Big Gov

You have heard it from the righty words of the Right: Mr. Obama is all about Big Government. He is out to establish an ever-widening web of czars and sundry civil servants who will take away our every option for free action and self-determination. Right? Right.

But not so fast. What would the Right do, if they were in power now? What did they do when Bush was in the oval office (he was in the oval office occasionally, wasn't he)?

The Republicans under Bush took big chunks of our personal freedom away ('Patriot' Act) and tried to turn the Iraq War into one giant pension fund for Cheney et al - witness all those no-bid KBR and Halliburton contracts. They told us who could marry who, and fought to ensure women couldn't make decisions about their own bodies. They spent billions on wars that never had to happen, costing thousands of American lives, as means to an end that wasn't even right, wasn't even necessary, and they left us with a global, very costly, mess to clean up (if we even can). They dismissed an entire industry of airport security scanners and replaced them with a bureaucratic agency, the TSA, that does - as far as I can see - exactly what the previous scanners did, only with a lot more people (and I will guess at far greater cost).

Big Government happens with both parties, it's the approach and the goals that differ. Me, I'd prefer a government that gets big trying to help me and my fellow citizens, rather than one that bloats with ways and means of spying on us, and wages big war across the globe.

I'll Take Trigger

Fire up the wayback machine, Sherman, and take me back to a simpler time. A time when TV showed Westerns - including those oddball not-quite-Old-West ones, like 'Sky King', and 'The Roy Rogers Show'.

Ah, Roy Rogers and his horse, Trigger. And faithful dog Bullet. And his sidekick's old jeep, 'Nellie Belle'. Good TV for a dreamy kid back in the day. Who cared if it was in black and white? Trigger was beautiful, and 'triggered' a lengthy but ultimately unfulfilled obsession with Palomino horses that lingers (impotently, but firmly) in my psyche still.

Fast forward to a time not so long ago. Visiting the 'Roy Rogers Museum' in Apple Valley with my own kids, admiring the knick knacks and detritus of Roy's life on display along with his deceased and stuffed companions (just the animals, his sidekick escaped that fate). My kids impressed at all the 'stuff' and I half amused at the tackiness of much of it, but half still a kid in a candy store.

There were a few more good visits to that museum of American Dream nostalgia, but not enough by us or anyone else to keep the place solvent, so the Roger's estate up and moved the whole thing to Branson, Missouri - that showpiece of midwest banality done up as Disneyland Music Hall meets a family-friendly Las Vegas. A logical move I guess, since Branson was targeted at the soft white middle of the great mass of nostalgic boomers and their still-extant parents and kin. Just the folks who might remember and love Roy best. But to yank out the cowboy heart of high desert California and stick it in Missouri? Criminal.

A bit of sadness tinged with resentful glee, then, to hear The Roy Roger's Museum in Branson is closing its doors due to declining attendance and 'the economy'. The news isn't all bad though: the 'memorabilia' and 'artifacts' will be sold, according to a blurb in USA Today (October 7, 2009).

I'll take Trigger. I'll even trade my 1955 Roy Rogers Singing Cowboy guitar for him ...

Flying in a Bad Dream

One of the more disheartening manifestations of this economic 'repression', is the crumbling infrastructure and sinking service of once-mighty airlines. I don't want to name names, but I think most of you who've experienced the airline I have in mind would be united in opinion.

Once a leader of the industry, this airline has reduced it's fleet from over 600 to fewer than 400 jets, and it's workforce from over 100,000 to something shy of 50,000. All of this in less than 5 years. Now that's a plunge steeper and scarier than any landing at San Diego's Lindbergh Field.

So what, I hear you say? A lot of companies have to cut back to save money in the recession, and it makes them more efficient. At least that's how Wall Street views it, rewarding the cost cutters with increased stock prices. Maybe, but it doesn't quite work out for airlines, at least not the one of which I speak.

Fewer planes means fewer backups should one break. That means delays and cancellations. Fewer planes also mean fewer alternative flights for those displaced passengers to 'standby' for. The end result is a horde of pissed off passengers who have either been stranded, or spent twice as long getting where they were going (and arriving without their bags which were lost in all the changes). Not quite the definition one would give to 'efficient'.

I used to fly this airline frequently. I subscribed to their private 'club', so I could sit and nosh on cheap snacks and work away from the noise and hubbub of the terminal. I never had a cancellation and only minor delays - nothing I would call a bad experience. How things have changed.

On a recent trip from LA to the East Coast, my flight out of LAX was delayed, then my alternate bookings were also delayed, until all hope of making connections was lost and I had to be re-routed through another hub. Then THAT flight was delayed enough to miss connections too. A precautionary standby booking finally paid off and I managed to get to the hub only for that flight to be delayed too. By my count that was four delayed flights in a single outbound trip.

Bad Luck not yet satisfied, my return trip was worse. My connecting flight out of the hub was about 40 minutes out when we had to turn around and return with 'mechanical issues'. The pilot tried to sneak back, but some observant passengers noted the turn which forced an announcement. After a semi-tense return trip, we were kept on the plane while the mechanics worked on the problem. Unfortunately, they were busy on some other emergency repairs ahead of ours.

About an hour later, the problem reportedly fixed, we attempted a take off. Just as we were 3rd in line for departure, the pilot announced the problem had returned and the takeoff was aborted. After a slow return to the gate, we were ushered off the plane and to another gate where we commandeered (essentially) the plane that was about to take a bunch of folks to their destination. I thought they behaved quite well given the circumstances, with most restraining their indignation and rage admirably. Angry stares weren't taken personally. We WERE taking THEIR plane, after all. But we weren't about to let sympathy interfere with our getting home.

That commandeered plane got us back to LA. Too late as it turned out for all of the connecting flights - those passengers were trundled off to hotels. I dragged my weary self to the car park and drove another 30 minutes home. I fell quickly asleep, and out of a bad dream.

EPILOGUE: The airline gave every passenger on that problematic return flight a voucher for a compensation of your choice (from a limited list). Fair enough, as damage control goes. I have also been once more on this airline since that experience (not by choice), and it was uneventful. But as I scanned the monitors at the airports, I noticed quite a few delays and cancellations - and not just for the airline in question. The problems are widespread, and they don't disappear because you don't experience them.

No, David!

Joining the already roiling ranks of the publicly humiliated, David Letterman came clean to his audience and the press on Thursday, admitting to having sex with women (note the plural) who worked on his show.

Women who worked on his show. That would make him their boss. And that's considered sexual harassment, as anyone who's had to sit through the corporate training sessions on that subject would No (ah, ... know). Mr. L must have missed that meeting.

Of course, Letterman is the innocent in this scandal. It's really the person (or persons) who attempted to extort blackmail to the tune of 2 million from him who're the real nasties, right? Well, that's how David (and CBS I am sure) would hope we'll feel. After all, he did the right thing and told the authorities, despite it meaning his secret would come out.

Nobody ever said David Letterman wasn't brave. Telling the police rather than coughing up the millions was gutsy - or cheap, possibly. I guess we'll never really know which.

One thing though is sure, David clearly doesn't know boundaries, whether as spouse or boss, much like Bill Clinton, that Sanford guy, and a littany of other prominents who have contributed to our national loss of innocence and trust.

Kissing Healthcare

No, this is not about communicable diseases spread through smooching. It's got nothing to do with love, or sex. It's a commentary on the complexity of healthcare reform.

Now, for those of you still reading this, here it is (and you are probably way ahead of me):

Keep It Simple Stupid

We've all heard the rumors of 1000 page drafts of multiple bills in the House and Senate. Imagine the veritable army of interns spending all night every night reading, writing, and creating synopses for their bosses. The Washington, D.C. pizza delivery industry must be booming.

Now that, my friends, is too complex. And that is what my fellow Democrats are doing. They are the Anti-KISS.

The Republicans? They are taking KISS too far - they aren't doing anything. I'll give them this, that approach is economical of effort and allows them to store up energy for tea parties and disruptive outbursts at presidential speeches. But it's not helping us fix any problems.

Healthcare reform should be kept to it's simplest goals:

Ensure every person gets care that will help and not hurt (physically, emotionally, or financially). The principle should be that nobody will be allowed to stay sick or die in American because they couldn't afford the care. And 'afford' means the ability to pay without sacrificing too much - it will not mean paying for care by not eating or losing your home or not sending your kids to college.

Ensure care is guaranteed to persist through job changes, periods of unemployment, and long illnesses. The care you need will always be available, even when you can't afford to pay the healthcare premiums. (This is critical if you intend to require everyone have coverage). And nobody will be denied because of prior conditions, genetic predisposition, or history of illness.

Ensure care is of high and consistent quality. Sure, the Very Rich may be able to buy new, cutting edge treatment sooner than available to the rest of us - that's free enterprise and somebody needs to be the guinea pigs - but once a procedure or a medicine has been approved as a standard of care, it will be available to everyone that needs it.

Ensure care is cost-effective. The cost of care will not increase unpredictably and any taxpayer money spent will either be recouped or justified by increased benefits. We will never again pay more money for worse care.

That's it. Care should be available, persistent, of consistently high quality, and cost-effective. I hope my fellow Democrats mulling this over in Congress can find these 'Four Ensures' within those thousand-page tomes, and sharpen their focus. I also hope the Republicans will start collaborating on this focus, rather than trying to break it.

It doesn't matter whether these goals are accomplished solely through private enterprise, or joined with a 'public option'. It's time to stop 'wrestling' with Healthcare - and just KISS it.

That's Life!

Like most American TV viewers today, I am a fan of shows with action, and with a capital 'A'.

It must come from a desire to be ripped out of our repetitive, over-scheduled, lives. But for whatever the reason, shows with the requisite action get our attention, and those without it, don't.

I am not including comedies in this discussion, since laughing is its own action - sort of. And comedies are seldom more than half-hour shows, while dramas are usually an hour. An hour without action is bedtime, basically.

Which is all too bad, since several shows that deserve my (and our) attention have slipped away. The one which bothers me most is 'Life', which has gone missing from NBC's lineup after two seasons. I only caught a few episodes of it before it went away, usually when the other shows I watched in its time slot were showing a rerun.

You see, by crime procedural standards, the show had little action. If you were swapping channels and happened upon it, you'd be unlikely to glimpse any car chases, shootings, foot pursuits, breaking glass, or bloody gore to arrest your attention. So, like many of the shows fans, I settled on it for a try only when there was simply-nothing-else I wanted to watch.

But the show was good - even great. By the time the season ended, I'd become caught up in the life of detective Charlie Crews (Damian Lewis). He'd become one of my favorite people. The finale was satisfying, and left me wanting more. The supporting cast was first rate, and, even if the writing was only just acceptable, I eagerly anticipated the next season.

Little did I know the decision had already been made to drop the show. (Thank You, Jay Leno)

Luckily for me, the first two seasons are available for download from iTunes. I've been buying the standard definition versions two at a time to watch during plane rides on my iPod. So I can honestly say I've 'enjoyed Life at 30,000 feet'.

RIP Charlie Crews ...

G-Whiz

Our economy may be recovering - or as some have put it, the recession may be 'technically over'. I'm not sure what that really means, but I'm guessing by-the-book and by-the-numbers, it should be over, but it's not.

At least we aren't suffering from inflation. Although I do remember housing prices, way back in the 80's, received (as Albert Brooks put it in 'Lost in America') a 'ride on the inflation train you wouldn't believe'. That probably wouldn't hurt a few homeowners who've lately taken a ride on the deflation down elevator (maybe 'mine shaft').

One thing which seems to be inflating is financial summit memberships. It wasn't that long ago we had the G-7, then a few years ago it was the G-8. Now it seems we have the G-20.

G-Whiz, why not let everyone in on the party and get a real cacophony going. Muammar Gaddafi can be keynote speaker.