Clint's Ad Hits Key Nerve for 2012

Will we rise up as one America? Or will we reward the so-called “winners” in our capitalist-like system with exemption from taxes and other responsibilities to society?

It’s what’s on the line in the 2012 election, and why Clint Eastwood’s Super Bowl ad had conservatives so easily worked up after being blindsided at halftime. While Rush Limbaugh was busy picking his nose, I image Grover Norquist spilled his beer, panicked, as he looked for his cordless phone, scrambling to get Anger Radio prepared for a coordinated response overnight. We know this to be the case because Karl Rove was ready and appropriately outraged.



Mr. Eastwood’s ad-in which he deems us to be at “Halftime in America”-invokes the ideals that brought rugged Americans TOGETHER for Independence, to win wars, and overcome adversity. The idea that America took a risk on a proud institution-its auto industry-with our own tax money and revived a supposedly failing brand is exactly what is supposed to be wrong with “Obama’s policies.” Not only that, the companies are now thriving, and have paid back the Americans that saved them. The idea that we can pull up our fallen brothers and sisters who hit hard times, and ultimately do better together, is the idea that they seek to crush.

Why? Because ever since Barack Obama became President, the Ayn Rand-inspired, so-called tea party types took hold in the Republican Party under the ideology that we are all on our own, and that its somehow un-American to pool resources to accomplish shared goals without someone looking to get ahead. Rand’s books idealize selfishness, while demeaning the notion of helping a stranger that offers nothing to you. In the battle royal of life, she might say, only the strong survive, and the fruits of their labor ought not be taken or shared with others. Even charity is a vice, as it takes away the incentive to get ahead no matter the means. If the rest can’t keep up, well, they’re failures and deserve what they get. Don’t bother picking up the fallen, they’re just mooching off of your strength.

This clash of themes-strict selfishness versus togetherness-will be struggle underlying the entire 2012 Presidential election cycle. Yet it isn’t new to U.S. politics. I was recently watching Robert Redford’s The Candidate, in which incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Crocker Jarmon delivers a tirade against “a collectivist state.” Of course, by the end the cranky old “I got mine” incumbent loses to the young idealistic liberal (who tones it down to win, sadly) but that’s just Hollywood.

To have a Republican tough guy like Eastwood remind us that “country first” means we look out for each other and that we can all move forward quicker when we’re all on our feet together (I call this the “Mosh Pit” progress theory) is a real punch in the gut to the Ayn Randians who want us all fighting against each other to get to the finish line.

Invoking Detroit to make this point is specially frightening for Team Rand, because their presumptive nominee, Mitt Romney, urged America to “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” in the New York Times a few years ago. This pessimism was ideologically pure and exactly what they think is supposed to happen. I’m sure they know that it’s not very inspiring for America filled with people who still prefer that some things be “American Made."

In fact, many Americans are leaning on friends, family, and strangers more so than they ever have before. Young voters aren’t buying the idea that we all must be pitted against each other like beasts in an arena. The Occupy Wall Street movement seems to have pushed them even CLOSER together to get through tough times.

Obama’s theme will be that America is “Greater Together.” Mr. Eastwood seems to agree, and that’s why this spot was the first ad of the 2012 general election.

Oh, So Brave!

(Cross-posted at NV-CA Politics)

Okay, as someone who generally likes to hear out people of all political spectrums, I  was happy to see that Congressman Ron Paul will appear at the Hispanics in Politics (HIP) breakfast this upcoming Wednesday. And good for him.

The only thing I ask the local press is to please, please don't label an appearance in front of a legitimate group of voters, and possibly giving answers people don't want to hear, as "brave." Have our politics become THAT BAD that it's such a big deal to talk with people we (often) disagree with?

The fawning of the press, and the right-leaning letters to the editor regarding Republican Senator Dean Heller's recent appearance at the same breakfast reminded me of the Monty Python bit about "Brave Sir Robin" who had his merry band of minstrels (okay, Merry Men, I know the bit) touting how "brave, brave, brave" Sir Robin was as he ran away from the three-headed giant:



Instead of parroting how "brave" Paul or any candidate appearing in front of a crowd of voters is, why not merely recognize that it's exactly what candidates for office should be doing. We should be more shocked that this is now seen as a novelty in American Democracy 2012.

"YES WE CAN" Still Rings True, Four Years Later

Four years ago, I rushed home from BART to watch returns from New Hampshire. Upon getting in my car the race had been called for Hillary. KGO 810 was playing Obama's concession speech.

I remember sitting in the parking lot, the car turned off, and hanging on every word. I didn't dare get out and try to run up the three flights of stairs. Without the visuals, only the audio, I focused in to what he was saying that much more, and thinking this was the most inspiring speech I'd ever heard. It was ironic that something like this came out of an election loss. It would later be used for the will.i.am "Yes we can" video. That very weekend, I'd be traveling by myself up to Reno to canvass for him leading up to the January 19th Nevada caucuses.



The phrase "Yes We Can" has stuck with me ever since that night, because the problems we face are, largely, problems of our choices, not absolute necessity. We often just lack the will to change the status quo or cough up the means needed for the solution. I love this speech because we can do these things, together, should we choose. Only after can we say "yes we did" (which was a popular Inauguration Weekend phrase I loathed until Congress passed the Affordable Care Act more than two years later) on any level. This call from Obama should inspire our ongoing, lifelong work, not our election or day-to-day media cycles.

Back home I have a version of Shephard Fairey's HOPE poster, with the words of this speech making up the image. It's one of my most prized possessions, and something I hope to look on often to continue to inspire my life's work.

Secretary-Professor Reich nails it again

Mr. Jack Box, Job Slaughterer

She's already assistant manager

While on a long drive a while back, I stopped in to grab some caffeine at an off-the-interstate Jack in the Box. While I only bought a soda, I noticed something a little disturbing. It was a machine in the lobby that looked like an ATM, but apparently had something to do with placing an order.

I didn’t give it much thought until reading a book about automation. Given my interest in the Jetsons economy, I decided it was important to investigate further.

Apparently, these have been around at some JitB’s for years. Starting in San Diego, they just now seem to be taking off. There is much speculation that the economic downturn has made these kiosks a worthy investment as businesses seek to cut labor costs.

Yelp.com told me that there was one at the store on Maryland Parkway, near UNLV. Unfortunately, their kiosk was broken. Which really sucked because I skipped lunch that day.

Two days later, I was passing by the store at Torrey Pines & Charleston, and saw one of these machines near the counter. I pulled into the parking lot, grabbed my camera, and decided that dinner was going to be a little different tonight.

When a human says this? Creepy.
When a robot says this? Adorable.

The machine was quite inviting. In fact, it went out of its way to remove any doubt.

And so the adventure began. I progressed through a series of screens, with numerous options. Given that I’m a slightly picky eater, I loved that I could easily take things off the pre-set recipe without having to make up an allergy to fend off order-taker judgment.

After cycling through my order, including options for upgrade (i.e. more calories at a discount!), I was ready to pay. Having no “Jack Bucks” I chose to use cash. Soon after my order was placed-I was lucky 909-I played the exciting “waiting game.”

Where's the "hell yeah!" button?

The people in the back did their work, while the guy behind me took to the screen, while the front counter remained unoccupied. Within a few minutes, I was handed my food and I was ready to go.

Before I walked out I chose to inspect the product, something fellow picky eaters will understand must happen before you leave, lest they’ve soiled a good meal with unwanted ingredients. Jack-in-the-Box is notorious for selling the two tacos for 99 cents, yet forgetting to add them to the bag, so it never hurts to check the order anyway.

Despite having pressed “no” to the Add Cheese screen, there was cheese on my sandwich. Not the end of the world, as I was just trying to avoid those calories. So I left and pondered what had just went down.

Some dismiss the impact that ATM’s, automatic check-out stands at the supermarket, and other machines have had on our economy. In many cases, technology has enhanced our ability to do things and increased our quality of life. When President Obama made a remark about ATMs, those forces questioned his judgment. Rather, they used the opportunity to continue their mission to discredit the man.

On a recent Fareed Zakaria special about jobs, a commentator explained the difference:

            When you use technology for innovation, you create jobs…In the last decade, [the

            move to technology] was more “efficiency-driven,” not so much by innovation.

Less order-takers means smaller payroll, less shifts to be covered when someone calls in sick, less time taken to replace employees who leave or are fired, and higher profits. Scaling up the machine technology creates short-term jobs for machine makers-assuming they’re not themselves made by robots-and a handful of maintenance guys to keep them up to date, or repaired when somebody spills their milkshake on it. Can an order app be far away?

Human error=diet plan thwarted!

Overall, I have to believe that the trend towards automation is quickly eliminating low-wage, entry-level and part-time jobs. All those jobs creating and maintaining the Orderbots require higher levels of skill and education. How many Orderbot repairmen would you need, after all, if these things work well, even with all the restaurants in town?

"Job-creator" no longer?

The most frightening part-the one that sent a chill up my spine-was the cheese making it onto my sandwich. That was a HUMAN error.

Which led me to wonder-how long until Mr. Box-who sought the Presidency in 1996-replaces all those food preparers in the back with Burgerbots & Frybots?

The Jetsons Economy

(This was originally written November 9, 2010)
(Cross-posted at NV-CA Politics)

Quick quiz, hotshot: How many hours a week did George Jetson, patriarch of a typical middle-class family in the year 2062, actually work at Spacely Sprockets?

Nine. Just nine hours a week. Yet he had a home, a car, a maid, was raising two kids, and a wife who worked as a homemaker. An old-fashioned one-income family that thrived off of the salary earned through just nine hours of work a week.

Yes, that was a 1960’s-era utopian view of the future. But it raises an important question: As we seek some magic wand to brush over the economy and create jobs, what if there simply aren’t forty hours a week per person to be worked anymore? Is the combination of technology and a rise in worker productivity slowly closing the door on work that can be paid for? If so, how do we change and sustain our quality of life?

Author Jeremy Rifkin wrote about this phenomenon in “The End of Work” back in 1995. Rifkin pointed out that Industrial Revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries reduced the eighty-hour work week to sixty, and sixty down to forty, respectively. Fifteen years after that book was published, we’re in an economy where we’re encouraged to “go online,” get that easy-to-use iPhone app and do things with a few gadgets that used to create lots of work for people to do.

As I sit at McCarran Airport in Vegas writing this, I think back to a conversation I had over lunch with a Monte Carlo bartender. He noted that the moment the big casinos moved from the traditional clang-clang-clang slot machines to ones that printed receipts for your winnings (a trend that is prevalent in Nevada casinos now), hundreds of cashiers and change-makers lost their jobs as the receipts made their jobs irrelevant. Perhaps it was a long time coming, but the industry cut down on costs and raised profit margins by automating this work to machines.

Not only is this trend slowly working its way in-it’s actively being encouraged. Recently, I called Comcast to get my bill adjusted. I was encouraged to pay online or over the phone. But if I wanted to do the latter, I was subject to a $5.99 fee for the privilege of a live person. Customers are being handed an incentive to send those jobs out the door! Live employees still blessed with those jobs are often now filling time in-between those calls taking calls for other companies who did the same thing. Or are only working part-time to begin with.

Michael Bernick, a former California Employment Development Department Director, took to the Fox & Hounds blog a few weeks ago to assure everyone that such hysteria accompanied previous economic downturns, yet we always bounced back.

Can we afford to be so sure? Certainly, the current downturn is unlike any other we’ve experienced. Neither period Bernick mentions had game-changers like the internet revolutionizing the nature of business. Plenty of workers in the private and public sectors are experiencing furloughs right now and taking pay cuts. For those employees, if the companies prove they can get by without the extra work, the 32-hour work week (with diminished pay) might be permanent.

Assuming this is another Industrial Revolution, finding a new model for assuring a suitable quality of life-including a decent paycheck, a right to health care, and a retirement-with a shorter work week must be developed.

While Americans are loath to adopt the structure of other places, many already operate under such conditions. We’re told some employers aren’t hiring, they say, because of the marginal cost of bringing on more employees. If we’re going to need them to spread out their available hours among more workers to lower unemployment and dependence on government assistance, do we finally have a civil discussion of the government taking on the costs of health care and retirement (by expanding Medicare to all and making Social Security the de-facto retirement plan), as competing nations have done? Or will business reflexively reject attempts to relieve them of those responsibilities like they have for decades?

This month, the Democratic Party lost control of the House of Representatives because the economy isn’t working the same anymore. Perhaps if they had stepped back, stopped fear-mongering against Republicans, and came out with a plan to re-organize society around keeping George and Jane employed while helping Mr. Spacely and Mr. Cogswell spread out the work amidst a reasonable safety net, voters might have reconsidered voting to take them out of office and projecting a vision for the Jetsons Economy.

Transportation vs. The Privilege

At the height of World War 2, President Roosevelt challenged the country to pass a Second Bill of Rights. Among these were the right to a job, the right to compete in a fair market, and the right to health care.

Had Congressional Democrats all agreed with FDR that health care was a right going into last year’s debate, I’m sure they would have finished the bill sooner and with a much stronger plan for assuring every American had a reasonable expectation that they could get help if they got sick. It would have forced opponents to defend a health care system that denied Americans help, and why money should be made in guaranteeing somebody’s rights. Instead we got a debate about death panels.

When we establish something is a right, like we have with free speech and gun ownership, we then only debate about how best to assure those rights exist. We often talk about the boundaries that are appropriate, if at all, on speech and possession of weapons, but you’ll rarely find people suggesting we completely deny either without merit.

In that light, I believe transportation as a right. As my old man told me, when you get trapped somewhere, that’s when you lose your freedom as an American. The right to get away-from your home, a job, the neighborhood-on any day or an emergency is essential to life, liberty, and happiness.

Once we’ve established that movement is a right, we can then debate how to ensure people can move around. Taxpayer funding for transportation projects and programs must then guarantee that as many people can move with the best flexibility as possible. Currently, we spend a lot of money building roads and infrastructure to allow cars easy movement throughout our communities.

There’s one problem with that: Driving is, and always will be, a privilege. You learn that when you get a driver’s license. We know that The Privilege can be taken away if you use it irresponsibly.

Yet we fund driving as if it’s a right. In the last major federal transportation bill, we gave road building $4 for ever $1 we gave to transit and other alternatives. If we’re focused on maximizing movement for the most people, we’d invest more in walking, bicycling, transit-all more cost-effective per capita in moving people-and building things closer to where we needed to go for services and goods.