Governor Jerry Brown To The Rescue!

Brace yourselves! I think that we might have had a moment of sanity in California! I KNOW! Can you believe it?! I, for one, can not. Seriously. The state was on its way to having a few more nanny laws in place and the next thing you know, BAM! Governor Jerry Brown vetoes them and gives an awesome explanation as to why.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Governor Brown spent Wednesday, "...vetoing bills that would require that kids wear helmets when on ski slopes and increase fines for people who talk on cell phones or text while driving." I find that to be fabulous and here's why: One, the hand-free cell phone law here is inane because it is just as dangerous to drive and talk on the phone using a hands-free device as it is to hold the phone up to your head. It's not the phone, it's the conversation. (And really, as much as I hate to admit it, I think that we all know that it isn't the safest thing to do. Phone or headset, it just distracts you.) And on top of that, the fine is already close to $300 once all of the "fees" are added. It's quite outrageous.

And two, I'm not all that big of a fan of helmet laws. Yes, even for kids. If you want your kid to wear a helmet, have your kid wear a helmet. Do we need a law for this? I don't think that we do. (And really, I and everyone else that I know grew up without wearing helmets and we're just fine. The number of kids that I personally knew that met their demise because they weren't wearing a helmet is exactly zero.)

But wait. I'm not even at the best part! Here it is: This is what Governor Jerry had to say when he vetoed the bills: "While I appreciate the value of wearing a ski helmet, I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state. Not every human problem deserves a law." Oh. My. God. Release the pigeons. Sanity has prevailed.

Not every human problem deserves a law. NO! It does not! Why is that concept so hard for so many to understand?! Especially those whores in the legislature who want to nanny law us to death?! What's wrong with a barrage of public service announcements to make people aware of things? That seems to me like it would at least still leave the decision in the hands of the individual (as opposed to the government), but it would give them something to think about. And really, I'm not so sure that I think that being given something to think about is all that necessary either. But I like it a heck of a lot better than a bunch of laws that are designed to swaddle the population. You go, Governor Jerry!

Sphere: Related Content

Fakeroversy In The Governor's Race

It must be tough when you're running for governor and you have no idea what you're doing, so you figure that, since every candidate needs to start some sort of a scandal against their opponent, you'll just do that and see how it goes. While I don't recommend that approach, if you're going to take that route, might I suggest coming up with a scandal that people would give a fat rat's ass about? Acting all indignant because someone referred to you as a whore is really not going to do much to help you. It will be great fun for those who enjoy mocking you, however.

See, Meg Whitman is running for governor of California. For some reason, her being at the helm when eBay kind of rode itself to its own success is supposed to give her some sort of credibility as the Republican candidate. Well, that and the $140 million of her own money that she has poured into her campaign to get the nomination. (Apparently, she thinks the governor's seat is some sort of Buy It Now dealio.) And lately, she's been rocked by allegations of a former housekeeper that she...um...well....it's not real clear to me exactly what it is that she's being accused of doing. It might be that she didn't treat the hired help all that well, but I'm not totally sure about this. The fact that her ex-housekeeper was in this country illegally, used a fake Social Security number while Meg employed her and was then fired when Meg found out somehow plays a part in all of this, but again, I'm not quite sure how. It's definitely a fakeroversy (fake controversy), but I still have trouble grasping all of the straws that it contains.

Now, after that became the hooplah du jour (complete with Gloria Allred, the world's most awful human being, at the housekeeper's helm), Meg's campaign needed to have someone on her opponent, Jerry Brown. What did they come up with? I guess they had a hard time coming up with anything of substance because apparently, one of his staffers referred to her as a whore, so that's what they went with. Wait. What?

Yep. According to ABC News, Jerry Brown "...left a phone message in early September for a union official whose endorsement he was seeking, but apparently forgot to hang up...And either Brown or a staffer -- there is some dispute -- uses the word "whore" to describe his Republican rival Meg Whitman." Hmm. How about a little context to go with all of that nothing-ness there?

OK. The first part of the conversation that Brown has with one of his staffers after he thought that he had hung up goes something along the lines of Brown saying: "Do we want to put an ad out? … That I have been warned if I crack down on pensions, I will be – that they'll go to Whitman, and that's where they'll go because they know Whitman will give 'em, will cut them a deal, but I won't." So what he's saying (behind closed doors and totally off the record, as he didn't know that he didn't hang up) is that he's not going to cut a deal with the unions, but Whitman is, despite her saying publicly that she's not beholden to any group.

It's after that question that the staffer (or someone else) says, "What about saying she's a whore?" That's quite the idea. Call your opponent a whore in your ads. I don't know that I think it's the most politically savvy move, but Jerry Brown seemed to love it, as he responded, "Well, I'm going to use that...It proves you've cut a secret deal to protect the pensions." I don't know if calling her a whore would prove that, per se. But it would show that you're not afraid to call someone a whore!

Once Whitman's side became aware of this colorful depiction of her, they immediately issued a pansy-ass response. "The use of the term 'whore' is an insult to both Meg Whitman and to the women of California. This is an appalling and unforgivable smear against Meg Whitman. At the very least Mr. Brown tacitly approved this despicable slur and he himself may have used the term at least once on this recording,"

Really? It's an insult to the women of California? How is that? I'm a woman of California and I'm not insulted by Jerry Brown's staffers calling Meg Whitman a whore. It's hard to say if I'd be insulted if they called me a whore. Then again, I don't get insulted easily. That's a weak response. You know what would have been a better response? To DENY that you're acting like a whore by being in bed with the unions and promising them deals in exchange for their endorsements. Now THAT would have been something!

Did she dispute the essence of why they were calling her a whore? Not that I can find. No, she just decided to take the "You hurt my feelings" angle on it. And that seems to be how this is being reported. Why is it that we're focusing on the alleged name calling instead of the fact that she seems to be cutting back room deals with unions? Why aren't we focusing on the fact that Jerry Brown said in private (or what he thought was private) that he wasn't going to make deals with the unions? For him to have said that in private seems to lend credibility to him really meaning that. After all, why would you say something like that if you didn't mean it? It's not like you knew the whole world was going to hear you. It seems pretty credible to me.

But no. Instead, Meg Whitman wants to us to be all up in arms that Jerry Brown's staffer called her a whore. Well, I'm putting down my arms, as they are not up. This is ridiculous. Her allegedly cutting deals with the unions in order to win their support is the real story here. But she's not mentioning that. She's just whining about being called a whore. And by the way, if she is cutting back room deals with the unions in exchange for their support, then she absolutely is a whore. A big, big whore. Whore.

You know, if she can't handle being called a name, I'm not real confident in her ability to lead this ridiculously corrupt state out of the s***hole that it has been in for years. And if she's being a sneaky weasel and saying one thing to the public, but doing another thing in private, I'm absolutely positive that she won't be able to get anything done. Please don't take this as an endorsement for Jerry Brown, however. While the real story might be whether or not she is actually cutting deals, I think that the secondary story might be that Jerry Brown can't figure out how to hang up his phone after leaving a message. It doesn't do much to distract folks from the fact that he's a little old.

Sphere: Related Content

Home Plate Is Over Here, Sir

You've heard of the term "Throws like a girl"? Yeah, well, there needs to be a new saying. Something along the lines of "Throws like Charlie Crist". Yes, Charlie Crist, the perpetually orange governor of Florida threw out the first pitch for Game 2 between the Tampa Bay Rays and the Texas Rangers. OK, technically he threw out the first pitch. I don't know if you can call what he did a pitch. I'm also not real sure that it technically qualifies as throwing. Granted, he kind of got the ball as far as home plate. Kind of. And if the guy hadn't caught it, he would have also gotten the ball clear up in the 3rd base bleachers. Good Lord, it was so bad. So, so bad. But don't take my word for it. See for yourself.

See what I mean? What happened there? Oh, well. He can look at it this way: At least it took some of the focus off of his unnatural orange hue for a while.

Sphere: Related Content

Separated at Birth From Meg Whitman

Since I don't plan on voting for either Meg Whitman or Jerry Brown for governor of California, I'm just going to take this opportunity to point out the various different people that they each resemble. OK, fine. Jerry only resembles one that I can think of and this entire post is just an outlet for how frustrated I am with how Meg Whitman has ran her campaign. Hopelessness tends to make one trivial.

The only person that I could find that looked like Jerry Brown was that guy from the Geico commercials. (As a side note, I'd like to point out that Geico has way too many mascots. The cavemen. That cute little lizard. The money with the eyeballs on it. The deep talking guy. I can't keep up. Everyone loves the gecko. Why not just have him carry the ball? He's not real, you know. It's not like it would be animal cruelty or anything.) Behold!

I had absolutely no trouble what so ever in finding folks that Meg Whitman looked like. Mind you, I just said "folks". I did not say "attractive folks". I also didn't alude to anything that would indicate that these comparisons will be anything flattering. Good Lord, no. Far from it, in fact. Up first, Meg Whitman and Vigo the Carpathian of Ghostbusters 2 fame. Behold!

Don't cross the streams, Meg. I just realized that the majority of my comparisons are with people who pretty much had their heydays back in the days of yore. The most modern one that I could come up with might be surprising at first. But I'm telling, you put a blonde wig on Ricky Gervais and they would be more identical than those Olsen twins.

See? Now let's go back to the days of vintage television to see several other folks with whom she could have been separated at birth from. Take the Skipper from Gilligan's Island, for example. He's almost a dead ringer for the woman. Or she is for him. I'm never sure how you're supposed to word comparisons like that. Whatever. Behold, anyway!

Next up, from The Andy Griffith Show, please note the incredible resemblance to a one Aunt Bea. It's eerie is what it is.

My personal favorite in the vintage TV category would have to be the one below. She really does look like Fred Mertz! She could have been married to Ethel. Although, in the days when I Love Lucy was on, she would have had some 'splaining to do if that had been the case. Would the Ricardo's have been cool with a couple of lesbians living next door? Oh, sure, if it had been a couple of gay guys, they would have got along just swimmingly with ol' Ricky (who probably dabbled in the gay on the side). Two lesbians wouldn't have had much in common with them, though.

Now, I realize that with the exception of an ancient and prudish actress from the 1960s, the only folks that I have compared Meg Whitman to are men. Does that mean that I think that she should pay a little more attention to her image? Not necessarily. I mean, after all, her image was good enough to sport on the front of the hundred dollar bill, right?

Oh. Wait. That's...that's...yeah, that's not her. Hmm. Awkward.

Sphere: Related Content

The No-Platform Platform

Yesterday, I discussed the importance of not sounding like a crazy person if you're attempting to run for public office. Today, I'll be discussing the importance of sounding like something if you're running for public office. You can't keep things a secret. Oh, sure, you can try, but how long is that really going to work for? Those second and third wives and going to catch on eventually. Ah, but I kid. About the wives, that is. Not about not keeping things secret. Seriously, you're going to have to let people in on what it is that you're going to do to, say, balance a budget. You can't say "I'm not going to tell you." Or can you?

Whether you can or not, Jerry Brown (who is running for governor of California against Meg "My Money Grows On Trees" Whitman) has taken up just that strategy. According to SF Gate, Jerry Brown "...recently visited The (San Francisco) Chronicle's editorial board, he brought with him a large three-ring binder with his ideas on how to bring state spending back into the black." Oh, good! "But he wouldn't tell us what was in the book." Wait. He what now?

Correct. He wouldn't tell them what was in the book. He wouldn't tell them much of anything, really. Let's look at a few examples.

When asked what he, as governor, "...would do that state employee labor unions, which are spending millions to get him elected, won't like. He answered, "Well, I'm certainly not going to tell you now." Hmm. Granted, I agree that if you plan on doing things to people that they're not going to like, it's probably not the best idea to mention that ahead of time. But don't you have to come up with a better answer than, "I'm not telling"? I think you kind of do.

But Jerry Brown apparently did not. Not only was he not telling anyone about that, he also wasn't telling anyone about how he plans to negotiate with various groups, stating, "I'm not going to reveal my negotiating strategy now. I'm going to try to push everybody together." Soooo...that's not his strategy? The pushing together? It kind of sounds like a strategy. Is he trying to fake us out? The ol' Statue of Liberty play? Something like that? What?

When a one John Diaz, who is the Editorial Page Editor for the Chronicle, asked "...what tough calls Brown was willing to make, he answered, "There's only a process that will lead us to where we're going." Oh, OK. See...wait. There's only a....and it will...huh. Yeah, those are just words. They don't seem to be strung together to say a whole lot. Hmm.

Look, California is facing a 19 billion dollar deficit in the budget. I don't know that you can run for governor and insist that you can solve the budget problem, while at the same time keeping it a secret. As it stands right now, I'm not voting for either one of them. Meg Whitman is out of touch with reality (as evidenced by her spending $108 million of her own money just to get the nomination to run). And Jerry Brown is playing "I've Got A Secret" and sounding a bit like a doddering old man, which is causing me to use a Grandpa Simpson voice in my head whenever I read anything that Brown has said. (It's fun. Try it!) And I know that not enough people will vote third party for it to make a difference. So either way, we're screwed. With Meg Whitman, we'll know right away how we're being screwed and with Jerry Brown, we'll just have to wait a while until he wants to tell us how we're being screwed. Either way, nothing is going to be getting better any time soon.

Sphere: Related Content

Evolution Is OK

I don't get the whole "Creation vs. Evolution" debate to begin with. Seriously, why can't it be both? Why can't there be a supreme being who created everything and whose plan was for it to evolve? Why is that such a leap for people to make? I don't get it. Clearly, there is evolution involved. But look around you! The universe is just too darned orderly to be one big accident!

That's why I don't get this commercial. According to CBS News, a group which calls themselves the "True Republican PAC" (whatever that is) has put out an ad that attacks Alabama gubernatorial candidate Bradley Byrne. It attacks him for believing that "evolution...best explains the origins of life". Not only that, it also goes after him for saying "...even recently, said the Bible is only partially true."

So, when did it come to this? Are these issues that are such a big deal in Alabama that it is considered to be a good strategy to point them out? The announcer guy says these things with such disdain and disbelief in his voice, it's as if he was telling everyone that Bradley Byrne believed he had been abducted by aliens and spent the majority of his adult life cultivating crops on some alien planet in a galaxy far, far away.

It's weird. It's all just weird. I don't know who this Bradley Byrne guy is, but I hope he wins. He has got to be a better candidate for governor than whoever the jackass is that's running commercials denouncing him for believing in evolution. The ad is below. It's still weird.

Sphere: Related Content

America's Funniest Governor

Arnold Schwarzenegger seems to enjoy being Governor of California, but mainly because it gives him a platform from which to tell jokes. Look, he had all of these lofty ideas when he took office, but wasn't able to accomplish the majority of them. While I'm sure that was frustrating for him, I'm afraid that it was frustrating for the wrong reasons. I fear that the main problem he had with not being able to achieve what he wanted to wasn't so much the lack of achievement as much as it was the decline in his popularity.

If there is one thing that the Governator likes, it is to be liked. And the only thing that he likes more than that is to get a laugh out of folks. Whether it be a calculated joke, an off the wall comment or even a prank, Arnold likes to make people yuk it up.

The Governator is aware that there is only so much that he can do. He is also aware that the Legislature for the state of California is absolutely pathetic. According to the latest Field Poll, the California Legislature had a 13% approval rating. 13%. My question to that thirteen percent is: What are your standards, exactly? How can you approve of anything those ass clowns are doing up there in Sacramento? Are you staffers of the Legislature? Blood relatives? How can you approve of their job performance?

Seriously? Maybe they don't know about some of the abhorrent behavior exhibited by some of these elected morons. Let's take a one Tom Ammiano who, at the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee Gala, began shouting "No, no, no, no!!!!! You lie!!!" and "Kiss my gay ass!!!!" among other colorful phrases when the Governator got up to speak. That according to a one Beth Spotswood over yonder at SF Appeal. (Beth's piece, by the way, is awesome. Hilarious, yet surprisingly informative. I would highly recommend giving it a read.) Seriously, dude? "Kiss my gay ass"? You're comfortable, not only shouting that (in San Francisco, none the less. Talk about livin' on the wild side.), but shouting it at the Governor? Apparently, general respect for each other as human beings has completely bypassed Mr. Ammiano (and his gay ass).

Back to our funny, funny Governor. When the Governator vetoes a bill, he tends to include a little explanation as to why he did so. Arnold is so fed up with the Legislature at this point, it's a wonder he hasn't just sent every veto back with a bullet hole right through the middle of the failed legislation. But see, a bullet hole just wouldn't be funny. Well, not funny enough for Arnold. And it's too blatant. Subtle humor is some of the funniest humor.

When vetoing AB1176 which was sponsored by the aforementioned, looking-for-a-date-for-his-ass Mr. Ammiano, The Governator sent along this veto.

Seems innocuous enough, doesn't it? Not so fast. It seems as though Arnold, in a way that can only be described as sophomoric, yet brilliant (not to mention overdue and oh-so deserved), managed to include another little message which one could assume was directed toward Mr. Ammiano. That sentiment? Behold!

According to The Huffington Post, when this was brought to the attention of Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear his response was, "My goodness. What a coincidence." What a coincidence indeed! And what a most excellent response. "I suppose when you do so many vetoes, something like this is bound to happen." (Translation: "I suppose when you tell the Governor to kiss your gay ass, having him tell you to eff off is bound to happen. You're lucky you didn't get punched inside out, sir.")

Stay in school, kids! You can't have this kind of fun without a vast and solid vocabulary to work with!

Sphere: Related Content

How Now California Cow?

Oh, where to begin? I suppose a California fiscal doom scenario update is probably in order seeing as how I've already mentioned that, while the state amasses more debt by having to issue IOUs (which pay the amount owed PLUS 3.25% interest when they're finally redeemed), the legislature has been busy bickering about what constitutes "real honey", what IS 100% pomegranate juice and how should the blueberries of the state be regulated.

(I swear, if ONE single person currently in the legislature manages to win their re-election we might have to seriously consider going back to the voting rules of yore. You know, the ones where you had to be a land owner in order to vote. The theory behind it being that you're invested and will therefore be informed on the issues to make the proper voting choice. Lately, people are not invested. People are morons. And since I've heard that we can't shoot them, nor is the deserted island (upon which to exile them to) available, a way to keep them out of the voting booth definitely needs to be looked at. And if that happens, hey, don't rule out all of the shooting! I'm just sayin'.)

So what's the problem now? Simple (an answer that both answers the question AND describes those working on the problem). More of the same. Only this time they've branched out. Instead of not working on the budget and focusing on fruits and condiments, now they're looking at cow tails. The tail of a cow. The cow's own tail. What now? Yep. Behold!

No! No! No! I said COWS TAIL. Not COW TALES! Again! From the top! Behold!

That's better. OK, so I got wind of this one when I read an article over yonder at JoinArnold.com that quoted the Governator as saying,"“In the midst of the biggest budget crisis we are having a debate about cow tails. So ask the legislators to stop debating about cow tails and let's do the budget.” Good Lord, what?

Here's the scoop: Apparently, there is something called "tail docking" which involves cutting off up to 2/3rds of a cow's tail. According to the text of SB 135, it's author, a one Dean Florez, writes that "tail docking is arcane...and that there is no benefit to tail docking normal healthy tails in dairy cattle based upon peer-reviewed scientific studies and governmental sponsored research." OK. That seemed reasonable. Right up until I read the analysis of the bill, that is.

In the analysis, a survey done earlier this year reported that ..."89.3% of the dairies are not docking tails and 86.2% of the cows are in dairy operations where tail docking is not practiced. The advisor concluded that the results from this survey suggest tail docking is an uncommon practice in California." Are they kidding? Of course they're not.

Let me get this straight, Mr. Florez. You can't talk about the budget right now because you're too busy trying to get some bill passed that only applied to 13.8% of the dairy cows in the state? I say "dairy cows" because in the beef industry they don't dock tails AT ALL unless the tail is injured! (How does a cow injure its tail exactly? They're not a very raucous animal, it seems odd that they'd sustain an injury of any sort. Dusty hooves, maybe. Other than that, hard to imagine.) So the total number of cows in the California that would be affected by this bill would hover somewhere around the neighborhood of less than 10%. I don't know that we need laws that are geared toward: A) Less than 10% of anything, and B) Laws about the the tails of cows!!

How much more do you plan on regulating this state, oh-sagelike Representative there? Seriously. You can't do ANYTHING in this state without it falling under some sort of guideline and regulation and/or requiring a permit and/or a fee! NOTHING! And it's always under the futile threat of up to $1,000 fine and/or six months in jail. Right. That happens ALL the time. (Tail dockers busted! On the next episode of COPS - The Bovine Beat!)

Regardless as to the over-regulation that has made your wannabe utopia more regimented than a German prison camp, don't you have other more pressing issues to deal with first? Let's say you're at home and your house is on fire. You rush for a phone to call 911, but before you do that (and as your house is STILL burning) you decide to call 1-800-DENTIST because that upper tooth on the left has really been sensitive lately and you've really been wanting to get that taken care of. Does THAT MOMENT seem like the best time for that?! NO! I understand your tooth hurts, but what say you wait until you're out of the burning building first, all rightee?

Are these people morons? Have they all sustained some sort of cranial injury which causes them to think and react like mildly retarded four year olds with just a touch of ADHD? Oh, and if the name Dean Florez sounds familiar to you, well, thanks for reading! But it's because Rep. Florez was the one who felt like The Governator was overreacting when he told the Representatives to stop bickering over the age old question, "What is honey?" and get back to work on the damned budget. Rep. Florez is the one who said, "He should really, really take a course on fundamental government on how the legislature works. The fact that he doesn't understand these things worries me." The fact that he is more concerned about honey and cows REALLY worries me. (And makes me question how he spends his free time.)

Sphere: Related Content