Long-time Sloppists have noticed that I haven't posted regularly in a long time. I had considered this a mere personal failing: a source of disappointment in myself, to be sure, but a victimless crime at worst. Last night, I realized I was wrong. I came face to face with the face of Solipsist Nation abandoned: a reader--perhaps my ONLY reader--who had come to rely on YNSHC to bring a little joy into his apparently insufficiently joyous life, and whom I had so cavalierly abandoned out of some sense of entitlement--entitlement to rest, to relaxation, to the right to plunge myself into a beer-fueled alcoholic stupor on a regular basis! Who did I think I was?!? So, to this Fanatical Follower of Solipsist, I simply say, I shall strive to do better.
Speaking of entitlement, I've spent the last day or so pondering this story in yesterday's paper, about a semi-common occurrence on airplanes. Apparently, some ultra-Orthodox Jews refuse to sit next to women on airplanes, for fear that they may accidentally come into contact with members of the opposite sex. Despite the fact that a prominent Orthodox rabbi has given dispensation for whatever incidental contact might occur, a number of Hasidim feel they would rather not chance it. As you can imagine, though, problems arise when women refuse to relocate to accommodate the--let's face it--medieval strictures of their fellow travelers.
Those of you who follow me on Facebook know that I proposed a simple solution: If the idea of potentially finding himself seated next to a woman so fills a Hasidic gentleman with fear, then all he needs to do to avoid the situation is purchase an extra seat on the plane. This comment of mine generated a number of comments--tongues more or less planted in cheeks--about the unlikelihood of Jews ponying up the cash for two seats (it should be noted that these comments all came from fellow Jews). But the point, of course, is social not financial. If these folks want to avail themselves of the conveniences of modern society (like airplanes), then they are simply going to have to accept the conventions of modern society (like the fundamental equality of the sexes--and let's not get started on THAT; that's a topic for another day).
Ultimately, I don't really have a problem with the Orthodox desire to maintain a separation of the sexes: If that's what they believe, that's what they believe. The issue I find offensive is that the airlines and/or the other passengers should go out of their way to accommodate them. I wouldn't have an issue with a Hasidic gentleman going up to another passenger--and for all I know, this happens--and saying politely something to the effect of, "Excuse me, Sir/Madam, I'm seated over in ___, but the seat next to me is occupied by a lady, and my religion prevents me from sitting next to her. I was wondering if you would be willing to trade seats with me?"
I'm sure he'd find a taker. Hell, what does the Hasid-proximate lady look like? Maybe I'll trade seats. After all, I'm single now. Think of the possibilities!
"What was that all about?"
"Oh, his religion forbids him from sitting next to beautiful women."
"Really?"
"Well, strictly speaking, his religion prevents him from sitting next to any women. I threw in the beautiful part."
"Oh, Solipsist!"
Cha-ching! Mile-high-club! I love Judaism!
Saturday, April 11, 2015
Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Margins
Super Bowl Seven-Squared quantified the previously unquantifiable. To wit, the difference between monumental genius and sublime idiocy. Turns out, it's about three inches.
The Seattle Seahawks' final play of the 2015 Super Bowl was surely a high (low?) point in the annals of sports ignominy. If you missed the game. . . what are you? Some kind of communist?!?
For the rest, you will recall that the Seahawks, down by four points with about 30 seconds to play, found themselves at the Patriots' one-yard line in a second-and-goal situation. Anyone following the game at all knew what was coming next: Marshawn Lynch, arguably the best running back in the NFL, a nigh unstoppable tank of a man, would tear through the defense for the go-ahead touchdown. A no-brainer. Instead, however, the next play saw quarterback Russell Wilson drop back and throw a pass that was intercepted by previously unheralded New England defender Malcolm Butler. Game over. Patriots win.
In the 48 hours or so since that play, Seahawks coach Pete Carroll has come under fire for his inexplicable decision to have Wilson throw the ball in that situation. Considering the stakes--the end of the road for Seattle's quest for back-to-back championships--this play has justly been called one of the worst--if not the absolute worst--ever called. But let's be clear about one thing: The only reason the coach is being vilified is because the play didn't work.
I think the call was a mistake, too, but let's be fair: Russell Wilson didn't make a terrible throw. The ball was actually thrown right to the hands of the intended receiver, Jerome Kearse. Sure the ball was a scooch too far for the receiver to grasp firmly, but if Wilson throws the ball even another two or three inches to the right, Kearse probably makes the catch, and sheer momentum carries him into the end-zone for the winning score. In this alternate universe, Pete Carroll becomes, if not "brilliant," at least "gutsy": We would then be reading about how Carroll outfoxed the Patriots, who were almost definitely expecting a Lynch run. And the contrarian viewpoints would belong to the handful of people who lamented the fact that an "idiotic" call somehow worked out.
In fact, Carroll could (although he hasn't, exactly) even now defend himself by saying that the sheer "stupidity" of the call was designed to catch the defense off guard. If everybody "knows" you're going to employ a certain strategy, then shouldn't that, theoretically, be the one strategy you shouldn't employ?
As I say, I think Carroll made a mistake; he should have stuck with the conventional game plan. Predictable or not, in that situation, you play the percentages. If you lose the game because the Patriots somehow manage to stop Lynch three times at the goal line, you tip your hat to the defense. Which, I guess, is what we're doing anyway: Butler made a spectacular play. But keep in mind that this Platonic ideal of a moronic play was only a fingertip away from being an example of sheer genius.
The Seattle Seahawks' final play of the 2015 Super Bowl was surely a high (low?) point in the annals of sports ignominy. If you missed the game. . . what are you? Some kind of communist?!?
For the rest, you will recall that the Seahawks, down by four points with about 30 seconds to play, found themselves at the Patriots' one-yard line in a second-and-goal situation. Anyone following the game at all knew what was coming next: Marshawn Lynch, arguably the best running back in the NFL, a nigh unstoppable tank of a man, would tear through the defense for the go-ahead touchdown. A no-brainer. Instead, however, the next play saw quarterback Russell Wilson drop back and throw a pass that was intercepted by previously unheralded New England defender Malcolm Butler. Game over. Patriots win.
In the 48 hours or so since that play, Seahawks coach Pete Carroll has come under fire for his inexplicable decision to have Wilson throw the ball in that situation. Considering the stakes--the end of the road for Seattle's quest for back-to-back championships--this play has justly been called one of the worst--if not the absolute worst--ever called. But let's be clear about one thing: The only reason the coach is being vilified is because the play didn't work.
I think the call was a mistake, too, but let's be fair: Russell Wilson didn't make a terrible throw. The ball was actually thrown right to the hands of the intended receiver, Jerome Kearse. Sure the ball was a scooch too far for the receiver to grasp firmly, but if Wilson throws the ball even another two or three inches to the right, Kearse probably makes the catch, and sheer momentum carries him into the end-zone for the winning score. In this alternate universe, Pete Carroll becomes, if not "brilliant," at least "gutsy": We would then be reading about how Carroll outfoxed the Patriots, who were almost definitely expecting a Lynch run. And the contrarian viewpoints would belong to the handful of people who lamented the fact that an "idiotic" call somehow worked out.
In fact, Carroll could (although he hasn't, exactly) even now defend himself by saying that the sheer "stupidity" of the call was designed to catch the defense off guard. If everybody "knows" you're going to employ a certain strategy, then shouldn't that, theoretically, be the one strategy you shouldn't employ?
As I say, I think Carroll made a mistake; he should have stuck with the conventional game plan. Predictable or not, in that situation, you play the percentages. If you lose the game because the Patriots somehow manage to stop Lynch three times at the goal line, you tip your hat to the defense. Which, I guess, is what we're doing anyway: Butler made a spectacular play. But keep in mind that this Platonic ideal of a moronic play was only a fingertip away from being an example of sheer genius.
Thursday, January 1, 2015
Country Music Legend Kenny Rogers Killed in Most Ironic Murder Ever
NASHVILLE--Police confirmed that multiple Grammy-Award winning recording artist Kenny Rogers has died after what started as a friendly poker game turned violent. Nashville detective Arthur Logan, speaking in front of the crime scene, shook his head and said, "It's amazing. You would think if anyone would have known when to fold 'em, it would have been" Rogers.
Witnesses reported that Rogers was shot twice in the chest by another player who had been consistently losing hands throughout the night. "Kenny was just getting ready to call it a night," reported Rogers associate Glenn Tisdale. "He was just walking away." Tisdale added, after a moment's reflection, "Guess he shoulda run."
The shooter has been identified as Richard "Duff" McElroy, 57, a local hardware salesman with no police record. As he was being taken into custody, McElroy could be heard shouting, "You gotta understand! Kenny was counting his money--while he was SITTING AT THE TABLE! You just don't do that! You NEVER do that!"
Another Rogers associate, who requested anonymity, concurred. "I can't excuse what this guy did, but he has a point. Everyone knows that there'll be plenty of time to count your money when the dealing's done."
Rogers, who was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 2013, was remembered by his fellow artists with a mixture of respect and bewilderment. Dolly Parton, with whom Rogers collaborated on the 1983 hit "Islands in the Stream," tweeted: "Crushed to hear about death of #KennyRogers. But come on!"
Witnesses reported that Rogers was shot twice in the chest by another player who had been consistently losing hands throughout the night. "Kenny was just getting ready to call it a night," reported Rogers associate Glenn Tisdale. "He was just walking away." Tisdale added, after a moment's reflection, "Guess he shoulda run."
The shooter has been identified as Richard "Duff" McElroy, 57, a local hardware salesman with no police record. As he was being taken into custody, McElroy could be heard shouting, "You gotta understand! Kenny was counting his money--while he was SITTING AT THE TABLE! You just don't do that! You NEVER do that!"
Another Rogers associate, who requested anonymity, concurred. "I can't excuse what this guy did, but he has a point. Everyone knows that there'll be plenty of time to count your money when the dealing's done."
Rogers, who was inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame in 2013, was remembered by his fellow artists with a mixture of respect and bewilderment. Dolly Parton, with whom Rogers collaborated on the 1983 hit "Islands in the Stream," tweeted: "Crushed to hear about death of #KennyRogers. But come on!"
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
And Then There's Tom Petty. . .
As Martin Mull might have said, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." Despite an overabundance of music criticism, music itself remains stubbornly impervious to prosaic interpretation--like nine-year-old-resisting-bedtime stubborn. One can read about literature or movies or plays and experience some semblance of the emotional response generated by the work under discussion. Many times I (and I suspect you, too) have read a plot summary or other critical report and thought, "Man, that sounds awesome! I need to read/see THAT!" But music? Descriptions of instrumentation and comparisons to other pieces of music get you only so far. Music has to be experienced in order to be. . .well, experienced.
Fear not, though, Sloppists. I have devised a handy-dandy ranking scale to help you when trying to decide whether a piece of music or a particular performer is worth your time and effort. No longer do you need to feel inadequate about your paltry knowledge of music theory, your limited musical vocabulary, your inability to distinguish a tenor sax from a set of bongos (although that last one is really pathetic and you should do something about it). Because to make your life easier, all you really need to do is place each piece of music into one of the following four categories:
THE INFALLIBLES. These are those whose every product is pure gold--or at least worth your lunch money. They come out with something new? You buy it. And you can feel fairly confident that you won't be disappointed. These are your Springsteens, your U2s, your Elvis Costellos. You love them! (Either that, or you're wrong. Sorry, that's just how it works.) Other personal Infallibles--if you're looking for a last-minute Christmas gift for your favorite blogger (just sayin')--include Radiohead, Aimee Mann, Bright Eyes. Go get 'em.
THE GREATEST HITS CLUB. You hear these folks on the radio all the time, and you like pretty much everything you hear, but you don't particularly feel like you need to hear more. In other words, get yourself a "Greatest Hits" collection or two, and you'll probably have about everything you need. A number of classic rock bands fall neatly into this category: The Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who. (In case you're wondering, The Beatles are closer to Infallible.) Great bands all, to be sure, but does anyone really need to hear the B-side of "Honky-Tonk Women"? What? "You Can't Always Get What You Want"? Seriously?!? OK, bad example, but you get the point.
THE FREE CONCERT TICKET ARMY. OK, you don't really care one way or the other about these bands. They're fine. They play well, sound good. They probably even have one or two songs that you find yourself bopping along to on your morning drive. But while you're more than willing to download those one or two earworms to your iTunes, you wouldn't bother with a whole album. Still, if somebody came up to you and said, "Hey, Solipsist, I have an extra ticket to a ___________ concert, you wanna go?," you would--after explaining that you are NOT the Solipsist, no matter how great the resemblance--say, "Sure, why not. Beats organizing my sock drawer." These include a lot of current bands (who, admittedly, might graduate to the Greatest Hits Club over time): The Black Keys, for one, being a good example. I would put Los Lobos in this category, too, but God only knows what trouble that would get me into.
And then, finally, there are THE UNLISTENABLES. This category includes Tom Petty. That is all.
Fear not, though, Sloppists. I have devised a handy-dandy ranking scale to help you when trying to decide whether a piece of music or a particular performer is worth your time and effort. No longer do you need to feel inadequate about your paltry knowledge of music theory, your limited musical vocabulary, your inability to distinguish a tenor sax from a set of bongos (although that last one is really pathetic and you should do something about it). Because to make your life easier, all you really need to do is place each piece of music into one of the following four categories:
THE INFALLIBLES. These are those whose every product is pure gold--or at least worth your lunch money. They come out with something new? You buy it. And you can feel fairly confident that you won't be disappointed. These are your Springsteens, your U2s, your Elvis Costellos. You love them! (Either that, or you're wrong. Sorry, that's just how it works.) Other personal Infallibles--if you're looking for a last-minute Christmas gift for your favorite blogger (just sayin')--include Radiohead, Aimee Mann, Bright Eyes. Go get 'em.
THE GREATEST HITS CLUB. You hear these folks on the radio all the time, and you like pretty much everything you hear, but you don't particularly feel like you need to hear more. In other words, get yourself a "Greatest Hits" collection or two, and you'll probably have about everything you need. A number of classic rock bands fall neatly into this category: The Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who. (In case you're wondering, The Beatles are closer to Infallible.) Great bands all, to be sure, but does anyone really need to hear the B-side of "Honky-Tonk Women"? What? "You Can't Always Get What You Want"? Seriously?!? OK, bad example, but you get the point.
THE FREE CONCERT TICKET ARMY. OK, you don't really care one way or the other about these bands. They're fine. They play well, sound good. They probably even have one or two songs that you find yourself bopping along to on your morning drive. But while you're more than willing to download those one or two earworms to your iTunes, you wouldn't bother with a whole album. Still, if somebody came up to you and said, "Hey, Solipsist, I have an extra ticket to a ___________ concert, you wanna go?," you would--after explaining that you are NOT the Solipsist, no matter how great the resemblance--say, "Sure, why not. Beats organizing my sock drawer." These include a lot of current bands (who, admittedly, might graduate to the Greatest Hits Club over time): The Black Keys, for one, being a good example. I would put Los Lobos in this category, too, but God only knows what trouble that would get me into.
And then, finally, there are THE UNLISTENABLES. This category includes Tom Petty. That is all.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Sony Avenged
Earlier this morning--so early, in fact, that you were no doubt sleeping--President Obama released the following statement:
"My fellow Americans, I recently vowed that the United States would 'respond proportionally' to the North Korean cyberattack against Sony. This heinous attack deprived the American public its opportunity to see the Seth Rogen-James Frisco [sic] comedy 'The Interview.'
"This blatant cultural aggression will not stand.
"Some have called for a military response. I have decided, however, that this would be disproportionate. Besides, all our military assets are otherwise deployed around Iraq, Afghanistan, and Belgium. (You'll be hearing about that at a press conference later this afternoon.) And so I am mandating a gentler--yet no less devastating--response.
"I call upon all American filmmakers to include the assassination of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in all movies from this point forward. And not only that. I have directed all major studios to go into their archives and, through the magic of digital technology, add the assassination of Kim Jong-un to all previously released films.
"The Nakatomi Tower hijackers in 'Die Hard'? They're North Korean now, led by Korean Alan Rickman as Kim Jong-un.
"Oz the Great and Powerful? Try Kim the Squat and Infantile--and, yes, he dies now.
"All the raptors in 'Jurassic Park' will soon be computer-generated mini-Kim Jong-uns. It's actually really cool.
"So in conclusion, my fellow Americans, I encourage you to go out this holiday season and take in a movie or two. Enjoy some popcorn and a cornucopia of cinematic assassinations of North Korea's premier. Just don't go see the new 'Annie'--it's terrible.
"Thank you. And God bless America."
"My fellow Americans, I recently vowed that the United States would 'respond proportionally' to the North Korean cyberattack against Sony. This heinous attack deprived the American public its opportunity to see the Seth Rogen-James Frisco [sic] comedy 'The Interview.'
"This blatant cultural aggression will not stand.
"Some have called for a military response. I have decided, however, that this would be disproportionate. Besides, all our military assets are otherwise deployed around Iraq, Afghanistan, and Belgium. (You'll be hearing about that at a press conference later this afternoon.) And so I am mandating a gentler--yet no less devastating--response.
"I call upon all American filmmakers to include the assassination of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in all movies from this point forward. And not only that. I have directed all major studios to go into their archives and, through the magic of digital technology, add the assassination of Kim Jong-un to all previously released films.
"The Nakatomi Tower hijackers in 'Die Hard'? They're North Korean now, led by Korean Alan Rickman as Kim Jong-un.
"Oz the Great and Powerful? Try Kim the Squat and Infantile--and, yes, he dies now.
"All the raptors in 'Jurassic Park' will soon be computer-generated mini-Kim Jong-uns. It's actually really cool.
"So in conclusion, my fellow Americans, I encourage you to go out this holiday season and take in a movie or two. Enjoy some popcorn and a cornucopia of cinematic assassinations of North Korea's premier. Just don't go see the new 'Annie'--it's terrible.
"Thank you. And God bless America."
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Sony Evil
To be clear, I had neither plans nor, indeed, desire to see "The Interview." If the advertising is any indication, the movie--a comedy about a plot to assassinate North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un--is an unmitigated piece of crap. Still, the decision by Sony Studios to abandon plans for a Christmas Day release, in response to threats of violence and/or continued cyberattacks on the corporation, is disappointing to say the least.
In Sony's defense, I'm not sure they had much choice. Earlier in the week, the largest theater chains in the country had already announced their plans to pull the film. Still, what kind of precedent has been set? A few hardcore lunatics depriving the world of two hours of dick jokes from Seth Rogen and James Franco may not seem like that great a tragedy, but what happens when a controversial film with actual artistic merit becomes the target? If the internet had been around when "The Last Temptation of Christ" was released, would a band of tech-savvy Christian fundamentalists have succeeded in shutting down that film? Assuming there is such a thing as a tech-savvy Christian fundamentalist. Maybe that's a bad example. But you get the point.
If the studio has truly given up on the thought of releasing the film in theaters, I have a modest proposal: Sony should post the whole thing on YouTube right now. Why not? They've already lost any money they sank into producing the movie, and hackers have already damaged the company tremendously with their steady release of embarrassing Sony documents. What have they got to lose? More importantly, by posting the movie online, Sony will thwart the terrorists who sought to stop the film's release, all while allowing people to see the movie in the comfort and safety of their own homes. The film would find an exponentially greater audience than it could ever have found in the theaters. Hell, I might even watch it, if only out of spite.
C'mon, Sony: Korea subjected us to "Gangnam Style"; let's show these hackers that payback's a bitch.
In Sony's defense, I'm not sure they had much choice. Earlier in the week, the largest theater chains in the country had already announced their plans to pull the film. Still, what kind of precedent has been set? A few hardcore lunatics depriving the world of two hours of dick jokes from Seth Rogen and James Franco may not seem like that great a tragedy, but what happens when a controversial film with actual artistic merit becomes the target? If the internet had been around when "The Last Temptation of Christ" was released, would a band of tech-savvy Christian fundamentalists have succeeded in shutting down that film? Assuming there is such a thing as a tech-savvy Christian fundamentalist. Maybe that's a bad example. But you get the point.
If the studio has truly given up on the thought of releasing the film in theaters, I have a modest proposal: Sony should post the whole thing on YouTube right now. Why not? They've already lost any money they sank into producing the movie, and hackers have already damaged the company tremendously with their steady release of embarrassing Sony documents. What have they got to lose? More importantly, by posting the movie online, Sony will thwart the terrorists who sought to stop the film's release, all while allowing people to see the movie in the comfort and safety of their own homes. The film would find an exponentially greater audience than it could ever have found in the theaters. Hell, I might even watch it, if only out of spite.
C'mon, Sony: Korea subjected us to "Gangnam Style"; let's show these hackers that payback's a bitch.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Here's to Your Health: So Much for Bipartisanship
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear yet another challenge to the Affordable Care Act. I'm sure the fact the Supremes agreed to hear this case a mere three days after an election that will return the Senate to Republican control is the purest of coincidence. The fact that this time, if the justices rule against the ACA, there will be not the slightest shred of a chance that Congress will agree to tweak the legislation to conform to any judicial ruling has, I'm sure, nothing whatsoever to do with their decision to hear the case. That would indicate crass political calculation, well below the dignity of such an august body of judges.
Bastards.
In case you're interested, at issue as far as I can tell are the semantics of the word "state." A group of highly indignant folks has taken umbrage with the federal government for providing subsidies to people who cannot afford insurance, when those people live in states that have refused to set up state-run health insurance exchanges. The dispute revolves around language in the ACA that restricts federal subsidies to those participating in "an exchange established by the state." The IRS has issued regulations codifying the idea that people may receive subsidies for participating in a health insurance exchange whether that exchange is run by a state or by the federal government, which is running its own exchanges--for the admittedly nefarious purpose of providing health insurance to those whose state governors are only trying to protect them from. . . having health insurance.
One group of federal appeals judges have declared the language in the original legislation ambiguous, and have consequently ruled that the IRS made a reasonable interpretation in establishing its regulations. Another appeals court has "reluctantly" determined that the law as written does, in fact, forbid the federal government from providing subsidies. As a liberal, I want to agree with the former, but as a writer, I fear that the second court might actually be correct--or at least is not clearly wrong. And the larger point is that, while the ambiguity of the phrasing does, in fact, probably give the IRS the right to do what it did, I fear that this same ambiguity will provide the conservative majority on the Supreme Court the political cover it will need to achieve its presumed desire of destroying the Affordable Care Act. Not that the Court takes into account such crass political calculations.
What everyone should bear in mind is that this law has so far provided millions of people the ability to receive healthcare to which they previously had no access. Presumably, people are alive today--or at any rate healthier today--because of this legislation. And for all the talk of gloom and doom and apocalyptic rises in the cost of coverage, nobody seems to be suffering much as a result of the ACA. Make no mistake, this lawsuit is nothing but the latest mean-spirited attempt to gut a piece of legislation that has as its goal nothing more than to help people, largely out of spite and continued irrational hatred of the man who championed the legislation in the first place. I just hope the millions of people who lose their coverage if/when the Supreme Court and their Republican enablers have their way will remember this in the next election.
Of course, the GOP will find a way to blame Obama for that, too.
Bastards.
In case you're interested, at issue as far as I can tell are the semantics of the word "state." A group of highly indignant folks has taken umbrage with the federal government for providing subsidies to people who cannot afford insurance, when those people live in states that have refused to set up state-run health insurance exchanges. The dispute revolves around language in the ACA that restricts federal subsidies to those participating in "an exchange established by the state." The IRS has issued regulations codifying the idea that people may receive subsidies for participating in a health insurance exchange whether that exchange is run by a state or by the federal government, which is running its own exchanges--for the admittedly nefarious purpose of providing health insurance to those whose state governors are only trying to protect them from. . . having health insurance.
One group of federal appeals judges have declared the language in the original legislation ambiguous, and have consequently ruled that the IRS made a reasonable interpretation in establishing its regulations. Another appeals court has "reluctantly" determined that the law as written does, in fact, forbid the federal government from providing subsidies. As a liberal, I want to agree with the former, but as a writer, I fear that the second court might actually be correct--or at least is not clearly wrong. And the larger point is that, while the ambiguity of the phrasing does, in fact, probably give the IRS the right to do what it did, I fear that this same ambiguity will provide the conservative majority on the Supreme Court the political cover it will need to achieve its presumed desire of destroying the Affordable Care Act. Not that the Court takes into account such crass political calculations.
What everyone should bear in mind is that this law has so far provided millions of people the ability to receive healthcare to which they previously had no access. Presumably, people are alive today--or at any rate healthier today--because of this legislation. And for all the talk of gloom and doom and apocalyptic rises in the cost of coverage, nobody seems to be suffering much as a result of the ACA. Make no mistake, this lawsuit is nothing but the latest mean-spirited attempt to gut a piece of legislation that has as its goal nothing more than to help people, largely out of spite and continued irrational hatred of the man who championed the legislation in the first place. I just hope the millions of people who lose their coverage if/when the Supreme Court and their Republican enablers have their way will remember this in the next election.
Of course, the GOP will find a way to blame Obama for that, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)