incipit vita nova

Profiles in Courage: Carlos Hathcock, Lech Walesa, Queen of Jhansi

Most people have probably heard by now of the pathetic "Profile in Courage" award given to California Assembly and Senate Democrats Karen Bass and Darrell Steinberg, and current job-seekers, former Republican state legislators David Cogdill and Mike Villines.

These four received the "Profile in Courage" Award from the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library for voting and wheeling-dealing in the largest state tax increase in U.S. history last year. 

This brings me to my main point, which is that I never read Profiles in Courage.  All my life, I believed that the book was about heroes in WWII.  Au contraire!  It profiled previous politicians who'd fit the "profile" of the book - someone who crossed party lines or did something unpopular, just because they thought it was right.  The original lineup was so undistinguished that I sort of question the alleged ghostwriter and researchers for Pres. Kennedy.  Because if they covered this type of thing, they sort of left out people like Harry T. Burn, the Tennessee state representative who became the single vote by which the 19th Amendment was ratified and made part of the United States' Constitution.  Mr. Burn had said ahead of the vote that he was likely to vote against it, and changed his mind at the last minute, having received a written request from his mother.

The 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote in the United States - in August, 1920.  Mr. Burn seems to have experienced negative results from women's suffragists - according to Wikipedia, "after the vote was ratified, angry anti-suffragists chased Burn through the Tennessee Legislature Hall, and Burn was forced to conceal himself for a short time until the tense situation had been defused." (Another website says that wasn't true).

But why would becoming the one deciding vote on allowing to women vote in the United States, and getting criticized by the very people you voted for be "courage"?  Voting for the largest tax increase in U.S. history just in order to keep the horrible status quo going in Sacramento:  That's a real "Profile in Courage."  Profile in Courage book itself?  A bunch of pathetic party-line crossing losers.

Just in case people forget what "courage is," courage is exemplified by GySgt. Carlos Hathcock, one of America's greatest warriors, and the most-feared sniper in Vietnam - respected by enemies and his fellow troops alike - modest, brave, but deadly-effective.  Carlos' courage continued over the years, as he bravely faced life with multiple sclerosis and remained courageous to the end.

Back when these prizes, such as the Nobel Prize for Peace, were occasionally given to those who deserved them, Polish union leader and inspiration to the world Lech Walesa stood up to the communists and organized non-communist trade unions, later founding the Solidarity movement and freeing the entire nation of Poland from oppression.

I'll let King of the Badasses Ben Thompson describe Indian heroine Rani Lakshmibai, Queen of Jhansi: "Over the years, the Queen of Jhansi has become a near-mythical hero among the people of India for her role kicking ass during the 1857 Rebellion.  She fought bravely, refused to surrender, and died the death of a martyr for freedom.  She now has a couple statues in her honor, is included in all Indian history textbooks, met Flashman a couple times, and is so synonymous with being an asskicking chick that when the Indian National Army put together an all-female infantry unit during World War II they had the good sense to name it after her."

Look, I know my personal answer to this question, but do you?  Which would you rather be - one of these four loser politicians all fighting to get their sweaty mitts over this questionable 'prize', or a real hero?  Do you need an absolutely idiotic, bankrupt thing like this award to tell you what "courage" is?  I'm confident in saying that very few people do, and I hope each of these awardees enjoys their little stick of pewter or whatever it was they got.  That award they're fighting over looks like it would be pretty uncomfortable if forcibly applied where it really deserves to be.  Shun them.

Preaching to the Choir When the Song Has Changed

Washington insiders, and their hangers-on in local government and various other sycophantic constituents like the terrifyingly tone-deaf Andrew Sullivan ("I'm a gay rights advocate - and my advocacy consists of outing everyone gay or not - whee!!") - let's hope that Andrew is at least getting paid well for his public boosterism of the current U.S. national political administration, as well as side-projects like thrashing candidates in entertainment-oriented areas where Andrew hopes to get a job, like California (see his recent whaling on Meg Whitman - nice, Andrew - what if she was giving you your paycheck?).

It takes all kinds, and da dumb sheep-kine is definitely flailing around looking for their trough of free oats, headpats, comfortable daily livings for doing jack-diddley and making fun of other people as long as they're straight, white or don't want to share their sexual orientation or personal problems with the entire world . . .

This is first of all, one of the biggest karma-fests the world has yet seen, and those to which karma is coming, and will come for in the weeks and months to come, truly do not seem to "get" what's happening to them. 

We have fables like "the boy who cried wolf" to tell us what happened when the kid who lied about the wolf coming finally had the wolf really show up.  No matter what media spin there is, it is now one month after the Gulf oil spill and the government response is a website, with logos, and it's not even a good web design.  Almost all government websites are bad, blank, or worse.  On this website, the "current operations" page is blank.  Had the oil spill occurred in 2005, this minimal response would have certainly spawned the firestorm of internet forwards to the effect that President Bush had responded to the puppetmaster command of Dick Cheney to release sharks in the flooded streets of New Orleans to eat all the black people.  The thing is - feels good, doesn't it?  Feels great - awesome.  I mean to descend to that level and denigrate those in charge because you are satisfied with the performance of 3-term senators like Barbara Boxer, who has cosponsored and/or sponsored less than one bill a year during her 18 years in the U.S. Senate and whose main claim to achievement is her own re-election campaigns.  It feels so awesome to politically champion the elderly and entitled, such as Arlen Spector and Harry Reid - the claims to fame of which are equally undistinguished records of 24-7 entitlement for a lifetime. 

See, there were not that-great responses during President Bush's term.  It's highly likely that the Iraq War was a cluster*** manipulated by those who were very emotionally certain that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but whose beliefs were easily manipulated by those invested in making sure that war happened.  It sounds so familiar to me.  It sounds like spending 20% of the school year on "global warming" and launching a media campaign against childhood obesity when decades of studies have concluded that there is really no such thing as "food insecurity" in America - there's a lack of nutritious food and places/ways to safely and enjoyably exercise and play in inner-city areas.  Food Stamps are associated with greater obesity rates in women and children because many food choices in inner-city areas are poor or fast-food or high fat.  Sedentary, urbanized, tv- and internet/game-addicted people also voluntarily make poor dietary, meal-planning and exercise choices.  Blame McDonald's, television, video games, George Bush and . . . blame blame blame - well for Pete's sake at least figure that the Food Stamps given to feed genuinely poor, malnourished children decades ago are now providing extra junk food in sedentary lifestyles and go from there!

We are all about "appearance" and "emotion," not even reality.  I'm certainly known for being passionate and emotional, but I've absolutely had it with the lies. 

If the U.S. Government and most mainstream "media" commentators were teenagers, I would cut their allowance off and make them get a job and earn their living.  As to those who read, and comment, on the same lies all day long, the girls sitting around ooh-ing and ahh-ing over Justin Bieber are more in-touch than they are, and have just as much, or more, chance of success in getting what they want right now.  Just in case anyone thinks Jerry Brown is a real hot candidate for California Governor!  This remarkably Barbara-Boxer-Botox-like woman does . . .  And gets paid for it, at least for the time being.  It's like she's singing "Nearer My God to Thee," on the deck of the Titanic. 

Sandre Swanson: The Best Candidate? (For Golf Club Host)

A new candidate for shunning:  he's probably nowhere near as bad as many of the villains, egotists and losers we've elected to the State Legislature - he actually looks like a nice and pleasant man in his pictures - but according to California Assemblyman Sandre Swanson of Oakland (16th California Assembly District), a major problem in California is the fact that about 900 convicted drug felons have not previously been receiving Food Stamps.

Breitbart reported today that highly-critical legislation sponsored by Sandre passed today to allow California to make an extra-special effort to provide Food Stamp benefits to convicted drug felons. Also according to Breitbart, "Under the federally funded program, people convicted of drug felonies are banned from receiving the aid after they leave prison. But states can opt out of that ban, and California lawmakers voted Thursday 42-23 to do that."

It's going to cost $1 million.  Chump change, right?

Here is what Sandre's official Assembly page says his priorities are: "Education and the health and safety of California’s children are Assemblyman Swanson’s top priorities in the California State Assembly. Assemblyman Swanson believes in keeping our promise to build strong communities and create sustainable jobs for our children."

So, that's why Sandre is a liar to the people and would probably do better as the local golf club host (see below).  Everyone with a clue knows that people with raging drug habits sell their food stamps for cents on the dollar, taking the "proceeds" to buy their drugs to feed their habits.  Most often, food stamps are sold to drug gang members, who then sell them at a slight discount to hungry families in the area, or to unscrupulous inner-city grocery and convenience stores who make good money cashing them in, while preserving their store stock for paying customers.  EBT "Electronic Benefit Cards" are no hindrance, as it is easy to process a grocery order, give the addict a few dollars out of the till, and put the groceries right back on the shelf.

No one made that Federal law to "hurt drug addicts," they made it because it was well-known and proven empirically and through heavily-funded studies that providing food stamps would not effectively put food in the stomach of a drug addict.  

And in addition, I am sure teachers are being laid off in the schools in Sandre's Oakland district as I type this.  I am equally certain that college students in need of assistance in buying books and other aid through the EOPS program are struggling with all of that program's cuts, and that there are mothers with little children out there who could use some of those food stamps - but who won't get them - because THEY'RE NOT DRUG FELONS.  

 I'm no expert on Oakland except I know that it's a money pit of unprecedented proportions and hardly a government dime of the billions spent there since the 1960's has made one bit of improvement for the lower-income residents - every quality of life aspect has just gotten worse and worse and worse.

I know that Oakland spawns a peculiar breed of extremely arrogant, self-entitled and puffed up politician and bureaucrat - people who make Los Angeles County Supervisor and career self-aggrandizer Mark Ridley-Thomas look like an amateur.

That said, this "social activist" and "champion of the people" has done the following things for his Assembly District - in the man's own words on his campaign website:

• "Sandré served as Chairman of the City of Alameda Golf Commission which manages Alameda’s successful 45 hole golf complex. As a Commissioner he is leading the Commissions current planning effort for a new club house for the Alameda Golf Complex and is working on the long range planning for a hotel and sports complex at Alameda Point (former Navel Air Station). Sandré is committed to providing recreational activities for children and families."
• Not to be outdone with providing a new golf clubhouse for children and families, always the best-known users of 45-hole golf complexes, "Sandré served as Chairman and Commissioner for the city of Oakland’s Civil Service Commission for two terms. The Commission’s caseload for employee and union appeals doubled because each appeal got a fair hearing from Chairman Swanson. He worked to protect the rights of employees in the work place. Sandré fought for the principles of progressive management and for fair promotions for minorities and woman in the police department, fire department, in public works and thought-out city government." - and let's not forget FOOD STAMPS FOR DRUG FELONS.

And of course - dating to 1993 - i.e. 17 YEARS AGO - this is how Sandre brought economic business to Oakland:

• The Oakland Federal Building was built in 1993. The effort to bring the federal building to Oakland took more than a decade and Sandré was assigned to head this project for Congressman Dellums office. This very important project that required great team work from many local partners which the Congressional office insisted, included labor. Sandré helped win this very important two hundred million dollar project for Oakland and today the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building is the work place for many federal employees and its twin towers represent an impressive gateway to our city.
• As Chairman of the Alameda County Retirement Board Sandré led the successful effort to purchase and not continue to lease a building in downtown Oakland. That building now serves as the permanent home for Alameda County retirees. The building has also been a very successful investment for our County pension fund.

So, also - according to the California Employment Development Department drawing from US Bureau of Labor Statistics Information -

The City of Oakland's annual average unemployment rate for 2009 was 16.0%.

The City of Oakland's unemployment rate for March 2010 was 17.7%.

Here are the highest employment categories for the city as of the 2000 census (the others are all so small, they are insignificant - including manufacturing, technology, fishing and farming, and even retail-

Services 87,857    48.9% (this is not 48.9% attorneys and doctors)

Public Administration    7,895    4.5% <--- that's that Federal Building and all the other Government Pensioners championed by Sandre.

Now, Oakland is a city of about 400,000 people - and if you live there, you have a one-in-78 chance of being the victim of a violent crime.  The California state average is one-in-178.  93% of US cities are "safer" than Oakland.  The neighborhood/property buyer or renter analysis website with this information and maps is here. There are 469 crimes committed per-square-mile per year in Oakland, nearly 4 times the number statewide, and far above the national average.

I think all of these problems will be quickly solved by paying off more government-employee workers comp claims, ensuring equal opportunity to the biggest pensions possible for all government workers (except those who are "white" and those doing a good job and those with some vague sense of pride), in building more golf clubhouses and another Federal job building to give those crowded workers a little extra space, raising taxes some more . . . and of course . . .

Making sure the Drug Felons of Oakland cheating convenience store owners and drug kingpins get their food stamps well-deserved social justice profits.

Sandre's opponents don't even have websites.  But for the record, they are businessman and Republican candidate James I "Jim" Faison, and business owner and Libertarian candidate Lisa Ringer.

Since I am pretty sure lots of dead people vote in Oakland, and their minds are awful hard to change once they are made up - I guess we'll have Sandre back in the Legislature real soon . . .  That's what I call "social justice."

Hey, guess what?  Drug Felons already CAN get Food Stamps in California.  They just have to fill out a questionnaire (FS-26 dated 12-09) and show they are in a treatment program or have completed one - and provide "proof" - except, guess what?  They can choose to just "talk to a worker."  Waaaay to gooo, Sandre. That's really solving California's problems - be sure to "oppose Gov. Schwarzenegger too" - any way you can.  Like this, since he's already vetoed this idiotic bill before!  Man, those "estimated 860 drug felons, most of them women" that can't even be bothered to fill out FS-26 and talk to a worker - that's some really critical "social justice" that's going to get our State back on the right track.  

Bruce, "how do these people get elected"?  - see "dead people" and "brain-dead people" above.  It's Oakland.  

Reward Excellence, Shun Hypocrisy: Al Gore

I'm going to do a series of posts about things and people that should be rewarded with positive attention and support, and things and people that correspondingly, should be shunned or disregarded.

This would never have come to the forefront of my mind again, had not the Chronicle of Philanthropy featured a headline article detailing former Vice President Al Gore's demands upon America's private foundations and trusts:  they should commit to funding the fight against climate change - now, more than ever.

First, the GOOD.  If you are concerned about the environment, pursue efforts in your own community to make it friendlier for bikes, foot travel and even horse trails in the right environments.  Advocate for open space and responsible stewardship of natural resources.  As to recycling madly - continue smart recycling and even composting, but keep in mind, a toilet paper shortage looms on the horizon and nobody wants that.  That's right - in the ever-worsening Gore-world, no "improvement" takes place.  The toilet paper shortage looms because the amount of paper being used and recycled has declined due to consistent, ongoing efforts to a) conserve and not waste paper; and b) the increase of non-paper reading material, such as the internet, Kindle, Nook and now . . . the iPad.

If you really care about the environment and nature, you'll make a small contribution to a good helping organization - such as the all-volunteer Karen Beasley Sea Turtle Rescue in North Carolina, which rescues and rehabilitates injured sea turtles.  A modest gift to this organization will go directly to medical supplies, food and care of the animals until they are healed and can be safely released into the ocean.  You can even "adopt" a sea turtle for amounts ranging from $25 to $250 which provide different amounts and longer times for care.  The Sea Turtle Rescue received a little more than $237,000 in contributions in 2008, according to their tax return.

Now to what should be shunned:  speeches and presentations and "commands" from former Vice President Al Gore, especially those pertaining to what is called by sophisticates, "climate change," and what most people (including the National Wildlife Federation) are more familiar with as "global warming."

How can we put Mr. Gore's command to America's large foundations and trusts into perspective?  Why, for example, does he make this command today?  Well, he was offered money to make a speech, that's why.  He was invited to speak before the National Council of Foundations this morning.  I am sure all those representives of family charitable trusts were glad to hear this command from a man who puts his money where his mouth is . . . or - does he?

This is a politically-motivated article that highlights the extreme stinginess of many politicians.  Let's take the party label off this, because in general, most politicians are stingy.  They love to spend others' money (taxes) and obviously loathe to spend their own (donations and charity).  If President Clinton had been free-spending, he might have had more high-profile or sophisticated partners than Monica Lewinsky, who from what I understand, was very easy to please and keep interested. In 1998, Vice President Gore was slightly embarrassed to have his and Tipper's ultra-"generous" 1997 charitable contributions of $367 (off a near-$400,000 income) released to the public. I'm sure since that time, they've tried to be a little more generous.  Especially to environmental, climate-change fighting organizations!

However, let's fast-forward to today.  Al Gore is a board member of Apple Inc.  After concerted, albeit mild and jocular criticism by much of its customer base, Apple finally began to undertake environmentally-sustainable manufacturing and distributions practices last year.  You read that right.  Apple has the "best" reputation, doesn't it?  Steve Jobs can do "no wrong," and these products are "ideal" for the environment -- yet even GreenBiz reports that of the four major IT companies - Apple, Dell, HP and IBM, Apple has by FAR the least disclosure of its carbon impact policies and releases no information on its charitable contributions of any type.  That's because its biggest charitable contribution, the donation of computers to schools, was a very clever business ploy - not unlike Camel giving cigarettes out on street corners and at sporting events.

According to Conrad MacKerron at GreenBiz (2-2009), "A recent report by RiskMetrics and CERES focusing on corporate governance and climate change policies scored IBM at 79. Dell 77, and Apple 27. One of the key issues the survey tracked was board oversight of climate change. It asked for evidence of explicit oversight responsibility for environmental affairs or climate change. Apple got a score of zero in that area. Think about that -- a zero with Al Gore on the board."  This May, 2009 article details Congressional questioning of former Vice President Gore - it, too is politically motivated; however, it also shows a person who isn't very forthcoming about putting his own money where his mouth is, and who is quick to attack and denigrate others.

So, let's take a look at the Alliance for Climate Protection, the nonprofit organization that Mr. Gore states he provides all of the funding to.  He is also its founder and President.  In 2005 and 2006, the Alliance for Climate Protection received income of only $70,000 and $60,000 respectively.  In 2007, the organization received $25,304,552, and in 2008, $88,303,373, which is primarily derived from payments from Mr. Gore's for-profit venture capital investment firm - Generation Investment Management.  I wonder if the individual employee of American Express that contributed $60 a quarter in 2008, was aware that their contribution seems to be the number-one private donor contribution to the Alliance for Climate Protection aside from the lump-sum payments from the profits of the Venture Capital firm.  These reduce tax liability, you know.  You knew that, didn't you?  Yes, they do. 

Many of us in the nonprofit sector have been aware of stepped-up Congressional and White House activity advocating for greater strictures on charitable giving.  Many know that the majority of charitable giving in America is directed toward churches or religiously-associated charities, such as the Salvation Army or Catholic Charities.  Last year, the White House and eager Congressional representatives backed off a plan to reduce charitable deductions on taxes. This is all very understandable for people who make nearly $500,000 a year and think $367 is a real generous amount of charitable contribution.

However, the venture capital firm gave almost $100 million to the Alliance for Climate Protection in 2008 - and spent nearly $70 million.  On work to combat global warming?  Well, in a manner of speaking, probably . . .

• $29,498,136 went to the Martin Agency for "Media Campaign"
• $23,102,245 went to Ingenuity Media Group for "Media Campaign"
• $ 3,406,311 went to Glover Park Group for "Communications"
• $ 1,667,434 went to Crispin, Porter & Bogusky for "Advertising and Media"
• $   150,618 went to Blue State Digital - for the website.

Now, $3,106,500 did go to direct grants, none of which were larger than $150,000 each, to various environmental organizations to publicize the importance of combating global warming to, or to educate, their members and constituents.  This represents about 3.5% of the total income of the organization.  About 12% according to the tax returns, went to the organization's regular operations - the paid President/CEO (not Mr. Gore) got about as much money as two of the big direct grants put together ($300,000). 

As to the main expenditures, these are for media campaigns of all types.  The Martin Agency won Adweek's Agency of the Year award this year. You can watch the "We Can Solve It.Org" ad on the agency's website.  The #2 expenditure, of $23,102,245 for Ingenuity Media Group is actually part of the Martin Agency.  It's the part that says "We're Geeks and We're Proud of It." I've never seen this ad - but it's connected to all those smarmy "celeb" "I can stop global warming" videos that are so omnipresent everywhere.  We Can Solve It.org says it has over 5 million members, and their "repower wall" is all a bunch of hot air, with promotional videos of CEOs interspersed with  YouTube Attention Whores regular people.  So, over $52 million of expenditures went to the Martin Agency to produce these ads, place them, and set up and run this website that right now, is existing to feature videos of people saying "we can solve climate change!"

I do a fair bit of YouTube watching and . . . here's a search on wecansolveit.org.  Looks like their top-viewed video has 330,000 views.  So, if I divide that into $52 million, Al Gore's "charity" just paid the Martin firm $147.58 per "view".  I'm sure everyone will support that and see what a reasonable expense it is.  I'm sure everyone can see just how much of a real impact that's going to have on "climate change."  This is entirely in line with nearly every government "program" I'm familiar with.

By point of comparison, "Powerthirst" now has 19.2 million views, and I bet it did not cost $52 million to produce and "distribute."  And of course, "Charlie Bit My Finger" - very expensive home video costing NOTHING to produce, closing in on 200 million views.

If you do care about nature and the environment, you'd do so much more good adopting a turtle. Isn't about time to just turn Al Gore off?  By the way, he is heavily "invested" in this "cap and trade" legislation.  Or would you rather just let him bite your finger . . . again???