Rhode Islander Eaten Alive on "Shark Tank"

BedJet display (Mark Aramli on the Left (from BedJet.com)

Of the few TV shows I still take time to watch, ABC’s “Shark Tank” is the most informative and grueling. In the weekly high stakes drama, real people put themselves and their best ideas on the line, hoping to land a lucrative deal with one more successful businessmen. Optimistic (and naïve), these inventors and entrepreneurs hope to catch a shark’s interest, or at least avoid a self-imposed blood bath of humiliation. Kevin O’Leary, the meanest, most rapacious shark of the bunch, delights in tearing to shreds the most uninformed or unimpressive of potential entrepreneurs. His fellow sharks range from the sympathetic Robert Herjavec and Lori Greiner to the blunt and pragmatic Mark Cuban.

 

The latest episode showcased Newport, Rhode Island resident Mark Aramli, who presented his inside heating-cooling system for beds, the “BedJet.

 

From the outset, O’Leary blasted the former NASA engineer’s product because of its high cost. The other sharks climbed into a mattress on stage to experience the coolness of the comfort provided by the BedJet. The unusual, initial rapport gave way to probing questions, hazy answers, and a steady stream of rejection. Fellow shark Mark Cuban asked for specifics on the product’s design in order to understand why his invention was different from other climate-change apparatuses for bedspreads. Resorting to the same pitch at the beginning of his presentation, Amarli finally explained that the hardware provided rapid climate control/climate change without danger.

 

Despite a record of large sales order from a major outfitter in Australia, most of the sharks were not biting. Except for Greiner, who asked questions, repeated herself while Amarli refused to listen. She even began shouting, “Hello!” to get the bed-engineer’s attention, then shouted: “I’m out!”

Trying to reel in a Big Fish who got away, Aramli apologized, then asked her to ask her question. She refused flat out: “No!”

Another Shark, Barbara Corcoran, asked Greiner why she would not reconsider listening to the man.

 

Her answer commanded a great deal of respect: “If you are not willing to listen to me, then I know that I do not want to work with you.” The normally accommodating Herjavec agreed: “She’s bringing up a good point.” Corcoran, who frequently swims between mean and nice among the other sharks, rejected the product because it would not fit under her bed. O’Leary repeated that Aramli’s product would sit on shelves and go nowhere. Worse yet, janitors would resort to using the BedJet as a carpet cleaner. Engineer Aramli left, with his head high, vowing to profit from his product and prove the Sharks wrong.

 

Personal Note: Greiner’s self-respect and emphatic integrity were impressive. Entrepreneurs never get a second chance for that first impression, and Aramli’s meandering lost him a potential investor. I myself have experienced the same arrogant neglect from a potential media entrepreneur. In one of my best decisions, I broke off with one Rhode Island media company, and joined another, 990WBOB.

 

 

Hopefully, all will work out for Aramli. Things certainly have gotten better for me.

Herald Publications Take on Torrance City Council Meetings

The latest article in Herald Publications Torrance Tribune, published on January 29, 2015, recorded the dispute and final approval from the Torrance City Council meeting on January 27 about the Annual Triathlon hosted at Torrance Beach.

Herald Publications Logo

The private contractor which coordinated last year's race, Pacific Sports LLC, had concerns about paying a 15% gross receipts tax.  A number of residents complained and complimented the city for last year's triathlon. The city informed the residents complaining about the triathlon that they had sent a response mailer asking for questions, comments, or suggestions about the program, yet only 143 people wrote back. Some of the letters were provided in Council Agenda Supplemental Items.

The local paper neglected to report more serious issues about the current city council.

1. The relative inexperience of the members, and their frequent requests of information and directions on parliamentary procedure. Of the seven sitting  members, only two of them have served on the council for more than two years. How many of them are aware of the long-term consequences of their decisions? Are they reading the supplemental materials provided to them in a timely and thorough manner? Some audience members have lightly faulted the council member for asking uninformed questions about apparent issues.

1. The meeting lasted well into the night. Mayor Pat Furey informed me the next morning that he did not get home until 12 midnight. Why are the meetings taking so long? Why are city council agendas so long? One local leaders shared her concern that the city council was extending the meetings in order to discourage residents from complaining about consent items, raising concerns, or asking deep, probing questions about the voting members' views, motives, and decisions on key items. Mayor Furey informed me that he would speak to the City Clerk and her staff to make sure that agenda items are spread out so that the city council meetings do not last as long.

2. The City Council approved time and resources for to investigate the feasibility of Community Choice Aggregation, even though the proposal met with deep resistance from two members in the audience (myself and Mark Stephenson). This program is a vast expansion of government power into energy markets, surrounded by controversy even among green, clean energy enthusiasts. While other cities have moved ahead to investigate the feasibility of forming Joint Powers Agreements with surrounding cities, and providing alternative energy sources through wind and solar, there is nothing definitive which suggests that such a program would bring down energy costs of local residents, nor  provide better energy with a smaller carbon footprint. Much of the prior research has been speculative at best. The argument that government regional programs provide a choice to the current private provider is also unfounded.

These decisions need to be recorded, reported, and reviewed. The Environmental Movement to reduce carbon emissions, combat global warming, and segue from oil and natural gas is fraught with questions about its deeper purpose and core agenda. How much power will cities have to relinquish for these Community Aggregate programs? Why is the city spending time, money, and human resources instead of looking over "Back to Basics" issues, like repairing the roads and maintaining a high level of peace and security?

And why is Herald Publications not reporting on these crucial decisions by the Torrance City Council?

New Reflections on SCROC

Because of Dr. St. Jean's information on SoCal ROC, a couple of questions were finally answered, but more questions came up which deserve an answer.

There are currently 1,552 students enrolled at the center. Shouldn't there be more? What steps can the district take to ensure that more students in JPA districts are informed about the center?

The superintendent is not getting paid more than other local district superintendents, yet the position gets a total of $210,000 for a campus population half of any Torrance-area high school. Then again, superintendents for districts as small as eighty students get similar salaries, likely due to the large cadre of administrative duties and demands on the official. There is nothing wrong with paying leadership a competitive salary. Otherwise, no qualified candidates would seek the position.

The solution to streamlining costs at the facility should not rest on how many staff members to layoff, or how many administrators to peel away, but on increasing enrollment.

I understand SCROC Trustee Barbara Luckey's description on the staff and administrator's investment in the site. I do believe that their work is commendable, from what I have read and researched so far.

What kind of courses is the center offering, and should they be offering more sections of the same course, or different courses entirely? One set of criteria is provided on the SoCal ROC website:

Courses are offered based on the following criteria:

1. industry standards and identified career area shortages
2. that meet high school graduation requirements
3. that meet UC/CSU college entrance requirements
4. that are part of a sequential pathway

These are worthy standards, and they should be applied to the current course offerings, and then compare

How does SCROC intend to remain solvent in the years to come? Even if the SCROC Board of Trustees operates on the most generous assumptions of the Governor's plan, and the state legislature approves the spending, what do the site leaders intend to do three years later?

Currently, Governor Brown has offered $250 million of grant money, matching dollar for dollar spending from the participating districts. The representatives for these districts are not keen on promising to pay in a three year commitment without clear numbers and a long-term plan for what to do afterwards.

As before, what steps will the Board of Trustees take to reach out to Wiseburn UNIFIED School District? I am certain that the school board in West Hawthorne wants to invest in technology and career training.

I have spoken with different members of the SCROC Board of Trustees as well as local school board members, and they are invested in keeping the Center open. The funding model for the short-term and the long-term needs to be fleshed out as soon as possible, and the Center's leadership needs to investigate other means of reaching out to prospective students throughout the South Bay to enroll.

Democrats: Partying (or Pretending) Like 1992

The Democratic Party is longing for the past. They want a "Bubba" Bill Clinton clone back in the White House, since he was the last popular Democrat who served as President, in spite his weakened foreign policy and weakening moral character.

Hillary Clinton in 1992

The Adolescent Clinton Presidency appeals to that party, because the United States witnessed unprecedented growth and enjoyed a budget surplus for the first time in decades. All of this came about because of a stauchly Republican Congress, the first in four decades, which campaigned on the promise to balance the budget and force the government to live within its means. Clinton was a better media personality, plus the fact that the press has a penchant for liberals, especially when they (reluctantly) govern.

The adults in the room, the House and the US Senate, expected the President to behave, and demanded that the country do the same. Even though the 1990s was the Age of Seinfeld, with a lot of people getting huffy about nothing, the seeds of domestic terrorism

Democrats want the general popularity of Bill Clinton, and so does the media.

They are hooked on a feeling, high on believing that another Clinton, wife Hillary, is just want the Democratic doctors order.

What does she bring to the White House, exactly?

A lackluster four-year term as Secretary of State, following a 49% almost win for the Democratic nomination in 2008. Before that? The junior senator from New York State, though originally from Chicago, Illinois, she had a list of domestic policy failures before that as the First Lady. What exactly enthralls Democrats about Hillary? That she is a woman, a sexist, retrograde appraisal.

Her last name, and the eight year relative calm of her Presidential predecessor, had nothing to do with First Lady Hillary, yet her Democratic supporters are clamoring for her nomination because she will be the First Lady President.

The Democratic Party is longing for the past, hoping to party like it's 1992, when the country was not yet disillusioned with eight years of unfettered, regressive principles. What Hillary Clinton tried to accomplish in 1994, Obama prevailed, which subsequently failed as he lost massive majorities in the House then the US Senate over the next four years. Despite his reelection in 2012, Obama neglected the many who did not vote, as he took in fewer votes and lost states compared to his 2008 victory.

The hyperpartisan, liberal cohorts holding the Democratic levers of power still hope that the grand vision of Big Government can work out, and Obama's eight years of economic and moral failures have not dissuaded them. They have persuaded the American People to consider a Republican President in 2016.

Once again, the Democrats are hoping for 1992 redux, with Hillary Clinton facing off against Jeb Bush, a more conservative yet still a big chip off the Big Government Block of his father George
Herbert Walker. Bush 41 won the gulf war, but the economic fallout, plus the broken promise of "No New Taxes" killed his reelection. Third Party candidate Ross Perot didn't help matters, either. If Hillary does win her party's nomination, and Jeb Bush represents the Republicans at the general election, Clinton will have a stronger hand.

Even if another Clinton wins the White House, the United States will not be partying like it's 1992. After eight years of unrepentant Obamanomics, and the broken state of America's health care, military, moral resolve, and infrastructure, this country will embrace a deeper malaise, beyond the lamentation of former President Jimmy Carter.

Rachel Maddow:
What about Claire McCaskill?

However, recent polling has show Son Jeb slumping in Iowa, while otherwise (or rather, formerly) unknown contenders like Scott Walker, Senator Rand Paul, and Governor Bobby Jindal are making their mark, and winning higher numbers. Hillary Fatigue is setting in. Chuck Todd is bored with First Lady Hillary. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow suggested that Missouri US Senator  Claire McCaskill would be a possible replacement if Hillary doesn't run. Leftist contenders like Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts are facing pressure from the Democratic base. "Anyone But Hillary" is gaining steam, just as "Anyone But Romney" would have defeated Obama in 2012.

Besides, there is no way for this country to go back to embracing the unfettered statism of the past. After six years of anemic economic growth, the national disaster of Obamacare, plus the President's abortive, incompetent foreign policy defined by doing stupid stuff. In 2014, 4his country wiped out any remaining vestiges of Democratic relevance in Washington D.C. In 2016, they will finish the job with a Republican President, and his name will not be Jeb.

For once, Republicans will party as they would have in 1992, had Bush won instead of Clinton, and a Clinton will have lost a nationwide race for the second time in eight years. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is becoming the coalition of Old Rich White People, and Defunct, Debunked Ideologies.

SCROC Info Updates

SCROC, Torrance CA

Dr. Laurie St. Jean, the newly appointed helped me a great deal in answering key questions about SCROC, including administration, enrollment, finances, and the Joint Powers Agreement.

1. A copy of the joint powers agreement for SCROC

 

She provided me the latest version of the JPA. I Noticed on the front cover that Centinela Valley Union High School District has been crossed out. This Daily Breeze article gives some indication as to why. The contents of the agreement

 

2. The number of students enrolled at SCROC and through the school's programs.

 

Dr. St. Jean informed me that 1,552 students enrolled at the facility in the Fall 2014 semester.

 

3. How any teachers/staff work at SCROC?

 

SoCal ROC  
Employee Count as of 1/22/15 
 
# of SoCal ROC instructors   54
# of staff other than instructos   26
# of managment   4
Total   84

 

4. The salary schedule for the teachers and staff at the school

 

Teachers salaries range from 3,327 to 6,634 a month, depending on education, tenure, and employment experience.

 

Classified staff, from career guidance counselors to payroll technicians, to custodians, make between 3,300 to 5,500 per month depending on the number of years of experience at the site.

 

5. The salary for the two administrators and two managers -- including yourself. 

 

For the certificated and classified administrators:

 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL CENTER  

EFFECTIVE DATE: JULY 1, 2014

Director Annual 104,464.50 to 119996.87 for 223 days

Programs/Student Support Services** from 8,705.37 to 9999.74

Director Annual 90703.24 to 104189.51 for 223 days
Fiscal Services and Technology** from 7558.60 to 8682.46

The administrators are eligible for different stipends and perks for the job, as well:

1.      $500 given annually for Masters Degree from an accredited college/university.
2.      $1,000 given annually for Doctorate Degree from an accredited college/university.
3.      Movement between columns is contingent upon the completion of 160 hours of professional development activities.  Prior approval by Superintendent for such activities is required. 
4.      Longevity stipends are given annually for the following:
 10 years - $250.00
 15 years - $500.00
 20 years - $750.00
 25 years - $1110.00
5.      Benefits package approved by the Board of Education is the same for all So Cal ROC/P employees.
6.      New management employees shall be placed on the salary schedule by the Superintendent depending upon experience, education, ability, special knowledge,
7.      All management personnel are on a positive work year.
*     Mileage stipend ($500.00 x 12 months)
**    Mileage stipend ($200.00 per 12 months)

Below is the salary information of the Superintendent:

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL CENTER
EFFECTIVE DATE:   JANUARY 1, 2015

Superintendent Salary (board approved on 2/20/2014)
Effective January 26, 2015

Position Superintendent (annual salary)

Base Salary 198,672.88
Masters Stipend 500.00
Doctoral Stipend 1500.00
Mileage 7200.00
Annuity 2500.00

Total 210,372.88


 

Seventh District Blues

Shortly after learning that Republican Mark Meuser had decided not to file for the State Senate District Seven Special Election, I had discovered that an RNC alternative from Pleasanton, Michaela Hertle, did file.

Michaela Hertle

So, one Republican would still contend against four other Democrats in that district.

I even received the following tweet from a Republican Party activist in the region:

 Nyna Armstrong ‏@NynaArmstrong Jan 24 @ArthurCSchaper Mark decided not to run so that we will only have one Republican in the race. a businesswoman from Alameda Cty. More soon!

Then I read this article earlier this week:

The only Republican in the East Bay's 7th State Senate District special election dropped out Monday and endorsed a Democrat, less than a week after the candidates' list became official.

 

Michaela Hertle, a cloud-computing executive from Pleasanton who has never run for office before, issued a statement saying she's throwing her support to centrist Democrat Steve Glazer, Orinda's mayor and Gov. Jerry Brown's former campaign advisor.

This result is beyond disappointing.

I had spoken with connected leaders in the Bay Area. They had informed me that Hertle filed papers because she felt that Meuser was not strong enough of a candidate. Now she drops out. ..

What is going on here?

I had contacted Meuser two more times after this sudden decision not to file. He refused to give me answers, beyond informing me that three other reporters in the Bay Area had been covering this sudden backroom political chess game.

Other contacts in the East Bay have shared that Republican Party operatives wanted centrist, reform Democrat Stephen Glazer to run for the special election, so that Catharine Baker won't have to contend with him for her reelection in 2016. This understandable argument still does not justify pushing out any Republican for an open special election seat.

Even if the California GOP purportedly did not have a chance of winning Senate District Seven, Republicans could flex some muscle and show the state that they were not going to give up any opportunities without a fight. Democrats gave up on Senate Seats 21 and 37, which guarantee that the liberal Democrats in Sacramento will not have a supermajority.

Democrats are having a harder time than before holding onto the state legislature. If investigations pan out against them, the state senate may have to shuffle out to more legislators, Kevin De Leon and Carol Liu.

Still, I am deeply disappointed in the outcome. The East Bay Senate District had a demonstrable Republican presence in the southern section, which overlapped with Assemblywoman Baker's seat. With two Establishment Democrats beating each other up, and a reform Democrat trying to slip in between the two, Democratic machine politics would take a heavy hit in Northern California. All the Republican candidate would have to do is show up, stay quiet, and speak wisely.

Now, with Hertle's announcement not only not to run, but to endorse a Democrat. . .what are we left with?

Other stories have suggested that the heavily financed business communities, including the Chamber of Commerce, wanted Glazer, and had no intention of backing a Republican. Despite Meuser's claims of strong fundraising, other voices in East Bay politics indicated that he had no money, and that he could not expect to get anything from the State Senate GOP caucus, or from the state party. Other accounts point to an ongoing rift between Contra Costa and Alameda County Republican Committee members.



Stephen Glazer

Whatever one's read-out on the Seventh District Special Election, I am feeling the blues, because apart from a deeply uninformed and low voter turnout, another Democrat will step into this seat. Besides, there is no evidence, even if Glazer loses, that he will not run for Baker's seat next year. A lot of the political machinations from party leaders depends on these "what ifs" and "maybes", when in reality to fight the good fight is worth it in itself.

The California GOP already has a chance to regain its foothold in the Bay area. The SD-7 special election is another lost opportunity to capitalize on that new red footprint.

God, The Government, and Governor John Kasich

Governor John Kasich (R-OH)

In his latest turn on Fox News Sunday, Ohio Governor John Kasich spent a lot of time talking about God:

I'm a believer, as a conservative, that everybody has a God-given purpose.

Welcome words in a very secular period in this country's history, a gracious remark, yet pronounced in a forced fashion:

It is our job on a temporary basis to try to give them a chance to fulfill their God-given purpose by helping them. Now, it can't be a way of life. It can only be a situation where you can help them for a short period of time.

The focus is "God-given", not "Government-Giving", and Kasich seemed to do well on that point. Still, when discussing the critical importance of helping the less fortunate, that ubiquitous word "we" jumped out, as if to justify big government programs. Who is "we", and are they choosing to use their time, money, and resources to help others?

And we are demanding, we are doing to demand personal responsibility.

Once again, who is "we"? Are all the people whom the Buckeye governor is referring to aware that they are paying for big government proposals? Later, Kasich explained his turn-around on Obamacare:

I just want to be a good leader. I just want people to feel like they've got a chance, no matter who they are. And I'll tell you one interesting thing, Chris. I was in Utah, Chris, and I was walking through the capital, and I saw a bunch of inmates. I don't know what they were doing there, maybe cleaning things up. I shook every one of their hands, and you know what I told them? "God has a purpose for you. You're in a tough spot right now, you may be in a tough spot later, , but remember that the Lord has a purpose for you. Be hopeful.

What was going on with all the God talk? Is Kasich seeking the Congressional chaplaincy? Or is playing the religious card to win over Iowa voters? His frequent referrals to the deity seemed forced, not faithful, or even heartfelt.

Fox News anchor Chris Wallace reminded viewers that Governor Kasich had begun promoting Obamacare by referring to the Bible, particularly Matthew 25:

“Now, if you ever read Matthew 25, I think, ‘I wanna feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . .
“Now, I don’t know whether you ever read Matthew 25, but I commend it to you, the end of it, about do you feed the homeless and do you clothe the poor. . .

Ohio Watchdog then added:

Kasich cited Matthew 25 when defending his Obamacare expansion during a Fox News interview aired Jan. 22, during a Jan. 22 Hugh Hewitt interview and during an NPR interview aired Friday.
Regarding Obamacare critics, Kasich told NPR, “I don’t pay much attention to narrow ideologues.”

Free market critics, including Catholic apologists, resoundingly rejected the Big Government agenda which Kasich wrested from the Scriptures.

Karl Bloch's Painting "The Sermon on the Mount"

Besudes, what does Matthew 25 say?

34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.  . . .


On a crucial note regarding Biblical exegesis, every statement uttered by Jesus while on earth must be read in light of the Old Covenant, with a deeper understanding that Jesus would fulfill this covenant completely (Matthew 5:17, John 19: 30), thus ushering in a New and Everlasting Covenant (Matthew 26: 28; 1 Corinthians 11: 25; Hebrews  12: 24).

When Jesus taught on the Sermon on the Mount that men should cut off their hands and feet instead of committing sin, Jesus as Prophet was restoring God's standard to the pristine, impossible whole where it belonged, bringing man to the end of himself, and his need for the Savior. For this reason, Paul mentored his younger charge Timothy about "rightly dividing the Word of Truth" (2 Timothy 2:15).

Rightly dividing the Word of Truth rests on understand the Old Covenant  and the New Covenant, the one which Jesus provided, promised in the Old Testament, revealed in the New:

"10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

 

11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

 

"12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." (Hebrews 8: 10-12)

 

The New Covenant is God's Promise to take care of each of us, not the Government's mandate that we must take care of others with our own resources. The New Covenant is about God justifying man through His Son, not governors justifying Big Government takeovers. The New Covenant is about salvation through a Savior. That Savior, by the way, is not the government, but Christ Jesus. Not Governor Kasich, but He on whose shoulders the government rests (Isaiah 9: 6)

 

There is nothing in the Bible which defends government "charity" subsidized by forced taxation, but rather posits that all things belong to God, and yet He freely gives us all things (Romans 8: 31-32)

 

Yet even then, God does not force, but invites us to give:

 

"Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians 9: 7)

Notice that every man purposes, makes the decision on his own, and gives willingly.

Whatever appeal Kasich offers to promote Obamacare, the Bible clearly does not justify this secular, false Gospel According to Barack. Jesus also declared "The poor you will always have with you", and Paul also reprimanded his fellow Christians:

Portrait of John Kasich
(Jennifer White)

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." (2 Thessalonians 3: 10)

This verse was never in the context of punishing those who cannot work, but rather those who refused to, and were busybodies meddling in other people's business. Even with this recognition, there is nothing in the Bible which justifies taking away from one group of people to subsidize the poverty and disease of others.

Governor Kasich should be commended for balancing his state's budgets, running a surplus, and presiding over phenomenal job growth. His national circuit on passing a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment through a Convention of States is notable, and noteworthy. As for his flawed, even perverse self-justification of Obamacare through the Bible, Kasich fails to make a convincing case. If the Ohio Governor cares about God-given purpose and rights, he would give up the forced subsidy of health care, which is costing his state two billion dollars, and get back to letting private citizens and charities reach out and help the downtrodden.

Mitt Did the Right Thing (Finally!)

Mitt: I am not running in 2016

At the end of 2014, the 2012 GOP Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney declared three times on Fox News that he was not running for President. It was crystal clear to everyone watched that he was not going to run again, and they took the man as a man of his word. A quiet applause from disillusioned conservatives praised his resolve.

Then two months later, the background noise among elite Republican donors murmured that Mitt was mulling another run for President. He sure looked like he was preparing for a third campaign. His wife, Ann Romney, who had appeared opposed to another national campaign, also hinted that he was in it to (try and) win it. Close staffers affirmed that Romney was still ambitious, and very bored, interested in another shot. That revelation was confusing, in part because Romney's own sons avowed his lack of interest running the second time.

Would the third time be the charm for the savior of the 2002 Winter Olympics and the one-term governor of Massachusetts? Romney supporters argued yes, comparing their favorite to the generic GOP standard-bearer Ronald Reagan, who had run for President in 1968 and 1976 before gaining the nomination and finally the Presidency in 1980.

Some of the rumors indicated concerns left and right that 2016 could be the Massachusetts moderate's year because the country was desperate for leadership, and Anyone But Obama or Hillary would do. Yet that was the argument in 2012, and even then the Republican base never embraced Romney, including the five million Republicans would did not vote.

Besides, the fault comparison between Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan fails on many levels.

As Governor of California, Reagan did represent a liberal-leaning state, although the Golden State was still swinging Republican. Reagan served two terms in Sacramento with unswerving resolve against liberal protestors at UC Berkeley, and progressive agitators in the state legislature. He balanced budgets year after year, leaving office with a surplus and bestowing California was a statewide legacy of conservative progress. In contrast,  Romney the governor of Massachusetts served only one term on Beacon Hill, and even then he faced a supermajority Democratic legislature. Despite vetoing 700+  bills, he waffled on gun control, supported homosexual accommodation, and introduced Romneycare to the Commonwealth, the blue print for Obamacare, neither of which has controlled costs nor increased health care quality and efficiency.

Reagan governed conservatively, and won reelection in the process. Romney was a moderate who di not bother fighting for another term, then tried two years later to run from his record when seeking the Presidency in 2008. Arizona Senator and ultimate GOP Presidential candidate John McCain called Romney "the real candidate of change". McCain was right even though he was hardly the strongest candidate himself to represent Republicans nationally.

Despite their string of failures, Establishment power players still worried about a conservative candidate winning the nomination, and they pressed Mitt to step in. Last week, Romney met with another favored Establishment candidate, Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida. Photo-ops of the two men riding an airplane and discussing their plans suggested a thin veneer of comity, despite their dueling ambitions. What were they discussing? Some news reporters suggested that they were ironing out their differences on immigration reform. Most agreed that the two of them were seeking ways to avoid a long fight over donors and press coverage over the next year to clinch the Establishment nod for the GOP nom.

Whatever transpired during their tete-a-tete, Mitt left the meeting upbeat, then announced what he had declared in November last year: "I will not be running for President in 2016."

Mitt has done the right thing by honoring his prior commitment not to commit. However, the fact that he subtly yet actively explored another bid in the last two months affirms conservative resistance to any Establishment candidate, and welcome Romney's withdrawal.  His furtive actions to reconsider the "final" decision confirm his instability both in perception and character. Fox News anchor Chris Wallace reminded Romney of his numerous gaffes during the 2012 Presidency, including "I like being able to fire people" and his infamous 47% remarks to private donors in Florida. These sudden reconsiderations emphasized the unavoidable pitfalls of a third Romney campaign for President.

Mitt is no longer in it for 2016. Finally, he is doing the right thing, not just for himself and his family, but for the country, not just hoping for hope and change, but demanding battle-tested, uncompromising leadership with a vivid eye toward America's better future.

Philadelphia, Twenty-Two Years Later

I was bruised and battered, I couldn't tell what I felt.
I was unrecognizable to myself.
Saw my reflection in a window and didn't know my own face.
Oh brother are you gonna leave me wastin' away
(from Philadelphia, by Bruce Springsteen)

This past weekend, one of the local digital channels dedicated to showcasing old classics rebroadcasted Philadelphia, Actor/Comedian Tom Hanks is a stunning professional on screen. From a humdrum start on one-season sitcom Bosom Buddies, Hanks would explode on the cinema scene, and enjoy the well-deserved distinction of two Best Actor Oscars in a row only a decade later, for Philadelphia and then Forrest Gump.

In his first Oscar-winning turn, he played lawyer Andrew Beckett, terminated from a prestigious law firm. A closeted homosexual who comes out because he contracted AIDS, Beckett files a wrongful termination lawsuit against his former employers, claiming that they fired him because of his sexuality.

After two decades, the film offers a commendable, realistic ensemble, including the law firm's senior partner under lawsuit, played by Jason Robards. Avoiding the board stereotypes of malevolent and angelic, the movie treats both sides of the case with respect and dignity. In a compelling opposite performance, Denzel Washington plays Beckett's attorney, Joe Miler, himself homophobic, yet coming to grips with the reality that he is representing a human being who claims wrongful termination and gets his day in court.

The film removes much of the negative reporting surrounding homosexual conduct, yet during the final moments of the courtroom scenes, Beckett acknowledges the risky behavior he engaged in, including anonymous, casual sex in porn theaters show-casing gay sex. Removing hype and prejudices, the films exposes then as well as now just the frustrations of men and women struggling with marginalized sexual feelings, and the consequences of acting out on those sentiments.

In one scene, Beckett is dancing with his partner Miguel Alvarez, played by upcoming star Antonio Bandares. Two great actors making the most out of another act: that two men could create the conjugal love between one man and one woman. What comes across to the audience, however, is no longer the offense or the novelty of the "gay party", but rather the sad and unseemly attempts at normalcy. Two men, two "lovers" dressed as naval officers, come off as only two men trying to fulfill themselves in something that is not true. A chorus of gay men singing "Mr. Sandman" is no longer provocative or disturbing, but pathetic, even regressive. What kind of love can a man expect from another man?



Tom Hanks in 1989 (Alan Light)

Still, the movie did a great job of presenting these hurting men and women, individuals still trying to establish an identity in the world, grappling with societal views diametrically opposed to theirs, which ignored their humanity while shaming them for their perverse inclinations. Beckett has a loving family, both a mom and a dad who have not abandoned him, but stand with him until his death. The even-handed treatment of straight people dealing with homosexual conduct, and the people who identify with it, comes through with relevance and insight. Even the attorney representing Beckett's former law firm, played by a tough but fair Mary Steenbergen, winces after confronting the wronged lawyer with a mirror on the witness stand.

At the end of the movie, after Miller wins the case (and millions of dollars in back pay and punitive damages), Beckett's family and friends witness their loved one's life ebb away. In a celebration of life at the Beckett family's home, the audience watches old movie clips of the young James Beckett,  a boy as warm  and buoyant as any other child. From here, I depart from the argument that this film is a gay-friendly paean celebrating homosexuals and applauding the courage of men and women who step out and identify with homosexual conduct. This is a film which recognizes the fraught realities of broken people trying to make sense of uncertain motives and inescapable consequences. All the indicators in the film then point to the grander problems now.

After twenty-one years, with the upheavals in the court systems and the media promoting gay marriage and homosexuality as an ideology, startling facts about homosexual conduct have not changed. The prevalence of disease among homosexuals, figured in the steady and painful decline of main character Beckett, plus the dysfunction of same-sex partners looking for love has not disappeared. Granted, in the movie Beckett's attorney Miller overcomes many of his prejudices about Beckett, acknowledging not only his reticence about homosexuals, but coming to grips with the fact that no matter how one lives, he still has feelings, he still carries hurts. After their final preliminary meeting before Beckett's direct and cross examination, Miller meets a frail man who loves opera, who sings along with key refrains, who dances.

He goes home, hugs his baby daughter, and lies down next to his wife, comforts her as she sleeps. The contrast could not be more striking. Beckett has no family, no generative legacy. Miller has a family, a child he brought to life with a loving wife. Even if homosexuals can marry, they can never have children, build a legacy, participate in the warmth and wonder of blessed domesticity. For all the glories of men and women "being themselves", homosexuality has very little to offer beyond disease, dysfunction, and death. Even though the films end with a multi-million dollar judgment against Beckett's former employers, they vow to appeal, and he still dies at the end.

Denzel Washington (Faulkenauge)

The audience can sympathize with a man dying, yet his death rests on his choices, his taking risks, as lawyer Steenbergen would remind him the next day. The deeper tragedy follows from the decisions of an admirable lawyer behaving in an unseemly fashion, suffering an unsavory demise. Putting aside Hollywood's inevitable neglect of the un-cinematic statistics and reports which detail the profligate problems associated with homosexuality, Philadelphia demonstrates that real brotherly love cannot be found in brothel-like interactions or same-sex couplings.

Philadelphia twenty-two years later,  praised because of its sympathetic portrayal of homosexuals and their victimized status in a straight society, gets props for giving a straight portrayal of the perilous and discouraging realities of homosexuality, and the glowing glories of men and women who have families and grow.

Night has fallen, I'm lyin' awake,
I can feel myself fading away,
So receive me brother with your faithless kiss,
Or will we leave each other alone like this
On the streets of Philadelphia.

De Leon's Unsightly Lack of Insight on Oversight

Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?

Indeed, who will watch the watchers themselves in Sacramento?

Late last year, newly installed state senator Kevin De Leon (D-Los Angeles?) eliminated the State State government oversight office.

All while the FBI was investigating a piece of Kevin De Leon's legislation, a bill which did not pass out of committee in 2013, which the Senate President Pro Tem is keen on trying to pass again.

One paragraph in the column stands out:

De León was not named in the formal charges against either of his colleagues. But the FBI’s affidavit in the Calderon case was leaked in late 2013 and included de León’s name 56 times. It said he took $5,000 in campaign contributions from the undercover agent who was working to befriend Calderon. De León returned the money as soon as he learned it came from an FBI agent.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article6372108.html#storylink=cpy

Well.

Here are some excerpts from the article on De Leon's upending the Oversight Committee last year:

California Senate leader Kevin de León has eliminated a legislative staff unit that focused on government oversight, a creation of his predecessor, former Sen. Darrell Steinberg.

Steinberg created the Senate’s Office of Oversight and Outcomes in 2008, staffing it with a team of former journalists who dug into the functions of numerous state agencies. Over the years, the office produced more than two dozen reports critical of many aspects of state government. The hubris of state legislators is staggering at times. Do they really think that they can get away with these maneuvers?

State Senate President Pro Tem De Leon

De Leon's spokesman Anthony Reyes gave no explanation for De Leon's suspicious moves: Reyes’ statement did not say why the office was not retained, but said the Senate would “continue to be served by the comprehensive and robust oversight functions provided by our budget and policy committees, as well as our Joint Legislative Audit Committee and Legislative Analyst’s Office.”


No reasons why, aside from asking the voters, the reading public to believe that the state senators will look over the legislation and make sure that they are playing by the rules. How did that work out last year? Four Democratic state senators arrested, incited, and/or convicted.  Today, the Sacramento reports the state senator Carol Liu's office was also raided by FBI officials. Still need no oversight?

Today, De Leon announced that the oversight responsibilities will rest with the policy committees:


Government oversight is the responsibility of every California senator and Senate staff member, not “the job of a small group of individuals in a room,” Senate leader Kevin de León said during a speech Thursday to the Sacramento Press Club, where he laid out broad policy priorities for the year.


Really? De Leon's clear lack of insight on oversight should not be overlooked during this legislative session. The Oversight Committee was made up of retired journalists and legislative analysts, watchers outside of Sacramento politics.

Quid custodiet? How about getting a custodian to clean out the unsightly pay-for-play corruption, starting with State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon?