The Girl Turns 25!

I feel a bit older today because my daughter seems a bit older today. She turned 25, a quarter of a century. I can remember when I celebrated my 25th birthday and, for some reason, I felt I had reached adulthood. Of course it would be decades later before I could get anyone else to agree on that.

It was also the Girl’s first trip back to Carlsbad after moving to San Francisco. I’ve seen her twice since she moved and Mrs. Laz hasn’t seen her since the end of September so it was great to see her smiling face walking out of the airport terminal. She’s only here for a few days, and likely mostly here to see her dog Spooner and her three-legged cat Nubs, but she’s coming back south for Thanksgiving – so we have that to be thankful for.

As the photos indicate, she was warmly welcomed by the fury members of the family (although the Boy, with his pony tail, could be considered a fury member these days). Being without her animal friends was one of the sacrifices she had to make in moving to San Fran, but they are making up for lost time.

It’s great to have her here and seeing her in our family room seems like old times. I know she’s happy up north – I can hear it in her voice when she calls on the phone – but I know Mrs. Laz and I really miss her. She’s such a character, particularly around her birthday because she demands the center of attention – even more than usual.

Happy birthday, sweetheart, we both love and miss you greatly but are happy for you to be where you want to be. It will sure be interesting to see where we all are one year from now as we celebrate your 26th.

This Says It All From The Onion

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

About Moving Objects

There use to be a day when I thought about writing the Great American Novel on a daily basis. Shortly after my kids were born (and after I had resisted the urge to sell my daughter to a Gypsy family), I used them as my muse or my inspiration. I was in my car a lot in those days and had a tape of Bob Seger’s Greatest Hits that I listened to constantly. As I drove and listened and drove and listened, it occurred to me, whether the artist meant to or not, that his songs told a story. I may have also been hallucinating.

At any rate, I began to formulate an idea for a novel based on the songs and, being a Midwestern boy myself, it settled around a guy who moved from Michigan to California to find himself, only to discover he had already done so in his children. I wrote 20-30 pages before I gave up (as usual), but I remember one line I wrote that has always stuck with me: God only helps moving objects.

Fast forward 20 years and the line has come back to me. It is a natural inclination when times are tough for people to freeze. I’ve frozen many times and I can say from experience nothing good comes of it. So I began to create my own inertia recently and have begun to push for things to happen. To my surprise, my movement has led to movement from others and suddenly I am feeling much better about my business and personal prospects.

Twenty years ago, I wrote a short line and then forgot about it. I wish I hadn’t because I really believe we have to create our own success and create our own opportunities. And it doesn’t hurt to have God’s help when you’re trudging up a hill.

This Righteous Wind Blows

Presidential candidate – and we must remember he is still just the candidate and not actually the president – Barak Obama has taken to mentioning his campaign has a “righteous wind” at its back, a biblical reference to being ordained by God to do His work. Yikes. Obama did admit to having a “healthy ego,” although believing you are anointed by God to become president doesn’t fit only in the healthy ego category. Perhaps it crosses into delusional.

And this is where I have the greatest problem with moving Obama into the White House. There are far too many people who believe his election will amount to such radical change and the people of the world will all be standing hand in hand, bringing universal peace and understanding to the planet. He’s a skilled orator and very good at keeping his messages short and simple for the masses to understand, but I am still not convinced he is anything more than a typical Chicago-style political hucksters selling us what we think we want to hear.

The other day I was talking to an old dog republican consultant who goes back to the Nixon campaigns. He told me he had been in many winning and losing campaigns and, regardless of the way the election went, he still woke up the next morning with the knowledge that not much had really changed. However, he worries that the expectations on Obama are so large that there is no way he can live up to the self-inflicted hype. He worries more that if McCain were to win, people would be leaping from buildings believing the world will soon end.

But getting down to just the factual basics of this election, I have the following reasons why I would support John McCain over Barak Obama in tomorrow’s election.

1. Foreign Policy. Believe it or not, I think both candidates are just plain awful in this category and I if it was possible to find two candidates and running mates with such weird foreign policy views. McCain has been famously misquoted as saying we will stay in Iraq for 100 years and labeled a war monger for suggesting Iran was next on the target list. Obama hasn’t mentioned Iran as a potential target, however he did say he wouldn’t rule out attacking nuclear-armed Pakistan with a population of 175 million people if they didn’t behave better. Both of these statements are irresponsible and show a complete lack of common sense.

I have further problem with McCain because of his devotion to the U.S. version of democracy at all costs. McCain has routinely supported outright dictators who have won rigged elections because they were simply an enemy of our enemy and therefore a friend. He’s an active meddler in the affairs of other countries and there is no place for that kind of behavior if we want to see America’s standing in the world restored. Nixon engaged China, Clinton sold out to China and Bush sold the country to China. It would be nice to move back to just engagement.

My concern about Obama’s foreign policy is that he doesn’t have any experience and is dangerously naïve. We all know what he meant when he said he would meet various despots without “preconditions” and no parsing of the phrase now will convince me it meant something different. It’s what Kennedy believed before meeting in Vienna with Khrushchev and it resulted in absolute disaster, bringing us the Berlin Wall and communist Cuba. Kennedy’s move told the world he was weak and that America no longer had a backbone, which left the door open for bad people to do bad things. There are still bad people willing to do bad things in the world and I am deathly afraid that they will believe Obama lacks the stones to stand up to them. He may be able to keep the Barbarians at the gate by boring them with lengthy speeches about the audacity of hope, but, in the end, he will be tested and tested frequently. How will he respond? He could blunder us into a war by attempting to look tough, or he could just go back to his standard way of ducking issues he doesn’t want to deal with by voting “present.”

Sure Obama will make the Europeans happy and give rise to American popularity as we vacation in Paris, but in the end, I worry about his judgment in key foreign policy areas and his unknown reaction to challenges much more than I worry about McCain handling the nuclear football.

2. Economy. Presidents get far too much credit for economic good times and far too much criticism to economic downturns. In other words, presidents do very little to disrupt or create economic prosperity. In most cases, it is just wise for presidents to stay out of the way of the economy and not try to micromanage something so large and diverse. The most recent downturn and the monumentally stupid reaction to our economy will saddle the next president with huge liabilities and a message that will tell business leaders and consumers that no matter how stupid they are, they can always count on the taxpayer to bail them out. Not really a good message, actually.

From what I have seen of McCain for the past 20 years, he is a fiscal moderate who sees the best role for government is to meddle in the economy the least. He believes higher taxes on businesses and producers during a recession will make the recession worse and he would like to see an end to earmarks and other pork-barrel spending. I doubt he will get it, but it’s admirable to have as a goal.

As for Obama, he is selling the same snake oil that has been sold in a different bottle for the past century. Herbert Hoover promised a “chicken in every pot” to voters desperate for the hand of government to help them in the toughest of economic times. Franklin Roosevelt gave us the New Deal and Lyndon Johnson gave us the Great Society. All were promises to have government fix whatever ailed the country. Looking back, none succeeded because, if they did, why are we still required to help the “needy” in this country? Weren’t all the other programs, with trillions spent and nearly a century to get right, able to crack the code to help the needy? Apparently Obama feels we still need something to level the playing field to help the needy at the expense of the wealthy.

It is classic class warfare spun a different way in order to sound populous. The only candidate who really admitted he was going to take from the rich and give to the poor was McGovern in 1972, but since he was the victim of one of the largest landslides in presidential history, those who came after him have repackaged the message. Unless you count Obama’s “spread the wealth” statement he made when he didn’t think the cameras were on, he has always talked of his tax plan as 95% or Americans getting a tax cut, which probably sounds fair to 95% of the voters. If this is what he really means and his 95% figures are accurate, then 47 million Americans who pay no taxes at all will be getting a refund. Let that sink in a bit: People who currently pay no taxes will get a $500 refund ($1,000 for married couples) according to his own tax plan calculator. Where will this money come from? From me and the dwindling number of people who will be paying an increasingly larger portion of our income in taxes. In other words, it is an unstainable tax program as we will all eventually be taxed out of existence. The OECE, an organization loosely governed by the U.N., recently release a report saying that the U.S. had the most progressive tax system of Western democracies. This means our country has the dubious distinction of having the largest tax burden fall on the wealthiest taxpayers. And Obama wants to increase this burden.

My political consigliore Paul Gann once told me there was a sad change in the expectation of government between his generation and the current generation. Paul, who was born in a small town in Arkansas, told me that when Brother John’s barn burned down, the community got together and rebuilt the barn. They didn’t do this because the government told them they had to, but because they knew it was the right thing to do to lend a helping hand and because they knew Brother John would do the same for them. The trend now seems to be that most people wait for the government to take care of them, now in such a way that many people in New Orleans blame the government for not forcing them to leave the city when a Category 5 hurricane was bearing down on them. I find Obama’s message that government can be all things to all people at best pandering for their vote and at worse continuing to destroy our true sense of community where people help each other and not because of coercion from the government.

It has always been puzzling to me why so many wealthy politicians support higher taxes for the “wealthy” since most of them are wealthy. But there is nothing in the tax code that precludes these wealthy individuals to pay more to the federal government if they really believe they are better stewards of their money and better able to take care of the needy and poor. Hell, Obama can start with his own family and get his relatives living in poverty in Boston a check.

3. Healthcare. Obama wants to see every American covered by health insurance, be it a government or employer-backed program. As I understand it, he wants to either get the government in the health care business or give employers the option to cover their employees or pay, essentially, a fine so the government can provide the coverage. McCain has been on record of wanting to get the government out of the health care business and getting the employer out of the business of supplying healthcare to workers. He believes that too many people get screwed over when they rely on their employer to provide their health care coverage both in the options available and the fact they lose their insurance if they lose their jobs. McCain wants to see the market work with individuals being able to better tailor their health care insurance plans to their own needs and to have it regardless of employment status. Sounds a lot better to me than the DMV running our health care system and having rationed care.

Lord knows there are dozens of other reasons why we support the candidates we do, not the least of which are all the side shows. I am not at all happy with McCain’s choice for VP and neither am I pleased with Obama’s choice of one of the least intelligent members of the Senate, especially when there were far better choices available to both of them. I am also very aware this post will persuade no voters and the election is a foregone conclusion.

Some days I get ideas about writing different books before it goes down my sinkhole of procrastination. One of the ideas I had recently was to take an academic look at where we would be today had Gore been elected in 2000. I even had a good idea for a name; 538 Votes. I did a bit of research on it and I basically figured things wouldn’t be too different. I know that may sound odd to some of you, but based on who would have made up a Gore Administration, I think a lot of the key decisions made by Bush would have been made by Gore. Basically, it’s the way I feel about Obama. I think he could cause huge problems but, in the end, I hope he will do no greater or less harm than McCain would do if he would have been elected. Maybe that’s where this idea of “hope” comes in, for me at least.

UPDATE: Now remember, republicans vote on Tuesday and democrats and independents vote on Wednesday. I wasn't sure if my readers were aware of the change in voting laws. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to forward this information on.

The Final Six Demands

Sorry to do this to you all as I know everyone is pretty damn tired of the election by now. I’m sure you feel overwhelmed with the bombardment of last minute advertising on all of the measures on the November ballot. Aren’t you glad we’re not in a swing state for president having to be hit every two minutes with an ad tearing down one or the other candidates? I’ll post my comments on the presidential election tomorrow or, if the mood doesn’t strike me, I could post on Tuesday or Wednesday as I am sure my position is well known by my readers and passersby.

But, as promised, what follows are my thoughts on the remaining six ballot measures and, if only I could vote, which way I would cast my ballot. Now, see that line in the photo, go get in it and do your duty.

Proposition 7: RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
This initiative is sponsored by Peter Sperling, the son of the founder of University of Phoenix and a more frequent gadfly in California politics. He has donated more than $7.5 million for the Yes side of this initiative while PG&E and Southern California Edison have spent more than $28 million to oppose. Sperling may have his heart in the right place, but the measure is flawed in a few areas. First, it requires more bond money; $5 billion ($10 billion more in debt obligation). With a state already reeling in bond debt, why add more? Second, it is far too aggressive in its requirements to have 50% of energy produced in the state to be renewable by 2025 (and 20 percent by 2010). Most energy observers believe this is impossible and the measure will impose stiff penalties (along with huge development costs) on the state’s utilities that will be passed on to consumers in the form of rate hikes. Third, it can only be changed if agreed by two-thirds of the Legislature, and with energy policy in constant flux these days, Californians and the Legislature need more flexibility to change what is likely a flawed law. Finally, it is supported by Tom Hayden and anything supported by him has a certain odor about it. Laz urges a No vote on Prop. 7.

Proposition 8: ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
I have a tough time getting too worked up about this entire issue because I just can’t seem to figure out why there is such a fuss with opponents of same sex marriage. It is almost too easy to use the line that gays and lesbians should be able to marry so they can be as miserable as the rest of us, but, really, how would people in committed and loving relationships getting married, regardless of their orientation, hurt the notion of “traditional” marriage? Opponents believe that marriages between same-sex couples would serve as a bad moral message. However, there are many straight couples who divorce regularly (a bad message), who cheat on their spouse regularly (a bad message), who live together while not married (I think a good message, but opponents wouldn’t think so), or people who continue to stay in loveless marriages (a terrible message). If gays and lesbians want to make the ultimate commitment and get married, more power to them. You’d think opponents would be happy that gays and lesbians would stop “living in sin.” I, along with divorce attorneys throughout the state looking to increase their business, urge a No vote on Prop. 8. However, I do have bone to pick with the gay and lesbian community (do I really have to include “transgender” to be cool?): Give us back the rainbow as your symbol. I can’t believe you stole refracted light from us.

Proposition 9: CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
I have a good friend who had the guts to stare down the murderer of her brother and give a powerful speech to deny him early parole. Everyone in the penal system told her she was wasting her time, but her impassioned plea to the parole board kept the killer locked up for at least another 10 years. She did this not only for her brother, but also because she knew this killer wasn’t the least bit reformed and would likely harm someone else. Prop. 9 gives empowerment to the family members of victims of violent crimes in California by letting them know when parole hearings are scheduled, when criminals will be released from prison and even giving family members needed protection if and when these violent animals are out of prison on bail. There are some holes in the California justice system that favor criminals over crime victims and this just levels the playing field. Laz demands a Yes vote on Prop. 9.

Proposition 10: ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY. BONDS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
I have difficulty with this measure. For one, is it another $5 billion in bond – or, remember, at least $10 billion in state obligations before it is paid back. The money is to go toward the production and use of alternative fuels and, ostensibly, have us less reliant on foreign oil. The initiative has been bought and paid for by T. Boone Pickens, a Texas oilman whose net worth is $2.7 billion – or at least it used to be. While by all appearances Pickens believes this is the best thing for future energy consumption, I am a bit uncomfortable supporting his idea when he is asking for the California taxpayers to entrust him with $10 billion on the hunch he’s right. Pickens is a smart man and he may have the right idea, I’d just rather see him put up his own money and fund alternative sources himself. If Californians flock to his ideas, he’ll be worth billions more. If the idea is good enough for the taxpayers, then certainly it is good enough for private investors. While it appears there are good intentions here, Laz urges a No vote on Prop. 10.

Proposition 11. REDISTRICTING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
I have worked on similar measures in California at least five times and all five failed because they never got bipartisan support. In the past, it had always been republicans trying to amend the way legislative districts get drawn up to keep the democrats from creating so many safe seats for their incumbents. This measure finally has bipartisan support and, while the change offered may change nothing at all, it deserves your vote. There has always been a wolf-guarding-the-henhouse problem with legislators drawing up their own districts. It has been too easy for the party in charge to draw district lines in such a way that it creates a permanent majority. With so many safe seats drawn up to protect incumbency, it has made elections a farce and requiring voters to only have the choice of candidates handpicked by the party’s hierarchy. Prop. 11 will create a 14-member commission to draw legislative district boundaries and let’s hope they can do a better job. Laz says Yes to 11.

Proposition 12. VETERANS’ BOND ACT OF 2008.
Like policemen and firemen, it’s difficult to say no to veterans, but I am saying No to this bond measure. The $900 million in bond money (so $1.8 billion) is to go to veterans so they can buy farms and homes. I respect veterans’ service to our country, but can’t see why we should single them out over others. There are many people who serve their country (police and fire workers included), so it strikes me as unfair that one group would get money from the taxpayers to buy what all the rest of us are struggling to keep, thanks in no small measure to the amount of taxes we pay. The government shouldn’t be segmenting the population and letting one group get something that no other group gets. I think that’s called state-sponsored bias. Laz is telling you to vote No on Prop. 12.
So that’s it for now folks. Go figure out where your polling place is, stand in line and vote and get your “I Voted” sticker. You’ll feel better and I will rest easy that you will be voting against me and saddling me with bad laws. Thanks a lot.