Rule #125: A bitter pill to swallow
If the private sector is really the best source for health care, then a competitive government option shouldn't be the end of the world. Often lost in this debate is the word "option," which you think would stir the steamy juices of capitalism. After all, corporations love to talk about "unfettered choice" and "let the market decide," at least until it actually does. Yes, I've heard the criticism: "Government would have an unfair advantage!" Oh, really? Like the insurance companies don't have a much, much worse advantage now? At least the government is accountable to the people, and not just some anonymous penny-pinchers somewhere. And don't tell me some bureaucrat will stand between me and my doctor; that would be an improvement.

The private sector offers government as the enemy because it can't say what it really fears most from a public health care option, lest it be taken the right way: "This would really hurt our ability to suck blood from desperate people." These companies know full well that, to stay in business among a decent public option, that they will have to lower prices, improve coverage and be more accountable overall. You know, actually play by the rules of competitive business. Oh, the horror! If anything, though, the option would only strengthen the marketplace and, in the long run, make all avenues better. And if corporate health care's aim is to help people, that can only fuel its mission further.

If, on the other hand, corporate health care is a massively bureaucratic, bottom-line obsessed, unaccountable, for-profit clusterfuck, then maybe it does have a reason to feel threatened.

Rule #126: B.O. B.S.
Don't refer to Barack Obama as "B.O." or "Hussein," and then defend it by saying, "But that's his name!" Don't pretend it's anything other than childish disrespect and/or an obvious attempt to stoke prejudice. And don't say we do this with past presidents, because JFK's and FDR's initials weren't synonymous with body odor. Just greatness.

Rule #127: Premature flagellation
Obama doesn't have "one last chance" to prove anything. He's been president for six months. That's one-eighth of his first term. In Simpsons terms, he's still a crudely drawn segment on the Tracey Ullman Show. Does anyone remember what George W. Bush was up to in the summer of 2001? Besides nothing? No, and it certainly didn't define his legacy, did it? Nope. If Bush could wreak historic levels of havoc in his last seven years and three months in office, then Obama has plenty of time to at least begin the recovery.

Those calling for Obama's premature political death generally didn't want him to thrive in the first place. Or they're just contrarian/hipster by nature. Either way, give the man a chance.

Rule #128: Giving the man a chance
If Obama isn't giving you what you want right away, wait. It's one thing to grumble that change should occur faster or that the Democrats could be more forceful. Those are valid concerns. But it's another thing altogether to suggest that Obama and Co. don't care and/or are failures because everything they promised (and many things they haven't, for that matter) haven't come to complete fruition just yet.

Reagan/Bush didn't ruin the country in six months, and Obama won't fix it in six months. It takes longer for a 3-minute oil change than some people expected to see sweeping changes on certain issues. Those things will happen; public sentiment is on the right side of gay marriage, public health care, habeas corpus, military overextension, the economy, etc. For what he has on his plate, Obama's doing a good job at least chipping at it. The particulars are worth debating, but eyes are on the prize. And that's more hope than we had over the past several years.

I'm glad my mom didn't give up on me at six months. But she was probably too devastated over the death of John Lennon to think about it much.

Rule #129: Don't Ask, Don't Tell


This is not a real question.

The rest of the rules

- As I get older, I realize just how grating it is to continually hear from baby boomers, "You missed out on..." That generation will go to its mass grave thinking it was the best thing to happen to recorded history. I guess every generation does that, but in the words of an ad I once saw in a magazine from 1989, "Generations come and go. Some are just a lot cooler than others." Way to dis the Greatest Generation over some Seagram's, yuppies.

But as far as I can tell, baby boomer culture is no different than any other: revered tremendously by those who grew up with it, who necessarily see it as the reality gauge to which nothing else can compare, while others see it as OK in spots and full of itself in others. Hell, I even like a lot of what the generation gave us. But greatest ever? Don't be so self-important.

That said, I do know what people in my generation (whatever mine is) really did miss: the feeling of knowing we will be better off than our parents. Way to think outside the box on that one, baby boomers. You guys do have Obama, though, so maybe there's hope on the tail end.

- I think I have yet to hear the word "fornication" spoken in any cadence other than TV preacher. It's like a password for religious fanaticism. I'm genuinely impressed by the religious right's efforts to have a parallel culture, with alternative music, TV shows, public events, celebrities and even vocabulary. Heh heh heh. Alternative lifestyle. Huh huh huh.

- Somebody tell Sarah Palin that you can't sue the press for slander just because you don't like something they said about you. There's a thing you have to prove called "actual malice" if you're a "public figure." Oh, you need a definition, Sarah? Well, "actual malice" refers to an intentional attempt to cause someone tangible harm through defamation and -- Oh. Sorry. "Public figure" refers to someone who is in the public domain of criticism, whether through politics, fame or other widespread exposure. You're that. Deal with it.

- If I played pro football, I'd watch Bill O'Reilly clips before every game. At least until the NFL told me to stop because too many people were getting hurt.

Can you imagine if, in late 2006, Barack Obama had resigned his Senate seat for no apparent reason? And then announced his presidential candidacy the following February? What would the massive fallout have been from the right?

"Barack Obama is nothing but a terminally ambitious politician who will do anything to climb up to the ultimate seat of power, even if it means ignoring his sworn duty to represent the people of his state. His resignation only makes those priorities all that much clearer. If he can't even be bothered to finish his single term in high office, what chance does he stand as president?"

In other words, it wouldn't have been much different than it actually was, but it would have been true.

Keep this in mind if Sarah Palin decides to run for president, because her resignation from the governorship of Alaska is only going to make this more hypocritical/entertaining.

As quoted by the Kansas City Star, "Palin said she was taking 'my fight for what’s right in a new direction.' She said she could be more effective and better serve Alaska and the country from outside the governor’s office.

I'm no politician, but I'm pretty sure that's not how it works. When you're elected, the assumption is that you're going to fulfill your obligation, not just quit when you get tired of doing the job. Running with the lame-duck analogy also suggests support for euthanasia, which may undermine Palin's conservative agenda. If such a thing is even possible.

Well, at least Palin consulted the people before tendering her resignation. "People" meaning her kids, which speaks well of her family values as well as her love for democracy:

Star: "'I polled the most important people in my life, my kids, where the count was unanimous,'" she said. "Well, in response to asking, 'Hey, you want me to make a positive difference and fight for all our children’s future from outside the governor’s office?' it was four yeses and one 'hell, yeah!' And the 'hell, yeah' sealed it."

Wow! She lets her kids say "hell"? And is the fifth kid talking already? Does Sarah always ask her children politically loaded questions like that? "Hey, you want to wash the dishes and make a positive difference in the future of this kitchen's cleanliness?" "Hell no, mom, I hate America."

I wonder how Palin is going to effect positive change better when she's not governor. The PTA, perhaps? As a gadfly at Wasilla council meetings? Maybe a forceful letter to the editor? The options are nearly boundless!

If Palin's trying to battle that stereotype of her being stupid, this isn't going to help. Politically, this is about as certain a career-killer as they come that doesn't involve dead (human) bodies. She must have made a bar bet to answer the question, "How can I make myself even less electable than Mark Sanford?"

The roar of disapproval following the announcement from conservative circles was deafening. Oh no, it hasn't been. It's been mixed at best, which only goes to show that Palin has a lot of devoted fans who are as fanatical as they accuse Obama supporters of being. Her support in the wake of this decision is a culmination of two conservative tenets of late: 1) allegiance to party and politics at all cost and 2) an irrational hatred for government. If public service mattered, Palin wouldn't be hailed for giving up the governor's chair over the perception that simply sitting in it made her an elitist, establishment politician. Her decision to forgo serving the people would not take a back seat to campaigning for other Republicans. This says so much about the state of today's Republicans, and why they deserve to be in the wilderness.

They should watch their feet while they're there. We all know Palin's shooting prowess. Which is exactly why I hope she runs in 2012.

Happy Independence Day!

Rule #122: Tonight's top HIStory
It is possible to both follow world events AND mourn the death of Michael Jackson. You're not better than everyone else for alleging that the story is merely a distraction from developments in Iran and Honduras. The real distraction is CNN Headline News! And their exclamation points! On stories about cute white women in peril! All day, every day!

MJ is the most famous entertainer who ever lived. He made a difference in the world. That merits press. Yes, international issues continue to exist, but you can find coverage of them with little effort. I suspect that a lot of this criticism comes from people who feel guilty about following it at the expense of much else. As if it's a waste of time not to spend every second of it fretting over events completely out of one's control. But there's a difference between that and staying informed and active in your passions, and that should be easy if you possess perspective, regardless of what the news deems important.

And spare me the accusations that MJ was a child molester. The only court that ever convicted him of that was the Court of Public Opinion, which thrives on circumstantial evidence and a need to tear down its heroes. Being weird and socially infantile can be indicative of the perils of lifetime fame, but that isn't a logical leap into abuse. Tell me why I should believe two sets of money-grubbing parents over everyone else who ever knew or worked with Michael, or studied his case. Until then, I will revere this genuine influence in my life and that of billions. And follow the rest of the news while I'm at it.

Rule #123: Clean Slate
Reading something doesn't automatically make you a fervent devotee of it. By that logic, Bill O'Reilly and Adolf Hitler are two of my favorite writers. They aren't by a long shot, but at least I have a window into what passes for their thought processes. Exposure to opposing viewpoints is not only not bad, but necessary for critical thinking. No one should ever be ashamed into avoiding a book, Web site or other work because of what superficial impression others might form from seeing them reading it. Those doing the shaming tend to be the most ignorant anyway.

Rule #124: Confidential to "Confused in S.C."
Never say aloud that you're trying to fall back in love with your wife; that's the worst thing you can do in your situation. Unless you refer to your mistress as your soul mate. Oh, I sure hope you get this before it's too late...

The rest of the rules

What is the point of bringing guns to church? Isn't the whole idea of church that it's a place where God will provide and protect you?

In Kentucky, a pastor encouraged his flock to proudly sport their firearms while attending services this week. A gun raffle capped off the day. The pastor said that fears of an Obama planet compelled him to prove that people can carry their weapons and still be decent, law-abiding folk.

Do people really believe that President Obama is going to confiscate guns and/or repeal the Second Amendment? He's never even hinted at it, and most gun-control advocates aren't in favor of it either. Where does this irrational fear come from? Is it from the very real weakening of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments through the Patriot Act? Somehow, I doubt it. I can think of some superficial and prejudicial factors, but I'd rather think those are unfounded as well. But they probably aren't.

That part about being proving decency and law-abiding-ness, though, I can understand. After several recent church shootings and politically motivated killings, the burden's definitely on the gun crowd, particularly the right-leaning gun crowd, to prove that they can be trusted with their guns. Kind of like young kids with small-part-laden toys.

But, really, guns in church? This is why I don't go. Well, that, and the increasingly extremist (and illegal) political rhetoric.

Michael Jackson is dead. Wow.

I had just arrived at work yesterday when I heard the news that Michael had been hospitalized. The newsroom buzzed like never before, partially because it was that rare Really Huge Story that doesn't seem to happen much anymore, but also because he'd had an impact on so many of us. And that's what made Michael so special; even in his oddest behavior and at the very nadir of his popularity, no one could deny that his music had been a soundtrack for our lives. He redefined music, stardom, spectacle and charity.

Within minutes of Michael's passing, my entire Facebook feed was about MJ. And not the "Wacko Jacko" jokes that had come to define him in his later years, but how profound an impact he had on my friends' lives. I really had no idea. His music has been in heavy rotation in my music library from the start. All of it, from "I Want You Back" to "You Rock My World." To me, Michael's work is consistently excellent - Thriller, Bad, Dangerous and HIStory are personal favorites of mine - and I have most of his albums. In fact, just this past Monday I bought the Jacksons' Victory LP (99 cents at a secondhand store - what a travesty for a near-mint record). In recent years, I felt like I was the only one who still cared. As sad as I am that he died, I'm happy to know that so many have been affected so deeply.

The thing about Michael's music isn't that he made it, but that it seemed inevitable that he would. If ever a pop song seemed natural to me, "Billie Jean" is it. I can't imagine that song not existing. The same is true with a lot of his compositions, almost as if the sonic genius was there, but Michael was the one talented enough to capture it for posterity.

In this age of extreme niche, it's unreal to fathom someone of Michael's scale coming along again. Check out any of the hottest musical acts today, and chances are they apply to a specific clientele, like Disney Channel aficionados or hip-hop dance clubs. Michael had everybody. He was everywhere, not strictly out of capitalism, but because people literally couldn't get enough of him. He was one of those beacons of world unity that are so lacking these days, in every respect. He was more than a musician - he advocated for children and the environment and electrified the world with dazzling showmanship that, for many behind the Iron Curtain, was their first taste of Western culture.

His Dangerous tour concert from Bucharest in 1992, aired on HBO and my VCR countless times, is an all-time classic of showmanship. The musical performances alone are top-notch, but the spectacle itself is unmatched. During one montage, a picture of Michael with AIDS victim Ryan White elicited huge cheers from the Romanian crowd. Not only did Michael befriend Ryan at a time when AIDS rendered you untouchable, but was probably the reason Romanians had even heard of Ryan White. That's really something.

One of my earliest memories is standing in my mom's kitchen through much of 1983-84 as she wore out her Thriller cassette on our silver Panasonic boombox. I remember being especially mesmerized by the spinning tape counter, and also by Michael's falsetto, which made me think he was a girl. When I got a CD copy for Christmas in 7th grade (1992), I did my best to wear that out too. I also had Dangerous and Bad in that time period, as well as the Jacksons' Triumph on LP. Can You Feel It? I did. Endlessly.

Not long after that, I began writing songs. Lots of them. Within the next two years, I wrote more than 150 songs. I became obsessed with creating my own Thriller, even going so far as to create my own band (Decibel) with my friends, though we never actually played - just wrote songs in anticipation of our big break. And though I eventually gave up on being a rock star - probably when my mom accurately called me "tone deaf" - I've never stopped writing lyrics or anything else. And I'm still working on my own Thriller.

Michael Jackson ranks right up there with my teachers and family as an original inspiration for my creative efforts. Without him, the world would be a much less interesting place in so many ways. And I wouldn't be who I am today. Thank you for raising the bar, Michael. You are missed. But you have left a legacy that will never die.

Rule #119: True outrage over false outrage
If you hate Barack Obama, you have to just come out and say it. No more hiding behind the false outrage of the day, such as he's on TV too much, or he's taxing us enough already, blah blah blah.

I'm tired of the calls for Obama to get off TV and get to work. Who knew a Bill Maher monologue would (without irony) galvanize the very people Maher criticizes most? There seems to be this new equation that the opposite of work is being on TV. We're the most wired society in history; seeing more of the president shouldn't be a surprise. Especially since he's new, fresh and trying to put on a different face for America and the world after eight years of secrecy and global contempt.

Exposure used to be good for the president. I don't recall this trait being a liability for Great Communicator Ronald Reagan, nor for Fireside Chatter FDR. Calvin Coolidge was surly and silent, and neither of the Bush presidents were particularly adept at oratory. How's history treating those guys?

But now that Obama's all over TV, critics complain that he's wasting time. And that the networks are in cahoots with the government for giving him airtime. It's such transparent BS that it's barely worth rebutting.

I thought Obama was an evil socialist overlord working overtime to get every citizen and every business sucking the teat of government. Now he's off the job, just wasting time on TV? Does anyone put thought into these clashing arguments? Just admit you hate to see Obama on your TV and Internet screens and in your newspapers, because it reminds you that he's the president. Find some actual issues to debate, just as critics on the left have done, and make some concrete points that don't barely mask ideological contempt. It's work, yes, but it might help the cause more than blindly aligning with the Party of No.

Rule #120: Party of D'Oh!
As if it wasn't obvious enough already, the Republican Party no longer has any high ground on moral issues. The party is packed to the gills with adulterers, hypocrites and incompetents. Yes, Democrats have plenty of skeletons too, but they also don't claim to be the party of Jesus, family, apple pie and other concepts you'd have to be evil to oppose.

Short of that, Republicans have to at least be clever about their transgressions. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford cut off all contact for four days on Father's Day weekend with no contingency plan for the state. Then he said he went hiking (on Nude Hiking Day, no less!), before admitting that he had flown to Argentina to "do something exotic." Like, maybe, a married woman with two kids? Real smooth, sir. These sort of things don't just get found out - they get found out in the most entertaining way the universe allows. Forget lipstick on the collar - a questionable visa stamp in a passport is a far worse thing to explain away.

Bill Clinton slipped up too, but at least he had the foresight to invite the girl over to his place while Hillary and Chelsea were on diplomatic trips to Africa. Given how the Republicans hounded him endlessly over this and even had him impeached over it, they should have at least taken notes. The GOP can't even handle its scandals as well as the Democrats.

Barack Obama has every right to call out these losers on their hypocrisy, but he doesn't. Why? Because he'd rather lead by example. Solid husband, doting father, two well-adjusted children - Obama lives all of the family lip-service that conservatives claim to uphold. And it seems far more real from him than it does from those who make family a political issue.

Personally, I don't care that Mark Sanford has a lover. I don't think that should disqualify him to remain governor or even run for president. But that's a hole the Republicans dug a decade ago, and now they've discovered that dirt doesn't taste so good.

Rule #121: We Report Wrong, You Decide Wrong
Fox News must stop labeling Republicans as Democrats every time they get in trouble.


(See numerous other examples here.)

If Fox News wants to be taken seriously as a news station, it can't afford to make incredibly elementary errors like this. Fudging a party affiliation is one of those mistakes you almost have to make on purpose. If something like this made print, there would be hell to pay.

But, as a friend of mine pointed out, Fox News isn't really a news station as much as it is a misinformation tool. Fox News sees the propaganda value of consuming its channel as a steady diet, which many people do. Plant a few ideological seeds - right, wrong, what's the difference? - and it doesn't matter how many corrections you run, or if you don't run them at all. Who's going to do the two seconds of research to prove them wrong? Surely not the same people who let themselves believe all that hooey about Obama being a secret Muslim with no real birth certificate who was elected thanks to millions of fake ACORN voters. If viewers had done the two seconds of research to counter those charges, they would know these allegations weren't true.

Then again, if Fox viewers put that much effort into critical thinking, they wouldn't be Fox viewers in the first place.

Rules archive