Election Erections

Tomorrow is election day.  You may have heard about it.  You may have seen the ads on television, received robo calls, or been gifted with junk mail.  If you're in California, you may have noticed a peculiar face gracing many of these ads.

Meg Whitman.  Meggy, to her friends.  The former CEO of eBay.  Her official campaign slogan is "Money talks.  Bullshit walks."  She is running for governor of California.  If Arnold can do it ...

Meg's main and really only competition is Jerry Brown.  Brown, as many long-time Californians know, has had a love/hate affair with this state going back decades.  The Dead Kennedys lampooned him.  Bill Clinton took him to task.  He tasted the sweet, sweet juices of Linda Ronstadt.

When it comes down to the nitty gritty, California's choices come down to a guy who screwed a popular singer, or a woman who made her fortune on people selling broken Hummels.  If history is any indication, Brown may have this one in the bag.

California loves a character.  Be it the kindly uncle going senile Reagan.  The Terminator.  Moonbeam (voted into office twice).  The KKK supported Friend Richardson.  We've voted in our share of yawn inducing stiffs, too.  Most recently that would be Gray Davis, whose very name invokes notions of fog and the missionary position ... with no eye contact.

Meg is hard to warm up to that even women voters have a hard time supporting her.  (Do you even hear anything about Tea Parrots supporting her?) Perhaps its her tired, over-achiever look, or just the fact that she seems built like a linebacker.  Either way, women have been noticeably quiet on this race, which leads saner minds to believe that saner minds are going with Jerry.  Meg comes across to females as the female boss who will do anything to keep her power, while Jerry comes across as a harmless guy whose most heinous crime would be to shoot a sneaky glance at your breasts when he thinks you aren't looking.

In the end, the issues don't matter much to the majority of California's voters.  If they did, Meg would've never been ahead in the polls, as very little she said made any sense.  Nope, what matters to the people of the state I currently call "home" is how much comfort they get from their candidates.  As long as a candidate has enough money and doesn't come across as a modern-day Mr. Beckert, he or she should be fine.  (And I should note that by the end of Maudiences felt some sympathy for Mr. Beckert despite his pedophile/murderer status.) 


Meg is no child-killing pedophile ... at least not that I can tell.  She does, however, come across as little more than a bully in a business suit.  Californians may not take to that as well as they would to Brown, who is older than his opponent yet looks ten times more livelier.  You can picture Meg downing her pills nightly in a ritualistic fashion as she chases them with bourbon.  Brown is more of a tofu kind of guy, and as a state we love that.

The race has been tight, and probably will be tight until the last ballot is counted (however falsely).   The only given is that if Brown wins very little will change in California, and if Meg wins things will get worse.   Ideal?  Hell no.  Reality?  Very much so.    I'd rather have the staus quo in place than face a world where Meg has some sort of power over an economy which rivals that of many countries.

California is on the cusp of madness.  How it goes will depend on who is at the helm.  My prediction?  The man who, as described by the Dead Kennedys, has an aura that "smiles and never frowns."

Meg Whitman IS a Whore

If you are following politics at all, you know that the Tea Party candidates (the most confused political party on the planet) are taking over, and that an aide on the Jerry Brown campaign was caught on tape calling his opponent in the race for governor a "whore."  Jerry Brown apologized, but he shouldn't have.  She is a whore. 

Now, the term "whore" has a couple uses, which anyone but Whitman and possibly Tea Party candidates understand.  The most typical definition is a man or woman who sells sexual favors for money or some other kind of compensation (crack, hamburgers, Hummels).  It also means a "venal" person.  "Venal" means you are capable of being bought for money, or that you can be bribed.  (Get your CA governor's race shirts here. Look, I'm whoring!)

By that definition, both Brown and Whitman are whores.  They are politicians, afterall, but Brown called it first, and he was right.  Whitman, quick to spin whatever she can, made it into a form of hate speech against women, which is insulting to women, prostitutes and California's voters.  Unless, of course, Whitman is a whore in the traditional sense.  Then I could see her getting upset.

(I love porn, but I don't think I'd like to see Whitman involved in any sexual act.  That said, if anyone out there has real footage of Whitman involved in giving sexual favors [oral, anal, vaginal, whatever] for money, I will leak those here and to the media and keep your identity secret.  I do have media contacts, and I am known for keeping people's identities secret.  So ... let's see it if you got it.)

Whitman's whore status is well-known.  She's sold out her ideals for an endorsement, and that was exactly what Brown's aide was commenting on.  The fact was that Brown should not have apologized, but should have defended himself and told people in that debate moderated by Tom Brokaw just why his aide called her that.  Those same arguments can be used against him, but when he throws the first stone he puts his opponent on the defense.  Instead, because American society has a hard time with dealing with such honesty, he has to back down and apologize.  (And a big "fuck you" to Brokaw for insinuating that "whore" is as offensive to women as the "n word" is to African Americans.  First of all, if whore was as offensive, he would have had to call it the "w word," as he did for the "n word."  [Typing the "n word" feels silly to type, but I need to in order to prove the point.]  So, therefore, by his own question he proves the word is not as powerful.  The word Brokaw is really thinking of is "cunt."  That is closer to the "n word," as he puts it.  Even then, however, I don't think there were ever water fountains that had signs on them reading, "Cunts only."  What a way to skew a question, Brokaw.)

I get that your standard, ignorant voter is going to be upset about the term "whore."  That person's reality is not reality, however.  She is a whore.  She sells out her values.  She sells out California residents.  That's not even all that important, however.  The fact that she has no solid plans, and the plans she does have are more harmful to CA's citizens than what we have now is the real issue.  Name calling, as accurate as it may be, can be a great way to cut to the issues, but Brown missed the opportunity here.  He should have pushed it.  I would've.  I would've said, "Well, Meg is a whore.  She tells the citizens of this fine state that she's fighting for their interests, but then takes the side of special interest for its endorsement.  That's a whore.  She sells herself out and her voters, and she does it to get more votes.  That's a whore."

That kind of honesty, however, doesn't make itself known too often in our society.  It's a shame, too.  Maybe if it did we wouldn't have to even play around with the idea that the "w word" is even close to the "n word."  And I wouldn't have to write such nonsense.

Whitman and Brown -- not only are you both whores of the worst sort, but you're also liars and thieves.  Brokaw -- you're just a fucking asshole.  Always have been and always will be, and I'll defend all of those statements without apology in any public forum any day.

Meg Whitman Loves Jerry Brown

If you live in California you can't help but be constantly assaulted by ads proclaiming the god-like abilities of Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown.  Both claim they can save this state from falling into the Pacific. 

Personally, I'd like to see both of them swinging by their necks from electrical poles like pinatas that have long been emptied of treats.  They are both useless, and neither seems to know it.

Jerry Brown is the best thing to happen to Meg Whitman.  Next to him, she appears competent ... until she opens her mouth and starts talking about the doomed California economy and her plan to save it by eliminating over 40,000 good paying jobs.  Remember, payroll taxes give the state 55% of its operating revenue.  Cutting those jobs will hurt, but Whitman has a plan to replace those jobs.  She hasn't said that, of course, but one would figure she's got to, right?  Opening more Burger Kings would do that.  Awesome!

Brown, on the other hand, has been around a lot.  He's establishment.  He's been loved and hated, and he, like Whitman, is quick to claim California is dying.  His plan?  Like Whitman's, it's virtually unstated. 

Brown and Whitman have failed to articulate that the entire country is in an economic downturn that could quite possibly make the Depression look like a warm-up.  California's economy will not fully recover until the country is back on the right track.  It is economic ecology -- all tied together.  We Californians may like to think we are some sort of oasis, but the truth is we are just as much vultures as the other states.  We have been feeding off the corpse of greed-based capitalism for so long that now that the marrow's been sucked dry we don't know where to turn.

Can the economy be saved?  Of course.  The economy is not a force of nature.  It is manipulated.  It is, when you get right down to it, an enormous fakery, a sham religion believed in by the masses.  California can take small steps to help itself (legalizing marijuana is the first step), but it won't fully recover until the country is back on its feet.  When will that happen?  Hard to say, as so many different factors must come into place.  Consumer confidence must grow.  Jobs must be created and maintained.  Our "leaders" must work together and stop pretending that a black man is the worst thing that could happen to a country.  Endless war must be ended.  We must listen to what the rest of the world is saying, and we must admit that our future is tied into the world's future.  It's a global economy.  It's not a national economy.  Global.

Watching Meg and Jerry go at it via insane television and radio ads is amusing at best.  Unfortunately, it seems that both are on track to make things worse.  I fear one of them will be elected before some assassin or force of nature takes them both out.  Whitman will act without thinking.  Brown won't act at all.

It's far too long before the election.  Best to shut off the TV.

I Am Curious (Meg)

Republicans, ever the stately bunch, has a candidate in place to replace California's Arnold Schwarzenegger, star of Kindergarten Cop.  It is Meg Whitman, known as the head of eBay.

In keeping with California's tradition of unpleasant looking governor's, Meg looks to be part man, party cyborg and part walking dead.  She carries herself well, and you can say what you want about eBay, but who doesn't love a site where you can get a DVD for a penny?

Meg started an ad campaign earlier this month that was meant to get her name out there.  The campaign is being paid for by herself because she has millions at her disposal, which of course keeps her in touch with average Californians.  Her ad campaign, which has the mandatory talking points, focuses on creating jobs, cutting government spending and fixing education.  Who can argue with that?

Meg, whom I'm sure will be looking for a presidential run if she wins, is, luckily, no Sarah Palin.  She is, however, your typical politician.

One of Meg's well-thought out plans for creating jobs kind of goes against cutting government spending.  Meg wants to get rid of 40,000 state government jobs.

Brilliant.

Eliminate 40,000 jobs that have healthcare benefits, retirement and pay a living wage.  We all know the private sector offers those things in abundance, so those businesses that aren't hiring now will be hiring under Meg's plan and offering all those same opportunities and benefits.

Again.  Brilliant.

It's more race to the bottom where the ultimate result is economic slavery in the form of debt and check-to-check survival.  Unions will be gutted (a good thing for anti-labor forces).  The average joe will think that less government jobs means less taxes (which I can find no evidence of ever having happened as that money saved just goes to other projects).  And now, people struggling to find decent paying jobs in an economy that cannot be fixed by government alone will now have even more competition.  Some of those displaced workers will most likely go on government aid, thus increasing the burden on that system.

A race to the bottom is always messy.

Meg will be unable to create enough viable jobs to absorb that load.  It is nearly impossible for reasons such as lack of public faith, lack of funds, generations of short-term thinking, and a political system at odds with itself.

I agree that changes must be made.  I don't think that cutting jobs is the answer.  Not now.  Not with the economy this bad.  Cutting government spending, however, is essential.  Just as essential as raising taxes by a slight percentage, actually enforcing taxes on corporations, and creating new taxes from things like decriminalization of pot and prostitution.

So where will government spending be cut?  First, it's important to see what Californians think.

A series of polls down earlier this year showed that California's citizens want control over the budget.  They don't trust the politicians to do it.  I don't trust them, either, but if you continue to examine the polls you quickly see you also can't trust the people because they actually have little to idea what the state spends its money on or how it gets it.

Not good for people who want to make the economic decisions.

Most Californians said the money to run the state comes from the sales tax, with personal income tax, corporate taxes, and car fees coming into place in that order.  In 2009 55% of California's revenues actually came from personal income taxes (remember those 40,000 jobs, Meggie).  Next up, at 31%, was sales tax, 10% corporate tax and 2% from car fees.

Yes, the public was off, but not by that much.

So what does the public think California spends money on?  49% think prisons get the most money.  24% said health and human services (which is more than welfare).  That is followed by K-12 education and then higher education.  The spending does not follow the public's line of thinking, though.  (And for the record, I thought prisons would be high [not first] on the list, too.)

Forty-one percent goes to K-12 education (which, when based on the how bad our school system is, Meg is right in thinking education needs to be fixed).  30% of the money goes to health and human services.  Thirteen percent to higher education and 10% to prisons.

As far as health and human services go (and in full disclosure, I am part of that system ), when the economy goes down the toilet, the need for those services goes up.  Cutting them takes a dire situation and makes it critical.  It's like having a terrorist attack and thinking that is a good moment to close hospitals, shut down fire stations and fire the police.  You can't yank away the life vest in the time of most need.

Our schools are constantly doing fund raisers, yet they get the most money.  What is wrong there?  Mismanagement of funds?  An overburdened system?  That's something for another time.  This is about Meg.

Meg wants to cut government spending, a move I think a lot of Californians would agree with (including myself to a degree).  The interesting thing, though, is that government spending in California has been cut ... drastically.

California is spending billions less now than it did four to five years ago.  Billions.  And we are still in a crisis (perhaps aided in part by budget cuts made by those who don't pay attention to the long term problems).  Where must those cuts come from?

If the state gets most of its money from personal income taxes, cutting jobs is not the way to fix the problem.  Not only must we concentrate on keeping the jobs we have, we have to create new ones.  If we create new jobs, personal income taxes go up, all the programs get more money.  To create new jobs we have to make California attractive to businesses.  Government infrastructure jobs need to be created, and they must be created with long term thinking in mind.

If we can modernize the way the state government runs, we can save money in the long term.  Going paperless saves on paper costs, copier repair, toner replacement and so on.  Creating that system creates jobs.  Changing all government buildings to use green technologies with solar and rain water collection, along with eco-friendly roofs saves energy and water bills and helps to clean the air.  It also creates jobs to create these things.  The money for these things is already in the budget, it's how it is spent that creates problems.  Government would do best to ask its employees how to save money.  They have wonderful ideas.  Since they are in the trenches they can easily see where time (money) is being wasted.

Meg's three tier plan for a better tomorrow is only spot-on on two points.  Fixing education and creating jobs.  Her plan for cutting government spending sounds good until you realize that taking 40,000 well-paid jobs out of a system that relies upon that personal income tax money is like cutting one's throat.  If she seriously thinks she can turn this state around, she needs to realize that drastic actions combined with short-term thinking is what got us into this position to begin with.  If we set up a system that looks ahead ten years, getting to that point will start to solve the problems.

Making pot (and really all drugs) and prostitution legal instantly creates new jobs and more personal and corporate income tax.  Remember, over half of California's revenue comes from those personal income tax dollars.  Over half.  Cutting 40,000 jobs or creating thousands of new ones?  It seems simple to me, but then again, I'm no Meg Whitman, and I'm not buying my way into the government, which poses another question.

Democrats are the ones always accused of throwing money at problems.  Aren't Republicans a little worried that the approach Meg is taking to her campaign (throwing money at it, and willingly stating that she is willing to throw a lot of money at it in order to drown out the other candidates) perhaps indicative of how she'll approach running the government?  I know what she says, but actions speak louder than words, and those Republicans who think cutting funds is the answer may want to give a second look to someone who thinks throwing money around is a viable way to run things.