TALES OF A (REPUBLICAN) PARTY CRASHER


I hereby submit my resignation as a "Republican". I used to be a proud pachyderm and considered myself died-in-the-wool, but no more. Three main reasons: 1) repubs are (lately) as corrupt as democrats 2) The republican party seems to stand for "the polar opposite of democrats - whatever that may be", instead of uniting under their own distinctive direction. 3) Sure, Harry Ried is a corrupt self-server on behalf of the people, but now the would-be hope of NV - republican Ensign - is a dirtbag adulterer who takes no responsibility and dodges accountability. My state is in the hands of a senate majority-leading liberal megalomaniac, whereas the republican "good guy" turns out to be a corrupt adulterer who stands for conservative values. I love being a Nevadan right now!


Information is a funny thing. News can be so probing and the scandal coverage so nauseating. There are so many new sources and outlets of information that it is nearly impossible to engage in any form of corruption without someone somewhere somehow finding out about it. Aside from tawdry celeb scandals and DWTS updates, the pervasiveness of news does also expose myriad corruptions on the part of our elected officials. In this case, advantage general public. Too many republicans have been caught up in scandal in recent years for me to believe they care any more about country than they do self. We elect them and they manipulate us. That isn't working for me anymore.


So now I feel like an orphan, a vagabond, a Ronin. Human nature is such that we want to belong to something. What will I say the next time someone asks if I'm a democrat or republican? Can't say "independent", what does that really mean anyway? I think saying you're an "independent" is a quasi cop-out. All it says is that you don't stand with either party. Great. But what do you stand for? "Independent" is more nebulous than democrat and republican combined. What I do know is that believing in something is of much greater importance than merely belonging to something.


So I guess I'll go with "Pro-republic who advocates adherence to the constitution with a government that facilitates private enterprise while repudiating corruption." Sounds like Theodore Roosevelt, he seemed to cover all the bases. Maybe I should consider myself a "Rooseveltian Progressive"? Not to be confused with the other, more revered and canonized Roosevelt (argument for another day)...


Ideally, I'd like an amalgamation of things. Kinda like a cake mix. The batter being a lot of Teddy with some Jefferson & Reagan, William F. Buckly Jr, Arthur Laffer & Adam Smith, some Ayn Rand, but probably hold the John Birch; that's going a bit too far. What would you call that all mixed together? I don't know, nothing more than a lot of name dropping I suppose. Oh well, I give up. Who is John Galt??

I SAY NEVADA, YOU SAY NEVAHDA

There is a dubious, but long-standing debate over the pronunciation of this, the 36th of these United States, otherwise known as Nevada. Or is it Nevah-da? Nevada or Nevah-da? Potato or potah-to? Tomato or tomah-to? You get the idea.

It seems that everywhere I turn in the media, people refer to this state in the Spanish pronunciation of "Nevahda", with the "a" in the middle making the "ah" sound, hence my phonetic spelling for the sake of this post. It appears everyone outside of the Nevada media refers to us this way. No other state seems to have this issue. While I am aware that Nevada is a Spanish word meaning "snow capped"; Arizona, California and New Mexico also have names of similar Spanish etymology, yet no one gives those states a proper Spanish pronunciation. So my beef here is that if you insist on a proper pronunciation of NEV-AH-DA, then you ought to extend the same courtesy to CAHL-EE-FOR-NEE-AH (the Arnold pronunciation would be correct), AH-REE-SO-NA, and NEW MEHICO. People shouldn't discriminate on phonetic correctness, it should be universal among all states. So I propose that we either use what is considered to be correct pronunciation - akin to NevAHda - for everyone; or settle the dispute by doing something that perhaps no one has thought yet to do: ask the people who live there. Whoa, genius!

For the purposes of this post I will consider myself a person of authority in settling the long-standing dispute. My authority comes from that very, very rare thing which is defined as being a native Nevadan (or is it Nevahdan??) Not only am I a 33 year native of this state, born and raised (save for a 3 year stint in AhReeSoNah), but my father was a 50+ year native himself having landed in Henderson in 1946 when his family moved here following WWII. My dad always said Nevada without the "ah" sound but with the "a" sound found in "land" or "sand" (both of which this state has more than enough of). And he's not the only one; never in all my years of living here have I ever heard another native pronounce it "Nevahda". Never. Not once. One can only conclude then, that if Nevadans themselves don't say "Nevahda" then they have the final say in the matter. Nevada it is.

Funny thing, Nevada has a national reputation for being populated by under-educated people. With that in mind, what does it say about people who can't even correctly pronounce the name of the very state they consider under-educated...?

PREDICTION: 2012

2012 - the date we all await with as much (maybe more) anticipation than even Y2K. Year 2000 was all about technology crashing and therefore the world ending, whereas 2012 is the historical & astronomical enigma that marks two occurrences: 1) the abrupt and unexplained end of the Mayan long count calendar; and 2) conjunction of the Winter Solstice Sun with the crossing point of the Galactic Equator that happens only once every 25,000 years or so. What do I think about all of that? The end of the long count calendar probably means, well, nothing. Hey, even 'War and Peace' has an ending, Tolstoy couldn't go on forever. Maybe the Mayans just decided to stop already and it happened to be on December 21, 2012. How many years would YOU want to make a calendar for?? As for the astronomical anomaly, it is indeed unique and an interesting point of fact. But the end of the world? Not so fast. As the scriptures say "If ye are prepared, ye shall not fear." Have you finances in order, store food, water and necessary supplies to sustain reasonable conditions to sustain life and you'll be fine. Let's talk about today for a moment and we'll return to 2012 shortly.

President Obama is off to a rocky start, no question about it. His "new Washington" and ethics reform hit a brick wall with Geithner's tax evasion scandal, then Daschle's tax evasion scandal, a Commerce Secretary that declined the post due to stark philosophical differences, and so on. Geithner is heralded as a financial whiz but didn't know he needed to pay taxes on a 1099...? Daschle for sure is the quintessential tax-loving, big Gov't spending liberal Dem - yet blatantly avoided paying his own taxes. Some bad picks to start things off. Then Obama signed-off on a 17,000 troop increase in Afghanistan. True, he did say he would reduce troop levels in Iraq, but correct me if I'm wrong, he said he would "bring them home"; by "home" did he mean Afghanistan?! Now I don't disagree with his decision - in fact I support it - but y'all elected him to be pacifist, didn't you? I thought you liberals/dems/independents wanted a more isolationist America complete with fewer foreign interventions? What happened to "bring the troops home?" Seems Obama is simply continuing the much-maligned Bush doctrine on this one. And finally, there's the economy. Obama has ripped a page from FDR's playbook and opted to spend our way back to prominence. Will that work? We don't know because the depression came to an end as a result of our involvement in major international conflict and NOT all that spending. One thing is for sure, the New Deal was slow-going until Dec 1941. So what exactly is happening here? Where's the CHANGE?? So far, no good.

That brings us to the all important date of 2012. Not the world-ending, mind bending, prophecy version; but the election year event that, in my opinion, will be the most complex election year in our nation's history. The complexity comes with the underlying social implications of that election. President Obama will be eligible for another term. Two questions hover over election year 2012: Will Obama have earned another term? And second: does he need to earn it or will he just be automatic based on ? It is my belief that if his name is even on the ballot then he will keep his post, no matter what the current state of affairs.

That President Obama is the embodiment and realization of Dr. King's dream I have no doubt. President Obama is an inspiring figure and should give inspiration to all American citizens that they can - and they should - have boundary-free aspirations. However, what I fear is that there will be an entitlement ideal that sweeps the nation come election time. That no matter the state of the economy, foreign policy, national security, etc; President Obama is still the first African-American President and he must be re-elected. In other words, now that he's been ushered in no one dare usher him out. Would anyone risk damaging their reputation; or worse - be accused of the r* word - if they didn't vote for him again? It would then be said that his was a "token" election; that the non-African American constituency just made a 4 year concession but now they're over it. My point is that I can see (and fear) that regardless of the circumstances, President Obama is automatic for another 4 years come 2012. He may well earn his keep in the White House but regardless of how poorly our nation fares, who will dare not vote for him? And if you don't re-elect the first-ever African America president, what will that make you?? The RNC must be befuddled by this unique predicament. Who should be the 2012 republican nominee? Do they even bother trying in 2012? Who will want to essentially waste a quarter-bil on a pointless campaign against arguably the most socially important president ever to take office? Or is it possible we could have the first truly uncontested re-election in history?

There is only one hope for republicans in 2012 - and dare I say it: a minority candidate. There, I said it. Because Obama's election is based as much on ideals (or more so) as on policy, it would require someone to embody similar ideals to even the playing field. Republicans have to take social implications and ideals out of the equation. Unfortunately the republican party is thin on solid, recognizable minority candidates; and that would be their own fault. Its time for republicans, and more importantly conservatives, to reach out to minorities and not only persuade them to that way of thinking but also to make a few (gulp) concessions. Soon minorities will no longer be called that, but instead will be the majority. I myself am conservative and therefore (reluctantly) a republican; so I can say WE must find a way to appeal to minorities or literally be left behind in the future of American politics.

Right now, every quality potential republican candidate is scratching his/her head, wondering if 2012 is really worth it? If it were me, I'd take a pass on 2012 and save up for 2016. Besides, if the calendar ends and the galactic alignment ushers in the end of the world, you won't have wasted your last days on an ultimately futile campaign anyway...

STOP WITH MEXICAN "CUISINE" ALREADY!!

Okay people, why do we love Mexican food? Not because it's fancy, or has endless culinary possibilities. No. We love it because it is spicy, cheesy, wonderfully flavorful, and just easy and good to eat. There's nothing better than a taco and enchilada plate at a decent Mexican restaurant complete with beans & rice and some chips and salsa for starters. Give me a deep-fried shredded beef taco and a cheese enchilada combo plate at Macayo's any day! Heaven!

So a few years back I went with a friend to El Jefe's here in Las Vegas. He swore up an down about how terrific the place was and just how much he loved it. I was glad to accompany him and must be sure to thank him again for the free meal as he sprung for me. For starters they brought us out some chips and as I recall a bean dip that was quite good and enjoyable, a step up from the usual chips and salsa. So far so good. Then I opened the menu. Uh oh, this is not Macayo's - or any typical Mexican restaurant for that matter. This was "gourmet" Mexican food. I knew I was in trouble...

I've always enjoyed a good enchilada plate and so I opted for the enchi's. Upon receiving my dish I had to do a double take. Had I been unknowingly sedated and secretly moved to a French bistro for lunch? All I did know was that these things didn't look like Enchilada's what with the pale yellow-orangish sauce with a white drizzle back and forth down each of them. Surely this is not Mexican food!

I took a bite and cringed at the idea that someone dare call this over-the-top poseur an enchilada. And logically speaking - if the dish bears no resemblance to it's ethnic root or at least it's Americanized accepted form - can it really be called "Mexican food"?? Surely this atrocity could not be classified as such. So I reluctantly partook of the impostor dish while dreaming of my sloppy, predictably low-brow enchilada plate at Macayo's complete with rice and those yummy frijoles refritos. My next bite of gourmet Mexican cuisine brought me back to the disappointing culinary experience at hand. The worst travesty of all was that I found myself more than satisfied to be done eating. Not full, not "hit the spot", just being done was good enough.

So today while working a physicians trade show at the Venetian hotel, I had the distinct opportunity to take in lunch somewhere on the property courtesy of the company. Being that we had only an hour, it had to be fast and not overly expensive (think I counted several Wolfgang Puck eateries within the Venetian/Palazzo). We found a place called Dos Caminos that was advertised as Mexican food. Upon entering the restaurant, it appeared we had ended up in a high end steakhouse or sushi joint as opposed to a Mexican cantina. It was impeccably decorated with the latest in dining furnishings, wall art, lighting, etc. Beautiful place inside, the experience and ambiance were absolutely terrific. But there's one slight problem with all of that - I could care less!! After all, I'm here for Mexican food for crying out loud! Our waitress, errr.. "server", asked if we wanted guacamole - which we affirmed - and it was no better than what my wife makes. Oh and by the way, it cost $18. Yeah, $18 for about 6 ounces of guac! So we savored our grossly overpriced guac and waited for the chicken enchis. They soon came out in their artistic splendor - one rojo the other verde with a thin, curvy line of sour cream carefully strewn the length of each enchilada. Like the interior of the place, the presentation was superb; but how would they taste? I eagerly took a bite of the verde roll and, as I unfortunately expected, found it nearly inedible. Dry, nearly cheeseless, and stuffed with oodles of dark meat; this culinary concoction no more resembled an enchilada than a hamburger does pizza. Needless to say, I struggled to choke down 3/4 of it and focused my attention more on the tolerable guac and chips & salsa. After my third coke and stuffed on chips, I was happy to be leaving. But my colleague was not - he received a $72 bill for the both of us - for guac, 2 enchilada plates and 2 sodas. I would pay half that at Macayo's and been blissfully satisfied.

My advice: just say NO to anything with the words "gourmet", "cuisine", "fine" and "Mexican" in the same sentence. Stick to the old Mexican restaurants you know and love - or to your local "ethnic" taco shop - and you'll be glad you did.

ECONOMY'S BROKE, TIME TO FIX IT. ONE SMALL IDEA:

Guns don't kill, people do. Just like credit - and the ever-present availability of it until now - didn't do anyone wrong, we did wrong by abusing it. Just like bad drinking habits, we as consumers and as a nation, didn't know when to say when; and we must take responsibility for our fiscal behavior. But there is something to say for (gulp) regulation. Make guns too available and easy to acquire and that's not a good thing. Lowering the legal drinking age is likely not going to yield positive results either. Extension of revolving credit seems to have no boundaries though, and that has had dire results for households nationwide. Encouraging people to spend money they don't have and to save less to pay for it over time is bad financial policy. This has to change, but how do we change it?

Exactly how we got here is answered by your daily trip to the mailbox. Let me test my clairvoyant skills as to what was in your box today: postcard from auto dealership, bill, credit card solicitation, bill, valpak, bill, credit card solicitation, another credit card solicitation, etc. Okay, so you get the point. I don't know about you but there are usually at least two credit card solicitations daily in my mailbox. Just how many could I apply for and how many would approve me? A few? All of 'em?? I wonder just how many a person could be approved for until the credit companies would finally shut off the valve?

Credit card companies and banks that issue cards have a for-profit goal in mind when issuing all those solicitations. They don't regulate each other and don't know about each other's solicitations. Exactly how much credit a person can be extended is a mystery, but one thing is for sure - everyone and anyone with nearly any credit rating can obtain some credit. So how do you limit instances of over-extention leading to potential abuse? Here's one idea:

What if every person was designated a credit threshold based on their capacity to pay first and foremost. This threshold would be, say, a percentage of your annual income. In other words, the metric would be the ratio of revolving credit to income. Lets consider a revolving credit threshold of 15%. If you make $50,000 per year, your persoal revolving credit threshold would be $7,500. Considering that a $7,500 credit balance would carry monthly payments in the neighborhood of $250-$400 depending on the rate & terms, this would seem to make sense; given that same person will also likely have rent/mortgage, car payment, utilities, etc. Certainly this is a very hypothetical scenario, but one that lends thought to the idea. Remember we are talking about revolving debt which is only credit cards or unsecured debt; NOT auto loans, student loans, mortgages, etc; although those items could be considered for the same treatment...

If you advocate a flat income tax or flat sales tax, which seemingly most conservatives and/or republicans seem to support, then why not a flat revolving credit threshold for everyone? Is it a perfect scenario? Probably not. But would it prevent the over-extension of credit to those without the true capacity to repay? Most of the time, yes. And over-extension of credit (and the abuse of it) for the past several years has proven to have been a silent epidemic - one that went unnoticed and without consequence - until now.

THE TIMES, THEY ARE A-CHANGIN'...

Obama-rama swept the nation and we have a new President. So republicans & conservatives of the world, unite and embrace the impending "change". I like change, personally. Those new state quarters are really fun to collect and the new nickel looks sharp. Oh yeah, wrong kind of change. Well, the change (I shudder to say this) PRESIDENT OBAMA (painful) promises to bring is less tangible and perhaps of less real value than the jar full of change I have sitting on my desk. I trust in that change much more than I do Obama's.

I said it in an earlier post and I'll say it again - the scale and scope of change Obama is promising will quietly never happen. Change rhetoric is used in every election. Didn't W promise positive change? Lots of things went wrong in his presidency and he was faced with some unusual challenges and circumstances; but the net effect is we are not better off than in 2000 or 2004. And why not? Sure, Iraq is a problem. The economy is a problem. The deficit and debt are a problem. Did Bush mastermind these problems? Was this his intended result? Of course not. Stuff happens while you're President. Some of it you can control and some you can't. Just the nature of that job. Bush made mistakes he could have avoided and encountered stumbling blocks he could not. For all the change he promises, Obama better HOPE (there's that word again) and pray (if he does that sort of thing) that he doesn't encounter the kinds of gut-wrenching issues and challenges that President Bush has these past 8 years.

Then there's Congress. In order for all this "change" to happen, folks in the house and senate will have to bite on it. And one of three things happens when President Obama takes office:
1) He is hailed as the Augustus of our age and rules triumphantly with the unyielding support of the legislature thereby resulting in sweeping change. Perhaps a democratic congress will anoint him as such. If this happens, change is more likely; but I think it's long odds...
OR
2) He is afforded no more or less carte blanche than Mr. Bush and has to fight hard for his ideals to become bills and may have to engage in some good 'ol Washington dirty back-scratching to get some of them passed (likely), making him no better a president than the others - including W.
OR
3) He is given the cold shoulder from veteran politicos in congress. These guys have big egos after all. I can hear their thoughts now: "Who does this freshman senator think he is marching all the way to the 'house and demanding I fall into sync with all his rhetoric??" Resistance will happen despite what is, right now anyway, overwhelming support from Capitol Hill; (also likely).

So Pres Obama's "change" agenda will come to a screeching halt his first year or so in office simply because of the way the Washington machine works. I do believe some changes will indeed happen over the next 4 years: The US will become more isolationist than we have since FDR. Obama will embrace global economic policy and ignore the faltering domestic economy. His answers will always come by and through embracing globality in every sense - economics, immigration, etc. He may cut the deficit and reduce the debt but only if the broader economy naturally and cyclically improves (as it did in the Clinton era). By the way, what can the President directly do to influence the economy? Fiscal policy, i.e. taxation. He can raise or lower taxes, that's it. Obama will choose to raise them during tough economic times. Good fiscal policy there, right out of Hoover's playbook. That didn't turn out so well for Hoover, or anyone for that matter.

In summary, I fear that Obama has oversold himself. He is an idealist in every sense of the word. Hope. Change. Ideals work in universities, think tanks, and Silicon Valley start ups where ideals can be tossed about and may or may not become reality with little or no consequence. Pitching lofty ideals of sweeping changes to the American public is a dangerous game most politicians play, but Obama is playing to reckless abandon with his hollow rhetoric. He is inspiring, charismatic, and a natural leader. He is quite frankly, Presidential. But so was Kennedy. And while Kennedy is revered in history, it is not because of what he did; but rather who he was and how he died. Obama is revered for the idea of him - a person that promises change, and we, the public, are voting with the belief and HOPE that he can actually deliver. Will he deliver? We have the next 4 years to find out. My bet is that we all will be at least just a little disappointed...

WHERE SHALL I FIND MY BELOVED MOUNTAIN DEW??

Listen folks (or folk, as there is probably only one person reading this; probably me) Obama has the momentum and is pulling away. What was looking to be a photo finish will instead likely be an Obama win by a neck or even a length at the wire. So with that imminent reality firmly in place, I can now turn my attention to other important matters such as the widespread proliferation of Coke products among the notch-above-fast-food joints.

It was winter/spring 2007 and I set out for a Baja Fresh close by where I could get the usual: 2 Baja tacos (1 chx 1 stk) and a medium fountain drink cup. That cup, of course, would be occupied by a generous helping of ice and filled with bubbling, light-emerald green nectar from heaven itself: Mountain Dew; or as I affectionately refer to the fountain variety - "fountain" Dew; so much better than out of the can or bottle. Ah yes, I could almost taste the sweet bite of the fizzy green stuff even before stepping through the doors. I walked in and up to the counter, happily ordered "the usual", took my cup and turned to walk toward the soda fountain, and... NOOOOOOOOO!!! Oh no, they didn't!! Oh yes, they did. They had committed the unpardonable sin by switching to Coke products; (actually it is pardonable but only by switching back, which has yet to happen anywhere). I was a lost soul at that moment. My tasty Baja tacos just didn't taste quite the same being washed down by thick, syrupy cola. And ever since, I've reduced my Baja visits to about a third of what they used to be.

Today marked another dark day as I was in the area of a Firehouse Subs eatery. Good subs, jalapeno chips, and - you guessed it - Pepsi products. A "fountain" Dew and a hot turkey sub with melted provolone sounded great for lunch. But a great lunch it would not be. It happened again - the unpardonable (sort of) sin committed at Firehouse. It had only been three weeks or so since my last patronage and the deed was done. So I unhappily washed down my otherwise tasty sub with a mix of Coke Zero and regular spiked with a lemon slice but it was a distant second to Dew. And by distant second I mean the Sham finishing 2nd by 31 lengths to Secretariat in the '73 Belmont kind of distant second. Firehouse is now sadly crossed off the lunchtime go-to list. Who will be next?