I Can Hear Lloyd Bentsen Now

"Mr. President, I knew Harry Truman. Harry Truman was a friend of mine. Mr. President, you're no Harry Truman."

So Dubya is fascinated with the man from Independence, and fancies himself Harry Truman's spiritual heir due to Dubya's own massive unpopularity with the American voting public.

Just more evidence that Dubya is not even close to being a student--of history or of anything else, for that matter.

Number one: Korea was a United Nations "police action." The US played a large part in it, yes, but our involvement in Korea was not a bit like our involvement in Iraq. We were working within the context of the world community in Korea. In Iraq, the US went in unilaterally, has consistently ignored the opinion of most of the rest of the world, and has generally thumbed its official nose at everyone who dared question what "we" were doing.

Besides, Truman was unpopular with the voting public for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that Truman was no FDR. Dubya is no Bill Clinton, but that's irrelevant in this context. Clinton appealed to the "good times" Bubbas. Dubya appealed to the "family values"Bubbas. Furthermore, Truman saw military service in WWI. Dubya studiously avoided it, with Daddy's help, during Vietnam.

Number two: Truman had the balls [pardon my French, but no other word is adequate in this instance.--Ed.] to fire Gen. Douglas MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to escalate things by nuking China. Dubya had to be forced to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and even then he couldn't be honest about it. He claimed he had made up his mind to fire Rummy before the recent elections, and as if that weren't bad enough, he praised Rummy to the skies in Rummy's official farewell ceremony last Friday.

Number three: Harry Truman worked in and with the rest of our allies and indeed, the entire world community. He didn't alienate us from everyone else in the world. He didn't sink the standing of the USA by his actions and his decisions. As a true student of history, Truman understood the world and how best the USA could operate within it--all the while protecting our own interests. Dubya's approach is "my way or the highway," however, and he actually seems to take delight in playing at being more macho than anyone else on the planet. The esteem in which many others in the world traditionally have held the USA has disappeared right down the toilet of Dubya's ambitions. So despite Dubya's insistence that he's protecting the US, he's succeeded only in making the whole world less safe for Americans.

Number four: Harry Truman knew his own mind. He didn't need the advice, guidance, leadership, or decision-making skills of others to decide what he was going to do and how he was going to do it. Contrast Dubya, who frequently seems to have turned over all Executive Branch decision-making processes to Vice President Dick Cheney and all political posturing decisions to advisor Karl Rove.

Number five: Harry was no poseur. He didn't come from money, and he didn't see any need to pretend to be something he was not. Dubya, on the other hand, grew up as a Connecticut preppie, the child of wealth and privilege, and has convinced himself that he's just a "good ol' boy" from Texas. I'll give Dubya this: he does have the accent correct, down to his monumentally irritating mispronunciation of the word "nuclear." At some very important levels, however, the only person he fools is himself.

Ah, well. There are none so blind as those who will not see, and Dubya is as blind as a bat. If not blinder. A bat won't knowingly fly right into the middle of a situation adverse to its health or safety.

How can we even dream of having a Merry Christmas when our troops are dying for no good reason?

Christmastime Is Here

There has been lots of talk on the radio lately about people's favorite and least-favorite Christmas music. One person's Handel's Messiah is another person's Chipmunks' Christmas, Christmas Time Is Here.

And vice versa.

My personal list, like everything else about me, is eclectic. I love the entire recording of The Bells of Dublin, but Elvis Costello's The St. Stephen's Day Murders alone is worth the price of admission. Wouldn't be Christmas for me without it. It's a little slice of reality--laced liberally with black humor--that curbs holiday schmaltz.

The Manhattan Transfer's entire Christmas Album is wonderful. I can't hear their take on Santa Claus Is Coming To Town enough. "Look out, Old Santa is back!" It's not even remotely one of my favorite Christmas songs. Manhattan Transfer's take on it is that good.

Nor can I get enough of Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass's Christmas Album. The whole thing is a delight. I don't have enough air to blow a horn to save my life, but I've always had an affinity for horn music--especially when it has rhythm. This album reeks of rhythm.

And, God help me, I like both of The Brian Setzer Orchestra's Christmas albums for the same reason. If you haven't heard either Dig That Crazy Christmas or Boogie Woogie Christmas, give them each a listen sometime. They have irresistably catchy rhythms, so they are fun, which for me goes a long way toward easing the stresses of the always too frenetic holiday season.

I used to love everything Christmas-y by Mannheim Steamroller. After a painful personal encounter at one of the Steamroller's Christmas concerts, however, I find I cannot listen to its holiday music without re-experiencing a great deal of emotional distress. [And they say no one remembers pain. Hah!--Ed.] Too bad for me. The music is glorious.

Unlike that of the Trans-Siberian Orchestra, that is. Mannheim Steamroller did it first, and did it much better. The TSO is just loud and overwrought. That's a great disappointment. Based on what I'd read before I ever heard anything by the TSO, I was fully prepared to like its music. No such luck. But it sells well, so people out there must enjoy it. Good for them. They can have it.

I have many recordings of carols arranged for voice and choir(what a shock!), brass, pipe organ, orchestra, music box, and even glass armonica--all of which enhance my holidays greatly. Heck, when I'm feeling peckish, I actually get a kick out of listening to Hooked on Christmas. Disco Christmas carols?!? Who knew?

Handel's Messiah and J.S. Bach's Christmas Oratorio also make my "must listen to every year" list. The power and majesty of this music are comforting, oddly enough. Why do I like this music so? Probably for the same reason I prefer "high church"-type ceremonies and Gothic cathedrals and the like to their more prosaic "low church" cousins. They seem more reverential and in keeping with the true spirit of the season than, for instance, does a song like Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer.

Wouldn't you know, however, that my three all-time favorite Christmas CDs are jazz-oriented? Handel's Messiah: A Soulful Celebration, on Reprise records, produced in chief by Quincy Jones, is brilliant. Highlights of Handel's Messiah, arranged in genres from call-and-response to soul to blues to rap, and performed by everyone from Al Jarreau to Stevie Wonder, Take 6, The Boys Choir of Harlem, and Mike E.,to name just a few, is guaranteed to get you up and dancing, filled with the joy of the Lord. It is simply great, from first note to last.

On the cooler side of jazz, guitarist Kenny Burrell's Have Yourself A Soulful Little Christmas has become another of my holiday sine qua nons. I picked up my copy from the Jazz Heritage Society's bargain bin, and believe you me, it is a bargain-and-a-half. Frankly, I am surprised at how much I enjoy listening to this album. [OK, OK. I'm old enough to remember--heck, to have--LPs, so please don't castigate me for using "recording," "album," and "CD" interchangeably. I can't help it. But all the selections I've discussed here are on CD in my own collection.--Ed.] It's thoroughly soothing, like sipping a warm glass of mulled wine to take away the chill of having been out in the cold and snow. Even when there hasn't been any (real) cold or snow. Listen to it, and your soul will be serene.

But my all-time favorite is Vince Guaraldi's A Charlie Brown Christmas. The instrumental of Christmas Time Is Here perfectly evokes the stillness in the nighttime winter air just after a snowfall. It is the quintessence of peacefulness. [Don't everyone break into "There's A Kind of Hush," now.--Ed.]

And Linus and Lucy is, well, Linus and Lucy. Why do you think I named my little heathens after the Van Pelt siblings?

Good Reasons That Economics Is "The Dismal Science"

Don't count me among those mourning the recent death of free market economist Milton Friedman. I don't think that markets are really "free," first of all; nor do I think that markets, when left to their own devices, are good, wise, noble, kind, or rational. I do think that the current high esteem in which Friedman's ideas are held is depressing (that's my interpretation of "the dismal science," with all due respect to Adam Smith). I also think that people like Friedman who promulgate "free markets are the be-all and the end-all" of life are downright wrong, on at least four counts.

One: markets are not rational. Markets are artificial constructs. People make decisions. Most people are not rational. Consider how reporters present the daily Dow Jones news. Is the average higher or lower than it was in the most recent previous report? "Higher" is presumed good; "lower" is presumed bad. No one stops to think that the numbers might be down temporarily because investors (who want to) are taking profits. No one stops to consider that even if the numbers are down compared to the day before, the numbers may well still be higher overall than they were last week, or last month, or last year.

Graphic adjuncts reinforce the irrationality of the reporting. "Marketplace Morning Report" plays We're In The Money in the background when the average is higher than it was in prior reports; it plays Stormy Weather when the average is lower. Broadcast networks put the numbers on screen with arrows pointing up or down--and the arrows are physically larger and more colorful than the printed numbers accompanying them.

Newscasters tell us that the market is "jittery" because of things like the war in Iraq or that the market is "happy" with some economic report or company profit and loss statement. Hello! Markets are inanimate, artificial things. Markets cannot and do not have feelings . . . but people do. Again, people are not rational. There's a reason the grade of "C" is average--at least half the population operates at that level or below. Furthermore, people in groups are less rational than people acting as individuals tend to be. It has been well and oft demonstrated by sociologists that humans succumb to the herd mentality quite easily. So everyone waits around for the news about what everyone else is doing, and they then go do the same themselves. [Yes, there are exceptions. Those are your "A" and "B" students.--Ed.]

Two: each side in any give economic transaction does not share equal power. Why do you think labor unions were created? To gve at least the color of leveling the playing field. One lone job seeker is not on equal footing with any employer. Have you ever heard of anyone going into a job interview, informing the employer of the conditions under which he'll accept a job, and then getting that job on those terms? Anyone who is Joe Average, that is. Unique personal skills, such as those of the highest paid actors or the most talented athletes, change the scenario. But how many of such people are there compared to the entire work-seeking population? No more than a tiny, tiny percentage.

Yes, a potential buyer can choose not to spend his money . . . for a time. What if you've put off buying a winter coat for too long already, and it's 20° below and you can't wait any longer? You either freeze or buy whatever you can find, whether it's what you really want to purchase or not. No matter how bad your personal economic situation is, there comes a time when you cannot refrain from spending any longer. You must have transportation, food, shelter, clothing. And if any or all these things are in disrepair (or worse), and you don't have a good job, you wait as long as you can. Sooner or later, however, you must buy. Most sellers have the economic size and clout to wait you out. There is always someone else who's already reached that "point of no return," that point at which he cannot stall any longer, so there is always someone stoking the engine of profit by buying.

Three: markets and the decisions people make as expressed through them are not value-neutral. Businesses regularly break the law by hiring illegals. They do it because it's cheaper for them than it would be to hire legitimate, legal workers, who sometimes have union or other legal protections, such as the guarantee of a minimum wage. Even if the businesses get caught and have to pay a fine, it's often less expensive for them to take that course than it is to obey the law in the first place. Do you really want to teach our children that such disrespect for law is acceptable? I for one do not.

Businesses often close or move locations not because they are losing money, but because they are not making enough money (as they perceive it) at their present locations. They claim they are consolidating or automating [do you hate long voice mail menus as much as I do?--Ed.] or whatever for the sake of better customer service. Right. Since when is wasting a considerable amount of a customer's time by making the customer do the work improved customer service? The real bottom line is (oddly enough) the bottom line. If it's cheaper to automate than to have a live person on the other end of the telephone line, then the business will automate. The only people corporations are beholden to are their shareholders. Boards of directors are surprisingly frank in admitting that their sole responsibility is to maximize the returns on their shareholders' investments. We are at their service, not vice versa.

Larger and more long-term goals, like sustaining life on the planet, are of tertiary--if that high--importance. Good PR comprises the secondary tier of importance. Make no mistake, either: good PR is a question of style, not of substance. Only the appearance matters. The business would go back to having a live person instead of automated voice mail if enough bad publicity attended the use of voice mail.

But making money is what business is about. If it's cheaper to use single-hulled oil tankers and risk oil spills than it is to refit or build tankers with double holds, well, kiss the environment good-bye. If it maximizes profits to build and sell gas-guzzling SUVs ["SubUrban assault Vehicles"--thank you, Jay Leno.--Ed.] and it costs more money than it would generate in profit to build and sell alternative-fuels vehicles, well, don't expect to see fuel-cell-powered vehicles on your local car lot any time soon.

Four: markets aren't really free. Nor do they want to be. Nor do we really want them to be. Have you ever read Upton Sinclair's The Jungle? Do you want to go back to the days before USDA regulation of the wholesomeness and safety of our food? I, for one, emphatically do not.

Businesses want all the government regulations in the world which will maximixze their profits while minimizing or obliterating their risks. For instance, many want to keep foreign steel and wood out of the American domestic market--the steel companies and the wood processing companies being the two most vocal about it. Those businesses couldn't care less that their position hurts consumers by maintaining artificially high consumer prices. They care only about their own net profits. Where is the "free" market in that? Hint: there isn't any.

Globalization makes it impossible for any of us, as individuals, to be knowledgable, attentive, careful, and safe consumers. No one person can gather all the information necessary to protect himself from bad buying/consuming decisions. Governments exist to do the things that people as individuals cannot or will not do for themselves. Protecting us from predatory merchants, given the international interconnectedness of the global business community, is vital and fundamental.

Don't get me wrong. Most people in business are honest and upright. Besides, they themselves are consumers, too. But there are always those who will take advantage of the rest of us. Too many in position to influence business behavior think anything goes so long as it maximizes that bottom line. Does the name "Enron" ring a bell? The classic model of the free market does not reflect or incorporate the nature of modern life. "Free markets" might have been fine in the days where almost no one ever travelled more than 5 miles away from the place of one's birth . . . but that is not the world in which we now live. Our philosophies should recognize reality.

Unrestricted caveat emptor is no longer the rule of the day. It is impossible. The only question is not whether we should have free markets, but is rather to what degree should we regulate markets? It is folly to pretend otherwise. It is dangerous, to boot. Any honest student of US history will tell you that every time the government has relaxed the regulation of businesses and markets, we've had Hell to pay in terms of economic scandals and the disastrous financial fallout from same. In Nebraska, all you have to do is mention "Commercial Federal" and watch people who lost their life savings in that credit union deregulation debacle turn red as their blood pressures skyrocket.

No one wants the government to tell businesses how many widgets to produce in a given economic period. But anyone with half a brain would want the government to make sure that whaever widgets were made were both functional and safe for use--and produced under safe working conditions, to boot.