We now have a Sudan Czar. I thought they had their own Czar, but hey, if it helps improve our image in the Arab world I am all for loaning them a Czar or two. We have a Health Czar despite the fact we have a Surgeon General and to be honest I’m not sure who’s in charge of health. You might think a Czar would outrank a general but a number of third-world countries with tons of Generals are run by colonels.

I addition to having a Czar just for Sudan we have an Afghanistan Czar. Isn’t the President afraid that some countries will feel miffed that he didn’t appoint a Czar just for them? I thought we had a whole State Department with Czars called “ambassadors.” We now have a Mideast Peace Czar and a Mideast Policy Czar. At least the Obama administration has a clear understanding that these two things aren’t related.

We have Herb Allison who is the TARP Czar and Earl Devaney the Stimulus Accountability Czar. Apparently Mr. Allison is not a very accountable guy and needs his own Czar to keep him in the straight and narrow. Do they both answer to the Economic Czar?

We have a Weapons Czar and a Weapons of Mass Destruction Czar; I hope that doesn’t lead to weapons envy.

We have a Border Czar, a Terrorism Czar and an Intelligence Czar. What if a terrorist is crossing the border? Who do we call? Come to think of it, why do we even need a terrorist Czar since Janet Napolitano has told us there are no acts of terrorism only “man-created disasters?”

What this country really needs is a Czar Czar — one uber-Czar to keep all the minor Czars from getting out of line. A person who is feared for their hard line principles. A person with a proven record of successfully eliminating government waste and creating economic success. At the same time the Czar Czar should be someone who can understand and relate to the common man and woman.

Yes, I think Sarah Palin would be an excellent Czar Czar. Hopefully, she will be considered for the job in 2012.

It only makes sense that if ObamaCare’s passed employers will opt out of providing private insurance and millions upon millions, 85 million by some estimates, will end up herded into the President’s public plan. But that’s okay with millionaire actor Steven Weber because he know what’s best for us he and his loved ones will never ever have to worry about being the victims of the government run health-care system he’s so eager to see the rest of us shoved into against our will. Weber’s motives don’t come off as entirely pure, either. This is an angry guy eager to stick it to the rich (who don’t work in the entertainment industry).  

In fact, the greatest threat to the health of individuals in the US is the lack of a nationalized, affordable health care program. Why the spin to cast it as socialist or downright deadly? Because to some, it ain’t medicine which makes you live a better life.

It’s money.

And that’s the only reason everyone from the Blue Dog to the fair and balanced Fox (craven animals which have a tendency to lick their own testicles and consume feces — just saying) hates the idea of people paying less and ultimately becoming healthier and detached from Big Pharma’s slow drip.

Three points:

1. There’s nothing quite like someone labelling someone else as “craven” just before they launch into descriptions of testicle licking and feces consumption — just saying.

2. Do you think Canada’s awesome health-care system might benefit from the billions upon billions America’s “Big Pharma” companies invest into research and development? Leftists demonizing drug companies who have done more to improve quality of life than even 172 episodes of “Wings” is the worst kind of demagoguery. Why not just demonize the American military while you at– oh wait.

3. Anyone pushing ObamaCare but unwilling to subject themselves and their loved ones to it has zero credibility. In order to punish the wealthy (who don’t work in the entertainment industry) and enjoy a nice little ordered Utopian world, Weber and his ilk are willing to risk the health of you and yours with the DMV of Health Care Plans while they float above it all on their platinum plans. Hell, even the President won’t go on his own plan. What more do you need to know?

And who is Weber speaking for anyway? He cites a poll showing 92% of Canadians are happy with their “doctor” but doesn’t seem at all interested in a recent CNN poll showing 80% of American are happy with their health care.

I don’t believe in socialized medicine but if the poll Weber cites is accurate and Canadians are happy with what they got, I’m not going to demand they conform to my beliefs.

That would be elitist.

So, come on Weber, man up. Lobby the Screen Actors Guild to shuffle all you government lovers into ObamaCare and not only is all forgiven but I’ll save you a place in line.

For those of you who haven’t seen the recent healthcare video, let me re-cap the one running theme throughout the piece: Canadians are MISERABLE with their healthcare. Very few Americans are aware of this and that’s because of one simple reason.

See Canadians (again we’re talking about the liberal variety here)… Like to lie. Shhh, don’t tell anybody. It’s a secret.

It’s true folks. You’ve got a jealous nation with an often-misplaced inferiority complex combined with a Canadian news media (largely owned by the government) pushing the virtues of Canadian healthcare on a regular basis. So what happens is that “nationalized healthcare” becomes the one point of pride that Canadians can lord over their American counterparts.

If you tell Canadians that you want to interview them for a critical piece on the Canadian healthcare system, they’ll put on their best trophy-wife smile for the camera and list it’s many accolades.

Catch them on a day with their guard down in need of actual care however, and the truth comes out. They run through the same old exasperated, frustrated complaints pointing out the terrible flaws in the system that they all know to be true. They know that it’s long, the quality of care is sub-par and that if they’re going in for an operation that they’re probably coming out with one less appendage than needed to be removed.

Even the employees of the system itself acknowledge it’s glaring flaws. If you ask them why things are moving along at such a painfully slow pace they’ll tell you to “ask the government” followed by the old “take a number” routine.

I’ve come under a lot of attack for this video and I’m fine with it. The problem that both Liberal Canadians and Americans alike have with the video is that it’s incredibly disarming. The truth tends to have that effect on people.

It would be easy to discredit me as a right-wing propagandist if the video consisted of nothing but me with spreadsheets and statistics, but when you have Canadians on camera expressing their true misery… That puts the kibosh on the whole “bias” card pretty quickly.

What about you, folks? What’s your general perception of the Canadian healthcare system? Do your Canadian friends present it in a positive light, or a more critical one?

I personally think that we should send Sean Penn over there to test it out. The rule: he can’t come back into the country until he gets a “free” blood-test.

Farewell and adieu…

In May of 2004 the New York Times published an article entitled “Health Care Leads Other Issues in Canadian Vote.” The substance of the article was that in the elections that were upcoming, the future of the Canadian health care system was the predominate issue. On the one side were liberals seeking to reverse the trend of privatizing diagnostic services and increase federal aid to provincial governments. On the other conservatives were trying to increase private sector involvement as a way to lower costs and increase service. In spite of the Canadians patriotic zeal for their system, the article makes it clear that there was a growing recognition among citizens and politicians that the system was in the words of the Times, “ailing.” The waiting times for care were growing longer not shorter, the availability of doctors and nurses was becoming sparse especially in rural areas, opinion polls during the previous decade indicated a rising dissatisfaction with medical services and most significantly the cost of delivering medical care had grown so expensive that many provinces were being forced to “trim their budgets for education and other vital services.” Mind you this information came not from the Heritage Foundation but the New Liberal paper of record: The New York Times.

I must remember to share this article with my friend Bryan. Bryan is a cancer survivor. I have had friends that have lost their battles with cancer so his continued presence on this earth is a great joy to me and a fact of which I am sure he is also no doubt ecstatic. Bryan is particularly interested in the current state of health care costs because his insurance paid for what he terms a “measly portion” of his treatment- he is currently burdened with the cost of what his insurance did not cover. He simply can’t afford the astronomical cost. His complaint is echoed by many clamoring for nationalized healthcare. What remains unclear is under what moral principle one man can demand that others pay for his healthcare and whether any policy not firmly grounded in a moral truth can be just.

Bryan’s story perfectly illustrates the truth that the rising cost of healthcare has coincided with the rising quality of healthcare. It is true that not too long ago he would have paid considerably less for his cancer treatment. The bad news is that he would not have been around long enough to spend his savings. New drugs and new technologies lengthened his life as it they have for hundreds of thousands of others. Progress comes with a price tag.

Bryan was not denied care. In fact no one in America is denied healthcare. He had insurance and he has an income with which to pay what the insurance didn’t cover. The fact is– he would much rather spend his money on something else other than hospital bills reaching into the thousands of dollars. What better solution than a system where cancer treatment is paid for by someone else? He may be interested to learn that the U.S. ranks first in the world in cancer survivor rates and that breast cancer survivors in Canada have filed a class action suit against several hospitals that forced them to wait 12 weeks for radiation therapy. Obviously neither Bryan nor other national healthcare advocates want to wait in lines or have others decide if they are to live or die. What they want is someone else to foot the bill even if children receiving a public education must suffer.

This brings me to a conversation I had about healthcare a few years ago on the corner of 8th avenue and 47th street in Manhattan. I was standing on the corner debating politics with my friend Nancy, or I should say my ex-friend Nancy. This conversation was one of the last I had with her and remains positive proof that good friends ought to avoid discussing politics. But I digress.

At one point Nancy decried the fact that poor people did not have access to the same care as those of better means. I responded rather incredulously that the wealthy would always have access to better care because they would always be able to pay for it. Nancy’s eyes grew narrow and she asked me, “Do you think that is fair?”

It was at that moment that I truly understood that for all the handwringing about rising costs and access for the 47 million uninsured what is really at issue is equality. Will America be a place where some have more and others have less? Because we can’t all be equal in our benefits will we struggle to “level the playing field” in order to ensure that we are all equal in our misery?

But even in Canada some folks are more equal than others. What we learn in the Times account is that the use of influence in order to jump waiting times is common and that those preaching the virtue of a nationalized system are frequently at pains to explain why they and their loved ones attend private clinics.

The Times article ends with the conservative Member of Parliament giving an emotional speech wherein he promises to expand federal drug benefits. Of course he neglects to explain where he will get the money to “pay for a program that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year.”

Politics in any language.

You see, just like college students, liberals have the luxury of espousing points of view from the lap of luxury that is the USA. When you’ve had to live through it and have actually had a “dog in the fight,” it becomes a whole new ball game. Is this really what we want for America?

Now I was confused. I suspect the sentiments expressed by these children were more reflective of their parents beliefs than they were of any deep thought by the children themselves. Yet I am puzzled by such vitriol coming from children (and parents) advantaged with more liberty and opportunity than any other people in the history of the world.

I am, however, not discouraged. I know that in spite of the inclination of his classmates(and their parents)the majority of Americans love their country and love being Americans. No offense to New Zealand, but I suspect there are only a small number of Americans aspiring to live as ex-pats in Auckland. The truth is that even those that are critical of America love her dearly.

In order to demonstrate my theory I have begun asking people – friends and strangers alike – what they love about America. As one might suspect liberty, freedom of speech, freedom to worship and capitalism peppered most answers, but some of the other things people have pointed to may surprise you.

Among the terrific answers I received were the Grambling State University marching band, over-priced coffee, Thelonious Monk, South Beach, Times Square, Levi’s, Sandra Bullock and The Cosby Show. (To that list I would add: Western films, Gene Autry & Randolph Scott, The Fighting Irish of Notre Dame, Count Basie and Parliament Funkadelic.)

A teenager from Ecuador was adamant that she loves America because it is orderly. People obey traffic laws, wait their turn in lines and generally follow the rules. (Poor girl has obviously never spent any time in Manhattan.) When she goes home to visit relatives people tend to drive when, were and as fast as they like, push and shove — disorder is the rule.

My favorite response was from a man I met at a public service conference. He was emphatic: “What do I love about America? Tacos!”

It may be that this gentleman’s answer comes closest to articulating what is truly great about America: The American people, like American cuisine, are an amalgamation of different cultures and traditions that, once on these shores, begin to blend together-borrowing from and lending to each other until they become the essence of that being known as the American. It is this phenomenon described in our national motto: E Pluribus Unum – out of many; one.

But it is not what we have in America that continues to lure people across our borders, it is what we believe.

Americans are the most idealistic people on the planet. By that I do not mean a belief in some squishy utopianism. I mean that Americans are still committed to making real the ideals articulated in the principles of our founding.

It’s a shame that some American children are being taught to despise their country; that is folly for which their parents will have to answer in the future. They are, however, decidedly in the minority. Most Americans love America not because she is perfect but because most Americans esteem liberty, believe in the promise of equality and maintain a regard for private property. I would love to hear what you love about America. Give it some thought over the 4th and let me hear from you.

On the up side, it gave me a chance to study all the people in line.  An occupational habit, I study people wherever I go, particularly when I’m a captive to some long, slow-moving queue.  The line moved so slowly, in fact, that I had the opportunity to memorize what all 32 line-standers were wearing, the color of their hair, the shape of their faces, my best guess at their ethnicity, their height….and as I was starting to indulge myself with guessing each person’s weight and how I would do working at a carnival, my thoughts began to wander.  (Did I mention the line in the post office moved very slowly?)

I had satisfied my fill of people-study; had mentally crowned the Strangest Looking, Most Obese, Most Attractive, and The Most Likely To Use The Word ‘Obsequious’ In A Sentence…and my attention began to wander to the workings inside this post office.  I live in the San Fernando Valley and this post office is smack dab in the middle of a vast inland-empire suburban metropolis.  It serves thousands upon thousands of people…very slowly.  There were three postal workers on duty to serve the public that day.  I should say two postal workers, as one would periodically rotate out for a ten-to-fifteen minute break.  A smoke break, judging from the heavy tobacco smell that accompanied each of their returns to duty.

“Hi, How are you today?” the Postal Worker rasped, as I had finally arrived at the desk.

“Well…I’m a little annoyed to tell you the truth.  I’ve been standing in this very boring line, waiting for all of you to finish your respective cigarettes, pushing my large package along the linoleum, watching you and your co-workers slowly attend to the customers like you’ve got all the time in the world.  Like this is some sort of purgatory we’re all corporately stuck inside, nobody going anywhere; and you all seem quite indifferent to whether or not this whole sad circus will drag on into a dark and dreary bleak eternity.  That’s how I’m doing!  How the hell are you?

Nah, I didn’t say any of that.  I wanted to get out of there as quickly as humanly possible so I hoisted my large package up onto the counter.  The post-person weighed it.  I saw $32.96 appear on the scale readout.  Cool, I can handle that.  Then he measured the package.  20″ by 20″ by 26.”

“Your total is $97.50.”  Straight faced, no joke.  I stared at him until I re-entered earth’s atmosphere and managed a, “Uh…I’m sorry.  Say what?”

It turned out the weight was a thirty-six buck charge, but the large(?) size added an additional sixty-four.  The value of the contents, a broken speaker, which if it had been working right, which it was not, was still worth less that the cost of shipping it.

With a sigh I lugged the package out of the post office, trundled down the street to the local UPS station…and ended up sending my package to Tennessee for forty bucks and change.

Why am I dragging you (slowwwly) through this sad and torridly tortured tale of Fun with Postal Workers?  Yeah…you guessed correctly: If the President gets his way, the same people who run the post office will soon be running our health care industry.

How’s that for a happy thought?

I even see a possible cost-cutting consolidation:  Mail your packages, buy stamps, and have your gall bladder removed – all in one convenient location!  And since the number of doctors will decrease dramatically, hence increasing the wait time…you will be able to self-medicate with the new Easy-Does-It Gov-Care Med Dispensers while you’re waiting in line.  With the right combination, hours will seem like seconds.

The President addressed a fawning crowd in Wisconsin last month and delineated the ‘catastrophic’ consequences of not spending trillions of tax dollars immediately to fix our ‘broken health care system.’  People can’t afford health care, they’re dropping like flies, and it’s an urgent crisis.  We’ve got to completely reorder medical care in America and we have to do it immediately, or we’re all gonna die.  It’s a crisis.

Sound vaguely familiar?

But I want to be specific if I take issue with Mr. Obama.  So here goes:  The President said, “Rising premiums are straining family budgets to the breaking point.”

Oh, I see.  But…is that all families?  Half the families?  One tenth?  Fifteen-sixteenths, what?  Can you be specific, Mr. President?  And what exactly is the ‘breaking point’?  And could massively reducing taxes help at all?  Just a thought.

Obama went on, “In the past nine years, health care premiums have gone up three times faster than wages have gone up.”

Could that have anything to do with an increasingly litigious mindset and left-leaning encouragement of frivolous lawsuits in which hospitals, doctors and health care institutions are sued at the least provocation?

How about the resultant ‘ get-something-for-nothing’ attitude fostered by the Left’s welfare society of entitlement?  And what about the increasingly intrusive role of government meddling in the industry of health care and health care providers, which by all reports of those directly involved, indicates that the presence of government in the health care industry at all drives premiums higher.  I’m just saying.

The Prez continued, “…desperately needed tests and procedures are put off, because the price is too high.”

But at least we can get those tests and procedures, Mr. President, without having to wait two years, as is so often the case in Canada, or Great Britain, or New Zealand or any place socialized medicine holds its people in rationed third-world misery.

My father was a surgeon and sat on the board of the CMA, the California Medical Assoc., and was one of the board examiners who went around and inspected hospitals.  The expertise acquired enabled him to later build three hospitals himself, and manage nine more.  And I had been telling everyone I was going to be a doctor as well, since I was six years old.  But you know?  My father told me about the evils of socialized medicine and how it was creeping into our system.  My father ultimately influenced me to not go into the medical practice.  The reason:  Government had become far too intrusive in the health care industry.  And this was 35 years ago.

It’s only gotten worse since.  More and more would-be doctors are seeking other professions as the word gets around.  It used to be – you work hard, do well in a four-year college, go to med school, work your butt off for four years, then another two at internship and residency, and then, you open up a private practice.  But there’s no such thing anymore.  Because it’s not private – the government is your partner.  And more and more, the government is becoming your boss.

With fewer and fewer doctors there will be much longer waits to a) get in to see a doctor, and then b) receive any treatment.  In Britain and Canada where they have ‘free’ national health care, waiting times of two years are not uncommon to receive life-saving surgery.  And a lot can happen in that time.  Like…you can die.

The President tells us our health care system is ‘broken’ because health care has gotten more expensive.  Really?  That makes it ‘broken,’ because it’s expensive?

Health care costs in the country have risen in the past few years.  Absolutely right.  New innovation and high-tech breakthroughs cost a lot of money.  New life-saving drugs are expensive, because years of research and development are necessary to bring them to market.  The best costs money.  Don’t you pay more for a finer cut of beef at the grocery store?  Don’t you pay more for a nicer car, one that has more amenities?  We don’t have the cheapest health care on the planet, it’s true – but we do have the best health care system.  So when President Obama every other day proclaims solemnly that ‘our health care system is broken’…what the hell is he talking about?

He’s talking about controlling more and more of your daily lives.

Our health care system isn’t broken; it’s the best in the world.  I’d say our government is broken, starting with President Obama!

When foreign dignitaries get very sick or need life-saving surgeries, do they book it in Canada?  Or England?  Hell no – they come to the U.S.  The medical technology, physician expertise, and quality of medicine is the highest here than on any place on earth.  And it costs money to develop the medicines, the technology and train the doctors.  Why do people think that good things shouldn’t cost money?

And these AARP adds.  And ‘The Scooter Store.’  Granny doing donuts on her living room carpet and happily proclaiming she didn’t pay anything out-of-pocket for the scooter.  That’s because YOU all paid for it.  And I don’t mean to be harsh here, but …does Granny really need to motor around her house?  Wouldn’t her doctor agree that her health would benefit if she merely got up off her sedentary butt and walked to the kitchen.  Walked to the bathroom?  Walked around and exercised a bit, pumping life-giving blood through her extremities?  Of course it would.  Granny – God bless ya, but — Stop thinking that other people should have to pay for your stuff!

And another thing — You hear many in the news today saying, “The main problem with National Health Care is ‘How are we going to pay for it?’”  Really?  That’s like saying, “Listen we of course want to tie you up, shove a dyslexic hamster up your bum, place you upside-down in a glass tube of acid filled with scorpions and jellyfish…but the main problem is ‘How do we pay for it?’”

Uh….Forget how we pay for it – it’s a stupid idea!!!!!

Okay, Gary, you obviously have no compassion.  What about the poor?  What about the poor who can’t afford health insurance?  I would ask you for a definition of what ‘they’ can afford.  Can they afford that HD wide-screen?  Twenty-four-hour Direct-TV All Sports channel?  How about that brand new Hummer?  I know a lot of people who say they can’t afford health insurance, but manage to take three vacations a year on their boat and have more toys that I’ve ever had.

Choices.  People make choices in life.  They choose to spend their money on health insurance.  Or…they upgrade their wide screen.  Get their house painted.  Buy a new dining room set.  Or…they save up to pay for their health care insurance.

Yesterday, at yet another Town Hall Meeting, (or as I like to call it, Doctor Obama’s Magic Traveling Medicine Show), a rather rotund woman, Debbie, came up to the President and tearfully pleaded that she was diagnosed with a tumor and didn’t know what to do.  In a brilliantly staged move, the Snake-Oil-Salesman-in-Chief warmly embraced her bulk, saying that she was “Exhibit A” [of why our health care system is broken].  And I couldn’t help but remember that old TV show from the late ‘50’s…”QUEEN FOR A DAY” in which each week three women would come on and tell their sad tale of woe and disaster and deprivation to the studio and television audience.  The studio audience would then vote for whom they thought was the most deserving Queen-For-the-Day.  It was heart-rending.  One tragedy bested by yet another disaster, and finally trumped by an apocalypse of misfortune.  Tears, sad organ music, and warm, supportive love and grieving.

And finally it was announced, and the winner was crowned “QUEEN FOR A DAY”!  The pipe organ would swell as tears and applause and a robe and crown and the new Queen of Pathos was regaled with new washer-dryers, sewing machines, vacuum cleaners, reclining chairs…and it was all so maudlin and sappy.  But the show was a big hit.  People tuned in to hear the sob stories and get their heartstrings tugged.  And afterward…they felt a little better about themselves.

This is the essence of Liberalism.  It’s all about feeling a little better about yourself by doing ‘something nice’ and giving something to someone else.  And I say GOOD!  As long as no one is forcing me to give to someone else.  I’m all too happy to be nice to someone else, to give to a stranger, let’s say…voluntarily. (And by the way, Americans, and in fact Conservatives, are the biggest givers on the planet.)

But you write it into law, and back it up with a gun…now we got a problem.  Liberals are very generous – with other people’s money.

So when a zillion ‘Debbies’ come to me and ask me to pay for their health care, to treat their tumors, I say…HUNH?  Why should I have to pay for your health care?  And likewise, why should you have to pay for mine?  You don’t pay for my groceries, I don’t pay for yours…and isn’t food more vital that health care?  Here’s a novel idea:  Why don’t I pay for my health care and you pay for yours?.  Just a thought.

But how about this for people like Debbie:  HEALTH CARE TELETHONS!  Televised much like the Jerry Lewis MS Telethons, each stricken victim parades forth and tells their story – straight into the camera.  And the phones will light up with pledge money.  We can have menthol drops standing by for those not quite motivated to shed real Oprah-worthy tears.  And yours truly will keep whatever we raise above and beyond what your surgery or treatment ends up costing.  And I’ll put that money in a lock-box.  To be disseminated at a time and to a recipient of my choosing.

Now doesn’t that make more sense than what the Prez is proposing?  That because supposedly 30 million in this country (largely illegal or simply opting out) don’t have health insurance, our health care system — the best, most advanced medical system ever known to mankind — is ‘broken’ and needs to be turned over to the federal government to run?

What the President is proposing is insanity.  Return the medical industry to the private sector.  That is the only way to reduce costs and keep the quality of service at its optimum.

Mario Lavandeira, the mean-spirited impresario behind the celebrity-obsessed mega-Web site PerezHilton.com, was left scratching his pink-tinged pompadour last week, wondering aloud in a campy cry-baby YouTube classic why, after being physically assaulted in public, he is now universally scorned and widely considered the villain of an incident that left him appropriately “black eyed.”

Aside from the basic rules of karma, here’s why: The calculus of political correctness is like roshambo, the “rock-paper-scissors” game. Different identity groups hold specific levels of power over others when their battles play out in the media. To wit: Black beats white. Gay beats white. Black beats gay.

Don’t ask why. It just is.

For those not paying attention to this tawdry tale, Mr. Lavandeira, aka Perez Hilton and the self-proclaimed “Queen of All Media,” referred to Will.I.Am, the black frontman of the platinum-selling Black Eyed Peas, by an anti-gay slur at an after-party of the MuchMusic Awards in Canada.

This interlude was born of the L.A.-based hip hop trio’s displeasure over critical comments about their recent album on the Perez Hilton Web site. The affair later culminated in the band’s black manager, Polo Molina, reportedly slugging Mr. Lavandeira after an evening of silly ego- skirmishes between the two parties.

Even though it is obviously worse to punch someone in the face than to hurl an inartful slur, Mr. Lavandeira made the fatal mistake of choosing to verbally berate a man with darker skin than he. By the next day, the event was publicized around the world and Will.I.Am and Mr. Molina were being universally treated as heroes.

What Mr. Lavandeira does on his Web site goes beyond satire or biting criticism. It is cruelty of the worst kind. No taunt or insult is too low. Using primitive drawing skills, he and his crew even scrawl vulgar pictures on the faces of their victims.

If you feel dirty reading this, imagine how I feel writing it. But the deed of pushing “Perez Hilton” off the public stage is a necessary one. And we must do it as a united rainbow: Black, white, gay, Hispanic, transgendered, Republican, Democrat, celebrity, Eskimo and Aleut alike.

One major celebrity follower, and a celebrity in her own right, refused to go on the record to describe her deep concerns about Perez Hilton.

You can read the column in full here.

Back in January I wrote about the announced revival of “Ragtime” at the Kennedy Center.  I described the extreme leftist views of E. L. Doctorow upon whose novel the musical is based.  I also described the central character’s story arch which follows his path from hopeful, young and talented African-American to spiteful, vengeful domestic terrorist. 

A few weeks ago I was lucky enough to see the production and I was delighted that although the script remains unchanged form the original, some slight nuances in staging, focus and character inter-action has softened the radical nature of Doctorow’s dogmatic cynicism and has illuminated truly hopeful and inspiring visions of an America to be proud of. 

For the purpose of full disclosure I should reveal that I had tangential involvement in the original production of “Ragtime” and was able to witness many aspects of the creative process.  I have always been an admirer of the piece and yet have had a resistance to its overall theme.  After wiping the tears from my face after the curtain cal in Washington DC, I began trying to figure out why this show now speaks to me in such an uplifting way.  After weeks of examination I believe I have the answer:  Blame Canada. 

OK, I’m only half-joking.  It’s not Canada’s fault, but a Canadian’s.  The original production was produced by the now defunct Livent corporation headed by Canadian Impresario and convicted felon Garth Drabinsky.  In the roaring ’90s Garth stood astride the theatre industry with a hugely successful revival of “Showboat” and multiple touring productions of blockbuster musicals in Canada.  His Canadian production and theatre owner/operator company, Livent, was envisioned as a vertically integrated production and booking organization in the style of the old Hollywood studio system.  Livent began when Garth was ousted as Chairman of Cineplex-Odeon the movie theatre chain he founded in 1979.  After leveraging its rapid expansion with miles of debt his new partner MCA sent him packing.  Garth was allowed to leave with one asset, the Pantages Theatre in Toronto and the rights to present Phantom of the Opera there. 

From those humble beginnings, Livent was born.  He paid huge amounts to attract the best creative teams and spared no expense in producing gigantic productions.  His “Showboat” revival directed by Hal Prince was infamous for its excessive budgets as well as its enormous scale… in terms of the physical production and the size of its cast. 

So Garth with his grandiose visions (mostly of himself… seriously, his autobiography is titled “Closer to the Sun”) decided in 1995 that it was time for Livent to produce an original musical instead of just staging revivals or Canadian Tours of Broadway productions.  The traditional path for the creation of a new musical begins with either a composer, lyricist (or composer/lyricist team),  book writer, director or any combination of these entities envisioning an idea that they then collaborate on and create the beginnings of a new show.  Depending on the existing reputation or track-record of the writers or director, a producer could be brought on rather early to help finance part of the writing process in exchange for an option on the script.  If the writers are unknown they usually will write an entire script and go through many revisions before a producer will pick it up. 

In the case of “Ragtime” and the “vertically integrated” vision Garth had for Livent the process was totally reversed.  Garth optioned the rights to “Ragtime” from Doctorow and sought out a team to create his show.  He actually auditioned song writing teams by having them write a handful of songs and then present them to him for his judgement.  Garth selected Terrance McNally to write the libretto and the team of Lynn Ahrens and Stephen Flaherty to write the score.  Graciella Danielle was selected as Choreographer with Frank Galati as Director.  McNally, Ahrens, Flaherty, Danielle and Galati was a dream team of Broadway talent and true to form Garth paid top dollar to attach them to the project. 

If you review the articles written at the time of “Ragtime’s” opening you will see a common thread in the quotes of all of these people.  They all say in gushing prose that Garth was one of the most hands-on, creatively involved producers they ever worked with.  Everything Livent did was a reflection of Garth and his philosophy.  And he often talked about a “Trilogy of America” consisting of “Showboat”, “Ragtime” and “Parade” (a musical about the lynching of Leo Frank, a Jewish man accused of raping and murdering a 13-year-old girl in Atlanta).  Garth was quoted at the time saying “I have always felt very emotional about the way that minorities are decried and raped in different ways,” he says. “I don’t walk around waving a socialist flag; with me, it’s a matter of legal justice and social equity.”

Garth was the driving creative vision behind “Ragtime”, not the writers and not the director.  And Garth seems to have been bent on trying to illuminate all of America’s flaws through the mounting of this show.  Specifically, the troubles of America’s past with regard to racial and religious bigotry.  And he had a like-minded collaborator in Doctorow as we have already seen in my previous post on this show. 

Looking back, I can now see that the uncomfortable, cynical edge to the original “Ragtime” was the reflection of a successful Canadian business man, spurned once by Hollywood with a chip on his shoulder and something to prove to the American entertainment industry that sent him back to Canada in shame those many years ago.  And, I think, because of the underlying resentment for America that snuck through many of the scenes in “Ragtime” our audiences were reluctant to fully embrace what was a brilliant work because the emotional impact was alienating to many Americans love and pride in our country. 

Which brings us back to the Kennedy Center.  A few minor changes in the mounting of this production has made a world of difference.  First, the cast is scaled down by about 35%.  This helps the audience focus on the main characters rather than the enormous and overwhelming number of chorus and ensemble members that filled the stage originally. 

Also, the set is much more basic and not designed with “spectacle” in mind.  For example, in the beginning of the show, one character leaves New York on a ship with Admiral Perry to explore the North Pole while and immigrant ship passes them in New York harbor arriving at Ellis Island.  A fantastic song, “Two Ships Passing” then sets the stage for a handful of story arcs.   In the original production two eight-foot ships traverse the stage utilizing computerized deck automation techniques.  They looked really cool, cost a lot of money and were completely unnecessary.  In fact, they distracted from the performances of the ACTORS on stage. 

Another major improvement is the staging of the anthem “Let Them Hear You”  I discussed the lyrics of this song in my original post and this scene was most troublesome in the way that it seemed to rationalize the violence perpetrated by Coalhouse in the name of social justice.  But director Marcia Milgrom Dodge has Coalhouse collect his gangs guns during the song.  He also emphasizes the lyrics that convey the idea that using your voices and words to confront the flaws of our nation is always the solution and that violence never is. 

One last change that makes this production so much better than the original.  And this is something that the creative staff had nothing to do with.  In the middle of Act One Coalhouse Walker and Sarah sing “Ragtime’s” signature song, “Wheels of a Dream”.  It is an anthem of hope, promise, optimism and belief in all that America can be.  In the show, the song sets up the tragic events that follow and makes the evil racism that occurs even that much more hateful and despicable.  But now, in 2009, sitting blocks away from the White House, the song means so much more. 

I did not vote for President Obama and I don’t support much of anything that he or his administration is attempting to do.  But knowing the historical realities of our country’s struggle with race relations that are depicted in “Ragtime” and then knowing what has transpired and the incredible, unbelievable progress that has been made over the past 100 years, this song resonates in such a positive and inspiring way that makes it impossible to not think of our first black President and what that means to so many in our country. 

Here are Tony Award winners Brian Stokes Mitchell and Audra MacDonald from the original production: 

A final happy ending to this story:  About a year after the Broadway Opening of “Ragtime”, Livent, the vertically integrated, publicly traded company that promised to revolutionize the theatre industry, collapsed.  The same kind of leveraged debt that endangered Cineplex-Odeon, toppled it’s step-brother, Livent.  And Garth Drabinsky has been convicted of fraud and forgery. 

And, the revival of “Ragtime” at the Kennedy Center is now in negotiations for a transfer to Broadway.

Stage Right is on Facebook.