Number 14 Dream

As the national debt ceiling negotiations seem poised to become as unhinged from reality as the "tea party wing" of the Republican party, a lot has been said about the possibility of President Obama invoking the 14th Amendment of the Constitution to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. Being more familiar with the civil rights implications of that law, I wasn't sure what to make of that so I did something I suspect many "tea party" types probably don't do much. I read the US Constitution.

The relevant part is Section 4, which reads:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

Personally, I'm not quite sure it applies in this case, especially when Section 5 reads:

"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

After all, if Congress (or at least its Republican "leadership") was actually inclined to enact appropriate legislation, we probably wouldn't be in this situation.

Everyday Chaos

Which belatedly reading yesterday's Washington Post, I had to laugh at the headline in the Metro section, "Traffic chaos in Bethesda feared". I appreciate that they were talking about the impact of the transfer of patients and staff from Walter Reed to the Naval Medical Center, but my first reaction was to think, "has this writer ever been to Bethesda?" Traffic in the DC area is like snow in Buffalo. As much as we say we hate it, if it wasn't here we'd have to find something else to talk about. Since that conversational vacuum would probably be filled with more politics, I'll stick with traffic. When it comes to moderation, I like to overdo it

The Nuge vs. Hussein B

Anyone who's been to a Ted Nugent concert (or read the opinion page of The Washington Times) in recent years has doubtless heard the rock icon make numerous disparaging remarks about President Obama. What most people don't realize is that this animosity actually has relatively little to do with public policy decisions. It's all about a song and a hard line drawn where compromise would have benefited all.

For many years "the Nuge" has wanted congressional recognition for his classic Wang Dang Sweet Poontang (possibly to replace The Star Spangled Banner as the national anthem - accounts vary widely). He knew he get no help from Michigan's senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, who he often referred to as "those [expletive deleted]", but when Barack Obama was elected to represent the neighboring state of Illinois in the US Senate he finally had hope.

This was not false hope, as Obama was known to be a big fan of the "Motor City Madman", but what he hadn't reckoned with was how much Michelle Obama disliked that particular song. In any case, during a meeting between the two men harsh words were exchanged when the future President suggested the equally classic Cat Scratch Fever as an alternative. Here again, accounts vary but most independent sources seem to agree that Nugent was pushing his luck with Hussein B (to use the future President's street handle) who was fully capable with putting a crossbow bolt up Nugent's "damn yankee".

Since then, the war of words has been unending, albeit one-sided as President Obama has chosen to take the high road. This schism between two men who each in their own way exemplify American individuality is a true American tragedy, all the more so because it could have been avoided if "the Nuge" had simply been willing to consider Cat Scratch Fever instead.

I am, of course, kidding about all of this.

Airlifted Onto the Titanic

Last year, a friend and former co-worker from Borders HQ was one of many people laid off by Borders. I recently learned he'd been rehired at his old job. The fact that something like this happens with someone who worked for the company for over a decade says a lot about why Borders is in the position it's in currently. For his part, my friend said he felt like he'd been airlifted onto the Titanic. In light of today's news that Borders appears headed for liquidation, it's hard to argue with that assessment.

I've said lots about Borders in previous postings, so I'll just add two things. The first is that this certainly isn't the way I imagined things ending for Borders (if I imagined any sort of ending at all) when I first walked into that most amazing book-store in Center City Philadelphia. The second is that when I worked in the stores I did my utmost to help every customer, even if all they could tell me was the color of the book's cover.

Freedom Isn't Free (Print Edition)

If you've published something that Larry Flynt finds offensive, it's safe to say you've gone more than a little wrong. In yesterday's Washington Post, the infamous publisher of Hustler offered an eloquent assessment of the way in which Newscorp owner Rupert Murdoch appears to have "not just [crossed] the line - he erased it" in the course of the phone-hacking/invasion of privacy scandal that's spreading like a zombie apocalypse. Whatever his character issues, and however offensive some of his publications are, Flynt is a passionate advocate for a free press, in particular its ability ability to expose public figures whose private actions run counter to their public proclamations. The whole piece is worth reading, but the key lesson is quite succinct: "One cannot live off the liberty and benefits of a free press while ignoring the privacy of the people."

An Interjection About Schoolhouse Rock

Someone I used to work with (and to some extent for) at Borders once admonished me to be careful about confusing coincidence and causality. In the 15 years since then, that's proven to be useful advice in looking at the world. Once you get beyond the micro level, it's tricky to isolate any single factor as the prime mover of events, let alone the direct cause. That said, it's hard to shake the idea that the rise of collective ignorance about the fundamentals of American history and government, not to mention "the three Rs", can be traced to a generation of kids who didn't have Schoolhouse Rock as a part of their Saturday morning routine.

On the one hand, I know that's silly. Kids learned about the government and the planets and the parts if a sentence long before Schoolhouse Rock and, so far as I can tell, still do. On top of that, it's unlikely that everyone of the target age watched ABC, something that's especially hard for me to fathom, because ABC had The Superfriends.

On the other hand, as the crackling of static in the media gets louder on issues especially in the political arena, I miss the sense of cultural unity it gave my generation. No matter what our views on religion or politics, songs like "I'm Just a Bill" helped ensure that we all had at least a certain baseline of common understanding about our country and our world.

Now, it's all too easy to live in an echo chamber where, not only can you avoid acknowledging any ideas that don't mesh with your own, you can also ignore inconvenient facts. The Obama/Kenya slanders and the so-called debates over Darwin's theory of evolution are just two examples of this. I don't claim for a second that the return of Schoolhouse Rock would cure this, especially since the attempted revival in the mid-90s didn't seem to help much, and I suspect certain circles will take issue with the scientific facts on display in "Interplanet Janet". At the same time, we should never underestimate the ability of a catchy song to bring us together.

On the Merits of Ethical Piracy

I recently came across a friend's Facebook posting about Netflix's announcement that they're raising the subscription rate for plans that include both DVDs and streaming by about 60%. Considering that most predictions call for their costs to acquire programming to grow far quicker than their subscriber base will, this was one of the least surprising announcements from a media company in recent memory, and I found people's comments on my friend's posting more interesting.

In particular, I was struck by a comment to the effect that the imperfect nature of video distribution is a justification for piracy. Their position, such as it is, seemed to hinge on two elements. One is the belief, admittedly not without some historical justification, that the creative people who make movies and TV shows get relatively little of the money from legitimate distribution. The other is the way in which movies and programs often go in and out of circulation for various reasons. Reading this individual's rhetorical plea for Hollywood to give him reasons not to pirate material, I was struck by what a load of crap that is.

Blaming the system in this instance comes across as little more than the hollow rationalizations of somehow who simply doesn't want to pay. The only meaningful question when it comes to whether or not to pirate copyrighted material is whether one feels that the people who produce creative works in whatever medium should receive compensation for their work. If you don't buy into that basic premise, everything else is window dressing. Whichever side someone comes down on, I just wish they'd be honest about it. Somehow it would seem more ethical.

Trapped at the Bottom of the Orwell

Since the first time I read it in December of 1983, George Orwell's novel, 1984 has been one of my favorite books. I know Animal Farm is considered by many to be better literature, but 1984's uncompromising portrait of humanity declaring a bankruptcy of the soul is the one that made me think. As the current media and political climate makes Orwell's conception, especially newspeak and doublethink, seem increasingly visionary, the book has been very much on my mind.

A particularly dubious example of newspeak and doublethink is Republican politicians' current way of referring to the individuals whose tax rates the party is trying to protect. Rather than refer to them as "wealthy" or "well off" which would emphasize the economic disparity to the other 99% of the public, House Speaker John Boehner and his ilk insist on calling them "job creators". Never mind that there's precious little emphasis that they're using their financial resources to create jobs, or are even inclined to do so, it's all about appearances. It's the flip-side of the bad reputation things like the 2008 financial bailout and 2009 stimulus plan have gotten, even though the former is generating deficit-lowering profits for the government and the latter offered tax cuts to a large part of US taxpayers. It's all about appearances.

President Obama for his part has been relatively honest, admitting in a news conference that he's one of the fortunate people whose taxes he feels should go up to help deal with broader fiscal issues. Perhaps he's being too honest. Perhaps we need him to tell us that 2+2=5 over and over until we believe it. As the song goes, that's all right because I love the way you lie.

Ain't That America? (1000 Words)

Caylee's Law

Amid the widely held belief that Casey Anthony got away with something related to the death of her daughter, quite possibly murder, it's easy to see the public appeal to enact what people are referring to as "Caylee's Law". As someone pointed out on the news earlier this morning, if the legal requirement that parents/guardians inform authorities of a missing child after 48 hours (or inform them of a child's death within two hours) had been in effect, Casey Anthony wouldn't be getting out of jail soon. That may be true, but I have to wonder if that in itself makes it a good idea.

Serious offenses against decency like what happened to Caylee Anthony should make us stop, think and react. That doesn't necessarily mean that this reaction should be a new law. In a way, the sheer egregiousness of the Casey/Caylee situation is what makes me question the value of a law enacted in reaction to its aftermath.

I don't reflexively see any law as a dagger to the throat of my personal liberty. However, I do believe that laws should serve to address at least somewhat broadly-based concerns in protecting the public. To my knowledge, there isn't an epidemic (in Florida or elsewhere) of parents not reporting missing children for weeks at a time. The public sentiment for this kind of law seems to be more about trying to achieve some vicarious sense of justice to make up for what wasn't achieved in the courtroom. That emotionally charged backdrop doesn't automatically make a law wrong, but it at least raises the question of whether making that law is right.

Hall vs. Oates

On paper, or course, there's no contest. Daryl Hall sang most of the big hits and had better hair. Yet, in contrast to the other halves of such obviously lopsided duos-in-name-only like Wham, John Oates clearly contributed to Hall & Oates' success over the years. Anyone looking for proof that Oates provided some sort of je ne sais quoi to The duo need look no further than Daryl Hall's 1986 solo album Three Hearts in the Happy Ending Machine.

Despite following a string of top-selling albums and hit singles for the duo, and against a backdrop of many listeners thinking "John who?", Hall's album was a commercial disappointment, with just one major hit in the form of "Dreamtime". Oates did almost as well, producing and co-writing the top 10 single "Electric Blue" for Icehouse around the same time. Clearly, they were better together so it's not surprising that they reconvened in 1987 for the album Ooh Yeah! Though that album was a relative disappointment, the duo has continued to work together for the past 20+ years.

For his part, Oates is a co-writer on several of the duo's biggest hits ranging from "Sara Smile" to "Out of Touch". He also co-wrote and sang my personal favorite Hall & Oates song, 1985's "Possession Obsession". I don't claim it's high art nor did it go high on the charts. Nonetheless, I've always loved its lyrics.

"The compulsion to count the percentage of time spent between two lovers can turn an hour into a crime. All the good times suffer."

I guess I just like to root for the underdog.

Bad Wolf Revisited

When I noticed that BBC America was showing a repeat of Christopher Eccleston's final Doctor Who episode The Parting of the Ways, I had to tune in. Some of it was a desire to show support for BBC America actually showing a BBC program that wasn't Top Gear, but the main reason is that six years after its premiere, it remains a high-point (possibly the high-point) of the show's 21st century revival.

As far back as David Tennant's first season as The Doctor, there was still something about that first season with Eccleston that continued to strike a deeper chord for me. Some of it was certainly about Eccleston's portrayal that captured the sense of an alien whose take on human values was as profound as it was slightly different from ours, but ultimately I think it came down to the scripting, especially that of head-writer Russell T. Davies. Though Davies continued to write (and foster the writing of) some excellent episodes, there was a sense of urgency to the first season that they never quite recaptured.

In those first 13 episodes, the production team, especially Davies and his group of fans-turned-professional writers, seemed eager to prove that the television icon of their youth could still appeal to a wide audience in the 21st century. As Davies observed in the liner notes for the DVD release, "it was really the thought of creating something new, and getting new viewers, young viewers, which drove on that team."

The good news, as the BBC's decision to commission additional seasons almost immediately after the premiere indicates, was that they succeeded well beyond expectations. On the flip-side, as the team had to transition from a go-for-broke exercise in defying expectations to an ongoing franchise, some of that initial verve seemed to dissipate.

Again, that's not to say that they didn't deliver some great stories. The short list of highlights includes...

School Reunion
The Girl in the Fireplace
Army of Ghosts/Doomsday
Gridlock
Human Nature/The Family of Blood
Utopia/The Sound of Drums/(most of) Last of the Time Lords
Planet of the Ood

Midnight

It's just that those subsequent seasons lacked the same dramatic spark and by the end of David Tennant's and Russell T. Davies' run (and much of Steven Moffat's and Matt Smith's tenure so far), the production team seemed to feel like all they needed to do was come up with an earthshaking premise, usually involving the return of old friends and/or enemies, and didn't have to worry about the story. While there continued to be great dramatic character moments, like the Doctor's heartbreaking goodbye to Donna in Journey's End and virtually every scene between the Doctor and Bernard Cribbins as Donna's grandfather Wilfred, those sparks of excellence seemed increasingly at odds with ever more frustrating plot-lines.

Of course, none of that matters watching The Parting of the Ways. Seeing it again, I remember how exciting it was to have the show I'd loved so much back and in so many ways better than ever, with Christopher Eccleston's Doctor being exactly the hero I wanted. Several year's later, I still wonder sometimes why he didn't push the lever and wipe out the Daleks. Then again, by this point we knew that pushing the button was what his previous incarnation had done during the Time War, and if the 2005 iteration of Doctor Who was about anything it was a story of taking the best of the past and moving on with it. As the show gets closer to its 50th anniversary, I continue to hope that the current production team will take a second look at those stories and find a way to recapture that spirit and give the current Doctor stories worthy of his abilities.

1776 + 235 = America

The importance of July 4th never really registered for me until the bicentennial celebrations of 1776. Maybe it was the fireworks that finally drove it home. I've learned a good deal more about the founding fathers in the 35 years since then, but the fact that still gives me the biggest kick is that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both died on this day in 1826, the 50th anniversary of the event that owes its existence to both of them. Despite their flaws, which have been especially well documented in Jefferson's case, both were extraordinary men whose deeds were truly earth-shaking. In between the cold drinks longing to be sipped, the hot dogs waiting to be grilled and the rockets yearning to glare red those achievements deserve at least a moment of reflection.

Less Than Noble Traditions

For anyone who still believes that the influence of money in politics is a remotely recent phenomenon, I encourage you to read the article by University of Montreal Professor Francois Furstenberg about the history of America's "welfare state" in today's Washington Post. In discussing how harsh the impact of America's 1870s financial was on the public at large due to the lack of any real social safety net, it's very pointed in describing how the control of the major political parties by their "corporate masters" added to that misery. Though both parties come in for criticism in the article, the most noteworthy quote comes from Republican political operative an onetime United States Senator Mark Hanna. Prior to his election to the Senate Hanna was quoted as saying, "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money and I can’t remember what the second one is." While both parties had (and have) issues with regard to corporate/financial influence, Hanna's words stand out as especially prophetic with regard to "the party of Lincoln". Clearly, we have a lot to work on as a country as we amble toward our 235th birthday.

Barbarians at the Starting Gate

It's always interesting to see the way a candidate's uptick in popularity also brings increased attention to what their family, especially spouses, have to say. This week, the excitement (or, in some circles, agitation) over Michelle Bachmann announcing her candidacy for president has brought fresh attention to comments her husband Marcus made about gay people in a radio interview last year.

"We have to understand: Barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That’s what is called the sinful nature. We have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action steps."

I don't necessarily think a politician should be taken to task for what a family member says. In this case, though, we're talking about an individual who's been described as being his wife's "brain trust", so it's not a huge stretch to say that his views reflect those of his wife. Michelle Bachmann may be a crank, but that doesn't mean she isn't dangerous.