Catching up on goings on in California

A couple of items caught my eye during the past week or so that I want to comment on.
First, the Governator.
It was reported recently that former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (how odd does THAT sound) had admitted to cheating on his wife of 25 years, Maria Shriver. Not only that, but the former action hero, champion bodybuilder and all around renaissance man had fathered a child with that mistress, the couple's former housekeeper. Watching the news out here, it was treated like the biggest story of the year so far. Camera crews were staked out in front of his offices in Santa Monica and his mistress' home in Bakersfield. My question is, why?
What makes this a newsworthy story? It's not as if Arnold being a philandering pig is a new revelation. Allegations of his womanizing first surfaced when he ran to replace Gray Davis in 2002. Back then, his poor wife stood by him, saying "You can either listen to the news reports, or you can listen to me."
And even if he is a former action hero and a former governor, so what? What makes the media think that people actually care about Arnold's wandering eyes? I know that some will say that the public has a right to know if their politicians are cheating louses. It reflects on their character, the argument goes.
It's true that politicians need to understand that once they throw their hat in the political arena, they give up their private lives. They are under the public's microscope, and they need to behave accordingly. But it's not as if Arnold were stealing from the state coffers or selling pardons to murderers or something else egregious. He cheated on his wife and had an out-of-wedlock child. The affair happened almost 15 years ago (the child is 14). Next?
Being in the public eye doesn't mean that EVERY aspect of a politican's life should be open for public inspection. People change over time. Mistakes that happened years ago should be left in the past, unless that mistake has some direct bearing on the person's performance today. End of story.
Next, on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered California to release as many as 46,000 prisoners to help relieve the state's prison overcrowding. Predictably, conservatives are already screaming about the new crime wave that will result. This is fear-mongering at its worst.
In the first place, it's highly unlikely that we will see all these prisoners freed and allowed to run the streets. Gov. Jerry Brown already has a plan in place to transfer the majority of them to local jails, assuming Sacramento funds the plan.
And we're not talking about letting out rapists and murderers. We're talking about letting out "minor" offenders, those serving time for drug possession and the like.
It seems to me that now is the time to renew our focus on rehabilitation programs. Sure prison is supposed to be about punishment. Being in prison shouldn't be equivalent to staying at Club Med. But prison also is supposed to be about rehabilitation, about taking people whose lives have gotten off track and giving them a second chance to be productive.
Fact is, the majority of the 142,000 inmates in California will one day be released back into society. It makes no sense, then, not to prepare them for that transition. It makes no sense to make sure they don't have at least a basic education and a chance to train in a skill.
If the "bleeding heart" argument doesn't move you, how about this one? Investing in rehabilitation programs could save the state up to half a billion dollars annually.
Cleaning out the prisons of minor offenders creates room for those who are real threats to society. That would allow lawmakers to do away with failed "three strikes" laws and instead pass a "truth in sentencing" law. People who have proven themselves to be sociopaths -- serial rapists, murderers and child molestors -- should be kept in prison until they no longer represent a threat, or until they are dead. Let's pass a law that says "life in prison" means exactly that. Let's make sure that a rapist sentenced to 25 years serves every day of that sentence. Let's do away with the silly idea of "time off for good behavior." Maybe then, if we make sentences mean what they say, criminals might think twice before threatening our social order.

Newt in 2012? Let's hope not

Here we are, a full 18 months out from the 2012 presidential election, and already the Republican candidates are lining up to challenge President Barack Obama. Yesterday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich officially declared his candidacy after months of hinting at it. So the question is raised: Would Gingrich, a Republican from Georgia, make a good president? I don't think so.
Don't get me wrong. the former House speaker has a lot going for him. He's got nationwide name recognition, thanks to his previous stint in Congress. He's undoubtedly a brilliant man and a great politician. After all, he was the architect of the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 which swept the GOP into power for a dozen years. And he does have a real, in-depth knowledge of how Congress works. He already has established many important relationships that could be invaluable in helping him accomplish his agenda as president.
But even with all that, Gingrich would still be the wrong person to elect in 2012. As much as his previous experience on the national level is an asset, it's also a major liability.
Gingrich is, in reality, little more than a back-bench bomb thrower who got lucky. He's an intractable hard-right partisan more interested in power and in serving his party than the American people. He's an advocate of the "neo-con" political philosophy which has proven to be a failure. And perhaps worst of all, he's a hypocrite.
Gingrich was one of the driving forces behind the ill-fated decision to impeach former President Bill Clinton over an Oval Office blowjob. During that period, he preached loud and long about the need for greater morality in our elected leaders. Then, we found out that not only did he cheat on his own wife, but he presented her with divorce papers while she was in the hospital battling cancer. Is this really the kind of man we want as the most powerful leader in the free world?
With Gingrich in the White House, we would take a major step backwards. Much of the goodwill that Obama has managed to garner in the past couple of years would be wasted, as Gingrich, would undoubtedly resume the "you're either with us or against us" cowboy diplomacy of George W. Bush.
And let's not forget about the failed Republican economic policies of deregulation and tax cuts for the super-rich that landed us in the greatest recession since the Great Depression. Republicans are the ones who wrecked the economy after 12 years of almost complete control of our government. Do we really want to go there again?
Unfortunately, Gingrich may prove to be the cream of the Republican crop. There are going to be very few people who can match his combination of intelligence and experience. Here's hoping the American people are smart enough to learn from our past mistakes and keep someone like the former Speaker out of the White House.

A long time coming

OK, so I know this isn't exactly a political topic, but I still want to comment on the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s decision this week to finally allow the ordination of gay clergy within the 2-million member denomination. What took so long?
For the sake of full disclosure, I am currently a member of the United Methodist Church, and have been for a couple of years. But I was raised Presbyterian. I have been watching this debate unfold for many years. I'm glad it has finally gotten resolved.
I know the church's decision to allow gay clergy is a sensitive topic for many people. Many good, Christian people believe with all their might that homosexuality is wrong, that it is prohibited by the Bible. And even though society's stance has softened toward homosexuals in recent years, I have heard a convincing argument made that the church is supposed to be above society, to hold itself apart and separate. In most cases, I would agree. Except this one.
Critics of the church's move to allow homosexual clergy are simply wrong on a couple of points.
First, homosexuality is not a choice. It is hardwired. Think of it this way. What sane person would wake up one morning and say, "you know what? I think I'll be sexually attracted to my same sex today?" It just doesn't happen.
I have a multitude of gay friends. And in talking to them honestly about this, they have told me, to a man (or woman) that they have always known they were gay, that there's never been any doubt. What sane person would CHOOSE to be a part of a group that is so scorned by society?
Second, gays can be good Christians. Some of the most loving, accepting, Christian people I know are gay. If that's true, then why wouldn't God call gay people to serve him in the ministry? Does anyone really think God only calls straight people? That puts an unnecessary limitation on God.
God created gay people, just as he created straight people. They are simply a part of the breathtaking diversity in God's creation. Why, then, would he not call them to serve in the ministry? That doesn't make sense.
One of the things I have always enjoyed about the Presbyterian Church is its openness and its eye toward social justice. And whether we want to admit it or not, that's really what this is about. Just as slavery and Jim Crow racism in the South were wrong in the past (both of which were silently endorsed by the Christian church just a few generations ago), it is simply wrong to deny gay people with a sincere calling to the ministry the right to follow that calling.
The truth is, homophobia has been the last accepted form of bigotry in our society today, and it has been for awhile. Finally, the tide seems to be turning. I'm happy my church has seen the error of its ways and finally gotten on the right side of this issue.

A sensible decision

There has been quite a bit of debate over the past few days concerning President Barack Obama's decision not to release the death photos of former al-Qaida spiritual head Osama bin Laden. There are some people, apparently, who believe they have a right to see the gruesome photos of bin Laden after he was shot in the head, "just to make sure" he's really dead. There are even some, I've heard, who believe the whole thing is a hoax. These people are wrong. Bin Laden is undeniably dead. DNA tests confirm it. And President Obama is right to keep the death photos from public view.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" set to air Sunday, Obama explained that releasing the photos to the public would pose a serious national security risk to Americans stationed abroad. The administration, apparently, is afraid that releasing the photos would incite some in the Arab world to violence, that they would only be used as a recruiting tool for future terrorists. Given the fact that the simple act of drawing the prophet Mohammed in a political cartoon was enough to incite riots in the Middle East a few years ago, that's a supremely sensible decision.
One thing really stuck out to me in reading the transcript of the Obama interview. The president said something to the effect of "We don't need trophies. We don't need to spike the ball." There's the difference between Obama -- a mature, sensible adult -- and his predecessor, George W. "Baby" Bush. Bush staked his entire presidency on the "war" on terror he declared following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. His whole legacy rests on the search for bin Laden. Just like the rest of his ill-fated presidency, that was a failure. But is there any doubt that if Bush had been commander-in-chief when bin Laden was taken down, that he wouldn't have gloated about it to the rest of the world? Is there any doubt that he would have released the photos just to pump up his already overinflated ego and make himself look good? I don't doubt it. Hell, I could even see him flying onto an aircraft carrier, complete with a "Mission Accomplished" sign.
Bush was a cowboy. Obama is an adult, a deep thinker, someone who considers all the consequences of his actions before he acts. He is absolutely right that Americans don't have a "right" to the photos. Frankly, I'm relieved that we finally have a sensible adult back in charge in America.

Trump, the birther debate and other newsworthy events

OK, so I know this is a little late on some of these topics, but it's not every day the U.S. kills the world's No. 1 terrorist, and so I'm a little late in clearing my plate on these topics. Here we go.
Donald Trump is a joke. There, I've said it. The fact that he's flirting with a run for the White House in 2012 and is being taken seriously by those pundits supposedly in the know only highlights the dearth of serious candidates at this point on either side and shows how little real news there is to talk about.
Trump's flirtation with a presidential run reminds me of another billionaire outsider who thought he could be president: Ross Perot. Both have nationwide name recognition -- always a good start to a presidential run. Both are independently wealthy and are self-made men. If they wanted, they could finance an entire campaign without taking a lick of public financing. Neither has ever held elected office before. They are truly political outsiders and something novel, something new. But that's where the similarities end.
The difference between Perot and Trump is that Perot had been nibbling around the edge of politics for years before he decided to run in 1992. In his home state of Texas, he was called on by the governor at the time, Bill Clemens, to come up with a plan to fix the state's ailing education system. And he did. Many of his ideas are still being used today.
Perot also took advantage of the nation's ailing economy in 1992. He came out with serious ideas for fixing the economy, and when he spoke, his plain-spoken, straightforward manner appealed to a lot of people who were tired of the political double talk and aching for something different. In 1992, he garnered 19 percent of the vote -- best ever for an independent candidate. And he took that momentum and founded the Reform Party, which played a role in the next election in 1996.
Was Perot a little bit of a clown? Yes. His "my way or the highway" approach to politics would have gone over like a lead balloon in Washington. He was used to being in charge and having people ask "how high?" when he said jump. It wouldn't have worked in Washington.
Now compare Perot to Trump. There simply is no comparison. Trump is a self-absorbed, arrogant clown of the first order. He has no issues to hang his hat on except the thoroughly discredited "birther" debate. He's got no real ideas or vision for the future of our country. He's a self-centered little boy starving for the nation's attention. He's not worth it.
As for the "birther" debate, I was glad to see President Barack Obama finally take control of the debate recently and release his "long-form" birth certificate. The whole idea that we would have wasted more than two years debating whether the president was even a citizen is just ridiculous. It smacks of desperation by a party that has let itself be hijacked by its fringe elements and religious extremists. It only highlights the fact that the Republican Party that Ronald Reagan led 30 years ago is dead. Today's GOP is devoid of real leadership and has abandoned the ideas that made it great -- that of smaller government, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility. That's a real shame. Somewhere, "the Gipper" must be spinning in his grave.

A hollow victory?

Mark it down. May 1, 2011 is the day the United States finally got its man. It's the day Osama bin Laden was finally tracked down and killed by U.S. special forces.
The death of bin Laden is, without a doubt, a momentous day in the history of America. It marked the culmination of more than a decade of work by our intelligence community and our military in bringing down one of the world's most dangerous terrorists. But 24 hours later, the question remains. What have we accomplished really?
Yes, bin Laden is gone. It is a huge symbolic, and dare I say, moral victory for the United States. All the analysts are correct in saying that bin Laden's death sends a clear message that we will do whatever it takes to protect our homeland and our people. It sends the message that we will not allow ourselves to be distracted from the task of fighting terror wherever it may be found. But in the long run, what have we accomplished?
Bin Laden is dead. Good. He deserved to die. But the reality is, we haven't destroyed al-Qaida. We got rid of the symbolic head of the worldwide terror network, but rest assured, bin Laden had planned for his demise. He had someone ready to step in and take over after his death. In fact, we already know his name: Ayman al Zawahari. So again, I ask, what have we REALLY accomplished? I know one thing we've accomplished: We've made bin Laden a martyr for future generations of terrorists. It's not a matter of IF his followers retaliate. It's a matter of WHEN.
Now that bin Laden is dead, it is incumbent upon our leadership to ask the question, "what's next?" Is it going to be the foreign policy of the United States from here on out to fight the war on terror, to as former President George W. Bush envisioned, "make the world safe for democracy?" That is a beautiful dream, but a practical impossibility. For every terrorist we kill, there will always be someone standing ready to take his place. Just how much blood and treasure are we willing to commit to the effort?
If we truly want to make the world safe for democracy, here's a radical idea. Why not take a close, honest look at U.S. foreign policy over the past 100 years? Why not admit that our presence in certain parts of the world (specifically the Middle East) and our unilateral support of Israel has inflamed the passions of millions to the point that they're willing to die to attack us? By
making our presence felt in the Middle East, and by supporting Israel no matter what they do, we have given terrorists worldwide a moral high ground to stand on to justify their heinous acts.
Let me be very clear. I am in no way advocating terrorism. Senseless violence, such as the 9/11 attacks, and targeting innocent people (military or otherwise) is ALWAYS wrong. But I think it is past time that we admitted that we share some of the burden in helping create the situation we now face. And it's past time that we asked the honest question of what we can, and should, do about it.