Mittens Drops Out & Other Not-So-Surprising Stuff

So Long! Farewell! Auf wiedersehen goodbyeee!

Mitt Romney's decision to drop out of consideration for the 2016 GOP presidential race is making big headlines today, but I'm really not sure why.

It's certainly less surprising than the Republican-heavy Texas legislature proposing a state budget that threatens to cut funding for breast and cervical cancer screenings by cutting off Planned Parenthood's participation in such cancer prevention treatments for low income women.

Do only wealthy Texas women deserve access to comprehensive health care in the GOP's view? At this point I'm honestly not sure if Texas Republicans are just predictably misogynistic, or simply bat-shit crazy.

Mitten's anti-climatic decision about seeking the White House is about as surprising as Death Row Records founder and "rap mogul" Suge Knight being arrested for murder at 3am this morning after he intentionally ran over two people outside a Burger King in the Compton section of Los Angeles.

And it's right on par with unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin's killer George Zimmerman having yet another domestic abuse charge against him mysteriously dropped for the third time since 2013.

By the way, one of those charges involved his holding a shotgun to the head of girlfriend Samantha Scheibe during an argument; talk about stand by your man.

Girlfriend seriously needs to wake up.

To me, Mitt Romney's decision to shelve his presidential ambitions once and for all is less a headline story than a reflection of a deep philosophical divide within a Republican party that has long since been enslaved by an almost pathological need to appease the tiny right-wing extremist wing of the party; typified by Tea Party politicians like Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.

The GOP is governed not by the will of the majority of the American populace, but from a shadowy coalition of wealthy American oligarchs (led by Libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch), corporate lobbyists, the American Legislative Exchange Council and a network of conservative media outlets and talking heads who function more as propagandists than journalists.

What doomed Romney's presidential chances from the start is the fact that this coalition bakes it's bread by ignoring a fundamental cornerstone of the Constitution espousing a separation of church and state.

Instead this coalition channels fundamentalist "Christian" values into a misogynistic assault on women's rights and abortion that manifests as a rigid, ethnocentric brand of patriotism; and openly embraces intolerance; like having a top leader of the US House of Representatives (Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise) who once spoke at a white supremacist event held by a group called E.U.R.O and described himself as "David Duke without the baggage." [Source].

Sadly for Romney, this coalition of the very party he wanted to represent as president, rejects him as an outsider.

Not because of his immense wealth, which they embrace, but for his religion; which they fear. 

Even though Romney is by all accounts a decent family man and a member of a conservative religion (the Mormon Church) that is unquestionably charitable, even to non-Mormons; he is viewed as an "other" by the core Republican base in the southern and mid-western United States.

And today's Republican party lumps "other" into a massive cultural bin which they fear; and see as a "threat" to an abstract sense of what they like to call their "freedoms."

The party of "family values", have made stripping American families of their right to accessible, affordable health care (by attacking the Affordable Care Act) a priority - so Romney having championed comprehensive healthcare for the people of Massachusetts when he was governor also pegs him as strategic liability for today's Republican party.

So Mitt's announcement today is less surprising than it is logical given the current climate of the GOP.

But I will share one thing that surprised me today though.

On a September night back in 2012, Walmart employee Markeith Williams (pictured left) was part of a group off employees remodeling a section of a Walmart store in Richmond, California.

He was tying some rope around his waist to help move a large counter when a Walmart supervisor named Art Van Riper, notorious for screaming insults at his employees, told Washington, "If it was up to me I'd put that rope around your neck."

The employees who were working that night, including Washington, were understandably upset about Van Riper's comment and it's not so subtle lynching connotation.

They addressed their concerns about being respected in their work environment to Walmart's store management, demanding that Van Riper be disciplined for his comments and behavior.

When that didn't work they wrote a letter to Walmart, and when that didn't work they staged a work stoppage at the site.

So Walmart fired the workers. And Van Riper? He's still working for Walmart.

According to ColorOrChange.org, last month a judge ruled that Walmart had illegally fired the workers who engaged in the work stoppage as a result of Van Riper's behavior in the workplace.

Given the massive scrutiny Walmart is under for it's employment practices, it's surprising to me that Van Riper is still working for the company and the workers who complained about his abusive behavior are not.

Feel the same way? Take a minute to add your name to this online petition from the Organization United for Respect at Walmart (OUR Walmart) calling on Walmart's executive vice-president Kristin Oliver to fire Art Van Riper and rehire the workers who were fired for having the guts to speak up on Markeith Washington's behalf.

Decoupling working Americans from union representation may be a GOP policy, but the right to be respected in the workplace is still a freedom that's worth standing up for.

Assumption. Gun. Humiliation. Apology?

Journalist Charles M. Blow

The face and writing of journalist, author and columnist Charles M. Blow (pictured left) are familiar to those who regularly follow his op-ed essays in The New York Times, where he has weighed in on race, culture, politics and other topics since 2009.

But in recent years, particularly since the tragic shooting death of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in Florida back in February 2012, his eloquence as a writer, combined with the fact that he's a father of three sons, have lent his op-ed essays an intellectual authority and deep insight on the troubled issue of race in America.

When it comes to the ongoing epidemic of excessive use of force by police against young men of color in this country, Charles M. Blow isn't just writing about the topic, as a black father he truly lives it. 

His column, which appeared in the NY Times on Monday, struck me on a very personal level.

By now you may have heard the news that his oldest son, a junior at Yale University, was stopped by a Yale University campus policeman on Saturday evening who pulled a gun on him.

Click the link above, because you really should read his account of what happened, but it boils down to a recurring theme oft covered on this blog; how quick police in America are to react with aggression to the sight of a young man with dark skin.

Mr. Blow's son had gone over to the Yale University library early this past Saturday evening January 24th to check on a book he'd requested and order some equipment for a presentation.

Sterling Memorial Library at Yale University

When he walked out of the library (pictured left) a campus cop started following him, told him to stop and pulled out his gun and pointed it at him; told him to get on the ground face down.

The Yale cop was black by the way.

The reason for the stop? A common one men of color in America, including yours truly, have heard more than once; I can quote it by heart.

"There was a report of a [BREAK-IN, ASSAULT, RAPE, ROBBERY ETC.] in the area and you fit the description of the suspect."

Only in this particular case, on this particular evening in New Haven, Connecticut Mr. Blow's son was NOT the suspect in question.

He was the oldest son of a highly-respected journalist and a third-year student at Yale.

He was an unarmed, innocent young man walking away from the library of one of the most prestigious universities in the world, but he "fit the description" and his skin was dark - so the cop pulled a gun on him.

As Mr. Blow observed in a NY Times essay back in 2012 in the immediate wake of the death of Trayvon Martin, "This is the nightmare scenario for any parent,"

It's a nightmare for the son too, believe me.

I had a similar experience of being unfairly and unjustly detained by police temporarily in the early 90's when I was a student at Penn State University.

I can still recall the feeling of humiliation, anger, fear and helplessness of being taken to a police station in handcuffs for something I didn't do.

The simmering resentment I felt inside when the police figured out that a simple administrative mistake had led to my being wrongly detained before they let me go is still with me as I write this so many years later.   

Charles Blow's column on Monday unlocked personal memories for me that are still painful; including the recognition that even though I was a student at the college, the police ignored my pleas of innocence and simply saw my skin color.

According to an article posted on TheRoot.com, Yale officials have released a statement apologizing for the incident and have promised to release a report on the investigation they plan to conduct.

Given the ongoing protests over excessive police force in the wake of the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner and other unarmed men of color at the hands of police, and this nation's troubled record with the ways some members of law enforcement have systematically treated young men of color, clearly Yale is trying to get out in front of the incident quickly before it blows up in the media.

After all it wasn't all that long ago that preeminent Harvard history professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested by a cop who saw the nationally-recognized African-American scholar trying to get into the front door of his own house and it became a national media story.

It says a lot about America that such incidents are still taking place on the campuses of the nation's finest universities in the 21st century.

Whether it's a 3rd year student at Yale who's the son of a nationally-recognized journalist, or a highly-respected professor of history at Harvard, sadly for many law enforcement professionals, it doesn't matter where you are, who you are or even whether you're guilty or innocent.

In their eyes it begins and ends with your being black; and that can get you killed.

And that is a truly troubling reality on this day, January 27, 2015 when over 300 Holocaust survivors gathered in Poland to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camp of Auschwitz by lead elements of the Soviet Red Army in 1945. 

Against a background where Jews are once again coming under the cloud of increased persecution and anti-Semitism in France, Germany and other European countries, the president of the World Jewish Congress Ronald S. Lauder warned the attendees gathered at the site where over 1.1 million people were killed by the Nazis:

"Jews are targeted in Europe once again because they are Jews...Once again young Jewish boys are afraid to wear yarmulkes [skullcaps] on the streets of Paris, Budapest, London and even Berlin."

The terrifying lessons of the consequences of unchecked hate and bigotry are there before us, it remains to be seen if those in America predisposed to hatred and prejudice will heed them. 

Kristiana Coignard: Another Teen Dead at the Hands of Police

Kristiana Coignard, shot and killed by Longview, TX police

It's doubtful that Diana Showman, Karen Cifuentes, Dillon McGee or Roshad McIntosh ever met 17 year-old Kristiana Coignard (pictured left), but they all shared something in common.

All of them were American teenagers shot and killed by police under very sketchy circumstances.

In a November 25, 2014 article for The Daily Beast, Nina Strochlic documented fourteen teenagers in the US who were killed after the death of Michael Brown on August 9th last year; not all of those teens were angels, but they were still teenagers - young people whose brains were not yet fully formed.

Individuals still learning the critical life lessons necessary to make the transition to adulthood. Kids.

Last Thursday January 24th as many of us we're thinking about what to eat for dinner, Kristiana Coignard walked into the Longview Police station in Texas, picked up an in-house phone and asked to speak with a police officer.

According to Longview police, when an officer came out to the lobby to speak with her, the 17 year-old brandished a weapon and was shot four times in the "trunk and upper body."

She was taken to a hospital in Dallas but she died from her injuries; police still won't say where she died.

While Coignard's aunt and grandmother say that she did struggle with some emotional issues, according to them she wasn't violent to others. 

The police won't say what specifically prompted them to shoot the teenage girl multiple times in the lobby of the police station, but three unnamed Longview police officers have been placed on paid leave.

Obviously there's a growing demand for answers in this case.

Why were three police officers placed on leave if only one of them came out to the lobby to speak with the teen initially? Who fired the shots at her? Why?

According to an article posted on the Marshall News Messenger Website, "Longview Mayor Jay Dean said Thursday he was told a “female wielding a knife entered into the police department.” 

Why would a teenage girl walk into a police station with a knife? Was it really necessary to shoot her four times?

A Longview police spokesperson says the incident in the lobby was caught on video, but it hasn't been released yet.

In light of the Eric Garner and Michael Brown decisions, this story is already garnering growing national media attention; an unidentified group infiltrated the Longview police Website in reaction to the teen's death and protests are planned.

Were police in this small Texas town physically threatened by a teenage girl standing in the lobby of the station holding a knife to the degree that deadly force was warranted?

There's no question members of law enforcement have a right to defend themselves, especially in light of two NYPD officers being shot and killed while sitting in their police cruiser in Brooklyn.

But I can only hope this country hasn't reached the point where the use of deadly force by police becomes justified merely by officers saying "they felt threatened." 

Maybe we as a nation need to develop more definitive standards for police in terms of what "feeling threatened" really means - and when they draw their weapons and fire.

Especially when it's a police officer with a loaded handgun facing a lone teenager who's unarmed; or holding a knife.

Hollywood Shuffle: Oscar Noms & Kevin Hart's Shirtless THR Cover Photo

Comedian/Actor Kevin Hart preps for THR cover pic

With the film awards season well underway, media attention (mainstream, business and social) is once again focused on the lack of diversity in the 2015 Oscar nominations, reflecting a troubling trend in the film industry.

Ava DuVernay, the director of the MLK biopic 'Selma', was (on the surface anyway) measured and cool in her response to not being nominated by The Academy in the best director category.

In a profile written by Gavin Edwards published in the January 29, 2015 issue of Rolling Stone, the 42 year-old DuVernay said of the buzz surrounding her possibly being the first African-American woman to be nominated for best director, "It's not important to me, but I know it's important to other people."   

Director Spike Lee took a more blunt stance about the Oscar snub, he was quoted as saying: "If I saw Ava today I'd say, 'You know what? Fuck 'em'."



While neither DuVernay or leading actor David Oyelowo  were nominated for Oscars, the film itself was nominated in the best picture category.

As an important industry magazine geared towards film and television professionals, The Hollywood Reporter deserves credit for doing a pretty solid job of consistently staying on top of the challenges industry companies and the executives who run the studios, production companies and agencies face in trying to bring more diversity both behind and in front of the camera; in terms of both race and gender.

THR has made it a point to feature a range of African-Americans on the cover of the magazine in recent months, including Shonda Rhimes, Chris Rock, Michael Strahan, Oprah Winfrey, Kevin Hart, Kerry Washington and Sidney Poitier.

But perhaps more importantly, THR reporters and writers have brought up the issue of diversity in both articles on different subjects, and in their informative industry round table discussions with prominent producers, directors, agents, writers and actors.

So I was a bit confused about THR's decision to use a photo of a shirtless Kevin Hart wearing an immense "Marie Antoinette" type of wig on the cover of the January 23rd issue (see photo above). 

Granted, the specific photo above with an array of Afro picks decorating the wig (Hmmm..) was not used for the cover, but another version of it was. 

Now I understand that Hart is a really funny and successful comedian and a popular actor with a string of number one movies to his credit, but he's also a savvy, intelligent industry professional who understands his brand and knows how to operate in Hollywood.  

So why use a cover photo of him with no shirt on wearing a wig?

Alternate THR cover photo of Kevin Hart with pups

A number of different cover photos of Kevin Hart were shot for the cover; why didn't they use this one for instance?  (See left).

This version captures his smile, he's wearing a stylish suit, an expensive watch and he's holding a bunch of cute puppies.

It's funny, cool and to me, more of a reflection of his public personae than him shirtless in a wig.

As a member of the Screen Actors Guild who writes both screenplays and graphic novel scripts, I find The Hollywood Reporter an important and informative source of information about the entertainment industry; that's why I subscribe.

The extensive coverage of the business side of the film and television industry, updates on productions and deals, as well as the insightful one-on-one interviews with influential entertainment executives makes it an indispensable source of information for anyone trying to broaden their understanding of the entertainment industry. 

I read it each week and I honestly can't recall a cover photo of anyone being photographed without a shirt on.

Do I think it's racist? No.

But over the years I've often used this blog to talk about about ways in which the media distorts the perception of African-Americans and the black male physiology in particular; so I think the decision to use the photo is probably more reflective of a degree of non-diversity in the editorial ranks of The Hollywood Reporter than it is an intentional racial insensitivity on their part. 

Perhaps they just thought it would be funny, or were trying to show that he has sex-appeal

But if there was a qualified person of color sitting at the table in the editorial meeting when they were discussing the cover photo of Kevin Hart, I have to think that person would have raised the point I'm trying to illustrate.

If you remember, the editors of Vogue faced quite a bit of heat over a similar cover photo.

Back in April of 2008, I was just one of many mainstream journalists and  bloggers to write about the decision by Vogue to put a picture of basketball player LeBron James cradling Brazilian-German super model Giselle Bundchen on the cover.

Many felt the photo (pictured left) reflected once commonly-used racist depictions of black men as terrifying ape-like savages bent on carrying off white women. 

Those kinds of images were once used to dehumanize black men and reinforce the warped perception of them as second-class citizens to be feared.

A quote by Roy Johnson, the (then) editor-in-chief of Men's Fitness magazine, in an article about the LeBron James photo in the influential fashion industry publication Women's Wear Daily offers relevant perspective on the THR cover photo of Kevin Hart.

Of the LeBron James-Giselle Bundchen Vogue cover photo, Johnson said:

"It's a reminder that as African-Americans, we have come very far to have an African-American male featured on the cover of Vogue, but we have very far to go to continue to educate people within our industry regarding the power of images and the potential impact they can have on their readers."  

It's often said a picture is worth a thousand words.

I remain an avid reader and fan of The Hollywood Reporter, but I would've hoped a magazine like THR would have given a little bit more thought as to the sub-conscious message the picture of a shirtless Kevin Hart in a wig sends to the thousands of members of the entertainment industry who read the magazine; or leave it out on the desk or coffee table in the offices of the prominent Hollywood executives who influence the green lighting of  projects, casting and hiring decisions.

Especially in an industry obviously struggling to bring more balance to the diversity of it's ranks.
 
A successful, popular (and bankable) young African-American performer gracing the cover of THR is in itself, an important step for the industry. One would hope care would be exercised by the editorial staff to be sure and portray such a person in the best and most professional way possible.

I'm just not sure a photograph of Kevin Hart shirtless and wearing the kind of wig more commonly associated with a perfumed lady of the French court of Versailles portrays him as an industry professional to be taken seriously.

"Bread Bagger" Joni Ernst Goes To Washington

Move over Sarah Palin & Michelle Bachmann, it's Senator Joni Ernst time!

Given the maniacally partisan nature of our political system these days it's no surprise that President Obama's State of the Union address last night drew mixed reviews from both sides of the political spectrum.

Personally I thought it was an excellent speech and his most effective State of the Union speech by far.

If you haven't already OD'd on post-SOTU 2015 discussion, check out the opening segment of this morning's Brian Lehrer Show; excellent analysis and insightful commentary from both the guests and the callers.

Good excerpts of the speech too.

The best moment of the night came after some on the Republican side of the chamber broke into subdued sarcastic applause when Obama said, "I have no more campaigns to run."

As Republicans snickered, without missing a beat he shot back: "I know because I won both of them."

Classic.
 
The most bizarre moment? Unquestionably the strange appearance of newly elected Iowa Senator  
Joni Ernst to give the GOP rebuttal to the State of the Union - which turned out to be more of a stream-of-consciousness kinda thing rather than an actual rebuttal to an address by the President of the United States.

You may recall Ernst as the GOP-Koch brother's darling who won the seat of former long-time Iowa Democratic Senator Tom Harkin during the recent fall elections, helping to secure a Republican majority in the Senate chamber.

She ran a campaign television ad showing hogs being castrated to bolster her "Iowa farm-girl" cred and illustrate what she was going to do to shake things up in Washington.

Based on her vocal tone and cadence during her brief "rebuttal" last night, it was hard to tell if she thought she was speaking to a class of first graders, or a national audience of millions of people who'd just watched the President lay out his political objectives for 2015.                   

My guess is that Republicans decided to simply ignore what Obama said and instead parade Joni as a shining example of the GOP's ability to connect with women voters.

Her effort to use her folksy mid-western charm to connect with the audience came off as hokey, forced and hypocritical.

For example, she kept hitting on the theme of her having grown up with a farm family who taught her to "live within our means" to demonstrate her commitment to "cutting pork" and shrinking "big government."

But as an interesting article posted on the districtsentinel Website revealed, between 1995 and 2009 her own father Richard Culver, her uncle Dallas Culver and their grandfather Harold Culver collectively received over $460,000 in agricultural subsidies and contracts from the federal government back in Red Oak, Iowa.    

Now there's nothing wrong or illegal about US farmers receiving crop subsidies, but it reeks of hypocrisy for her to campaign on the twisted Tea Party idea of a bloated, overreaching federal government handing out money to the undeserving masses when her own family accepted almost a half million in taxpayer dollars for well over a decade. 

In the short time she spoke it just seemed as if she laid on the whole modest upbringing, "lived within our means" shtick a bit thick. Early in her presentation she talked about having to cover up the one pair of school shoes she had with bread bags in bad weather to keep them from getting wet and messed up as a child.

She talked about having worked at Hardee's serving breakfast biscuits; like her working a food service job when she was younger somehow makes her special or unique. Frankly I found that insulting to the millions of underpaid employees in America working at fast-food chains for minimum wage because they can't find better  paying jobs.

Her comments sparked an explosion of revealing insight on Twitter last night as she was speaking. One Twitter user who grew up in Iowa wrote that kids covering their shoes with bread bags in the spring or winter when it's wet or muddy was a fairly common thing in Iowa; it's not like she was raised on "Little House On The Prairie".       

State of the Union dress code? Joni Ernst's camo pumps

Speaking of shoes, as if her mentioning the fact that she was in the military no less than three times during her "rebuttal" wasn't enough, (we heard ya' the first time Joni...) she was sporting a rather strange pair of camouflage dress pumps during her rebuttal of the State of the Union address.

Now I certainly respect her military service to the nation and all, but I never saw former Senator Bill Bradley wearing dress shoes with a Nike swipe, Addidas stripes or a New York Knicks logo emblazoned on the side when he was in Congress.

Just as the former Republican Kansas Senator Bob Dole never wore combat boots on the Senate floor to prove he fought in WWII.

Given the disastrous Clint Eastwood talking-to-a-chair debacle during the last Republican National Convention, Senator Marco Rubio's bizarre water break during his State of the Union address rebuttal in 2013, you'd think the GOP would take extra care to review the text and delivery of the people who are selected to address a national audience of millions on behalf of the Republican party.

You'd think.

The Actual "State of the State"

After tireless grass roots campaigning by progressives, income inequality has finally moved from an issue recently dismissed as "socialist engineering" by conservative politicians, to a major topic of both the President's State of the Union speech as well as the World Economic Forum in Davos starting in Davos tomorrow.

You know it's a hot topic when perpetually-hopeful GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has the gall to criticize President Obama for growing income inequality in America, as he just did at the winter meeting of the Republican National Committee in San Diego last week.

Did Mittens simply forget about the tens of millions he keeps stashed in sketchy offshore tax havens through a complex web of holding companies? Or a Republican Congressional minority that repeatedly opposed extending unemployment benefits, middle class tax relief and more extensive economic stimulus packages to help the poor and middle class during the Great Recession?

Income inequality, stagnant wages for the middle class and lackluster job growth are issues facing way too many folks here in New Jersey too; though you probably wouldn't know that from Governor Chris Christie's much-maligned State of the State address last week.

Christie caught some serious heat the other week from members of the New Jersey press when he held an exclusive 30-minute off-the-record closed-door meeting with representatives of five national media outlets to preview his State of the State speech.

A speech that many seasoned political observers, including the Newark Star Ledger's Paul Mulshine (check out his January 18th piece, "New Jersey's in Chris Christie's Rear-View Mirror") saw as more of a sales pitch for his 2016 presidential ambitions than a reflection of what's actually happening here in the Garden State. 

Mulshine called it Christie's "State of the Presidential Campaign Speech".

I'd like to share an observation of one aspect of what's really happening here; something that I think relates to the tone of what President Obama is talking about tonight in the US Capitol.

Last Thursday afternoon, a resident of the apartment complex where I work as the leasing agent stopped by the office to ask me a question about his lease. I'll call him "George".

He's in his late 60's, early 70's, a nice quiet guy who lives alone in a 1-bedroom apartment with his trusty cocker spaniel Romeo.

George lives on a modest pension from the Air Force and his Social Security. He told me he likes the Hamilton, New Jersey area and the apartment complex, but he's planning to move to rural Pennsylvania when his lease is up this spring because, "New Jersey is just getting too expensive."

As a guy who works in the residential apartment leasing industry, I hear that sentiment a lot these days. I've heard it from folks of different socio-economic backgrounds, different races and religions and age groups.
 
It's something of a cliche in New Jersey. I've heard it in-person umpteen times, at work, sitting at my local bar; the other night I heard a listener on the radio complaining about it on an NJN news report about the rising cost of living in the state.

People sort of shake their heads when they say it, and a familiar expression of regret mixed with an acknowledged inevitability of what is to come clouds their faces.

What strikes me about this commonly-shared phrase, and the concerns George shared with me in my office, is that Governor Chris Christie chose to simply leave it out of his recent "State of the State" speech.

Now Christie is a really smart guy, so I know that he knows about the mass exodus of citizens from the state of New Jersey who find the cost of living, high taxes (amongst the highest in the nation) and stagnant wages and job growth simply too much to bear.

It seems like the specific topics Christie chose to hit on in his speech were much more like a check list designed to appeal to the status-quo mindset of the extremist right-wing element that now controls the Republican party in Congress; and in many state legislatures Governor's mansions around the nation.

Perhaps it's the new political advisers and media consultants Christie has brought on board to steer his presidential campaign through the treacherous waters that lead to the coveted port where the GOP presidential nomination sits, awaiting the captain who will set course for the White House in 2016.

The tone and content of Christie's political schpeel is starting to sound like any of other the mediocre 2nd tier GOP presidential candidates; "government is bad, tax cuts for the rich are good, unions are the bane of existence, the Affordable Care Act (and Americans having access to health care) is the end of life as we know it, anything Obama says or does is the root of all evil"; yada, yada yada.

Christie's State of the State glossed over issues like New Jersey's looming pension fund crisis in this state and the role his decision to skip a required $3.1 billion payment in 2010 played in making it worse; as in a $50 billion unfunded pension liability, one of the worst in the nation.

He spent fifteen minutes talking about how drug treatment programs are more effective than prison, and that's good, but what about the state's credit rating dropping during his tenure as governor as a result of his economic policies?

Or the flat rate of job growth and the fact that his tax cuts for the wealthiest folks in New Jersey did nothing to spark new job creation? That's Trickle-Down Theory, it didn't work under Ronald Regan, it was a disaster in Kansas under Governor Sam Brownback and it didn't work here either.

But more importantly, he didn't address the concern that George shared in my office last week:
"New Jersey is just getting too expensive."

As the Baby Boomers continue to retire in the coming years, the number of "George's" in this state (and around the nation) are going to increase exponentially.

Since Christie's running for president, it's fair to ask the question: what does it say about his tenure as Governor when retired folks who worked all their lives must move out of the state they call home because they can't afford to live here?

It's going to help expand the tax base in the state of Pennsylvania (located just ten minutes from here) with it's significantly lower taxes and costs of living, because a LOT of New Jersey folk are packing up, selling their homes (or like George, ending their apartment leases) and moving across the Delaware as fast as they can.

Two of my co-workers who own homes and have raised families here in New Jersey have already told me they plan to move to Pennsylvania as soon as they retire or the kids get old enough.

The New Jersey exodus isn't limited to the Keystone State either.

In the past six months, I can think of at least four different longtime New Jersey residents of the apartment complex who, like George, are retirees living on fixed incomes who ended their leases to move down to Florida because of the cost of living.

In the same period, I can think of at least five different younger residents who ended their leases to move to places like San Diego, Chicago, Philadelphia or my beloved city of New York because they found better-paying jobs, and or opportunities to purchase homes which wouldn't come with the kind of crippling taxes that shackle home-owners in most parts of New Jersey.

Is that a natural part of a normal cycle in a shifting economy that's still recovering? Or the actual state of a state that Candidate Christie doesn't want to talk about because it might muddy his candidacy?

I don't know anything about George's politics, but I do know he won't be around to hear whether Christie addresses the concerns of average folks like him in the 2016 State of the State speech.

George and Romeo will have already moved away to another state.

47 Years After MLK's Death, Do the 'Haves' Have It All?

On this day honoring MLK, extreme global economic disparity made headlines with the release of an  Oxfam International report that predicts 1% of the global population will accumulate over 50% of the worlds wealth by 2016 based on current trends.

The richest 80 people on the planet having more collective wealth than billions of people who live on the opposite end of the economic spectrum is troubling, but the positive news is that economic disparity has finally become a serious topic of discussion; even at the highest echelons of global capitalism.

Winnie Byanyima, Executive Director of Oxfam International, will be a co-chair of the upcoming World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting starting this Wednesday in Davos, Switzerland, ensuring that the growing income gap is on the agenda.

There's growing research and data that shows the widening divide between the haves and have-nots is not just inherently unfair, it's a legitimate threat to global economic stability and security.

Some of this data, including specific methods (including manipulating laws, regulations and tax codes) used by a tiny fraction of the human population to conceal immense amounts of hidden wealth, from the 99% of us are pretty sobering.

As Winnie Byanyima was quoted as saying recently: "Extreme inequality isn't just a moral wrong. We know that it hampers economic growth and it threatens the private sector's bottom line."

The upside? If they're talking about it at the World Economic Forum in Davos, then it's going to have to be an issue in the 2016 elections here in the US.

Like climate change, I just can't see how today's Republican party is going to be where the bulk of the world's population is on this issue in terms of the need to address the wage gap here in the US.

But you can bet President Obama will talk about the results of the Oxfam report tomorrow night in his State of the Union Address; his plan to propose revamping the tax code is one of the key components of Oxfam's suggestions to address extreme economic inequality.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's (as well as states like Oregon) efforts to raise the minimum wage to a level that would ensure that workers would be able to pay for basics like rent, food and other necessities is another component of the Oxfam strategy to level the playing field.

I've listened to a number of interesting and insightful discussions on Dr. King's legacy today, but I can't help but wonder what would he think about the Oxfam report.

Considering that he was warning those who would listen about the dangers of economic marginalization and wealth inequality back in 1968, I think he would be disappointed.

In light of all that Dr. King lived and ultimately died for, perhaps aspiring to make all aspects of his dream a reality are motivation enough to support a growing global call to hold local and national politicians accountable to the needs of the 99%.

The idea of a world where 1% control more wealth than billions of others, is simply an unsustainable reality doomed to fail.

As Dr. King himself once said, "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality."

Is Mark Walhlberg's Remorse $incere?

Mark Wahlberg poses at one of his Wahlbergers restaurants

I wanted to share a couple quick follow-ups to my December blog about actor Mark Wahlberg petitioning the state of Massachusetts to pardon him for two separate incidents of racial harassment committed when he was 16 years-old, and another violent racial assault he committed as an adult on a Vietnamese store owner and his co-worker.

By the way, the co-worker who tried to stop Wahlberg was blinded in one eye when he was punched in the face by the actor/producer/aspiring restaurant chain owner.

First, the New York Daily News and other media outlets are reporting that Judith Beals, the former prosecutor who handled the 1986 prosecution of Wahlberg and two of his white friends for chasing and throwing rocks at three young black siblings in Dorchester, Massachusetts (and hurling racial epithets at them while they did) is publicly stating she does not believe Wahlberg should be pardoned for his assaults, which should be classified as a hate crime.

Among other things, Beals insists that Wahlberg never once showed remorse for his violent racial assaults (remember, there are more than one...), which is an essential component of receiving a pardon for a crime. 

There are real questions about whether Wahlberg's motivation reflects a sincere remorse over the acts he committed and the fact he's now a father who's given back to to the community in ways that help at-risk urban youth; or because having a felony on his record is a serious stumbling block in his desire to expand his Wahlburgers restaurant franchise which he co-owns with his brothers Donnie and Paul.

In the December 16th issue of The Hollywood Reporter, Chris Gardner and Gary Baum reported that Wahlburgers announced on December 4th that it plans to open 27 locations in Florida and New York and eventually wants to expand to 300 locations nationally.

The problem: under California law, a restaurant owner cannot have a felony record and obtain a concessionaire's license; which is needed to open a restaurant.

So the lucrative California market is off limits to Wahlburgers as long he has a felony record.

Wahlberg's problem is compounded by the fact that both the former Massachusetts prosecutor who handled his racial harassment case when he was a minor AND representatives of the tight-knit Vietnamese community in Wahlberg's former hometown of Dorchester, MA (where the assaults were committed) have publicly stated that Wahlberg has shown neither remorse for his crimes; or even made an effort to apologize to his victims.

According to The Hollywood Reporter article, a spokesperson for VietAid, a community organization based in Dorchester that advocates on behalf of the local Vietnamese community, as of 2006:
"Mark has not reached out to the Vietnamese community."  

As opposition to Wahlberg's pardon grows (including petitions and op-ed pieces) so do his concerns about his public image.

He's got a reality show about his restaurants and the accompanying family drama on A&E called 'Wahlburgers' that by all accounts is getting decent ratings.

No doubt the uncomfortable controversy over Wahlberg's pardon request has to be of concern to the president and CEO of A&E Networks, Nancy Dubuc; recently ranked # 3 on The Hollywood Reporter's 'Power 100' list of the most powerful female executives, movers and shakers in the entertainment industry.  

But the question remains; is Wahlberg seeking a pardon because of his troubled conscience, or because of the potential impact of his racial assaults on his brand?

I'll leave you with one last interesting personal observation on this issue.

A year or two (or three ?) ago, I saw Mark Wahlberg when he appeared on David Letterman; he was obviously there to promote his latest film; I think it might have been the buddy cop flick 'The Other Guys' with Will Ferrell.

Mark Wahlberg being interviewed by David Letterman

Anyway, if you know David Letterman, he doesn't tolerate phony shtick at all; if he gets even a whiff of a guest being insincere, he'll tear them apart - and he can be brutal because he knows the business and is highly intelligent to say nothing of witty. 

Anyway, Wahlberg is sitting in the chair with his easy smile, comfortably answering softball questions, when out of the blue, Letterman takes a complete left turn and starts asking Wahlberg about the fact that he never graduated high school.

Now to be fair to Wahlberg, that's not totally unusual for someone in the entertainment business, particularly actors or actresses; some of whom were performing at very early ages and simply chose to perform rather than continue with school - Google 'actors who didn't graduate from high school'; there's quite a few well-known stars who never got their HS diploma.

Anyway, the question clearly caught Wahlberg off guard.

You could tell by his body language that he wasn't totally comfortable talking about it. The easy smile vanished from his face and he seemed to squirm a bit, but he did manage to talk candidly about never getting his HS diploma and mentioned not having direction and discipline at that age; that kind of thing.

I recall this because it was almost a little uncomfortable watching it. Have you ever seen something on TV that's so awkward that it literally makes you change the channel? It was like that.

It's almost like Letterman spent all this time talking about his film roles, his popularity his power as a producer etc. Then boom; he starts talking about the guy not having a HS diploma on national TV.

Even after Wahlberg had answered the question, Letterman seemed to keep pressing him on it; and Walhberg was looking really uncomfortable until Letterman finally relented and asked him to introduce the clip from the movie.

Now this was long before I'd heard about the racial assaults, but when I look back on the interview, I feel really strongly that Letterman knew all about the racial assaults and was trying to see if he could get Walhberg to talk publicly about them.

Almost as if Letterman had enough experience in the business to know that it's better to come out and admit something like that and talk candidly about it than it is to have it "leak out" - and he was giving Mark Wahlberg a chance to do that; but Marky Mark didn't do it.

Now I could be off-base. It may well be that Wahlberg's 'handlers' had discussed Letterman bringing up the issue of Wahlberg not having a HS diploma before the interview; perhaps Wahlberg wanted to talk about it to encourage kids to stay in school.

But that wasn't my impression. That's exactly the kind of true-to-life, 'close to the heart' kind of thing Letterman likes to talk about with his guests, but maybe Wahlberg just wasn't comfortable doing it at the time.

Maybe he should have.

Because we're now seeing the media and public reaction to his efforts to quietly erase the incidents from his record by petitioning the state of Massachusetts.

Incidents which come off as insincere and lacking the genuine soul-reaching kind of remorse that would warrant expunging violent racial assaults from someone's legal records permanently.

Particularly when the benefit seems more financial than it does moral, ethical or legal.  

Mall of America's Double Standard & An Overzealous Prosecutor

Thousands protest peacefully at the Mall of America 

When the Mall of America opened in Bloomington, Minnesota just outside Minneapolis back in 1992, it garnered world-wide media attention for it's sheer size.

And it's big. Like well over five million square feet big; that translates to about 96.4 acres. You could fit seven Yankee Stadiums inside it (if you felt the need to try and do that) and it's got a theme park inside - you get the idea.

Back in late December, particularly on the east coast where I live, so much media attention was focused on the two NYPD officers who were tragically shot and killed by a deranged lone gunman, that many missed the story about the peaceful protests (pictured above left) against excessive police violence that took place in one section of the Mall of America.

In contrast to the incendiary rhetoric of factually one-dimensional reactionaries like New York PBA president Patrick Lynch, the protests were in no way "anti-police".

According to Nick Espinosa, a campaign manager for SumOfUs.org who attended the protests, on Saturday December 20th well over 3,000 people, including many young people of color as well as people of different races, ages and backgrounds, assembled in a section of the Mall of America to sing Christmas carols and peacefully reflect on the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner Tamir Rice and other unarmed African-American men and boys killed by police.

While much of the media coverage of the story was overshadowed by events in New York City, it was a pretty big story on social media during a month when similar protests organized by the group Black Lives Matter (and other groups) were taking place in cities all over the nation and in other countries as well.

The Mall of America protests were not sanctioned by the Mall's owners, but the protests were peaceful; carefully calculated by organizers to take place on a busy shopping day to bring attention to the cause of national calls for reforms in community policing and tactics.

Even though there was no property damage to the mall, or to any of the more than 520 stores, restaurants, movie theaters, hotel and other businesses inside, and no shoppers were bothered or harassed in any way, the Bloomington City Attorney Sandra Johnson decided to take an aggressive approach to the protestors that might make one think cars were burned and stores looted.

On December 23rd in the wake of the protests, Johnson was quoted as saying of the protesters:
“You want to get at the ringleaders … to deter any future demonstrations at the Mall of America,”

Now does a peaceful, non-violent protest really have "ringleaders"?

Even though the more than 3,000 protesters sang Christmas carols, Johnson described their non-violent actions as a "tinder box waiting for a match" and she has announced plans to serve criminal charges against the organizers to compel them to pay thousands of dollars in "lost revenue" to the Mall of America and to the city of Minneapolis for "police overtime".

December protests outside the Minneapolis Police Station 

In response to legal threats and  intimidation efforts from Mall of America and the afore-mentioned city attorney, the Minneapolis chapter of Black Lives Matter is using non-violent forms of protest to fight back; as seen in this photo (pictured left) of protesters holding a peaceful vigil outside of the Minneapolis Police station.

The group has also scheduled peaceful protests in Minneapolis for the Martin Luther King Day holiday next Monday January 19th.

According to information on the BLM Facebook page the group plans to lay out a list of demands that include Mall of America dropping criminal charges against the organizers, as well as calls for state politicians to adopt: "statewide legislation to end racial profiling, requiring all law enforcement in the state to undergo “bias and cultural competency training,” and increasing the number of police officers that live in the communities they serve."

SumOfUs campaign manager & protest supporter Nick Espinosa

As Nick Espinosa (pictured left) stated on the SumOfUS.org Website, the protests were carefully organized by hundreds of different volunteers including members of community organizations, members of clergy and average citizens concerned with the nationwide epic of excessive police violence against people of color.

Is the city of Minneapolis really going to bring criminal charges against the organizers of a peaceful protest where no one was hurt, no one was violent and no property was damaged?

It's not like the December 20th protests were the first to take place at the Mall of America.

In the past, people have been arrested at the mall for peaceful protests over everything from animal fur to gun control; in 1994 gun control advocates confronted actor Charelton Heston inside a restaurant in the Mall of America over his support of Republican candidates who support the NRA.

Last year more than 7,000 people assembled in the mall to raise awareness for cancer; that one was sanctioned by the mall. And they sang too.

But I guess 3,000 people gathering there to sing Christmas carols and peacefully reflect on the impact of excessive police violence was "riot in the third degree" as over the zealous City Attorney Johnson insisted.

Is the Mall of America private property? Sure it is. But it was also built with generous tax breaks courtesy of the citizens of Minnesota; many of whom were at the protests.

But when you have a massive retail space built directly on top of the site where the Minnesota Vikings and Minnesota Twins played for years until the stadium was demolished, that attracts over 40 million visitors a year and employs over 12,000 people - it's pretty much a public space.

That's why other protesters have gathered there in the past, and more will in the future.

To be fair to the owners of the Mall of America, they were probably stressed enough over the lackluster holiday shopping season and all the business they were loosing to Amazon.com; especially on the Saturday before Christmas.

But filing criminal charges against peaceful protesters strikes me as going a bit overboard; and actually plays into the protester's hand.

Why didn't Mall of America just go with it?

A diverse group of Mall of America shoppers support the protesters

I mean, Hell, there were three thousand people at those protests.

And it was a diverse group too.

Look at this photo (pictured left) of a group showing support for a group of people holding a "die-in"; remember, the protest was organized by Black Lives Matter, but there are clearly a lot of white faces in that photo holding hands in support too.

Does this look like a scene that you need to call police in riot gear to respond to? (Mall of America did by the way.) Does it look like something you want to file criminal charges over?

Why didn't Mall of America just put up a message of solidarity on their Jumbo Tron screen and encourage the protesters to visit the stores to finish their holiday shopping after the protests?

Or encourage them to stop by for a bite at one of the gazillion food courts they probably have in there; or kick back and catch a movie at one of the theaters?

Maybe I'm just a glass is half-full kinda guy, but Mall of America could have come off a lot cooler if they actually just went with the flow.

They could have scored some serious social media points instead of having opinionated progressive schmucks like me spend their free time blogging about how lame they came off.

It doesn't take some kind of marketing genius with a degree from Harvard to figure out that the Internet and tech savvy demographic that were participating in the protests, or were sympathetic to their cause, or read about the protests on social media (or paused from their shopping to watch and show support) are exactly the kind of elusive online shoppers that Mall of America wants to attract away from spending their hard-earned dough on a computer or electronic device to buy their gifts instead of strolling the 96.4 acres of their mega-mall to buy stuff. 

But they lost their chance. I can't help but wonder if there was some voice within the mall's ownership or management who suggested the "when in Rome" approach? Maybe.

Unleashing the cranky-sounding City Attorney Sandra Johnson (who came off sounding like a lecturing principle determined to send everyone to detention for skipping class) like some kind of self righteous Minneapolis 'Crusader for the Sanctity of Holy Commerce-Michelle Bachmann wanna be' was a really bad PR move. 

Anyway, that's my two cents for what it's worth. I don't think criminal charges are warranted in this case. The protesters were well behaved and peaceful and it was for a cause that many Americans of all different age groups, races, nationalities and socio-economic backgrounds support; reasonable police reforms to curb the excessive use of violence.

If you agree, take a couple minutes to click this link to the online petition posted on SumOfUS.org and add your name in support.

That's not anti-cop Patrick Lynch, it's just good sense - and it's pretty darned American too.

Stacey Meyer - Fighting Employer Discrimination Against Adults With Mental Health Issues

Stacey Meyer of Weston, Florida is a living breathing example of the one in four people in this country affected by mental health problems.

One in four. That's a stat you don't hear bandied about on mainstream media.

That's an eye-opening 25% of the population, so it goes without saying that a significant percentage of the current American workforce are impacted in some measurable way by some kind of mental health issue.

Some, like Stacey, have faced real and overt discrimination in the workplace because of the stigma and misunderstandings of, and about mental health disabilities.

I try my best to be perspicacious in tone and subject on this blog and over the years I've covered many different examples of discrimination.

Mostly for issues related to racial discrimination as that's my own perspective, but I've also covered (and do cover) stories involving discrimination against people for religion, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, age and even physical size.

But this is the first time I've looked at discrimination against people because of something that cannot be "seen" as a physical trait; mental health.

I first heard about Stacey's story when her boyfriend contacted me through Twitter and asked if I'd use this blog to help bring some attention to her efforts to seek redress for being unfairly terminated from her job in 2011 because of issues related to the mental disabilities she suffers from.

Stacey has a petition up on Change.org that aims to reverse a decision by the Southern District of Florida and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which denied her the right to bring her case of employment discrimination before of a jury of her peers.

You can read more details about Stacey's case on the Change.org Website, and I hope you'll take a few minutes to sign her online petition as well.

Stacey spent 17 years working for the federal government, doing the kinds of thankless tasks that most of us don't really appreciate or think about, but all benefit from.

A lot of politicians who sanctimoniously call themselves "public servants" use their position to enrich themselves and the moneyed masters of the lobbyists who dispense cash and other goodies in return for political favors; as in former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell.

But Stacey truly was a servant of the public.

Most recently, she was a Consumer Safety Officer for the Department of Health & Human Services' Food & Drug Administration where she helped regulate the imported foods and other commodities that come into this country.

She also worked for the USDA as an Agricultural Commodities Grader for the Processed Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division - before that she worked as a Housing Officer for FEMA assisting victims of Hurricane Andrew with housing and financial assistance.

When Stacey was dismissed for issues related to the symptoms she suffers from, she did the right thing; she waded into the red tape and followed the appeals process to try and have her case heard in court.

But after three and a half years, she's been financially devastated by the costs and legal fees related to her appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Southern District Court of Florida and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Two years after being dismissed, she finally had a court date for her civil employment lawsuit scheduled for December, 2013, but lawyers for the government filed for a summary judgment and in November, 2013, Judge Cecelia Altonaga dismissed the case without Stacey getting her day in court.

Not cool, and certainly not fair.

Her case has also been complicated by some questionable actions taken and decisions made by her two former supervisors, Facundo Bernal and William Keck.

If read through the summary of her case on Change.org I think it's pretty clear Stacey's case deserves to be tried by a neutral third party in a court of law.

The road to justice for Stacey isn't an easy one, and her case is complex.

But you can really help her out and make a difference to her appeal just by taking a few moments to add your name to her online petition; which can be presented in her court file through a Supplemental Brief.

She helped a lot of average people out over the course of her government career; I hope you'll take a couple minutes to help her out.

If you're on Twitter you can also spread the word about her case using the hashtag #justice4Stacey               

NAACP Building Bombed: Echoes of Extremism Across the Globe

Crime scene tape surrounds the NAACP office in CO

On this freezing January Wednesday just a day after Republican majorities in both the House and Senate officially took office, we're reminded that the voices of intolerance and extremism are alive and well in 2015 - both here and abroad.

The attempted bombing of the NAACP office in Colorado, while repulsive, seems tame compared to the horror that took place in France.

Masked gunmen entered the Paris offices of satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo and killed 12 people including four cartoonists and the editor in apparent retaliation for portrayals of the prophet Muhammad that offended some extremist Muslims.

A radio interview about the attacks on the BBC New earlier this morning described Charlie Hebdo as being somewhat similar to 'South Park' in terms of the absurdist kinds of satire it publishes.

Was this extremist attack push-back for the thousands of anti-Muslim extremists who've taken to the streets of Europe lately?

This brutal assault on people and freedom of expression comes on the heels of an estimated 18,000 people turning out for the recent PEGIDA anti-Islamist marches in Dresden, Germany.

Anti-PEGIDA protestor in Germany

PEGIDA is an acronym for Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident, a right-wing populist movement that's gained a foothold in Germany recently.

If anything positive can be taken from the PEGIDA rallies it's the overwhelming opposition to the anti-Muslim sentiment expressed by German citizens across the nation, as seen in the picture seen left.

Churches dimmed their lights, chancellor Angela Merkel went on television to urge Germans to repudiate PEGIDA's message of hate - and thousands and thousands of average citizens took to the streets of multiple cities to reject the ideology of hate.

We've obviously got our own issues with intolerance and extremism here in the US too.

On Tuesday, an unidentified assailant attempted to detonate a crude explosive device against the exterior wall of the offices of the NAACP in Colorado Springs, CO about 70 miles south of Denver.

The FBI are calling the device an "IED".

When I hear the word IED (Improvised Explosive Device) images of insurgents in Iraq attacking Coalition soldiers comes to mind, but no; we're talking about the state of Colorado.

This latest act of domestic terrorism comes just two days before the motion picture "Selma" opens in theaters around the nation; the film chronicles the 1965 Selma-to-Montgomery marches led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in support of voting rights.

Is the failed bombing of the NAACP offices connected to that? I don't know.

King's birthday is January 15th and is celebrated as a federal holiday on January 19th - but it's hard to tell with violent American wing-nuts consumed with hatred who's minds have been warped by ignorance.

With the premiere of "Selma" in two days it's a pretty safe bet that the executives responsible for the film are having that discussion. Paramount is distributing the film but it was produced in conjunction with Oprah Winfrey's HARPO Productions and Brad Pitt's Plan B Entertainment.

Oh and speaking of a divided nation, yesterday the Economic Policy Institute released a report on the growing wage inequality in America that reveals a startling statistic on income stagnation for 99%.

According to the report, since 1979, average wages for the top 1% of Americans grew by 138%, during the same period (35 years) wages for the bottom 99% grew by only 15%.

We all know that's unsustainable for a nation of over 300 million people and worse, that statistic stands in total contrast to the ideals upon which this nation was founded.

Words like "promote the general welfare" and the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" were meant to apply to ALL Americans, not just 1% of us.

It'll be interesting to see how (or if?) the new Republican "super majority" uses their power to legislate to address that glaring statistic; which obviously doesn't bolster their arguments for more tax cuts for the top earners.

But the sad truth about this startling economic disparity (besides it being global) is that it lies at the very root of all this violent extremism we're seeing.

Whether it's an Islamist extremist in France murdering innocent people for expressing ideas and opinion, or a lone American extremist trying to detonate an explosive device outside the walls of an office of one of the nation's oldest civil rights organizations - these individuals share the same traits.

They're unhappy, disenfranchised humans alienated from decent job opportunities, safe communities and basics like decent health care, a clean water supply and even food. And hope.

People who have those things in abundance don't become susceptible to the morally bankrupt ideologies that give birth to the kinds of violent extremist organizations that manipulate the fears and insecurities of those who've been marginalized by society.

No one joins the KKK if they're happy with their life, no one joins ISIS or Al Qaeda if they look forward to getting up and going to work, or seeing their children play; no one becomes a neo-Nazi if they feel good about themselves.

This extremism we're seeing across the globe has many forms, but only one real source; the alienation and degradation of the human spirit caused by the lack of urgent concern for the human condition.

Maybe we all bear some responsibility for that.

"The Hug" - NJ Gov Chris Christie Embraces His Inner Cowboy

Cowboy's owner Jerry Jones, brother Stephen & Chris Christie embrace

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is catching some serious heat for of all things, a hug.

Most folks in the Garden State are a lot more familiar with Christie's tendency to angrily berate citizens or reporters who dare to question him in public, so the sight of Hizzoner hugging and smiling is in itself, an unusual event.

But it's the fact that he hugged Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, live on national TV last night that makes this big news in Jersey and elsewhere.
  
In the state of New Jersey, most people fall into two categories where it comes to professional football - Giants or Eagles. Jersey has a decent smattering of Jet's fans too.

There are of course, exceptions here and there, such as yours truly, a longtime Washington Redskins fan. But Dallas?

Rooting for the Cowboys (openly) will earn you "a look" in Jersey; and it's not a friendly kind of eye contact either.

There are some hardcore Dallas fans who live here, but Jersey tends to be a bit of a bandwagon state; so the ratio of people walking around wearing Cowboy's gear is directly proportional to how well Dallas is doing in the standings.

Seriously, if (God forbid) the Cowboys should win the Super Bowl, there will be an explosion of Jersey dudes wearing Stetsons or Cowboy boots; I've seen it happen before.    

Now there are a few different ways to see Christie's open embrace of the Cowboys.

CBS Sports NFL writer Will Brinson wrote a piece about "The Hug". He took a shot at Christie's fashion choice, noting that the governor's sweater choice made him look like Fat Albert.

Some people might admire Christie's "toughness" for being willing to stick to his guns and root for a team even though he knows he'll catch heat for it; my guess is a lot of Republicans fall into that category.

Others consider it a non-issue, after all, Christie has a right to root for whoever he wants to and there are probably worse things happening in the news than the NJ governor hanging out in the owner's box of the Dallas Cowboys during a playoff game.

Personally, you probably know where I stand on "The Hug". In the film "The Sixth Sense", Haley Joel Osment's character saw dead people; but I see political conspiracies. They're everywhere.

Hear me out.

We all know Chris Christie is still playing coy about whether or not he'll run for president in 2016, right?

Gov Chris Christie channeling his inner Scarlett O'Hara?

He's like Scarlett O'Hara (pictured left) at the Twelve Oaks barbecue in 'Gone With the Wind' teasing a retinue of drooling beaus tripping over each other for the honor of fetching her a plate of food.

Under different circumstances "The Hug" might be a small thing, but Christie is already facing the scrutiny of wary voters in the Garden State.

Over the past year Christie has been on an almost non-stop nationwide tour as the head of the Republican Governor's Association, raising funds for a slew of GOP candidates, stumping on the election trail and not-so-quietly wooing the big-money Republican donors who will christen the next GOP candidate for 2016.

In the next couple weeks the well-traveled Christie will fly down to the Sunshine State to attend the inauguration of Florida Republican Governor Rick Scott; whom Christie helped to get re-elected.

After his own inauguration, he'll be down in Maryland for the inauguration of Republican Governor Larry Hogan - then he heads back to the state of Iowa to attend (wait for it....) yet another national GOP event.

Even I can't blame Christie for going back to Iowa for the umpteenth time; with Jeb Bush carefully and publicly severing his corporate ties with the various boards on which he serves, Christie's under even more pressure to show the Koch Brothers he's got the right stuff.

But he's left an impression amongst folks in NJ that he doesn't really care all that much about the Garden State anymore; after all he won re-election to the governor's mansion in a landslide, technically speaking he doesn't need anyone's vote.

So I figure Christie's appearance in Jerry Jones' box during the Dallas game (and of course, the aforementioned "Hug") was part of a carefully calculated bit of political theater.

How do you "out-Bush" Jeb Bush? You make sure you're in the private box of the owner of the Dallas Cowboys during a nationally televised playoff game being watched by millions of potential voters!

Give him credit, it's a helluva a lot more effective way to show Southern white voters that you can "get your South on" than Mitt Romney's pathetic efforts to seem sincere while eating Southern foods he'd never heard of in 2012.

Remember Romney's cringe-worthy quote ahead of the Mississippi and Alabama primaries in 2012?

"I'm learning to say 'y'all' and I like grits,” Romney told a crowd in Pascagoula, Mississippi, last Wednesday. A day later, he told his audience in Jackson, Mississippi, “I got started right this morning with a biscuit and some cheesy grits. ... Delicious.”

Really Mitt?  

'The Atlantic Wire' rightly called it "Southern pander" and Mittens looked just as phony saying it as he sounded when he said it.

Chris Christie surely never forgot Romeny's campaign Faux Paux De Jour.

For Sunday's Dallas game Christie wore an orange sweater for Pete's sake!

Granted he was photographed walking on the field next to Jerry Jones trying to rock a blue Dallas Cowboys scarf, but it clashed with the sweater and seemed forced and insincere.

Like something a sharp-eyed aide handed him to wear before he walked onto the turf so he didn't seem totally lame in the burnt orange sweater.

On WFAN this morning he defended his hug by insisting he's been a Dallas Cowboy's fan since he was seven years-old; you've been a fan since you were seven and still wear an orange sweater to a Dallas playoff game? Really?

Look at him in that photo above! He made sure to get a good firm grip on Jerry Jones. Do you know how much money Christie's campaign would've had to spend on commercials to get that kind of press in Dallas?

Christie's "Hug" was worth millions. Political genius!

While his brash bro-hug may have scored him some points amongst the all-important Southern white Republican male demographic, it's really not making him immune to criticism back home here in Jersey. Or the news that Jerry Jones paid for Christie's trip to Big D; including a private plane.
 
Today a large group of NJ mayors, state reps and even a US Senator (mostly Democrats) gathered together in the Grove Street PATH train station in Jersey City to rally against Christie's controversial support to cut overnight PATH train service that runs back and forth between New York and New Jersey; enabling thousands of commuters to get to work.

Christie insists the cuts (co-authored by NY Governor Andrew Cuomo by the way...) to overnight PATH train service will save the Port Authority of NY & NJ an estimated $10 million a year; but when you consider the Port Authority's annual budget is somewhere around $8 billion, $10 million is a symbolic drop in the bucket.

Ras Baraka, the newly elected mayor of Newark, NJ called the proposed cuts "a disgrace".

Politically speaking it was klutzy of Christie to support the cuts considering an estimated 73 million people per year use PATH service to commute between NY and NJ.

But then again, when Chris Christie needs to fly back from Dallas to New Jersey at 1am, a limo takes him to a private plane paid for by a gazillionaire like Jerry Jones.

When he needs to fly off to one of his many GOP fundraisers, it's on a private plane paid for by wealthy GOP donors.

With all due respect to Chris Christie, he doesn't know what it's like to stand on the platform waiting for a PATH train at 11:30pm at night, or 2am in the morning on a cold winter night when you're trying to get home to see your kids, or feed the cat, or catch some sleep.

So it makes sense to him to cut overnight train service that average poor, working class and middle class folks depend on.

Maybe Christie would have been better off standing on a PATH platform on Sunday night hugging an average NJ commuter stepping off the train and assuring him or her the state of New Jersey supports transportation infrastructure - rather than hugging a billionaire NFL owner in a luxury box.

Regardless, "The Hug" gives you a snapshot of the kind of president he'd be.

Maybe the smart NJ politician who loves the Cowboys and wants to be president stays home, stocks the bar, puts out a nice spread and invites some friends over to watch the playoff game on a 52" wide-screen television in private.

Not to deny his personal choices, but simply because he's mature enough to understand that many of his constituents might misinterpret his rooting for a football team they don't like.

Because perception is everything, and as Christie is learning, one of the prices of being the leader of the free world is that you have to think twice about how even the most seemingly mundane decisions will play in the age of a voracious 24-7 media news cycle fueled by social media.

Maybe one of the most basic and ironic lessons about wanting to be president eludes Christie; that being the most powerful man in the modern industrialized world means that you don't get to do anything you want to.

Hug-Gate? Maybe not, but close.