Since just about anyone can become a Czar these days and I'm pretty good with wine - you've visited 1337 Wine right? If Van Jones could be the "Green Jobs Czar" then I can be the "Wine Czar." The big controversy with Van Jones started with the "asshole" comment about Republicans. And the original reports showed him calling himself an "asshole" too. Yes, it's a completely inappropriate way to describe the Republicans, but if he hadn't used that word he might have stayed under the radar. And, in his defense, he wasn't the Czar at the time and probably didn't think giving his honest opinion would hurt.

However, the Administration did hire him to be a Czar. Granted it wasn't a glamorous Czar spot like a Drug Czar, but it's still a job in the Administration. All this talk of the extensive vetting missed this? I mean, it's on video for anyone to eventually see. But this isn't the only issue. His radicalism bordering on conspiracy theorist for signing the 9/11 Truth petition should have clued in the Administration that this guy shouldn't be hired.

But here's something else. Once this video was released, all of his other skeletons came out really quickly. His membership in various organizations shouldn't be hard to find. But the first thing that came out after the video was the 9/11 issue. That's not something you're going to quickly find. That tells me that someone knew. Whether it's the Administration or his detractors or both is up for debate. 

I believe everyone knew. The White House decided that it wasn't a big deal since it was a minor Czar appointment.....until someone decided to not play ball. Whether it was Jones or the Administration we will probably never know. But this isn't something that just pops up.

Politics has a lot of tit-for-tat to it. You play ball and I won't reveal the dirt I have on you. Give me money for my district or state and I'll support you. If the Administration had truly done it's vetting properly, this guy wouldn't have been brought in. He is too toxic. Nothing wrong with having a "Green Jobs Czar" per se, but seriously? How many Czars do you need? Depending on the source and how a Czar is defined, the Administration has 30-40 Czars. The Bush Administration was in the same ballpark.

Up until George W. Bush, most administrations had less than 10 Czars. Only Franklin Roosevelt at 10. He was the first President to create this position, and it was the media who coined the term. They are officially "special advisors."

So with so many out there, why not have a Wine Czar? 

First of all, I understand why we have this animosity towards executives at the Wall Street firms, banks, and auto makers for getting huge bonuses, going on junkets, sponsoring Superbowl "Fan Experiences", and flying to Congress in their private jets with "hat-in-hand." I get it. Some of these things are just boneheaded. However some of these cannot be changed due to the contractual obligations of the companies involved. And while many people feel taking the company jet being wasteful, it was more wasteful for those Big-3 Auto execs to drive themselves cross-country (in 3 different vehicles by the way), than to decide to jet pool. That travel time probably cost their companies more than taking a jet.

Anyway, the problem I have with this is it's changing the rules in the middle of the game. We gave these bozos $700mil dollars of our money with effectively no oversight. Thanks, Hank. So why are we upset that they decided to use it however they felt was appropriate for the survival of themselves, er, I mean their companies? The problem is we gave them the money in the first place, instead of playing hardball by telling them to slash their payrolls without laying off people. Take commercial flights. Cancel the junkets, parties, etc. Focus on cost-cutting, building your brand, advertising, and making products that people want to and can afford to buy.

But, no. We were sold a bill of goods. It was so bad that we were on the verge of collapse if we didn't pass this bill on that day day, at that hour. If we waited even just another week, we would see rioting in the streets. No offense to the Europeans already experiencing this. We let the same bunch of crooks that got us into the mess decide how much money was going to be doled out and to whom. They all know each other, worked for each other, and therefore will take care of each other. And now, we need to spend another $800mil - $1tril?

So back to this salary cap. It's on future help to companies. OK, fine. So when Acme, Inc. decides it needs help and Joe Executive makes $5mil, his VPs make $2mil ea, and some other execs make $750k, maybe if they just did their own cost-cutting of the highest paid guys they could weather some bad times? Of course, they don't and just do freezes on raises for everyone. That means the 50%+ employees making minimum wage or just above get screwed at trying to stay even, and Joe Executive still gets his money.

Of course, the more money you have, the more money you spend. In general. Joe Executive is no different than Six Pack Joe. Just that Joe E. buys more expensive beer. No Natty Light for him, only Samuel Adams Utopias will do. Joe E. doesn't live in a double-wide, he lives in one of several 10-room mansions. But I'm not faulting Joey E. It's his money, and he can spend it, or not spend it, any way he wants.

My issue with today's announcement is the government coming up with a maximum wage. Yeah, it's only tied to government aid. Buy why $500k? Why not, $250k, $1mil, $100k? We already have a minimum wage. We need a maximum? Didn't I warn about Obama taking us down the path of Socialism a couple months ago?

It starts with this, then government contractors who are financially stable, then large businesses, and finally little Joey E. who has that lemonade stand on the corner. They tie the maximum wage to a company's gross revenue. So little Joey E. has a hard time expanding and getting ahead in his personal life, because he doesn't sell enough lemonade for him to upgrade from a 3-speed to a 10-speed bicycle.

I feel that a person should be compensated for his or her work. If you want to add a bonus based upon some kind of score or performance level, fine. But it shouldn't be something that is automatic. The bonus (or commission) should be reasonable.

If Acme, Inc. decides that it's CEO is worth $22mil, then they should be able to pay him that. If the company underperforms and their CEO isn't performing, either fire him or cut his pay. But it should be the market doing this, not government.

Here is what should have happened with the bailout money. An oversight committee of some sort should have been created. Any company requesting assistance should have been audited to explore what cost-cutting measures (including payroll reductions, but avoid layoffs initially), should be implemented first. This allows the company to do everything it can to trim the fat short of firing employees.

If a company has already done that, give them the money. But let them know it comes with restrictions. You don't necessarily need to tell that company it's capped at $500k for its executives. Some smaller companies might not pay their CEO that much anyway. And those that pay their CEO tens of millions may not realistically be able to cut that CEO's salary to $500k. Use the model of those credit counseling companies. Make arrangements on how to reduce your debt and if you break that arrangement, then you're stuck with your debt.

The key is, there should have been conditions to being able to get this money, and penalties for abusing the aid. But Paulson and his cronies figured that they could just give away the money and the public wouldn't get outraged. Now the Congress is red-faced in embarrassment and outrage for being duped. And so John Q. Public.

Get rid of this salary cap. It's a bad idea. It's only there to make us "feel good" about sticking it to these evil executives. We gave them the money with no stipulations. If they screw up, then let them. Let the companies that use the money wisely come out ahead, and the companies that don't fail or get bought out.

If not, then have all of us just make $500k/yr regardless of our job. If you want fairness, then everyone just gets paid the same amount of money. We don't own anything. The government gives us our homes. We get rations of food. Oh wait, didn't someone already try that a few times? Communism anyone?

It's been awhile since I've actually typed out an entry. Today, November 4th, 2008, will be viewed in the annals of History as a turning point in American politcs. One one side we have the potential for a Black President. On the other, the potential for a female Vice President. And that fact has been hammered many times, so it's not like I'm making some incredible revelation.

But I also look at today as one of the most important elections in a very long time. As usual, many people will say they do not like either candidate. I'm one of those people. However, many of those same people will pick one of the two major candidates. Many will just vote for the party they always vote for. Some will switch parties. And a select few will vote for someone else other than a Democrat or Republican.

In my eyes, Barack Obama is a Socialist. Plan and simple. If you like Socialism, then feel free to vote for him. Socialism is that warm security blanket that people like when they look at the surface. Socialism is a strong word. It connotes images of Karl Marx, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc. And it should. While some of these men were better described as Marxist, Facist, or Communist, they all shared the basic idea of Socialism. To remind you of what Socialism is, I turn to Wikipedia:

"Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved."

Socialism is not a euphemism for national health care, higher taxes for the "rich," green energy, big government, etc. It's government control of its citizen's lives. And that is currently the ultimate goal of the Democratic Party. It has been for decades. While they sugar-coat it so that Americans will accept it a little at a time, the reality is the Party is really striving towards a more Socialist (not Democratic) society. As a sidenote, remember that we are not a true Democracy. We are a Representative Republic/Democracy (depending on who's defining it). There's big money in it too for those "evil corporations" that people perceive as being ran by Republicans. Those corporations just want to make money, and they back whomever they feel gives them the best chance of making the money. No matter how loose or tight the regulations.

So, if I don't want Socialism, then I need to vote for John McCain? Not necessarily. While McCain isn't the stereotypical Republican most of the time, he is a member of that party. And the Republicans haven't been themselves for a long time either. As a party, they look more like Democrats everyday. But the Republicans are heading towards what can be called Corporatism. An excerpt from Wikipedia describing the common usage of the term rather than the classic definition in relation to fascism:

"Contemporary popular (as opposed to social science) usage of the term is more pejorative, emphasizing the role of business corporations in government decision-making at the expense of the public. The power of business to affect government legislation through lobbying and other avenues of influence in order to promote their interests is usually seen as detrimental to those of the public. In this respect, corporatism may be characterized as an extreme form of regulatory capture, and is also termed corporatocracy, a form of plutocracy. If there is substantial military-corporate collaboration it is often called militarism or the military-industrial complex."

So then who do you vote for? Vote your conscience. Just realize that the two major parties are trying their hardest to move our country into one direction or the other. And you need to be cool with that. Neither extreme is good for us as a country or society. Both exact too heavy a toll. Government based on the extremes of these philosophies always fail. And fail badly.

So who did I vote for? Me. Yes, seriously. I wrote in my name. Unfortunately, I didn't think of a Vice President, so the Senate will have to do that. And that means it'll be Palin as Joe Liberman would probably cast his vote for her. I'll do a better job in four years when I'm sure I'll be compelled to do the same thing. However, maybe I'll actually make an effort to get other people to vote for me too.

OK, so now many of you have just rolled your eyes and groaned. Or something to that effect. I even got told, "a vote for you is a vote for Obama. You took away a vote from McCain." Not really. If I had a gun put to my head and had to choose. I would choose McCain, and only because he's not as radical within his own party as Obama. So, yes, my vote would have gone to McCain.

However, I really couldn't see myself supporting either candidate. And to vote for any of the other candidates seemed to be the same as voting for myself. My tongue-in-cheek slogans are "I promise nothing" and "I can't be any worse than the other guys."

Of course I have a better chance of winning the lottery than winning the election so I'm not worried about having to come up with position papers and policies for the American People to review. Nor am I worried about reporters hiding in the bushes to dig up dirt about me. But my write-in vote demonstrates my overall frustration with the Administrations and Congress over the past couple decades. That's both sides of the aisle, folks. And this current Administration and Congress really pushed me over the edge. Though I did vote for Ron Paul in the Illinois Primary as he most closely matched my views.

As far as the remainder of my ballot, that's really no one's business. To paraphrase what Sarah Palin said today, "I reserve my right to privacy and won't reveal the rest of my votes."

What's next? Well, I get to go to work and watch the results come in. I also get to watch a Spurs game. In addition to that, I'll be listening to staff and guests all debating why their guy is better. Or listening to them bemoan that their guy isn't winning. And probably ad nauseam coverage of Obama's victory party in Grant Park in Chicago.

After that? I'm going to try to get the official results on paper to see my one vote for me. Maybe even frame it. And then work on my campaign for 2016 or 2020. If you've not voted yet, join my in a "protest" and vote for yourself, or me. Just remember that for Vice President, you must choose someone that is not a resident of the same state as you if you plan on voting for yourself. It's kind of in the Constitution, yo. If you did vote for me, send me an e-mail - marz888@gmail.com, or a twitter note - http://www.twitter.com/marz8.

I guess that's it. Just don't come complaining to me if the country continues to go to shit if your guy gets in.

"Los Angeles City Councils Passes Moratorium on New Fast Food Restaurants"

Huh? So you're telling me that the City Council is going to prevent me from being obese in South L.A. (where the moratorium is to be in effect pending the Mayor's signature), solely from preventing more fast food places from opening up? Uh, don't think so. People are not obese because of the fast food places. They are obese because of what they eat AND how much exercise they get. How many non-fast food places serve tasty fattening food? Lots. And how many of them also serve less-fattening food. The same. Lots.

This is ludicrous. A government controlling what restaurants can be built based upon if they have table service and use heat lamps? Hmmmm, let's see, even restaurants WITH table service use heat lamps or some other type of heating element to keep food hot in the "window" while waiting to be "expo'd" and delivered to a table.

These council people are morons. Plain and simple. I guarantee none of them have ever worked in the Food & Beverage Industry. If they hear NRA they think guns, not the National Restaurant Association. It's not the restaurants, it's the eating habits of the people. I mean if they really wanted to tackle this, why not give people the incentive to buy healthy ingredients at this nifty invention from decades-past that's still around. It's called a Grocery Store. You see, you can buy all kinds of really cool and healthy items there.

Psst. Guess what, you can also buy some really tasty unhealthy stuff too. Just like every fast food place in existence. These council people are so stupid in thinking that a proper "sit down" restaurant will guarantee healthy food.

Anyone care to guess how many calories are in a Bloomin' Onion appetizer at Outback Steakhouse? 2100 calories! How about Chili's Big Mouth BBQ Burger. Just the burger. 1110 Calories. Olive Garden's Tour of Italy. 2000 calories. Pizza Hut Cheese Personal Pan Pizza. 850 Calories. Subway's 6" Super Seafood & Crab(R) made with light mayonnaise. 444 calories, 888 for a 12". Mc Donald's Double Quarter Pounder® with Cheese. 740 Calories. Burger King's Whopper(R) w/Cheese. 760 Calories. Popeye's Chicken & Biscuits Mild Breast. 270 Calories each. Shall I go on?

So regular sit-down restaurants are not necessarily healthier than fast food. They also argued that the people in South L.A. don't have cars so fast food is their only option. Waaaa! I lived in Chicago for 7 years and 5 years without a car. And so do many people most of their lives. You know what we did? We walked or took the bus to that new-fangled thing called a grocery store, or yes, Virginia, we walked to a fast food place, or even a real restaurant to eat.

They also wanted to argue that fast food was cheap and therefore the people there were eating cheap food and getting fat. So.....that means if you don't put fast food restaurants for a year to draw healthier sit-down places those places will charge me $5.00 for a full meal deal? Yeah, right. Using the economics of fast food places is stupid. Again, a GROCERY STORE gives me a better value.

So what if I have to microwave it, or God forbid, cook it. If I'm that lazy (and I can be many times), I can make this other thing called a sandwich. Couple pieces of my choice of meat between two slices of bread (they make some with only 6g of carbs per slice ya know) and a condiment. A lot less calories than that Big Mac from down the road and cheaper to boot too, yo.

I lost a lot of weight a few years ago by adjusting my diet. Cut out a lot of bad things. Healthier meals and less visits to the bar after a closing shift. And ya know what? I still went to Mc Donald's and got a Hamburger. Just the regular hamburger. The $0.69 kind? Yeah. A few times a week for lunch. That and water. Among other meals and the physical exertion/stress from work I lost about 30lbs in 2-3 months.

Don't blame the restaurants. Blame the people. Other than the ones that seriously have a medical condition that prevents them from losing the weight, the rest of the World can be a lot less obese. All that weight I lost? I gained it back. How? Not eating like I did for a couple years. I got lazy again. And a job that had less physical exertion/stress.

So here's the link to an article (not the only one BTW) about this. And the poll I took from that site showed that 79% percent of the people taking the poll effective agree with me.

Government policing what I eat. Before you know it, we'll be eating Soylent Green.

That's all I got tonight.

l8r,

Marz

However, over the past few decades political experts have created a two axis chart to try to place people in a more accurate category. I've included a simple representation here:

I used this image as it doesn't try to place politicians and other people on a chart. Depending on the organization using something like this, they try to place their favorite person/people in the most flattering place (i.e. as centrist as they can get away with) and people they hate as far to the extremes as they can. So where do I fall on here? Somewhere in the upper right quadrant. Not really sure exactly where, but I can tell you not at the extremes.

Back in college where many people "find themselves" I found that I am neither liberal nor conservative in the stereotypical sense. I especially found this from a class I took one summer about the Constitution.

When I tell people I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal, they really can't understand this. Many think by me saying "socially liberal" that I want the government to "take care of me." That's not really the case. It's more of a situation where I feel people should have the freedom to persue their interests as long as it doesn't harm society. And by me saying "fiscally conservative" that I am a Republican. No. While I tend to share many of the economic philosophies of Republicans, I am not a true Republican.

I am closer to Libertarianism than anything else. Some people think that is a cop out. Others feel that is a refuge of crackpots and confused people. I can remember living in Austin and Houston going to various festivals and seeing these crazies called Libertarians asking people to take their political spectrum test. At the time I found it funny how the test seemed to consistently place people in that Libertarian part of the chart. This was also the first time I had seen a chart versus a linear spectrum. However, I pretty much agreed with where I feel on the chart. However, Constitutionalist is also another tag to describe me. While I may not adhere 100% to that philosophy either, I do agree with most of what Constitutionalists agree.

So what is it I stand for? I'll give a brief and broad description. Free Speech. Privacy. Limited Government. Individual rights. Elimination of personal income taxes in favor of sales taxes. Strong defense. Free Trade with all nations (unless we decide on sanctions for a particular nation). Not allowing ourselves to become subject to another nation's sovereignty (i.e. the UN or NATO cannot act like our Congress). Free markets.

Without getting into more specific issues, the above covers most. I plan on covering more specific topics at a later date.

So basically this means that the candidates left over really don't represent the vast majority of my views. So I'll end up voting Republican again. When a Democrat shares enough of my views I'll vote for them, but I don't see that happening anytime soon. I had a previous post a couple weeks back that kind of touched on this issue of not having a good candidate to vote for, but I did deleted it. I felt it was too much of a rant that I had typed while out at 1AM at a bar. I've included most of it below since it was still in my iPhone's memory:

So I'm at the bar watching Obama trying to spin his loss in Pennsylvania by speaking in Indiana. He talks about helping the common man while having 3 frat boys stand behind him with their A&F t-shirts (Abercrombie & Fitch). 'Nuff said about that.

He decides to bash John McCain and George Bush. Now while they are not saints he then says that all the previous administrations have screwed us. A direct attack against Bill Clinton and then Hillary via guilt by association. So he is going to fix that? I haven't heard any of the 3 remaining candidates give me concrete plans.

This will be yet another election of the lesser of two evils. And I will again vote Republican, though I think The Party has lost its way right now.

I long for the day that a Dem is moderate enough to get my vote. Actually I long for the day that a candidate from either party shares enough of my beliefs to really warrant my support. Right now it's McCain.

While typing this a couple guys from a Central European country come in and bash Obama. The one person who supports him speaks up. Good for her. Except that she quickly resorts to name-calling as in calling those guys "gutter snipes." Hey, Liberals, if you want some respect in debates, then don't resort to name calling towards those you are trying to debate. That makes you look stupid. Funny thing, she left instead of trying to defend Obama other than saying, "I used to know him." OK, I like cheese. BTW I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of what I mentioned above and she ignored it.

Hillary is not going to win the nomination. And America is not ready for either a Black or woman President. We're close. 2012 or 2016 it can happen. The divide in the Democratic Party is too great right now. And that's the only reason the Republicans are going to win. Otherwise the American public would vote in a Dem.

Just wanted to share a quote from an Indiana State Senator who has
probably summed up how our governments operate at all levels.

"I think a lot of people figured, 'I'm not going to put myself in the
position of having to explain why I voted against protecting kid from
sexually explicit material. <em>If it's unconstitutional, the courts
will take care of it</em>(emphasis added).'"

Democratic Rep. Matthew Pierce.

Here is the article from the Chicago Tribune:

<a href="http://www.chicagotribue.com/news/nationworld/chi-indiana-bookstoresapr10,1,23463.story?track=rss

">Indiana law focuses on 'sexually explicit materials'</a>

The point is the last part. Legislators not really reading bills put
before them for a vote to see what it says. Just reading the title or
following the herd and voting. The "it's not my problem, let someone
else clean it up" mentality.

And that, my friends, is why our governement is so messed up...both
sides of the aisle do this too often.

L8r,

Marz

It used to be the trees, dolphins, and polar bears. Now it's Tibetean
monks. Now don't get me wrong. China is a very oppressive country.
I have a poster of the man who stopped the tanks at Tien An Men Square
as a reminder. And they've been giving Tibet the royal ass reaming
for decades. So it's now that the world suddenly wants to get
rightous on China's ass? Where were they before all of this?

It's the Olympics. Isn't this the one time every four years we put
aside our political, social, and philisophical differences aside and
celebrate athletic competition? It's about the athletes. Not about
monks. And that's what these protesters are doing. They are
bastardizing what should be a celebration.

Of course.....the IOC could have avoided all this by not selecting
Beijing to host the Olympics unless China cleaned up the human rights
issues there first. BUT NO. They had to be all stupid. C'mon you
gits. Did you really think that no one would have a problem with
this? Did you just stick your heads in the ground and hope no one
would notice?

And, of course. The Free Tibet movement should have been screaming at
the top of their lungs before now. Maybe they have and no one was
listening. That's probably the situation. So now they're stirring up
the hornet's nest. Supposedly they will be protesting everywhere the
torch goes.

I've got $100 that says once it gets to China, there won't be any mass
protests. No way will China allow that one. But how many countries
do you think will decided to boycott? If that happens, it will be a
disaster. Remember 1980?

Let me refresh your memory. The US lead a boycott of the Summer
Olympics that were being held in Moscow. It was in response to the
Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Not only did we
boycott, so did Japan, West Germany, China, and Canada....Hmmmm...did
you catch that? China boycotted the Moscow Olympics. Wouldn't it be
sweet irony if Russia boycotted China's?

But let's re-think this. Why did these countries boycott? An
invasion of another country. it wasn't like the USSR had been in
Afghanistan for decades, they had invaded them in December of 1979.
So this was kind of a knee-jerk reaction. Jimmy Carter gave those
Ruskies until 12:01 AM of 2/20/80 to pull out or else.

But still.....they boycotted the Olympics. Something that's supposed
to be devoid of politics. And wasn't the USSR the "evil empire?" OK,
so Regan hadn't been elected yet to use that phrase. But still, the
Western World still feared them. But the IOC still gave them the
Olympics.

If we have countries boycotting the games again, I'll be pissed.
Using an athlete's life dream to make a political point is just
wrong. What did the athletes do to you? How many of them began their
dream way before Beijing was selected? If they want to boycott it on
their own, then let them. But not their country.

If the world is really serious about ending China's horrible treatment
of Tibet, then they need to impose economic sanctions, not allow
businesses to use Chinese labor to manufacture our goods, stop trade,
etc. Not pussy out and boycott a sporting event. That's like picking
up your marbles and going home like an immature brat.

Grow some balls world.

L8r,

Marz

Sent from my iPhone