It’s Happening! My Starbucks is Closing!

Actually, 3 of my Starbucks are closing. I never thought this would happen to me - ME!! Sure, 600 Starbucks stores are closing, but I felt a certain satisfaction knowing their world domination would be checked.

Don’t get me wrong, of many of the strong corporate cultures out there, I have felt Starbucks led in the ethics department. Subsidizing college tuition, health benefits, not supporting the war in Iraq (please do not confuse this with not supporting the troops; this idea was suffered by many of the peeps I met while suffering the unfortunate fate of living in Oklahama for a year and half).

While visiting London in 2000, however, I first understood the expansion intentions of Slutbucks (I LOVE this new nickname some religious yahoo gave the coffee shop because of their naked mermaid symbol. Apparently, the Christian genius thought her tail was actually her legs splayed. He’s now a poster-boy for the need for college education, if you get my drift). I had not seen a Starbucks in an international setting during my junior year abroad (Strasbourg, represent!) and I spotted the coffee behemoth on a street corner directly across from a lovely mom and pop café that had begun closing procedures. Sniff.

My body doesn’t like a lot of coffee. I haven’t figured out if it’s the acid levels or what, but I’ve always been able to drink Starbucks (especially their Breakfast Blend freshly ground) without too much trouble. So, I’ve developed quite an entrenched loyalty to Starbucks.

When I read that 600 Starbucks were closing, truthfully, I thought nothing of it. Really, we hardly ever actually go to Starbucks. It’s the psychological comfort of knowing my warm, caffeine injection was right around the corner awaiting a dog-on-the-leash, husband-at-my-side stroll.

No longer.

The only thing that could repair the damage to my American-consumer-convenience state of mind is if a walk-up tamale/taco/queso place opens in the stead of Starbucks. There’s already a dive-bar, liquor store, old-school burger joint, donut/jalapeno-pig-in-a-blanket shop, and Walgreens within walking distance of my home. If I can’t have my coffee, give me my tamales. Baby jesus, can you hear me? I swear I won’t play BINGO for a whole month if you let me have my tamales. And when I have children, I won’t give them sleeping pills and just spend the whole day at the BINGO parlor. Probably. Maybe.

Have a great weekend, everybody! And if you can get Sessions beer in your neck of the woods, buy it. Cause it’s some gorgeous stuff served from a stubby, brewed by Full Sail out of Hood River, Oregon.

You can click on this link on The Huffpo if you want to see if a Starbucks near you is closing.

Freaky Friday: John Edwards & Karl Rove to Debate

Did anyone catch this last Friday? The Buffalo News has learned that the University of Buffalo intends to include in its Distinguished Speaker Series a debate between John Edwards and Karl Rove on September 26. John Edwards and Karl Rove. Naturally, my mind immediately searches for the nearest comparison to such an unpredictable and unlikely competition of the minds (I use that term loosely).

The fastest duo to surface is, of course, Dopey vs. Beelzebub. But that’s too easy. I’m looking for something more nuanced. More apropos. Barbie vs. Cobra Commander? No…. Nemo vs. Ursula? No…. Luke Sykwalker vs. Jabba the Hutt? No! Not even close. John Edwards has no Force.

Gumby vs. Squealer from Animal Farm. That’s it.

Yes, I remember that John Edwards is a former trial attorney, but the images of him getting smoked by Dick Cheney in 2004 are seared into my brain. And while Karl Rove may have the morality of a dung beetle, his ability to misrepresent facts with a straight face is supernatural and would require Edwards to acquire an encyclopedic knowledge of politically-related statistics and their sources to properly refute Rove’s machinations. My not-so-amateur prediction is that John ain’t got the stuff. And I’m being kind.

If the debate is televised, I will certainly perform the masochistic duty of viewing the event - with a fist firmly planted between my teeth. Naturally, I try to avoid having Rove’s visage offend my home from the television and relegate my involvement with him by reading his erroneous comments online. Blech.

In the meantime, I’m going to entertain myself with paint.net and make fun graphics with hopeful themes.

john edwards crushes rove's head

I made Rove’s eyes red, but they may be too small to tell.

And did you see the headline on The Huffington Post this morning that Rep. Henry Waxman is considering legislation that would prevent a White House employee from being paid by taxpayer money to work on political affairs? He might wait until Obama is elected to launch this legislative attempt.

I’m encouraged by the possibility that Obama will roll back a number of powers Bush and Cheney concentrated at the executive level. McCain, of course, would not. Checks and balances are so silly, aren’t they?!

And one last tidbit of morning news - let’s give Howard Wolfson a big round of applause and wish him good luck as he joins Fox News. In a way I get it - he wants to bring a democratic voice to the network. But I also think he’s selling his soul to do it. Although, he seemed comfortable bending the truth when he worked for Hillary, so maybe he’ll fit right in.

Tim Russert’s Replacement

The news of Tim Russert’s death hit this household pretty hard as he was a regular fixture on the television. His sudden heart attack probably wouldn’t be so painful for the rest of us had it not struck in the middle of this - the most important political campaign season in over half a century. We kept asking each other who could possibly replace him at the Meet the Press? Who could bring the unflinching - yet, not unfriendly - inquisition, the stringent lack of bias, the leave-no-stone-unturned preparation and the unparalleled passion? The easy answer: no one.

Still, the show must go on and Tim would likely want it that way.

While his wake has not yet begun, I’m sure the authorities at NBC are scrambling to find a suitable replacement that will honor the memory of Tim Russert while asserting the individual talents the next host. I offer my opinions as an outsider and really have the utmost curiosity as to the strategies employed by those who will choose Tim’s successor.

I would bet that they are only looking inside the NBC family, perhaps one of Tim’s protégés, for a good candidate. So, I’ll evaluate those I think are first in line - and, obviously, I could be way off.

Chris Matthews

I seriously doubt Chris is really in contention. First of all, he’s too old. The new moderator of Meet the Press needs to be more youthful - around 40, I’d say - and ready to carry the mantle for a decade or more. Furthermore, Chris is really making his mark on his own show, Hardball, that was designed for him and suits him so well. I rarely miss it. Plus, Chris can be inclined to put that old foot in his mouth, which I generally appreciate being prone to the disease myself, but it just doesn’t seem Meet the Press style.

David Gregory

David Gregory, perhaps the next in line for such a promotion, is another ballsy, no-holds-barred questioner whether he was insisting on an answer from the president or one of his subordinates. He is tenacious and another one of those seemingly-encyclopedic minds regarding the machine that is Washington. His problem: he doesn’t have the X factor (I hate that saying). While you can sense his fever for politics, there is nothing that truly draws the viewer to him. Perhaps he needs more camera time as a moderator on Race for the White House to hit his stride.

Norah O’Donnell

Norah would be one of my top picks. She’s smart, sassy, from Texas and would be the first woman host of Meet the Press. She’s either just had her third kid in a year or is about to have it, which would likely be a major factor in her decision should she be offered the position. She’s only 34 and could take a few years to really reach the same level of respect Tim had with those whom he sparred. I think she’d be a wonderful replacement, though. She is, however, and Irish Catholic - which wouldn’t do well in the area of ethnic diversity for the show, but - in my expert opinion - gender diversity makes up for it.

Chuck Todd

Chuck would the shot in the dark - completely inexperienced in both on-air hosting duties and hardcore questioning of politicos. I think he would be great, however. Chuck has the gleam in the eye that was so magnetic in Tim. He understands the numbers and the culture and has the work ethic of an appropriate successor. Already, he’s a fast-rising star with his own cultish fan base of newsies. His responses are measured and well thought out. He stays calm and collected and humble whenever the camera light finds him. He’s a relative unknown, but with a few years’ marination in the interviewer’s seat, he’d be awesome.

I’m leaving out David Shuster, Kelly O’Donnell - even Rachel Maddow would be a good candidate if she didn’t wear her bias (or, as I like to think, common sense) on her sleeve (I really dig her commentary and analysis, though). The new host, I think, should be a hardworking youngblood. Tim was a little over 40 when he took the reigns and a replacement of that age would be given time to mature without too much viewer judgment.

Hopefully, they’ll rotate hosts in the next weeks using members of the NBC family, as well as outsiders and political insiders. That will provide time for the best decision to be made while keeping viewer interest to see how each guest host performs. The prerequisite should only be their preparation, passion and camera readiness.

I’ll be watching and supportive regardless of who they pick to rebuild the legacy. No one can replace Tim, but at least his memory can be honored by the choice of an excellent successor.

UPDATE: L.A. Times reporting Brian Williams to host Meet the Press this weekend. I’ll be watching.

How Obama Can Beat McCain I: Use McCain’s Words Against Him

I have never been involved in a political campaign other than my successful run for National Junior Honor Society President and my unsuccessful shot at National Honor Society President.

Inside the Campaign?

I imagine it cannot be far from living in the eye of a hurricane 24/7, the unpredictability of embarrassing revelations or gaffes, the threat of darkening skies always looming off the horizon and the ethereal moments of clarified victory when poll numbers are favorable. The tantalizing possibilities behind voter psychology, the sea of wadded paper full of unrealized brainstorm sketches, unending analysis of electoral demographics, passionate debates, cultish ideology, coffee and Redbull, pizza and deli sandwiches, and the numbers - always the numbers. I saw War Room. I know what’s up.

Having a government degree, I’m sure I romanticize the goings on in a campaign headquarters and have considered applying my efforts to local organizations. Being in Texas, however, I’ve never quite found that candidate I could wholly support and the thought of working at a phone bank does not hit me in the sweet spot. Furthermore, I’m probably one of the least diplomatic people I know and would have a hard time maintaining that vaseline-required smile when speaking with dissenters.

So, I maintain my safe, self-indulged distance while I write commentary and opinion and shout at the television when necessary - which is a lot under the current circumstances. And I’m convinced, that an outsider’s opinion (including other outsiders, not just moi) could be a valuable asset were campaign strategists inclined to listen. The whole forest for the trees argument is applicable.

2004

I wanted to rip somebody’s arm off in 2004 when nary a Democratic ad used footage of Bush’s 2000 campaign promises - the majority of which the man reneged on, becoming the disastrous tragedy we now have before us. Need I remind anyone of the 1992 stroke of genius when Democratic strategists replayed “No New Taxes” over and over again? If speech writers comb through the archeology of presidential oratory for inspiration, why didn’t the 2004 strategists use the triumphant advertising maneuvers of yesteryear? I still believe W. could have been a one-termer had his broken campaign promises been used against him.

McCain

Now Obama must turn his focus to McCain. This should be an easy one, though no one on the inside can take anything for granted, lest they find themselves confetti-free November 5. I hate negative advertising, which normally doesn’t work on educated voters, so McCain is the gift that keeps on giving because the man has already produced a library of gaffes this primary season and there’s no end in sight. Now, I’m not sure where the boundaries are, but I think ads that simply use the candidate’s words (albeit, against him) are not necessarily negative enough to turn off voters.

Here’s a recount of a few verbal missteps of McCain:

• He asserted May 29 that American troop levels in Iraq had been reduced to pre-surge levels.
• Last month, he insisted to Joe Klein that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran.
• McCain claimed last year there were parts of neighborhoods in Baghdad where “you and I” could go for a walk - even though his walk was guarded by 100 soldiers, 3 Blackhawks and 2 Apache gunships.
• Humorously, on June 2, McCain said he will win in January, kinda forgetting the election and, thus, potential victory, occurs in November. The 5th, to be exact.
• He’s forever mistaking Sunni/Shiite and Iran/Al Qaeda.

His gaffes, while funny and likely effective should they be played on a loop closer to the election, do not compare in seriousness to his policy flip-flops, which are also quite numerous:

• Ethanol
• Tax Cuts
• Abortion
• Talking w/ Hamas
• Religious Right
• Immigration
• Torture
• English as the Official Language
• U.S. troops in Iraq 100 years
• Warrantless Wiretapping
• Social Security
• Foreclosure Crisis
• Ethics Reform

Now, I’m not good at math, but I think - I think that’s more flip-flops than I can count on two hands. McCain makes Romney look like a party-line loyalist.

It’s quite possible that Obama’s camp is allowing the blogging, online and YouTube universe to attack McCain for him and biding time until polls dictate the right moment to release the marketing big guns. Needless to say, McCain’s own words can easily cost him the election and should be used against him relentlessly.

McCain’s folks are already taking note of the hard times these flip-flops will bring. I haven’t heard his campaign use the term “Straight Talk Express” in a while, but that’s most likely because it’s being used against him:

• Double Talk Express
• McCain Straight Talk Express Loses Some Wheels
• Straight Talk Express Derailed?
• Straight Talk Express Stalls
• Not-So Straight Talk Express
• Straight Talk Express Takes Scenic Route to the Truth (Ann Coulter, by the way)
• Less-Than-Straight Talk Express
• “McCain’s ‘Green Straight Talk Express’ is actually the ‘Black Energy Twisted Action Delay Machine’” (personal fave)
• Straight Talk Express Veers into Mud
• McCain’s Straight Talk Express Takes Every Fork In The Road?
• No Free Rides on the Straight Talk Express
• Straight Talk Express blows a tire in Baton Rouge
• McCain’s Straight Talk Express Hits the Gravy Train
• Detours on the ‘Straight Talk Express’

Wow. The longer this blog goes on, the more I think, Obama - you sit this one out, we’ll take care of McCain.

I’m not saying this campaign is in the bag. Not at all. Crazy things happen in an election cycle and Obama has to be vigilant (ahem, guns-and-religion) while presenting a sincere and honest resume to the American people.

Yes, the Willie Horton ads are coming. In fact, the strategist behind the Swift Boat ads, Chris Lacivita, has already indicated he’s out for blood, saying, “We will attack Obama viciously on all fair issues, whether they are national security, whether they are taxes or the economy.”

But the Obama camp has to keep in mind: 1. The Rush Limbaugh zombies and the evangelical vote McCain is losing could cancel out any underlying racists and the bitter Hillary voters Obama could lose, 2. Democrats turned out in droves during the primaries to vote and will do so even more in the general, 3. The incumbent party has not won in recent history when the economy is in a recession, 4. Bush is an anathema across the country and McCain differs from him by about .0045 degrees.

When countering McCain, Obama should stick to the issues. Despite McCain’s questionable personal history (there’s a lot of meat there), do not launch personal attacks. Do not issue advertisements with some deep-throated, long-time smoker narrator hurling accusations at McCain and making me want to take a two-hour shower after each viewing. His camp ran an ad here in Texas with a guitar riff that was just amazing. I certainly didn’t mind seeing it over and over and over would suggest replaying it during the general. I can’t find it on Youtube, though, which really bites.

If Obama can stay positive, stay on message and build his credibility with voters by delivering specific solutions (specific being the operative word here), McCain’s words alone will do him in and the Obama camp should allow them to do so. Never has one candidate in history had so much video of his many 180’s, reneges, retreats, reversals and turnabouts. It’s a campaign goldmine.

Democrats, there should really be no excuse for a loss this year. Unless a freak, unpredictable political meteorite of untold proportions manages to sabotage this election, Obama should take this thing home handily. If it even looks questionable or like it’s slipping away, an unleashing of McCain flip-flop videos in torrential volumes will at least encourage Republicans to stay home rather than vote for a dishonorable liar. That’s right. I said it.

There’s a lot at stake here. This is the most significant election in modern history and it is of the utmost import that McCain not win. Luckily, he’s been helping us make the case against him - which I, at least, will continue to do. I will be on the lookout for the next gaffe, the next flip-flop and continue to update this post each time I spot one.

It’s our time people. With the primaries over, it’s time to get focused and get smart and get organized. We have to take our hijacked government back. This is still a representative democracy and it’s time to represent!!

UPDATE:

Latest Flip-flop: Offshore Oil Drilling

Recommendation: Documentary “Bush’s Brain”

Not too long ago, I decided to rent the documentary “Bush’s Brain” - a documentary version of the book taking look at the political history of Karl Rove. Being from Texas, I was curious about his involvement with the Bushes before the fatal 2000 election. I suppose I could search for a more objective book on the subject, but I just don’t think I could stomach the time spent absorbing information on this slimy Repub dough-boy.

This documentary was short and sweet, if a little one-sided. They did have a couple interviewees who weakly offered a bit of defense of Karl, but overall, camera-time was given with those who might harbor grudges. One as to ask themselves, however, if they could NOT hold a grudge after interacting with Karl Rove. The morally defunct strategist gives a new meaning to the word “ruthless”. Even if I were Republican, I’d be wary of hitching my star to his wagon. Because when Karma pulls his card, it’s going to be ugly. We’re talking apocalyptic universal nastiness heading his way - maybe not in this life, but if he’s reborn a dung beetle, let’s just say I wouldn’t be surprised.

Overall, I think Karl Rove, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh were probably the pimply, picked-on loners in their youth who had little friends better than their right hand. Instead of forming the trench-coat mafia and taking their anger out on innocent peer bystanders, they’ve fed their anger, festered and finally decided to utilize their entire adulthoods to attack reason and common sense on the political playing field, amassing their power by preying on the mindless masses who establish the right-wing Republican and Christian Conservative groups. They’re the strangers with candy to these church-goers who are continually, falsely convinced their lifestyles and livelihoods alike are at risk if they don’t fall in line and fill out those straight-ticket ballots. The gays will ruin marriage worse than Britney Spears or Liz Taylor! The guvnmint will force yer chiren to have unmarried relations! Them raggedy mooslims will steal yer pictures of jeezus off the walls of yer livin rooms! Praise Bush!

Party Time!!!

Ban on sale of sex toys in Texas overturned

Although, I’ve bought a number of these products in TX already, so go figure…

Radio Crazies

This commentary by Michelle Malkin, “In Defense of Conservative Talk Radio” rebukes the conservatives who are opposed talk radio’s lambasting of McCain. Now, to be fair, I do not listen to conservative talk radio. I prefer not to sullied by the megalomaniacal vitriol spewed by these blowhards who probably have a host of “daddy issues” and are getting back at the rest of us for not being voted homecoming queen.

The article mentions that conservative talk radio has succeeded where liberal attempts at the same venue have “bombed.” And this is true. Talkers Magazine announced Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage are the three most important radio hosts in the country, followed by a litany of right-wing nutters who have managed to ride the coattails of legitimate political discourse into a fringe level of marketable success. Though, according to Hate Hurts America, many advertisers on Michael Savage’s program have recently pulled the plug on their support of his show. Yay for common sense.

The question is, why do liberal shows fail in this arena? Even I, a political junkie, never listen to Air America. It’s a mystery to me why I never took to the radio shows - I have youthful memories of my uncles gathered in the living room after meals to listen to Rush’s fat-cheeked demagoguery. That’s enough to put any young person off talk radio for the rest of their days. Or take prescription drugs just to get through it - hell, even he had to.

The very foundation of these talk shows, however, is a sheer certainty on the part of the hosts that they are right and there is no room for compromise, growth or learning. Like Goober Bush, they will follow their sheer certainty off a cliff it means never having to say, “Oh, whoops! You’re right.” The Republican death squads during the Clinton years, as well as the Gingrich-then-Delay Congresses, and the subsequent election of Bush gave these radio hosts the feeling of collusion with powerful political leaders and as they feel their phantom king-maker status waning, they are cannibalizing their own Republican Party as the pendulum swings away from their ugly ideals.

And it is certainty I dislike. Whether from a liberal or conservative, christian or atheist, capitalist or communist, certainty is a mighty dangerous location. When you cease to have doubts of your own ideals and refuse to listen to those who might propose disagreement, your mind has petrified and you are no longer useful. When your pride is more important than your learning, you should excuse yourself from the arena and retire as a legend in your own mind. When you will use whatever words you can find, regardless of their truth or malicious intent, to prove your paradigm, you become a cancer to healthy democratic development.

I believe conservative talk radio appeals to the sheepish culture of christians that must be told what to think and where to find morality and fear that which is different. Rush and Savage and Laura soothe a need for those people to have their brainwashed ideals reiterated time and time again because those ideals go against the very basic nature of humanity and are hard to retain in the face of progress and information proliferation. Of course these hosts can influence a voting bloc - a bloc that relies on group think for their own determinations and would rather belong than do right. This is the same bloc that would give and give and give to a church that controls and a pastor that cheats. This bloc, however, is deteriorating.

We have a new internet generation emerging that can easily access facts, research and education and are increasingly immune to the close-minded spewage of these hosts that continually fail to apply critical analysis to their thinking and have long-ago forgotten the word “discovery”. We are not afraid of discussion and disagreement and saying the unpopular. Be assured, as the baby-boom generation becomes dust in the wind, a new world of information gathering is emerging that shines a light on all the facts and prevents the hatred of such radio hosts from festering and fermenting.