Skills Not Pills!
(Yeah!)
Hugs Not Drugs!
(Right on!)
Shmedicine Not Medicine!
(All ri-- Huh?)
Um. . . . Dedication Not Medication?
(Oh. . . Yeah, that's actually pretty good.)
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Friday, June 15, 2012
Here's to Your Health (Continued)
Somehow, the debate over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has become a dispute about broccoli. During arguments before the Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia asked semi-rhetorically whether a broad interpretation of the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause, which Obamacare supporters rely on to defend Congress’s right to impose an individual mandate to purchase health insurance, could also be used to support legislation requiring all Americans to eat broccoli. Scalia’s reductio ad absurdum point is that, if Congress can require individuals to purchase health insurance, then in effect it could require virtually anything, including the individual consumption of broccoli.
Well, actually, Justice Scalia, I think the answer is, “Yes.” Yes, Congress COULD mandate the consumption--or, at least, the purchase--of broccoli. And what’s your point?
Look, I’m no lawyer, and I’m sure that a law stating explicitly that all Americans must purchase X number of pounds of broccoli per year would probably face all manner of scrutiny. It would probably be declared unconstitutional. But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done.
Suppose, for example, instead of the aforementioned mandate, Congress passed a tax measure--one that, say, offered people a tax credit for purchasing broccoli. People would simply hold on to their grocery store receipts and turn those in along with their tax returns. Similarly, Congress could impose a tax penalty for broccoli evasion. The tax code has always been used to influence behavior--note the ubiquity of taxes on tobacco products. In effect, people would have a free choice: Buy broccoli or incur a penalty; if people deemed the penalty less onerous than the purchase of broccoli, they would be free to pay the tax and be done with it. This, by the way, is essentially the choice that the Affordable Care Act offers.
Still, you might say that this is unfair. Why should people be forced either to purchase a product they don’t want (broccoli, health insurance) or to pay a penalty to support those who do want the product?
Well, that’s what a society IS.
People who don’t have children pay taxes to support public education for those who do. People who own cars pay taxes to support public transportation for those who don’t. And, yes, people who can afford health insurance on their own--or who feel they have no need for health insurance--pay taxes to support those who can’t. In this latter case, indeed, universal taxation makes even more sense: As much as someone feels he needs no government-supported healthcare, he cannot be sure. Someday, we ALL will need to see a doctor, and there’s no telling what our financial situation will be when this day comes: A government-supported system allows everyone a modicum of, ahem, insurance for a time of need.
Frankly, if people want to talk about unfair government mandates, let’s discuss the mandate that all Americans must buy homes. In case you’re unfamiliar with this mandate, it’s the part of the tax code that rewards homeowners with mortgage-interest deductions. As a lifelong renter, I’ve always considered that to be a tax penalty for not owning or being able to afford to buy a home. So how come nobody is up in arms about the unfair tax burden placed on me and others like me--a tax burden by which I subsidize homeowners (who are, as a group, probably financially better off than I am)? And unlike healthcare, I receive NO benefits from this subsidy I provide.
Do I digress? Maybe. On the whole, though, given the choices brought up in this essay, I’d rather see either Obamacare upheld or the mortgage interest deduction repealed--hell, if it’ll help, I’ll even buy broccoli.
Well, actually, Justice Scalia, I think the answer is, “Yes.” Yes, Congress COULD mandate the consumption--or, at least, the purchase--of broccoli. And what’s your point?
Look, I’m no lawyer, and I’m sure that a law stating explicitly that all Americans must purchase X number of pounds of broccoli per year would probably face all manner of scrutiny. It would probably be declared unconstitutional. But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be done.
Suppose, for example, instead of the aforementioned mandate, Congress passed a tax measure--one that, say, offered people a tax credit for purchasing broccoli. People would simply hold on to their grocery store receipts and turn those in along with their tax returns. Similarly, Congress could impose a tax penalty for broccoli evasion. The tax code has always been used to influence behavior--note the ubiquity of taxes on tobacco products. In effect, people would have a free choice: Buy broccoli or incur a penalty; if people deemed the penalty less onerous than the purchase of broccoli, they would be free to pay the tax and be done with it. This, by the way, is essentially the choice that the Affordable Care Act offers.
Still, you might say that this is unfair. Why should people be forced either to purchase a product they don’t want (broccoli, health insurance) or to pay a penalty to support those who do want the product?
Well, that’s what a society IS.
People who don’t have children pay taxes to support public education for those who do. People who own cars pay taxes to support public transportation for those who don’t. And, yes, people who can afford health insurance on their own--or who feel they have no need for health insurance--pay taxes to support those who can’t. In this latter case, indeed, universal taxation makes even more sense: As much as someone feels he needs no government-supported healthcare, he cannot be sure. Someday, we ALL will need to see a doctor, and there’s no telling what our financial situation will be when this day comes: A government-supported system allows everyone a modicum of, ahem, insurance for a time of need.
Frankly, if people want to talk about unfair government mandates, let’s discuss the mandate that all Americans must buy homes. In case you’re unfamiliar with this mandate, it’s the part of the tax code that rewards homeowners with mortgage-interest deductions. As a lifelong renter, I’ve always considered that to be a tax penalty for not owning or being able to afford to buy a home. So how come nobody is up in arms about the unfair tax burden placed on me and others like me--a tax burden by which I subsidize homeowners (who are, as a group, probably financially better off than I am)? And unlike healthcare, I receive NO benefits from this subsidy I provide.
Do I digress? Maybe. On the whole, though, given the choices brought up in this essay, I’d rather see either Obamacare upheld or the mortgage interest deduction repealed--hell, if it’ll help, I’ll even buy broccoli.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Russian to Judgment
Yesterday, it was reported that Russia had sent attack helicopters to Syria, in defiance of international condemnation of the brutal Assad government. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is indignant. Syrian civilians are being slaughtered and Russia--far from being a responsible world citizen--enables the regime, supplying it with powerful weapons, caring little if anything for fundamental human rights in its heartless, unconscionable worship of Mammom, selling high-tech attack helicopters how could they do this those bastards!!!!
Today, we find out that the Russians weren't exactly selling helicopters to the Syrians so much as they were performing maintenance on helicopters that had been sold several years ago. Confronted with this information, Secretary Clinton responded, "Well, you know, that's still bad. I mean, OK, maybe I exaggerated a little, but. . . .You know. . . ATTACK HELICOPTERS! It's not like we're talking about a previously-owned Hyundai,here! You can do a lot of damage with a used helicopter!"
As Gilda Radner might have said, Never mind.
********************************************************
In other news, the Catholic Church is waging aggressive legal battles in jursidictions across the country to defeat efforts to extend or eliminate the statute of limitations on child molestation cases. Church representatives feel it is unfair to penalize clergy who have successfully run out the clock on their susceptibility to prosecution for raping children (I might be paraphrasing). To think, if the Vatican and its flunkies had devoted half as much energy to preventing and punishing child molesters in their ranks as they have expended on attempts to thwart legislative responses to the issue, they wouldn't be in this situation in this first place.
Today, we find out that the Russians weren't exactly selling helicopters to the Syrians so much as they were performing maintenance on helicopters that had been sold several years ago. Confronted with this information, Secretary Clinton responded, "Well, you know, that's still bad. I mean, OK, maybe I exaggerated a little, but. . . .You know. . . ATTACK HELICOPTERS! It's not like we're talking about a previously-owned Hyundai,here! You can do a lot of damage with a used helicopter!"
As Gilda Radner might have said, Never mind.
********************************************************
In other news, the Catholic Church is waging aggressive legal battles in jursidictions across the country to defeat efforts to extend or eliminate the statute of limitations on child molestation cases. Church representatives feel it is unfair to penalize clergy who have successfully run out the clock on their susceptibility to prosecution for raping children (I might be paraphrasing). To think, if the Vatican and its flunkies had devoted half as much energy to preventing and punishing child molesters in their ranks as they have expended on attempts to thwart legislative responses to the issue, they wouldn't be in this situation in this first place.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Beat THIS with a Stick
"Pinata: Survival Island" (2002) follows a group of college students as they head to an island off the coast of I'm guessing Mexico for a weekend of alcohol-fueled debauchery. Unbeknownst to them, however, the island holds a horrifying secret: Long ago, the primitive inhabitants conducted a ritual to banish evil from their community. They accomplished this by sequestering "evil" in a specially designed, um, pinata:
No, no, no. An EVIL pinata:
(DIGRESSION: I know there should be a tilde over the 'n,' but I don't know how to do that--and besides, this movie doesn't deserve the tilde! EOD)
That's right: A pinata filled with evil! And you thought Milk Duds were bad!
Anyway, the pinata disappears into the island's muck only to resurface when our gang of revelers arrives. Blood-soaked mayhem ensues.
I'm making it sound a lot better than it actually is.
(DIGRESSION: Fun fact: The movie's original title is "Demon Island." I guess the producers felt that wasn't scary enough, so they renamed it, "Pinata: Survival Island." All that's missing is the exclamation point: "Pinata!" EOD)
As I watched this movie the other night, something started to bother me--mostly the fact that I was watching "Pinata." But something else as well. See, when I watch crappy horror movies, I don't expect great cinema. I don't expect to be frightened. I don't even necessarily expect to be entertained. But I DO expect gratuitous nudity. And this "film," with a cast of drunken, horny frat-boys and sorority sisters doesn't even deliver so much as a bit of sideboob! Was the director trying for a PG-13?!? To appeal to the kids?!?!? Or was something even more ludicrous going on?
DIRECTOR: Congratulations! I'm casting you in "Demon Island," which we may rename "Pinata: Survival Island."
BUXOM BLONDE: Yeah. . . Great. . . So, I suppose you'll be wanting me topless?
DIRECTOR: What?!? Absolutely not, young lady! I am making ART! This is a film about the eternal struggle between good and evil! A film about the primal contradictory yearnings to both eliminate and control the forces of chaos! A film about the existential crisis of modern youth, attempting to assert their independence while constantly struggling against the forces of parental repression! A film about. . . about. . . about. . .
BUXOM BLONDE: About a homicidal pinata?
DIRECTOR: Well, yes, that too.
Nation, I promise you now, that when I make my feature about an undead Slinky, there may not be a plot or a script or a talented cast--but by God there will be naked people!
No, no, no. An EVIL pinata:
(DIGRESSION: I know there should be a tilde over the 'n,' but I don't know how to do that--and besides, this movie doesn't deserve the tilde! EOD)
That's right: A pinata filled with evil! And you thought Milk Duds were bad!
Anyway, the pinata disappears into the island's muck only to resurface when our gang of revelers arrives. Blood-soaked mayhem ensues.
I'm making it sound a lot better than it actually is.
(DIGRESSION: Fun fact: The movie's original title is "Demon Island." I guess the producers felt that wasn't scary enough, so they renamed it, "Pinata: Survival Island." All that's missing is the exclamation point: "Pinata!" EOD)
As I watched this movie the other night, something started to bother me--mostly the fact that I was watching "Pinata." But something else as well. See, when I watch crappy horror movies, I don't expect great cinema. I don't expect to be frightened. I don't even necessarily expect to be entertained. But I DO expect gratuitous nudity. And this "film," with a cast of drunken, horny frat-boys and sorority sisters doesn't even deliver so much as a bit of sideboob! Was the director trying for a PG-13?!? To appeal to the kids?!?!? Or was something even more ludicrous going on?
DIRECTOR: Congratulations! I'm casting you in "Demon Island," which we may rename "Pinata: Survival Island."
BUXOM BLONDE: Yeah. . . Great. . . So, I suppose you'll be wanting me topless?
DIRECTOR: What?!? Absolutely not, young lady! I am making ART! This is a film about the eternal struggle between good and evil! A film about the primal contradictory yearnings to both eliminate and control the forces of chaos! A film about the existential crisis of modern youth, attempting to assert their independence while constantly struggling against the forces of parental repression! A film about. . . about. . . about. . .
BUXOM BLONDE: About a homicidal pinata?
DIRECTOR: Well, yes, that too.
Nation, I promise you now, that when I make my feature about an undead Slinky, there may not be a plot or a script or a talented cast--but by God there will be naked people!
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
At the Vet
Noticed this brochure:
Now, how do you suppose this cat feels being the spokesmodel for "Internal Parasites"? I would be on the phone to my agent immediately! "You promised me 'Lifelong Wellness,' and look what happened!"
Now, how do you suppose this cat feels being the spokesmodel for "Internal Parasites"? I would be on the phone to my agent immediately! "You promised me 'Lifelong Wellness,' and look what happened!"
Monday, June 11, 2012
Makes One Nostalgic for "Just Say No"
Mexican presidential candidates are advocating a new approach to the war on drugs. In an attempt to reduce the extreme levels of violence in their country, candidates have suggested that their policies will focus on reducing violence, rather than on arresting narcotraficantes and otherwise disrupting the criminal cartels that rule the drug trade.
Certainly understandable. If I were in their shoes, I, too, would make public safety my top priority. Nevertheless, I have concerns about one candidate, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, because he has too many names.
No, that's not it: I am concerned because of his campaign slogan, "Abrazos, no balazos." Sure, it sounds all nice and rhyme-y in Spanish, but the slogan translates to "Hugs, not bullets." Is the man running for president or head Carebear?
Certainly understandable. If I were in their shoes, I, too, would make public safety my top priority. Nevertheless, I have concerns about one candidate, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, because he has too many names.
No, that's not it: I am concerned because of his campaign slogan, "Abrazos, no balazos." Sure, it sounds all nice and rhyme-y in Spanish, but the slogan translates to "Hugs, not bullets." Is the man running for president or head Carebear?
Sunday, June 10, 2012
A Parable
Last night, I dreamed I was walking along the beach, and Jesus was walking alongside me. Suddenly, I looked back and saw only one set of footprints. It was then I realized that Jesus was carrying me. So I started screaming, "Put me down you maniac!!!!" Then I woke up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)