Why CEOs Are Not the Best Political Candidates

Two wealthy former CEOs are running for political office here in California: Meg Whitman (formerly of eBay) and Carly Fiorina (formerly of HP). They are both using the fact that they ran companies and were successful in business as evidence that they will be able to be successful politicians, but this is definitely not the case.

First of all, corporations are not run as democracies. Yes, there are varying levels of consensus that are built and people play "politics", but at the end of the day, the CEO is the boss and has total power over those beneath her in the organizational hierarchy. Corporations are more like dictatorships. CEOs don't have to negotiate and compromise. They can listen to everyone's opinions and then make the decisions. This does not prepare anyone for the political process at all. And I think one thing all can agree on is that we don't want this country run like a dictatorship!

Secondly, the goal of a CEO above all else is to make the company successful. A good CEO cares about the people of the company, but it's really because those people contribute to achieving the goals of the organization. The mindset of a CEO has to be to consider business goals first, people second. Leaving aside employee safety, which absolutely should be the top priority, to illustrate what I mean, a business leader should work to keep employees engaged, motivated and, therefore, productive. However, business leaders should not feel obligated to keep someone employed even if they are doing a bad job because that's better for the employee.

On the other hand, the goal of an elected official as part of our representative democracy is to represent the people who have elected him or her. Being a CEO does not prepare anyone for this role, because they think of people as an important means to an end. And I am not saying this is a bad thing! Business leaders have to think this way, but I sure don't want political leaders to. I want political leaders to represent their entire constituency, from CEOs to those struggling in poverty.

I would much rather be represented by an experienced politician, who understands the legal system, knows how to navigate the political process, and above all has demonstrated commitment and passion for representing "we the people" in this representative democracy: people like Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer.

September 11th and its Long-Lasting Impact

Last year, on this date, I wrote this post remembering September 11th. At that time, I wanted to focus on remembering those who perished on that fateful day. Now, one year later, with hatred, fear and bigotry even more pronounced, I can't help but reflect on the long lasting negative impact September 11th has had on this country. It's like we are still reeling from the blow to our innocence. My sister compared it to a case of national post traumatic stress disorder, and observing the turmoil and divisiveness taking place right now, I have to agree. The fear is so heightened that people are talking about "terror babies" and concocting wild scenarios of Islamic community centers being "victory mosques" or training compounds. There is no basis in fact for any of these outlandish theories, but people are still so scared, they will believe anything. And the very freedoms we are supposedly hated for and are supposed to be defending (freedom of religion, freedom from unlawful search and seizure, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment) are slipping through our fingers as fear takes over our rational minds and our Constitutional rights are diluted.

And of course, the money we have spent on the so-called "War on Terror" that could have helped our economy through the financial crisis is gone with absolutely nothing to show for it. Osama bin Laden was never found, Al Qaeda is still recruiting, we are caught in a quagmire in Afghanistan, and Iraq is a mess.

Yes, I remember 9/11 with terrible sadness, but now it's as much for where we are today as for what happened that horrible morning nine years ago.

Continuing the Constitutional Theme: The Fourteenth Amendment

I find it so amusing/infuriating that Republicans, who have been going on and on about how they are the only ones defending the Constitution, are now complaining about one part of the Constitution: the Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, Republicans have a problem with the part of the Fourteenth Amendment that declares all persons born in the United States to be citizens. Here is the text:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The text is about as clear as you can get. All persons born here are citizens. End of story. Well, apparently, only the parts of the Constitution that Republicans like are sacred. And Republicans don't like the thought of babies born to illegal immigrants automatically being citizens. Republicans claim that illegal immigrants are coming over the border (because this is really only about Mexicans, right?) to have "anchor babies" who presumably will help them stay in this country. Actually, children can only sponsor parents when they are 21 years old. That's a pretty long-term plan! There must be easier ways, right? Another outlandish claim is that terrorists are coming here to birth "terror babies" who will rise up in 20 years to rain terror upon us! Again, a pretty long time to wait for evil plots to come to fruition. I mean, seriously, where do they come up with this crap?

The argument Republicans are making that irritates me the most is that the Fourteenth Amendment was only put in place to guarantee citizenship for former slaves, and there was no intent for it to go beyond that. That is utter bullshit. The people who wrote the amendment and went through the onerous process of getting it ratified would not have gone through all of that trouble if they did not intend it to be a permanent addition to the Constitution. In fact, the reason it was a constitutional amendment was to take citizenship out of the political process. They didn't want a Supreme Court or Congress voting to take away such rights and wanted to make it pretty damn clear and well-defined.

Either you honor the whole Constitution or not. You can't pick and choose the parts you like (e.g. the Second Amendment) and then ignore the parts you don't like (birthright citizenship, freedom of religion - see mosque controversy, equal protection -- see anti-gay marriage movement, cruel and unusual punishment -- see Bush torture memos, unlawful search and seizure see Bush illegal wiretapping, etc. etc. etc.) Wow, seeing it all laid out, it seems the only part of the Constitution that Republicans do like is that part about the right to bear arms!

Explaining Freedom of Speech

So Dr. Laura Schlessinger is quitting her radio show, because she wants to "regain [her] first amendment rights". Once again, I feel it is my duty to educate right-wingers who claim to love the Constituion so much what it actually means. Provided below is the actual text of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

OK, there it is. The key words here are "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Now, please explain how people being justifiably angry about Dr. Laura using what is universally-agreed to be an offensive term and complaining (using their freedom of speech, I must note) to radio stations and sponsors destroyed her first amendment rights? The answer is it didn't at all, since there was no government censorship. It's that simple, case closed. So Dr. Laura and a certain other habitual tweeter who shall not be named? Go back to school and learn what the U.S. Constitution really means and stop spouting lies and distortions to your ignorant fans.

Defending Freedom of Religion

It is a sad state of affairs when the very freedom this country is founded on is being trampled by those who profess to respect and value the founders and the Constitution they wrote. I am, of course, speaking of the national uproar over the plans to build - not a mosque - but an Islamic cultural center - not at ground zero - but several blocks away. The fact that this is even a debate is just ridiculous. The Republicans are, as usual, feeding on fear and hatred to score political points. And the Democrats are not strong enough to stick to their principles and defend freedom of religion fully. Senator Harry Reid now has said that it should be built elsewhere. How sad.

Bottom line, separation of church and state dictates that none of these politicians should have anything to say about where and what a religious organization builds on private property. And if you can't defend that, then you do not understand what America stands for.

Matt Taibbi on Lara Logan

Lara Logan, CBS foreign correspondent, criticized the Rolling Stone reporter who wrote the General McChrystal story. Here is Matt Taibbi's awesome response.

Lara Logan, You Suck -- RollingStone.com

Random Thoughts

Here are my thoughts on some current events:

Tina Fey on SNL - I'm a bit disappointed with her Sarah Palin sketch. My favorite part was the re-edited Katie Couric interview, but I guess I wanted a skewering.




Supreme Court - With Justice Steven's retirement, I really hope President Obama doesn't enable the court to shift more to the right. Nominate a liberal and don't let the Republicans scare you into going moderate... PLEASE!

Nuclear Treaty - See Jon Stewart for brilliant counter to bullshit Republicans are spewing. President Obama is doing nothing more than President Reagan himself aspired to do. And Fox News is allowing straight-out lies to fill their airwaves. The treaty specifically excludes biological attacks from the agreement to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries. And, hello? We have a lot of powerful bombs that are not nuclear do we not? We can certainly bomb the shit out of a country without using nukes...see Iraq.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Big Bang Treaty
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

ACORN hoax - See The Brad Blog for amazing story that finally hit the mainstream media with Rachel Maddow. Remember that horrifying ACORN tape that came out with ACORN workers giving advice to an outlandishly dressed pimp? Well, apparently, the tape was doctored after the fact. The "pimp" was actually dressed in normal college student attire when he actually visited ACORN offices, and the story he gave ACORN workers was that his girlfriend was trapped by a pimp. Didn't know that? Yeah, because even after it was determined the tape was a hoax, nobody reported it for months. Meanwhile, ACORN may be no more. What a shame.