First off, it is very high-priced toilet paper! That would be reasonable if it were superior; but it is in fact, very coarse - even rather, well, "scrunchy".

In addition (and worst of all) it WILL clog your drains!

Something very subtle and wonderful has taken place.  And it has come as a surprise.

It is amazing how much most of us are conditioned by a rewards system.  There are few who continue to do labor which bears no fruit, right?  On the other hand, many will repeat disgusting, illegal, or risky behavior, if it actually worked for them on a previous occasion.  No complex thought here.

But in our contemporary culture, there has been so much inversion of ideals of reward for good behavior.  Of course crime can pay;  people can make more money selling ecstasy or crystal meth than selling BMWs, much less selling shoes.  How much money did that prostitute who ruined the career of Elliot Spitzer make in the end?  Quite a lot, and quite quickly.

There is an epidemic of similar inversions.  This is an era of rewards for bad behavior; do something ugly, stupid, grotesque, or immoral - get a TV show, Playboy spread, or book deal. On the other hand, play by the rules and they apparently smell weakness; and arrive quickly to present a whole new volume of ADDITIONAL rules, till eventually you feel you are being crushed under their weight. But don't expect help; few have noticed you exist -- not in this Jerry Springer circus environment. 

I can all but guarantee those hooligan  twits vandalizing St. Paul during the RNC will get laid, by lady friends as wack as they are.  And they'll turn to using that angle again; because it worked. Bad behavior can reap gorgeous rewards; and well-meaning, law-respecting lifestyles can leave one with staggering bills; and a demanding taxman looking for yet more of your money to build bridges to no where.

And we're arrived at politics and politicians.  How many politicians in our lifetime have used ugly means to achieve their personal goals?  The public can be regularly snowballed (look at John Edwards homepage for some ironic rhetoric and moral posturing). Typical political "rewards" would equate to votes.  Votes are typically garnered through an ugly and familiar playbook, composed of strong financial backing, savvy strategic marketing, a ruthless dismantling of your opponents, tapping into fears, saying just what folks want to hear, or making lovely promises of a free lunch. Circular logic, smoke and mirrors, lies and denials, smears and propaganda, outright deceit -- it all works regularly. And it is reasonable to conclude that if politicians employed nefarious tactics once, (or even watched another peer make it work), they will employ what they've learned again in the pursuit of their desires.  How much cynicism is born of the contempt we ultimately feel for these politicians?

Enough bad sentiment; this is a good story.  John McCain is an admittedly imperfect Republican and a man whose long career has found him on the wrong side of his share of issues.  But he is a man who is true to himself, and at this unique point in time, he did something bold which few predicted: he handed a magnificent reward to the relatively unknown Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin is not here so rewarded because she looks right, smiles right, smells right,  talks right, or even because she is a woman (although all of these are certainly potential assets).  Sarah Palin is here rewarded because she has taken a stance in her administrative career.  It is a stance that makes the cynical voter pause and gaze up from the slouched downcast moping which has been his habit.  "Could this be?  Does she treat her constituency right?"  Now Al Capone treated his constituency right; but to be performing well on the immediate level, while paying respect to a larger picture, a national level of concern at the same time -- this suggests exceptional integrity.

Alternately, Senator Obama has inspired great hope; but the lessons are different. Obama is a man who has received reward for less than exceptional behavior.  In analysis of Obama's career you find a personal political history of strategic behavior; dicey allegiances and alliances.  I doubt he had a choice;  Chicago is a cesspool.  But surely he didn't vote "present" in the Senate 130 times because he's stupid, or incapable of choice;  it is a strategy, at our expense.  "Don't get yourself on the record on that issue, my friend. *wink*..." Maybe I'm wrong.

I argue Obama is not actually getting rewarded for his actions of merit; he is rising beautifully and gracefully, but it is as a result of CONCEPTS of merit.  Even if his concepts are flawless, the "reward lesson" for all of us is, "say the right thing.  Say it well".

But what matters is not these names or personalities, rather the behavioral model being played out. Sarah Palin just received an excellent award for some irregular political behavior that we the people desperately need. Even if you don't like her politics, the manner of her behavior in office can end up benefiting every single one of us. Why, even if our impressions of her unselfish and fiscally responsible acts AREN'T TRUE, she still would be receiving an enormous lesson on what she SHOULD consider successful behavior. Indeed, all politicians on the present scene might reassess their strategies; as this woman is proving a pattern too rarely witnessed in modern government.

She is being rewarded handsomely for being strong, defiant, and principled.  Not clever, or flawlessly strategic, or well-financed by influential friends and backers. It is her unusual bravery and politically risky behavior which brought her soaring wildly into the national spotlight.   This frames the future for a toning down of public cynicism.  She is poised to teach herself, her peers, and us, that the United States is ready to show appreciation, and indeed reward, for good behavior, that we so badly need and so rarely see. She and the nation has been handed the blueprint of a system of extraordinary benefit for extraordinary action.  This blueprint could be used to rehab our capital. Even if she doesn't win office, the case has been made for a functional new paradigm.

Surely the lesson will fade, as surely as it will return again.  But for this moment in time, the recipe is strongly enforced; trickery or deceit is less successful than responsible excellence.

If I make a product, put a price on it, and put it into the marketplace: may I discriminate with regard to who I will allow to buy it?

If I write a book, publish it, settle on a price of $24.99, and put it on the shelves of the public bookstore -- can I say for example, "no, that black man doesn't get to buy it!" ? If I make a hamburger, and open a public hamburger stand; may I say, "sorry, I don't sell to Chinese"?

When I write a song, establish it as a product, package it, put a price on it, and put it into the marketplace; at that point, do I get to decide who can pay for use of it and who can't? This gets shaky to me.

Well that is definitely what the folks (who've lost) Heart just tried to do.  Heart sent a cease-and-desist notice to the McCain-Palin campaign after their hit "Barracuda" was used at the Republican National Convention. "I think it's completely unfair to be so misrepresented," Nancy Wilson said. "I feel completely f--ked over." Its a bit narcissistic; no one is endeavoring to "represent" the personalities and character of Nancy Wilson.  An entirely different woman has a nickname, and there happens to be a song that ties into it.

 The Wilsons issued a statement; "Sarah Palin's views and values in NO WAY represent us as American women. We ask that our song 'Barracuda' no longer be used to promote her image." (It seems guitarist Roger Fisher was not so troubled).

Ironically, if they convince the Republican strategists to cease usage, they would be doing them a favor; while the song decidedly rocks, the tone is decidedly dark; and lyrically it is a terrible song for any desireable positive associations.

Heart is the very first band I fell in love with.  I could describe crystal-clear recollections of private moments in the middle of the night; in my parent's living room with my newly purchased Heart album delivering thrilling content from my father's turntable to the crappy headphones on my head.  But I'm no kid now; time demanded I grow up.  And likewise for the Wilson sisters.  These ladies certainly enjoyed the marketplace potentials for generating great personal wealth, but now they want to get to make the rules on how the marketplace works.  I am not an intellectual propertyrights lawyer; maybe what they'd liked to do is completely within their legal power. I bet its a question of how good your lawyer is. But it is wrong. It's not morally excellent, as I'm convinced they believe it is.  They made a lot of money off their product, by "playing ball" in the marketplace.  Now they would like to be repositioned as aloof poets who've never soiled themselves with sale of their product. They don't perceive their product as product; It is their soul. Well, then you inescapably sold your soul for years and years, didn't you?  Because even though I was a little kid, with no income; I had to fork over real cash to enjoy your music, your soul.  It was born of your soul, but it became a product once you put it in the marketplace.

Certainly musical rights have many dimensions.  To have one's song recur over and over in another product's commercial campaign certainly deserves unique measures of clearance and haggling in negotiation.  To deny your musical product to the makers of a toothpaste for such a campaign, seems quite reasonable.  But as regarding public performance licensing, there is a price tag, and should the price be paid, what sort of ethical swamp do we want to invite in declaring, "oh, I don't want to sell it to you, because you are _____"

The heart sisters want to define who is allowed to buy their product.  If the RNC organizers paid for the broadcast/reproduction/public performance rights of the song -- what ethical pretzel twists allows prohibition of the usage of these purchased rights.  Is this limited to politics?  Can we restrict those of a faith, creed, color, or age group as well? How about gender?

Can Shell, Exxon, and their brethren declare that the members of Heart may not buy their gasoline, as the Wilson sisters do not represent wives of oil executives "at all".  The Wilson sisters might want to buy a good mountain bike.

Now, perhaps the organizing elements of the RNC didn't secure appropriate performance/public broadcast rights beforehand?!  That would be a quite a different story!  But I seriously doubt this is the case.  How many lawyers were at that convention? Let's just assume, "gobs".  I strongly suspect the general knowledge of such legal issues didn't escape every law savvy member of the event.

To me, this isn't about politics, its a weird direction heading toward twists of fair business practices and basic tenets of equal access, and indeed equality.

So, Heart, I grew up on your tunes; but it's been a longtime since you generated significant cultural relevance, and now you appear to have lost the spirit of fair play and fair business.  In short, I declare that the the Wilson sisters have just lost the legal use of the term "heart".  Please cease and desist in pretending to own it.  Furthermore, I define right here and now, that any parties associated with the band (except Roger Fisher) have not the right to read this article.  Even if you bought it.

PS.  I owned that "unauthorized" first release version of "Magazine" (to which you Wilsons also applied a cease and desist).  I listened to it endlessly -- though you didn't want me to;  and it was better than your authorized version!!! Oh, hell...I still love you. And Roger Fisher, can I buy YOU a beer?