Strategically, A Blunder, Unfortunately


Mike Huckabee either isn't running for President, or forgot that he is. First, he responded to a question/comment from Repub talk show host Michael Medved about Natalie Portman

You know Michael, one of the things that's troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, 'Hey look, you know, we're having children, we're not married, but we're having these children, and they're doing just fine.' But there aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie. And I think it gives a distorted image that yes, not everybody hires nannies, and caretakers, and nurses. Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that we glorify and glamorize the idea of out of children wedlock.

You know, right now, 75 percent of black kids in this country are born out of wedlock. 61 percent of Hispanic kids -- across the board, 41 percent of all live births in America are out of wedlock births. And the cost of that is simply staggering.

Then, on Friday morning the former Arkansas governor posted on Facebook

Natalie is an extraordinary actor, very deserving of her recent Oscar and I am glad she will marry her baby's father. However, contrary to what the Hollywood media reported, I did not "slam" or "attack" Natalie Portman, nor did I criticize the hardworking single mothers in our country. My comments were about the statistical reality that most single moms are very poor, under-educated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death. That's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that society often glorifies and glamorizes the idea of having children out of wedlock.

Finally (all hope), according to Mediaite, on GOP TV's Fox and Friends Saturday morning

the former Arkansas governor revisited his comments to explain his argument was not a moral one, but an “economic” one. Giving Portman his full support and once again asserting she “deserved her Oscar,” Huckabee persisted in his point that the children of single mothers are more likely to live in poverty.

There is no need for a re-clarification of the clarification of the initial statement. All three statements are consistent with each other.

In the initial remark, Huckabee mentioned the famous actress only once, and that to comment "Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet." He seemed little concerned with Natalie Portman herself, but only the highly visible Portman as representative of the (relatively few) single mothers who are wealthy and who thereby give a "distorted image" of the situation facing that demographic. Thereby, "the idea of having children out of wedlock" is often "glofified and glamorized" by society.

Huckabee has incurred a fair amount of criticism, such as this on The Huffington Post, this from Politics Daily, this from America Blog, and this from a USA Today columnist. These three, not surprisingly, have something in common with each other. No rebuttal is offered for any of the opinions expressed by Huckabee, but instead ridicule, allegations of hypocrisy, or analogies to Huckabee's inaccurate remark about Obama's background are made.

However, for Huckabee, who at this time next year either will be courting Republican (therefore conservative) presidential primary voters or continuing to appeal to conservative audiences on his weekly Fox News program, criticism from the left or even the center, or even the mainstream media, is not of paramount importance. Whether he runs for the White House or continues on television, he must build on his right-wing audience.

The remarks of the former Arkansas governor probably will not help him in that regard. While the left generally found his (initial) remarks unacceptable because they detected a disapproval for out-of-wedlock pregnancy on moral grounds, conservatives ultimately will find the man who made this statement unsatisfying for precisely the opposite reason- moral disapproval was not stressed.

Consider that Huckabee initially remarked "Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care." He followed that up with "My comments were about the statistical reality that most single moms are very poor, under-educated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death." Finally, according to at least one report, he emphasized that his criticism was an "economic" one.

Call me ungenerous, but I don't think an aspiring GOP nominee does himself any good by saying "hey, I'm not saying having children out of wedlock is immoral but rather that it hurts the chances of the woman and her family moving out of poverty into the middle class." Don't look now, but the Republicans in Washingtonare not aggressively promoting programs to move poor people into the middle class. Pandering to oil companies and Wall Street bankers is far more helpful to raising the cash necessary to maintain a majority in the House, regain a majority in the Senate, and take on President Obama.

For someone needing to appeal to the right, the worst was yet to be uttered: "if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care." A savvier or more self-interested Repub politician would have been better served charging "if it weren't for government assistance, they wouldn't be encouraged to have these children they cannot care for." The drill is clear: blame government; don't suggest that children starving to death (which even conservatives find unpleasant)is prevented by government assistance. And don't ever, ever imply that deserving children are being assisted by health care provided by government.

It's not clear, further, that Repub voters are all that exorcised by the choices made by poor women, including poor, uneducated and unmarried, women, to have children they may not be able to care for. When the single daughter of the Repub vice-presidential nominee was heard to be pregnant, some observers (including myself) thought there would be at least some disapproval expressed by conservatives. But there was little if any. With the campaign against Planned Parenthood now being conducted by Washington Republicans, the reason for the largely favorable response among conservative Republicans to Bristol Palin's pregnancy has become clear. Conception, wanted or not, within marriage or not, is always a virtue. If need be, it can be ascribed to "compassionate conservatism," though it is neither.

Once upon a time, the left was less eager to defend Hollywood starlets and more eager to address the plight of the poor and the obstacles they face. These obstacles include entering the world without a father present, thus with a mother with all the difficulties most single mothers endure. Those are not part of the world the wealthy of Hollywood must confront, but they are part of the reality Democrats and liberals must address, even in the age of Obama.

Share|

On The Merits, He Was Right


On Thursday, conservative Repub talk show host Michael Medved, posing to Mike Huckabee a question in the form of a statement, commented about Academy Award-winning Natalie Portman:

in any event, she got up, she was very visibly pregnant, and it's really it's a problem because she's about seven months pregnant, it's her first pregnancy, and she and the baby's father aren't married, and before two billion people, Natalie Portman says, 'Oh I want to thank my love and he's given me the most wonderful gift.' He didn't give her the most wonderful gift, which would be a wedding ring! And it just seems to me that sending that kind of message is problematic.

The (other) man from Hope (Ark.) replied

You know Michael, one of the things that's troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, 'Hey look, you know, we're having children, we're not married, but we're having these children, and they're doing just fine.' But there aren't really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie. And I think it gives a distorted image that yes, not everybody hires nannies, and caretakers, and nurses. Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that we glorify and glamorize the idea of out of children wedlock.

You know, right now, 75 percent of black kids in this country are born out of wedlock. 61 percent of Hispanic kids -- across the board, 41 percent of all live births in America are out of wedlock births. And the cost of that is simply staggering.

Huckabee, is of course, right. There are more single mothers than in decades past and a disproportionate number are of minority groups (whether his statistics are accurate), especially black. The impact upon poor and working class women, who disproportionately (see last sentence) bear children while unmarried, is particularly severe, given their reduced capacity for earnings and child care. Sara McLanahan of the Fragile Families Study observed "whereas 14% of married mothers are poor at the time their child is born, the number is 53% for unmarried mothers who are living alone and 32% for unmarried mothers who are cohabiting with child's father." She grudgingly conceded "on average, children born to married parents have better outcomes than children born to unmarried parents." And Portman (who, it appears, was somewhat misquoted by Medved) has a lot of fans, many of them young, and many of those, impressionable. Like then-NBA star Charles Barkley, she has assumed the role of role model, intentionally or otherwise.

According to Media Matters, Natalie Portman referred to being given "my most important role" rather than "the most wonderful gift." She will, no doubt, with or without a husband (she is reportedly engaged) give her child the best in private education and health care in her home, by nanny or whatever the fashion is among the wealthy. But for most single mothers, the outlook is much, much bleaker. And if it took a Republican- a Republican!- to draw attention to, and sympathize with, women struggling to raise a child without a father present, it was at least someone.


Next Up: Huckabee was bold and accurate- but politically tone-deaf.

Share|

Giving Ground And Giving Ground


Recovery for the economy looks bleak when Democrats start agreeing with the Speaker of the House. The Hill reports

"I think the vice president would better spend his time if he sat down with Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and come up with a Democrat position," Boehner told Fox News. "It'd be a far better use of his time."

If reporter Michael O'Brien is right, Democrats are listening:

Democrats turned Wednesday to Biden to reprise his role from the lame-duck Congress when he worked with GOP leaders in Congress, particularly Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), to reach a deal on extending the expiring Bush tax cuts.

The administration and congressional Democrats hope Biden will enjoy similar success in these negotiations, especially with such a wide chasm between the GOP-controlled House and the Democratic Senate over how much needs to be cut in the remainder of this fiscal year. The government will be funded through March 18, and the absence of congressional action would mean a shutdown.

Top-ranking Democrats apparently "hope Biden will enjoy similar success" in negotiating a cut in spending and in the deficit similar to, it is suggested, he experienced in the tax-cut negotiations of late 2010.

How did that work out, now that the attention of Washington, in a time of high unemployment and little consumer confidence, is turned toward reducing spending rather than increasing jobs?

Extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for incomes above $200,000/$250,000 will cost the Treasury approximately $42 billion in fiscal year 2012, which accounts for more than two-thirds of the amount congressional Republicans are urging. But increasing taxes on the wealthy is very popular popular, as are "taxing wealthy estates, taxing corporations, taxing alcohol, taxing soft drinks, taxing hedge fund managers’ income, and by charging a crisis fee to large banks." The chart (below, from Larry Miller's blog; statistics from various sources) indicates the tax break on the upper brackets alone would have paid for approximately 95% of the spending which the GOP proposes to cut. Instead, down would go job training, early childhood programs, housing, and nutrition for poor people, as would Title IX family planning, a critical element in the GOP effort to destroy women's health and increase abortions nationwide.








The Republicans have not lost sight of their goal, to drown government in a bathtub. (Here is how it's done.) It would seem, meanwhile, that the Obama administration, less hostile toward government, wants to be seen as serious by addressing the debt and bipartisan by willing to compromise. And compromise. And compromise.

Notwithstanding the harm the cuts will do to job creation, the GOP longs to follow the example of conservatives in Europe, who recently have been ascendant, much to the joyful gloat of Republicans here. In early May, Conservative David Cameron was elected Prime Minister of Great Britain and he promptly undertook austerity measures the GOP has suggested should be a model for the U.S.A.


The Republicans have not lost sight of their goal, to drown government in a bathtub. It would seem, meanwhile, that the Obama administration, less hostile toward government, wants to be seen as serious by addressing the debt and bipartisan by willing to compromise. And compromise. And compromise some more.

Notwithstanding the harm the cuts will do to job creation, the GOP longs to follow the example of conservatives in Europe, who recently have been ascendant, much to the joyful gloat of Republicans here. In early May, Conservative David Cameron was appointed Prime Minister of Great Britain and the austerity measures he implemented apparently have begun having an effect (graph from http://static.bdo.uk.com):

The latest trends report by consultants BDO said the optimism index fell to 92 from 94.8 in December, signalling trouble in late Spring. "There remains a real risk that the UK could enter a technical recession," it said.

The service sector index accounting for 55pc of output saw the second largest fall on record, dropping to 88.4. "This could spell danger. Any rise in interest rates would derail the UK economy in its current fragile state. It may be that the Bank of England has to consider putting QE [money printing] back on the table as we go through the year," it said.

"The marked decline in optimism is attributed to elevated inflation, weak earnings growth and the erosion of households' real disposable income. This is set against the backdrop of public sector cutbacks," it said.






Cut spending for law enforcement, clean water, low-income pregnant women- as a starter. But secure (part of) the cultural base by choosing not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court. This is, evidently, how it's done these days by the Republican wing of the Democratic Party.

Share|

1937 Is Not 2011


Once upon a time, Howard Dean was vying to represent "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." Clearly, it is a difficult role to play, which few if any Washington politicians are playing. Bernie Sanders of Vermont does a good imitation but, unsurprisingly, he's not actually a Democrat.

Surely, though, it is not a role Dean is now playing. Not only did the former Vermont governor turn cheerleader for the industry-friendly Affordable Care Act, but his performance since then has sometimes been lacking. A case in point was his response to the question boldly (no sarcasm) posed yesterday by Lawrence O'Donnell (transcript here), a question that needed to be asked- and needs to be answered. The transaction:

O`DONNELL: Governor, there hasn`t -- as you know, there hasn`t always been a partisan divide on the matter of public employee unions. I want to read to you something that Franklin Delano Roosevelt wrote in 1937 about government unions.

He said, "All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service." He went on to say, "Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the function of any organization of government employees." And he added, "Such action, looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."

The unthinkable and intolerable, he meant, of course, strikes by government workers. I think that`s still the general political agreement, that striking by government workers is intolerable.

But we`ve come a long distance from Franklin Roosevelt`s wariness -- to put it mildly -- about government employee unions to where we are now.

What has changed? And what did Franklin Roosevelt not foresee in the maturation of the American workforce?

DEAN: I think -- first of all, Franklin Roosevelt was coming at -- came in at the -- towards the end of the real battles over the right to unionize. And, you know, most states, including New York, which was pretty liberal, which he was the governor of before he became president, do still forbid many public employees from striking.

I don`t think people are wanting the unions to be so militant. I think they`re just wanting them to be treated as human beings here.

Look, the unions in Wisconsin have given back health insurance percentage that they have paid now -- a higher percentage in health insurance. They`ve given back wage increases. They`ve made concessions in their pension. Why strip them of their dignity?

This can`t be about dignity. This can be about money because we don`t have much in this country and we need -- everybody needs to make a sacrifice. But when you start attacking the other side because of their humanity, because of who they are and because of what their social status is, that`s when you get in trouble and that`s when the Republicans overreach.

In his response, Dean first stated that Franklin Roosevelt entered office "towards the end of the real battles over the right to unionize," which had little to do with the question. He then noted that many states "still forbid many employees from striking" which, given that the question pertained instead to the right to unionize, had even less to do with the topic. He then talked about Wisconsin, after which O'Donnell, perhaps to spare Dean any further discomfort, changed the subject. Which his guest already had done.

The governor could have provided a real service if he had come prepared. He might have mentioned that Franklin Roosevelt made the remark in 1937, when the top marginal tax rate (as the table below, from the Urban Institute indicates) was 79%. In 2011, it is 35%.





Governor Dean, alternatively, might have pointed out that President Roosevelt had no way of knowing that the growth of unions, in both the private and the public sectors, would mirror the growth of the middle class and that their decline would signal the increasing concentration of wealth in the wealthiest 1% of the American population. The graph (pardon the size) below, from bobbieveenewsvine.com,

covers the period from 1973 to the current recessionary period. It details the precipitous decline of union membership in the workforce (blue line), the steady decline of the middle class's share in the economic pie (green line), and the explosive growth of income in the wealthiest 1% of U. S. households (red line).




Nor would Franklin Roosevelt probably imagined that it would be reported three-quarters of a century later,

Rather than pouring their money into building plants or hiring workers, nonfinancial companies in the U.S. were sitting on $1.93 trillion in cash and other liquid assets at the end of September, up from $1.8 trillion at the end of June, the Federal Reserve said Thursday. Cash accounted for 7.4% of the companies' total assets—the largest share since 1959.

The cash buildup shows the deep caution many companies feel about investing in expansion while the economic recovery remains painfully slow and high unemployment and battered household finances continue to limit consumers' ability to spend.

While the productivity of the American worker and profits are up, taxes on the heads of the companies have declined, jobs have declined, and benefits and wages have declined. As the graph (from the Commerce Department Bureau of Economic Analysis by way of The Washington Independent) demonstrates, the number of jobs is 5.9% lower, and profits 5.7% higher, than the fourth quarter of 2007.




This is all happening concurrent with the decline of the labor movement and is not something President Roosevelt would have wanted, or expected.

Share|

I Could, I Would


If public opinion polls are a barometer, Republicans around the country are very fond of Chris Christie. They love his arrogance, belligerence, and hostility toward public school teachers. Now another trait of the New Jersey governor they may like has been put on display: his utter dishonesty. In an interview conducted last week by National Review and published Tuesday, Christie responded to a question from conservative Repub talk show host Laura Ingraham by boasting

Believe me, I’ve been interested in politics my whole life. I see the opportunity. But I just don’t believe that’s why you run.Like I said at AEI, I have people calling me and saying to me, “Let me explain to you how you could win.” And I’m like, “You’re barking up the wrong tree. I already know I could win.” That’s not the issue....

But if you thought that was the NJ governor asserting that if he were to be the 2012 GOP nominee for President, Christie wants to disabuse you of the notion. In an interview the day after his comments became public, he protested

I didn't say I would win, I said I could win. But that's not a good enough reason to run for president.

Certainly, Chris Christie knew when he said "I know I could win," it would be almost universally understood as "I would win." Interpretation, aside, however, "I could"- in the context of the likelihood of winning an election- means either:

a) "I would win"; or

b) "I would win if I tried."

It's hard to believe that Christie meant that he could win the hypothetical election but might not actually try to win it. But that is the only alternative to "I would win." Further, Christie's assertion "I already know I could win" allegedly came in response to fans saying "let me explain to you how you could win." Christie was obviously correcting them: "You're barking up the wrong tree." Then he told them he would win.

One Wall Street Journal columnist refers to "reports that Christie has been working out with a personal trainer three times a week and is gradually shedding the pounds." And protestations about running are not insurmountable, as Barack Obama (video, below) happily discovered. But it's unlikely that the first-term governor, who is aching to be begged to seek the nomination while he repeatedly denies that he will, really wants to face an incumbent.

Perhaps, however, the N.J. governor, who clearly believes he is, frankly, astounding, actually is ready to be President of the United States. Christie appeared yesterday at a town hall meeting in the state in which he pops up periodically and a supportive resident inadvertently confirmed the greatness of the man:

"I think he's really believes in what he says," said township resident Annette Kaplanasky, 54. She jokingly added, "If he's lying, then he's doing a great job."

Share|

Scammed Again


In late January, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan said defaulting on the debt

isn't viable. "Just refusing to vote for it, I don't think that's really a strategy," he said, noting that a failure to raise the ceiling could result in the nation defaulting on its debts to investors.

"Will the debt ceiling be raised? Does it have to be raised? Yes," he said at an event sponsored by economics21 and the Manhattan Institute at the National Press Club Thursday.

Late in January, House Speaker John Boehner told GOP TV's Chris Wallace that defaulting on the debt

would be a financial disaster not only for our country, but for the worldwide economy. Remember, the American people on Election Day said we want to cut spending and we want to create jobs. You can't create jobs if you default on the federal debt.

So naturally, Democrats held out against spending cuts, which would damage the economy. Apparently not:

The House's GOP leaders appear to be the big winners following passage Tuesday of legislation to temporarily fund the federal government for two weeks and cut $4 billion from current federal spending to boot.

That more than 100 Democrats joined Republicans in a whopping 335-91 vote for the stopgap spending bill was the kind of showing that would let Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) boast of a major bipartisan success and neutralize any Democratic charges of partisanship.

Surely, at least President Obama, recalling the damage to the GOP brand when House Speaker Newt Gingrich forced a government shutdown in 1994, urged his Democratic colleagues to hold firm. Not so much:

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said at Tuesday's briefing that the President and Speaker Boehner had a "productive and useful conversation" that day concerning their difference over the length of a stopgap CR.

"I see no reason and I don't believe we see any reason why we cannot engage as we have been... in this process going forward," Carney added. "We have made clear that we can accept, even over a relatively short period of time, $8 billion in cuts that we can agree on. I think that is a substantial number and demonstrates [the president's] commitment to the need to tighten our belts, as long as we protect essential functions of government, national security, and don't do anything that would hurt our ability to grow or create jobs."

Fortunately, Senate Democrats are enraged about the cuts in the bill. The Hill reports

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) bashed Republican calls to cut the women, infants, children (WIC) health and nutrition program, according to a Democratic source familiar with the closed-door discussion. She distributed fliers to other Democratic senators that listed arguments against the GOP proposal. The WIC cuts are not in the stopgap measure approved by the House on Tuesday.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) spoke out against cuts to Planned Parenthood and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) argued against cuts to the Army Corps of Engineers that she said would stall crucial water projects in California and around the country, according to a Democratic source.

Finally, two Democrats willing to stand up to Republican attempts to cater to the tea parties and and to keep the economy mired in an economic slump. Maybe not:

“I don’t like this death by 1,000 cuts, but I also don’t want a government shutdown,” said Mikulski, a senior member of the Appropriations panel.

“These are huge cuts,” said Feinstein, chairwoman of the Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Energy.

“The Army Corps and bureau is cut by $554 million, so what I’ve wanted to do is add some back to it,” Feinstein said of the House GOP’s two-week spending measure.

But Feinstein conceded that she may vote for it anyway.

It's easy to sympathize with Mikulski, Feinstein, and the House Democrats who were uncomfortable with the measure when, as Frank James of NPR observes, "Republican leaders incorporated proposed spending cuts Obama had made in the two-week bill, making it easier to co-opt many of the House Democrats." Noting that Republicans have proposed $61 billion in spending cuts in the current fiscal year, due to end September 30, James remarks "there are likely to be more short-term spending bills. And House Republicans have just proved they can get closer to their goal incrementally. Four billion down, $57 billion to go." Majority Leader Reid expects the Senate to approve the two-week extension by the end of the week.

David Dayen likens the strategy of Senate liberals to the "Wait Till Next Year" cry of the old Brooklyn Dodgers. Digby may not be entirely jesting when she suggests

I have heard that one of the big Democratic ideas is to just keep issuing continuing resolutions up until the 2012 election. If this is going to be the way they do it, the Republicans must be thrilled. By then, they will have dismantled everything but faith based programs, the border patrol and the Pentagon.

Share|

Mr. Charlie Sheen Of Hollywood


The orgy of self-congratulation known as The Oscars has ended for another year. It will be nearly 12 months until the giants of Hollywood gather again and reward themselves for being the cream of society. They will bask in the acclaim of American citizens, who will applaud their achievements and celebrate their narcissism.

Some of these professionals, most of whose jobs revolve around simulating fiction and fantasy, nonetheless have taken note of the world around them. Wally Pfister, winner of a cinematography Oscar, noted "what is going on in Wisconsin is kind of madness right now," thanked unions for having "given me health care in a country that otherwise does not provide health care," and labeled them "a very important part of the middle class of America." And winning screenwriter Charles Ferguson asserted “Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after our horrific financial crisis caused by financial fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that’s wrong.”

But while Ferguson has a keen view of the big picture and Pfister exhibits a sense of humility uncharacteristic of Hollywood, there is one Charlie Sheen. It was all on display in the first portion (transcript here) of Sheen's interview on the Today show. Condescension ("look at me, duh); naivete ("drug tests don't lie"); conceit ("I closed my eyes and made it so with the power of my mind"); generalization ("the fiction of AA. It's a--it's a silly book written by a broken down fool"); nastiness ("and just the gibberish of fools"); lack of self-awareness ("I think my passion is misinterpreted as anger sometimes"); brazen dishonesty ("with a sense of violent love"); claim of victimization ("at this point because of psychological distress"); fondness for social darwinism ("people that aren't special, people that don't have tiger blood and, you know, Adonis DNA"; Fools. Trolls. Weak. Defeated. They allowed defeat to be an option. I will not); and borderline anti-Semitism ("a certain Chaim Levine--yeah, that's Chuck's real name").

And through it all, a stunning and extraordinary self-absorption, as exemplified by this exchange:

Mr. SHEEN: Well, the war is that they're trying to destroy my family. And so I take great umbrage with that, and defeat is not an option. They picked a fight with a warlock.

ROSSEN: How are they trying to destroy your family?

Mr. SHEEN: They're trying to take all my money and leave me with no means to support my family. It's not rocket science, you know.

There are always disease, famine, death, and destruction abroad, so it's probably not fair to refer to a major earthquake in New Zealand or the latest humanitarian crisis in Tunisia or elsewhere in Africa. But there are over six million individuals- officially- unemployed in the U.S.A. and approximately 44 million persons living in poverty. And Charlie Sheen says "they're trying to destroy my family" by taking "all my money" and leaving "me with no means to support my family." He's asking- demanding- a raise from $1.9 million an episode to $3 million an episode.

Actors/actresses make a lot of money for production companies, writers, fellow actors and others, while professional athletes make a lot of money for team owners. Athletes who turned professional did so because they have extraordinary, nearly unique, ability. If you grew up a typical male- or now, a typical female- in this country, you failed to become a professional athlete not due to a lack of interest but because, like me, you were not nearly good enough. Tens of millions want to be a great success in baseball, football, basketball, soccer, tennis, or another sport, but only a miniscule percentage get even close.

Other celebrities, such as actors, are of a different sort, especially those fortunate enough to be called upon to portray themselves. Sheen, to his credit, does it very well. Aside from the allegations of abuse of women, the character traits- drinking, gambling, womanizing- of Charlie Sheen are those of the fictional Charlie Harper of Two and a Half Men. Playing oneself is not rocket science- or stockbroker turned journalist turned senator, Barbara Boxer, once of Murphy Brown and of Curb Your Enthusiasm, is a rocket scientist.

Still, Charlie Sheen, citing "psychological distress," taunts his enemies "to be begging me for their job back." He may be worth $2 million, maybe $3 million or more per episode because he makes the wealthy wealthier. But like many of his more modest, honest, and decent colleagues, he is completely unaware that what he does for a living is easier and less important than what most Americans do. Even for less than $1.9 million a week.

Share|