A Little Respect Please

Over the weekend I was in Pennsylvania where I happened to catch Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz as I was perusing Sunday morning television.  Ms Schwartz, a democrat from the 13th Congressional District, was being interviewed on health care.  The Congresswoman, like most people, feels that something should be done about the rising cost of health care.  However, unlike most people, she supports the Obama backed plan that came out of the House. When asked if she had held any town hall meetings, Ms. Schwartz answered by saying that she had talked to a lot of people one-on-one and had her office talking to people--I took that as a no.  It's understandable that she wouldn't want to subject herself to the hostility that the town hall meetings have been generating, but please Ms. Schwartz, you don't get elected to only hear the good news.  I too wish that people at the town hall meetings yelled less and talked more.  But make no mistake, it's the people's right to express what they want done in Washington and it's the elected officials' job to listen.   However, this is not the part that really bothered me.  I actually got past her evasive, somewhat condescending and patronizing attitude until she said that something had to be done because "we (congress) pay for forty-six percent of health care bills."  Excuse me!  No!  Taxpayers pay for forty-six percent of health care bills.  In fact, for the most part, it's the same taxpayers that pay for private health insurance for themselves and their families plus health care for others via taxes.

The American taxpayer is feeling frustrated!  The government has rescued people that took out loans that they couldn't afford, banks for giving loans that they shouldn't have given, bailed out car companies that refuse to make cars that Americans want to buy and now they want to overhaul our health care system.  At this point, we aren't feeling confident that you have our best interest in mind.

To all of you that represent us in Washington:  We expect you to read the health care bill--all of it.  We expect you to understand it and then to communicate that understanding to us.  We expect you to listen to our feedback--even if it hurts your ears.  We expect respect--we pay the bills, including your salary.  

Arrogance, Narcissism, or Just Plain Not Smart?

Several weeks ago South Carolina's governor, Mark Sanford, got caught lying about his whereabouts. He told his staff that he was hiking the Appalachia Trail and would be incommunicado. Didn't you know right away that this story would end with another woman? Of course you did. Even if politicians hadn't been falling left and right to their carnal proclivities you would have known, wouldn't you? The thing that surprised me about the story was that during his rambling apology, Mr. Sanford said that he was sorry for the pain that he had caused by naming first, "her" (his Argentinian lover), his constituency got second billing, and his wife and kids came in third and fourth. Did anyone else notice this? Wouldn't a smart man put his wife and kids first? And a really smart man would probably make his apology to his lover as clandestine as his tryst, and not part of his public mea culpa. As I added it all up I couldn't help but think that this was NOT a smart man. Curious, I went on-line and read an amorous email exchange between Mr. Sanford and the Argentinian woman. He told her that he liked her tan lines. I can see a line like that coming from someone with braces and acne, but from a senator?   

Mr. Sanford's troubles continue. It has been reported that the governor violated South Carolina law by traveling abroad in first and business class; the state requires lowest fare tickets to be purchased. Mr. Sanford tried to excuse his expensive travel by saying that he could get more rest in the better seats so that he wouldn't look "haggard" at meetings. He really said that! A smart man would surely have feigned hard work saying that he needed the extra space for his laptop and his myriad of charts and graphs to prepare for his meetings. Although someone who requires his staff to use both sides of a post-it might be expected to tough it out and make do in coach.

Mr. Sanford is not alone.  A few weeks ago I saw Oprah interview Elizabeth Edwards.  Ms. Edwards wrote a book about life's adversities after her husband, a past senator from North Carolina, vice-presidential, and presidential candidate, John Edwards, had an affair with a woman that got his attention by calling him "hot".  He was running for the highest office in the free world and it wasn't his first election--you would think that he would've known better, you would think that he was smarter than that.  At the end of the interview, Mr. Edwards came in and Oprah asked him about his wife's book.  Sounding like the victim, he mumbled something about his wife being entitled to have her say.  When Oprah pressed him by asking, "but do you wish she hadn't?", he had a chance to say the right thing, maybe even the smart thing, like "no Oprah, I wish that I hadn't."  But he didn't.  He just reiterated that she was entitled to say whatever she wanted.

Then there's Bill Clinton's inappropriate behavior with a very young intern in the Oval Office--not smart behavior but he would probably not have been impeached if he hadn't lied about it to a grand jury.  I can't help but believe that if he had been man enough and smart enough to own-up to his actions, sincerely apologize, and then never mention it again (not that the press wouldn't pursue it), he would have been better off. As is, he is an impeached president and his legacy will forever carry the pall of his indiscretions.

And what about the women that love these men?  Hillary Clinton stood by her man but now she's the one that wears the pants in the family and she's doing a pretty good job of it.  Jenny Sanford didn't stand by her man on the dais (good for her), but she did give him a second chance before finally calling it quits.  I hope that she finds a soul mate of her own--one that reads Pablo Neruda and Octavio Paz poetry to her (I like your tan lines--are you kidding me!).  Elizabeth Edwards kept up the ruse throughout her husband's presidential run but then wrote the book--I hope writing it was cathartic for her--if not, she should try throwing it at him, every time he walks through the door.

I don't like the hypocrisy of these men that preach family values and then get caught with their pants down, or the ones that lecture us about sharing the wealth as they continue to vote themselves raises and get $400 haircuts.  Or, the ones that rail against big business while secretly making deals with them.  However, I'm not passing judgement on this womanizing and free spending as much as expressing surprise at their handling of their actions after the fact. 

Arrogance?  YES!  Narcissism?  Mr. Edwards and Mr. Sanford seem to worry more about their hair and looks than they do about their families.  Smart?  You be the judge.  You don't have to be Harvard educated but you really should be smart in a real common-sense let's-think-this-through kind of way to hold a major office in this great country.  Of course, it would also be great if you were humble, honest and honorable and could lead by example--is that really asking too much?  Lately, it seems like it may be.  Even President Obama has sneaked into bed with someone other than his wife--the drug companies.  It will be interesting to see how he handles the fallout.

In the Absence of a Leader

Erudite New York Times columnist David Brooks (genuflect) is off this week.  I count on Mr. Brooks to put into words what my gut is telling me.  He is remarkably good at this!  He uses quotes, facts, and figures from a myriad of highbrow sources that I would need amphetamines to get through.  Mr. Brooks is respectful (I've never caught him name calling), fair (while clearly a fiscal conservative, he doesn't hesitate to dole out praise to President Obama when he feels it's justified), and he likes to keep his focus high (I don't think he ever commented on the Gates/Crowley situation much less the recent plethora of sex scandals).  There's no MSNBC or Fox News for Mr. Brooks, but you can catch him on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer.   He's practically perfect and he makes me want to be a better writer.  But alas, Mr. Brooks is, I hear, locked in his basement writing a book, so I'm left flailing.  Without the guidance of his principled columns, his scholarly beacon, I find myself sinking in a morass and resorting to writing about...

...a man in Wisconsin that was married but having affairs with several other ladies.  It should be noted that he was letting at least one of the women keep him up--pardon the expression--by paying for his hotel room the past few months and taking about $3000 in cash.  So, why are these ladies in jail?  Seems the wife and girlfriends found out about each other.  One of the girls lured him to the hotel room, tied him up and blindfolded him, telling him that she was going to give him a "rubdown".  He was game! After a quick text or two, the other ladies joined in the fun.  He says he got hit in the face but because the authorities are trying to protect lover boy's identity (WHAT!) there was no picture, so I'm not sure if it was a black-eye inducing hit or just a little love bop.  The girls did Krazy Glue his penis to his stomach but come on, how bad could that be?  I've Krazy Glued my fingers together lots of times.  It comes off in a few days.  Let the girls off already!  ...I'm just wondering, what angle did they use when they attached him to himself--did he have to duck when he went wee-wee?

What's happening in New York and Nantucket You Ask?

I just got back from a week in New York and a week in Nantucket.  For any of you that are planning to visit either, or just like to be in-the-know, you've come to the right place. Both are quieter than in previous visits due to the economy, but still way cooler (at least in the figurative sense) than most other places.

I was surprised by the store-front vacancies on Fifth Avenue, especially south of Saks.  The sidewalks were ridiculously easy to negotiate even with an open umbrella. Hell's Kitchen on the other hand was packed--restaurants, shops, and sidewalks.  It wasn't so long ago that this area lived-up to its name, now it competes for cool with the downtown destinations. It's a perfect place to have dinner before or after a show.  Speaking of...Jude Law is performing in Hamlet for a couple-a-month run starting in September.  I think the combination of this cool actor (so charming) and hot character (so complex) is worth the trip.  And if you're wondering what to wear, go with leggings.  Leggings with big shirts, belted or not, were all over the East Village.  The translation to fall should be leggings with big sweaters and stilettos or leggings with long jackets and riding boots.  Your leggings will probably be black, but hit the gym just to be on the safe side!

Nantucket is not a good place for tourist and this is a good thing.  Other than the great whaling museum there aren't a lot of places for the "tourist bus" to stop.  There are better beaches (for swimming), golf courses, and tennis courts all up and down the eastern seaboard.  Hanging out is what's happening--in the coffee shop, at the nude beach (you know who you are!), window shopping, or reading at the beach in the fog.  At night there are good restaurants with happening bar scenes (LoLa 41, Corazon Del Mar, 21 Federal) or you can stroll the ballast-paved Main Street and  probably catch some guy playing his guitar or a group of kids signing a capella (this should be done while eating fudge from Aunt Leah's or ice cream from the Juice Bar).  While leggings were on every hip woman in NY, Prosecco (Italy's version of champagne) was on every hip menu in Nantucket--yum yum! 

The Crowley/Gates Affair

A teachable moment?  Oh really?  What was it meant to teach?  The president detracting from his nationally televised health care speech by commenting on his friend, Mr. Gates (Harvard scholar on black studies) was surprising to me.  When he said that the police had acted "stupidly", I was shocked.  Harvard educated, reticent, and heretofore making every effort to be fair and unbiased in his approach to race, Mr. Obama's earnest efforts to create an atmosphere of tolerance imbued with responsibility have been nothing short of impressive.  So, why'd he do it?

As much as we don't want it to be so, two things are true:  Racism is here to stay and profiling is natural and sometimes a necessary evil.

We generally define what's right/normal by what we see in the mirror.  It was a form of survival back in the days when fire was carried from place to place.  Just like the body's response to not eating by slowing metabolism to prevent starvation in cave-man days, the "you or me" reflex has eluded evolution.  As a result we have yo-yo dieting and racism.  We should know better intellectually but we just can't seem to help ourselves--we were hoping that Mr. Obama could.  We were counting on his calm demeanor, his intelligence, and his bi-racial background to lift him above the fray.  Instead, Mr. Obama used the stupid word to describe the police action before (admittedly) he knew the details!  How did he come to the conclusion that the police were in the wrong?  Was he profiling?

Profiling has become a dirty word.  It shouldn't be.  For the most part profiling is a good thing, we do it almost everyday to help us make quick decisions.   Our brains store information from past experiences and intellectual observations to guide us around corners.  Mr. Obama however, knew this question was a possibility.  He had time to prepare.  He took sides.  Those of us that worked hard to put Reverend Jeremiah Wright out of our minds saw him creeping back into our peripheral vision.

What was the teachable moment?  If you get stopped by the police be deferential without regard to color?  If you are in a position of authority do your job, be empathetic and walk away?  Get the details before you lay blame?

All three men made mistakes--Mr. Obama's was the most egregious.