Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Backing into the Lieberman

One commonly loved sport among the Jews is to play the "Who's a Jew" game. At least one round of "Who's a Jew" is played at each of my family gatherings. We don't plan for it. It just happens.


For whatever reason, the Jews get off on identifying the lone chosen one who makes a living doing something that is largely reserved for the gentiles - like NASCAR racing, or running a state fair (or enjoying/attending either one).


Laker point guard Jordan Farmar is a favorite among my family, especially since my mom dated his grandpa, whom she met on J-Date.


Each round usually includes the following interaction: "Did you know XX is Jewish?" "He's Jewish? I didn't know that." (Mini moment of silence while we all take comfort in knowing that XX enjoys talking about his bowel movements with friends and family.) "Can you pass the kugel? It's delicious." "Everything's delicious."


So in the 2000 presidential election, you could imagine how surprised we were when Al Gore chose Joe Lieberman as his running mate. Sure, the few conservatives in my family who mistakenly believe Democrats don't give a damn about Israel didn't support the Gore-Lieberman ticket, but there was a mutual sense of familiarity and pride. (Great, now I'm imagining Joe talking about his bowel movements. Sorry about that.)


I was a huge Gore supporter and, although Lieberman was too conservative for my liking and his voice made me wish I was a deaf democrat, I was on board. He added a reasonable balance to the ticket. And it was pretty cool to witness the first Jewish-American ever to be chosen for this position in a major party. I'll "challah" to that.


Speaking of Joe Lieberman... and please pardon my long and drawn-out anecdotal style of "backing into the lead," as my journalism professors would call it... but I write all of this tangential rhetoric to say that I am sickened by and furious with Sen. Joe Lieberman. He is the political carnation of a cock block.


I don't care that he is a Democrat-turned-Independent, but it kills me that he still gets to caucus with the Democratic party as he shits all over them - and probably loves talking about it at the dinner table, too.


He endorsed the McCain-Palin ticket, he was one of the staunchest supporters of the Iraq war and President Bush's policies in Iraq, and he was the lone Democrat to criticize Bill Clinton on the Senate floor for BJ-gate.


Now Lieberman is threatening to withhold his vote on health care reform if it includes any form of a public option. I don't completely understand the intricacies of the health care bill because it's so fucking complicated and it's changing every day, but from what I do understand, it doesn't go nearly far enough. (Full disclosure, I am pretty much a socialist when it comes to health care - I believe it's a right, not a privilege.)


Democrats need Lieberman's 60th vote to overcome a Republican filibuster and proceed to a final vote in the Senate. Consequently, Democrats are watering down the bill even more with compromise proposals, like supplementing the public option with something else Lieberman won't like, particularly if it involves health insurance regulation. (Sen. Lieberman has received close to 500k in contributions from the health insurance industry and his state of Connecticut is home to some of the largest insurance companies. He also may be endearing himself to Republicans for 2012).


No wonder Lieberman cannot clearly articulate why he won't support it - not only because his voice sounds like a dying donkey caught in a well, but because his reasons are underhanded. He has been quoted as saying it’s the “wrong time” to create a government insurance program, claiming it would increase the national debt, probably raise taxes and increase premiums for insurance holders. I'm sorry, but what about the huge financial burden of the uninsured and wasteful health care costs?


Leading Democrats are now proposing to eliminate a public option from the bill in exchange for lowering the Medicare age limit from 65 to 55 and extending a Medicare "buy-in" program to those between 55 and 65. I'm sorry, but that is hardly a fair trade.


I resent the fact that Obama's campaign promise to overhaul health care has disintegrated into this sorry version of more-of-the-same. I don't want the bill to pass in its current form. It's a lose-lose situation, largely thanks to Joe.


What does this have to do with playing the "Who's a Jew" game?  Not much, ultimately.  Lieberman's religious beliefs don't matter.  I don't expect all answers to the "Who's a Jew" game to live up to my expectations.  Hey, Farmar has struggled and underperformed as a point guard.  I suppose I am merely disappointed that I voted for a Vice Presidential candidate who has fallen so far.  I feel betrayed and frustrated that our health care system is in such disarray with no end in sight.  


Some form of a health care bill is supposed to pass before Christmas. But Joe, you have the power to make it happen before Hannukah. Please don't make us wait until Passover. The Jews need health insurance coverage - we have sensitive stomachs.


Digg! submit to reddit Delicious

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

High-Speed Peacock

When I was an eager, young intern at NBC news, my job was to monitor the wires for breaking stories. One day, I spotted a report on a helicopter crash somewhere in the midwest, and so I alerted the news director. Just as I started gathering contact info and details, my supervisor told me the story was killed. Why? Because the helicopter engine that failed was made by General Electric, the parent company of NBC. A small, yet disturbing example of the hazards of media consolidation. So I did what any ambitious, idealistic intern would do... grabbed my coat and tagged along on a breaking news story about how folks in Sherman Oaks were dealing with the first drizzle of the year.

I'll admit I am a little obsessed with the insipid web of media consolidation, maybe to a fault. I am the annoying kind of media consumer who is vigilantly on the lookout for subtle product placement or manipulative messages. Watching TV with me is kind of like sitting next to the guy with the peanut allergy on an airplane.

(I'll let you ponder that one for a moment.)

Television, movies, newspapers, books, and the internet are our primary sources of information and entertainment. They are meant to serve the public interest and provide diverse voices, viewpoints and programming. When a few ginormous corporations control most of our sources of information, local, minority and independent owners are pushed out of the market.

Thus, the pending merger of Comcast and NBC Universal makes me very uncomfortable.

Let's take a quick look at who we are dealing with here. Comcast has 23.9 million cable customers and 15.3 million high-speed internet customers, making it both the largest cable company and the largest residential broadband provider.


Combined, these two huge companies make over $50 billion in annual revenue. This marriage would be the beginning of an unprecedented media consolidation with an inevitable domino effect. The other huge media and telecom companies will have to compete. Among Disney, News Corp., Time Warner and AT&T, these guys will strike up a couple more mega-deals to fill in the rest of the pie. Sorry independent content creators - always the bridesmaids, never the brides.

This pending merger is disconcerting, particularly at a time when the rules of traditional media are in such disarray. The future of the internet is being decided right now. It could go the way of a free and open medium, or fall into the hands of a few with tremendous market power.

I dread the day when we reflect back on the good times of Net Neutrality, when ISPs didn't speed up or slow down online content based on its source and who pays them the most. And thanks to Comcast, we got a taste of this predicament. In 2007, the AP confirmed that Comcast was blocking internet file sharing by posing as its users and sending messages to actual users that would tell them to stop communicating. Sneaky bastards.

So imagine you are surfing the net and want to watch CSI Kandahar, a CBS show, but the speed is as slow as dial-up circa 1998. A pop-up ad for Bravo's Real Housewives of Baghdad appears. You click and the program streams smoothly and at lightening speed.

The conflicts of interest go on. Subscription-based TV distributors like Direct TV pay content providers like NBCU for the right to carry their cable channels. If their fees go up, that burden will get passed on to the consumer. Bundled cable/internet/wireless bills will rise.

How is this not vertical integration? Why aren't antitrust violations being scrutinized?

Well, the reason is obvious. The media and telecommunications industries are second to drug companies in how much money they spend on federal lobbying.

But hey, maybe there is a silver lining to all of this. If you have internet or cable troubles, who's to say Steve Carell won't show up to fix the problem.
Digg! submit to reddit Delicious