Universal Healthcare is Good...that is until it becomes a political albatross!

Mitt Romney wants to earn the GOP nomination for the 2012 election.

Mitt Romney passed a universal healthcare bill while governer of Massachusetts.

Republicans don't like universal care and yearn to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Mitt Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan looks a lot like the Affordable Care Act.

Mitt Romney has a big problem.

So, when in doubt, flip flop.   Yesterday, Mitt Romney addressed a Michigan crowd and explained, armed with a powerpoint, the differences between his Massachusetts act and the Affordable Care Act..  His major gripe was that healthcare should be solved as a state issue and not a federal one, even though the one he chose for his state (a successful plan by the way) mirrors the federal plan.  This, at face value, makes no sense to me other than the fact that Republicans generally like states' rights (because most feel we still live in the 1800's), thus he's trying to appease a base that questions him.  But even though I'm not convinced its best left as a states rights issue, Romney claims the ACA is a forced "one size fits all" approach to healthcare that is doomed to fail...except...the bill actually has a state waiver that allows states to pursue their own healthcare plan as long as it, essentially, meets the general requirements of the ACA. 

On a similar note, the Massachusetts law requires the individual mandate that many Republicans are claiming is unconstitutional.  Romney agrees that the mandate isn't valid because of its use on a federal level, but could be used on the state level if the state chooses to do so, even though most Republicans consider the mandate outright wrong because it forces people to buy something even if they'd prefer not to. 

The question is, how bad does this make him look to his base?  It seems as if he's fighting a losing argument with a paper thin defense.  After all, Republicans find his Massachusetts plan objectionable.  Knowing Romney often switches positions to appease his audience (he was once pro-choice until that became complete poison for a GOP presidential nominee), how soon will he denounce his own plan for the sake of victory? 

Just an observation.  It doesn't take a genius to know this is gonna be a hard one from him to weasel out of. 

Should 90 Year Old War Criminals Go To Jail?

Interesting story on the wire today about the trial/conviction of John Demjanjuk, a 91 year old, retired American autoworker that was accused of aiding the murder of 20,000+ Jews while working as a guard for the Sobibor death camp in Nazi occupied Poland during World War 2.  Apparently, Demjanjuk has been involved in over 30 years of legal proceedings, including being sentenced to death in Israel during the 80’s, only to have that conviction overturned due to possible mistaken identity.

First off, it’s kind of bizarre that this is occurring at all, as World War Two has become one of America’s greatest cultural and historical relics.  It’s been preserved and displayed in countless films and books that have frozen 1939-1945 in this timeless, even romanticized history lesson that helps explain a forgotten time period.  It feels like a closed book that we’ll open in a similar manner we would one on the medieval period.  So to think there are still court cases that deal with this closed period of history strikes me as kind of funny (not in the ha-ha way). 

Clearly much evidence was lost over the past sixty years, defendants and witnesses have died off, so it’s hard to build a case with iron clad evidence against Demjanjuk for crimes committed a lifetime ago, especially ones that may have been carried out under duress.  As a Jew (even as a non-practicing one), the Holocaust has always been a cloud over even my personal history as it’s something I’ve heard about even as a small child.  And while it’s certainly possible that Demjanjuk played a hand in the deaths, I wonder what the point of sentencing an ailing 91 year old man to prison for crimes he committed over half a century ago is (not to mention, there will probably be a yearlong appeals process).

But regardless of this particular case, it is interesting to note that society seems to assume that the only possible true form of punishment is a prison term, and I’m honestly not sure why, as there are multiple ways the system forces accused criminals to “pay for their crimes.”  In the unique case of Demjanjuk, there has been a clear life altering thirty years of legal proceedings, which no doubt led to assumed deserved public humiliation/shame, society ostracization, numerous dollars spent for lawyers (etc), and essentially a 30-year major pain in the ass.  I’m not quite sure what the benefit of adding jail time to this process would be other than to fulfill a strange understanding that a prison sentence is the ultimate goal when doling out punishment.  But why?  What is it about locking someone up that gives the public some kind of cathartic benefit?  It’s not as if a 91 year old (or any senior citizen) is a real threat to society.  Why is the idea of isolating someone from society in a closed, unpleasant area considered the ultimate justice?   To this point, what purpose does the continued effort to lock up a 91 year old really have when it seems that most of his adult life has already been under the microscope?  Would people really feel better if someone gave him a swift kick to the jewels at this point?

Really, what kind of justice is being served by this?  It seems more like a piece of dated political theater, like some true to life modern day play about aging World War 2 war criminals rather than an important stand against crime.  Not to mention, a waste of resources. 

But I know this is a touchy subject, curious to hear people’s thoughts.

Flying

The fact that humanity somehow was able to create a metal box that can fly across the country in five hours is astounding.  But even more curious is why many react to the idea of a flight with hostility usually reserved for the DMV or, I dunno, waterboarding.  Whether it be complaints about the airport, or the simple fear of flying, we have collectively equated one of our coolest and most impressive processes to a trip to the dentist. 

Let's start with the first step in the pre-flight process:  The airport.  From listening to some people complain, one may assume the airport is a modern torture chamber instead of what it really is:  a shopping mall that planes fly in and out of, and a hub of activity the includes citizens of the world.  In fact, I'm not sure if there are statistics about this, but I can only assume that international airports are the world's true cultural melting pots. To me, there's something beautiful about people from all over the globe using the airport as a brief resting stop before traveling thousands of miles to a new destination.  People watchers delight!  Obviously, most don't seem to agree.

Sure, security can be a pain, yeah there may be traffic on the way, but I know too many people who like to leave for the airport at the last possible second in an effort to spend as little amount of time there as possible.  I have friends who will gladly sit around their houses for a half an hour with nothing to do instead of getting to the airport a little early where they will, god forbid, have to sit comfortably, go to a restaurant, shop for a new pair of sunglasses, people watch, or if you happen to be at Las Vegas's McCarren, gamble.  Plus, the only thing stressful about the airport is the possibility of actually missing your flight.  Yet these same people gladly throw caution to the wind and invite this possibility, making the traffic filled ride to the airport and subsequent run through security into an unnecessary stressful situation. 

Then there's the irrational fear of actually flying.  There are dozens of activities we do on a daily basis that put us at more risk of injury or death than a simple flight does.  Sure, plans crash, but at such an infrequent rate that their "success" record is unparalleled.  The funny thing is even if I throw out statistics that suggest driving a car puts you at greater risk than a flight; its hardly news to those who fear flying.  They agree and then say, "yeah, but you know, whatever." So why are people terrified?  Is it a lack of control?  Is it because the knowledge that even a slight problem may cause, at most, death, and, at least, a terrifying experience?  Why does the fear of this rare possibility severely outweigh the statistics?

Anyway, food for thought.  Louis CK did have a great bit about this.  Click here for some laughs and rationality.

Video Games? An Art?

Before the dawn of the internet age, I adored video games.  I'd spend countless hours in front of the Nintendo or Sega playing classic titles such as Tecmo Bowl or Phantasy Star.  Like most kids my age, passion for video games was met with severe resistence from parents who claimed them to be mindless and counter productive.  After all, it was just another activity to distract us from our homework.

But us creative little youngsters would argue the games enhanced our creative/cognitive skills and, of course my personal favorite, honed our "reflexes."   Well, it appears as though the Smithsonian now agrees.

Game designers can earn grants up to 200,000 dollars if their game can be considered a work of art?  Sure, why not.  The evolution of the video game has taken extraordinary leaps in the past decade; in fact designers have created entire virtual communities that some seem to prefer to live in, while others actually find real financial success in these alternate worlds.  So now that the gaming world is capable of making these multi-layered communities and games that feature indepth alien worlds with enough detail to trick you into thinking that it might be real, why not consider them a legitimate art form?

In fact, game designer Jane McGonigal strongly thinks students aren't playing ENOUGH video games as she firmly believes that simulating crises in an online setting will better prepare us for a real disaster.  She is the designer behind the game World Without Oil which depicts a world with depleted resources, rising prices, and the possibility for social chaos.  Gamers communicate with each other on how to both problem solve and cope with the issue with the hope that, one day, they can use this acquired knowledge for practical purposes.

The merits of this hyopthesis can be, and should be, challenged, but the fact that we are having the argument at all is a testament to the rise of gaming and its expressive qualities.  Though video games always had some sort of creative value, today's games have increased their interactive ability to not only create a new kind of social order, but the ability to build communities that extend beyond the borders of "real life."  So even though the results of this community and creativity do not exist in the "real world," it does serve a useful purpose as it helps stretch the mind and allows users to think in different parameters.

So how could this not be art?

Oh, Sarah. Don't You Have A Turd To Polish?

Ahhh…I’m absolutely enjoying the latest piece of political “advice” (or demand) from America’s favorite phony cunt, Sarah Palin.

From her Twitter feed in response to the White House’s decision not to release the gruesome photos of a dead Osama Bin Laden:

“Show photo as warning to others seeking America's destruction. No pussy-footing around, no politicking, no drama; it's part of the mission”

Poetry, really.  That woman has a real knack for annoying me with only 160 characters.  A true talent. 

Since the announcement, the debate over whether or not to release the pics has heated up, but I can’t understand the benefit of doing so.  As much as some would love to see America hang Osama’s corpse outside of Boston Harbor like he were Captain Kidd, the idea that a gruesome photo might scare off other potential terrorists is…asinine.  Do we honestly believe that they don’t know the dangers of their business?  Do we think they are unaware that they are being hunted by the American military? How exactly would a picture SCARE them? Hell, you can show average Americans tons of pictures of wrecked cars, they are still gonna talk on their cell phones while driving.

We live in a civilized, 21^st century society, we don’t need to plaster a gruesome photo of some dead terrorist on our nation’s newspapers as if it’s some sort of hunting trophy; though perhaps Sarah would be pleased if we stuffed Osama’s head and placed it above the White House mantle.  Not to mention, the photographic evidence will not assuage the “concerns” of the conspiracy theorists who believe Obama announced the news now for political expediency, as if that makes any sense.  What political benefit could Obama get in May of 2011? If this were some planned release, why not make it closer to an election…or even closer to the announcement of new legislation?  On a similar note, even if photos were released, these same people would claim Photoshop fraud and start picking out nonexistent details to prove their erroneous claims.  After all, there are still people who believe we never landed on the moon, the 9/11 truthers still exist, and people will continue to suck in the name of being an asshole for the rest of time. 

But, really, at the end of the day, Palin’s announcement is purely political (shocking I know).  I have no doubt that had the White House released the photos, Palin would spew some bullshit about how we are poking the enemy with our bravado.  The woman is a transparent waste that has little interest in policy, and lots of desire for attention. 

Kids Today

I weep.  I'm not even sure how this is possible. 

Nodding my head like "yeah"...to Smells Like Teen Spirit?

One of the more interesting aspects of humanity is how we are often territorial over art.  Over the past few days, the above video has stormed its way through the intertubes, mostly receiving negative reaction from people in my age bracket, including myself.  When I first watched the clip of Miley Cyrus covering Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” (the unofficial anthem of my generation), I was immediately appalled and figured Kurt Cobain would be rolling in his grave.  I quickly disseminated the video to friends, expecting similar reaction so we could commiserate in the atrocity.  Hannah Montana is covering Nirvana?  Why not just hang me by my testicles!  And they all agreed. 

But when contemplating it later, I suddenly was struck by how much I cared and, more importantly, why.

A song is an expressive form of art that provides identity, even to someone who did not write or sing it.  And this particular Nirvana tune defined a generation of angry youths who yearned to separate themselves from the ones above.  The song is loud, the song is powerful, it’s unique for the time, and managed to capture a collective feeling that other generations could not understand. In fact, the song still has emotional effect all these years later.  I still can remember the first time I ever saw the video for “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and immediately thought, “fuck…yeah!”

But Miley Cyrus (who I really have nothing against, I think there’s actually a song of hers on my iPod) was not a part of this movement, and was incredibly young when the song was released.  Her brand of pop music may be the voice of another generation, and will probably be a relic of this younger generation’s childhood, but her music is nothing more than a novelty to ours; causing her to seem like an insignificant footnote.  We subconsciously assume she’s unworthy of our battle cry and would prefer she find her own (even if this is batshit crazy).  Not to mention, Miley sings a certain brand of pop that caters to the lowest common denominator, which is at odds with Nirvana’s rebellious attitude.

So why is disgust my visceral reaction when I see she has performed it at her concert?  Simply put, because it’s not hers.  For her to perform it and own it, it feels like she’s speaking on behalf of my generation, making her a representative of an entire group of people she is actually not a part of.  And though it’s unfair and even a bit nonsensical, her version of it is disingenuous because of this, even if it were an awesome cover (which it’s not, but that’s beside the point).

I’m truly am not sure what Kurt Cobain would think of this, I think he’d actually appreciate the fact that his art has lived on and younger generations have taken to it.  I’m sure he’d enjoy that it’s still relevant.  But to the rest of us, we still wear it like a badge of honor, and we want that to remain unique to us.

Well, that’s all I can come up with anyway.