Crooked Socks

Dear Sarah,

Can I call you Sarah?  Political life is like a straight jacket to you. I can see it. It’s becoming more obvious every day. I beg you, stop trying to hide your light under a basket. Come out into the open and be yourself. 2012 is so far off. What are you going to do in the meantime. It’s obvious that someone with your kind of drive craves a challenge and, Sarah, there are greater challenges than a presidential election. Incumbent Ann Coulter is ripe for the picking. It will be difficult; her position is, in my opinion, nearly impregnable.  But you have the right stuff; you can do it! If you can just position yourself to Coulter’s right, she’ll collapse in an instant. Think about it Sarah. Think how your constituents would hang on every word. Think how you could shape opinion; and most of all think how free you would be. You could say anything you want, unencumbered by the exigencies of a campaign. You could finally let your true self blossom.

Do it for the good of all patriotic Americans.

Ahhh! McCain has decided that since the idea of change worked so well for Obama, he’d better get on the change bandwagon too. Nice try, but I don’t believe him for a second.

I believe that Obama is seriously committed to the kind of change he outlined during his campaign and spelled out in his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention.  I believe that McCain adapted the “Change” slogan not because he believes in change but as a political tactic. Before adapting his new found belief in change, there was a pretty clear line between what the two candidates stood for; now that line is falsely blurred. 

So here are three reasons why McCain can’t claim Palin is just as experienced as Obama. 

First of all, it’s a peculiar argument since Obama is running for POTUS and Palin for VPOTUS - apples and oranges. At issue is the wisdom of McCain’s choice of someone with such limited experience. Someone who might well end up as President. McCain however claims she is just as ready as Obama. I beg to differ. And frankly my reasons for doing so apply equally to McCain.

First of all, nobody is ready for that job. All we can do is say that one person is more likely to do it better than another based on facts.  The issues, players, population, industries and economies of the US and it’s foreign allies and foes are hugely more complicated and numerous than Alaska’s.  While nobody can claim complete understanding, there are degrees of difference.   

Let’s start with education which was originally something desirable; but no more, now that the GOP has put a derogatory spin on it, making it into “intellectual elitism”.  So what happened every parent’s dream that their children go to college and get an education.  Republican’s send their kids to college. Do they see their children as intellectual elitists, or is it only the children of Democrats who are thus labeled. Obviously, the derogatory spin is just a political convenience should your opponent be well educated. But I digress.

For starters I think Obama’s Education makes him a more viable:

• He graduated Havard Law School (J.D.) magna cum laude. Some may choose to call Harvard an elite school, but the fact remains it is where many of the smartest students in the country want to go and test their mettle.
• His undergraduate degree focused on political science and international relations.

So from the get-go, we have someone who has a graduate degree in law (with honors) and who studied both political science and international relations.  By my book that gives him a head start on Ms. Palin who has a Bachelor of Science. Her resume makes no mention of any academic honors. And should you choose to call them equal on every other count, I’d go with Obama - just on the strength of his education. 

Next, I think his work prior to being elected to the Illinois Senate makes him a more viable:

• He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School for 12 years (8 of them as a senior lecturer.)
• He worked for Business international Corporation (BI). A well known publishing and advisory firm dedicated to assisting American companies in operating abroad. 
• His work in community services gave him first hand knowledge of the real struggles facing poor and low income families.
• He worked for 12 years for a law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development.

In my book a knowledge of constitutional law is an asset for anybody in national politics. I don’t know how much Ms. Palin knows about constitutional law, it was not mentioned in her resume. His work with BI gave him insights into international business affairs and the remaining two items attest to his dedication to understanding and solving the real social and economic problems confronting low income Americans, which shouldn’t be a partisan issue. 12 years experience as a working lawyer doesn’t hurt either. I don’t know how much community service Ms. Palin engaged in again it was not mentioned in her resume. 

Obama knew early on that he wanted to serve the public, while Ms Palin says “I never really set out to be involved in public affairs, much less to run for this office.”  She started out on the PTA and well you know how one thing leads to another.  Should you choose to call them equal on every other count, including education,  I would still go for Obama based on his knowledge of constitutional law and his dedication to work for the good of those without resources.

 
The time spent in elected office makes Obama more viable:

Note: Naming the achievements and failures of those in political office will always be highly partisan. And while I personally feel what Obama has done while in office is important and consistent with the values he defined early in his career, I am sure Palin supports would find value and worth in her work and political positions.  So I restrain myself to talking about only the time spent in elected office and what office was held.

• 7 Years as a state legislator in the Illinois Senate
• 3 Years as US Senator.

So while Ms. Palin does have a total of 12 years by my count, only her years as Governor begin to compare in complexity with Mr. Obama’s time in office. Her years spent in Wasilla politics may have prepared her to be Governor but certainly not Vice President.  So should you choose to call them equal all other aspects, I would still choose Obama on the basis that he has more experience in bigger political arenas.

The rest is unfortunately partisan politics. And I would still choose Obama because I find his positions, hugely moral and benefitting the country.  I know many disagree; hopefully not enough to elect McCain.

My hiatus is over… I’m back and posting!!

–cs

In the wake of McCain’s clueless comments about Social Security, which you can read about here; there’s been a lot of grumbling from commentors who would like, I assume, to see it privatized - though mostly they just bitch.

The complaint is, as McCain crystallized it, the “disgrace” of today’s workers contributing to the support of those who are retired. Where, I ask you, is the shame in this?  Just who is being diss’d here? Is it dishonorable for retirees to accept this money? After all, their contributions helped support their parent’s generation. Down the road, will it be ignominious for today’s contributors to collect their Social Security?  Actually, I think it will, particularly if they need the money to survive, which at this point in the heyday of their earnings is unfathomable.

The fact is they just don’t want to lend money to someone who in their perception has squandered what they had, like uncle Charlie who gambled away his paychecks. To these folks, needing money to survive is a personal failure; it must be such a bore to have to lend it. It’s a real problem.

–cs

In The Daily Telegraph Sameh El-Shahat argues that George W. Bush has been the most under-rated president… ever!  

He and Keith Olbermann might oughtta have quiet talk together.

–cs

An editorial in yesterday’s New York Sun bashed Harvard Magazine’s current cover story: Unequal America - the Growing Gap; yet it did “find some shred of hope” for the story in a survey quoted by the magazine in which 71% of Americans agreed with the opinion that “the poor could escape poverty if they worked hard enough.” The editorial goes on to say, “We can’t help but see it as an encouraging sign that Americans, even those in the lower half of the income distribution, see our land as a place of opportunity.”

If the survey is correct - and I don’t doubt it, it reveals something repugnant about us. It is equally repugnant for the NYS to try to put a positive spin on it.

It seems to me that the definition of poor is that no matter how hard you work, the ends will never meet - even given superhuman thrift.  It is a state of financial insecurity, where nearly any adverse change in your finances can throw you off balance - a flat tire, subway fares go up, you name it. Small changes that most of us can manage to absorb push to poor into debt. It is a life where a savings account is a dream.

It is a life, I suspect, that that 71% can’t even imagine.  

-cs

Being of the generation that finds fault in almost everything that goes on these days, I shouldn’t have been surprised by an article in the Wall Street Journal about financial camps. But once again I had one of those “what’s the world coming to” moments.  Teach your kids the value of a dollar! Send them to Camp Millionaire where they pass the glorious days of summer learning about real estate investments, balancing a portfolio, risk analysis, credit card juggling and money, money, money, money.

I imagine them all huddled around the glowing embers of a campfire eyes wide and shivering in fear as the camp counselor describes the bear market approaching, point by point, by frightening point until “AAAGGGHhhhh,” he screams,”Your portfolios are worthless!!!” All the kids shriek in horror, some of the younger ones sob inconsolably and need to be reminded that it’s really just part of the market cycle. Then they all toddle off to their cabins, vowing secretly that they will never let the bear get them.

I know there are music camps, art camps,  judo, theatre, math, french and geek camps. And if a kid wants to go to geek camp, well why not?  Still, I find it hard to imagine a 10 year old wanting to go to finance camp. How could real estate investing trump (pardon the pun) the rest of childhood?  I admit, I’m kinda out of the loop. I dropped out when I heard about entrance examinations for $20,000 pre-schools. 

I frankly think this is all part of a long term scheme to privatize social security. 

–cs

I remember reading somewhere that once upon a time the golden rule was written: “Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you.”  I can only assume we have Strunk and White to thank for getting rid of the double negative. “Put statements in a positive form,” they tell us in The Elements of Style.  They would have us believe that the meaning of the two versions is the same. I beg to differ.

Take sex for instance. Need I go on?

The positive version foists personal tastes or beliefs onto someone else; like the uninvited people who ring your doorbell and want to talk to you about their religion. There are just times when the golden rule does not win friends and influence people. Those who “do unto others…”, often seem to me to be a bit self-centered and inconsiderate. “I like it, you should too.”

Personally, I’m going with the double negative. I prefer its “live and let live” ethic. Besides, most of us don’t want to talk about what we’d really like done unto ourselves anyway.

It’s hard, if not impossible, to be objective about a book written by a friend the subject of which are people you knew and liked, so this post makes no attempt at objectivity. Think of it as plug for my friend’s book.

I will say that nearly everybody who noticed the book on our coffee table borrowed it. Consequently, it was some time before I could get my hands on it and read it myself. All of those borrowers reported back favorably. Even my eighty-six year old Mother.

For many a year while living in NYC my wife and I played penny poker every Saturday night with friends, among whom where Grisha and Brona the subject of Domingo Rodirguez’s biography, Grisha and Brona.  We knew that the ladies had been “exotic dancers” in vaudville, but little more of their past. Ocassionally, they would drop a tidbit here or there about what they did and what life was like on the road — playing poker with the stagehands, the chores of applying and removing 10 pounds of metallic body makeup etc.  Rod (Domingo) and his wife Eve, however, were much closer to the ladies and knew a great deal more about their lives that most of the group.  With that knowledge together with papers, document and photographs the ladies left behind after their deaths, he has put together a fascinating biography of the two women.

The book not only tells the interesting story of their lives, but also adds to the historical record of vaudeville by providing fact, figures and details about the careers of two women performers who worked the circuits for over 22 years, sometimes giving eight performances a day.

And frankly, if you’re intrigued by these photographs, I’d say you will like the book.