasury to prepare to sell the British bonds. Sale of the bonds would have resulted in a massive devaluation of the pound, making it worthless. Faced with the potential for a worthless currency, meaning that Britain would be unable to import food or fuel, the British Government was forced to concede the issue.

It was a humiliation for the British Government, Empire, and its people. It was a blow to British prestige that still lingers. Britain was no longer a world power, but effectively a US satellite or a junior partner, unable to act in major foreign policy issues without the approval of Washington.

Without the British support, France could not sustain the occupation on its own. Its own resources were stretched by the rebellion in Algeria as well as the costs of recent war in Indochina. Without their British partner, they too were forced to withdraw from the Suez Canal.

Anyone noticed what happened there? Without debating the rights and wrongs of the Sinai Campaign, look at why the British and French were forced to surrender a significant concession. It was because of the British debt held by the United States. The amount of debt held in the form of the bonds was so great, that if only some of the bonds were sold, the Pound Sterling would be significantly devaluated. Had all of them been sold, and Eisenhower was believed to be ready to sell them all to make his point, then Britain would have been bankrupted.

We were allegedly Britain's ally in the Cold War. Being lead by a president who had demonstrated in the past great respect to Britain.

Who holds an awful lot of our debt? China.

And I'll be willing to say that they don't like us half as much as Eisenhower liked Great Britain back in the day.

And someone wants to raise the debt ceiling, again. Maybe that's not such a good idea. Unless of course you want our government to cede its independence of action to a debt holder with as much power as we had over Britain in 1956.

2011-01-26T21:37:00.000-08:00

Last night the president gave his speech. Immediately after the speech, I talked to some friends and conversed back-and-forth about speech with others on Facebook. From all that, two things became clearer about last night.

First, President Obama does not understand what it means to be a leader. president Obama is very good when it comes to talking about ideals. In a way, he could be some sort of oratorical inspirational. Chicken soup for the soul type of person. And he will you could do that very well. But that's not what his job is. Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is supposed to be a leader.

A leader can operate in many ways. He can do that passively. He can do it actively. He can do it by playing one side off the other. When the leader has to do in order for people to follow him is to set out a goal for where he wants to lead the people to. it's not enough to say that the leader wants his people to be happy, healthy, prosperous. Something that Gary and vague doesn't tell people where the leader wants to go or how he wants to get there.

In his speech, president Obama was referring to the "Sputnik moment", for this generation. From this "moment", that he never defines, he hopes to usher in a new era in technology and industry, which will help secure the nation's prosperity going forward. The problem is, he never says where he wants to go. This is what he said,

This is our generation’s Sputnik moment. Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race. And in a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal. We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology -– (applause) -- an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

He goes on to recount how advances are being made in the fields of renewable energy. Then he issues, what he believes, is an echo of Eisenhower's and Kennedy's call to surpass the Soviets in space race. He says,

That’s what Americans have done for over 200 years: reinvented ourselves. And to spur on more success stories like the Allen Brothers, we’ve begun to reinvent our energy policy. We’re not just handing out money. We’re issuing a challenge. We’re telling America’s scientists and engineers that if they assemble teams of the best minds in their fields, and focus on the hardest problems in clean energy, we’ll fund the Apollo projects of our time.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Eisenhower and Kennedy both had the same goal in mind. To combat the threat posed by the Soviets and their space program, we would develop a program which would go further, faster then the Soviets. President Eisenhower confronted the actual Sputnik moment with both short-term and long-term solutions, but all of these laid out clearly. He told the nation where he wanted to see the country go. First, he wanted to see the country get a satellite in orbit. Second, he accelerated the development of IRBM's. Third, he just of the priorities in his budget. Fourth, he invested in education with the National Defense Education Act.

His successor, President Kennedy, went further. He laid out a goal, that within 10 years the United States would place a man on the moon.

President Obama did not do that. He basically said, "If you tell me where to go, and I like it, I'll give you money." That's not leadership. That's playing it incredibly safe. Its like voting present, something President Obama learned how to do in Illinois Legislature.

Leadership is not easy. Especially when faced with a hostile group of "followers". President Obama is far from unique in having a hostile Congress to contend with. When faced with the Republican successes in the 1994 mid-term elections, President Clinton realized that while he had to change tactics and goals, he did not have to abdicate the position of leadership. In his 1995 State of the Union, he said,

So let this be the year we end welfare as we know it. But also let this be the year that we are all able to stop using this issue to divide America. No one is more eager to end welfare— [applause]—I may be the only President who has actually had the opportunity to sit in a welfare office, who's actually spent hours and hours talking to people on welfare. And I am telling you, the people who are trapped on it know it doesn't work; they also want to get off. So we can promote, together, education and work and good parenting. I have no problem with punishing bad behavior or the refusal to be a worker or a student or a responsible parent. I just don't want to punish poverty and past mistakes. All of us have made our mistakes, and none of us can change our yesterdays. But every one of us can change our tomorrows. And America's best example of that may be Lynn Woolsey, who worked her way off welfare to become a Congresswoman from the State of California

...

I have proposed the middle class bill of rights, which should properly be called the bill of rights and responsibilities because its provisions only benefit those who are working to educate and raise their children and to educate themselves. It will, therefore, give needed tax relief and raise incomes in both the short run and the long run in a way that benefits all of us.

There are four provisions. First, a tax deduction for all education and training after high school. If you think about it, we permit businesses to deduct their investment, we permit individuals to deduct interest on their home mortgages, but today an education is even more important to the economic well-being of our whole country than even those things are. We should do everything we can to encourage it. And I hope you will support it. Second, we ought to cut taxes $500 for families with children under 13. Third, we ought to foster more savings and personal responsibility by permitting people to establish an individual retirement account and withdraw from it, tax-free, for the cost of education, health care, first-time homebuying, or the care of a parent. And fourth, we should pass a "GI bill" for America's workers. We propose to collapse nearly 70 Federal programs and not give the money to the States but give the money directly to the American people, offer vouchers to them so that they, if they're laid off or if they're working for a very low wage, can get a voucher worth $2,600 a year for up to 2 years to go to their local community colleges or wherever else they want to get the skills they need to improve their lives. Let's empower people in this way, move it from the Government directly to the workers of America.

Confronted with a walloping in the mid-term elections, Clinton came out and spelled out what he wanted to do. He didn't say, we'll see what other people can come up with. He came out and said to the US people, many of whom were not supporting him at that point, "This is where I want to lead you."

Going back to Reagan's State of the Union Address in 1983, after he had been handed a setback in the mid-term election, he too displayed leadership which was and is lacking in the Obama Administration. Reagan. Like Obama, he was faced with pressures in foreign policy and an economy struggle to get out of the mismanagement of the previous officeholder. He came out and stated the problem simply and effectively, saying,

The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted. Unemployment is far too high. Projected Federal spending -- if government refuses to tighten its own belt -- will also be far too high and could weaken and shorten the economic recovery now underway.

Sounds like it should have been said last night, doesn't it? But Reagan, facing a Congress now controlled by the Democrats, came out and refused to back off from the themes he had come to the presidency with. To the Congress, he stated, that his priorities were jobs, restraining or freezing federal spending, and exporting our democratic values abroad.

Our current officeholder, as is his practice, could not muster any leadership. He spoke of ideals that all could agree with, but when you look at what he really said, the specifics, or even the general direction of what he wants is sadly lacking.

Second, he and his speech writers do not under the "Sputnik moment", nor could they say what it is. Rather than set forth a goal to work towards, he looked to the past to burnish what he had to say. However, looking to the past, when the accomplishments are not your own, can only yield a pale, reflection.

As Americans, we face serious problems. Problems which need to be confronted head on. Is the Obamacare plan going to yield the savings they say? Or is it a boondoggle which will further drive this country into debt?

How do we deal with pensions and Social Security when we have no money to pay them, and we already have more debt than at any other time in our nation's history?

How do we deal with the challenge posed to us by both militant Islam and a China that wants to assert its place as world power?

Our president did not offer us a plan for going forward. He offered to "invest" or spend money on unstated programs with unknown goals. Are his "investments" that or are they another attempt at Keynsian economics which has resulted in long term unemployment of over 9% (hitting 12% here in California).

This may be fiction, but then again what leader does not want to be able to give the Henry V speech at Agincourt? President Obama once again had a moment to display strength of character. Once again, he showed he is a man who can read a teleprompter and spout platitudes that few can find argument.

Say what you want about the rebuttal from the GOP that followed. In my opinion, Congressman Ryan came across as a policy wonk trying to be an orator. But at least he laid the problem. He articulated a solution. Some have suggested that Ryan's rebuttal was one based in fear. But listening to it, I heard a man trying to express that for us to be the nation we hoped we would be, we have to make tough decisions now. To trust that the people, who have always provided the entrepeneurship in almost every major endeavour of this country outside of war, will do so again... provided we do not create a monstrosity which inhibits their ability to do so.

President Obama, as polished as he was last night, did not lay out why his plan would work because he did not lay out a plan. His speech, written by people who do not understand history except to use as an exclamation point, missed that. You learn from history. You do not use it as a cover for when you have failed to devise a way forward because you are unwilling to accept the task as it is given to you, rather than as you want it to be.
x

Dancing With The Stars Rumors (An Outbreak of Off-Season DWTS Madness)

2011-01-23T16:39:00.000-08:00

Well, since the last time I looked at things in DWTS-land, it seems that everything is still pretty unsettled. There will be no Lindsey Lohan. They producers still want a same-sex couple.

But one thing that has come up is Derek Hough. Looks like he wants out so that he can spend more time with his girl-friend, Cheryl Cole. Not that we didn't see this coming. He sees what his sister has done and I'm sure he has ambitions as well.

One of the more weird rumors is about Heidi Montag. The story goes that she was offered a slot but that she turned it down, claiming contractual restrictions by MTV. Maybe its true, maybe not. But I would think someone could get a lawyer involved to find a solution. Its not like she doesn't need the money.

In a move that will probably frustrate Mrs. Angrybell, it looks like the producers are in talks with Kendra Wilkinson, one of Hef's original Girls Next Door. Both Mrs. Angrybell and myself would prefer that the producers go after either Holly or Bridget, but cest la vie.

Another couple of names that are getting tossed around are poker player Phil Helmuth and Tina Fey. Personally, Tina Fey would be great to see on DWTS, but I doubt that NBC is going to let her. I hope I'm wrong.

Some Tenants Attorneys Doing Well

2011-01-23T15:46:00.000-08:00

So one of my loyal readers wanted to know if I heard anything about landlord-tenant victories in San Francisco lately. Well after looking around a little bit I am happy to announce that two tenants were able to get some justice in the courts.

The most recent was a long term tenant represented by the Law Offices of Mary Catherine Wiederhold and the Law Offices of William E. Shapiro, recently achieved a settlement for their client in a hard fought Owner Move-In case.

At issue was a landlord attempting to evict a long term tenant in order to move in to their unit. Although settlement numbers were not divulged, the amount was called robust in light of the long-term tenancy of their client, in addition to nearly a year of additional time to move.

However, a bigger one, which I really should have reported sooner was the decision in the 746 Clementina case, which you may know better as the building formerly owned by the Worst Landlords. The new landlords were attempting to follow through on the Ellis Act eviction started by the Macys. Defended by Steve Collier and the other lawyers at the Tenderloin Housing Clinic, the court decided that the new owners could not Ellis the building.

Some People Really Need To Get Their Priorities Checked

2011-01-23T14:46:00.000-08:00

I was at a gathering of attorneys the other day. Since a number of them were either tenants' rights attorneys or sympathetic to tenants right, the topic turned that way when someone brought up an interesting quirk of San Francisco law.

Under San Francisco's Housing Code, specifically section 701, states that landlords have to provide heat to the tenants so that the temperature of the unit reaches 68F. However, a quirk of the law is that the landlord must only provide the heat for 13 hours during the day. The ordinance further states that those hours 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 3p.m. to 10 p.m.

Apparently, San Francisco does not require heat at night. Because, I guess, someone decided that tenants don't need heat after 10 p.m. at night. Or maybe someone believes that its warmer during those late night hours? If so, perhaps they should tell that to the homeless on the streets.

Now, to further muddy the water, there is a state law called the Uniform Housing Code. Under the UHC, a landlord has the duty to provide heat 24 hours a day such that a residential unit is heated to 70F. Somehow, San Francisco and other municipalities have rules which contravene this. On at least one occasion, the local rule was struct down by the appellate court, yet San Francisco's rule remains in effect.

Heat, especially in San Francisco where it can get pretty cold at virtually any time of the year, is an important topic. In my time as a tenants' rights attorney, I've seen more than one landlord let the heating unit "mysteriously" stop working and expect the tenant to provide the heat with a space heater (something which is verboten under both San Francisco and California law).

So where is this all going? Well at this little confab that I was at, this topic came up. And I was gobsmacked to hear this as the first comment was "Should we really be advocating for this? I mean, asking for more heat for tenants is not an evironmentally sound thing especially with global warming."

And what was worse, a fair number of the people were taking her position. This is lunacy. People need heat. They may not need to be heated to 90F or whatnot, but when its cold, they need heat. And the idea that we need to put something ahead of people without adequate heat is absurd. The priority needs to be people, not something as amorphous as "environmentally sound".

Still here...

2011-01-21T12:23:00.001-08:00

So for the New Year, I am trying to get back into shape. This is not, I repeat, not a resolution. This started in December when I made it back to the gym on a regular basis.

My current weight: 255lbs. At 5'10, that means my BMI is bloody frack all bad.

Ugh.

Irony?

2010-12-31T14:05:00.000-08:00

You run a company. You make your business by evicting low income tenants so that you can sell off the units in the buildings you have purchased for prices between $400,000 and $600,000 each.

What would you call your company?

Well for at least one company that does engage in this practice, they call themselves: SF Affordable Housing LLC.

Not wanting to get the esteemed author angry at me, but does this not count as irony?

What's more disgusting is that one of the members who was interviewed had the audacity to state, "Basically, I cannot afford to keep the tenants who on average paying $300 a month in rent[.]" Let's be clear about something, this individual, and any partners he may have, is not the least bit interested in becoming a landlord. His company, based on the report I have seen, buys properties to sell them as individual units, either condos or TICs.

If you are going to be a bastard and kick people out of their homes, at least be honest about it. You had no interest in being a landlord. You wanted to divide up the property into ever small portions to sell off at inflated prices to line your wallet with more money.

You are, I believe the technical term, a greedy bastard who wants to be liked. If you are going to be a greedy bastard, then be one. Don't try and fool people with statements such as, "If those people need assistance, I’m in a 100 percent agreement that they should be helped, but it shouldn’t be the burden on a landlord." Its insulting because you have no intention of being a landlord.

At least be as honest as the guy who was begging for money down on Kearny and Bush yesterday. He had the decency to hold up a sign saying "Need money for beer."

End of Another Year

2010-12-31T13:49:00.000-08:00

Interesting year. Frustrating year. In some ways a surprising year.

And yet, as of now, looks like I've had 5,427 hits this year according to Sitemeter. Blogger tells me I've had 5,934 since March. Whatever.

They both seem to agree about what my top visited articles this year are. They are, in order:

Have a Happy and Safe New Years.

Scary and coming soon to California

2010-12-22T08:56:00.001-08:00

A Moment of Geekiness - What D&D Character I would be

2010-12-22T08:17:00.001-08:00

I Am A: Neutral Good Human Ranger/Sorcerer (3rd/3rd Level)

Ability Scores:

Strength-12

Dexterity-15

Constitution-17

Intelligence-13

Wisdom-14

Charisma-13

Alignment:
Neutral Good A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order. However, neutral good can be a dangerous alignment because it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable.

Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.

Primary Class:
Rangers are skilled stalkers and hunters who make their home in the woods. Their martial skill is nearly the equal of the fighter, but they lack the latter's dedication to the craft of fighting. Instead, the ranger focuses his skills and training on a specific enemy a type of creature he bears a vengeful grudge against and hunts above all others. Rangers often accept the role of protector, aiding those who live in or travel through the woods. His skills allow him to move quietly and stick to the shadows, especially in natural settings, and he also has special knowledge of certain types of creatures. Finally, an experienced ranger has such a tie to nature that he can actually draw on natural power to cast divine spells, much as a druid does, and like a druid he is often accompanied by animal companions. A ranger's Wisdom score should be high, as this determines the maximum spell level that he can cast.

Secondary Class:
Sorcerers are arcane spellcasters who manipulate magic energy with imagination and talent rather than studious discipline. They have no books, no mentors, no theories just raw power that they direct at will. Sorcerers know fewer spells than wizards do and acquire them more slowly, but they can cast individual spells more often and have no need to prepare their incantations ahead of time. Also unlike wizards, sorcerers cannot specialize in a school of magic. Since sorcerers gain their powers without undergoing the years of rigorous study that wizards go through, they have more time to learn fighting skills and are proficient with simple weapons. Charisma is very important for sorcerers; the higher their value in this ability, the higher the spell level they can cast.

Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus (e-mail)

Shame on Google and YouTube

2010-12-19T14:03:00.000-08:00

As an organization, Google seems to have trouble deciding which values it wants to uphold. on its corporate website, Google states that there are 10 things that they know to be true. Number six on this list states that, "you can make money without doing evil." Google except that it is a business, and that it does need to make money in order to survive. Letting their position, they offer three bullet points explaining how they can make money without doing evil to the user. Apparently, the only view it is evil when it's advertising done in the way which may be considered offensive to the user, such as pop-up ads or ads that don't clearly identify themselves as such.

It's interesting that they limit themselves in such a way. Why?

Other than Google's flagship search engine, perhaps the most used and liked of Google's products is YouTube. Google has had to navigate a careful course in operating you to, making sure they keep itself firmly within the safe harbor provisions of the law while the same time allowing users to put up content that they like. Because Google can't simply allow anything to be put up on YouTube, because let's face it if they allow people to be put up on YouTube that would cause a huge problem both legally and financially for the company, their terms of service which govern what types of videos can be uploaded to YouTube. in section 6 of the terms of service, subpart E, states that "You further agree that you will not submit to the Service any Content or material is contrary to the YouTube community guidelines, currently found at http://www.youtube.com/t/terms, which may be updated from time to time, or contrary to applicable local, national, and international laws regulations."

Among the things that YouTube states are not allowed by the community guidelines include:

pornography
"bad stuff" (i.e. animal abuse, drug abuse, underage drinking and smoking, or bomb making)
graphic or gratuitous violence
copyrighted material that the poster does not hold the copyright to
Spam
videos of the predatory nature, which YouTube defines as stalking, threats, intimidation, invading privacy, revealing other people's personal information, and inciting others to commit violence or to violate the terms of use.

So now we've established what YouTube is not supposed to allow to be posted on its site.

That's why it's kind of curious about some of Google/YouTube latest enforcement of its terms of service. On December 18, 2010, YouTube closed down the account belonging to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). According to Google, this was done because PMW's postings constituted "hate speech". At some point over the weekend, the order was changed ordering taking down, seemingly, all videos posted by PMW in the past five months (i.e. around July 2010 to date). PMW's videos are taken, in most cases, directly from Arab media or from other postings on YouTube itself and used to show divide between the lip service that the terrorist organizations, such as Hamas and the PLO, give to the West and the actual words they say to their followers and allies.

While PMW is under threat of being shut down, mainly due complaints it appears from the Arab/Muslim groups, it is interesting to note that it is relatively easy to find videos supporting terrorist organizations and celebrating terrorist victories (i.e. war porn) on YouTube. Yet YouTube seems to do little to root them out.

Consider this, YouTube makes money off these videos. All of them carry advertising. And they get a lot of hits world wide from supporters.

Google says that you can make money without doing evil. Well, isn't it evil to shut down those that shine a light on to evil, while allowing the actual evil doers to continue spreading their message of hate and destruction?

So far, Google has sided with Communist China and supporters of Islamic terror organizations. In the former case, Google only stopped siding with the Communist Chinese when the PRC began hacking Google's servers. Perhaps there is hope for Google. Although, if history is a guide, it will probably take a suicide bomber at a Google facility to get them to recognize the difference between opposing evil and being a fellow traveller.

But on can hope that Google will remember that there is more to evil than pop ups and unidentified ads.

Looks Like Local 250 A Didn't Get the Mesage.

2010-12-12T22:15:00.000-08:00

It seems that the leadership and the rank and file of the Local 250 A did not get the message. Apparently not content to have theirheadshanded to them at the ballot box, they seem to be hankering to be reminded again that they are not the only people in the City and County of San Francisco.

What's going on, you ask?

MUNI drivers typically get a bonus of a few thousand dollars every December. The money cones from a trust fund that the SFMTA funds. There's only one problem: SFMTA is broke, hence all the cutbacks.

You would think that with the City in crisis, the SFMTA with no money, and the riders not getting rides, that the vastly overpaid membership of Local 250 A would forgo their bonus.

Well, they won't.

Standing on the provisions of the City Charter, the leadership of Local 250 A is demanding the bonus.

Something comes to mind about pigs and troughs whenever I think of Local 250 A. Another charter amendment looks to be necessary. How about something simple like no bonus if the city agency is in the red.

2010-12-08T17:08:00.000-08:00

You'd think that there was going to be a little time off to allow Jennifer Grey to bask in the glory in the glow of the fabulous mirror Ball trophy before rumors start popping up about who will try and follow in her footsteps. Anyways that's what I thought. I guess I was wrong.

It was reported today that Porsche de Rossi has declined an offer to appear on dancing with the stars. Apparently, the producers over at dancing with the stars heard her talking with Ryan Seacrest where she said that she consider taking part in a same-sex couple on the show. I wonder who would've been her partner? If only Lucy Liu was a professional ballroom dancer, slash-fic from the day would've resurfaced.

No longer content with getting free publicity by having its "stars" crash White House functions, the Real Housewives franchise looks to be getting its first test on dancing with the stars. according to people magazine, Nene Leakes, of the Atlanta Housewives, is apparently trying to get on is one of the contestants for next season.

But what could be the most interesting possibility for a train wreck next season is news that Lindsay Lohan is trying to get on the show.if you does make an appearance as a contestant this season, it may be that she ends taking the Josh Hamilton approach (meaning that you can have a mind her everywhere she goes to make sure she doesn't fall off the wagon). of course, if you follow baseball, you know that Josh Hamilton's sobriety Minder was so successful in keeping his player on the straight and narrow that he had to be pulled out of Arizona bar during spring training last year.

The evil SOB and he wants to put Lindsay with Maksim. Because putting someone who is barely hanging on sobriety, and possibly their sanity, with a control freak prima donna like Maksim is good television. At least, it would be better than seeing another Palin show up and try and dance.

Dancing With The Stars Finals Madness Part II

2010-11-23T23:39:00.000-08:00

Bristol had a better freestyle, but nobody puts Baby in a corner.

Dancing With The Stars Finals Madness Part I

2010-11-22T22:28:00.000-08:00

Bristol, Jennifer, and Kyle remain. Who'da thunk this would be the final three?

Kyle and Lacey have a foxtrot to lead off. They got a great song for it. Technique is much improved in the early parts. He has heel leads going. After the break, he is no as close as he should be but then starts to get back with her. The worst thing about this routine was the outfit. What hell was Lacey thinking putting him in a gold plaid jacket? Otherwise, a great make up foxtrot for Kyle. What dance was Carrie Ann watching? She must be smokin something because that was a great foxtrot with only, for someone with Kyle's experience, some small problems. This may be a first for me, but I think that the 27 was low. It should have been a 29 or a 30.

Bristol and Mark are looking for redemption in the jive. I like the opening where she throws out the costumes. Mrs. Angrybell wants to know why she is wearing godawful hospital shoes, she looks like she escaped from surgery. This dance is not going well for her. She is off the beat. Her kicks are not going very well. its better in the verve department than last time. And her character in the dance is better. It got better as it went along, but it was kind of a mess. It felt like she off for a large part of it. Seriously, is Carrie Ann on something? She's praising this as something it so was not. It was an improvement, but it was not a perfect routine. Well, it is the finals, so they can't dock her too much. The 27 was a gift.

Jennifer and Derek step onto the floor looking for redemption in the paso doble. The start was very nice, very in control, which was her major problem last time. With the tempo change, she still looks in control. Nice drop at the end. Huge improvement over last time. And with her daughter to cheer her on, the question is whether this is another set of 10s. Tom hit the nail on the head when he said that Bruno was frightening the children. Angrybabybelle snuggling in close now because of Bruno. And don't you know it, when Len gives a standing applause, its a perfect set of 10s.

But now its freestyle time. Will we see another Save a Horse Ride a Cowboy or another Doll Disaster.

Kyle and Lacey lead off with theirs to Tootsie Roll. Very literally right now. I get the feeling that this dance is Lacey's attempt to relive something she never got to do in the 80s or early 90s. And the problem with that is, its kind of boring. Everything was clean. They were in sync with each other. But in the end, it feels a lot like Tony's Saturday Night Fever homage with Stacy Keibler. The fans did not reward it then. Len and his boogaloo dancing. Surprisingly, Len gave a 9. They end up with a 29.

Bristol and Mark's freestyle is going with a more dressy than Kyle and Lacey. Jailhouse Tango from Chicago. Interesting, especially with her ex. Starts off very much a tango. Mrs. Angrybell feels like some switch just flipped with Bristol. The pelvic thrusts had Mrs. Angrybell stunned. Not your typical finals. She danced ti very well. On the one hand, it was not hip hop (thank you!!!!) but on the other hand it was more controlled. This dance, more than anything else showed how far she come. She still is not the best dancer, but she pulled it off. The 25 was a little unfair. I think it reflected more a lack of razzle dazzel than her dancing.

Jennifer and Derek doing their freestyle with a watermelon to Do You Love Me. It was clean. It traded shamelessly on the fact that it was Baby doing a dance to the song she first shared with Johnny Castle. The lifts were fun, especially with that spin lift at the end. 30.

None of the freestyles tonight delivered that knockout. Jennifer though should win. Bristol should take third.

Allow Me Now To Say What A Joke Congressional Ethics Are

2010-11-18T17:23:00.000-08:00

Say what you will about Charlie Rangel, the disgraceful representative from New York, but he has shown the light on something that needs to be fixed.

Back in elementary school, if you manage to pay any attention at all to what they're teaching you in the eighth grade, there was a little blurb in your American history books about Tammany Hall and the political machines of the 19th and early 20th century. We like to think that our politicians are the product of a better system these days, but how else to explain the how Congressman Rangel has managed to stay in office despite flaunting the law which is supposed to help craft and create. Back in the day, the graft and corruption of those political machines undermined our republic.

When President Obama ran for office, one of his promises was that he and the Democrats were going to restore ethics to our government. In fact, he was made, while senator, the Democratic point man for ethics in the Senate. Congresswoman Pelosi, back when she was Speaker of the House, also promised that the Congress would be a more ethical place.

So how has that worked out? Well, Charlie Rangel with the test case and the Democrats failed miserably.

Its always easy to point out the faults in the opposition. as a matter of fact, in politics that's exactly which are supposed to do. Your commitment to values that you say are ones you hold dear, however, are tested the most when they are tested against those whom you like and respect. Congressman Rangel is one of the longer serving representatives in the House of Representatives. He's one of the most liberal. He was a political ally, and may still be, but Congresswoman Pelosi.

But he's also corrupt. He's abused his office. He's abused the public trust. He has violated the law.

So what did the House Ethics committee do about this? And how will the House Ethics committee going to do about this?

Well, they ensured that any investigation into Rangel's ethical violations was prolonged and extraordinarily slow. Despite the fact that the media has been publishing reports of Congressman Rangel's failure to abide by the law since 2008, Congress seemed unable to convene a hearing on his actions. The first reports that I know of, were published in August of 2008. Coincidentally, the Democrats were in control of the House of Representatives at that point.

It was not until July of this year, two years later, that charges were finally submitted to the House Ethics committee. Why they take so long? That's simple. Ethical violations are only good when you swing them at the other side. And for some reason, we keep letting the politicians get away with this mentality.

So what will the ethics committee do about Congressman Rangel's transgressions? His fellow Congressmen are going to, most likely, go to impose the quote dreaded" and humiliating censure against Rangel. What is a censure? Essentially, it is, when applied to a member of the House of Representatives, stern lecture given in public to the guilty by the Speaker of the House.

Where I went to school, I received a stern penalty for failing to turn my homework on time.

Unfortunately we have the Congress that we as a people, collectively, deserve. For the most part, it seems that Americans are content to allow corrupt politicians to continue to serve. The politicians of both parties cannot be trusted to police themselves.

This man violated the laws that he swore an oath to uphold and protect and defend. He has shown no remorse about his actions, instead maintaining that not only was he innocent but that he was unable to present a defense. The acts are more heinous because of his position as a representative of the people in the government that is supposed to help, to send, and empower the people. Not so that Mr. Rangel can maintain his power, his income, and his legacy.

If our representatives in Washington had any sense of honor or decency, they would expel this man and turned him over for prosecution. Unfortunately, a large majority of those serving in the Congress are loath to do so, most likely because they have committed the same acts as Mr. Rangel.

Congressman Rangel's censure is a meaningless and hollow act because it does not carry with it any real punishment, nor does it act as a deterrent to anyone else who would do wrong and abuse the public trust. This should and needs to change.

The House Democrats were tested. They failed.

Where Money, Citizenship and the Law Collide

2010-11-16T11:37:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Martinez v. Regents of the University of California. At issue was whether an illegal alien, who has lived in California for the requisite amount of time, could receive the benefits of lower, in-state tuition, just like a person who is a U.S. citizen who lives in California.

The California Supremes came down with a yes, in fact an illegal alien could receive in-state tuition.

At first, I was outraged. Then I started to think as I read the case.

Let's talk about the case first. The case was brought on behalf of some students who are U.S. citizens, but do not meet certain requirements for residency laid out in Education Code § 68130.5. They argue that it is unfair to make them pay higher rates than in-state, illegal aliens.

Essentially, the plaintiffs argued on appeal that this was a case of federal superseding state law. That the California law should have been invalidated by various Federal statutes pertaining to illegal immigration. The defendants argued that this not a question of Federal preemption, since, they argue, there is no clear preemption of this issue.

What ends up happening is that the California Supreme do a very intricate dance. On the one hand, they absolutely did not want to give the Federal government more say than absolutely necessary in a California matter, namely who gets in-state tuition breaks. On the other hand, what the court very carefully does not do is find that there is anything in the California constitution which gives them this right. Instead, the right is only statutory and can be changed by the legislature.

And this goes to one of my favorite questions: why is the Legislature not doing its job? Why is the California Legislature approving, as it did in 2002, laws that devalue citizenship. And that, I think, is the real problem here. Why should someone follow all the rules, get a green card, obtain citizenship, and pay taxes if someone can just get around all that, not pay taxes, and still receive the same benefits of citizenship.

Yes, the argument is that there are talented, bright illegal aliens who would find it nearly impossible to afford education if this law were not upheld or amended by the Legislature. And yes, there is the whole question of whether it is proper to visit the sins of the parents (for crossing over illegally into the United States) on the children. The illegal alien, irrespective of whether they have been contributors or detractors individually to our society, is here illegally. Therefore, it is questionable whether they have any right to claim that they are legally domiciled in the United States or California. If that is the case, then why continue to extend to them the privileges which the citizens of the U.S., and California, enjoy?

As it stands right now, the law in question, section 68130.5, states

In the case of a person without lawful immigration status, the filing of an affidavit with the institution of higher education stating that the student has filed an application to legalize his or her immigration status, or will file an application as soon as he or she is eligible to do so.

Well, if that is the case, then why are we not demanding proof that they have complied with this part of the law? If that is the case, why does the State of California not puruse those who do not pursue legalization for the back money owed. Remember, its only an exemption contingent upon the illegal alien doing the lawful thing.

One of the insane, in my opinion, justifications, for allowing illegal aliens to get the in-state tuition rate comes in the article in today's Chronicle. Apparently, in a survey of 2,000 students which benefited from the law allowing entrance to a UC or CSU school based on California residency and high school achievement, approximately 20 percent of the students were illegals. One of them, Uriel Rivera, was reported by the Chronicle writer as stating that the taxpayers lose nothing by Mr. Rivera attending a UC because they have so much trouble paying their tuition anyways. Huh? Mr. Rivera, it is reported, is so far behind in his tuition that he cannot check books out of the library. Great. So we subsidize him, with the in-state tuition break, he can't pay that amount anyways. How is that a break for either the UC system or California tax payers?

The difference between in-state tuition and regular tuition is $22,700, notwithstanding the rate hikes which will probably happen next year. So for just the 200 illegals we know of from the study, that means $4,540,000 in lost fees per year. Would all of the 200 slots given to illegal aliens been filled by out of state residents, probably not. But say even 50 of those slots went to out of state. Think that's crazy? Well, the UC system is trying to get more out of state tuition money coming by aggressively recruiting. So maybe not so crazy?

But, if you went by the current stats, which states that 89% of the student body (undergrad and grad) are in-state tuition, then you still see an increase over almost half a million in fees to the UC system. But more importantly, all of those students, assuming that the illegal aliens are replaced by legal residents, would be eligible for Federal student assistance programs.

Although I've just done some, very rudimentary, numbers crunching, I come back to what I think is the real problem. The real problem is whether we are going to continue incentivize law breaking, and the devaluation of citizenship by not changing this law. Is it cold and elitist? Not if you think of it as the way you've been taught since kindergarten: everyone has to follow the same set of rules.

The plaintiffs in this case are planning to seek a writ to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. It may take the case, if only to talk about preemption and then remand it down for further findings. That's my guess.

Dancing With Stars Semi-Final Madness

2010-11-15T22:20:00.000-08:00

Opening thoughts for this week: Bristol Palin needs to go. Sure, she's the plucky underdog, but really, she does not belong in the final three. Let's stop voting for values or politics and start voting based on performance.

Mrs. Angrybell is of the opinion that this is one of the weakest as far competitors go. And I have to agree. Other than Brandy and Jennifer Grey, I doubt that the other two would still be standing at this point.

So let's see how the couples handle a two dance night.

Brandy and Maksim lead off with a Paso. Interesting routine. Very heavy on the story and not as much, at least at the beginning on the dance. But I think Len should let it go. Brandy is having a bit of a problem. The look is there in her face, but her steps are not... powerful. She's stomping but it almost looks like she is afraid as opposed to being powerful and flowing. The 27 seemed a little high for that dance. It was good, but it wasn't that close to perfection.

Jennifer Grey and Derek Hough are coming in off last weeks perfect score and doing their first one with a cha cha cha. Bruno is getting a little too excited with Jennifer's gyrations. It was a little off in the beginning, but by the time they crossed the floor it looked sharp and with good hip action coming out of her. I kind of feel like she was a little over amped. The Judges may give her a perfect score, but I think there was just a little something off in the beginning because it felt almost like Derek had to slow her down. Now this is not to say it wasn't a great dance. It just had some problems. And of course, with it so close to the end, the judges throw up a row of perfect 10s.

Bristol and Mark doing a Paso. Starts off strong. Mrs. Angrybell is stunned by Bristol's technique at the start (which is good) and by Mark's shirtlessness (which is bad). As the dance goes on, it gets a little more uneven. But there are some parts where she is fully committed to the dance. However, when she has to lift the cape/skirt, she drops out of the zone. Good lord, Carrie Ann... please. Len is right. She has hung in there and this was probably her best dance. But is it good enough to hand in there for the finals? I'm still saying no. She got a 27. Not sure it was that good. But we shall see. And I have to say, someone must have shown Bristol the scene out of Bull Durham for her answers to Brooke Burke's questions.

Kyle Massey and Lacey Schwimmer doing a Samba. Mrs. Angrybell likes him ("Such a joi de vive"). Mrs. Angrybell has noticed that Lacey is very into her partners smacking her bum whenever possible. I'm just not able to focus on this dance. The song was terrible and distracting. It was nice. No real mistakes I guess. But that song just drove me to distraction. And Len has that look that says he is going to give a 10. I guess it was good, since they gave it a 29.

Brandy and Maksim return for an Argentine Tango. And Maks choose to have them play on the steps for a while. Her steps are a little tentative for what I think we should see at this point. But that's just a shading quibble. Otherwise, very nicely done. It was better than her last dance. Which is why they gave her a perfect 30.

Jennifer and Derek return for their Waltz. Nice pirouette to start things off. The dress makes it hard to watch her feet. However, from the way things are flowing for most of the dance, it looks like she is getting the nice rise and fall. However, there was a little problem when they danced into the corner and did those arm behind the head things. She got out of the moment for just a second. But she recovered and got back into the flow. Another perfect score for the couple.

Bristol and Mark return for their Waltz. Mrs. Angrybell wonders if this is the Muslim version. I think they are just going for the very intense, very dramatic look. Her frame is nice. Head in the right spot. Going into the spins, there was a weird weight change. She also needs to be a little tighter on his hip until she moves into the next combination. Mrs. Angrybell just said "wow, she is in a character. Who replaced Bristol Palin with someone else?" Was her best week. Good dance. I just don't think she has what it takes to go to the next round. Of course, America will just want to prove me wrong. And the 26 was probably the most honest score of the night.

This brings us to the last Kyle and Lacey doing their Argentine Tango. They got hosed with the song. Its so up tempo for this dance, that it is forcing him to be quick as opposed to powerful with his feet. The other thing, and Mrs. Angrybell said this before I could type it was "What about Kyle? Isn't he supposed to be dancing too?" There were long periods where Lacey was showing. I almost get the feeling that he was having trouble with the dance and she covered for him by extending her bits where she could allow him to stay hidden as the center. That being said, he had to be an effective center. Mrs. Angrybell agrees with Carrie Ann about the Emmit Smith comparison. Both had that twinkle that could get you to over look their technical faults. The 29 was generous. Probably should be have 27. But then, it is the semi-finals.

If we are being honest, the best entertainers are Jennifer, Brandy, and Kyle. The underdog is clearly Bristol. She has shown improvement. She may even be peaking. The problem is this: her peak for dancing, at least right now, is not as high as Jennifer, Brandy, or Kyle.

Bristol needs to go home. Her held high. But she needs to go home.

But then I've been saying that for a while.

To the Veterans, Thank You

2010-11-11T16:17:00.000-08:00

And it just always seems so inadequate to say Thank You. But Thank You.

Instant Madness With Dancing With The Stars

2010-11-08T22:38:00.000-08:00

So last week I was a little preoccupied and missed DWTS. Let me just take a moment to bitch. It was the World Freakin Series ABC. I understand that Fox is a competitor, but did you have to go head to head with my beloved Giants on the night that they won their first World Series since 1954? C'mon, let's rethink things a little.

And while I was away, what did you do America? Apparently, you've kept both Lacey and Bristol around. Keeping one would have been ok. Keeping both... I have to ask you, just what the frack did you think you were doing? Bristol is nice and cute, but this nonsense of voting for her because she is related to a political candidate needs to stop. I saw the reveal show.

At least there is a reason that Bristol is still around. Lacey and Kyle, well they seem to be regressing, at least from the bits I was able to catch while still in my post-World Series-glow (did I mention that the Giants won it?). For love all that is decent and pure kick her to the curb. Which will be bad for Kyle, but she needs to go.

And you got rid of Rick Fox? What?

Tonight, it will be a round of ballroom and then the dreaded "instant" surprise dance.

Kyle and Lacey, fresh from escaping the red light of last week, drew the lead-off slot. Dancing the Viennese Waltz. Posture is nice but not dead on. He is hunching just a little and its causing him to put his bum out. He is on his toes too much, not going through the rise ad fall. His arms are nice, but the flow in this dance is not working so well for him. Len had a better view of his footwork than I so I defer to him. I think its my hatred of Lacey that colors my view. Mrs. Angrybell is worried for Carrie Ann, this crush is getting out of control. This 9 business is crazy. It was nice but not that good. And they drew, for the instant dance is "Good Golly Miss Molly".

Jennifer and Derek followed up with a Quick Step to "Lets Face the Music and Dance". She started off too far away from him but as the dance went on, she got back on his side when she supposed to be. Mrs. Angrybell said "the dress is one part heinous, but I really like it. Little miscue at the end on the final beat, but otherwise pretty good. I got the feeling she was really worried about her knee and it caused her to be holding back just a little. Now, the 9s that were awarded here were correct. The dance flowed much better than the drek that Kyle and Lacey passed off on to us. She drew "Waiting for A Girl Like You" by Foreigner.

Mrs. Angrybell thinks that Brooke Burke looks like a gold Barbie-doll tonight. I think thats a good thing.

Kurt and Anna came up next to do a waltz. Take It To The Limit, not a favorite of the Angrybell family. Kurt is not quite locked in with his frame because he feels so tall with Anna. He is getting the rise and fall off his steps. Its not always there but its better than the alleged rise and fall of Kyle. It was a good dance. And apparently, Carrie Ann has been listening to us and comes up calling Kurt a Ken doll. Kurt just got robbed! The 8s were wrong. Especially with the way they gushed over the Kurt and Lacey routine. Hella Good by No Doubt is the song and neither of them have heard it. How is that? This should be interesting.

ABC... was it necessary to have 2 commercial breaks where I got to see Steve-O naked?

Bristol and Mark come stumbling in to do the Argentine Tango. Bristol is starting to become a bit of a whiner. She already looks nervous doing this opening bit. Song is Buttons, never would think of it as a tango but it works. She is not .... I don't know but after doing so well she lost it for a few bars. And it looked awful. She snaps back into the dance and it gets better in time for Mark to lift her a few times. Mrs. Angrybell calls a lack of verve. I agree. I think she gets so nervous she starts over-thinking. And thinking while dancing is not her strong suit. Len's comments were dead on. The 8s were dead on in this case. Why? There were a lot of little problems with the performance, even though the steps were right. Mas Que Nada is the song they drew.

Maks and Brandy were up next with a waltz. After last week, I suppose they aren't a train wreck. But you know that Maks is always a session away from being Maks. I can't really find anything wrong with it. Mrs. Angrybell wanted to know if this was the dance of people in pain. I predicted a perfect score, but Carrie Ann went and mucked that up. Apparently she is a nit picker who cares about the angle of her neck. But Len and Bruno came through with a pair of 10s. They drew Teenage Dream by Katy Perry.

Instant dance time and Kyle and Lacey are back on the floor doing their jive. This dance suits him much more than the ballroom style he danced earlier. However, he needs to keep himself in check just a little to prevent him going out of the jive. It was a good, fun routine. Mrs. Angrybell liked it a lot. Len was right, there were some small errors. The 29 was right.

Jennifer Grey and Derek, after loading up on breath mints, came out to dance the Rumba. It looks like she has now raided Edyta's closet. Too bad she took the sheet instead of the pillow case. Wow, some of this is really good. The split on his shoulder was particularly impressive. Her hip action is there but not as good as it should be. That 30 was impressive, especially with that tendon coming apart.

Bristol and Mark came back out for the in progress update. Mrs. Angrybell gasped when she saw Bristol's outfit. I have to say, whoever put her in it is a Democrat.

Kurt and Anna were up next with a cha cha cha. Mrs. Anrybell felt as though Anna had thrown on some holiday tinsel but gave kudos for the crazy assed lime green that Kurt is wearing. This is not as good for him as it has been for the others. Mrs. Angrybell feels like she is watching her dad dance... its embarrassing her every time he does a hip trust. This was ok. It was not as good as their earlier dance and it did not work for them as well as instant dance did for the first two. No matter what Carrie Ann says, he did not nail everything in this dance. He hung on to get it done on the beat, but didn't "nail it". 8's across the board for them.

Bristol and Mark finally got to come out and do their samba. Mrs. Angrybell thinks this could be the train wreck the judges were hoping for. Starts off ok. She seems to like the Samba, either that or the terror is masked as happiness. And then she gets off beat. Then she has gone horrible off and Mark gets her on the floor to bring her back. The 23 was generous.

Maks and Brandy doing the Cha Cha Cha. The song does not work for this type of dance. I didn't like this. Felt too much like ... not a cha cha cha. Maks and Carrie Ann going at it. I'm waiting to see the hair pulling. I have to say Carrie Ann was right on. After all that, they still got two 9s and a 10? WTF?

So who goes home? Honestly, it should be Bristol. Kyle overcame his burden of Lacey to earn another week on the show.

56 YEARS OF WAITING AS THE GIANTS WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2010-11-01T20:38:00.000-07:00

56 years since the last one.

25 years since I finally learned what it meant to be a fan.

First game was June 5, 1985. Giants lost 6 - 0 to Montreal, Mike Krukow took the loss. My Dad took the day off and told me he had a surprise. We were going to go to the game. It was a Wednesday afternoon game. He showed me how to score. Even though we missed the top of the 1st, I made him stay to the end because somewhere in the game I got hooked on them.

I was at that game where Brenly made four errors in an inning playing third only to come back and hit a grandslam (upper deck on the first base side). Oddly enough, we weren't sitting in our season tickets, which were back in section 16 where I sat almost every Friday night home game eating malts to the dismay of the occasional tourist who'd wander into a section full of hardbitten season ticket holders. And in the eight years we had the tickets, I only got one croix de candlestick (I never left early.).

I watched them lose in the NLCS in 1987.

I saw them get demolished by the Bash Brothers in the 1989 World Series.

I missed watching them in person in the late 90s when I was in grad school, but got back to see them make the runs in 2002 and 2003.

And I never thought this team would win the World Series this year. I thought they'd be good. I thought maybe a wild card slot. But they just kept surprising me. Sometime in June, things started to feel different about these bums (and this team is a collection of bums in the best sense).

Thank you San Francisco Giants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Voting Matters - San Francisco Judicial Election

2010-11-01T19:46:00.000-07:00

Now, in California, we have a weird little system. Some states do it all by appointment. Some do it all by election. We combine the worst of both and have judges come up for rentention elections, but sometimes they get opposed. That is what is going on here.

Normally, this is not a big deal. But the San Francisco Superior Court judges have been acting in a particularly arrogant fashion this year. First, there was Judge Ernest Goldsmith comments from earlier this year that put a chill on people challenging his seat. Then, when a challenger did appear, but to Judge Richard Ulmer, the other judges started to organize to support Ulmer. And they apparently were not being shy about it. Judge Campos decided he would sent out endorsements supporting Ulmer on Superior Court letterhead to members of the DCCC.

Now I have some problems with Nava. He is playing the race and sex card. He says he is trying to downplay it in interviews, but he is running as the gay latino. And that is just as bad as what the Superior Court judges are doing in opposing him. Last year, it was Mellon being targeted in a similar case of race politics. Unfortunately, we got Sandoval on the bench.

Ulmer is a bit on the conservative side. Reports from the tenants' attorneys seem to say he is pro-landlord. But is this enough to vote against him? Objectively, you cannot say that Judge Ulmer has done anything wrong.

So what to do here? I think the Judges need to be reminded that they need to focus more on doing their jobs than banding together to protect their jobs. Yeah, I'm a bit about punishing incumbents this year, but in reality, I do not think that Nava will be much different from Ulmer. He will just have different prejudices. This is really about whether the judges should weigh in on judicial retention elections. Vote Nava. I'm sure litigants will regret it just as much as if we keep Ullmer.

Voting Matters - San Francisco Proposition Voting

2010-11-01T18:37:00.000-07:00

Proposition AA - Increasing the San Francisco registration fee for automobiles. Basically, the City wants you to approve an increase in the vehicle registration fee which was authorized by the Sacramento. On the up side, the money is supposed to only be used for "capital projects" and not just for administration of other transportation programs. Furthermore, it specifically states that the money is not supposed to be used outside of San Francisco. That's all well and good. The City believes that it is going raise $5 million. Fine. But you know what, I still do not approve of this measure. Why? The City has a lot of money troubles. And the temptation is going to be there to "borrow" or "borrow against" this money. The City needs to start making some hard decisions. Feeding it more money is not the answer, especially with all the Muni cutbacks. Vote No on AA.

Proposition A - Bonds to retrofit buildings leased for low income people. I'm generally against the City expending any money or taking on any other debts. This time, I think its a good idea. We live in earthquake country. We're going to have one. Might as well do what we can to make sure that the damage is minimized. Vote yes on A.

Proposition B - Reforming San Francisco's Benefits and Pension System. This needs to happen. The current system is unsustainable. Basically, the way it is now, if you work for San Francisco, you do not have to contribute to your own healthcare and you don't have to contribute towards your own pension. Pretty sweet deal for everyone but the people who aren't on the City's payroll. As it stands right now, out of every $ 8 you pay in taxes and fees to the City, $1 goes directly to the pensions and benefits for the city workers. That's 12.5% of the entire budget of San Francisco. It will save the City $120 million. The only people lined up to oppose this are the unions, who think that they need to be special and not have to contribute to their own pensions or health care. They're not. They need to contribute, just like everyone else. Everyone needs to contribute or we're going to have bigger problems. Vote yes on B.

Proposition C - Requiring the Mayor to attend at least one Board of Supervisors meeting a month. You know, as much as I dislike Chris Daly, I think he has a point on this one here. Its irrelevant if the mayor and Board of Supervisors hate each other's guts. Part of the job is showing up and our mayor has been, well, a little preoccupied to show up a lot lately (unless of course there is a Giants game involved). The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has to show up once a week, the President of the United States has to show up at least one day a year (although, G-d knows President Obama will try and claim a golf conflict should let him out in 2011), so I don't see why the mayor can't be required to show up for a Board of Supervisors meeting. Let's get our disagreements out in the open and where people can be pressed to explain their position instead of the insanity that is the war of press releases that we get here. Vote YES on C.

Proposition D - Noncitizen Voting In School Board Elections. Didn't we vote this down a few years ago? Oh, that's right, we did. And the reason remains the same: voting is a right of citizenship. The point of being a citizen is you get to have a say in your government. Not letting other people have a say in your government. Vote NO on D.

Proposition E - Election Day Registration. If it weren't for the fact that it would cost so damn much, I'd say yes. But changing things when the economy and the budget is this mucked up is just asking for trouble. Vote NO on Prop E.

Proposition F - Health Service Board election reform. I cannot say it any better than the Chronicle, so here is what they say,

This may not be the most riveting issue on the ballot, or even result in much of a savings, but it's an example of one of the little efficiencies that can add up.

Vote YES on Prop F.

Proposition G - Reforming the MUNI Pay System. Umm... how to put this? Vote yes. Vote Yes! VOTE YES! Muni reform needs to start with this. End the free ride for the Muni workers. Start putting the priority of Muni back to the citizens of this city and not with the operators union. Vote YES on G!

Proposition H - Prohibiting elected officials from sitting on political party committiees. Huh? So we're trying to take the politicians out of the elected officials? Puh-lease. This one is needless regulation. And I almost think its a violation of a politicos rights (I think I could make the argument, have to look at a few cases). So anyways. Vote NO on Prop H.

Proposition I - Saturday Voting. On the one hand, it won't cost any money, so it says. And it will allegedly make it easier to vote. Or it will just confuse people as to when election day is. If you can't be bothered to vote on the day you are supposed to, who says that an alternate extra day is going to help? Vote NO on Prop I.

Proposition J - Hotel Tax Increase. Bad economy, people have less money to spend. We want to make it more expensive to visit here than anywhere else in the country? At least whoever comes up with these schemes is consistent. They want to make it more expensive for the locals and the tourists. Who do they want to live and visit here? Ummm.... let's shoot this one down. Vote NO on Prop J.

Proposition K - Hotel Tax Reform. Did you know that there is a different tax paid on a room when it is booked direct as opposed to through a third party? Neither did I. Problem is, this is a thorny question that is being litigated. It would probably be better to figure out what the law actually means before we go about changing it. Vote NO on Prop K.

Proposition L - Civil Sidewalks. Vote Yes on this. Its a law that has been tested and used effectively in other cities. Is there a problem? Some say no. But I'll tell you, I see a bunch of people when I go out in parts of the city. Is it going to penalize the homeless. It could. But at the same time, there is a problem and there is no effective solution other than this at this time. Vote YES on Prop L.

Proposition M - Community Foot Patrols. How it got this name, I am not sure. The intent of this proposition is nothing more than to kill Prop L. All it really does is require a "written community policing policy." Whooped-di-doo. Its real intent is found later in the proposition where it specifically nullifies Prop L if it passes. Vote NO on Prop L.

Proposition N - Real Property Transfer Tax. It increases the real property transfer tax for property in San Francisco that is worth $5 million or more. Once again, I know that the city is broke. And it wants to raise money. The problem is, this will work to kill development deals. Those put people to work. This is not just about Sea Cliff houses. Its going to affect everyone. Its going to affect the rents that get charged to both residents and small businesses. Vote NO on Prop N.

Voting Matters - Governor of California (Could We Have A Worse Set of Choices?)

2010-11-01T14:49:00.000-07:00

so it's that time of the year again. Ballots have been printed, debates have been had,and now tomorrow all you have to do is go on down to your polling station hold your nose and make some choices.

I'm really not kidding about that last part. This year in California we've been offered probably the weakest selection of candidates that it has been my misfortune to ever have to vote on. Think I'm making this up? We've managed to outdo the absurd removal of Gray Davis, where among the slate of candidates we had a porn star and former child actor, by the two parties giving us a retread and a dilettante.

Going with the theory that it's age before beauty, will start off with Jerry Brown. What can we say that hasn't been said about Jerry Brown? He's been governor once before. He's run unsuccessfully for president of the United States. He was the mayor of Oakland, more on that later. And now he's the Attorney General of California. We know an awful lot about Mr. Brown.he has an awful long record, which is something that is unusual in this election cycle where everyone seems to want to not have a record.

With the state that California is in right now a priority for any voter has to be how is this person going to handle the economy and more specifically, whether they can do to help create jobs. Over Mr. Brown's website, he states that his plan is going to include a number of things. First, he wants to stimulate clean energy jobs. How did he want to do this? he wants to increase California's electrical generation capacity by at least 12,000 MW, in addition to that he wants to build 8000 MW worth of large-scale renewable and necessary transmission warnings. Furthermore he wants to reduce peak energy demand to develop energy storage systems along with those who want to increase the efficiency of buildings and appliances while at the same time developing more combined heating and power projects. And of course to ensure all this goes smoothly, he wants to appoint a "Clean Energy Jobs Czar".

Along with his proposed clean energy initiatives, Mr. Brown wants to encourage business startups. (Where have I heard that before?) To do this, essentially he wants to embark on a massive infrastructure upgrade. he also wants to create what he calls "strike teams" which will focus on job retention and creation. we hope that these teams will do is coordinate between worker training program tax incentives and other programs to help, I suppose match entrepreneurs and job seekers with each other as well as applicable incentives which may help them create new jobs in the state. he also promises to make a priority and increased manufacturing jobs also delivering quote targeted workforce training programs". Finally, like any good candidate, he promises to invest in education.

Now the question really is, how is in the pay for office? He is talking about a lot of money to be invested in "green jobs". when president Obama proposed the same thing, people started looking at this. Some studies have shown that to create one green job, you need to spend $30,000 of taxpayer money. in Spain, where they've done a similar plan of subsidizing renewable energy sources, they found that the cost of exit significantly higher end effects the economy number of ways. First, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Second, not only do the citizens have to pay for it as part of their taxes, they also end up paying higher energy costs because it's more expensive to generate.great, so not only is it going to cost us a lot of money or each new job that Mr. Brown wants to create with his renewable energy incentives, but were also pay more for the electricity that were already using. Already, this sounds like a great plan.

While Mr. Brown says that he wants to cut down on the bureaucratic red tape that businesses have to go through California, at the same time he proposes creating a new bureaucratic position, "Clean Energy Jobs Czar". how many government positions in the executive that report directly to the governor do you think come without a staff? If you can name one you get the no prize.

In what passes for his plan to deal with the budget, Mr. Brown said 11 same things that we heard from Gov. Schwarzenegger when he took office. This includes cracking down on those who aren't paying their taxes, making sure that we get all the federal money that's available, adopting a pay-as-you-go type of financing for state projects, and tearing up the "credit cards", while creating a rainy day fund. Tom, history Brown watched any of his own political ads? Play something about insanity being defined as doing the same thing over and over?

The major problem with Brown, if you're talking in very broad terms. He's talking in idealistic ways about how he wants to help California. Make no doubt about it, I truly believe this is a man who sees himself as being the one to help the state at this time. The problem I have with them is his inability to articulate his position on certain issues. First and foremost, what is he going to do about taxation and how does he view that when it comes to dealing with jobs in growing the economy California. The reason I ask this question first, is that he wants to spend a lot of money to make his vision of the future happened. Right now renewable energy costs a lot to get started. When you've got more than 10% (its actually 12.4%) of Californians out of work or underemployed, you have to start at the base and the basics in this case is job creation.

Second, what is he going to do to make sure that people are actually able to live in this state. The state has one of the highest standards of living, and because no one seems to be willing to allow the market to fail and readjust downward, we're stuck with the high cost of living. One of the ways that we alleviate this is Proposition 13. Position 13 passed during jury Brown's first term as governor of the state of California, and he fought against its passage. Once passed, he later professed to be "born again supporter" of Prop 13. now the unions, and some educational advocates, claimed the Prop 13 harmed our state schools. Why? Simple proposition 13 limited the amount that real property taxes could be increased in the state. The way that while schools in the public school system are financed is through the collection of property taxes. Without the ability for the local city and municipal governments to raise the taxes at their whim, and to whatever level they wanted, it hurt the school's ability to get new funds. on the right, Prop 13 is seen as a bulwark against out-of-control government taxation that is essentially unaccountable to the electorate. Now in San Francisco, Proposition 13 is unpopular. Why? Because were very liberal and a majority of the people within the city are renters, and renters don't pay property tax. but in other parts of the state the majority of the people are property owners in the 1970s property tax rates skyrocketed making homeownership almost unaffordable. It's something to consider. Backspace, especially in light of the fact that Mr. Brown is heavily dependent on the union's, including the SEIU and the teachers union, or very hostile to Proposition 13.

When asked about Proposition 13 and other tax raises Mr. Brown has been very evasive about this. His answer seems to revolve around the evolving the power to tax and local levels. And how is he going to convince the state legislature to give up the power to tax or in the alternative to not tax is much. one thing that will grant him, is that he does have a history of frugality. The problem is is that enough especially in light of his performance as mayor of Oakland?

On the flipside, we've got Meg Whitman. Her first strike against her, in the state, is that she's a Republican. Say what you want about California this is a blue state. Her background, as you probably have heard by now if you've watched any television show in the state, is that she was one of the people who helped get eBay to where it is today. She made a lot of money doing it such creative lot of jobs at the company by helping guide from small startup to the behemoth that is now. For a time, she also sat on the Board of Directors for Goldman Sachs.

Let's talk about the Goldman Sachs connection per minute, because that kind of important in choosing who you want to lead your state. Another bit allegations that she did some pretty illegal things there. according to California Watch,

Whitman's relationship with the giant Wall Street firm -- an investor, corporate director and recipient of old insider stock deals and campaign donations -- could pose conflicts of interest if the Republican front runner is elected governor of California, critics say.

[...]

Whitman left the board [of Goldman Sachs] in 2002 after she was targeted in a congressional probe of bond underwriters and "spinning" -- a financial maneuver, now banned, in which Goldman and other firms allegedly traded access to hot IPOs for bond business. Whitman later settled a shareholder lawsuit related to the prophets she and other execs made from buying the IPOs.

[...]

With golden active on so many state issues, Whitman could face "a pile of potential conflicts of interest" if elected governor, said Doug Heller, spokesman for consumer watchdog of Santa Monica.

[...]

Whitman's campaign attorney said it was "plainly ridiculous" to hold Whitman responsible for problems Wall Street because she spent 15 months Goldman's board.

Basically, Whitman took advantage of the system as it existed at that time. The system did not make illegal the things that she knew about or participated in with Goldman Sachs, and it appears that no insider trading was ever proven. When ever there is money and where ever there is access, there is always going to be the implication that improper things are going on but the rest of the public does not have access to. yes, she did apparently settle a shareholders suit. However, that the civil litigation matter does not necessarily make her criminal nor make what she did wrong. It simply represents the fact that she chose to settle rather than go to costly litigation. (Yeah, it's a little inside baseball, but there it is.)

Now, let's look at what Ms. Whitman wants to do as governor. Just like with Jerry Brown, let's look at what she wants to do about the economy and in particular about jobs. According to her website, her plan had a number of components. First she wants to eliminate the small business start up tax, including apparently, eliminating the LLC filing fee. this she believes will make it easier to start new businesses in California. Second, she wants to eliminate the factory tax. third two wants to increase the research and development tax credit. Fourth she wants to eliminate the estate tax and capital gains. Fifth she wants to promote investments that are cultural industry. Apparently she wants to do this by providing a tax credit to encourage investment in our conservation technology so that we can reduce the consumption of water.

Wow, she really is noticed. Compared to Jerry Brown checks the list out what she wants to do what she wants to eliminate.

Next up, we have what she wants to do about the budget. Like Mr. Brown, Ms. Whitman wants to do something about the spending going on in Sacramento. Ms. Whitman's plan appears to be threefold. First she wants a strict spending cap. The spending cap is going to be based on the state's gross domestic product. All happened, according to her plan is that spending can't increase unless the state's economy is growing. Second, she wants to uphold the two thirds majority rule when it comes to passing the budget for the state. There she wants to turn the legislature into a part-time legislature, similar to what they do in Texas. This would take a constitutional amendment and could not be done something to passing a bill. It would require a vote by the citizens of the state of California.

In looking at what she wants to do, it appears that she has some laudable goals. Imposing some sort of fiscal discipline on the state is needed. However the question arises as to how he'd deal with expenditures that are going to be necessary when the unexpected happens. adopting the spending cap that she wants to use, unless certain safeguards are built in, it's going to make it very hard for the state to do things especially if the economy suddenly goes south again (of course, that'll require the economy to go up and grow instead of getting worse).

California has very difficult choice. Our economy sucks. Were losing jobs. We have a lot of projects that need to be done. Jerry Brown offers experience. Meg Whitman offers an outsiders perspective. Both of these have their advantages and disadvantages.

Some argue, that electing Whitman would merely be a continuation of Schwarzenegger's policies towards California. While some of what Gov. Schwarzenegger has done has not worked out, and his many campaign promises that were unfulfilled, this might not be a bad thing. The problem we have right now in the state is that we have been unable because of our unwillingness to effect change tour budget in the way that we do things. When I look at Jerry Brown, when I listen to what he says, I see a man who wants to to continue along the same path he is gone before. I respect Mr. Brown but I think given the results of his tenure in Oakland that his solutions are not necessarily the ones that we need nor can we afford at this time.

On the flip side, when I look at Meg Whitman, I see a business woman who has engaged in sharp practices as shown a willingness to initiate attacks on her opposition. While this sounds bad, I'm not necessarily sure that it is.while there are some questions as to whether or not she would have an actual conflict of interest with Wall Street, in particular Goldman Sachs, this is not the same as the type of baggage that Mr. Brown carries with him marked with tags from the SEIU.

If I could, I would send these two choices back and tell the respective parties to put up serious candidates. To me a serious candidate would be someone who has both ideals and is willing to lay out the plan what he wants to do going forward. Both Ms. Whitman and Mr. Brown only to fill half of my requirements as a voter. Because Mr. Brown is so dependent in what he does tell me he wants to do on things, such as green jobs, which studies have shown have the opposite effect of the helping create jobs, but I have to say that we should give Meg Whitman the vote.

You have no idea how much it hurts me to say vote for a Republican here.

Rock 'n Roll DWTS Edition Recap... Madness I Tell You!

2010-10-25T22:20:00.000-07:00

The top 10 dance routines are being show-cased tonight. So far, Mrs. Angrybell and I are not digging them. More on that later.

Audrina and Tony started the dance portion off with a Paso Doble. This is not a dance suited to her personality of a the girl next door. Let's see how this goes. Another One Rides the Bus, by Queen, was the song. Mrs. Angrybell never thinks of this as a rock song. She has the face down but is not being forcefully flowy in her movements, if that makes sense. Mrs. Angrybell thinks she took the serious part too to heart and had no passion coming through, no verve. Len was a little overly harsh, but he was right. She hits the steps, but is not getting the character of the dance. Bruno even agrees. Carrie Ann feels she has to coddle her. The score was 24. I would have given it a 7. But at this stage in the competition, score inflation is on the rise. Could we see a perfect?

Kyle Massey and Lacey Schwimmer followed that up looking for little redemption in the tango. It was interesting watching Kyle dance with his brother, since originally the tango was danced by men not male/female partners. Where Audrian wasn't getting the character of the dance, Kyle totally is. I have to wonder Lacey was thinking with this costume. There are times his frame is off because his bum is sticking out more than it should. Clean. Not many mistakes, there was one midway through the dance after they did a nice series of spins down the floor, but overall really good. Who choreographed it? It didn't bear the marking of any of a Lacey Schwimmer let's-piss-off-the-judges-by-deviating-from-the-syllabus routine. How does Len give Kyle a 7 when he gave Audrina Partridge an 8? The 23 was wrong.

Jennifer Grey and Derek Hough is also looking to bounce back from last week's foxtrot. This week they're doing a paso doble to a Pink song "So What". Mrs. Angrybell didn't recognize her with the hair extensions. This is not an easy song. There is a change in tempo. And they are handling it really well. Mrs. Angrybell thinks that pyrotechnics always help. She lost it for a second at the end and it threw off Derek as well. And it was heading towards a good score. Carrie Ann hated the dance. I'm surprised she found it so out of control. The 20 is brutal. I have to watch this again, but I defer to Len.

Rick Fox and Cheryl Burke drew the tango this week. Angrybabybelle, who wouldn't go to sleep, was waving at the screen. Girl you really got me going was the song. His frame is not locked. Mrs. Angrybell thinks he is doing the Audrina Partridge thing, which I agree with. Angrybabybelle clapped along to the routine. Not sure if she likes the song or the dance. Sure its clean, but there's not passion in it. Mrs. Angrybell thinks he looks ticked through it. And yet they got straight 8s? What are they thinking tonight?

Bristol Palin and Mark Ballas are wondering why they are still on this show. Alright, not really but I am. I think Mark wants off. He is listening seriously to Bristol's suggestions about choreography. Either that or he feels like he is playing with house money after surviving last week. They do the tango to . This routine is not bad. She is locked in, she is on his hip when she should be. She is lacking emotion for much of the dance, but she has it in flashes. This was her best dance. They got robbed with that 23. That dance and routine was superior to those 24s that have been given out.

Kurt Warner and Ana Trebunskya are looking to build on last week's score with their paso doble. I love the Brett Michael's suggestion of "Don't break eye contact, that's when they go crazy on you." The Final Countdown is the song. Started it out nice and intense, but then when they went to open, he looked a little agraid, but then he started to show that intensity again. The problem in this dance for him is not the steps, but the attitude and showmanship. He is not consistent in keeping in character. Len doesn't look happy with this. For once, both Mr and Mrs. Angrybell disagree with the judges. There may be something about the lines that Bruno mentioned, but ... that's what makes a horserace. The 18 seemed harsh.

The Maksim and Brandy train wreck is still rumbling down the tracks. Mrs. Angrybell feels bad for Maks because he keeps getting crazy partners that he has to be a therapist for in order to get them on the floor. Mrs. Angrybell wants to know what Brandy is wearing for this paso. Holding out for Hero is the song. Mrs. Angrybell however thinks that Maks is doing an homage to Han Solo. The funny thing about this, it seemed like the mistakes that happened were made by Maks, especially when they did that dip and he almost lost it. I didn't love this dance. They got a 26. I guess. It was good. I just felt like something was wrong with it.

Then there was the group jive. Derek and his partner have won this that last few seasons. And this time he comes in second, with Brandy and Maks hanging on to get the final 10 point bump.

So who is to go? Kurt had a bad week. Jennifer looked fully mortal this week. And Bristol unleashed an impressive dance. Sad to say, I think that this week, Kurt Warner goes home. If Jennifer Grey does, I'd be very surprised.

Does The ILWU 10 Know This Isn't France?

2010-10-24T06:58:00.000-07:00

Seriously.

This is the second work stoppage that I've heard of recently by the International Longshore Workers Union local 10 this year that I know of that have nothing to do with labor conditions at the port. ILWU 10 apparently has decided that days off are called for to protest things that they really have no business weighing in on in this way. That's something you expect from a French union, who love to strike at the drop of a hat.

Yesterday, the Longshoremen refused to handle cargo to protest the killing of Oscar Grant and the trial of Johannes Meserle. Did someone not tell them that a jury has decided this case? That 12 the case is still going on?

ILWU 10 needs to stop worrying about politics and worry about its membership more. Let the system work in that case. It does not need to be inflamed by some yahoos who think they can substitute their judgment for that of the jury who heard the case.

It's Been An Interesting Week For People With Any Sort Of Phobia

2010-10-22T08:24:00.000-07:00

I'm going to start this off and lay out some of my phobias. I'm not talking arachnophobia type stuff. I'm talking about fears of certain groups. Two that I have are fears of Islam and fears of Prius' drivers. So I guess that gives me Islamophobia and Priusphobia. In my opinion, both could be the death of me (I have been hit by Prius drivers and have had more near misses with drivers of those damned cars than any other type).

While I have a fear of Prius drivers, and Muslims, that does not mean that I discriminate against them. Both are groups that I find pose a threat to my safety. The Prius drivers because they can't seem to drive while keeping their eyes on the road instead of that infernal readout that shows how fuel efficient their being (making them also, in my opinion, narcissists). The Muslims, well... because they demonstrably want to see me and my children and my relatives dead (yes, if you have not figured out, I'm Jewish, supporter of Israel and have family who live there).

That does beg the question of, is it a phobia if in fact they are out to get you?

But that is no matter.

Why am I confessing to this? Because apparently certain groups want to prevent people from admitting to their fears. Confess publically that seeing a Muslim person in religious garb on a plane makes you nervous, then you CAIR wants to make sure you do not get to keep your job. Think this is my imagination? Then check with NPR to see when Juan Williams will be on the air again.

He was fired last night for stating in an interview that

“I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

In case you do not listen to NPR, Juan Williams is a long time reporter for NPR. He has also written for years for The Atlantic Monthly as well as contributing to other magazines. Outside of his journalism work, he is also author of several books on the Civil Rights Movement and African American issues. In short, this guy has a track record of being serious when it comes to what he writes and reports about.

Apparently, this experience and track record of being a respect journalist is not sufficient when it comes to stating the simple fact that in light of his life experiences, he has a fear. He did not say he advocated stripping them of their civil rights. He did not say that we should go out and hurt them for being Muslim. He expressed some fear.

According to CAIR and NPR, that's not acceptable in a journalist. Never one to let someone have an opinion that Islam isn't perfect, CAIR stated

CAIR is calling on American Muslims and other people of conscience to ask National Public Radio (NPR) to address analyst Juan Williams' statement that airline passengers in "Muslim garb" make him "nervous."

"NPR should address the fact that one of its news analysts seems to believe that all airline passengers who are perceived to be Muslim can legitimately be viewed as security threats," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. "Such irresponsible and inflammatory comments would not be tolerated if they targeted any other racial, ethnic or religious minority, and they should not pass without action by NPR."...

He noted that media commentators who launch rhetorical attacks on Islam and Muslims normally do not suffer the professional consequences of those who similarly target other racial, ethnic or religious groups.

Ignoring the falsity of the statement that Muslims are a particularly targeted and aggrieved group by the media, lets look at what they are attacking. They are attacking his expression of fear of a group. Is it regrettable. You bet. Is it natural considering what has happen over the past decade, or longer depending on how historically minded you are, between the US and the Muslim world. Of course. Would it be nice if people didn't have to fear other groups for rational reasons? Absolutely.

But apparently, we are supposed to live in a world where even our feelings must be politically correct, otherwise, apparently, we lose the ability to do our jobs in a non-discriminatory manner. At least, thats what NPR believes. NPR fired Mr. Williams last night, stating,

His remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR

How? He expressed a fear, a personal fear that he holds. He did not tell a lie. He did not simply accept propaganda, governmental or otherwise,and pass it off as news. He expressed his feeling of fear.

What he did do is apparently verboten among right thinking people. He stated that he has identified the current threat to himself as anAmerican as militant Muslims. However, almost as if this was something the Bush Administration fought against it, it has to be opposed e left while it's in power. From Obama Administration down, we are told that we are not dealing terrorism caused by militant Islam. To suggest that the terrorism we are facing most frequently as a threat to us comes from Islamic worshippers is a heresy it seems.

There's also the suggestion that the conservative views of Mr. Williams were not liked by his bosses at NPR and that this was the real cause of his firing. Previously, because of his criticisms of the First Lady, he had been forbidden from using identifying himself as an NPR analyst when appearing on The O'Reilly Factor.

I wonder what NPR would have done if he had expressed a concern about his children going to a Catholic school?

But that's not the only bit of punishment for expressing one's opinion. As Mr. Williams was getting his pink slip from NPR, author Elizabeth Moon was being de-invited (should I say booted) from appearing at WISCON where she was supposed to be a Guest of Honor. WISCON bills itself as "The World's Leading Feminist Science Fiction Convention."

Apparently they only want feminists who do not utter words outside of the pages of science fiction books that could be deemed controversial. In this case, Ms. Moon voiced her opposition to the planned mosque near the World Trade Center site. In her blog, where the objectionable comment seems to come from, Ms. Moon writes,

The point here is that in order to accept large numbers of immigrants, and maintain any social cohesion, acceptance by the receiving population is not the only requirement: immigrants must be willing and able to change, to merge with the receiving population.   The new place isn't the old place; the new customs aren't the old customs. "Acceptance" is a multi-directional communications grid. Groups that self-isolate, that determinedly distinguish themselves by location, by language, by dress, will not be accepted as readily as those that plunge into the mainstream. This is not just an American problem--this is human nature, the tribalism that underlies all societies and must be constantly curtailed if larger groups are to co-exist. It is natural to want to be around those who talk like you, eat the familiar foods, wear the familiar clothes, have the familiar cultural references.   But in a multicultural society like ours--and it has been multi-cultural from its inception--citizens need to go beyond nature. That includes those who by their history find it least comfortable.

Whether a group changes its core behaviors and values after immigration or not, it must--to be assimilated later--come to understand the culture into which it has moved.   To get along, it must try not to do those things which will, sure as eggs is eggs, create friction, distrust, and dislike.    Is this a limitation on its freedom? Yes. It is also a limitation on the freedom of the existing culture into which it moves...it's a compromise. A compromise isn't entirely comfortable to either side, and either side may misjudge how uncomfortable a compromise is to the other side--it is wise to grant that what you're asking the other guy to do may be quite uncomfortable to him/her.   A group must grasp that if its non-immigrant members somewhere else are causing people a lot of grief (hijacking planes and cruise ships, blowing up embassies, etc.) it is going to have a harder row to hoe for awhile, and it would be prudent (another citizenly virtue) to a) speak out against such things without making excuses for them and b) otherwise avoid doing those things likely to cause offence.

When an Islamic group decided to build a memorial center at/near the site of the 9/11 attack, they should have been able to predict that this would upset a lot of people. Not only were the attackers Islamic--and not only did the Islamic world in general show indecent glee about the attack, but this was only the last of many attacks on citizens and installations of this country which Islamic groups proudly claimed credit for. That some Muslims died in the attacks is immaterial--does not wipe out the long, long chain of Islamic hostility. It would have been one thing to have the Muslim victims' names placed with the others, and identified there as Muslims--but to use that site to proselytize for the religion that lies behind so many attacks on the innocent (I cannot forget the Jewish man in a wheelchair pushed over the side of the ship to drown, or Maj. Nadal's attack on soldiers at Fort Hood) was bound to raise a stink.   It is hard to believe that those making the application did not know that--did not anticipate it--and were not, in a way, probing to see if they could start a controversy. If they did not know, then they did not know enough about the culture into which they had moved. Though I am not angry about it, and have not spoken out in opposition, I do think it was a rude and tactless thing to propose (and, if carried out, to do.)

I know--I do not dispute--that many Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks, did not approve of them, would have stopped them if they could. I do not dispute that there are moderate, even liberal, Muslims, that many Muslims have all the virtues of civilized persons and are admirable in all those ways. I am totally, 100%, appalled at those who want to burn the Koran (which, by the way, I have read in English translation, with the same attention I've given to other holy books) or throw paint on mosques or beat up Muslims. But Muslims fail to recognize how much forbearance they've had. Schools in my area held consciousness-raising sessions for kids about not teasing children in Muslim-defined clothing...but not about not teasing Jewish children or racial minorities. More law enforcement was dedicated to protecting mosques than synagogues--and synagogues are still targeted for vandalism. What I heard, in my area, after 9/11, was not condemnation by local mosques of the attack--but an immediate cry for protection even before anything happened.   Our church, and many others (not, obviously all) already had in place a "peace and reconciliation" program that urged us to understand, forgive, pray for, not just innocent Muslims but the attackers themselves.   It sponsored a talk by a Muslim from a local mosque--but the talk was all about how wonderful Islam was--totally ignoring the historical roots of Islamic violence.

Now apparently for having the audacity of suggesting that 1) immigrants have to do somethings to adapt to their new home and 2) that it was unreasonable for Muslims to believe that building a mosque at the site of the most destructive act of Islamic terrorism on American soil and not expect controversy.

Now some have argued that what is happening to these people is no different than the punishmnent meted out to Rick Sanchez for calling Jon Stewart a bigot andconplaining tha the "Jews" have too much control over CNN. But it's not. First, what Sanchez said is untrue, and could have been deemed slander by Stewart. Second, regarding his comment that Jews control the media industry, that is a repetition of the old anti-semitic Elder of Zion conspiracy charge that originated with the Tsarist secret police. Here, we have two people who are not trying to smear an ethnic or religious group. One is saying a personal fear he holds. Another is urging immigrants be incorporated into the American system like every other group who has come over.

If we are going to penalize people from stating their opinions, how are we gping to have a free exchange of ideas? How are we going to know when there are people who are living in fear? If the Muslim community is upset by this, maybe it's because the truth stated by these two hurts. Instead of trying to penalize these two for their opinions maybe they need to look at what they are doing, whom they are supporting and ask whether these are people and groups that they should be supporting.

Its Madness Time Again During a Lull in the NLCS (DWTS Recap)

2010-10-18T22:21:00.000-07:00

Alright, the Baseball G-ds were looking kindly upon me tonight and decided not to schedule the Giants-Phillies game for tonight. Go Giants!

Tonight is TV Theme Night. Whatever will we do without The Situation?

The judges gave their review of the remaining contestants. Carrie Ann and Tony were very high on Kyle and Brandy. Why? I'm not sure. They seem to see greatness in them, but I see tenativeness with Brandy (odd considering she has a long history of performing live) and sloppiness from Kyle. Both of them, however, share a huge disadvantage: their professional partners. Both Maksim and Lacey have a history of sabotaging their partners by choreographing to what they want rather than the abilities of their partners.

Mrs. Angrybell would like to give kudos to Brooke Burke's team (Manager and Attorney). For the most part, they have managed to keep her from suffering from some of the outfits (not to mention hair styles) foisted on Samantha Harris.

Maksim and Brandy drew leadoff this week and the theme song to the show Friends. It will be a quickstep. Yay! But with Maksim choreographing... yah. Len is going to go nuts with all screwing around. And then they spend a long time in open before getting into hold. Little problem after the first circuit for Brnady in the corner. Her frame is nice. Good kicks and flicks. She is on her toes too much. She never really gets the good heel toe movement. It was good. According to the Len scale of last week, it should not get above a 7. Of course, Len's critique makes a liar out me. Len how could you? So the scores were surprising to me. A 27. I suppose it was high energy and all that, but still ... a 27?

In the two hole, its FloCork dancing to the "Brady Bunch" theme. Seeing Mrs. Brady and Barry and Corky... just wrong. Funny but just wrong. Doing a tango. Never thought of this song as a tango. She is right in on his hip. Good for her. Nice turns, but she got a little dizzy at the end. She keeps looking down which is not going to sit well with Len. Was a clean dance. Not spectacular, but done pretty well. This can't be good, Carrie Ann and I agree on things. Not sure she is right about the timing problem. Then again, the camera angle prevented me from seeing her footwork. Given the scores for Maks and Brandy, the 21 seems fair.

Kurt and Anna followed up that routine. They drww the theme song to Bewitched for their quickstep. Should be interesting since apparently the reruns did not make it to the Ukraine for Anna to see. The mucking around worked, I like how she did the nose twitch and he started dancing... well... better. His frame is not great, he is hunching occasionally. They're really using the nose thing to good effect. Not too much, and its almost like when he makes a mistake, he gets a nose twinkle. Of course, thats not the case, it just works with the music. But nonetheless it covered up a little flub there on the second one. Good routine. Not as good as some of his other stuff, but an improvement over last week. Maybe I'm just too hard. Carrie Ann just called the dance the reincarnation of Gene Kelly. I suppose the 24 was a fair score. I guess we've hit that point in the season where they inflate their scores.

Tony and Audrina were trying to discover how to dance with onion breath. The rumba tonight is to some song that I guess . Mrs. Angrybell says only an Italian man would wear a powder pink shirt. Audrina has tried to raid Edyta's wardrobe. Once again, she grabbed the full body sheet and not the wash cloth that Edyta would've worn. There were some nice bits. The problem is that there was almost no hip action. Otherwise it was good. But with a lack of hip action, its not a good rumba. I really wonder what dances Len is watching tonight. Where was the hip action? Really? Bruno hits the nail on the head this time. Where was the smoldering sex? Damn, Carrie Ann is picking up on what I couldn't get out. And then the lift police rears its angry head. For the record, no lift. Mrs. Angrybell thinks that Audrina should get her money back on her boob job because there is a dent in her implant. The 23 was generous. I really think this was a 7 dance.

Kyle and Lacey showed up trying to get back up towards the top with a Foxtrot to the theme from "Charlie's Angels". Mrs. Angrybell wants to know if Kyle is supposed to be super pimp Bosely or someone from the Jeffersons or perhaps Isaac Washington on the Love Boat. Better technique. I dunno. I think I am just so anti-Lacey that I can't say much nice about it. Bruno was right, there was not enough foxtrot. They broke into disco too many times. Len hated it. Maybe I just was compensating for my hatred of Lacey and was trying to be nice. The 20 was right, but the spread was a little nuts. Len's score broke his own standard from last week. Oh well.

Rick and Cheryl. Doing a rumba. To Hill Street Blues. What does it say when a basketball player with multiple injuries still nagging him from his career has better hip action than any of the female contestants so far? He is not repeating his mistakes from last week and his not trying to be small, just stepping small. Very well executed. I liked it. Now the 24 is what I would have expected from the Maksim and Brandy routine. What to think of this? I dunno. It was better than that.

Bristol needs a good routine. If she doesn't show anything this week, she's going home. Its a jive this week to the theme from "The Monkeys". And dancing it in a monkey suit is not necessarily what I would think is the way to show she has personality. She got lost on the time. She stopped. I feel bad for her, she knows she blew this dance. And its just getting worse. It was paining Len to not say what he wanted to say. Somehow, she salvaged an 18.

In as the clean up routine: Jennifer and Derek. And from the montage, it looks like Ms. Grey's temper and difficultness (always rumoured so Mrs. Angrybell tells me) is starting to come to the surface. Hopefully Baby pulls it together for the foxtrot. The song is Love and Marriage (married with Children). Little bit of mucking about. I think they missed a chance to make this funnier by going more towards "Married With Children" and not Ozzie and Harriet. Not their best routine. There were a couple of little missteps, tiny, but just enough to keep them being perfect. Should keep them near the top of the leaderboard.Well, if Carrie Ann threw the lift police card, you had to expect Len to say something was "too theatrical". The 25 was fair. It was not good enough to be higher, but it should not have gotten lower.

Alright, so who should come back? Everyone except Bristol. She tried. She got further than I thought she would get. Her problem is that she cannot get off the plateau she reached. And because of that, its time to vote her off. If you are looking to get rid of a guy... do us all a favor and vote Kyle off. Lacey's instincts are showing again. She's deviating a little more each week from the syllabus.

Ashkon's Giant's Anthem

2010-10-12T19:10:00.001-07:00