The Voice of Treason

… He hates freebie es-CHIP, he hates it he do.
He will veto es-CHIP, he’ll take it from you.

Aye, yii, yii, yiiii, all hail the Veto Bandito!
Give him bill for es-CHIP, he’ll pull out his pen.
This veto, Bandito, will surely offend.

Can you just hear the wailing? George Bush doesn’t care about the chiiillldrunnn! He doesn’t care about the fammalees! This is fammalee values? This is compassionate conservativism?

Oh, brother! First of all, a shout out to T for the line “veto bandito,” and another to the magnificent Miss Florence King for the accurate spellings of two of the most overused, misused words in our culture. If the chiiillldrunnn in that horrid Kid Nation are any indication of what we can expect of our future politicians, I say cut SCHIP completely and let the little brats perish before it’s too late for the rest of us.

The administration has expanded SCHIP funding and doesn’t want the program to expire. What it doesn’t want expanded is our taxes. By expanding SCHIP eligibility to cover more higher income families (read: not po’ families), the Democrats are taking yet another sneaky step towards government controlled healthcare (read: socialized medicine).

Every time I hear someone say that Americans will still have a choice and that they can keep right on paying for their private coverage if they want to, I have to wonder how long it will be before their taxes and insurance rates get so high that they’ll be forced to drop what they have and sign up for the government plan.

“Let’s see… this much comes out of my paycheck each week to pay for my health insurance. If I let the government pay for my coverage, then my insurance won’t cost me a dime. Hell, yes, I’m taking the free coverage!”

It pains me that I still hear adults talk about how our government pays for these programs. Must be the people who went to the “free” schools. Kid Nation, indeed.

Okay, I’ll admit it: I watched Kid Nation tonight.  I say we just nuke the little bastards.

“When you go into court, you are putting your fate into the hands of twelve people who weren’t smart enough to get out of jury duty.”

– Norm Crosby

And sometimes, strangely enough, that can work in a person’s favor. After five months, seventy-seven witnesses, and more than five hundred exhibits, twelve people can’t agree on a verdict. So… is Phil Spector guilty or innocent? When will we know? Will we know?

Another jury that wasn’t quite smart enough gathered over a decade ago for a different murder case. In this one, the question was: Is O.J. Simpson guilty of murdering his ex-wife and Ron Goldman? I think it’s safe to say that most people – or just us white folk, if you listen to the media – believe he committed murder and got away with it.

Yet he’s free as a bird, out and about – um, well, no… oh, wait… breaking news… yes, yes, it’s confirmed, he is out and about, free as a bird – if $125,000 can be considered “free.”

I admit it: I tuned in for a few minutes this morning for the Galanter-Grasso press conference, but had to turn away when I saw the assembly of freaks. Holy Criminenelli, all they needed to round out this three-ringer was Chang and Eng and the Bearded Lady. And, this being America, I was faced with a choice. I could either continue watching or I could turn it off and take the dog out for a stroll. We strolled.

But don’t misunderstand: I want access to this crap. But I also don’t want said crap shoved in my face. So I guess what I’m saying is that I want that option, that choice, to have crap only when I want crap. Maybe it all started with Michael Vick.

Where was the cable news channel that stood up and said this video of dogs ripping into each other is too vile, too despicable, too revolting to show you? Nowhere. There it was, hour after hour, shoved in my face. Ironically, FNC did take a stand recently: They aired video of the planes flying into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, then announced that that was it. They’d show it once and then that’s all, folks.

No, no, no, no. That’s precisely the video they should be showing. Sure, it’s provocative, sure it’s horrific, but it needs to be seen. The problem is that one can make that same argument about the dogfighting videos, Britney’s crotch, Anna Nicole’s breasts, the Carl’s Jr. flat buns ad, and the O.J. spectacle.

So what’s the solution? A warning to the audience before each potentially offensive story? Providing an outline of what news stories are going to appear in each 30-minute stretch, so we the viewers know when it’s necessary to leave the room or change the channel?

Personally, I would love a cable news channel devoted to “hard” news. Analysis, interviews, panel discussions, debates, what’s being voted on in Congress, national and international news, what’s happening between Israel and Syria right now, what the real facts are in the Jena 6 case.

I want real news 24/7. Yes, there is enough real news out there to fill that time. FOX is developing their all-business channel; why can’t they offer another choice? Tabloid/celebrity news here on this channel, and real news on that one over there. But what about human interest stories? Are those “real” news or “other” news?

It’s no wonder people are starting to suspect that they don’t want us to get the “real” news. It exists, it’s out there, but it’s getting hard to find. It would be lovely, though, to have that choice. Wish someone would do it to test those waters, to test us. I say put it out there and let the market decide. Just like the flat buns ad. If you don’t like the commercial, don’t buy the product.

You know, I completely understand Laura Ingraham railing against the pornification of America – even I’m shocked at some of the things I see during prime time. I agree that our culture seems to be spiraling out of control when it comes to personal responsibility, behavior, and good taste; however, when I hear Mitt Romney say families should be protected and that there should be limits on what I have access to on the Internet, I get a little uneasy. Actually, a lot uneasy.

It’s like when my mother got us all on the “L” when we were kids and took us to see West Side Story. A woman who worked with my father was mortified.

“You let her take your children to see that filth?”

Obviously, what was filth to this woman was not filth to my mother, who harbored tender feelings towards The Great White Way. To this day, when I hear something described as filth, my spidey sense kicks in. What precisely is filth? That woman who worked with my father thought it was… what — ballet in an alley?

Yes, wouldn’t it be wonderful if we were all pure and decent and pious, and we were never exposed to anything unpleasant? On the surface, that sounds like a perfect world. But like Frank Meyer said, “Unless men are free to be vicious they cannot be virtuous.”

I still want to be able to make that choice on my own – I don’t want the choice made for me, forced on me. Because at that point, the purely pious and perfect world starts sounding suspiciously like Islamofascism. And isn’t that precisely the world we’re fighting against?

“Knowing a great deal is not the same as being smart; intelligence is not information alone but also judgment, the manner in which information is collected and used.”

– Carl Sagan

“Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.”

– Sam Goldwyn

When I think of economists, particular names come to mind: Adam Smith, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Milton Friedman, Ben Stein, and Alan Greenspan. Funny, but Greenspan seems to be on everyone’s mind this week. He’s the current media darling, regaining his rock star status simply by criticizing George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and a lot of other Republicans — and by saying Bill Clinton’s “smart.”

I have no beef with most of his statements. I’m aware that Republicans have been on a spending spree and that George Bush needs to reacquaint himself with the word “veto.” Greenspan’s criticisms here are valid. I’ll even go so far as to say that he was correct to suggest that the Iraq War is “largely about oil.” He’s since “clarified” that remark, but I do agree that oil is certainly a part of the conflict. It’s in our national interest to add Iraq to the list of democracies, make the Iraqis our allies, and maintain access to oil. The mistake is thinking somehow that this is a bad thing. No, the bad thing is having no oil.

I don’t want to evaluate Greenspan as an economist or as Chairman of the Fed, but I do want to point out something about him that disturbs me. No, it’s not that he speaks well of Bill Clinton. Shucks, why wouldn’t he like Clinton? They share so many interests, including the saxophone. Greenspan has even suggested that Clinton was the best Republican president we’ve had in years. (Well, this should keep him and his book in the news for a good long while.)

No, what concerns me is that Greenspan puts so much stock in smart. Listen to him describe people. What he looks for, primarily, is smart. It makes sense because if someone is smart, you can make certain assumptions. The smart person should know what he’s doing. He should be competent. And if he’s smart enough to know what he’s doing, he must know enough to do the right thing. There’s a simple logic in this: Smart people do smart things.

But there’s also a hole in the logic. It isn’t always smart to assume that smart people can be counted on to be as smart as they should be. Like Greenspan says, Richard Nixon, too, was smart. Brilliant. But, sadly, he didn’t always do the smart thing. Same with Bill Clinton. If we’re looking for a big brain for the Oval Office, the choice should be clear. Newt Gingrich certainly has the smarts. But… well, do I really need to explain?

I’m criticizing Greenspan because I’ve been guilty of precisely the same logic. When I looked for friends, I looked for smart. Relationships? Picked the smart ones. When I was hiring people, I’d always seek the smart. Unfortunately, I ended up firing some very smart people.

All I know is this: There are, like spices, a lot of different kinds of smart, but it’s the type of smart – and how that type mixes with other attributes – that really counts.

Whenever I hear politicians talking about healthcare, I hear that little voice in my head: “Butts in seats.” It’s an expression I’ve never cared for, but it’s a concept that makes sense. It comes from a theatrical background and years spent working for a non-profit arts organization. In a nutshell: When times are tough, you have two choices. You can either jack up the price of admission or you can make it affordable, thereby attracting a larger audience. At this point, you must ask: What precisely is the goal? Instant response: To make enough money to keep going.

Wrong answer. Sure, you need money to keep the doors open, but the best way to do that is to cultivate a loyal clientele. If you make ticket prices affordable, people who wouldn’t ordinarily go to the theater might just come see a show. If they like what they see, they might even come back. The key is to get them in, then work to keep them there. There’s no point in putting on a show for five people when there are 500 seats in the house. The goal is to fill those seats. Hence, “butts in seats.”

Dope dealers build empires on this concept. Give someone your product at a discount – or, hell, give it to ‘em for nuthin’ – and if they like it, they’ll be willing to pay for it. That’s called building a customer base.

Politicians are quick to point out that more Americans need health coverage and they’re dangling “free” insurance in their faces. The problem, of course, is that there’s no such thing as “free” healthcare. You might not be paying for treatment, but someone is: the taxpayer. In theater, you can give someone a “free” ticket and he may or may not come see the show. If he does, there’s no guarantee he’ll come back and pay for a ticket. He might be willing to come to your show only if he gets that free ticket. Keep giving him free tickets and you might ensure you have a filled seat. The reasoning? Others will see that filled seat and be motivated to come see the show. (An empty seat means that the show must suck.)

Do you see the problem with this whole concept? In order to see that filled seat, you must already be inside the theater. In fact, you’ve probably already paid for your seat. You’ve made the commitment to see the show. You’re already a customer. Seeing someone in a seat only makes you feel better about your decision. (“If this show stinks, I’m not the only idiot who shelled out money to see it.”) But what if the show stinks and you find out that all those butts in seats got their tickets for free?

Chances are your ticket cost more in order to cover the expense of the free tickets. In effect, you have paid even more for your bad experience. How does that make you feel?

The way I see it, if a company is producing a good show it wants as many people as possible to see it. If it can put tickets in hands, it might attract an audience. But a free ticket has very little value. It didn’t cost you anything, so if you decide to miss the show you haven’t lost anything. (This is one reason animal advocates say that people who pay for a puppy are more likely to keep it because they have invested something. A “free” puppy is expendable.) If you paid something for your ticket you feel obligated to get your money’s worth. You go to the show. And you expect a quality production, right? If you like what you see, you’ll be back because it’s worth paying for. If it’s not, it’s up to the company to produce a better product.

I say, give people affordable tickets and fill seats. If everyone is paying a fair price for tickets and every seat is filled, it’s better than a few people paying high prices for tickets and a near empty auditorium. In other words, if the goal is to get everyone insured, then people should be expected to pay for their medical coverage, but it should be priced right in order to attract more customers. That is, priced according to the quality and quantity of the care a person receives. If more people can buy insurance, the more insured people there will be. More butts in seats, so to speak. More butts, more revenue. More revenue, more for your money. In theater, this means better sets, better props, better performances. In healthcare, it means better facilities, better equipment, better healthcare professionals.

But if you keep gouging your paying customers to cover the cost of your freebies, your paying customers are going to get fed up. Shouldn’t the goal be to increase the number of paying customers, not lose the ones you already have?

According to the schedule, it was 6:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M; I’d decided to record The Emmy Awards so I could simply fast forward through most of the broadcast and save some time… but you know what they say about best-laid plans. At the three-hour point I checked in for a progress report and the show hadn’t ended. As far as the DVR was concerned, its three-hour commitment was over so I could either start recording again or sit and watch the last of the presentations.

This was about the time Algore was getting onstage to accept his statue. (I’m starting to suspect that every awards show is going to give this man something just so there’s an obligatory Algore moment.) A few minutes later I realized that the show was nowhere near wrapping up and there was still over an hour to go. An excruciating, exhausting hour that made me wonder if I even had the stamina to watch those first three hours I’d recorded.

Happily, I didn’t miss what has now become my favorite portion of these extravaganzas: In Memoriam. T was squirming, but I explained that this was going to take some time: Quite a few people died this year.

About half of them during tonight’s telecast.

“I care not much for a man’s religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.”

– Abraham Lincoln

There are three types of people in the world: those who have a reason to sue and do; those who have reason to sue and don’t (and that would be my group affiliation); and those who have no reason to sue yet do. And that, I suspect, would be the group to which Lance Armstrong belongs.

Frankly, I’m disappointed that Mr. Armstrong’s Foundation is suing Animal Charity Collar Group Inc. and calling for the company to cease and desist the use of the phrases “barkstrong” and “purrstrong” on its collars – the sale of which benefits various animal charities. Not only does the Armstrong Foundation want the production of these collars stopped, it wants the company’s website (www.barkstrong.net) to be shut down, all products destroyed, unspecified monetary damages, and advertising that disavows any connection between the collar company and the Lance Armstrong Foundation.

If this is a reputable organization – and it appears that it is — and the sale of its products is benefiting other groups and saving the lives of innocent dogs and cats, what’s the beef? Hell, if I were Lance Armstrong, I’d be flattered and I’d even do some promotional work on the company’s behalf in order to save even more dogs and cats. Oh, I forgot – he’s one nut short, so that won’t happen.

If I found out tomorrow that I had cancer, there’s no way in hell I’d wear one of those stupid yellow wristbands now. In fact, I’d wear a glow-in-the-dark Barkstrong collar before I’d consider spending a dime on an Armstrong bracelet.

“Real poverty is less a state of income than a state of mind.”

– George Gilder

Say goodbye to baseball: Blubbering has become the national pastime. I’m old enough to remember a time when Americans sucked it up and would have died of shame if someone knew that they were struggling. The expression “charity case” comes to mind. But turn on your TV today and everyone has a sob story — even those who are running for the highest office in the land.

Call me crazy, but it’s almost as if poverty is the new badge of courage that has replaced serving in our military. Today, the poorest candidate, not the one who fought for his country, wins. Not that any one of them is actually on the breadline today, but they certainly don’t want it known that they are – gasp! – “the rich.” Suddenly everyone is scrambling to convince us that they came from “humble beginnings” and that their beginnings were humbler than their opponents’.

John Edwards: Ma family was so po’ that all we had to live in was an ol’ cardboard shoebox.

Dennis Kucinich: Well, my family was so poor we didn’t even have shoes that came with shoeboxes. We wore shoes that we found in garbage cans and when we were finally able to buy my sister a new pair of shoes for her graduation, we bought a pair at a dime store that was connected by a piece of plastic – and we ate it.

John Edwards: Well, ma family was so po’ that we didn’t even have plastic to eat. We ate dust.

Dennis Kucinich: My family was so poor that we didn’t even have dust. We ate air.

To the Congressman’s credit, I suppose in Cleveland in those days there was probably enough crud in the atmosphere to support a family of nine, but this competition for rock bottom is becoming tiresome.

Sure, there has always been in America a tradition of teaching children about our presidents’ modest circumstances. Remember Abe Lincoln growing up in that log cabin? And, according to legend, Bill Clinton’s family was so po’ that holiday dinner was just a bag of chips. (I’ve always wondered if that story was true, and if it was true, was it because the family was really that po’ or because Virginia was a lazy slut?)

Like Milton Friedman said, his family was considered poor but he didn’t know it.

“The family income was small and highly uncertain; financial crisis was a constant companion. Yet there was always enough to eat, and the family atmosphere was warm and supportive.”

Friedman, in his recollection of growing up in an immigrant family, puts a happy face on a dire situation. The family had very little money, yet they had something more important. Whatever that “something” was, it is precisely the thing that separates rich and poor, and the absence of it is what leads some people to think there’s no hope for them.

Or worse, it leads to an obsession with money. Something, sadly, that I believe afflicts many of our current candidates.

“Dressed up like a million dollar trooper
Trying hard to look like Gary Cooper
Super duper…”

What precisely is up with Vlad these days? I mean it was always so easy to dismiss his behavior with a simple “once a KGB, always a KGB,” but this is just so unseemly. One day he’s hot, one day he’s cold; one day George Bush sees his soul, the next day he has no soul. He’s just one of those micromanaging types that’s really starting to annoy me.

And he’s beginning to make me think my theory about Librans in power isn’t all that wet. People born under this sign are notorious for being indecisive and changeable. Don’t be fooled by the symbol of the scales – the average Libran is rarely perfectly balanced. One day he’s smiling and friendly; the next, he’s firing people and dropping the father of all bombs. And of all the signs, ever notice that Libra isn’t represented by an animal or human? A living, breathing thing? No, instead the symbol is a machine, a device. Metal, not flesh.

To be fair, maybe Putin feels like a middle manager in a struggling manufacturing plant. A gray, sterile environment, a depressed work force, and a lot of pressure to hit the numbers. How do you boost morale? How do you inspire your team?

Why, you give your workers an incentive, that’s how! Give ‘em a day off and tell ‘em to just go f*ck! Literally. Yesterday was Conception Day in Russia (read: Make A Baby Day) and civil servants were encouraged to stay home and procreate. (Our government workers here in America screw around on the job, so this is an interesting twist.)

Vlad says that the dramatic drop in population has become a real crisis. True, many Russians are too drunk or depressed to even think about bringing children into the world. Perhaps a sunnier political climate might boost their libido, who knows? But, for now, Putin and company are hoping that a new television or refrigerator might just do the trick.

Personally, I’d hold out for a one-way ticket out of the country.

“To conclude, I invite you to embrace Islam, for the greatest mistake one can make in this world and one which is uncorrectable is to die while not surrendering to Allah, the Most High, in all aspects of one’s life – i.e., to die outside of Islam. And Islam means gain for you in this first life and the next, final life. The true religion is a mercy for people in their lives, filling their hearts with serenity and calm.”

– Osama bin Laden, September 2007 video

Thanks for the invite, but I’ll pass. If I’m going to sign up for any religion it would probably be Judaism because at least those people have a sense of humor. Again, I was raised in a Jewish neighborhood and no one ever tried to recruit me, no one ever suggested that I needed to convert, no one ever made me feel that I was inferior because I wasn’t Jewish.

Actually, bin Laden lost me the minute he mentioned Noam Chomsky. You know, I’m starting to wonder if bin Laden, Hugo Chavez, and our friend, Bob the Progressive, all belong to the same book club. Toss in Dennis Kucinich and a fondue pot and it sounds like a real fun group.

Speaking of the Hobbit, I’ve been more than fair with Dennis over the years and have given him credit for clearly stating his positions, albeit Socialist, on his website. Although I think his views on foreign policy are admirable… in an idealistic and naïve sort of way, I do believe that forming a Department of Peace and marrying one of our allies just isn’t a solid plan in this turbulent political climate.

And, frankly, he pissed me off this past week when he traveled to Lebanon and Syria to suck face with Assad. The timing of this little jaunt was too close to September 11 and much too close to Rosh Hashanah. His message of Middle East peace, to me, seems just a tad insensitive. Still, he insists – despite evidence to the contrary – that he isn’t favoring the Palestinians over the Israelis and that he can be trusted to conduct fair policies in the region. Call me skeptical, but I’m not buying it.

But, to be fair, I am a member of that whole neoconservative Jewish cabal thing. And, as a proud member of this imaginary little group (we like to think of ourselves as political unicorns so we often address one another as “unicons”), I was quite moved by Anne Morse’s article on NRO this week.

“It’s deeply frustrating that sometimes, no matter how great the evidence to the contrary, conspiracy theories, hoaxes, rumors, and myths just won’t go away.

Take, for instance, two of the earliest and most insidious rumors to begin circulating about the September 11 terror attacks: That President Bush had prior knowledge of the attacks, and that Israel secretly warned Jews to stay home that Tuesday, to avoid being killed in the attacks — all supposedly orchestrated by Israel.”

The article provides sufficient evidence to the contrary as well as some of the stories of the Jews who were among the victims of the attack on the World Trade Center. Says Morse:

“Along with all of the other victims on September 11, the many Jewish victims deserve to be fully recognized, mourned — and remembered.”

A fine point. And so tonight, tomorrow, and until sundown on Friday, in celebrating Rosh Hashanah – the Jewish New Year – I will be doing just that.