The National Insurance Lottery

In the past, I have expressed reservations about a nationalized health care scheme. It is unfair to label the Canadian and Western European health care systems as disastrous just as it is absurd to say they are unmitigated successes. Fact is, like almost all large government programs, they giveth and they taketh away, solving some, rarely all, of the problems they hope to while at the same time creating new ones. Among the citizens of nations that employ these large scale health care initiatives, one is likely to find plenty of cheerleaders, plenty of critics and, most of all, plenty who are both, recognizing the system's virtues as well as its warts.

President Obama's tentative health care proposal represents a hybrid of the current system and a national one and is therefore unlikely to please hard-line conservatives or die-hard socialists. This is just as well, as these two groups make a point not to be pleased most of the time. The President's idea, sound on the face of it but probably not as straightforward as it seems, is to leave what's right about the system alone while building new programs to repair what's busted. Well, okay. I do not profess any expertise on this topic, but I do have thoughts on how to raise money for it.

There is some logic in a tax increase on unhealthy foods, but I have another idea: there should be a National Insurance Lottery. For, say, two dollars a ticket, purchasers could win a shot at the monthly grand prize, one million dollars and free health care for life. Impractical, you say? I respectfully disagree. If only one in ten Americans purchased only one ticket every week--again, one out of ten and only a single ticket--it would generate about a quarter billion dollars every month, not enough to pay for the program, but a handsome sum of money just the same. And the best part is, it's all voluntary.

Of course, there might be complaints that such a system encourages gambling. But that ship sailed a long time ago. States lotteries around the country already fund dozens of important initiatives and, in the words of the Cornelius Brothers and Sister Rose, it's too late to turn back now.

Get A Job, Man, You're Fifty!

This is my message to the protesters at the London G20 Summit, even the ones considerably under the age of fifty and the ones who already have jobs. Yes, of course, I am painting with a broad brush here; some of those involved in acts of civil disobedience have noble intentions and likely are marvelous people. However, most of the attention falls to hostile, bitter loudmouths who are more interested in shouting slogans and slinging stones than genuinely advancing the cause of the planet's poor and downtrodden.

Understand, the overall points that the global economic system is not altogether fair and that power, money, and resources are concentrated in too few hands are not without validity. Solutions to these problems remain nebulous and elusive but, if nothing else, no -ism or -tion advocated by simplistic catch phrases will resolve the world's problems. As delightfully subversive as overthrowing or undermining the system might seem, it works much better as an idea than as a reality.

It is the ultimate self-delusion to believe destroying property and hurling insults at police officers will somehow change the world for the better or ease the misery of families in Cambodia or Sierra Leone. But a lot of protesters probably realize this already and are more cynical than idealistic; they are, in fact, more driven by revelry and mayhem, by perceiving the victims as themselves, as martyrs fighting for their rights.

Some people interpret criticism of a particular group of protesters as an assault on the right to protest. That's as nonsensical as the idea that one malpractice suit against an incompetent doctor is an indictment against all of modern medicine. The right to air grievances against any and all governments should be sacrosanct--even though it isn't in many parts of the world--but some petitioners raise better arguments than others and we should all be free to criticize those who criticize.

Pardon the Shoe Thrower

Three years for attempted assault? Sorry, but that's absurd. This is not an attempt to embarrass former President Bush nor a defense of journalist Muntadhar al-Zeid's actions; he was dead wrong to do what he did and fortunate to be alive, because when you heave objects at a global leader, getting shot full of about fifty slugs is not unheard of. Critical as so many have been of Bush, he displayed impressive reflexes during this incident. However, following the footwear chucking, I believe he should have requested a meeting with al-Zeid and stated publicly that while he did not condone violence as a method of protest, he understood the frustration of the Iraqi people and the emotional scars left by the invasion.

Bush could not have pardoned al-Zeid, but as targeted victim and leader of the free world, his recommendation for clemency would have carried a lot of weight and perhaps provided a small measure of good public relations for a conflict that has enjoyed very few. Now that Bush is out of office, President Obama might appear to be tweaking Bush, showing him up, if he urged the Iraqi government to let al-Zeid off the hook. If Obama wishes to act now, he must do so by consulting Bush himself and making sure the two are on the same page.

This would be the right thing to do. Throwing a shoe at the President of the United States is reckless, unwise, and bellicose, but the man missed and people should not be punished for speculative damage and injury, except if this had been some type of failed assasination attempt, in which case conspiracy would be added to the charges. If al-Zeid had received a lighter sentence, it would not make sense to intervene, but if we are expected to set powerful examples for the Iraqi people on how to run a democratic government, it is prudent to include mercy and forgiveness among our values, particularly in cases where no real damage was done. Plus, let's face it, the whole thing gave almost all of us a good laugh. Some revered the shoe thrower for his guts and the sheer madness of what he did and others admired Bush for reacting quickly and managing to smile about the incident not long after it happened; but nearly everyone found some humor in it. And the Iraq War has not given us much to laugh about over the last six years.

Muntadhar al-Zeid was way out of line, but let's encourage the neophyte Iraqi government to set him free.

New, Improved, Bigger, Better and Americaner

The time has come for the United States of America to set herself apart in yet another way. What we need is a rotating National Anthem, because a nation such as ours can never be complete with only one.

"The Star-Spangled Banner" has taken its share of pounding from critics over the years, including claims that it is difficult to sing and that it's too war-oriented. The first claim has some merit, though because of the challenges associated with singing the song, our gratification increases when a vocalist really handles it (see Marvin Gaye, NBA All-Star Game, 1983). As for the second charge, well, what can be said? We cannot ignore history nor deny that some of our country's wars have yielded positive outcomes. War is not, and shouldn't be, all we're about, but nor should we forget the toil and sacrifice of the soldier.

Ultimately, "The Star-Spangled Banner" seems like a better poem than it is a song, but it's too important to leave out of the rotation. Two things to bear in mind are that Francis Scott Key originally wrote it as a poem and it was not set to music until years later and that the writing chronicles not a great victory, but a state of affairs much closer to defeat. The War of 1812's conclusion left the United States with a favorable treaty as Great Britain rushed her troops back to Europe to confront a resurging Napoleon, but Britain won nearly every battle, sacked Washington, and set the city ablaze. The events chronicled by Key in Baltimore in 1814 tell us a story of survival and resilience, not of glory and triumph. This, by the way, is a good thing and unusual for a National Anthem. You can't always prevail, but you can live to fight another day. And we have.

"The Banner" must not be abandoned, but its limitations are precisely why we need alternatives. The first and most obvious of these is "America the Beautiful", a stunningly wonderful number far more anthemic than Key's piece. The antithesis of "the Banner's" narrow focus, this song's first verse describes the beauty and grandeur of America's appearance. Also originally a poem by Katharine Lee Bates, the piece was set to music composed by Samuel Ward, who died before the song became popular and never met Bates. It's another perfect American story: sad, funny, and ironic.

Now comes the time for adventure. Forget "God Bless America" and "My Country 'Tis of Thee", not because these are bad songs, but because they are too similar in spirit and form to the previous two. Besides, "My Country 'Tis of Thee" has the same melody as "God Save the Queen" and we don't want one of our National Anthem's sounding exactly like Britain's. Continue to perform these songs, by all means, but leave them out of the National Anthem rotation. What we need here is variety without creating so many alternate National Anthems so as to become hazy and convoluted. In short, we need one more song to create a tidy rotation of three.

Probably the best way to do this is to proclaim "The Star Spangled Banner" and "America the Beautiful" permanent members of the mix, with various third songs working their way in and out over a period of a few years. All three songs would officially be The National Anthem, so at public forums, ceremonies, or sporting events, any of the three could be played, or all three could be played, assuming the audience is patient enough.

So what should the third anthem be? Many people are partial to Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land", and it's hard to blame them. The song does have some controversial lyrics in its later verses, but why shrink from controversy? Though this idea of multiple National Anthems originates somewhat out of the desire to illustrate and embrace the great variety of the United States, there is no possible way to please everyone. As it stands now, many people are unhappy with the present National Anthem. If that Anthem were replaced, at least as many people would be unhappy with that development. The various National Anthems won't delight everyone either, but at least in this scheme, "The Star Spangled Banner" doesn't disappear altogether, so the people devoted to the song can retain it and the people uncomfortable with it have options.

"This Land Is Your Land" is an undeniably great and glorious piece worthy of consideration for the third Anthem, but it shares one slight drawback with Francis Scott Key's masterpiece: the song never mentions any of the three words "United", "States", or "America." Not that there's any question what country the song is about, with its references to "the New York islands", but it does seem jarring that this kind of song never explicitly mentions this country.

Lovely as Woody Guthrie's composition is, there might be an even better one. In the late 1950s, reputedly following a trip to Australia where he witnessed hardships endured by the Aborigines, Chuck Berry wrote "Back in the USA". Though not exactly an obscure song, it is far less well-known than the others mentioned in this writing, so the lyrics are reprinted below.

"Oh well, oh well, I feel so good today
We just touched ground on an international runway
Jet-propelled back home from overseas to the USA

New York, Los Angeles, oh, how I yearned for you
Detroit, Chicago, Chattanooga, Baton Rouge
Let alone just to be at my home back in old St. Lou'

Did I miss the skyscrapers? Did I miss the long freeway?
From the coast of California to the shores of the Delaware Bay
You can bet your life I did 'til I got back in the USA

Looking hard for a drive-in, searching for a corner cafe'
Where hamburgers sizzle on an open grill night and day
And the jukebox jumping with records like in the USA
Well, I'm so glad I'm living in the USA
Yes, I'm so glad I'm living in the USA
Anything you want, you got it right here in the USA."

Those who have not heard the song before must also envision the Moonglows chanting "uh huh huh, oh yeah" in the background. Now THAT is an American song, performed in an idiom largely of American design--rock and roll--by a great American success story. Chuck Berry also happens to be a sex deviant, but in a way even that regrettable fact adds more than it detracts from the overall picture. Thomas Jefferson was both a great man and a slaveholder. That's America: we are weak and strong, brilliant and ignorant, big and noisy, subtle and graceful, war-mongering and peace-loving, selfish and generous.

So let's not waste another minute. We want three National Anthems: "The Star-Spangled Banner", "America the Beautiful", and "Back in the USA". We're just too big, varied, and insane for anything less!

This Could Have Been You

Speculation of this type is more fun than fruitful, but surely many Republicans realize and have considered the possibility that they could have produced the first African-American president and not the Democrats. Among Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and J. C. Watts, it is not too far-fetched to believe one of them could have made a viable candidate for the nation's highest office. Powell and Rice have repeatedly insisted a lack of interest in the job and Watts withdrew from public office, though not entirely from politics, following a not-so-friendly parting of ways with the GOP. Rumor has it much of the split involved Watts' decidedly uncordial rapport with now-disgraced former House Speaker Tom DeLay. If this is true, it is a shame that Watts' career was hampered by a man so rapidly approaching outcast status.

Indeed, during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, Watts stopped short of endorsing Obama, but criticized the Republican Party for failing to appeal to minorities. On a national level, Latinos are underrepresented in both major political parties, but they cast their lot with the Democrats this time because Republicans made no discernible effort to earn their votes.

What if all people named Watts were related and required to live in Watts, California? This might be the best idea to come along in a while. J. C. Watts could live next door to his brother and sister-in-law, Charlie and Shirley Watts, and their daughter Naomi could reside across the street. Think there would have been mid-1960s riots in Watts if they were all family? Hard to say since families don't always get along, but we can at least assume the riots would have taken a different direction. A direction such as "why are we forced to live so close to our stupid families?"

Another thing that would improve the world is if the French expression spelled viola exchanged pronunciation with the largely uncelebrated musical instrument also spelled viola. Then people could say "vy-oh-la" when presenting a pleasing and sudden conclusion and at band concerts you could hear people murmuring, "she's in the second row, playing the wah-la." Come on, who can deny this idea makes the world a better place?

Okay, how about this? Many cemeteries are home to ducks, who swim in ponds and streams and perhaps affirm life at a time when people are preoccupied with death. That's great. But what if it were possible to perform some kind of surgery on a duck and make its quack sound like a police siren? Every cemetery could have this procedure done on a single duck. If you walk beside the stream and over the little stone bridge one reflective afternoon following a relative's funeral and hear the police siren duck, it could be a sign of really good fortune, of better days ahead. And if you just hear normal quacking, it's just that sedate, life-affirming stuff. It could be called Duck Luck. Don't fight it; resistance is futile.

It Should Be Obvious

Many things seem obvious, but obviously they're not. This explains why some advertisements for birth control devices or erectile dysfunction drugs note in fine print that said product cannot protect users from HIV or other Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The very fact this disclaimer appears indicates somebody somewhere assumed Viagra could keep him from getting gonorrhea.

So perhaps it would benefit the general public to compile a list of ideas that ought to be obvious, but for some reason have not made the rounds of common knowledge quite as well as they should. Observe:

Toads cannot give people warts.
Warts can be caused by a variety of viral infections and are sometimes passed from human to human, but never, as far as anyone knows, from toad to human. Even the toad-licking craze that swept across North America in the mid-1990s did not lead to an increase in warts, though it did drive home a curious dichotomy about certain members of the general public: on one hand, dumb enough to believe toads can cause warts, but on the other, dumb enough to seek hallucinogenic pleasure by putting one's tongue on this same type of creature.

The world won't end because someone you don't like is President of the United States.
Four of the five most recent Presidents--Reagan, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama--have generated adulation from their supporters and intense and vitriolic criticism from their detractors, and yet the nation and the planet carry on. Richard Nixon couldn't wreck the country, nor could Jimmy Carter. Neither paranoid narcissism nor hemorrhaging incompetence nor faulty intelligence nor White House soft pornography nor any of the myriad petty rivalries and scandals have ever managed to rend us asunder. So easy, tigers.

The Blues Brothers did not record the original version of "Soul Man".
No, sir, Sam and Dave did it first. And Little Willie John's rendition of fever came out before Peggy Lee's, too. To be fair, Lee did a superb job with it, though Willie John's is even better. Incidentally, it is not entirely clear who composed "Fever", but it might well have been Otis Blackwell, the same songwriter who penned "All Shook Up", made famous by Elvis Presley.

The severity of brown recluse spider bites has been greatly exaggerated.
Brown recluse spiders reside mostly in the American South and Midwest and hardly exist on either coast, though they turn up occasionally. Some arachnologists estimate that up to 80% of reported brown recluse bites are actually caused by something else, a different spider, an insect, an allergic reaction or rash. The kind of sickening necrotic damage depicted in a variety of Internet hoaxes is extraordinarily rare. People need to grow up about spiders, period. Understand, if a large, hairy, eight-legged gem were found on this writer's hand as he typed up this post, he would be understandably shaken. Otherwise, spiders are completely unworthy of the hysteria they generate. Sort of like the Jonas Brothers.

More Days Off

Two friends and I had a discussion this week and ultimately arrived at the following possibly unanswerable question. If you were attending a party and the host said Oprah and Stedman were coming over, which is more likely?

A) Oprah Winfrey and Stedman whatever were actually coming to the party.

B) A different Oprah and Stedman were coming. Let's say Oprah Kubelsky and Stedman whomever.

Clearly, it's most likely that the party's host is simply a lying dirtbag, but leave that aside. Can the probabilities be determined?

A few years ago, I wrote a piece suggesting perhaps we ought to honor people like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King on the days they died rather than the days they were born. Obviously, the idea is a bit morbid, perhaps even a little tasteless, but part of the overall point was these men were killed primarily for the principles they espoused and they were good principles. That's something Americans ought not to forget. That writing advocated making holidays of April 4th and 14th to honor the aforementioned men, but an idea occurred to me today that would retain a national holiday for the third Monday in January.

Benjamin Franklin was born January 17, 1706. I can think of no American who does not already have a holiday more deserving of one. It's strange that as revered and admired as Franklin was and is, he is not individually commemorated at any particular time during the year. Admittedly, old Ben was a notorious skirtchaser, a rake, and by some accounts a lamentable father. But so what? Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and King all were flawed men. Flawed need not mean "less great." And though this point should be obvious, we would honor Mr. Franklin on his date of birth rather than his date of death because he did not perish violently as a result of a courageous and controversial stand he took, though he was indeed a courageous man who risked a great deal to help found the country.

Not everyone can have a holiday, even though there are considerably more than 365 citizens of any country who probably deserve one. And not everyone can agree on who has earned a holiday either. Sometimes it seems like if a vote on whom to award a holiday in this were ever taken, it would result in a 300 million way tie with each person supporting him or herself. If I ever got my own holiday, I wouldn't want it to fall on my birthday or the day I died, but on the first really pleasant Friday of each year. Now that's a holiday!