My Parents' Son

Why Gov. Buddy Roemer Should Get More Attention

2011-12-09T23:12:00.000-08:00

I have had a good time following Gov. Buddy Roemer on Twitter as well as his appearances on MSNBC. I did not know much about him until very recently, but I have to say, I am rather intrigued. If you don't know who he is, he is one of the many republican presidential candidates. He is, however, shut out of the debates. And, as he explains it, the rules for his ability to enter are always changing. Here is a guy who was a Governor and a Congressman, (beyond being a Harvard trained economist) but yet a pizza guy who was an embarrassment to the very fundamentals of our democratic process, was invited, nay, courted in.

While I am sure Gov. Roemer and I do not agree on much, for one, his stance on gay marriage, what I do appreciate is his is laser focus on getting money out of politics. For one, he will not take a donation over $100. Some may call him naive, or at least, a certain loser in the presidential race, but if he is anything, and for sure he is more than that, he is a man guided by sound conviction; which I submit is very much lacking on both sides of the aisle.

I worry about our state of affairs. I do not buy into the narrative that our politics are any more divisive today than in the past. Things have always been rough and personal. But I get the sense that somewhere along the line the battle to get ones ideas to the fore has fundamentally damaged our nation's ability to govern.

And it really all comes down to money. The amount of money people have to raise to run for office is insane!! President Obama is talking about raising 1 billion dollars for his reelection campaign. Imagine if that money was put to work for those that need it? Imagine if people gave hand over fist to help their neighbor in this way? What if these big donors invested that money into their local community or a community that needed it? It just does not seem right that when we get to the point where we need someone to lead they are already asking us to believe that they can still lead in the future, even if they did not do so well in the present.

This is not a problem that is exclusive to one party or another - Obama was well backed by Wall Street - rather it is systemic since money become the deciding factor between winning and losing elections.

Gov. Roemer has it right, for sure, but I worry that he will get shut out because he is not flush with money. I am not saying I want him as president, but I would not mind his voice to be more prominent in the race, so others could answer these simple questions...where do you get your money from? And why do you need so much?

Presently Listening to:

Sunday after Saturday...

2011-11-20T12:03:00.001-08:00

Last night we had friends over for a "Gaysgiving". Everyone brought a dish or drink to pass and we made pop overs, turkey chili, pumpkin bread, apple crisp and roasted tomato caprese salad. We also made a drink with equal parts Hendrix, Pama, St. Germain, pomegranate and cranberry juice, served in a pomegranate sugar rimmed glass.

All around it was a fine spread of food and drink. But what was finer was the company. Which got me thinking about the many things I am thankful for this year. Beyond my wonderful marriage just a couple months ago I am struck by how lucky I am to be alive presently. Not because there is something special about the time, but rather that there is something special about the company we keep. From friends nearby to those far away that I will forever have a connection to. To family, here and gone, that have provided me with a road map to not only life, but love and happiness.

So, in this season of thanks, (and gorging), I find myself, even if it might be dripping with hyperbole, happy with the totality that is my present.

Maybe it might pass, but for now, I'll sip on my coffee and be 'okay with today'.

Hasta Pronto, Cuidate!

Presently listening to:

My New Obsession...

2011-11-14T11:28:00.001-08:00

Anyone that knows me knows that I get obsessed with new found things. I can spend hours either listening to this new artist I found or researching more about a person / place / or thing. Usually this is accompanied by a tumbler of gin, scotch, or brandy.

About three weeks ago on a nice fall afternoon I drove downstate for a conference. On the ride down there I was listening to my Pandora and came across this song "Public Property" by Danielle Ate the Sandwich. I loved it and meant to look her up when I was not operating an SUV. But, then, I promptly forget to look her up. So over the weekend, while Twittering, she came across on my Pandora again but now I was not obligated to pay attention to the road and other cars, so off I went to find out more about this quirky singer. And what I found, I loved. I mean, really loved. So, here I sit, listening to her and wondering why she is not more famous. But then again, my snobbery would not let me be obsessed with someone who is already popular, pssh!

While this is not the song that I first fell in love with, it is one of my favorites and a really cool video; if for nothing else, that is one hot-ass typewriter.

More info on Danielle Ate the Sandwich

So You're EnGAYged Wedding Blog

2011-11-08T09:19:00.001-08:00

For the last 8 months I have been actively blogging for this site. See here for all my blog posts. Hopefully some of the readers that followed me there will be reading this post presently...;-)

Doing this has really sparked my interest in blogging more often, I know, welcome to 1999, but whatever, I like it!

I tend to talk more politics here, but sometimes like to talk about pop-culture or whatever might catch my interest...or annoyance!

Hasta Pronto!

Cuidate!

Presently Listening To:

The West Wing...and America

2011-10-22T20:32:00.000-07:00

For those out there that watch The West Wing, you understand that it gives you a feeling that our leaders seek to do the best by us, and even when we do not agree, we all can connect behind the following ideal: America is good.

With the 2012 election on the horizon, I am thinking about the many ways we are not the nation we used to be. Maybe this is me thinking that the past is better than the present, but I have to believe that the country my parents grew up in, and its promise, is much different than the one I am inheriting.

I know the issues facing our country are complicated. Many things need a revision, from tax code, to medicare, to social security. But what I have come to understand, as both a student of history, and a watcher of politics, is that no one answer works for all our problems. If I had to classify myself, I would say I was a progressive; but I am not a progressive that thinks all republicans are evil. I get that people believe different things for different reasons.

So, given that I can hold a conversation with a conservative republican without it dissolving into me calling him a bigot and he calling me a pinky liberal, why can't our elected officials do the same?

I get that politicians have reelection to worry about...but for once I would like to see these people doing the work of the American people, rather than doing the work that they think gives them the best chances of not losing the next election.

Listening to:

Senator John A. DeFrancisco's No Vote on Same Sex-Marriage: The response

2010-03-21T17:20:00.000-07:00

I posted this about a month or two ago.

Earlier this week, Senator John A. DeFrancisco's office responded to my 5 letters. He response was at best perfunctory and at worst glib. We know what he believes, we asked why? His letter was a brush off of the worst kind. We plan to respond, but thought that people might like to see what 'he' said.

Hasta pronto, Cuidate,

Michael

Senator John A. DeFrancisco's No Vote on Same Sex-Marriage: Letter-tastic

2010-02-04T08:09:00.000-08:00

So in early December the New York legislator voted down a measure to legalize same-sex marriage. This was obviously disheartening to me, although not surprising. So my partner and I decided to write our local legislator in hopes that he could let us know why he voted no. I sent the letter first on December 4, 2009. I waited a month, and no word, so on January 6, 2010, I sent the letter again. As of today, still no word. So, I will send the letter again; and again, and again, until I get an answer. If you believe enough to deny people the right to marry, than you should be willing to explain why. I have attached the letter below, I hope to hear something soon!

Hasta Pronto, Cuidate,

Michael

February 5, 2010

State Senator John A. DeFrancisco

Room 802 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247

State Senator DeFrancisco:

Below is the original correspondence we sent on December 4, 2009. I resent this letter on January 6, 2010. To date we have not received a response. Please treat this letter with all due consideration and respond accordingly. Thank you.

We wanted to send you a letter to note our disappointment in your NO vote on the gay marriage bill brought up before the state senate earlier this week. We are not sure what your rational was; maybe religion guided you, maybe it was the consensus of your constitutions or maybe it is your personal beliefs, but none-the-less, you are simply wrong.

Marriage is fundamentally a religious institution, this we believe, and the state should have no business in defining marriage. What the state does have a business in doing is making sure that rights are distributed evenly and with regard to marriage in New York State, they are not. You are a steward of the state, and thus the rights of its people, and sir, in our opinion, you did not do your job.

We understand that pressure abounds in political office and we appreciate that this is one of the many issues that you are asked to contemplate. What is unfortunate is that your name will be a foot note in New York and American history as someone who did not have the foresight nor the will to do the right thing when faced with a civil rights issue. If that mark in history is a place at which you find yourself comfortable, then so be it. Understand that same-sex marriage will happen in this state and in this country and you are simply on the short winning end of this tug-of-war.

We hope that upon the time that this issue resurfaces, and it will, your mind and heart will find its way to the right side of history; to the place where sex does not determine the ability of couples to marry, but rather it is the willingness and want of two people that does.

We are both independently minded individuals and do not believe that one vote defines an elected official. We know that you have your reasons for voting the way you did, and that you feel justified for doing so, we simply want to know why and we would welcome an opportunity to discuss your reasons.

Sincerely,

David J. Kachermeyer & Michael Mancini

A moment of pontification: Me vs Bank of America

2010-02-04T08:00:00.000-08:00

The battle began on an idle Sunday. I opened my account to notice that it was overdrawn. I noticed two Amazon charges were posted to my account three weeks after the purchase date. Since I thought they went through I had not accounted for them; I was wrong. Once I noticed, I transferred money enough to make my account positive. But since my account sat in the negative for a day, I was charged an overdraft fee. I called on the Monday, and the fee was given back to me. But the overdraft fee charged to me put my account in the negative, and thus, I was then charged two more overdraft fees on the Tuesday.

I called again, hoping that my story would garner a diversion from BOA's fee course, but alas I was met with perfunctory answers, and "nothing more we can do". I was given an amorphous PO Box in Los Angles, CA to send a letter of complaint. My partner did not want to let it go so we called again, and again were met with the same.

So, as my father's son, I decided to not let it go. The following might strike you a little crazy, but I think it sort of genius. I trolled the Internet for Bank of America e-mail addresses (including the CEO's email) a decided if reason would not work to resolve my issue, poking might!

The e-mail went out 2/8/10 and it worked. I received a couple, "not sure why I got this" e-mails, but it was clear one e-mail worked. On 2/10/10, Dan, from "the CEO's office" called me. While he gave me the same 'you should have known better" speech he ultimately refunded my money. Whether or not I will stay with BOA is up in the air, but right now I am very happy.

(Below I copied my letter/e-mail:)

Cuidate, Hasta Pronto,

Michael

________________________________________

I was directed to send a letter by Salina, a customer service representative with whom I talked to on February 3, 2010. I have decided to send an e-mail in hopes of a faster resolution.

The reason for my call was about overdraft fees. On February 2, 2010 I called about my account, which was in the negative due to an overdraft fee that was charged. I noticed on January 31, 2010 that my account was in the negative and transferred money enough to put my account in the positive. The representative refunded $35 to my account and told me no further fees would be charged. However, since I was charged that overdraft fee, it put my account in the negative, which I was then charged overdraft fees that totaled $70 on February 3, 2010.

No overdraft fee was levied until the following Monday of the original transaction, if it had been, I would have floated more money to my account to cover the overdraft fee and then called on Monday and took care of the issue. At that point my ‘courtesy’ refund would have covered all my costs and I would not have incurred another $70 in fees. Since I did not, when the overdraft fee was levied, it put me in the negative. I know that the overdraft fee is automatically put on the account at day’s end, so why not every day? Is this another way to make sure that people do not ‘see’ what is going on behind the scenes? Why are fees to an account not shown when ‘pending’? If the former had occurred, there would be no reason for this correspondence.

While I recognize that these fees are valid, insofar as BOA policy, what I take issue with is the inability to recognize that I did my best to put my account in the positive, and the length of time that my account was in the negative was short. Further, it was the overdraft fees that put my account in the negative, which then perpetuated further overdraft fees. While it looks like items were posted to my account after I transferred money, I never made a purchase with this account after January 30, 2010. What first put my account in the negative was an Amazon order I made on January 7, 2010, that I thought posted to my account, but did not until January 29, 2010.

I had hoped to resolve this issue without sending a letter, so I called again last night and met the same stonewall tactics by a supervisor named Tammy. She, like Salina, said that there was no one above her I could talk to, but at the end of the conversation Tammy gave me a manager’s escalation line, but told me nothing further could be done. Salina never gave me this option, just told me I could send a letter to an amorphous P.O. Box in LA. If the Bank wants to reiterate that the rules are the rules and are applied perfunctorily, than why is it that each person I talk to at Bank of America gives different information and does not know what others have told me? I know you log your calls, is it a purposeful bureaucratic move not to note what a representative states to customers so you all can claim plausible deniability about promises made?

I ask that you refund the $70. Much like when Bank of America needed help from the taxpayers we helped, I am asking you to do the same. The rules of the game were bent in your time of need, so why am I not privy to the same? As you well know, we all make mistakes, I just hope you grant me the same grace during the time of my mistake as the government did during the time of your mistakes.

I am just a middle class kid, that is trying to move up in the world. I went to college, then to graduate school and am now just starting to get my finances in order. $70 is a lot of money to me.

I hope to remain a Bank of America customer, as I have been for a number of years now, thus I ask you to please give me reason to do so.

44th President

2009-01-19T06:40:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama will be sworn in as our 44th president tomorrow. Much is hoped for his presidency. Obama has done a great job of getting his team together, doing what he said he would, reaching across party lines to get the job done.

In practice, that is easier said than done. It is simple to pick someone who is seen as your enemy and put them in high office; it is another to have to work with them on a day to day basis. I hope, as many Americans do, that he can live up to the hype, both created by him and created by his followers. I voted for Obama, because I believed he was the better among the choices and I have always liked Joe Biden. Do I believe he is the second coming? No. Do I believe he will do a good job? Yes. But he is no more human than George W. Bush, and thus no less susceptible to his failings.

There has been much speculation in the media these past months about Bush’s legacy. It seems that most are trying to say, ‘hey, it’s Cheney’s fault.’ And while I think that Cheney had too much influence, it was Bush’s white house. Bush is an example of why you must want to be, and do, president to run for the office; because if you do not, you will never give your whole self to the Office. I believe Bush wanted to be president in his second term but not his first. That is why he did a lot better in that term than his first; although the bar was pretty low. What you saw in his second term was a more thoughtful president who utilized the right people. Secretary Rice become more influential, Rumsfeld left, and Cheney took a back seat. Foreign policy became more nuanced and less myopic. As Daniel Drezner of Newsweek writes “In his second term, Bush made a concerted effort to repair the transatlantic relationship, in part by endorsing negotiations with Iran.” Drezner goes on to note that President Obama owes a great deal of gratitude to President Bush for his policy shifts.

The mistake many presidents make, as Bush did, is to think they can come into office and on day one flip everything on its head. Bush did this with much of Clinton’s foreign policy which did America no good, but at the start of Bush’s second term he reverted back to many of the policy’s of Clinton’s white house. While voters say that they want change that does not mean a president accomplishes the same by doing the opposite of what the other guy did. A president will never understand the choices of the previous president until s/he is in the job. That is why I believe Obama will make a good president, not because of his experience, but because, seemingly, he gets that the presidency is all about shades of gray and nuance.

Bush leaves office with very low approval rating, much of it is deserved and some not. While I have never liked Bush I can see that he has changed; like the teenager who approached his parents with contempt and petulance, to the reflective adult who understands in part that stubbornness is not akin to ‘staying true to oneself.’ Maybe I give him too much credit, but the forgiving person in me wants to think he realizes his mistakes, even if he won’t admit them. I believe this is best evidenced by the transition of power that has taken place since November.

The Office of the President has not been treated with much respect for these past 16 years, from Clinton’s inability to understand the difference between a hotel room and the oval office to Bush’s outsourcing of his duties to his principles.

All I can hope for, and believe to be true, is that Obama will treat the Office with more respect than those who came before him. It might be too much, or too little, to ask but it will make me a prouder American.

Listening to:

Hasta Pronto, Cuidate,

Michael

For First Time's Sake

2008-12-12T06:40:00.000-08:00

My parents if nothing else are pragmatic. They had five boys and most of the time little money. But I don’t remember wanting for much. We had vacations, toys, and most of all love. Their idea of how to attain the American Dream was simple: work hard, be good to others and respect yourself.

The American Dream as an equation changes depending on your point of reference. However, one theme is clear: the American Dream has become not something one works toward but rather an American birthright. This is no more evident than in our financial crisis; people who bought beyond their means because they felt deserving of an expensive house or CEOs who banked away millions while workers struggled to put food on the table. And then once all the money was gone they close shop and the American worker is left to start anew with little but their strong work ethic to hold them fast while the CEOs enjoy their ride with a golden parachute.

What my parents taught me in my formative years--never ask for more than you give, treat others like you would want to be treated and work hard--is the back bone of a productive society.

I have worked hard, put myself through college and graduate school and have been out on my own since I was 23. I have had a job since I was 12 and always took care of my bills. I find myself in debt, however, which is mostly due to my stopover in 'beyond my means' land. It is crazy that I am still paying for the misgivings of my late teens and early twenties; well not really. If I can offer any advice, if my advice should mean anything, buy what you want, but want what you can afford. Know your stock and stage in life.

I look around and see little that is worth my debt. I am better now and have spent time reflecting on the teachings of my parents. What has become increasingly worrying is that as pragmatic as I wish to be, there is a part of me that understands freewheeling spending and greed. That sense of power that money entitles the individual is intoxicating but misleading; because the power lies with the money rather than the person; see the money dry up see the person's power recoil in kind.

I have almost reached 30 and find myself looking at my past with a sense of regret, but then wonder if all my misgivings, failures and lost potential were worth the present day destination. It is. I am happy with who I am and who I am with.

I am better off than most Americans and better served than most of the world. I am happy to live in this land of ours and have come to appreciate this Country as greater among its equals; if there should be equals.

I am my parents' son, if for no other reason than I want to work hard and do good by my friends, family, and partner. Family--in the broadest definition of the word --and its bonds are what define a life and I have them in abundance and want for little.

Listening to:

Hasta Pronto, Cuidate,

Michael