Saturday, October 30, 2010

Jerry Brown Admits He Has No Plan For California

Here's the transcript of that interview: 
Interviewer: You said something a moment ago that I have to follow up on and I have to draw you out on. You said you don’t have to lie anymore now that you’re not a politician. What did you lie about when you were governor?
Jerry Brown: It’s all a lie. You’re pretending there’s a plan…
Interviewer: What did you lie about?
Jerry Brown: You run for office and the assumption is “Oh, I know what to do”. You don’t. I didn’t have a plan for California. Clinton doesn’t have a plan. Bush doesn’t have a plan.Interviewer: You said you had a plan for California and you lied because you didn’t have a plan?
Jerry Brown: You say you’re going to lower taxes, you’re going to put people to work, you’re gonna improve the schools, you’re going to stop crime… crime is up, schools are worse, taxes are higher. I mean be real!
Jerry Brown has to be one of the stupidest politicians on the planet. 
After completing two terms as governor of California, he makes a jaw dropping admission on CNN. He never had a plan for California prior to becoming governor in the 1970s and that any plans he claimed he had was a lie. The fact that he makes this admission on the air is politically suicidal, especially 15 years after this interview takes place when he's running for Governor. Clearly, he forgot about this interview when he decided to run.  
The thing that amazes me is that Jerry Brown keeps running for some kind of political office. He's made three failed attempts to become President of the United States, became Mayor of Oakland California and elected to the office of the Attorney General of California. When he was running for these political offices, was he lying when he said he had a plan if he became President, Mayor or Attorney General?  Meg Whitman's advertisements points out that he didn't have a plan as governor and he doesn't have one now. I would go one step further and say that Jerry Brown has NEVER had a plan for any office he's sought.
The discovery of this interview couldn't be more perfect.
It was only last week that the Rasmussen poll had Jerry Brown ahead against Meg Whitman by 48% to 42%.  This put California leaning towards Democrat in the election.  However, Rasmussen released a poll yesterday showing that the race is tightening and Meg is eating away at Jerry Brown’s lead.   Brown leads by 49% with Meg Whitman moving up with 45%.  The results are within the 4% margin of error which means that California is now a toss up state. But with Meg's new advertisement, it will probably convince the undecideds, independents and some democrats to dump him at the ballot box. 
She just might be able to win on November 2nd!

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Misogyny Within Liberalism

If you thought the bipartisan feminist outrage towards Joy Behar's sexist comments toward Sharron Angle has hit its peak, you ain't seen nothin' yet. The anger from women both on the left and the right has reached a new boiling point.  
Today, a left leaning website, has published a vile and despicable article about Christine O'Donnell in which an anonymous writer talks about his one night stand with her. Liberal and conservative feminists are extremely furious at the website for publishing the article. Even the liberal National Organization for Women (NOW) is horrified by the article:
"Sexist, misogynist attacks against women have no place in the electoral process, regardless of a particular candidate's political ideology.
Today the tabloid website Gawker published an anonymous piece titled "I Had A One-Night Stand With Christine O'Donnell" that takes the routine sexual degradation of women candidates to a disgusting new low. NOW repudiates Gawker's decision to run this piece. It operates as public sexual harassment. And like all sexual harassment, it targets not only O'Donnell, but all women contemplating stepping into the public sphere.
NOW/PAC has proudly endorsed women's rights champion Chris Coons, O'Donnell's opponent in the Delaware Senate race, and finds O'Donnell's political positions dangerous for women. That does not mean it's acceptable to use slut-shaming against her, or any woman.
NOW has repeatedly called out misogyny against women candidates, and this election season is no different. Let me be honest: I look forward to seeing Christine O'Donnell defeated at the polls, but this kind of sexist attack is an affront to all women, and I won't stand for it."
I rarely agree with NOW but they're 100% correct in calling this a "new low" in misogynist literature.
What amazes me is how very few people are troubled by how much of the sexist and misogynist statements have come from liberals. Not all liberals are misogynist, of course, yet a disturbing pattern is emerging. Even a liberal woman such as Kirsten Powers has noticed this trend and has listed a few examples of liberal sexism towards conservative women.
The widespread notion that liberals are open minded, tolerant and accepting of people who come from diverse backgrounds is starting to fall. People have assumed that feminism was a cause that was primarily championed by liberals. They used to oppose discrimination against females, not engage in it. They used to demand respect for women, not demean them. Liberals were once fond of explaining that women were free to express their opinion on issues, but now they are required to support certain causes in order to be "authentic" women. Democratic Representative Janis Baird Sontany explains that "you have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women. You sure can’t find out by how they vote.”
However, a new trend may be starting. This is the second time that feminists, specifically liberal feminists have gone to defend conservative women. We maybe witnessing an awakening among left leaning feminists. They are realizing that liberalism has abandoned feminism. Feminists might be starting to see that if liberal men, women and organizations are willing to smear conservative women such as Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Sharron Angle, and Christine O'Donnel; then they were never a feminist to begin with. To denigrate conservative women is really a manifestation of sexism towards women in general. One liberal blogger explains this point by stating that "sexism hurts all women, all little girls, all old ladies, women everywhere." 
Thus, liberals aren't just tearing down conservative women, but all women.
In fact, feminsts may be realizing that modern liberals have only been paying lip service to their cause. They might be waking up to the fact that liberalism is more concerned about advancing their agenda than promoting respect and kindness towards all women. Some may realized that the 2010 elections have merely exposed the misogyny and sexism that has been growing within liberalism for a long time now.  
Some feminists like Tammy Bruce, have come to that realization a long time ago
"As a gay woman who spent most of her adult life pushing the cart for liberal causes with liberal friends in a liberal city, I found that sexism, racism and homophobia are staples in the liberal world. The huge irony is liberals spend every ounce of energy promoting the notion that they are the banner carriers of individualism and personal freedom, yet the hammer comes down on anyone who dares not to conform to, or who dissents even in part from, the liberal agenda." 
As feminists begin to realize that liberalism has abandoned feminism and developed little respect for women, they may realize that conservatives have embraced feminism. 
Women are free to be stay at home mothers or become the next Governor of California or the next senator from Nevada or a female talk show host. But most importantly, women are to be respected and honored as she pursues her chosen path in life, expresses her thoughts and feelings and become the women she desires to be.

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

More Female On Female Misogyny: Joy Behar & Sharron Angle

Men and women can be victims of sexism by the other gender. However, it also occurs between people of the same gender. Sometimes, women themselves are the biggest offenders of sexism towards other women. I explored that topic earlier and its worth revisiting again. 
Recently, Joy Behar, one of the commentators on the television show "The View," called the Republican challenger to Harry Reid, Sharron Angle, a "bitch" who should go to "hell." Watch the clip below:

The interesting thing about this event is that feminist groups from both the left and the right end of the political spectrum are outraged over Joy Behar's sexist comments:
Amy Siskind, president of the feminist group The New Agenda, told The Daily Caller she was appalled by Behar’s language calling it sexist and insulting.
“I think the remarks are completely and utterly unacceptable and I think she should — by tomorrow — be on the air with an apology to Sharron Angle and to the women of this country,” Siskind said. “The ‘b-word’ has no place in our national dialogue, and especially when she was using it in a very pointed way here to demean another woman.”
The president of a more conservative women’s group, The Kitchen Cabinet, Sonja Eddings Brown, was similarly distressed by The View co-host’s language, chalking her sentiment up to politics.
“We thought Joy Behar was a classier act than this,” Brown wrote in an e-mail to TheDC. “What is it that makes conservative women, who work inside and outside of the home, such a threat to liberal women like Joy? What has Sharron Angle done to deserve being described so profanely by Ms. Behar?”
Sharron Angle had a different response to Joy Behar's sexist comments. The female candidate kindly sent Behar some flowers along with a note that read, "Joy, Raised $150,000 online yesterday. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, Sharron Angle." Apparently, Joy was surprised Sharron Angle's show of kindness.
I find this fascinating because liberal and conservative women were so quick to condemn Joy Behar for her comments; yet, Meg Whitman got a different response from feminists when she was called a whore by Jerry Brown's wife. In that situation, conservative women were outraged whereas liberal feminist were split on their outrage over Mrs. Brown's comments. The local chapter of NOW was troubled about it but ultimately called Meg Whitman a "political whore" whereas the national organization was upset by Mrs. Brown's comments and declared that anyone who uses that term ought to be fired.
Anyone care to explain the difference why feminists on the left and the right were united in their outrage against Joy Behar yet divided in on Mrs. Brown's sexist statement?

Update 10/28/10: Joy Behar apologizes to Sharron Angle for calling her a bitch. See the video below:

Monday, October 25, 2010

We Won't Tolerate It In California Or Washington

Meg Whitman is now in a competitive race against Jerry Brown.  Polls show that Jerry Brown has a slight lead against Meg Whitman. One poll conducted by the University of Southern California-Los Angeles Times claims that Jerry Brown has surged past Meg Whitman in support from California voters by 13 points. The Meg Whitman campaign sent out a e-mail blast to its supporters claiming that the poll is unreliable.
"Just like their poll earlier this fall, today's Los Angeles Times poll, conducted by a Democrat polling firm, assumes a completely irrational turnout mix. Additionally, it's aged. That's fine for cheese and wine, but not polls. 
The Times poll obliterates the model from the last mid-term election and skews significantly toward a Democrat wave-like '08 turnout model. Specifically, The Times is assuming a +5% Democrat tilt over the '06 mid-term turnout. Obviously any rational observer and pollster would find that ignorant of what is occurring with the electorate. 
Additionally, The Times poll was in the field from 10/13-18; before a discernible Whitman uptick in other polls. In other words, it's old, statistically flawed, and in no way a current snapshot of the race. 
"Statistically, given the clear average of multiple public and private polls fielded in a similar time frame, The LA Times poll should be categorized as an outlier poll and can be dismissed as simply inaccurate," said Whitman pollster John McLaughlin. Dr. David Hill, also a Whitman campaign pollster, agreed with that assessment. 
We are certain this race is extremely close, and we are confident of our position to close this campaign with a historic result a week from Tuesday that will give California its first woman governor.
California cannot afford to have Jerry Brown reelected for a third term as Governor of California. The state currently faces an unemployment rate of 12.4%. Some analyst think the real unemployment rate is 22%. When Jerry Brown left office in 1983, the unemployment rate was 11% and there were about 1.3 million Californians out of work. Currently, California is 19 billion dollars in debt. Does California really want a Governor who repeatedly increased spending and taxes under his administration?
My fellow conservatives and tea partiers; California is our modern day Alamo.  The familiar maxim, as "California goes, so does the nation" is true.  If California elects Jerry Brown, he will continue the bad financial habits that the state has been engaging in for years.  And other states will follow Jerry Brown's bad example. Why? California voters will simply be sending a message to politicians that they should not take our anger over excessive tax and out of control spending seriously by rewarding financially irresponsible behavior if they elect Jerry Brown.
That is simply unacceptable.
For those of you who are concerned about America's current financial crisis and want to put an end to reckless government taxation and spending, the best way to do that is to help Meg Whitman in the last days of the election.  If we allow Jerry Brown to beat Meg Whitman, it doesn't matter what other victories win on November 2nd. Why? California is simply a reflection of how federal government operates by imposing high taxes and reckless spending.  As a result, California could drag American down financially if it continues on the path of financial irresponsibility. The consequences won't be limited to California.  It will certainly ripple across the country.  As you can see, this election has consequences that will impact each one of us and determine the success or failure of America.
Given the how important this California election is for the state and our nation, we must protect California, and by extension, America at all cost.  Therefore, I am asking you to dedicate an hour or more of your time every day this week to make calls for Meg Whitman. You can do it from the comfort of your own home regardless if you live in or out of California. If you are in California, please go to a Meg Whitman office near you and volunteer. I also encourage you to please make a contribution to the Meg Whitman campaign.
However, my most important request is that you ask you ask everyone you know who is concerned about the future of America to dedicate some time to helping Meg Whitman win on November 2nd. Just as early American patriots enlisted their friends and neighbors in the fight for freedom, I humbly ask that you invite your friends to make a stand for California and American by dedicating your time to help Meg Whitman win.
If you wish to send a message to the leaders on both parties that America's debt and out of control spending will not be tolerated any longer,  then the only acceptable way to send that message is to declare that it won't be tolerated in California either.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Vindicated: Money Doesn't Buy You A Political Office

Its hard to remain humble when I'm right.
About a month ago, I wrote an article debunking the popular myth that rich political candidates can buy their way into office. David Brooks, writing an op-ed article for the New York Times explains how money in general has very little effect on political campaigns: 
Over the past few months, there’s been a torrent of commentary about political donations and campaign spending. This lavish coverage is based on the premise that campaign spending has an important influence on elections.
I can see why media consultants would believe money is vitally important: the more money there is the more they make. I can see why partisans would want to believe money is important: they tend to blame their party’s defeats on the nefarious spending of the other side. But I can’t see why the rest of us should believe this. The evidence to support it is so slight.
The evidence is clear. Money doesn't do much in politics. David Brooks points out that in this election cycle, Democrats have raised more money and spent more money than Republicans; yet, Republicans are expected to make the biggest political gains this November. According to the columnist, it doesn't matter if the money comes from campaign donations or from outside groups. 
One such outside group, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is often vilified by the President and is mentioned in David Brook's column, despite the fact that there is no evidence that they have donated any money to this political campaign. Yet, even if the claim was true, they only contribute to 10% of the overall money used for political campaigns according to Mr. Brooks.  Moreover, the jury is still out among Political Scientists on whether or not the cash spent by independent groups are any more effective than money spent by a political campaign.
The New York Times columnist explains that the reason why there is so much money in political campaign is not for the candidate's benefit but for the benefit of political strategist's bank account and the donor's ego:
So why is there so much money in politics? Well, every consultant has an incentive to tell every client to raise more money. The donors give money because it makes them feel as if they are doing good and because they get to hang out at exclusive parties. The candidates are horribly insecure and grasp at any straw that gives them a sense of advantage.
In the end, however, money is a talisman. It makes people feel good because they think it has magical properties. It probably helps in local legislative races where name recognition is low. It probably helps challengers get established. But these days, federal races are oversaturated. Every federal candidate in a close race has plenty of money and the marginal utility of each new dollar is zero.
In this day and age, money is almost never the difference between victory and defeat. It’s just the primitive mythology of the political class.
The claim that there's too much money in politics might be true. But the claim that money actually has an influence in political campaigns to such extent that a rich politician can buy a political office, win elections or influence voters is simply not true. However, that myth will never die. Politicians will continue to use this myth for political purposes. 
However, that doesn't mean you, the voter, have to believe the myth.

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Why Telling A Guy To "Man Up" Is Not Ok.

Women telling men to "man up" is quite popular these days. It seems to be an effective and catchy phrase among females. Female politicians like it. It is also popular among single women, who now yearn for an alpha male. Its now stirring up quite a conversation in the media and blogs. The general response is that people are giving a thumbs down on the acceptability of using that phrase towards men.
And for good reason.
In essence, telling a man to "man up" is an attempt to shove a man into a stereotypical box of how men ought to be rather than how men really are. People cannot be boxed into stereotypes. That is true for ethnicity, gender, religion and economic status. Human beings were not created as black and white entities in which you either are or aren't. We aren't limited to a specific set characteristics. Instead, human beings have a variety of characteristics that exist infinitely within a continuum. Despite the fact that humans have an innate desire to put people in a nice little box, the reality is truth is that human being are too complex and multifaceted to be squeezed into a nice, simple classification.
Moreover, the popular phrase "Man Up" is extremely unrealistic and superficial. A conservative columnist  named Cameron Parker, discussing how single women want men to "man up" in  the dating  world, eloquently drives this point home:
Focusing on actions and labeling them inherently masculine or feminine begs for defeat. Those really are socially constructed. Half a millennia ago, competition that didn’t often result in death was for children. Today, the NFL is as macho an institution as they come. To that end, Miller even mentions a Super Bowl XLIV ad for the Dodge Charger with the slogan “Man’s last stand,” and yet ironically misses the point that the things she has hermetically sealed into the spheres of the masculine and the feminine are all heavily influenced by the prevailing norms today, enshrined in ads like Dodge’s and, with the advent of the World Wide Web, ubiquitous.
His point that the definition of what a makes a real man is equally applicable to women. The ideal changes over time due to changes in politics, economics, culture and technology. Sometimes the changes occur over long periods of time in on the scale of generations. Often times, the ideal is about as permanent as fashionable clothing. It becomes a fad and then fades away. Being a metrosexual used to be sexy, now its not.
Regardless if you believe that what makes a "real" man or woman is an arbitrary social construct, society and culture have a big impact on setting the perimeters of acceptable (ideal) male and female behavior. Which is why women are justified in how they are unfairly portrayed in the media in terms of how they ought to behave and how their bodies should look. The same is true for men
But this problem isn't limited to the media. Our lips also contribute this problem. What people say to one another also feeds into unfair portrayal of how men and women ought to behave and look. It doesn't matter if its magazines, movies, music or our words, we cannot isolate the extreme aspects of masculinity or femininity and tell people to conform to it. Men and women have every right to resist being forced into an ideal that consist of extreme characteristics that a few people possess. Telling a guy to "man up" is nothing more than an attempt to herd men into a superficial ideal. If women don't like being told to fit into men's ideal vision of what a woman ought to be, men don't like to be boxed into an ideal either. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. 
Which brings me to my next point. Would you find it odd if an African American told a Hispanic how he ought to act? Or if an American told a Russian of how he ought to be? Or how how a hearing person ought to tell a Deaf person how he should behave. It takes a lot of balls (or ovaries) to instruct the opposite gender on how they ought to behave. Even if you're a member of that group, telling someone who is also that they're not living up to the ideal is rude. Not all African Americans or Deaf people are alike. There is diversity even within a group.
Which is why Politics Daily's Editor in Chief Melinda Henneberger thought it was rude for Sharron Angle to tell Harry Reid to man up. And I agree. Its just simply rude and offenseive to tell somone how to behave, especially when they are not a member of that group. 
Another reason why telling a guy to man up is not acceptable is because its a comment that dehumanizing and emasculates men. As a said earlier in this article, there are a wide variety of men as there are women. Therefore, it is simply a refusal to recognize man's humanity because he doesn't possess certain characteristics that make up the "ideal" man. Its emasculating because it also questions a male's masculinity. Matt Lewis, a columnist for Politics Daily explains the double standard:
For those of you who see nothing wrong with this, or think that I should, perhaps, "man up" in regards to this issue, consider the double standard.
What if Reid were to have questioned Sharron Angle's femininity? Would that have been fair game? 
Which is a fair question. What do you think?

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Mitt Romney: The Biggest Player In The 2010 Races

Mitt Romney is very busy these days. 
During this 2010 election, he has been on a whirlwind endorsement tour endorsing conservative candidates all over the country. Politico has an article detailing how active the former 2008 Presidential candidate has been in getting conservative candidates elected at the local, state and federal level. across the country. Politico has just released an
In fact, what Mitt Romney is doing this election is been engaging in an aggressive and ambitious campaign schedule that no other current big name conservative are even keeping:
"Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has parachuted into a handful of major events, including big-venue rallies for Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and Georgia gubernatorial candidate Karen Handel. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has made several early-state and regional campaign swings, balancing his responsibilities as a sitting governor with his surrogate work as vice chairman of the Republican Governors Association.
Other possible candidates — like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — have picked their targets even more selectively, helping out contenders they have personal relationships with or diving into especially hot races like the gubernatorial primaries in Florida and Georgia."
As one Republican insider has explained:
“He’s doing all the things, at a much higher level than anybody out there at this point.”
Not only is Romney aggressive in his traveling schedule but he's also generous in his donations to political campaigns across the country: 
"As of Sept. 30, he’d given $940,000 through his Free and Strong America PAC to 188 congressional candidates, two dozen Senate candidates and 20 Republicans running for governor, according to financial information obtained by POLITICO." 
How has Mitt Romney become one of the strongest forces pushing the Republican wave in November? Armed with his business experience, he keeps his Free And Strong America PAC simple yet efficient:  
“They understand the goal of fundraisers is to maximize contributions and minimize costs, so they don’t demand private planes and other costly things that legally must be paid for by the campaigns,” said Bob Honold, who handles incumbent retention for the National Republican Congressional Committee.“
Its clear that Romney is laying down the foundation for another Presidential run, if that is his plan for 2012.
"But by establishing himself as a force in states beyond the early-primary circuit of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, Romney’s cementing his role as a party leader and laying the groundwork for a potential nomination fight that lasts well past the first round of small-state elections. 
It’s a strategy that recalls former President Richard Nixon’s slow climb back to power after he lost the presidency in 1960 and the California governor’s race two years later: Gearing up to run for president in 1968, Nixon simply outcampaigned his competitors with a frenzy of activity in the 1966 midterms."
This isn't a new idea to me. I knew what Mitt Romney was up to back when the 2010 elections were just starting. Its was obvious to me that Mitt Romney was planting the seeds for political endorsements in 2012 by going all out in his endorsements for political candidates in 2010. 
We'll just have to see in 2012 if Mitt's strategy works. 

Monday, October 11, 2010

Female On Female Misogyny: Jerry Brown's Wife Allegedly Called Meg Whitman A Whore

Some of the most vile offenders of sexism towards women are...other women. 
The most recent example of this is in Califiornia in the gubernatorial campaign where the Brown campaign was stupid enough to let a campaign strategy discussion get caught on tape. In that discussion, someone in Jerry Brown's staff thought it was a good idea to call Meg Whitman a "whore." Well, that mysterious campaign staffer might be none other Jerry Brown's wife, Anne Gust Brown. 
I guess relational aggression isn't for limited to girls in K-12 schools. 
The real fight for equality may not be with men but with other women. Apparently, not all women are equal among women. Kirsten Powers, a liberal feminist, has the intellectual honesty  to recognize this. She recognizes that the some of the most sexist people are on the planet are liberal women who proclaim themselves to be feminists. Yet these women often demean conservative women for simply being women who have their own political opinions. Kirsten Powers provides a short list of examples of liberal feminist  women spewing sexist comments towards conservative women: 
Last month, liberal talk show host Stephanie Miller laughed uproariously when a female guest on her show said that if she ever met Michelle Malkin, “I would kick [her] right in the nuts,” and warned, “Wear a cup, lady.”
Or how about this: “You have to lift their skirts to find out if they are women. You sure can’t find out by how they vote.” This is what Democratic Rep. Janis Baird Sontany of Nashville said earlier this year of her female GOP colleagues.
Or this: “Sarah Palin may be a lady, but she ain't no woman,” as Cinta Wilson wrote during the tsunami of anti-Palin hysteria in 2008. In her Salon piece, Wilson went on to refer to the Alaska governor as a “Christian Stepford wife in a ‘sexy librarian’ costume” and the GOP’s “hardcore pornographic centerfold spread.
So far, California has been ground zero for female on female misogyny. And its coming from California liberals who are supporting Jerry Brown. Clearly, Mrs. Brown's,(if it was her that said it) sexist comment towards Meg Whitman is going to hurt her husband's chances of getting elected. And Gloria Steinem, a long time friend and supporter of Jerry Brown, is another liberal misogynist who recently said conservative women cannot be Feminists. Not that her lawsuit against Meg Whitman helping his campaign either. 
The fact that Jerry Brown got NOW's endorsement the day after the audiotape of the campaign calling Meg Whitman a whore is odd despite the fact that they don't like it when people call a powerful women a prostitute. I doubt the endorsement is going to help Jerry Brown at all. 
Since NOW is willing to align itself with Jerry Brown, they clearly demonstratesthat they don't believe in equality of women among women. They're not fighting for equality. Not for women in relation to men. And certainly not among other women. They are strictly a partisan ideological extension of the liberal left. That's why they're willing to tolerate the misogyny that has been spewing forth from the Jerry Brown campaign. 
Which is why their outrage is reserved for liberal women, not conservative women. Calling a politician a whore is an offensive and misogynist comment...unless you're a conservative woman. Only then is calling a woman a "whore" not an offensive term and is perfectly acceptable among alleged feminists. By supporting Jerry Brown, they're also endorsing the very misogyny they claim to be fighting against. 
California should be proud of the fact that it is many successful women both on the left and the right are competing for the hearts of and minds of its state citizens during this election cycle. Meg Whitman, the former CEO of Ebay, isn't the only successful woman in this election. Carly Fiorina, a former CEO of Hewlett-Packard Company (HP), is competing against Barbra Boxer, a woman who has been the Senator of California for a long time. Anne Gust Brown, a successful business women who used to be the Chief Legal counsel for The Gap, should be proud of this fact, even if her husband is vying to be the next governor of California.
If Anne Gust Brown really believes in equality for women,  among men and women, she should apologize to Meg Whitman for her sexist comment.

UPDATE 10.15.10: NOW just doesn't know when to quit, does it?  The juicy part is below:
Last week, the National Organization for Women and the PAC of the California NOW chapter took heat for their endorsement of state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) over Meg Whitman (R) in the gubernatorial race in the wake of comments by a Brown aide that Whitman was a "whore." At the time, national NOW President Terry O'Neill said that anyone who "from here on" calls a woman a "whore" should be fired.
She might want to have a talk with California NOW President Parry Bellasalma, who today told TPM in response to a question that "Meg Whitman could be described as 'a political whore.' Yes, that's an accurate statement."
Will NOW fire Parry Bellasalma? I hope so. If it doesn't, what is the message NOW will be sending to women? Its not ok for others to call women whores, but its ok  if feminist call other women whores!? That's not acceptable.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Book Thrown At Obama During A Rally In Philadelphia

The book comes flying at Obama towards the end of the video at the 24 second mark. Of course, if you're surprised that you didn't hear about this in the news, that's because only two news outlets mentioned that a book was thrown at him. If you didn't see the book, look below for a still photo of the book flying past President Obama.
Twitter is going crazy with people discussing the potential title of the mysterious paperback book that was thrown at him. A close up photo below should give us some clues at to what book it was.
Anyone want to take a guess as to what book it was?

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Fear Not What Man Can To The Planet, But What Man Can Do To Other Men

Advertisements are simply a way to communicate a message to the public and persuade them to buy or take some form of action. In the case of public service advertising, it supposed to educate and motivate the public about non-commercial issues like global warming. Sometimes it conveys a message. But lately, there has been a disturbing trend coming from the pro-warming crowd. Look at some of the ads below.
Consider this ad from

Or this recent ad from ACT Responsible

Or consider this ad from The World Wildlife Fund:
What message do you think the global warming crowd is trying to send to the public? What kind of action do they want you to take?
These ads are nothing more than propaganda is based on an appeal to fear in order to frighten you into joining their cause.  The 10:10 advertisement is particularly offensive because it does more than just push its message through fear, but suggests choosing that non-compliance will result permanent elimination. The irony about it is even though the green crowd says there's "no pressure" and that a person is free to decide not to go green. Yet, if one decides not to play along, he or she will get vaporized. 
No pressure, right? 
If a group, movement or organization that promotes a certain lifestyle, belief or ideology is willing to kill or even suggest eliminating those who disagree with them, then they're pushing something more than just their lifestyle, belief or ideology. The lifestyle, belief or ideology is actually secondary to a more important goal.
And what they are pushing for usually comes down to power or control. 
The common theme in each of these advertisements is fear. They want you to be scared enough that you will run into the protective arms of the government. Only the government will save you and the planet. To accomplish that requires more government control and higher taxes. In other words, only a Marxist or Socialist kind of government is the only solution for the planet. One blogger argues that the 10:10 ad is nothing more than Nazi propaganda.
Regardless of what you call the goals of the green movement, it is a big tent that attracts other movements that who want the government, not the individual, to be the one who makes big and small life decisions. The reason why it is attractive to those who believe the State as the ultimate guide for mankind is because global warming is the cause of everything we do: how we travel, what we eat, what we buy and what we wear. Thus, all human activity is subject to government regulation. Its the totalitarian urge to regulate even the most minor human activities. A quote that has been attributed to Louis Proyect sums up the goals of environmentalism perfectly: 
"The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now."

The common trend with totalitarian movements that gain political power it always seeks to oppress people at home and abroad. It may start out with noble intentions and goals but it always descends into misery. Therefore, it isn't climate change that we should be afraid of, but political change. 
Fear not what Man can to to the planet, but what Man can do to other Men. 

Friday, October 1, 2010

Meg Whitman And Her Illegal Maid

The former housekeeper for Meg Whitman, Nicky Diaz, is filing a wrongful termination suit against Meg Whitman claiming that the current Republican candidate knew that she was illegal when she hired her and fired her after she launched her gubernatorial bid. Meg Whitman stated that she fired her when Nicky Diaz confessed that she lied about her immigration status and that she was required under the law to fire her once her true immigration status was known.
However, Meg Whitman has produced documents showing that the Nicky Diaz lied about her immigration status when she applied to work as a housekeeper for the Whitman family. Lets not forget that the employment agency that provided the houseworker apparently also vetted her before allowing her to work for the Whitmans. She must have lied to the employment agency as well. Regardless, the documents provided by the Whitmans clearly shows that Nicky Diaz stated under the penalty of perjury that she was a "lawful permanent resident" of the United States and provided documents in the form of a social security card and driver's license as proof of her immigration status. 
Nicky Diaz's attorney, Gloria Allred claims that  she has proof that Meg Whitman is lying and knew that Nicky was an illegal when she hired her and says she can prove it in the form of a 2003 letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA) which purportedly shows that the SSA notified Meg Whitman about Nicky Diaz immigration status. Gloria Allred has provided the SSA letter to the press and Meg Whitman's husband isn't saying much about whether or not it is his handwriting on the letter. I fail to see how Meg Whitman's husband handwritten note asking the maid six or seven years ago to take care of the SSA letter proves she is lying. In fact, the evidence clearly suggests that the Whitmans trusted her enough to hand the letter to her and have her take care of it and Nicky Diaz probably lied about having taken care of it. 
This evidence is no smoking gun and proves nothing. It is less compelling than a President's white stain on an intern's blue dress.
Even though Gloria Allred has the letter, the story has no legs because the letter doesn't really prove anything since the letter simply asks the recipient to double check to ensure that the name on the employee’s Social Security card match the name and number in the SSA letter. But we don't know if there was a match or not. Regardless, the letter itself specifically states that the letter cannot be used to verify her immigration status nor can it be used to terminate the employee based on the letter. Moreover, the SSA letter says that the red flag could be for any number of reasons such as a transposed number, name change and in cases of Hispanic using the wrong last name since Hispanics sometimes go by two different names. So, until more information comes to light, Gloria Allred doesn't have a case based on what the letter states.
In fact, this case might actually backfire on Gloria Allred. 
For starters, Hugh Hewitt, a conservative attorney and talk radio host, invited Nicky Diaz's attorney on his radio show and she was unable to articulate any violation of law when Meg Whitman fired the housekeeper. In fact, just before Gloria Allred came on the show, Mr. Hewitt invited another well known liberal attorney named Erwin Chemerinsky who stated that Meg Whitman followed the law when dismissing the Nicky Diaz. If you can't state the law, you don't have a case.
Another problem for Gloria Allred is the timing of the lawsuit which harm her own credibility and her client's credibility. She is bringing this suit weeks before California voters will decided if Jerry Brown or Meg Whitman will become the next Governor of California. This isn't the first time she has attempted to use her position as a lawyer to have an impact on the California elections. Hugh Hewitt has pointed out that Gloria Allred brought forth a sexual harassment on behalf of Rhonda Miller against Arnold Schwarzenegger just days before Californians went to the voting booth. That case was ultimately dismissed.
The timing of the law suit also hurts Nicky Diaz's credibility as well. Her credibility is already under suspicion since the Meg Whitman campaign has shown that she lied about her immigration status. Remember, we have a woman who was Meg Whitman's housekeeper for nine years and was fired a year and a half ago. Bringing up the lawsuit now only further damages her credibility because if Nicky Diaz was really fired just after Meg decided to run for governor, why didn't she file the suit immediately after the discharge? Why wait a year and a half to sue just weeks before California vote on their next governor?  The law suit would have hurt Meg Whitman even more when she was duking it out with Steve Poizner during the California primaries. Voters may have been turned off by this and switched to Steve Poizner. 
But to file the suit now reeks of a political play which only harms Gloria and Nicky. Most Californians should be able to see right through this charade and see what Gloria Allred is really attempting to smear Meg to help Jerry Brown win the election. Another conservative attorney and talk radio host, Mark Levin had Gloria Allred on his show to figure out whether or not this lawsuit is politically motivated or not. Its worth listening to because he points out that she may have committed legal malpractice by posing her client to perjury, falsifying SS card, and deportation.
But this case isn't helping but hurting Jerry Brown. Gloria Allred is a well known supporter of the Democratic party who has contributed exclusively to Democrats. Moreover, she has made campaign donations to Jerry Brown twice in which she gave $1,000 to Jerry Brown in 1982 for his bid to become a U.S. Senator and gave him $150 in 2006. Moreover, a picture has surfaced showing Gloria Allred and Jerry Brown sitting together at a CSPAN panel in 1994 which you can see below.
Of course, Gloria Allred denies that there is any communication or collusion going on between her and Jerry Brown. I don't believe her denial. Even if it wasn't true, just the fact Gloria Allred appears to have a close personal and political relationship with Jerry Brown damages her case already. It also reeks of a potential conflict of interest. It also reeks of bias. A jury would frown on this kind of relationship between Allred and Brown.
Allahpundit, over at Hot Air, thinks that Jerry Brown and the democrats have made a great play here. I disagree. Its a horrible play and even liberals are seeing right through it. Nobody can take Gloria Allred seriously. Everyone knows she is a publicity hound who loves to get clients who can help her get in front of the news camera or on the front page. However, Gloria may have gone to far as to discredit herself permanently in the future. No one will believe her the next time she brings another client to a press conference. And it hurts Jerry Brown too since he's trying to milk this story for all its worth without appearing to do so. 
Unless there are new developments, this story will backfire on a publicity hungry lawyer and a incompetent democratic politician.

Update 10.2.10: More evidence of Gloria Allred's bias towards Jerry Brown has come to light. There is an old American Bar Association article that states that Gloria Allred spent "four years" working  for Jerry Brown's gubernatorial campaign in the 1970s before starting her legal practice.

The other news is TPM is reporting that Meg Whitman failed to sign and date the housekeeper's I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification Form.which may be in violation of  the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This revelation may have no impact on California voters and its not clear how this will help Nicky Diaz's suit to recover unpaid wages of $ 23 an hour from Meg Whitman.