Bailout This; The Consumer Is King!

So, it looks like we have entered into an era of larger than life, corporate “Bailouts” that we just can’t live without. The term has become a common topic of impetuous, dinner conversations, as well as the universal slogan for “Help me, I screwed up”. And in a time where the economy is imploding on a daily basis (if not hourly); we can not help but spend billions of dollars today and ask questions later. Of course, at the end of the day we are talking about big business bailouts and not helping the little guy: the taxpayer. But, to correct the market, we (the taxpayer) should fund the protection of critical infrastructure that is essential to the U.S. economy; right? If not, who else? But, after all the political infighting ensued over who was to blame, the current state of economy was in such turmoil, they really had no other choice. They had to do something. Or at least that is what they told you, and what you really wanted to believe. It is amazing how desperation can lead to rash decision making.

Certainly, the bailout of “Wall Street” was so vital that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed shoved the fear of “Armageddon” so far down our throats. The ultimate doomsday scenario did not come from Biblical text, but from the halls of Washington; and the masses bought it. And in a desperate attempt to add some salvation and redemption upon leaving office, the Bush administration followed suit. Whether it was fear of public outrage or an honest belief that bailing out an already greedy set of money “miss-managers” was going to deliver us to the “promise” land; who cares? Bush no longer has to answer that; so I will leave that campaign promise for Obama to deliver on (Which we all know what campaign promises are worth). And what made it worse, there still is limited control over these funds, accountability, or even a game plan for how they were distributed. Oh, sure we have the “manifesto”, but come on, seriously? Even better, Obama’s selection of Tim Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury should definitely help with improving economic stability. I guess a guy that avoided paying income taxes in 4 years is a great addition to the oversight of our monetary system. Glad to see that Pelosi actually defended this guy in the Senate confirmation meetings: I think she needs a CAT Scan. But “Wall Street” is not alone in this debacle; the financial crisis continued to loom from a lack of liquidity in the credit markets, mainly due to insolvent mortgage loans. Sure, a depressed economy and corporate downsizing will contribute to financial hardships, but a history of over-zealous lending to non-qualifying borrowers was the main catalyst in the housing crisis. As social-activist groups routinely engaged in thug-mentality: protesting and harassing banks and legislative leaders to increase the availability of housing, and mainly to low-income borrowers. Their ability to afford a loan apparently was irrelevant, since this had less to due to fiscal responsibility, and more to with a political agenda. Barack knows all to well, the efforts that these groups to go, as he worked with the activist community in Chicago for years. And if you further investigate the impact of legislation like the Community Reinvestment Act, activist groups like ACORN, and oversight institutions like Fannie Mae, you may have a different understanding of what happened. Despite all of this, the three main conspirators at Freddie Mac (Franklin Raines, Tim Howard, and Jim Johnson) all walked away with millions and subsequently worked on Obama’s Campaign as economic advisers. Surprise, surprise, surprise! But, to be fair, the situation worsened when increased banking pressure added momentum to profit seeking financial firms and hedge-fund “cowboys”. No defense here, since the equivalent expertise in this area can be found in “Vegas”; and yes, at the “Craps” table where the luck of the dice is king. So, in the end, after a second vote (and increased constituent pressure), congress passed the bailout package to a tune of $700 billion dollars. Ouch! Just think, without it, the credit markets would evaporate and businesses wouldn’t have access loans to continue operating, right? Given the nature that banks want to make money, it would have been a short time before one of them said, “Guys, we’re not making any money, I think we need to start lending again”. “Supply” and “Demand”; isn’t that how it works. And just think; it would have cost us less than $700 BILLION! Okay, just a theory, but so was assuming the “package” would actually work. Any evidence, hhmmm no. Freddie Mac executives escaped under the radar and a handful of financial executives went on vacation with our money (See San Diego hotel bookings). And do we know where all that money ended up? Besides outlier financial institutions that mysteriously unveiled themselves, claiming they were destitute; who else? Political advocacy groups anyone? Leftist Social causes anyone? Hhmmm.

Now the flood gates were open, every Tom, Dick, and Harry (I hate that expression) were grooming their pitches, dry-cleaning their suits, and applying a little more “Mitchem”. Please tell me no one actually uses that in 2009. So yes, all is good now in “Defunct-Ville”. And “Pandora’s Box” was wide open, and they came a running. And after watching the automotive industries’ first attempt at begging congress for their share of “bailout” funds, I was so appalled, it was laughable. How could I be mad that corporate executives from the “Big 3” automakers flew in on private jets, were driven by chauffeurs, and escorted by an entourage of assistants (and/or hookers: come on now, you can tell)? All you could say was, “Are these guys friggin’ kidding me”. But then again the arrogant, cigar smoking, bravado was not a surprise. But, after a second trip to Washington, this time driving across country in “Hybrids” of course, their plea was about 1% more convincing. By the way, they were still driven by chauffeurs (I do not know about you, but I enjoy a nice road trip, it really frees the mind). Of course, there are many that will blame boastful incompetence, wasteful spending, and poor product development on Detroit’s current fiscal dilemma. Yes, U.S. automakers had their issues, dating back to the1970’s trying to compete with Japan (i.e. the Ford Pinto, no explanation needed), but the recent misconception that American automobiles are not as well built as their counterparts is unwarranted. The American auto industry has been transformed, and if you took another look you would be surprised: Detroit is leading the way in greener and advanced technologies. But was it management’s fault alone? There is a vast majority that will also blame unions, litigation, and government regulation. You have to admit, it is hard to compete with cars that are $5,000 less due to the union “Mafioso” that has driven up the cost of wages at 2-3 times their competition. Now, I am not advocating “Sweat Shop” wage practices, but you have to give-and-take. No offense to the hard-working laborers out there (you are a critical component of our industry), but I am trying to justify $100 per hour for an assembly line worker to drill holes in a car door. And during the second round of “Bailout” discussions, union officials were still not willing to concede wages, until increased pressure. So, let me get this right; the management has to suffer, but the union doesn’t? That sounds fair? I think they realized; no bailout, maybe no jobs (Duh). But, in the end maybe the bailout was necessary, since most consumers did not, or chose not to see the improvements in Detroit, or they are still buying a Honda Accord because they always did for the past 16 years. And if we gave Detroit just a few more years, maybe, just maybe, all will be well So yes, the congressional process followed a similar path: come the first time (We yell at you), come the second time, and we give you the money. For all intensive purposes, they could have still flown in corporate Jets the second time around and still received funding. Once again, I do like a good road trip, but the thought of 10 hour drive following two other cars is maddening: I would have flown. And so the plea for assistance was granted, and the same “Usual Suspects” (a.k.a. Pelosi and Reed) drove home their doomsday scenario. But maybe this time, they were right? Was a bailout critical to our economy? The automotive industry is a backbone of our industrial “might”, considering all we make in this country anymore are cars, rockets, and movies. And given the latest output from Hollywood, I would say only 2 industries left. Okay, so we have a large stake in technology production, but I was trying to make a point. But where does it end? We even have to entertain the ludicrous attempt of the adult entertainment industry seeking bailout funding. Apparently, sex doesn’t always sell. And maybe with men spending less time outside of the home for entertainment, maybe a depressed economy is actually good for martial intimacy? So, there just might be some “good” that comes out of “trials” (there always is).

During the past month of weeding through my SPAM-mail, I came across an interesting e-mail that explained the “How” and “Why” Wal-Mart should have bailed-out “Wall Street” (Yes, I do look through SPAM, and I found 10 e-mails on excellent investment projects in Nigeria that I have on my “To-Do” list). And given the amount of money Wal-Mart earns (Americans spend $36,000,000 every hour of every day at Wal-Mart: this works out to $20,928 profit every minute!), maybe they could have bailed out everyone. At least the saving grace on that idea is that business would have taken care of business. Having our government include an ownership share to the financial bailout proposal was priceless; not only were we footing the bill, the only guarantee was that government would have more control over the capital market (Big mistake). Of course this e-mail was meant as a satirical response to the preposterous nature of the financial bailout, but maybe this article had merit? Not in the way you may be assuming, but in the hands of the “people”. Personally, I am happy to see consumers pumping millions of dollars into an American company. Sure, early on I was an “Anti-Wal-Mart” supporter in the war waged against the “Moms and Pops” out there. But given the larger picture of a global economic battle, I realized if I was going to give into the “Machine”, better an American enterprise than a foreign entity. And in a time of economic hardship, maybe we need to start looking at “home” and not “abroad”. This year, 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at a Wal-Mart store (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 billion): so let’s add to it in America! And given that this is a free market economy that is driven by consumer demand and spending; we can assume that if we do not continue to spend then businesses do not survive. If that is the case, then would it be difficult to argue that, we the taxpayers should have received the bailout funds? Since the power of our economic system is really in our hands, wouldn’t “we” be a better vehicle to jump start the economy? I agree that during uncertain times it is normal for consumers to cut back on spending. But it is a “Catch-22”; you can’t spend, but you also can’t afford not too. Believe me, before the 2008 election, I had to deal with the monotony of the street rallying cry of Anti-Bush supporters that blamed his administration for our current economic status. I heard the same sentiment for social activist groups like ACORN that were active in the “thug” activity to encourage irresponsible lending to unqualified borrowers. I listened to the monotony of angst towards “Wall Street” and all of its money-hungry whores (okay, there are a lot of them). I heard countless debates on the audacity of jobs going overseas; blaming corporate America, yet “unions” continue to demand wages to a level that reduce our competitiveness in the marketplace (Instead of blaming Corporate America, blame the government for not imposing a 1000% tax on foreign imports to even out wage disparity). I had to listen to the redundant complaints about factory closings and the reduction of manufacturing in America, while consumers continue to buy foreign-made products (well, product categories that we actually compete in). And I haven’t even brought up NAFTA yet: thanks Bush I and Clinton. So, you can blame Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II; it really makes no difference to me. In the end, aren’t we are all partially responsible in some fashion or another? But, I can find some solace in the fact that the economy is a cyclical beast both in fortune and failure. And since we have been through roughly 7 economic downturns in the past 50 years (depending on how you define it) and bounced back, I think we will be okay. Sustainable growth is not a reality, as basic economic theory continues to prove that periods of intensive growth is always followed by a period of deflation (some short-lived and some longer). So, I am sorry to disappoint all of the “Idealists” out there, but there is no such thing as “Happy Time, All The Time”. Well at least in economics. But here is the good news! Since this is really a global recession, maybe all of our doubts and fears are irrelevant, since everyone is going through it. Isn’t it just a matter of time? Maybe, I CAN put a smile on again! But wait; all of the “Bush-Haters” would have nothing left to be miserable about; and we couldn’t let that happen. So, I will let you think Obama’s stimulus plan of $819 billion (full of pork fat: roads and bridges infrastructure spending; seriously?) will be our “Saving Grace”, rather than just another inevitable, natural upswing that will come. Just think; maybe Obama really is a "Supply-Side" economist? I can agree with that theory, but many have questioned whether this is less of a supply issue and more of a rectification of poor management? And do we not have the right to question who was actually receiving the money and why? Regardless, we all need to agree on one thing: let’s just hope we can eliminate any future irresponsible bailouts, and if need be, make sure it is deposited into our banks first. Won't increased consumer demand and spending help fuel the engine? So, when you ask yourself, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country”. My answer is: send out 1,000,000 e-mails per day, to each of your legislative representatives that supports any future “Bail-Out” proposals. And ask them for a blank check, written out to “The Consumer Is King”.

Oh What A (Inauguration) Night!

“Oh, what a night - late December back in ’63 - What a very special time for me - As I remember what a night.” Okay, so I wasn’t even born yet, but I am sure one day there will be a song that will bring back the memories of January 21st 2009. A moment of historical proportions that will surely not be forgotten: if you haven’t already been bombarded with T.V. infomercials selling memorabilia dinner plates and minted coins (Who buys this crap?). And who could ignore; the glamour, the gowns, the carpets, the doves flying from cages, the rainbow glitter, the prancing unicorns, and that magical moment when Barack came floating into the room, as if he was walking on water. Oh, the majesty of it all. There was laughter, praise, screaming, sobbing, and at one point I am sure there was some “Obama-Nation” groupie throwing her soiled panties onto the stage. After all, with a year of solid “Rock-Star” performances, it is hard to fit in a regular laundry schedule in between tour stops. Though, I could not help but think, was this an inauguration or a “Hollywood” premiere? Of course, the typical Hollywood-Left “A-List” would be there. After voicing their passionate and desperate pleas for “Change”, you know they demanded payback by allowing them to be front row and center during this once in a lifetime event. It makes perfect sense, and for those “has-been”, should-have-been”, and “are you kidding me” actors, why not another attempt at fame and glory. The fact that celebrities think that their world is a parallel universe with politics (well, okay, maybe it is on a superficial level), is quite absurd. We are talking about a world of actors, comedians, porn stars, mimes, photographers, musicians, and birthday party clown entertainers (solid credentials). But, having money and a stage, all of a sudden the humanitarians came crawling (driving) out of “Rodeo Drive” to make the U.S. feel bad about itself; once again. As if Hollywood doesn’t do that already. Where is an earthquake when you need it?

Hhmmm, all of this glamour and “over-the-top” partying while the country is in economic turmoil: right on? Back in 1945, during a similar turbulent time, Franklin D. Roosevelt terminated his inauguration celebration in the best interests of the country (He actually had a simple ceremony in the Whitehouse). He felt that while the nation was in turmoil, the best interests would not lie in an exorbitant party. Then again, Barack Obama, is no Franklin D. Roosevelt; at least until he proves otherwise. And if you think any of his “political-jockeys” would pass up the chance at flamboyant and excessive expression, let’s get real. They feed on this! Okay, so maybe I am not being fair. This is an historical event; the first “Multi-Cultural” president of the United States. And coming at a time, when the country and global confidence is at the lowest level in years. Forget the extreme hatred on the “Left” that liken the “Bush” years to Nazi Germany (Personally, I have not seen the termination of 8 million of our own citizens). This night was about reveling in the excitement of a new direction and hope for something greater than the past 8 years. I can understand that. But, for all of the complex biological systems that comprise a human body, it is amazing that we are such simple thinking creatures. Emotion is far superior to any other bodily function. I can’t help but think; all this adoration and uncontrollable weeping over a “man”, which less than a year ago no one really knew. To think: all of this excitement that has transformed a man from a virtual unknown to a “Messiah-like” idol? Okay, so I’m a cynic and far from an “Idealist”, so I couldn’t possibly understand? Or maybe, I’m not as foolish as the rest of the flock that have harnessed all of their faith into the hands of a single human being. Regardless, did we need to go the lengths that we did, while we are dealing with billions of dollars in bailout bills, defunct mortgages, financial melt-downs, and continual layoffs. You’d think someone would have stood up, amongst the entire Democratic camp, and said, “Enough is enough; we need to send an alternate message to the people”. Why would they; surely the responsibility does not lie on the shoulders of Democrats to take any ownership? And the reality: so many of his devoted followers relished the opportunity to party along, tokin’ their way to the mystical promise land of feel-good optimism. But, maybe we needed a reason to rejoice; just maybe with all the country was going through this was a celebration that was warranted? But, did we need to have such extravagance? Back in 2005, George Bush was absolutely lambasted about spending $42 million on his inauguration, while Barack Obama spent over $120 million without the media saying “a word” (yeah no left-media bias here). Some of the headlines in 2005 included (Thanks SPAM): "Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops die in unarmored Humvees" - "Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times" - "Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, ordinary Americans get the shaft". If you remember, Billionaire Mark Cuban asked that Bush cancel the inauguration festivities and redirect the cost to aid Tsunami victims. He stated that there was not anything more confusing and shocking to read that the U.S. aid to these affected regions would only be $35 million, while the inauguration parties would be $42 million. According to Mr. Cuban, President Bush should set an example! Similar statements were echoed across the halls of the liberal self-conscious. Are we living in a nation of hypocrites; are these people “friggin’” kidding me. So, how is that different than what Barack staged on January 20th? Was it not an overindulgent display of insensitivity to the nation? Wouldn’t you expect Barack to have had the common sense to tailor down the celebration, given our current economic hardship? In fact, the headlines were not full of astonishment or disgust, but the following: "Historic Obama inauguration will cost only $120 million"- "Obama spends $120 million on inauguration; America needs A Big Party" - "Everyman Obama shows America how to celebrate" - "Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama inauguration". My personal favorite is “Everyman Obama”; would this be the same as the assumed ignorant small town “values” people that cling to their Guns and Religion…..hhmmm. Yes, oh yes, fair and balanced reporting. Was this not the same thing? Once again, we received a limited response from the “Obama-love-affair” media. Not one liberal-leaning politician makes a gripe. Not one community activist group that has their hands full of underfed homeless A.I.D.s patients made a peep. Not one Obama-voting citizen, who hasn’t complained about their quality of life, questioned it. And for all those liberals who donated to the celebration; what about "World Hunger", "Darfur", and "Tibet"? This may be hypocrisy at its highest level, but then again it is not what is fair, but who in is control. And you know the Government elitists just shrugged this off, knowing us "common-folk" just forget so easily. So, after the multitude of Black-Tie “Balls” and what seemed like awkward dancing moments, I could not help but think; was Obama whispering, “we finally got a piece of the pie”, in Michelle’s ear (Got to love the Jefferson’s). The over-indulgence of Champagne, the gorging of stomachs and the ensemble of $25,000 dresses made this a night to remember. During all the media frenzy, which did not include any questioning of the inauguration price tag, all I would hear was who would be adorning the red carpets, and what dress would Michelle be wearing (Oohhh). Who gives a crap; really! And for those who did, I certainly agree, I hope it is a step up than the “Abomination” she wore on election night. The reds and blacks and some sort of tie-dye abortion. And the best part, this was only what I heard on the news the following day. I can only imagine what actually happened in between party stops, back-rooms deals, and autographs. Of course I did not watch any of the inauguration! But it was not based on who I voted for: I have never watched an inauguration, ever! Yawn. All the “glitz”,” glam”, and “gloating”: not really worth my time. And despite the “Celebrity” of it all, I can do without the continued false hope and empty political promises to make me feel inspired. Relax America, after the hangovers, you will wake up tomorrow to the sobering reality of just another day in the life of an American taxpayer (Close your ears kids).

But let’s just say that the timing was right and Barack deserved to celebrate. Okay, okay, I will go along with the excitement, and despite the ludicrous spending, the night was meant to inspire wishful thinking and positive embracement. That was until, there had to be one sobering moment amongst the “Mai-Tais”, “Manhattans”, and “Dry Martinis” (And guys, please do not say “Cosmos”), to bring us back to reality. One moment; that the “Black” caucus of the Democratic Party could not help but squeeze in. One moment; that had to include the sentiment of the “Oppressive White Man”. One moment; that had to please the bowels of Al Sharpton. So, in the onset of true reform, “racial” unity, and the empowerment of embracing change and progress, Barack decided shake up the dance floor. And so it was delivered, when Reverend Joseph Lowery made his final benediction after Barack took office. “Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.” –Reverend Joseph Lowery. Just when everything was going well, people were optimistic, and for a gleaming moment the entire country could be thinking, we just might make it: he had to do it. Aahhh, a “Black” Democrat: no speech would be complete without some reference to the “Evils” of the “White Man”. And so he said, what he said. And with over 200 years of “Racial” strife, we thought we approached a new dawn of healing. A time when a “White” majority helped usher in a first “Half-Black” president. And in one fleeting moment, it was if he dragged us back 40 years. The audacity of his comments; as if everyone is suffering, and the “White” man is to blame and should do what is right. Is this guy “friggin’” kidding me? The heck with this “racist”; and this only epitomizes my protest to the selection of Obama for President. Barack’s entire past is littered with a prejudice overtones and “racist” mentors; and his apparent mistrust for ”White” America is not an aberration; especially when you allow egregious comments like this to be incorporated in the benediction. How do you feel pride at this moment in history, when you include a tone of prejudice? No one ever said things were perfect, we have progress to still achieve, but the continued guilt and oppressive thinking is only detrimental to “racial” healing. The last time I looked, “Blacks” are not in the back, and “White” HAS DONE what is right (a majority believed and voted in Obama despite “race”). This country has come a long way, but do you think the “White” man will ever get credit for any of it? But, then again, if there was nothing to complain about, activists would be out of business. Could you imagine a happy Jesse Jackson (I think we was annoyed that the “Bradley” effect was not in play, so he would still have something to complain about). Yeah, you can laugh, it was funny. So a perfect evening for some was ruined by the irresponsible speech writers that did not caution or edit this benediction. Someone should have said, “Maybe we should not include this?” Now, did he have to include this; didn’t the election itself prove that “Whites” put “race” aside, and so-called did what was right? Instead of giving “Whites” an ultimatum, he should have been thanking “Whites”, and really all people, for just the opposite. On a night of celebration and hope for anew, all this did was bring up the past and mar the celebration with bitterness. All of us can debate Obama’s attitude towards his “White” heritage, but on a night when so many wanted to move ahead and find true unity, all they received was an over-priced Hollywood party, that ended with the same-ole-same-ole that has continued to spur the “racial” divide. Talk about an anti-climatic ending.

Race Didn't Matter, Or Did It?

Whoever said that "Race" didn't matter, should take a good look at themselves in the mirror; because you just might be fooling yourself. And while there are countless individuals in this country (with blinders) that believe we are in a new dawn of human enlightenment and inclusion towards people of other races, ethnicity, and cultures; people still resort to old-school thinking. But, the greater question is: do we lead by our intentions, or by our actions? There is no surprise that America has been through some tumultuous times in terms of "Race" relations, but so much importance has been placed on resentment and exclusion, rather than finding ways to be a truly inclusive society. The flag waving of diversity in America will not be a unifying factor if it continues to "pit" one group against another. Yes, America is a melting pot, and all cultures should be respected and proud, but alienating yourself from society has the opposite affect; it provides just the divisiveness that so many have fought against.

After the 2008 election, Anderson Cooper (CNN News) made the bold statement, declaring that is was refreshing to see that "Race" had no effect on the election. That Americans came together, and voted for man they felt would be the best President, rather than focus on his multi-cultural background. Now, I actually like Anderson Cooper, and enjoy his show (Anderson Cooper 360), but unfortunately he had only been talking about the apparent media speculation; that a portion of "White" voters would refuse to vote for Obama once they actually walked into the voting machine (aka Bradley Effect). No one ever questioned "Black" sentiment or voting bias: you would be a racist, wouldn't you? Did anyone ever stand up and say the "Black" vote would fall under the same racial prejudice as if a "White" voter decided to vote against him for the same reason? Let's get real here, the first president nominee that happened to be "Part-Black"; nahhh, no reason to speculate there would be voter bias here. And I guess that is okay, right?  I mean, we are not voting for a man "based on the color of his skin, but on the content of his character (Or was MLK just yadda, yadda, yadd-a-ling)?  Sure, the "Black" community has been through so much adversity in America, and despite the barriers that still exist, they found a gleaming moment to be proud. No one is going to argue with that, but is that enough? Do you vote for man because of it? This election had nothing to do with supporting a man that is running for a local township position, or community advisor, this is the office of the "President Of The United States". And I am not discounting his Academic achievements, but you would think his lack of experience and controversial background would be an important factor in this decision process. The critics will argue that Blacks have been predominately devoted to the Democratic party for years (roughly 90-10), so any racial bias would be discredited. But, I would have to argue that position. Due to the undeniable love and adoration for the Clinton family beyond just party block-voting. The black community embraced the "Clintons" emphatically over 8 years, so why would a majority of the back votes abandoned Hillary Clinton, and shift to an inexperienced man like Barack. He certainty did not have the proven tenure to be our leader. And based on Hillary's experience in Washington and commitment to the black community over the years, a radical departure can mean only one thing, right? Well, I would never want to make an assumption, but given the countless street interviews that I witnessed, the case against "Race" is hard to dispute. I remember watching a NY1 news broadcast and watching a black woman covered in Obama "garb" state that she was going to vote for Obama. She originally was voting for Hillary, but changed her mind. When asked why, she stated, after further review of his credentials (?), he would be a good president because he represented "Change" and "Hope"; and she believed he would save the country. That was it; no mention of experience, proven ability, nor significant contributions that would qualify him for the job (All in the 150 days of legislative work). And no mention of why the sudden change in candidate support. And, as I walked through various neighborhoods in NYC, the ostentatious and elaborate donning of pro-Obama gear worn by the "Black" community, would be more than just excitement for the American political process, right? I am sure many of these people would have cared less if Barack was not on the ballot. Sure, that is another assumption, but I did not re-call "Black" voters wearing an excessive ensemble of "Bill Clinton And Me Forever" T-shirts and blinking "We Can Do It" hats, when Bill was running for President. Sure there was excitement and support, but not to the level in 2008. But then again, this was a nation's first, was I being insensitive to the historical significance of this election?

Now that Barack is elected, will "Whites" be absolved from some guilt, will the "White" community gain some credibility in acceptance and inclusion because of this election, and will this have a positive affect on "Race" relations? I hope so, because Barrack did not win on the "Black" vote alone, he won with the "White", "Hispanic", "Jewish", "Asian", "Indian" and "Etc.", vote too. And given Barack's ethnic make-up, he is actually the first "Multi-Cultural President": he is "Half-White" you know.   But, it is common that any "percentage" of African American descent automatically make you "Black-Only" in the eyes of the community (And I thought color was insignificant). Just look at Tiger Woods, when was the last time someone said, the first African American-Asian-Caucasian golfer; they don't, they say "Black".  At least credit goes to Mr. Woods for stating he was proud of all his heritage and refused to make "Race" a central theme of him being a legendary professional golfer (And an amazing one at that).  Even Barack's endearment for his "White" heritage was not prominent; I am sure, until after intense campaign pressure to not alienate the voting block.  And his book titled the "Audacity Of Hope" wasn't exactly "White" friendly, yet interesting enough, he was raised quite well by a Caucasian family, while his Kenyan father deserted him at the age of 3.  But hey, let's not drag up the past; shouldn't his multi-cultural background give everyone a reason to celebrate this historical event, not just the "Black" community? Shouldn't the nation be proud that we ALL truly gained ground here? But the fact that the media and minority communities only focused on the issue of "Black", demonstrates that the overwhelming support was not devoted to embracing his entire ethnicity. And does that help in the fight of diversity, or just widen the gap? As a person of "Multi-Cultural" ethnicity, I was never taught to embrace one part of my heritage over another. In fact, I was proud of my 5 separate countries of historical lineage. The difference was that I was an American first, so regardless of background, I always found a common bond in another man by nature of the entire community. My grandmother was a proud Spaniard, but she loved this country. She faced a lot of diversity when she stepped on this soil, but she was a tough woman. But her toughness was not based in exclusion, but in Godly love. She had friends of various backgrounds, and did run amok with her Spanish flags, pins, and ribbons; she was an American now, and she had our countries' flag flying proudly on her lawn (I know that is a potential "Hate Crime" in these days, but not at that time when people appreciated this country). She truly embraced everyone to the point where her openness and acceptance was sincere and not transparent. She never sided with someone due to their ethnicity, or disparaged them because of it. She was an American, first.

Sadly, after the O.J. Simpson "Circus", I will never forget the day I watched the jury declare their verdict; "Not, Guilty". I remember scores of "Blacks" around the country cheering and screaming! Of course, after the media and Johnny Cochran turned the case into a "Race" issue, there was no doubt that OJ was going to be freed, and the "Black" community would overwhelmingly support him. All they knew was an ex-football star and actor, that happened to be "Black", was on trial for murder under the conspiracy of alleged racial targeting. Of course, OJ is paying his dues now on unrelated charges, proving that justice finds a way to prevail. But, all I could think was, "A woman was murdered, and people are cheering". Now, I know there is not exactly the best history of the L.A.P.D. and the "Black" community, but this case was not about that, nor should it have been. When Rodney King was excessively beaten by the L.A.P.D. (regardless of being pumped up on PCP and endangering the lives of civilians with reckless driving), the aftermath of anger was understandable. The rioting that ensued that ridiculous (I do not know how burning your own neighborhood qualifies as revenge), but justice, I agree, was not served. But when Reginald Denny, an innocent trucker, was dragged out his truck and beaten by "Blacks" during the L.A. riot, did anyone in that community condemn those actions? Where "blacks" screaming for Justice? For a lot of Americans it underscored the issue that "Racial Bias" exists in all communities, and the divide in this country only escalated.

So, yes, "Race" and "Ethnicity" will continue to play roles in prejudice and community loyalty, until we stop letting it be the focus. If the "Black" community overwhelming supported Barack due to his "Race"; is there justification? And though many will argue against that notion, or in support of it as an understanding that I will could never truly appreciate it, I can't help but feel indifferent. I have friends of varied backgrounds, and we agree on some issues, and disagree on others; and that is okay. As a society, we will never see "Eye-To-Eye" on everything, but if we continue to segregate ourselves, we will never fully integrate. Face it, "Diversity" in this country went from "Appreciation" of culture to "Isolation" of community. And America will only be a successful "Melting Pot" if we can focus on thinking together as a nation and not as individuals. So, now that we have gotten over the presidential barrier with "Race", I hope the "Black" community will embrace society, rather than still feel alienated. But, with a rise in "Black-Centric" adornment in the "Black" community, I can't help but wonder: why all the fuss if you just want to live in isolation. If "White-Centric" thought was considered racist, then why not this? But the real questions remain unanswered. If Barack makes a misguided decision, will the community question him? If Barack makes a mistake, will the community be quicker to forgive him? And if Barack fails as President, will the community stand by his side without hesitation? If the answers are "Yes", then society may have overlooked the fact that; I guess "Race" does matter. Then again, maybe I am making too big a deal of this. Or, maybe this is just a prideful time in history that should be respected, understood and embraced. Is it wrong to talk openly about this? Doesn't an open forum provide the seeds of progress? Regardless, I hope that this is a true beginning of racial healing and a move towards unity that "ALL" people can be proud of; not just "Black" identity.  But until then, as long as we focus on labels like "Blacks" and "Whites", and not "Americans", the only progress we will make is further expanding the gap that we have come so far to close.

Can't We All Just Get Along (And All That Crap)

"Two guys walk into a bar; a Jew and a Muslim. The Muslim man turned to the Jewish man and said, "Sorry Rabi, this may seem fairly irregular". The Rabi answered, "My fellow man, that is nonsense, I am taught to be open to all men". So the Muslim man thanked the Rabi and continued, "I have to confess; today I helped a man strap a home-made bomb to himself, and then I watched him walk into the town square and kill 25 people. I know that Allah promises 70 Virgins when we die, but I could not but feel that this was wrong." The Rabi gave the man a puzzled look, and then replied, "Oh, forgot the bombing my son, tell me about those virgins". Okay, this is the part where you laugh.....well at least quietly to yourself. Hey, don't look at me, it is not my joke! And personally; 70 virgins, though it may sound exotic, the last thing I want to do after spending many painful years on earth, is to emulate that experience by going through the aches and pains of virgin sex.....70 TIMES! Wouldn't you rather have 70 experienced women...hhmmm?

Okay, so that's not the point; and the joke borders on PC insensitivity.....blah, blah, blah.....and all that crap. But, I would have faced less animosity telling this pun, then I received from playing a casual game of pool during the 2008 election. So, "Two guys walk into a bar.....no, it was actually 5 people (men and women); alright forget the joke. I can't recall the actual date, but one evening back in October 2008, a group of friends decided to play some pool. Now, you are not going to find your typical pool halls in NYC, but many bars have one or two tables in the back; so after a few hours you can see how personal it can become. It is your typical bar scene; doting "24 year old" drunken girls looking for their soul mates, obnoxious "Wall-Streeters" blabbing how they were the first to forecast the "Mortgage Crisis", and an odd assortment of so-called "Bar-beaters", which are a combination of 40 year-old divorcees', hicks (no idea where they bus in from), and 80's throw-backs of all diverse backgrounds. Do not ask me how they are grouped together, but they usually congregate in the frontal lobe of the bar, closet to the door to grab a "butt" every 15 minutes (it is like clockwork). As for me, I can hang out with anyone and enjoy the night, especially with a game a pool, where the only discriminating factor is "Do not come to the table without quarters". And unlike other areas of the bar where like-minded souls congregate in their own areas, the pool table is the one forum that becomes an informal United Nations; usually inviting to all. The one place in the bar where regardless of your background, affiliation, or views, it didn't matter; plus after a few triple-shots you were more concerned about ripping the table versus why some guy at the next table was still wearing "Dock-Siders" and a "I Love Wham" T-shirt (one of those 80's throwbacks - I was talking about).

So, here we were, having a relaxed time; and as the bar was winding down in the late hours, a small group people become the main staples in the pool area. About 10 people that were rotating between pool, drinking, and social bonding. For about two hours it was complete serenity; just laughter, drinks, and ball-breaking (even the girls, I mean women). Until one "girl" had to go and and break the monotony of the "Friendly Banter", which had been golden to this point. She was a combination of 24 year-old innocence, mixed with tree-hugging optimism. And you could tell she was waiting all night to invoke a conversation. I am sure after reading the latest trendy "Fashion" publication , that she wanted to share the dictatorial injustices of South Africa, discuss the exploitation of children in internationally slavery rings, or the the waste in government spending that could help educational funding (by the way that was joke too). Nope, instead of engaging in a real discussion or looking for an opinion on a current event, she stated, "So, you are voting for Obama aren't you? She had to do it; and of course she did. It was as if someone knocked over a few vases in a china shop: not deafening silence, just the sound of everyone shrieking. All I could think was; "I have a combination shot off the third rail, corner pocket". But, given her apparent attempt to disparage my selection, or an attempt to convert me, I figured I would entertain her (if not for just humor - why not?). I did owe the group that much, if not society; plus seeing the glow of mindless enthusiasm on her face I could not let her down. And with that I came back with a rhetorical question, "Does it matter?". You would have thought I just told her she had 5 months to live. The look on her face was priceless, and incoherent babble that took place afterwords, was either in "Tongues", or the girl was fluent in 8 different languages. Either way I chuckled; I am not an old guy, but once you past a certain age you realize, do I even have that type of energy to make heads spin and vomit (other than too many triple-shots). After she went through her heart-felt diatribe, which lasted through 5 complete pool shots (I was on a little bit of a roll), I looked up and said, "How articulate; you can now turn off the recorded monologue you have secretly tucked into your bra". Oh wait, I assume she was not wearing one; you know, with all the "oppression" synergies associated with a man-made "supportive apparatus" (go figure). So, she quipped back, "The fact that you did not answer means you are voting for McCain!". So, I quipped back as well, and said, "The fact that you are so angry, you must be voting for Obama." Now I did not need any other evidence of this; you remember I just listened to a 5 minute testimony on the subject, which felt like 50 hours. "That is right", she exclaimed, "How could you vote for McCain?". Now, I did not want to get into an argument for which she was ill-prepared to discuss, nor did I want to get into the fact that she "was like 1" when the cold war was occurring, or a teenager when 9-11 occurred, but I felt no matter how hard I tried to just continue playing pool, that was not going to happen. I could see "her" friends rolling their eyes, and "my" friends saying to themselves, "damn girl, we are just trying to play pool here". So, I smirked and said, "I just scratched, it's your turn". And after a brief paused she yelped, "So you're one of those people; Republicans!". Now I could not tell if I was annoyed or confused. "One of those pople; Republicans", I never said that; what brainwashing commune did this girl arrive from? Was she saying that you must vote for a candidate because of party loyalty? I know that N.Y. is predominately a "Blue State", but it's not 90-10; so she assumed I was one of "Those People". And "Those People"; is that not the same as Ross Perot's, "You People". I'm sorry, I forgot that falls into the "It's Okay For Me to Say It, But Not For You" category. So, I fired back, "I never told you what party I support, and despite despising the the entire political process, in this case, my voting decision was based on anything but a party association". Just then, she threw her pool stick on the table. I shook my head and thought, what a whiny brat; it was as if she was 10 years old again and her feelings were just hurt near the monkey-bars. If that was the case, she should wait until 15-20 years of voting; she has plenty of time to be frustrated or gain a sense of realism. I mean, what the hell was going on, I just came here to relax and play pool.

I guess, Rodney Kings' infamous quote, "Can't We All Just Get Along", was only meant for people of "their" own kind. Though I could not help but laugh, I was pissed. Sure I did not want to become the villain by verbally attacking this women in public, but I felt of sense of personal responsibility. Not that I thought I had all the answers, but because I thought it was ludicrous that her "love, peace, and happiness" ideology really did not include "all people". But most importantly, that she was refusing to continue playing pool with me because of whom I was voting for (What the.....). So, with every bit of self-containment I could muster, I quipped, "Are you serious? We are in a bar, playing pool!" For the past 2 hours we have been getting along, having a great time! Now, all of sudden you stop because I am not voting for "your" guy? That is pathetic! I am glad that the spirit of "unity" and "change" is alive and well, and that all your wisdom and experience, in "24-ish" years, has given you complete insight into the third-dimension of "worldly" understanding! So, you can keep your "spoon-fed" beliefs that Capitalism is the root of all evil, Republicans only care about profiteering, and America is an oppressive nation; I just want to finish my drinks, enjoy my time, and finish my "Damn" game of pool! Is that too much to ask for? But, if you'd like, I will pay for a series of round trip "First-Class" tickets to countries like Venezuela, Iran, and South Africa, and when you return we can discuss your new found opinions of fairness, over another round of pool! She looked speechless, and without uttering another word she "huffed" and left the table. Of course she had nothing left to discuss; the entire situation was completely ridiculous. What she did prove is that maybe we all "just can't get along"; at least in her philosophical corner of the universe (or in this case, the bar). So, yes, I wanted to lash out on her misguided idealistic view of the universe. Yes, I wanted to tell her that political parties only deter government from working for the people. Yes, I wanted to ask her to give me three distinct reasons for her vote, other than "Change", "Hope", and "Something New". Yes, I wanted her to define 3 current legislative policies that she disagreed with and how "her" choice of President was going to change that! Yes, I wanted to ask; has she actually researched anything by herself, rather than just embracing what she was told? Yes, I wanted to ask her if she recently spent some time dealing with the Dept Of Labor, DMV, Or the United States Post Office; so she could see how increasing government run services would be "paradise" (sarcasm). Yes, I wanted to know if she had actually been involved in community action; like cooking and delivering meals for AIDs patients, grief counseling, or tutoring underprivileged, recently paroled moms - like I; or did she just send in her $5 a year for the "I Saved A Whale" foundation (To receive a fancy pin). And yes, I wanted to say that I was voting for a proven leader; a man with experience, who served his country, and clearly a man of principles and love of this country; versus an unknown quantity, with zero experience, and a questionable history. But then I thought, wait a minute, who cares, that was not the point. I wasn't trying to win an argument; I was just trying to hang out and play some pool.

Now, I did not personally survey the bar and determine my visitation status based on the percentage of patrons that were as like-minded as me: once again people, just playing pool. But, given the diversity of opinions from my network of friends; ranging from politics, religion, and race, I can be a witness that it is quite okay to have your own opinions and still get along. And imagine 100 of "yourself" in the same room, kind of maddening; would you not agree? In fact, listening to diverse opinions is how you learn, grow, and relate with other people. It does not mean you will agree on everything, but at least you will better identify and understand why people think the way they do, rather than assume (or choose not to accept). Not all Republicans are Nazi Fascists and not all Democrats are Communists. Not all Republicans support the far-right agenda and not all Democrats support far-left extremism. But according to "Miss 24 Year Old Know-It-All", she made up her mind, and not even the truth would have stood in the way of that. Now, she will be a distant memory, but that leads me to a larger question; how many more are out there (A lot)? Would it be just too much to ask people not to judge others based on assumptions or distorted bias? If you preach unity, would it be safe to say, you should practice it as well? Or maybe, once again, we really all "just can't get along". I don't know, but suffice it to say, there are times when I just don't care: and one of those times is when I just want to play pool. Stack your quarters, grab a drink, and chalk up - I'm breakin'.

The Architecture For Change (An Interesting Start)

As Obama prepares to take office, the lingering issue of "The Economy" may be the last thing he will need to deal with. With the on-going controversy that has clouded Washington since the November election, I just keep telling myself, "Change Is-A Comin', Change Is-A Comin' ". I would think you would want to ride into the Oval Office on a white stallion, rather than an stench-ridden donkey, dragging baggage through the "foyer". And as we deal with a guy like Rod Blagojevich and the subsequent audacity of Roland Burris, I can't help but wonder, has "cloning" been legalized in Chicago? Given the circumstances surrounding Rod's selection; can the Democrats please appoint someone this year WITHOUT "baggage; just one? But, praise should be awarded to the Democrats, that chose not to play politics; and have stood up against the appointment of Roland. Lawmakers will be grilling Burris on several items, but most notably: contributions made to Mr. Blagojevich's campaign, how Rod's wife obtained a job with a group affiliated with Mr. Burris' business partner, and why the governor's criminal lawyer approached Roland about the Senate seat rather than a current staff member. Of course we can not assume, but anyone riding on the coat tails of Blagojevich, doesn't help their case for innocence. Again we may have proven that justice does not matter, and it is okay to undermine our Democracy; but let's give Mr. Burris his day in "court", shall we.

And without surprise, the "Ghost Of Blogojevich" doesn't want to depart so quickly: at least in spirit. When Bill Richardson was appointed to Obama's cabinet as Commerce Secretary, someone should have questioned this selection. And no, this had nothing to do with his "Tall-Tale" stories on the campaign trail about his National Guard death benefit legislation: when he stated that he was prompted to increase these benefits after talking with a mother of dead son killed in Iraq (which was not true). Now, that is a reason to question his ethics, but to Obama, certainly not a reason to reject Richardson as an appointee. The real issue is with an ongoing FBI investigation into his dealings with CDR Financial Services, which included questionable spending initiatives on transportation services in his state. Richardson decided to "opt-out" early; maybe he knew his appointment would be short lived, hhmmm. But I can say I am proud that a politician did the right thing, and did not run "amok" in the art of denial, ridiculing justice by waiving the flag of arrogance and self-righteousness. An oddity, I know. So, I admire his decision; well done Mr. Richardson. But unfortunately is does not end there, as recent developments about Tim Geitner (selection of Secretary of the Treasury) are coming to light. He seems to have a small tax problem; hello, he is not paying them! Of course he is citing some clerical mistakes, which I am sure will not effect his job in overseeing our monetary system and a current trillion dollar debacle? And despite the community at large that thinks this guy is a financial genius of sorts, I would have to chalk this up to another round of absurdity in the political arena. The fact that he worked for the IMF should at least give you some insights to the world of tax-free living; see IMF reimbursements for more details. Wow; now I know what it is like to be an independent contractor. Now, you would have thought someone would have first initiated a background check (a little vetting, please). Of course, any of these selection "mis-firings" will not directly tarnish Obama's image, but as citizens, we should be concerned about the "Status Quo" of the "Pay-To-Play" philosophy that is the standard practice in Washington. Obama knows all to well, he will never "Change" that; he is just another "Cog" in the problem (they all play it). And after a further investigation into Obama's current cabinet selections, there are enough controversial and questionable selections, there may be no hidden surprises. Pay attention to Hilda Solis (Labor Secretary) and Rahm Emanuel (Chief Of Staff) for the next four years. If you ran in fear of a potential "Marxist-Nation" and a complete takeover by the "workers party" red-revolution, Hilda may be your gal. And to discredit any notions that Barack was going to be "Pro-Arab", Rahm fits the political bill; but with his flagrant behavior and, less than acceptable social graces, he will be another pit bull (besides Joe Biden) on the White House lawn. This is a guy they nicknamed "Rahm-bo" for his "take-no-prisoners" attitude. So what if he mailed rotten fish to a former disgruntled co-worker after they parted ways. So what if he stood up at a celebratory dinner, after the 1996 elections, and rattled off a list of his betrayers, while stabbing a knife in the table shouting, "Dead!, Dead!, Dead!". What family man after a 80 hour work week, a nagging wife, and 5 bratty kids, hasn't said that 1,000 times in a moment of lapsed sanity. Personally, a guy who spent time working with combat units in Israel and is tough as nails get my vote; at least he understands how the world operates and does not join a current laundry list of pantie-wearing whiners in Washington. You think the critics blasted the Bush administration for prisoner interrogation (As for me, do what you have to do, we have lives to save), this guy will make "GITMO" seem like a ride through Disney World. Okay, maybe the "Pirates Of The Caribbean", but hey, it is still Disney! And you thought his past "Chicago" connections and invaluable "Freddie Mac" experience would be his political baggage. So, with all this controversy and questionable selections, I am trying to see past the minutia and envision a ray of endearing hope. But, maybe it was not about a faulty vetting process, but perhaps more about the political pecking order given the nature of Obama's freshman status. After hearing each cabinet selection pick, one after the other, I can not help but think; would this have been Hillary's cabinet; was it "Bill-Like"? Face it, there is a repetitive theme; is there not? Now, I thought change was about redirecting the nation from "Politics as Usual"? But can you blame Obama; you do need experience (whether good or not, or maybe not), but more importantly, you also have to "pay-to-play". There is no doubt, that the "Clinton Machine" was not going to be silent during Obama's cabinet appointments. Did you honestly think Hillary was "not" going to own something in this administration? Whether is was fear of retribution, or genuine consideration, Obama needed to "rope in" the Hillary sect to truly bring the Democratic party towards complete unity. As you know, it is all about party loyalty and paying back debts. And, agendas pass more easily, with everyone marching in "lock-step".

So, after a few skids and bumps, to go along with a lingering global financial crisis, Obama has enough on his plate. Mr. Blogojevich will hopefully face justice, Mr. Burris should fade away, Bill Richardson is gone (and maybe Mr. Geitner too), and only "time will tell" if the rest of the "Usual Suspects" will remain. But there is a reason to be doubtful, because until we "change" Washington, there is no reason to believe that the next administration's policies will be dictated by public interest, rather than politics. So, if I was Obama, I would hold off on "jumping-the-gun" to implement his current economic juggernaut, full of "bailout" bills and "stimulus" plans, and focus on selecting the correct team of leaders. He has plenty of time to "carve out" a name for himself, right now he needs to "carve out" the proverbial fat. He, at least, owes that to the voters that "believed" he could bring "change", if not the nation. I just hope that his leadership plan is far superior to his "vetting" process.

Everyone is Invited (Except For Those We Oppose)

Rick Warren is speaking where? Rick Warren was invited to what? What in God's name is going on in this country; how could this happen? How could Obama pick Rick Warren to give the invocation speech as his inauguration? The "AUDACITY of it all"! I guess, outside of Rick's demonstrated history of charitable giving, servitude, and community work in his Church, there must be be a cause for such disruption. Was there a unanswered past, a history of hanging out with terrorists, a communist fringe association, or a hidden agenda (from either side) that could be causing such a raucous? If anything, I was surprised as well; not only for this announcement, but that Rick Warren previously reached out to Obama, as well as John McCain, during the 2008 Presidential Election, to join his forum on faith and public service. If you remember, it was a Nationally televised discussion on each candidates viewpoints on religion, the role of government, and personal responsibility; among other topics. Considering, the extreme-left despises the right-wing evangelical Christian movement, my cynicism was charging on all 4 cylinders (a hybrid of course). But then again, what message would you send to the country by not accepting everyone; when your platform is about "change", "healing", and "unity". So, when I heard the suggestive "deplorable" news, I could not help but think, wow, a great political move by the Obama camp. Throw an evangelical up there: Whew, we did not have one of "those people". Okay, sarcasm aside, there has to be a positive here, right?

While some Americans may say, so what, it is good to see Obama reaching out to everyone; the real voice of unrest belongs to the secular left and gay activist groups, which considered this their version of "Shock And Awe". Let's set aside the secular left, because religion is an abomination, a crutch, and mindless belief in something more powerful than them. And especially evangelicals, which they routinely liken to Nazi war criminals, apparently due to spreading Christianity and not "World-Ism". Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopalians, even the Church of Christan Scientists, do not get the same treatment of hate, as the Evangelicals. But with the case of gay rights groups, their resistance and disgust was obvious. They found it incomprehensible that this man speak at the inauguration, given his viewpoints on gays and support of traditional marriage. Barack offered no apologies for picking Rick Warren to give the invocation speech, but Gay rights advocates suggested otherwise. And Obama has clearly stated they do not agree on everything; and subsequently has selected guest speakers that represent a variety of viewpoints. Now isn't that unity, inclusion, and all that peace, love, and happiness crap? Isn't that the staple of the Democratic party? If Dr. Joseph Lowery will be there to give the benediction speech, who has deeply conflicting viewpoints with Warren, does that not appease the angry masses. Just so you know, Obama was elected, not by the far left alone, but by a majority of Americans who looked past all the "fringe" extremists, and decided we need a leader who can unite. Hhmmm, Maybe not.

The president of the Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solomnese, sent a letter to Obama asking him to reconsider his selection. He called it a sign of disrespect and a strike against the gay community. And Kathryn Kolbet, President of People For The American Way stated that Obama's invitation should have been blocked, due to his support of "Proposition 8". And with understanding; the opposition comes from the religious viewpoint about homosexuality; its degradation to society, and "sinful" nature to God. Now, Evangelicals receive the brunt of this assault, based on their adamant opposition to the lifestyle. Even though over a period of roughly 5,000 years, this viewpoint has been embraced by all religions. What is misconstrued is that a various Christians may share the same viewpoint on the nature of the lifestyle, but do not believe in discriminating against, or sanctioning violence towards them. Of course the media has a field day by continually displaying a bunch of backwoods hillbillies, chasing down gays with a "burning cross": that is what sells. Of course, I am not saying there aren't a lot of intolerant people out there; there are far too many on both sides, I agree. But, if you listen to Warren's speeches on inclusion and learning how we can live together (the basis of Christian love), you may understand more about him. The Christian opposition to gay-marriage is based on the biblical definition of "marriage" that defines the union of a man and a women; which in theological terms, is representative of the relationship of God to his church, which is the people. It is not some "fear-driven" conspiracy against Gays, but a covenant that Christians embody as a sacred part of their religion. So, while they may oppose the traditional union for gays, there is less resistance about supporting a legal bonding union that has the same protected legal rights as marriage, but not in name. Of course, this would appease both sides, but the game is not about appeasement, but winning, isn't? Now, Warren stated he was not personally involved in Proposition 8, but he did release his supportive viewpoints on the issue as a request from his fellow parishioners. He does not regret his beliefs, but given the lengths that Rick has gone, I would have to agree that he is trying to knock down the "stereotypical" walls that have impeded true discussion. No matter how good of man he may be, and no matter how much he tries to extend an open arm, it is irrelevant; the attacks on Rick Warren, Christians and anything not "far-left" will continue. Sure, the democrats won the "White House", but do they want to set the precedent for intolerance, which is what so many of them preach against? And do not get me started on the difference between tolerance and acceptance; if that is the case, then they are only "tolerating" Rick for one night. Gay advocacy groups have the next "4 years" to saddle up next to Obama; is is that difficult to actually listen to what this guy has to say; they may be surprised?

So, as we move past the rhetoric (And I thought 8 years of whining was enough), it was encouraging to see Rick Warren come out and publicly thank Obama for this invitation, as a "sign" of reaching out. He knew Obama would take some heat on this, therefore his acceptance had more significance. To truly move the country forward, wasn't the election all about hope and progress? Well, the only way to "progress" is inclusion: of course that does not mean there will be an overall acceptance of everything, but finding ways to bring all groups closer together. Respect works both ways. Let's face it, America is a melting pot: it is not easy. Now I will admit, my opinion of the Warren selection, was purely political; designed to appease the religious right. And I know it may sound like bias, but based on the actions of all politicians: who doesn't want to come off as a saint. But, I could be wrong, and I am not afraid to admit it, but these guys do not spend hours kissing babies on the campaign trail for nothing. Let's face it, Obama spent so much time trying to convince people he was brought up with Christianity, and was not a radical Muslim. So for him, this was a good way to erase or even subdue any remaining resentment or doubt before taking office. Obama knew he would take some heat on this selection, so I will give him credit for picking Rick Warren in the midst of potential backlash. Whether the intention was meaningful or not, I will leave that up to you. Either way, gay rights groups need to decide if everyone is indeed invited to the table, not just those they do not oppose. Other than force-feeding their agendas down our legislative throats, maybe they should reach across the aisle too. Unfortunately, the gay community believes the invitation has tarnished their belief that they have a place at "Obama's" table, and have taken this as personal attack. I do not know about you, but isn't this "America's" table? So relax, I am sure Rick does not want to burn you at the stake. It could be worse, Obama could have invited Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to give the invocation; Oh, Berkeley would be so proud. But just think, can you imagine a controversial poet like Elizabeth Alexander sitting next to a guy like Rick Warren, eating, drinking, and sharing opposing viewpoints; all in song (with Hippie robes and Jesus sandals, of course)? Well it's happening; just make sure to remove the forks and knifes before serving the first course.

Start Yelling Fire In A Movie Theater

If I was Raed Jarrar, I would be pissed I only received so little! I mean, a woman was awarded $1,000,000 from McDonald's, for spilling hot coffee on herself. Apparently, she was not aware that coffee was actually hot, and that needed to be included on the lid. Hamburgers, Chicken Nuggets, And fries cooked in high temperature cooking oil are hot too. Maybe that food packaging needs to have a warning as well. Personally, I am more concerned about the false advertising perpetuated on me at Starbucks, claiming that a "Tall" is actually a "Small". But do not worry, I know the coffee is "HOT". But hey, this is not about faulty product liability or insufficient labeling claims, this is about "Free Speech". And it is one of our most important Constitutional rights as an American citizen; so pay attention!

In August, 2006 - A man named Raed Jaarar was stopped from boarding a Jet Blue airlines flight and forced to cover his T-shirt because it displayed Arabic script. After alleged intimidation (I am sure "Gitmo-Style" tactics), and fear of being detained, he agreed to cover his T-Shirt. Accordingly to the ACLU, this was clearly a blatant violation of "Free Speech", and racial profiling due to Arabic decent. Subsequently, they won their case, and Raed was awarded $240,000 dollars in compensation. What am I doing wrong here, is it that easy to make money in America? Of course it is, that is why America is so great. Only if I wore a T-Shirt that said, "Muslims Suck", and I was detained and forced to cover my shirt, the ACLU would not be running to my defense. Let's face it, the ACLU is biased on so many levels, but boy did they have their "Poster-Child" in this case. An man of Arab decent, forced to cover his shirt, and racially profiled based on his ethnicity; they must have been salivating. It is also didn't hurt that Raed Jarrar is a half-Iraqi, half-Palestinian blogger and activist; in addition to salivating, someone must have wet their pants. Raed Jarrar received the pay out from two U.S. Transportation Security Authority officials and from Jet Blue Airways - the ACLU kindly listed the perpetrated "atrocity" on their website as, "U.S. Government Silences "We Will Not Be Silent" T-Shirt". Apparently two security officials and an airline are the alleged "government cronies", that forced this man to cover his shirt (oh the horror). Of course, this does not seem like a fair practice, I mean, all he did was wear a t-shirt that said "We Will Not Be Silent". Surely this could not cause any alarm.

An ACLU lawyer made the following statement: "The outcome of this case is a victory for free speech and a blow to the discriminatory practice of racial profiling," said Aden Fine. It is difficult to determine whether racial profiling had actually occurred, or just a reasonable security issue. But I will be honest, an Arab-looking man wearing a shirt like that, doesn't help. But if that is the case, are we not in an era of heightened awareness and security precautions due to terrorist developments around the world? The attacks on "9/11" are not a distant past, and increased violence overseas has everyone concerned. I will not argue whether "Profiling" is right or wrong, but given the circumstances of today, is there a place for this, and does the "potential" for harm merit it's use? Should our laws be that "Black And White"? In this case, it was imminent danger, or at least the "fear of" imminent danger that led to the security officials actions. Raed was told that other passengers felt uncomfortable because an Arabic-inscribed T-shirt (With the words "We Will Not Be Silent") in an airport, was basically like "wearing a T-shirt at a bank stating, I am a robber," the ACLU said. And I agree in this case. Would freedom of speech protect me from wearing a "I Am A Robber" shirt in a bank; or yelling, "Fire" in a crowded theatre where there was no fire. Wouldn't these two actions, although one visual and other verbal, be cause for alarm? Wouldn't either of these two actions have the potential to cause imminent danger or potential rioting? What if he boarded, and harassment ensued from other passengers causing a potential riot and endangering the lives of others; wouldn't that be cause to take such actions? That is the whole point, and though the ACLU will cloud the issue under "Racial Profiling", the security officers and Jet Blue had a valid case. And justly so, since this could fall into the category of "inciting imminent lawless action" (i.e. yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater with no threat of fire). Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. - Wikipedia. Raed was not denied from purchasing a ticket, he was not put in a dark cell and tortured, he was asked to cover his shirt. Now I can think of some other infringements on my personal rights that would be more serious, but for some that is not the point. Let's put it this way, would you let a Boston Red Sox fan board a plane with a "Yankees Suck" T-Shirt, full of Yankees fans right after the "Sox" knocked them out of the playoffs? Yeah, I don't think so. Even without being drunk, there "would" be a strong possibility of "Incite To Imminent Lawless Action".

Raed eventually agreed to cover his shirt: he was allowed on the plane, and given the public awareness of the situation, his seat was switched from the front, to the rear of the aircraft. The rationale for doing this; was to reduce the occurrence of an altercation with other passengers that may have taken personal offense to his T-Shirt. Did the airline go to far? To some "Yes", to some, "No". Moving his seat may have been dramatic, but wouldn't you err on the side of caution. We can all agree that discrimination is a deplorable practice, but when there is threatening behavior or a perceived threat; do we have the right? We all know that security is a top priority in airports, and I wouldn't even say "Boo" in a security line, let alone wear something that could be deemed inappropriate. In this case, people felt threatened, and the officials made a decision they felt upheld safety on their aircraft. And certainly, Jet Blue did not want any lawsuits; God forbid something happened mid-air. What would the ACLU have said then? Nothing, they probably would have "lost" some of their "Voice" against profiling: at least in these types of cases. More recently, there was another incident where Muslims, including three children, were ordered off a domestic U.S. flight after passengers heard "what they believed" were suspicious remarks about airport security. Although the passengers, eight of them U.S. citizens, were cleared by the F.B.I., they were reportedly still banned from the AirTran flight. In this case, was there precedent? I do not know, it could go either way (most notably was there direct evidence versus hearsay). I can empathize with representatives of the Muslim community that say the escalating security measures have led to frequent discrimination and harassment. But, regardless of recent events, the actions taken by U.S. Transportation Security Authoity officers and Jet Blue, had precedent and were justified.

But in the case of Raed, could it be more than that? This guy has a history of activist work, so I am sure he is well versed in the understanding of manipulation and self-promotion, right? By wearing that shirt, he either wanted to cause controversy, or be a part of it. And yes, that is his prerogative. But, "pushing the envelope" in an airport, knowing the heightened security sensitivity, smells quite like.....PUBLICITY & MONEY! AAhhh, a true capitalist; I am proud. And of course, knowing the ACLU would run to his corner, like a parasite to blood, he was well poised for the defense of his so-called "Freedom Of Speech". Well kiddies; you can now thank Mr. Jarrar for paving the way towards the continual fight of constitutional infringement. Think about it? For example, how dare your public schools ban certain articles of clothing. I mean, isn't absurd that this may, in some way, detract from the learning environment, or in the case of "slutty clothing", maybe, just maybe, "Incite To Imminent Lawless Action"? ACLU; anyone? I can tell you, if I was barred from a plane full of Muslims, with a shirt that said, "Your 70 "Friggin" virgins are burning in Hell right now!" I am sure, actually positive the ACLU would not be leaving their card for me. Plus, I would be back page news in the New York Times, or under the editorial corrections section hidden beneath the article "Fungi And You; 20 Steps For Understanding Bacteria". Unfortunately, my cause would not be "anti-establishment" enough for the ACLU, so to appease, I am looking for an "I Hate Whitey" T-shirt; and I just bought tickets to an overcrowded movie. I can not wait to yell, FIRE!

Happy Holidays & Thanks For The Pennies

Ah.....Christmas in Gotham, The Big Apple, Good 'Ole NYC. Absent the recent "Global Warming" trends, that put NY winters in about the same state as South Carolina, this is my favorite time of the year. The snow is starting to fall, there is a steady cool winter breeze, and Christmas music is surrounding me in pure symphony. And then reality sets in; as the stench of dog feces, carriage horse dung, and obnoxious tourists (we need your money, so thanks), interrupt my state of Holiday bliss. I could go into a diatribe about; how easy it is clean up after your dog, that horse carriages should be banned for cruel and unusual punishment (besides blocking traffic), and as a reminder for all tourists, in America (and NY) we walk on the right side of the sidewalk! But I will have to say, that this year there seemed to be less aggravation, more respect on the streets, and a kinder attitude among the common folk. Then again, maybe it was not the Holiday spirit, but a glazed look of numbness due to the economic beating we have sustained for the past year. Either way, it felt nice for a change. Even the typical anti-God banter was not in full speed about "Political Correctness" and hanging Christmas ornaments this year. Oh sure there are always some, and Costco thought that "suppression" was the trendy thing to do this year, until a mass of consumer complaints and fear of reduced profits led them back to the promise land (Money always talks). And even Lowe's started running Ads with Merry Christmas banners throughout their television spots, with little or no resistance. Good to see that the "secularists" are enjoying a little Holiday cheer (PS - hanging "all" religious ornaments is expressive, not offensive).

But in all my delight, it only took one event to remind me why this city, after too many years, inevitably tries its "damnedest" to make me a cynic. As the song goes, "Move To L.A. Once, But Leave Before You Get to Soft.....Move To N.Y. Once, But Leave Before You Get To Cold". I tried for once to escape that prediction (which happens to be true), so I forged ahead to embrace the Christmas spirit, and yes even during a tumultuous year. And for most people, this is the time of year where people are willing to drop "more" change in the buckets of the homeless. Now I have friends that engage regularly in charitable giving, but would rarely give out change in the street. And honestly, I can relate to their preference to give money to an respected organization to distribute, rather than, as they state, contributing to alcoholism or drug use. Okay, sounds reasonable, but I am sure some of it goes to food, or maybe all (Didn't God asked us to give freely, not question why?). Now, I always have gotten into the habit of taking any change I receive and keeping it my pocket for donations; personally I felt there was a greater need than contributing to "Tip Jars" at self-service stores or "Leave A Penny, Take A Penny" bowls. And no, I am not saying I am a saint for stockpiling pennies, but the economy has unfortunately turned consumer donations from "dollars" to "cents" these days (Whether right or wrong). So, on my way home I always cross the street a few blocks earlier since there is a gentleman that sits next to a Starbucks everyday. Interesting enough, I still visit this gentleman, even with a previous incident that occurred earlier this Winter (Which I will explain later). As a passed by the street corner I reached into my pocket and all I had were 5 pennies (I had no other cash on me). I felt bad, but then again it was $0.05; every penny counts, right? And I could not ignore him now, since he saw me reach into my pocket, and he is a little forthcoming in his begging techniques. So I walked by briskly and dropped the pennies in his cup. All I could hear, was the distinct sound of metal hitting the bottom of cardboard (no other coins in the cup). This only meant one thing; there was no pennies mixing with quarters to distract him, just 5 brand new shiny pennies for all the world, well in this case, one guy to see.

Now this is where, in what amounted to two seconds, felt like an eternity in "comprehension" years. As I passed by without looking down, back, or even sideways, I heard three distinct words: "You're an @#$hole"! No, no, no.....not, "Thank You", "Merry Christmas", "Happy Hanukkah", "Happy Holidays", "God Bless", or even a sarcastic "Oh, Great, Thanks A Lot". Even the latter I could have accepted. Nope, I received a big 'ole FAT "You're an @#$hole! Normally I would just pass by and shake my head, not because I am better than that, but because it just isn't worth it. Do you think I am going to sit there and explain to some homeless guy, the meaning of appreciation? I would rather clean up dog droppings on the sidewalk for an hour, not for the money, but rather to help out some lazy pet owner than give this guy the time. Only, this time I did not walk away. I swiftly stopped, turned around and said, "What the "Frig" did you just say to me?". He just repeated himself: "You're an @#$hole". At this point about 15 people just stopped and looked in awe; and probably not because this man was yelling obscenities at me, but because I actually stopped and confronted this guy. I knew I should just walk away, so I turned around and did just that; walked away. He could not explain his reasoning, because now with witnesses he would sound even more ungrateful, but that did not stop him from going further. As I started to walk away, I heard him grumbling a little more, and then, to all of our surprise, he threw the cup of pennies at me! Yes, he threw the pennies AT me! None of the pennies actually came in bodily contact, but all I could hear was the clinking sound of pennies hitting the sidewalk. So now, along with "verbal abuse", we can add "physical assault" to the record. Was this guy serious!!!!!

It took every once of self control that I could muster, not to turn around and face down this guy. Not because he was as big as me and would have put up a good fight, but because the last thing I needed was to put this guy in "jail" so he can suck off my tax money for free room and board. That would just add insult to injury. I was fuming inside, and all I kept thinking was; how could he? What an ungrateful SOB to even say such a thing; right? I kindly gave and was treated like I was the villain. I wanted to call the police and get him kicked off my block. I was so pissed, that when I got home I kept replaying the incident over and over in my mind. I thought to myself, is this guy for real: lazy bastard, get off your @#$ and get a "Friggin" job. You are smart enough to know 5 pennies is not 5 dollars, and you strategically sit next to a Starbucks where the odds of extra "change" increase exponentially: should have been a Finance major. Since when is change not currency? As far as I know pennies are still legal tender, which, with accumulation, you can actually buy products and services. What ever happened to beggars can't be choosers? Are you really homeless? So, I owe you my money, just for the sake of feeling bad? And then I thought, WAIT A MINUTE, my $0.05 is not nothing: given the traffic rate of 30 people per minute passing by, at a rate of 10% of people giving, in a 60 minute period, as $0.05 per donation (estimates): is $9.00 AN HOUR! A far cry above minimum wage and no taxes. AARRUUGGHH.....am I wrong here!!!!!

So after I calmed down, and all of the things I was glad I did not say, drifted out of my head, I realized that I had to practice, what I preached; right? And that was to give freely, and not question. Well, I really was not trying to question, I was just plain pissed. Of course, after revealing my enlightening experience to a few friends, which happens more than you think; I was lectured on the, "Yeah, doesn't God also tell you to wipe the dust off your feet and walk away when continually wronged (Meaning: do not be a sucker)". I had to step back and agree; and given the previous incident I experienced with this gentleman, that may have explained my increased state of anger. A few months before this, while leaving a restaurant after dinner; I was carrying some left overs as I passed this same man on the street. I did not notice him before, so I stopped to give him some change (that time it was not 5 pennies, but not the point). During our exchange he asked if he could have the food in my bag. Apparently, we was well trained in distinguishing between normal "shopping bags", versus bags containing "left-overs". I politely said no (It was left over spicy calamari), but gave him some change, and moved on. He mumbled some expletives, but I did not hear him. I felt bad when I returned home; so I packed some food from both my fridge and cabinets. I then returned to this guy, apologized, and offered my make-shift food sampler. He said, "Thank you"; and I then returned home. This is what made it so odd; why the drastic change in behavior? I could not help but think; how could a man be so grateful then, yet act like a SOB now! How could he forgot I was the guy that previously returned and gave him an entire bag of food: this guy sees me everyday?

Regardless if I was in a state of anger or incomprehension, I have always been instilled with the importance of giving. And within my spiritual upbringing and I was always taught that it is our job to "Be Our Brother's Keeper". Regardless of the circumstances, always lend a hand. And with my faith, also came the belief in "Angels Unaware"; that there is a looming presence of God hidden in the face of man to test our actions from time to time. Whether or not you believe it or not, is irrelevant. But that always makes me think; am I giving because I have to or because I want to? Or maybe, just maybe, this was an "Angel" that was calling me an @#$hole for only giving 5 pennies (Would God do that)? Was I wrong for only giving 5 pennies, or did I deserve at least some thanks? I guess we have to decide for ourselves; whether to "justly" turn our backs in frustration, or continue to do what we know is best (if there is a discernible difference)? So, yes I can embrace the logic of "wiping the dust off my feat", in the event of being called an @#$hole, or in the face of ungratefulness, but I have to remember why I give. Because it is my duty, my calling, and a gesture of extending love to another man. Besides the fact; do I really know what "I would do" in that situation? Sure, you would rather give to the guy who does not call you an @#$hole, or cross the street for someone who would appreciate even a gift of only 5 pennies; wouldn't you? I mean, for every guy like this, there are 100 others that are so thankful for even the smallest gesture. So why should I give to him? Because, even though his attitude is less than deserving, he "deserves" the same as everyone else: unconditional love (even with kicking and screaming). So, I will leave it up to you to decide if I will cross the street to ignore this guy in the future; hell no, I can't wait to give him 5 more pennies (sarcasm). In the meantime, I am thankful for so many others that appreciated anything I gave, and DIDN'T think I was an @#$hole. Yes, there really are some gracious people in this city.