an interim post

.

yeah, i know all three of you can't wait for my promised post-mortem of the dead-on-arrival california proposition 23--but while i'm putting it together, take a look at the following chart:

and now for the only statistic that really matters these days:  while california has been hemorrhaging jobs for the last 10 years, texas has been creating 'em literally by the hundreds of thousands.

as you ponder the above--and as preface to my prop 23 post--you might wanna ask yourself a couple questions:

(1) why is it that the most highly-taxed and/or unionized states are generally also the ones that have the highest unemployment and/or are the most broke?

      and more particularly to the topic at hand,

(2)  what's more important in the overall scheme of things:  further impoverishing an already-bankrupt state for the strictly symbolic cause of "saving the planet", or preserving what little industry and technology said state state still possesses in order to provide employment for its remaining productive citizens?

california, in its wisdom, just made its choice.  tell me, what do you think?

nice knowing you, california

.

remember how i was talking yesterday about how it really didn't much matter whether the red or blue team came out on top?  well, forget all that when it comes to state and local elections, because they still very much matter.  and few states faced more crucial choices than did california this election year.

the results are in, and how much more fucked are we today than we were yesterday? lemme count the ways:

1.  jerry brown

if you had told me a year ago that california--a state that has been bled dry by state-worker unions, their bloated salaries and pensions--would turn for salvation to the guy who

• not only foisted the state-worker unions on us in the first place, but
• whose campaign was almost totally financed by said state-worker unions,

i would have laughed in your face.  well, today i'm still laughing, but only because i have a sick sense of humor.

of course, jerry brown's re-ascendency wouldn't have been possible without the help of

2.  meg whitman

if you had told me a year ago that a bright, accomplished former CEO of one of california's most successful companies with an impeccable track record and a $150-million war chest would lose by 13 points to fuckin' jerry brown--again, i wouldn't have believed you.  but somehow meg managed the impossible.

how'd she pull it off?  she had a two-pronged strategy for failure:

• outspend and out-hardline her conservative primary opponent--and then once he was put away, do an about-face in the general and start pandering to the middle and left in an attempt to please everybody; and
• waffle, obfuscate and dodge every challenge and question that came her way

to the point that, by election day, nobody believed a word she said.  she deserved to go down, but trust me--the last laugh will be on us.

and speaking of laughs, the voters of california in their wisdom also went big for

3.  proposition 25

"prop 25 will ensure that the legislators don't get paid until they pass a budget!" the ads blared, over and over--and the people bought it.

what the ads didn't say was that prop 25 would ensure the speedy delivery of those budgets by reducing the pesky 2/3 vote needed to pass them to a simple majority, thus effectively giving the permanent democratic majority carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want without the necessity of a single republican vote.

so, one more vital check removed from the few checks and balances we had left.  seriously--can't wait to see next year's budget.

but as bad as the passage of 25 will be for california, it's nothing compared to what happened to

4.  proposition 23

the failure of which will have such profound and far-reaching implications for the state's future that it deserves its own post [i.e., i'm tired and will get to it tomorrow--but, seriously, it does].

one team two team red team blue team

.

as america breathlessly awaits the results of tomorrow's crucial election

will the red team take the house?  will the blue team hold the senate?

i just sit back, shake my head and take another swig of vodka.

it's sorta the same feeling i had back in august of 20002008 when i watched the redblue team jubilantly anoint its chosen one in philadelphiadenver and realized, "holy shit, this idiot's gonna be our next president."

and as america's deterioration continues under his watch, the current idiot is furiously traversing the country stumping for his team's candidates--when, if he asked me, i'd tell him what he should be doing is rooting for the red team's victory tomorrow, so that

when the shit really hits the fan over the next couple years, thanks to the combined incompetence, criminal malfeasance and neglect of both teams

he can conveniently blame the other team's obstruction of his policies for the coming catastrophe, thus assuring his team's re-ascendancy in 2012.

it's all so stupid, really. nobody in american politics ever thinks more than one move ahead--it's all about the next election.

right now, the red team's effectively doing everything it can to set itself up to be the fall-guy for the next leg down, and the blue team's doing everything it can to resist them.

they don't see it that way, of course; it's all about the moment.

tomorrow night the red team will exult in its victory, convinced that they've just saved the country--you know, just like the blue team did two years ago.

one of these days, the country's gonna wake up and realize that while we were squabbling over such red team-blue team distractions as abortion, gay marriage and the "war on terror," the bankers made off with all the money, and the chinese with all the oil.

*     *     *     *     *

look, folks, you can pull for whatever team you want--knock yourselves out.  i just wish more of you understood that the people who really pull the strings in america couldn't care less whether you wear a red shirt or a blue shirt

just so long as you keep the blinders on.

v again

.

outta the blue, he calls

if he hadn't, sooner or later i would have

and invites me downtown to see his new place, on the fifth floor of a grand old residence hotel on spring street that had once been home to the cream of hollywood's golden age.

he makes me knock twice

i knew he'd be nervous, just like i knew i wouldn't be

and before he even has time to show me around the apartment mary pickford had once called home--and outta the 7,000 or so songs from which i know his ipod has to choose--a song i had sent him comes up on shuffle.  as the banjo twang fills the room, he turns to me, wide-eyed, says, "i swear to god i didn't plan that."

i know, babe--and if the same damn song hadn't come up on shuffle tonight, i probably wouldn't be writing this

over dinner i warn him that being around me's not much fun these days.

he says, "was it ever?"

and just like that, we're back.

*     *     *     *     *

for those of you who don't understand this post, lemme just paraphrase tolstoy and say that, while most easy relationships are all alike, every complicated relationship is complicated in its own way, and leave it at that.


or you can just listen to the music.