Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Petraeus: Why We Need to Give a Pass To our Philandering Leaders



"If Ben Franklin and Tom Jefferson had been nickeled and dimed to death by lawyers and bimbos and preachers, we might still be some kind of rich and stolid British colony like Canada — or just another continuous new-worid experiment in mutated democratic giantism like Brazil. Ben's lechery made even the French nervous, and Jefferson was known to have an overweening affection for his slaves." – Hunter S. Thompson, GENERATION OF SWINE

*

Philandering leaders are as American as apple pie and freedom. The fact that our country has sunk to such a low that we view extra-marital affairs as a perfectly sane reason for vilifying a decorated and well-regarded general is just another example of how our nation is slowly sinking backwards into the European aristocratic bullshit it was founded to rebel against.

JFK banged everybody from Marilyn Monroe to half the White House intern pool and even other government officials' wives. FDR was trapped in his wheelchair yet still managed to bang his cousin on the regular while his wife was off entertaining the love that dare not speak its name. And if you went back to the 19th century and before you'd be hard-pressed to find a President who didn't have more than a few dalliances on the side.

But let's look at it from another angle, in the light of the prehistoric military law against extra-marital affairs that everybody's saying could result in a court martial for Petraeus (though that's, thankfully, unlikely).  Supreme Commander Allied (Expeditionary) Force of the North African Theater of Operations   Eisenhower (that being his title at the end of the war, after already rising through the standard denotations of General and Commanding General of the European Theater) was banging Kay Summersby, his personal driver and later secretary, while winning the last great war. Elsewhere, superhero Patton was busy diddling his wife's step-niece and MacArthur was having his way with a Filipina movie star. 

Basically, the whole dream team that won WWII was really just a bunch of brilliant, hard-nosed philanderers. Imagine how stoked Hitler would have been if we'd decided the extra-marital proclivities of FDR, Eisenhower, Patton, and MacArthur had been more important than their acumen for leadership during the tough times. 

And now everybody in America is all up in arms about this Petraeus banging his biographer business, so much that it's expanding to NATO commanders and beyond. Grow up, people. Seriously? What the fuck does the sex lives of our leaders have to do with their ability to lead us? It's bourgeois conservative bullshit like this which is literally killing what made America great. We've become so obsessed with voyeurism and, even more, with judging public figures, so concerned with lifestyles and bible-based morality that we assign absurd importance to details which have none. I don't care if a General or a President has sex with half the single 18 and over female population in the country. I just want them to be a good leader. 

You know who was one of the most respectable, All-American leaders we've ever had? Who exuded sobriety and fidelity and smacked of good 'ol protestant morals? George W. Bush. And we saw how that worked out.

For the record I've never cheated on my wife. I've actually only ever cheated on one girl one time, 12 years ago and the girl I cheated on was most likely cheating on me with half of Colorado so there. I believe that there's a certain level of egocentrism and downright dishonesty in cheating on the person who's supposed to be your life partner, especially if that cheating is a full-blown long term affair (I'd be a fool and an asshole to pretend that one slip-up's the same as an ongoing tryst on the side).  But I have no idea how Petraeus cheating on his old, fat wife (she's gotta weigh more than him) with the smokin' young Harvard Grad and Army Reserve member Paula Broadwell is any of my business. To be honest, I think were we to stop all this moral fire and brimstone and look at it objectively, not only should we be applauding Petraeus, we should be pushing him and this smart, hardbodied reservist to procreate - imagine the supersoldier that would come out of that coupling? That, my friends, is evolution in action.

But in the end, it comes down to the simple fact that socially conservative Americans apparently have too much free time. When you have too much free time and a bible-based idea of right and wrong, which includes a belief that it's your God-given duty to expose and prosecute any immoral activities, you can go poking around in people's private lives and getting indignant about indiscretions that are, quite frankly, none of our business. How is it that these bible-based morality laws, instead of becoming weaker as more and more Americans discover they're bullshit, are becoming stronger? Is it the fear of Religious wackjobs or the fact that the Republican party is coming to depend on the religious right more and more as the only consistent constituency thanks to anti-homo and pro-life stances? Why do we think a good leader should also be a good person? Let's look at what makes a good leader:

  • Decisiveness
  • A firm grasp of logic
  • A concept of justice
  • Strength
  • Ability to handle multiple things at once 
  • Ability to delegate and trust your underlings
So let's look at this scenario
Just look at that admiration from the front row
  • He was able to weight the facts - frumpy old woman who's tired of hearing his war stories or beautiful young woman who stares at him in admiration (as in this picture - just look at her in the front row)
  • He's in charge of the intelligence that's keeping America safe  - that should entitle a man to special exemptions from most rules
  • See above
  • To keep up with a slim 20 years his junior while also waging the war on terror under two very different presidental regimes takes epic strength and some major multi-tasking skills
  • He was able to trust the men who served him to be loyal enough to not interfere with his personal life
Yes, I understand that there are a few other factors at play here. Broadwell threatened a Petraeus family friend, most likely for sticking her nose where it doesn't belong. And she had access to some confidential material found after the FBI raided her house, though in the days of WikiLeaks and all the millions of ways of getting information (and the fact that she, in fact, is military) that's most likely unrelated to Petraeus.  So seriously, what's this all about?

We saw the first hints of this come about during the legendary Clinton Zippergate. And then there have been all the high-profile cheating debacles of celebrities (Hugh Grant, Meg Ryan, Schwarzenegger, just to name a few) politicos (Spitzer, John Edwards come to mind) and now this Petraeus thing which every other second seems to reach to another fucking military head. And to all this I have one thing to say: STOP IT.

This bullshit prying into their personal lives like it's a goddamn episode of KEEPING UP WITH THE KARDASHIANS and then using atavistic laws and customs to bring down giants of industry, politics, and entertainment is just more of the same old late 20th century American fixation with bringing down those above us. Even more, it's another example of the fact that, just like the overweight pie-baking housewife next door who likes to spend her free time snooping on the charismatic and attractive couple next door, Americans are just obsessed with everybody else's private lives because their own lives are so fucking dull, depressing, and empty. Stop it. Get a hobby. Learn a new language. Maybe take a macrame class, whatever the fuck macrame is. 

Because seriously, if America had been as puritanical when our nation first became independent
as we have become, this nation simply never would have come about. And maybe that's part of the reason we're falling into the shit-filled rut we have. Because we judge people based on their sexual fidelity more than by their accomplishments and achievements it seems; that is, a man's failures or successes as a leader rarely lead to the type of attention that comes with fidelity and, even more, a man's shitty leadership won't result in termination for years yet a girl on the side breaking gets a man fired before the hour's up. I won't condemn cheaters nor will I make excuses (though I could point to all sorts of reasons such as several million years of evolution based on mass-reproduction from the best of the species, the fact that being great takes a certain level of ego which takes the adoration of those around one and few wives have the wherewithal to give their great husbands the adoration they need after decades of marriage, etc...) because that's not my place. Like it's not yours. Judging another man for what goes on his bed, whether he's the POTUS or a janitor, is a sort of sick mental masturbation no doubt related to a person's own personal feelings of dark shame and pathetic envy.

Stop it. And leave the man alone. Let his wife chastise him. And leave his underlings alone. This farce has gone on long enough. Next thing you know they'll start upholding sodomy laws and stoning fat people as the bible commands. Because the way things are going, our Mayflower prudishness compounded by our judgmental desire to see great men fall and the envy that comes when complacency and materialism replace industry and altruism will be a cornerstone of America's fall from a nation of great men and women to a big fat swath of faithful corporate colonists.

- Ryan



Monday, November 12, 2012

MAJOR OVERSIGHT: Tom Sims, RIP

So here at Man's Ambition we're all about celebrating men who not only strive for greatness but who strive to achieve said greatness like nobody before. Innovators and iconoclasts, as well as just plain bad-asses. And of course there are the commentaries on today's values, on what it means to be a man, or in general what it means to be ambitious, X or Y, not trying to be misogynist but, yes, it's about trying to change the world. And at the same time about being the toughest, the smartest, the most able to escape the maddening hordes and accomplish something great with the short time we have on this earth. As such, the fact that I didn't write a thing on Tom Sims earlier, closer to his actual death on September 12, 2012 of a heart attack, is an egregious oversight I can only chalk up to a stifling case of political fever with a touch of the football papilloma virus.

I'm sure right now most of you are wondering "Who the fuck is Tom Sims?" Simply put - the most important boardsports pioneer you've never heard of.

Tom Sims grew up as just another skate-rat in the 50's and 60's in the skateboard mecca known as - New Jersey?

That's right, on the other side of the country from sunny California, where surfing took hold and then skateboarding was invented and idolized, Tom Sims skated through dirty jersey. But unlike his Cali brethren he was faced with the dilemma of what the fuck to do when it snowed and the concrete became an icy river with snow frosting, he had to come up with something new and creative. So in 1963, in his 7th grade woodworking class, Tom Sims came up with a wild idea - a skateboard that worked on snow.

This was one of the first snowboards, jostling with the snurfer and scandinavians standing on toboggans for who gets the right to call himself the inventor of the snowboard. But unlike those folks, Sims used this toy to begin and build one of the first skate / snow juggernauts.

You mighta seen the company Sims in LORDS OF DOGTOWN  - it's one of the big companies that offers the Z-Boyz boatloads of money to skate for it. That's right, one of the top companies in the 70's California skate explosion with arguably the best and biggest team of its time was invented by a kid who no doubt was heckled growing up as a skater in Jersey.

But it's really snowboarding where Tom Sims' legacy is monstrous.

Jake Burton Carpenter gets the most credit for being the father of snowboarding. And, admittedly, Burton was the first super snowboard company and the impact of his trailblazing is immeasurable. But just like Henry Ford didn't invent the car, neither did Jake Burton (he dropped the Carpenter for the sake of his company's name).

Jake Burton and Tom Sims, doin' the thing
Tom Sims was a hardcore rival of Burton, the only difference being he didn't have the corporate know-how Burton's shown himself to be a master of. Powell Peralta skateboards was rebellious but in a somewhat wholesome way, just like Burton. Sims was full-on punk rock, with gnarly monsters on the boards and drug-addled boozehound riders to boot.

But just to shore up his impact on the world and to show Sims and snowboarding in general could play well in the mainstream, he was a stunt double for a snowboard-riding James Bond in A VIEW TO KILL in 1984.

Tom Sims was just a kid from Jersey who loved cruising sideways. He didn't let anybody tell him his dream of starting a skateboard company and then inventing what is now known as the snowboard company was stupid; or rather, he didn't let that dissuade him. He invented the straps and highback binding that's now the snowboard industry standard. And he most epitomized the lifestyle by just doing it, getting out there, supporting the punks and the legends to be as they bombed hills on their boards.

What he lacked in business acumen he made up for with vision. And ambition. And really, in this world of sheep and trend followers, cowards afraid of doing something different and soulless captains driven only by the almighty buck with any innovation or legacy simply an ancillary benefit, the world needs a hero like Tom Sims. And, alas, for that reason he'll be missed greatly.

But at the least, all us skaters and snowboarders out there doing what we do with pride and full of enjoyment at the fact that it's possible owe the man a heaping debt of gratitude. Or at least a few drinks in his honor.


- Ryan




Sunday, November 11, 2012

Lock-Street Week 10 11.11


San Diego Chargers (+4) vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Who’s ready for Norv-vember, because I am. This is the time when the Chargers decide to get out of that lazy summer, beach induced mentality that decimates the competitive prowess and they finally play to their potential. The Bucs are on fire right now, guided by the apparent infinitely progressing Josh Freeman. Every year I hear this guy is progressing, but last year he took a huge step back and at best, I see him as a middle of the pack, C-list QB. Ok, so he had a good start to the season with 16 TD and 5 picks, but I know it will not hold up.  Both teams have a 4-4 record, but the Chargers own the Bucs and have gone 8-1 all-time against them.

Vincent Jackson (710 receiving yards and 6 TD and 3rd in the NFC in ypg average) and Mike Williams (504 receiving yards and 5 TD’s) are playing great but they will eventually start dropping passes as both are proven inconsistent players who have a track record of injury. Rivers has still been adapting to a world without Darren Sproles and Vincent Jackson.

Doug Martin SMASH. If he keeps this up, he deserves Rookie of the Year over RG III and Andrew Luck. Over the last three weeks, he has averaged over 151 ypg and has added 7 TD’s. For the season, he is averaging 99.25 ypg which would give him a more than respectable 1588 yards for the season. That said, he has a tough test against the 4th ranked rush defense as they are averaging 87.4 opponent rushing ypg

Philip Rivers is looking to forget the first half of the season and play like he did last week for remainder of the year. He has 12 TD’s to 10 Picks, which is abysmal, but last week he seemed to right the ship as he competed 18/20 for 220 yards, 2 TD’s, and 1pick. The Bucs also allow more passing yards than any other team in the NFL so look out for Rivers to have a monster game; especially since the Bucs own opponent rushers. Advantage Chargers
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
San Francisco 49’s vs. St Louis Rams (o38.5)

The Rams offense needs some spark. The 49’s are known to put out fires. So the question is why do I think that the over is going hit? Because the 49’s will most likely throw up 30 points this game. Alex Smith, Ryan Gosling's doppelganger, is fourth in the NFL with a 102.1 passer rating. The Niners also lead the league in rushing yards per game at 168.9/game.

One of the most efficient teams in the NFL is playing a team who does not get takeaways as they have only 9 this season. They have not gotten a single turnover in the last 3 games , but they have also not gotten four straight without a turnover since 1950. The country was still dealing with the after affects of WW2 for god sakes.

The Rams do have some play makers on D in James Laurinaitis, Quintin Mikell, Chris Long, and the most hated man in the NFL Cortland Finnegan, but even with these players, they will still get owned by Crabtree, Gore, Davis, Smith,  and possibly back Randy Moss. Crabtree only has 3 TD’s but hoping that his TD total starts progressing extensively as he had 2 TD’s in his last outing. Watch the Niners also get a defensive TD from Rogers, Goldson, or the badass Patrick Willis.  This should be a 49’s blowout.

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
Texans vs. Bears (u40.5)

Without doubt, this is the biggest game of the weekend on primetime TV. The Bear’s defense scores more TD’s  than the Jags’ offense. Ok so maybe that is an exaggeration, but the Bear’s defense has caused 28 turnovers including scoring 7 TD’s. The Bears alone are good for at least 7 points/game and causing enough turnovers to get in solid scoring range. The Texans have an equally defiant defense that has allowed a low 17 ppg to the better Bear’s 15 ppg. Why am I taking the over?

Arian Foster is a beast and is fifth in the NLF with 770 rushing yards and 1st in TD’s (11). Matt Schaub, Owen Daniels, and Andre "Optimus Prime"Johnson create an elite passing crew. The Bears have Matt Forte and Michael Bush (even though he is slightly under achieving right now). Jay Cutler can not only manage a game, but has big play ability especially with his new toy Brandon Marshall who has 797 yards and 7 TD’s, which is already surpassing all individual receiving stats from last year.

 

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Why Captain Kirk's Greatest Role is as a Corporate Shill

William Shatner has been many things over his career. Beatnik. Groovy spaceship captain best known for banging female aliens on every planet in the universe. Slowly fatter spaceship Captain. Comically angst-ridden (and yet angstless) lawyer. And of course wacky face of Priceline.com. In a weird turn of events, that last job as corporate shill may have been his greatest role ever.

You see, Priceline paid him in large chunks of stock. And that stock has blown up since the dot com bust. Priceline's doing so well they're buying Kayak for $1.8 billion. Shatner, due to the amount of stock he owns, is therefore going to be a partial owner of Kayak. But the kicker - Shatner's stock has made him about $600 million worth of profit according to sources for Nikki Finke.

That's right. The king of STAR TREK and comic partner on BOSTON LEGAL has made $600 million doing zany commercials for a travel website in which he plays a character called the Priceline Negotiator



So there's a lot going on here. We have Kayak, which is just an aggregator of other travel websites, selling for almost $2B (the buying price is $40 a share, about a 29% premium over their closing price which is also how much the company's revenues rose from same time last year). Showing yet again that middleman industries are the real heroes on the Internet - or at least in modern America.

We have one of the few Internet companies that was actually around before the last Dot Com bubble (remember how you'd name a price and then you were locked in, no matter what kind of flight it was or how it got you there?) doing so well they can throw such large chunks around for a simple aggregator. A member of the old guard, at its low-point Priceline stock (PCLN) was worth less than a dollar a share. Now it's going for @ $627 and its market cap is about $31 billion with gains of about 800% over the last half decade. An amazing story of not only a business defeating adversity

Then there's William Shatner who may be remembered by our fathers as the guy who made sci-fi cool but for us he's that fat guy on Priceline commercials and that show with that dude who was on 2 seasons of THE OFFICE and that chick who had that show, what was her name, Shitty Brown? Murphy Brown, right. A very recognizable actor whose smartest and most lucrative career move was becoming the protagonist of a series of weird, cheesy, and occasionally funny ads. Making half a billion dollars as the star of a series of commercials. Boldly going where no actor has gone before.

It's a strange world, people. God Bless America.

- Ryan

 

Monday, November 5, 2012

Another Cliched Liberal: Why Are We The Way We Are?

So with the final countdown on, I can't help but feel one single, overwhelming emotion - relief.

Over the past couple months I've been writing blog posts with the aim of showing the facts about each of the two main candidates. And every time I dig into theses men: who they are, what they've done, and what they'll do, I find it increasingly difficult to be "fair and balanced". I mean, c'mon, how can people not realize that Romney is a liar, that his agenda is simply to award the upper class while using social issues to bamboozle the heartland folks into ceding power to him and his cronies? How could they not see that he's a member of the wealth-creation and corporate vulture culture that brought about this current mess we're in?

I know a lot of Republicans - actually, I'm probably friends with more Republicans than Democrats, if not at least about the same number. And most of them are extremely intelligent, are not liars, are not scumbags; most of them are genuinely good human beings. And yet how can we be at such loggerheads - how is it that we have such different ideas as to what is the correct direction of our nation when we have such similar ideas as to what is the correct direction and purpose of our individual lives? That is, we all have such similar grasps of logic, of right and wrong, of good and evil - so why do we disagree on something so important as how our nation should exist and function as to its citizenry and the world at large; i.e. politics?

This more than anything else about the 2012 election has disturbed me, frustrated me, infuriated me, and depressed me. One of us has to be right and the other wrong but why and, even more, how did we end up like this? And am I just as biased, blind, and self-serving as I accuse the hardcore rightwingers of being?

So I decided to trace why I believe the way I believe with the hope that maybe somebody else will explain to me why he believes the way he does.

I mean maybe if I'd grown up differently I'd be sitting here talking about the whining, cliched liberals. And surely a great portion of our beliefs stem from self-interest. Here are mine:

I can't afford good health care, it's just not in the cards to spend 20% of my weekly take-home on insurance. I had to get my shoulder worked on and it took my HMO months of running around and unnecessary bills before they could finally do the basic AC scope. And don't even get me started on my wife's experience with Kaiser. So I want a president who'll move us towards universal health care like practically every other civilized nation in the world. Especially since our health care-as-business hasn't necessarily yielded the best health for the patients in our nation (we're number 37 in the world for healthcare, in spite of being #1 for spending). Talk all you want on the trail but we've had competing insurance agents and hospitals and all that for decades, Mitt, and it hasn't proven as efficient as you claim it to be.

I love hiking mountains and swimming in the ocean. I wouldn't mind it if we tore down 90% of the skyscrapers in America, cut down the amount of kids running around, and started living in treehouses and such. And we can't pretend any more that global warming isn't real but certainly a man mocking environmentalism, like Mitt, shouldn't be president for that.

I think everybody should pay more taxes, but especially the people who have more play around cash. America increasingly has two economies - the one that operates in a global marketplace and the one that operates domestically. Thanks to outsourcing, accounting mastery, and just the nature of foreign trade the global economy is booming but the national one is not. We used to be the nation that asked not what our country could do for us, who were so proud of being Americans that we wanted to spread our big financial gains out to the others who weren't so lucky or skilled (isn't being born with more skills just another form of luck?) or who just decide to take care of the homefront - teachers, local bankers, social workers, factory men and women, the ones that improve life for the most amount of people, and in that way make our nation as a whole better. I want to return to that.

The list could go on but let's check it out from a different perspective:

Many Republicans have never known how it is to feel hungry because you just spent your last cent on rent and utilities and gas for the drive to work. But I can't imagine how it must feel to write a 6 figure check to the IRS.

Many Republicans don't know how it feels to see your father, who's extremely intelligent and well-respected, still working his ass off in his 7th decade because he spent his younger years trying to save the world instead of whoring for the almighty buck. I can't imagine how it feels to pay an estate tax on the property my father or grandfather or perhaps great-great grandfather, somebody before me, worked hard for.

I don't know how it must feel to know your father missed your sports games and such growing up because he was working 90 hours a week on Wall Street so you could be comfortable. My parents always put family and friends first and business second. When I told this to a staunch right wing boss of mine, he told me that I was wrong, that business must always come first so I walked out.

I'm closer to the have nots than the haves, even though I grew up with the haves, and so maybe that's why I side with the have nots. Maybe I would be a Republican if I had millions of dollars because at that point, really, all Government's good for is making sure nobody attacks who might take your money. If you have millions of dollars you have enough to eat, to relax, to go on vacation, to send your children to school and so why should you pay for something you're not using like universal health care or welfare? Bukowski said that only rich people care about war because for poor people it doesn't matter who's in charge, they'll still be working their fingers to the bone until they die. So of course you'd only want your money going there.

I don't have millions. I don't even have tens of thousands. So I'm aligning myself with the people who work their asses off but due to a confluence of misfortune and/or different value systems and/or weakness have just enough to get to work and home, get their family fed, and continue on with life. Just like it looks like socialism from a certain angle if these people receive help they didn't pay for, from another angle it looks like slavery when people are born with little or no opportunities to do anything but work 40 to 80 hours a week at a minimum wage job because you can't go to school when you've been working full-time since you were a kid and you can't quit or move up when you have to sprint as hard as you can just to meet your monthly expenses.

If you believe in God then you can claim its God's edict that you're born to a rich family and those other suckers are born to a poor family. And surely that dictates, to a large extent, how we view the world. Though I always find it interesting how the right uses religion to explain why abortion and fags are evil but you never see placards about how Jesus said it was easier for a camel to get through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven or Jesus' attitude on taxes, that is "give to Caesar that which is Caesar's", AKA, "stop bitching about taxes and pay them." And then there's the whole religious right supporting a Mormon - how can they use the bible to justify prejudices and socially conservative laws while supporting a man who believes the Garden of Eden's in Missouri and that drinking alcohol's a sin? People howled when JFK, a Catholic, became president but not a peep from these people about the Mormon? Ehh...

But in general we learn about and understand religion in great part from our parents. Just like politics, whatever religion your parents are, usually so are you.

It all starts with the parents.

I wonder what a nation of orphans would believe should we not have had our parents' prejudices and beliefs to guide us, to build a foundation towards a certain side from our childhood which, by the time we've reached adulthood, grows into a concrete bunker. But since it starts with the parents, here's my own self-analysis.

My parents met at a youth group my dad ran with the intent of taking troubled kids from the streets of Baltimore on camping trips. Get them out of the filth and the drugs and teach 'em to appreciate the silence of nature, the simplicity of waking and sleeping away from crackheads and streetlamps, get 'em setting up tents and building fires and cooking food in the middle of nowhere.

It was the early 70's. People were still brimming with hope from the 60's, hope that would fade by the 80's but still. My parents were fierce believers that the world could be a better place and, even more, that it would start by helping out all the disenfranchised who were born with two strikes against them. If you wish to see injustice just look at a crack baby born in the ghettoes of Baltimore. Seriously, what chance do they have? My parents' idea was that they both came from loving, supportive and strong working to middle class and would be hypocrites should they take that for granted.

As such my parents from back then became fervent supporters of the Democratic party which had begun its journey towards being the party of the poor, the middle class, and of artists while the Republican party was shoring up its identity as the party of the wealthy, of corporations and of social conservatives.

I have early memories riding around with my parents to campaign events yelling "Vote for Barbara Mikulski" out the window; pretending to be a grown-up at a fundraiser for Joe Curran. My parents believed that the key was strengthening the bottom and voting for people who also believed in strengthening from the bottom, building a foundation, instead of strengthening the top and hoping it would trickle down as if the men at the top were sieves.

But no, that's not the whole story. My Grandfather was up to the point when he died a staunch supporter of the Republican party, even though he was fucked over by the very oil company where he raised through the ranks to become a higher-up before they fired him on a technicality just before he could retire with full benefits. And my uncles are Republicans to this day. So my father couldn't be the reason, the sole reason, I'm such a liberal. And even more, were Goldwater or George Romney to look at today's Republican party they would probably be disgusted - that is, your parents' party cannot be your own because the parties have (d)evolved so much since their generation it's amazing that one can still claim the same party affiliation as the Republicans or Democrats of generations prior.

So maybe it was my upbringing. 

I've gone to private schools basically my whole life.

I went to a Catholic school for 1-8. I never realized that most of the others had more money than me and didn't know until afterwards that the main reason my parents could afford to send me there was only that my dad did the books for the church for free. I never realized that most families didn't go on camping trips in Virginia or drive to Florida from Baltimore in a beat-up Chevrolet station wagon. Even more, I didn't realize that we did this because my parents, still committed to saving the world, eschewed much higher-paying jobs for non-profit work. I never realized that the reason we lived in Fells Points while all my classmates lived in the suburbs was because of money.

Then I went to high school. Family moved to a place in the suburbs, a little bit of a fixer-upper but it wasn't weird that my dad and an old friend, one of those kids he helped through his camping 501C3 back in the day, did all the work on it instead of hiring contractors. Even in high school I was still somewhat class blind. 4-story Victorian family beach home in Bay Head? Compound in Ruxton with a tennis court? That's nice. Sure, I always wondered why I had to work all summer and sometimes during the school year and on weekends while the others didn't seem to but whatever. Never much of a social kid anyway. And yeah, it was annoying that instead of study hall I had to work in the school library to augment the scholarship I got but hey, for a writer working in a library isn't really working, even if it is mostly just shelving and finding books. I didn't see brands of ski jackets or whether the polo was Polo or K-Mart and didn't get why sometimes I got queer looks at the clothes I was wearing.

It wasn't until college that I first became aware of money, class, all that. I went to a super-high-end Catholic Private college in San Diego. On scholarship. And I even had a car, a used Ford Probe Dad bought from my uncle. But I was surrounded by college kids driving brand new SUV's and coupes; one girl had an SLK with a license plate frame that said "Daddy Bought It, I Got It." Another kid drove a Ferrari. Kids with AmEx's and 30-50k a year allowances. I couldn't handle the excess and the pressure, couldn't handle having to work at Campus catering and study for a biology major and playing lacrosse while everybody else seemed to have more time to relax. I re-appraised my future - I couldn't be a marine biologist, spend the rest of my life taking water samples for Sea World for 30 grand a year and maybe occasionally whoring myself out for a research grant. The message was loud and clear - business is where it's at. So I stepped back for a year, went to a school in Steamboat Springs CO where I felt the equalizer that is the ski town - that is, wealth equals what you want/what you have and so if you just learn to be happy with the simple things in life, nature, hikes, camaraderie you'll be a millionaire - and took business classes for much cheaper.

Then it was back to San Diego. This time around money was a little tighter. I found myself constantly hungry while my friends had allowances and credit cards which allowed them to eat a casual lunch at Cheesecake Factory (Jesus, to dream...) or even simply able to get a Chipotle burrito whenever they wanted. I got a job working fulltime but since I had to pay rent and bills and gas and all I was always broker than the others, most of whom didn't work at all. And yes, I'll admit I probably spent more than I needed to on beer but it was always the cheapest and it was a necessity to allow me to try and function as a social member of society, like we're always told to be, goddammit. And I'll also admit, those same friends who were comfortable did help me - they have leftovers, I got 'em. They wanted to eat and I couldn't afford it, they'd cover me with their credit card. Homeboy asks me to pick him up a ball and he's got the dough, he'd usually split it with me.

And yet I was never envious. Not sure why, it's a strange thing but I've never envied other people's wealth and ease. I feel like I'd like to attain that someday, I'd like everybody to attain it to some level. How can you begrudge somebody else something you'd like to attain yourself without setting yourself up to become the thing you then despise (as jealousy and envy are certainly hand in hand with hatred)? You can't.

So I graduated, just barely. And at that milestone I stopped, looked around and realized I was fucking done. Exhausted. Working fulltime year round while carrying a full course load and playing lacrosse and jr. networking - Jesus it was draining. I had help from people. Like my parents, when I was in real dire straits. And my lacrosse coach, who gave me a little financial help from time to time and constantly told me he didn't know how I did it. This was a man who at his death was one of the top counter-terrorism experts in the CIA.

That's when my politics really began to take shape. I'm from a strong middle-class family. I'm well-educated and most people who know me will tell you I'm "smart" (though I still don't know what that means). I work my ass off. But I realized then that I was no better off than people who worked half as hard, who never had to have a job but could just go to class (during the one semester I just went to class I got straight A's; afterwards B's started creeping in).

This isn't to get people to sympathize with me. I know that's always the first Republican argument, that we just want them to feel sorry for people who have it tough, to feel guilty and that's not my purpose. My only point here is if a smart, hard-working, middle class white male from a loving family and a solid background has to struggle to the point of exhaustion to attain an education, how can you expect the average lower-class kid who's working fulltime from the time he's 13 and has nobody at home motivating him to study and do well in school, how can you expect that kid to have a chance? And if he does, his chance is certainly not equal to that of the kids who just happened to come out of the crotch of a wealthy woman. And that's why I believe in social programs, because there is very real inequality in this world and in this nation. You can preach pulling yourself up by your bootstraps all you want but what if you can't afford boots?

Which brings me to hypocrisy.

I know a kid from high school who's extremely vocal in his bashing of democrats and his touting of the divinity of the right. Like, Glenn Beck style touting. He constantly talks about how lazy the average welfare recipient is, how all these people need to do is go to work and stop trying to take his money so they can just sit around. He believes that the government exists only to protect us from enemies and that's it.

I find his comments ironic because he preaches self-sufficiency yet he currently works in the comfortable front office of a company his grandfather and father built into a juggernaut. A manufacturing company born in WWII which, no doubt, benefited from the increased government expenditures during and after the war effort bankrolled by American taxes that topped out at 85% and helped along by the strongest middle class in the history of our nation, made up in Baltimore, for example, of hardworking blue collar earners in neighborhoods that now stand blighted (David Simon calls it a "cyst") by that city's painful post-industrial decline. That is, this kid preaches self-sufficiency when he's never had to interview for a real job, never had to go out and get said job and, while he's certainly smart and probably worked hard in school, the simple fact is he's never had the slightest bit of uncertainty about where his next meal was coming from. He's never had to be self-sufficient.

And then there was the time he blew up a teacher's mailbox in college. That would have gotten most other students expelled and possibly in federal prison. But somehow he got a slap on the wrist suspension and was allowed to finish his degree.

How such a person can preach self-reliance and independence when, for all intents and purposes, he owes most of his "accomplishments" to the men who came before him I don't know. If somebody is always borrowing money from his parents or living at home, he's considered a loser. But if he inherits money from his family or lives in a family estate it's considered noble? Does this sound to anybody else like the old system of royalty and aristocracy American Democracy was founded to combat?

If he didn't have his family money but instead had to rise from the ghetto would he have ended up at an ivy league? If he hadn't had his family influence but instead had to explain his "prank" of blowing up the mailbox of a teacher who he disliked without outside intervention, would he have been allowed to graduate from said ivy? If he hadn't had his family company but had to interview for an entry-level job and work his way up, would he be preaching the right-wing gospel that money comes from the top down? I don't know. And if he says he does he's possibly a prophet in the biblical sense, or maybe the greatest mind in the history of physics and thus capable of exploring alternate realities. Or he's just full of shit.

And maybe if I had a yacht I could take on global travels at the drop of a hat because I never had to ask for vacation time and had millions of dollars at my disposal, perhaps I too would be irritated at folks telling me I had to give them money to support programs for the black-faced thugs I only see on street corners or only hear about murdering and doing heron and passing syphilis. I'd like to think I'd still be a Democrat but, honestly, I just don't know. As I get older I find a lot of my viewpoints swaying more right every year. For example, I'm for the death penalty.

I'm not saying this to pass judgment on the kid and certainly I don't fault him his good fortune. But I feel he's a bit too comfortable faulting others for their misfortune.

So our biggest disagreements, then, come down to cause and effect.

Us liberals believe that poverty is an effect of the lower-class unemployment caused by the increased outsourcing of blue collar American jobs and the weakness of public programs for the indigent due to underfunding which in turn causes crime as that disenfranchised class turns to the only "equalizer" at its disposal; the conservatives believe that poverty and violent crime is an effect of laziness and weakness and that laziness and weakness is also why we don't have industry, because they don't work hard enough to buy things which will spur a need for increased production of consumables. Why would you, who either worked hard (or are descended from somebody who worked hard) support somebody who's lazy (or is descended from somebody who's lazy)?

Though let me be frank for a second, I know a helluva lot more lazy rich people than lazy poor people. Though perhaps the lesson is they can afford to be lazy while the others can't...

But what if it's not their fault? I guess that's where I disagree with the right - because yes, some people are lazy and, shit, you can't save everybody. And we'll never make the system fair. But seriously, it's not someone's fault if he grew up with crackhead parents who started smoking crack after years of unemployment because their jobs were outsourced to China because that meant higher profits for the folks at the top and the Americans had no other skills and, even more, couldn't afford advanced training because technical schools cost money they had to spend on keeping food in their children's mouths. Just like I'm not resentful of people who grew up wealthy because, again, they didn't choose that, so too can one not be resentful of the poor who need a hand, right?

Whether you believe it's God or Jesus or just bad luck, there are a lot of people who can't afford health care, who can't even afford food or sneakers or a fucking ID (I remember times in college when 20 bucks for a ID might as well have been a hundred - hell, 20 bucks was all I had to live on for a week of food) in America. I have a degree from one of the best colleges in the country, 10 years of marketing and sales experience, all with positive reviews and in such high-end and diverse companies as a national retailer headquarters, a Hollywood Agency, and a boutique ad agency run by a former Mad Man - as well as I've been part of or founded 4 start-ups - and I have several years of freelance copywriting experience - and yet I regularly send out resumes to no avail (though, in full disclosure, they are to very sought after positions). I can just imagine the opportunities available for the kids who had to drop out of high school to support their little brother or their parents or simply dropped out because nobody at home cared and, shit, what kid wants to go to school if their parents aren't pushing them? 

So that's a big reason why I'm another cliched Liberal. 

Like my parents I refuse to look at human life and our society in general as a series of financial reports, as if the true measure and health of a nation can be summed up in the binary codes of dollars on a computer screen.

Like my parents I believe that a government and society in general is responsible for even its lowest members. And that you can't rely on the private sector to take care of the indigent.

And admittedly I'm biased because hell, an increase in taxes for people making over 250 grand a year won't affect me in the slightest (and if the day comes that I'm writing the IRS a million dollar check, I feel like I'd skip my way to the bank because that would mean I'm going home with $800k at least, more than has ever passed through my bank account in my whole 31 years - but then again, that's speculation). But if you make $300 grand and pay 50% in taxes, you're still pulling in more than double the American average.

I believe there's too much chance involved in financial success, beginning from whether you're born into a loving comfortable family or in a flophouse in downtown hell, and as such the ones who have been lucky owe it to God, to Buddha, to the universe, or simply to the fact that the unlucky are supposedly their countrymen and women, they owe it to the great magnet, for fuck's sake, to share that fortune with those less fortunate. And yes, that will probably benefit assholes who manipulate the system. But can you say with a straight face that no rich folks have ever manipulated the system (Goldman Sachs / JP Morgan / AIG / everybody involved in the mortgage crisis, I'm looking at you)?

I believe that a lot of people preaching self-sufficiency have never had to be self-sufficient; a lot of them have had a parental safety net and, even more, haven't ever really had on boots, much less have they pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.

I believe that a lot of the problems facing the urban poor have been caused by policies put into place by Republican presidents to allow corporations to chase after their own fiscal success which, while surely augmenting the bottom line for a few, ruins the lives for many. And that these blue collar workers, railroaded for buying into an American dream that they hadn't had the prescience to see crumbling, should've been helped and re-trained then, when it all fell apart; that now things are much worse and the longer we take to address the rampant poverty ruining all of our great post-industrial cities the worse it'll get until we finally pass a point of no return and Indianapolis, Detroit, Baltimore, so on become American versions of Tijuana.

I just don't believe somebody should be able to buy new things that will only slightly improve their lives (a 6th car, for example, or a second vacation home) in exchange for destroying another person's livelihood; that is, one man's opulent excess is not a fair trade for another man's starvation. That's just a simple law of human decency and, for those of you religious folks, that's also a law of God and Jesus.

I believe to build something great, to allow it to weather the future hardships of this world, you need to start at the bottom, at the foundation. Not at the top. The middle class will not reappear if we increase benefits for the upper class. It will reappear if we strengthen the lower class via education benefits, via increased social funding and so forth. In fact, should taxes stay where they are, should corporate regulations be erased and should our nation turn towards the same financial principles which have led to Mitt's successes at Bain, we will end up with a greater divide between top and bottom and be even closer to accepting our official role as onetime-superpower-in-decline. Look at history. We look like England, the Netherlands, Spain, all the greats that came before us, then got fat and happy and let the middle class disappear.

I believe our military is the strongest in the world by far. And I believe that wars will not be fought the way they used to be and as such we need to spend smarter, not more. On top of that, we should stop trying to police the world and start trying to heal our homefront.

And that's why I'm a liberal. I don't begrudge anybody success. I don't hate white people, don't envy those who have money. To be honest, I'm happy with my life. I have my writing, I have my surfing and snowboarding and mountain climbing; a loving wife, loving parents and the best brother a guy could have. And I've got a wolf dog. And most likely neither president will affect me that much personally. But for all the above reasons, I think the future of our nation lies in the masses of lower class Americans, not the powerful few upper class Americans.

Though that's probably my own middle class bias. If anybody wants to give me 10 million dollars to become a Republican, shit, then maybe we'll see how strong my convictions are.

But seriously, I'd be interested to hear from Republicans about why they believe the way they do. If nothing else it's a good exercise.

And also know that once these big elections are over, I won't write another political post.

For a while at least.

Happy elections.

- Ryan



Saturday, November 3, 2012

Lock-Street Week 9 11.4


 
Detroit Lions (-4) vs. Jacksonville Jaguars

Is the motor-city back? Well Obama did do a good job of aiding GM, but I’m not here to bestow my political ideologies on anyone as that is Ryan’s job. I’m here talking about football. Lions are known as a predatorial animal with the ability to stalk its prey until a quick and swift attack, ending the lives of their next meal. The Lions’ offense contains the same characteristics. While they came out of the gates a little slow this year, they are starting to show signs of their big play ability. Between Megatron catching balls while being triple teamed and the “dude” Matt Stafford reading defenses as easily as finding Waldo, their offense has the ability to go up against anyone.

Now, Jaguars  are 25th against the run, 23rd vs. the pass, and the 27th in points allowed. The Lions will eat these Jaguars quickly. Offensively, the Lions are number 2 in the league in passing ypg and have a respectable defense as they are 9th in opponent passing

The Jaguars best player, the short-round Kool-aid man himself MJD, has been ruled out. Blaine Gabbert has a depressing 7 TD’s and 3 picks. Simply, he blows . There is no way he can play in a shoot-out and they can’t manage the clock without the use of Maurice Jones-Drew. Essentially, the Jags are more fucked than New Jersey at this time. By the way, is it me or does Gabbert look like staecy Peralta from Dogtown and Z-boys days.
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Steelers vs. Giants (o 47.5)

Ok, so we are all aware that both teams have the ability to play stout defense. Both teams own offenses that make the plays, whether it is Eli finding Victor Cruz with less than two minutes to beat the Redskins in the 4th quarter or Big Ben converting 3rd and 15’s. Honestly, this game could go either way but between the fact that the Giant’s are playing an emotional game and the Steelers are flying in a few hours before the game due to lack of hotel options, the Giant’s hold the advantage of the intangibles. That said, both teams are on fire and thus, I wouldn’t pick a side.
 

In regards to the over, the Giants are scoring 29.3 ppg and are allowing 20.1 ppg, while the Steelers are allowing just slightly more at 20.6 ppg, and are scoring slightly less at 23.9 ppg.  Either way, the amount of points scored and the amount of points allowed equal big days for both offenses.  Eli and Big Ben will forever be compared in history as they were both drafted together and both are winners. Plus, they are both fucking brilliant.
 

The Steelers have faced a lot of injuries but Dwyer has done a great job filling in well for Mendenhall and  the Giant’s three headed monster of Bradshaw, Brown, and Wilson. That said, Dwyer and Mendenhall are most likely out this Sunday and thus the Steelers will have Isaac Redman starting. He’s probably the least elusive of the three so watch Ben Roethlisberger throw, A LOT. The Steelers defense is old, the Giant’s defense is pregnant, and we can’t have a bunch of old/pregnant bitches playing football.  I’m not sure what I meant there, but hey, I’m a Sandy evacuee. Give me a break. Sure the Steelers defense is looking like the team of old as they are ranked 1st in opponent passing and 9th in opponent rushing so the odds of Eli playing strongly is low, but don’t ever give Eli the odds. He will defy them. Also, it is only  a matter of time before the Steelers play like they did at the beginning of the season, old. The Giant’s defense is mediocre at best as they rank 26th in opponent passing and 19th in opponent rushing. Watch big Ben make plays and Eli doing everything in his power to keep up. This will be a close and enjoyable one.
 
 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dallas (+4) vs. Atlanta Falcons

Do you know when you get that feeling that a team is due. Well, the Falcons are due for a loss. I know, I know, they looked good last week, but they were playing against an Eagles team spiraling down faster than cast of Jersey Shore. It also depends on which Cowboys team gets on that plane.

Since 1991, the Boys are 3-0 against undefeated teams who are at least 7-0. Like usual, the Cowboys are underachieving as they do have the pieces to contend. The Falcons have probably the most dynamic receiving duo in Julio Jones and Rowdy Roddy White (Combined 1090 yds, and 9 TD’s), but the Cowboys have two top corners in rookie Claiborne and Brandon Carr. With those two playing tight, it will give Damarcus Ware and Jay Ratliff plenty of time to rush Matty Ice.

The Cowboys have the inconsistent but when in the zone very Favre-esque Tony Romo at the helm. While their beast starting RB DaMarco Murray is ruled out, Felix Jones should be fine as a back-up. Plus, Romo’s receiving weapons consist of Dez Bryant, Miles Austin, the rising Ogletree, and Jason Witten who is only 4 receptions shy of breaking Michael Irvin’s franchise record of 750 receptions. I’m sure Irvin will do some coke to that. By the way, the Cowboys were a finger tip away from beating the hottest team in football, the G-men last week. I smell upset.
 
 
Record

Week 8

1-2

Week 7

2-1
Week 6

1-2

Week 5

1-2

Week 4


3-0

Week 3


2-1

Week 2

1-2

Week 1


0-1

LOCK STREET TOTAL RECORD

11-12
 

Friday, November 2, 2012

Surfing Sandy - How Environmental Disaster Can Be Cool

Hurricane Sandy was being called Frankenstorm as she rolled up the coast. And she proved every bit as violent as promised, submerging the whole Jersey Shore (though, unfortunately, not the cast of JERSEY SHORE - though perhaps the dismal rating on this season, their final, is proof enough that they're already sunk), turning New York into a skyscraper Venice (appropriate since high-end Manhattanites so love Venice in the Fall) and in general leaving a path of destruction in the mid-Atlantic not seen since eighteen hundred and fourteen A.D.

It got Chris Christie and Bloomberg to both admit that Obama's a good leader (in comic contrast to Katrina, which got everybody to admit that our president-who-shall-not-be-named was an idiot and hated black people) and the insurance money going to rebuilding the most populous seaboard in North America will probably help our struggling job market. But all that aside, Hurricane Sandy reminded us one thing - Nature's a motherfucker.

God-powered, city-flattening mother nature won't answer prayers, won't show you mercy. She'll snap babies from your arms, sink your historic replica of a historic boat, and has killed at least 100 people (98 at this point and still rising). But if you got balls, skills, and perhaps a touch of madness, such violent forces can provide you with the most amazing rush you could ever imagine.

Enter the Wild Lyfe Crew. With a jet-ski (most likely to protect them should a "Perfect Storm" wave roll through), these bastards charged possibly the biggest waves to ever have been surfed in Ocean City Maryland on Monday, just before the Frankenstorm struck.

Check the video, shot with a crappy handheld and soundtracked by some awful taste in music (what you gonna expect, they're OC locals) but what the video lacks in technical perfection it makes up in some downright dirty hurricane surf. And seeing this normally flat and sad surf spot pitching such massive barrels - that's once-in-a-lifetime, bro.

Unless Sandy's just a taste of things to come as we fuck up the climate more. In that case, though our East Coast may be moved several miles back over the next decade, at least there's one good thing to take away from this - surf's up!

Either way, let's give a shout for our friends and family still drying out and hope they don't get mauled by this nor-easter that's just beginning to bear down on 'em. Happy Friday.

- Ryan