Scene Kid With A Katana

Topic #10: The Spark That Makes Life Interesting

I thought that for our 10th topic, we could go a bit off the beaten path and discuss something a little more philisophical, and a lot less interesting. This was basically a rant I had running through my head for a while, so I figured I'd write it out and see how it panned out. Afterwards, it seemed like it could be interesting for our little experiment here, so I'm posting it. Enjoi, Aerin, and hopefully you can find something to respond to in here.

See, I've been thinking. There's always been this fascination in my mind with the human condition, and our natural and immediate responses to any and every situation. Its always been a little pet of mine. See, if you take a thousand people, and you put them all through the same rigors, they'll all, for the most part, respond in the same general manner. Sure the actions conveying it could be different. A laugh instead of a smile. A frown instead of a tear. Accosting instead of insulting. But the general feeling and reaction is always there, and almost always identical.

And that's boring. Interacting with people on a level like that would be infinitely dull for someone like me. You know me, I like to play my games. I like to experiment and manipulate situations with complete strangers. A sociological experiment, if you will. But as I've described so far, that experiment has dreadfully boring results.

The thing that makes it interesting isn't the 999 in 1000 that all smile. They're useless. Its that less than 1% who surprise you. The frown instead of a smile. The laugh instead of a tear. They're what make everything worth it. If we all went about our daily rigors without any real difference to those around us, life would be a real drag, no?

But its those surprises. Those people who catch me off guard. The waitresses who actually give me more crap back than I give to them. The lady in the supermarket who smiles and curtsies when I tip my invisible hat and smile. They're the ones that make it interesting. Those completely unexpected retorts to my intangible witticisms.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? The key to it all. The only thing you can really count on.

The only real entertainment... the only real fun... is in the true, unscripted chaos. It's the moment the storm hits and you can feel the electricity in the air. Lightning is going to strike, but damned if you know where or when. You look for it, you scan the horizon. But its never right in the center of your vision. Always off in the periphery. Barely in sight, barely in reach. Those moments of real brilliance and uniqueness.

It's not the standard fare of people dressing and acting like complete ponces to emulate some sense of originality. It's not the kid in Hot Topic clothes in the mall. It's the kid walking on the side of Hebron Ave, at noon, dressed in Hot Topic clothes, carrying a katana. I saw this kid a few weeks ago, and it really put it all into perspective for me.

I don't know why he was carrying a katana. Don't know what he was going to do with it, or where he was headed. All I know is that this 16 - 18 year old blond male was walking down Hebron Ave at lunch time with a large Japanese sword in hand. It was a beautifully surreal moment.

And that's what I think this is all about. Every breath just killing time until the next waitress unexpectedly gives me crap. Every little fake persona and white lie to coerce another smile when someone should be frowning. Every day trying to pull the strings and coerce into existence another scene kid with a katana.

I would have let you, it if you had just asked first

Topic #9: Immigration and the US of A

Immigration is a tricky subject, and quite controversial. I know this because whenever they mention it on local and national talk radio programs, they’re always kind enough to preface it with “Immigration is a tricky subject, and quite controversial.”

It’s difficult to discuss an issue so massive that affects so many people without using a term that I personally coined that goes a little something like this: “Moral Blackmail”. Any time a subject comes up that affects people in any way shape or form, if you spend enough time, you can find someone who makes the whole issue, no matter how apparently simple and clear-cut, seem the complete wrong way ‘round. 

Take prescription medication, for example. Every year billions of dollars are spent in research and development for medication that is being developed for the simple purpose of putting on the open market for people to purchase, ingest, and relieve whatever ails them. Even a drug that only affects one in a million people, still affected that one person. And if you put them up on the podium to tell their horrifying story of how they were just trying to live a healthy life, and how those bloodsucking prescription drug companies gave them a drug that gave them heart failure and anal leakage, suddenly any logic or reason goes out the window. “How can you tell this little boy that what happened to him was ok?” they’ll ask you. And you won’t have an answer, because if you do, people with hearts so bleeding they wear only red will beat you with rhetoric and sticks.

What does this have to do with immigration, you ask? Hold your damn horses, I’m getting to that.

It’s so easy for anyone that’s pro-immigration to make a few short documentaries about a family that snuck across the border from Mexico to try and make a better life for their family, subsisting on nothing but Wal-Mart food and good intentions. But the fact of the matter is that they’re cheating, they’re not following the rules, and in America (pronounced A-merh-i-cah) we frown upon that.

We have a system in place for people to immigrate legally into this country, become American citizens, and live a lifestyle in harmony with their work-ethic and abilities. Thousands of people every year come into this country legally and, through the proper channels, enter the workforce and actually live that American dream we all hear about in video-picture films.

I know it’s not a fun idea to think about the people whose lives would be changed negatively by their illegal immigration being punished, but that was a risk that they took when they crossed the border illegally. If I rob a convenience store, whether I use the money to buy drugs, or to feed my starving family, I’ve still robbed a convenience store. It’s not the intentions that matter, but the act itself.

Illegal immigration is making it easier for corporations and private business owners alike to hire workers below fair-market wages. Now I’m about as “pro” minimum wage as I am pro-eating my own foot, but in a situation like this, allowing outside laborers to come into the country illegally, and work off the books for under fair-market wages is anti-capitalism. It hurts supply and demand, and that hurts everyone.

Sure they’re taking jobs that most Americans don’t actually want, but that’s irrelevant. Imagine there was no illegal labor. And imagine that Americans still didn’t want those jobs. Either those employers would have to offer better wages for those jobs, making them more attractive to potential employees, or they’d have to go out of business. Guess which they’d probably choose. That’s how an economy works, jobs that are unattractive and pay poorly don’t get staffed until they’re more attractive, or until they pay better.

Yes, we’re all immigrants to some degree, for the most part. And yes there are some illegals that are making important contributions to society in some way or another. But, again, that’s not the issue. The issue is they’re violating the law. We’re not asking them to say The Pledge every day at dinner, and we’re not asking them strap American flags to their porches. America (pronounced Awesome-Land) is like any other kick-ass club, you don’t need to become a clone of every other member, just pay your monthly dues, follow the rules, and sign the guestbook when you get in.

Pertenezco aquí.

Topic 9: Immigration and the US of A. 

Recently I rented the second season of Morgan Spurlock's "30 Days." Subtle biases aside, the show does a pretty good job of showing both sides of an issue and letting you make up your own mind about what the lesson to learn was in each episode. The first season was better than the second, in my opinion, but I digress.

Episode 1 of the season was about Immigration. Morgan had a minute man (Frank) that volunteered on weekends to watch for Mexicans trying to cross the border illegally go to stay with an immigrant family in California. It was a family of eight in a one or two bedroom apartment, and Frank  made nine. The father did repair work for peanuts around the nearby apartment complex, the mother returned bottles once a week and kept the house, and the kids mostly went to school. The eldest daughter was trying to get into Princeton or some other prestigious school.  

The daughter butted heads with Frank many times. She'd say, "don't we deserve the same life that you do?" and "don't you see the potential in the eyes of the people trying to cross the border?" And Frank would respond with an overly patriotic "I have to protect my country, it's my duty."

I feel like Frank is the wrong man for the job. This isn't a protection issue. The Mexicans are just trying to escape severe poverty, they're not trying to murder us and take our women and children. It's a law issue. 

The daughter is naive. It's like you said, Andy, the guy who's selling coke at Harvard has potential--he's at Harvard--but he's still selling coke. He's still breaking the law. 

The episode did let me see that kind of conditions some of these immigrants are living in. The reasoning is there, I see it and I understand. But just because I really want to run through the streets naked singing some hit pop song doesn't mean it's not illegal. And just because I was lying about that last part doesn't mean it's not running through your head right now. Ha-HA!

My view is that someone should start a program to help the mexicans that feel the need to immigrate here because they live in filth. We should also grant amnesty to those that have been here more than a certain number of years and their direct blood relations, but they should have to take classes and pay dues to become an american citizen. And those that have been here some # of years and less should have to return to their home area, and apply to be an American like anyone else would have to. Or something. It's hard not to do something like that on a case by case basis, but I guess the number is so large that it's hard to do it that way as well. 

I'm sure you'll have something 30 times more intelligent to say, Andrew. Have at it!

Reality Bites: So let's lose ourselves in other's misfortune!

Yay!!

I actually enjoy watching America's Got Talent. I'll admit it. I even subject myself to American Idol every now and then when eating dinner with my parents. But it's not the sappy stories, it's not the losers who're delusional enough to think they're good, and it's certainly not David effing Hasselhoff. It's the music, the dancing, the weird things that people can do. The entertainment. I feel like I would have fit right in around the Vaudeville era.

Yes, the stories are sappy. Some even hard to believe. But you can bet your ass that those cheesy Grammy-Was-A-Crack-Whore tales are the ones that keep people watching and coming back for more. They can relate to these people. "You're father worked in a coal mine and danced at Gay! Gay! Gay! on the weekends? No way! I too had some sort of hard life! That makes me completely interested in watching you sing, allbeit off key." These producers know how to appeal to the average-joe-pathetic.

It seems like the whole point of the reality show is to give us a voyeristic view into 'normal' people's lives with 'huge' problems so that we'll all feel better about the world around us. "Oh. I guess we don't have it so bad. Everything's coming up roses over here compared to that guy."
Don't misread this: I do not, repeat, DO NOT like reality television. Survivor, The Bachelor Big Brother, whatever... it's all mind numbing. There are some shows that border reality television and something else entirely, though that make my ears perk up, but for the most part I prefer a movie or some Heroes.

Remember Double Dare? That was some quality 'reality' television.

I'm not even sure if any of this approached your subject.

I should mention before I go, though, that the new series "Wipe Out" is pretty hilarious most of the time. Check it, son.

Having A Crappy Life For Fun And Profit

Topic 8: Reality TV, and how it's made losers famous, and made famous losers.

I’ve got an idea for a reality show. It’s called “The Most Pathetic Person In America”, and I think it’ll be a huge hit, if only you, my loyal readers, will give me a bit of backing, and some unsolicited feedback.

The idea came to me when I was watching America’s Got Talent recently, and noticed that each contestant that comes on there has just the most depressing back-stories known to man. There’s never anyone auditioning for a singing gig on that show that came from Greenwich, CT, and gained his amazing talent through years of very extensive and expensive voice lessons. I’m pretty sure anyone with any shred of privilege or success outside of their talent is left on the cutting room floor, and is forced to return to their lives of better-than-mediocrity.

People with any kind of happy life are not allowed on reality television (unless, of course, we, the viewers, are supposed to hate them). Contestants on America’s Got Talent are given time to tell their stories, and I swear to you that I’m probably making this up when I relay one of their stories to you. (While I am making it up, I am not exaggerating)

“When I was growing up, my mother used to take me to work with her; she couldn’t afford a babysitter or daycare. Back then, she worked 9 jobs. And even working 40 hours a day, her combined income was still well below minimum wage. While she was working as a janitor at a waste treatment facility, I used to sit in the car with the radio on, listening to the music of the time. Due to a radiation leak in our apartment building (we shared a studio with three other families) I was basically deaf. But during those 40 hours each day, sitting in the car, I taught myself to hear, to speak, and to sing. At the age of 12, I had gotten a job working as an MC and a Sinatra impersonator at a local crack house, and the tips I raised went to paying for mom’s chemotherapy. It was a year later that she died, and on her death-bed she told me…”

And that was the least depressing story of the episode. Reality TV seems to be shifting from its original purpose, giving away fabulous cash prizes in exchange for eating bull testicles, to allowing the mass media to capitalize on the depressing pasts of everyone in America, while also allowing us, the unwashed masses, to sit back in our wingback chairs and talk amongst ourselves as to which charity case looks more like a whore.

Anyways, I digress. It was all of the above that gave me the idea for “The Most Pathetic Person In America”. Every week, contestants show up, tell their horrendously depressing back-stories, and we, the privileged, phone or text our votes in as to who we think is The Most Pathetic Person In America. Here’s a sample story… the one I’d use.

“My papa was a great old man; I can see him with a shovel in his hands. See, education he never had, but he did wonders when the times got bad. The little money from the crops he raised barely paid the bills we made. Life had kicked him down to the ground. When he tried to get up life would kick him back down. One day Papa called me to his dyin' bed, put his hands on my shoulders and in his tears he said, ‘Patches, I'm dependin' on you, son, to pull the family through. My son, it's all left up to you.’”

Topic 7: Just because one cat is an ice queen doesn't mean everyone's dog is a frat boy.

Ohhh Andrew. What have you gotten yourself into.

I suppose I should preface this by saying there really aren't any domestic animals that instantly come to my mind that I don't like. Yeah, they're all pretty cool by me. Except maybe Ferrets. I hear they smell... a lot. I should also mention that I, too, am a cat owner. Not because I prefer them per se, but because I got her when I still lived with my parents and our back yard is basically the pool, which leaves no place for an animal that needs to run around.

My title speaks of the importance of shopping for a pet. Yes, just like shopping for clothing. Or even men (ladies, you get me). You have to shop around. Try things on and meet new people. You're not going to take home the first dress/man/cat you see... unless you're a slut. And yes that somehow magically applies to all three situations. More to the world of pets, though, you go to a couple shelters to look for an animal. You meet them, then come back to play with them. Make sure you'll get along. Make sure it'll get along with your other animals if you have any. Make sure it's the right pet for you. And also like men, if it's mange, snaggle-toothed and hissing, you're less likely to take it home. Heh.

To your point, Andy, yes. Dogs do require more care. They do get overly excited, they do not have the 'litter box' option, and smell a bit worse. But this is why dog owners teach their dog not to jump. They get a pooper scooper. They wash the animals so they don't smell like ass, but instead, baby powder fresh. And the other arguments just don't work because *gasp* you have to buy cats food too. You have to pick up their poop, though theirs is usually in one place and you can leave it for a few days before picking it all up (though you shouldn't). And if you have a cat like I do, she begs AND needs lots of attention. She also chewed and scratched furniture as well as slept on my bed when I would allow it (she purrs too much).

The man's best friend bit, well, I have no argument for. I have no idea (nor do I care) where the phrase came from. Probably some lonely sap who couldn't get laid but his dog would snuggle up to him on cold winter nights. A cute thought, but hardly a best friend. Even though dogs (and even cats... mine does anyway) have instincts that can tell when you're upset and will come sit with you. Even though they're great listeners (even if you do have to scratch them behind their ears to get them to stay for more than 10 minutes). Even if they've been known to save the lives of their owners because of that neediness, that loyalty.... I still don't see the 'best friend' bit. Or do I? The world may never know.

So to wrap my little soap box monologue, it's all about the individual pet. I guarantee if I shopped around enough, I could find you a dog that you didn't mind. I realize you'd probably never truly like it, but you'd at least be able to deal with it and maybe even be tempted to pat it every now and then. Or take it for a walk. Just like your cat is almost the polar opposite of my cat, there are dogs that can be the polar opposite of what you describe. Yes they're rare, but they DO exist.

Plus, I really want a puppy some day...

A rarely discussed topic comes to it's conclusion

Topic 7: Cats rule, dogs drool

On a lighter note, or at least considerably lighter than some of our poli-sci, John Locke vs. Ken Kesey topics, I want to explain to all of you out there in TV land why I have chosen a path more akin to inner calm, rather than the more masculine way-of-the-spaz. To rephrase, here’s why I prefer cats to dogs.

Firstly, I’d like to address the fallacy that the Canis lupus familiaris, rather than, say, coffee, women, $krilla, or some kind of woman made of coffee and $krilla, is man’s “best friend”. In short, if I had a friend who made me buy him food, slept on my bed, chewed my things incessantly, didn’t contribute anything to monthly household expenses, and crapped on my lawn, I would be hard pressed to call him my “best” friend. Come to think of it, I pity anyone who reads this and finds a lot of similarities between my exaggerated explanation of the canine society and their best pal.

These acts of sleeping, lounging, begging and pooping are more akin to frat boys and vagabonds than what I would imagine my birth-to-earth bosom buddy. At least with cats there’s no surprise. They don’t really care for you, and have no intention of doing anything they don’t want to. But you expect that from a cat, and from the moment they finally shed all shreds of adorability and verge from kitten to fully fledged feline, they make their disdain for you abundantly clear. You’re more of their life-support than their life partner, but, again, you knew that from the start. Don’t give me a turn and call it a caramel. And don’t give me a hyperactive lay-about and call him my best friend.

On a related note, I’d like to address the relative neediness of the Canis lupus familiaris to the Felis catus. A dog requires walking, petting, poop-scooping (how many “best friends” make you join them in the bathroom as they do their business and leave you to flush it down?) petting, fetching, petting, quieting down, and petting. It’s similar to a child; a child that will never support you during your golden years. A cat, however, requires much less. A cat asks little more of you than to give it a box to pee in, and to get the hell out of its sight. The cat is more like an emotional and angstful teenager with far too much eye makeup, interacting with you only for basic amenities and reminding you to knock before you barge into his room.

So, to wrap it up, let me break it down for you old school, dogs = needy, overly excited, drunken frat boys. Cats = Robert Smith. The choice is simple, really, and if you’re lucky, your feline feller might just write the next “Boys Don’t Cry”, or at the very least “Lovecats"

Topic 6 cont. : Zealots galore!

I hear what you're saying Andy. Zealots are everywhere. The most current and in-the-public-eye being the followers of the presidential candidates. The Obama fans are just as scary as the Hilary fans. It's weird when presidentail candidates can be met with the Beatles phenomena (screaming masses, crying, zealotry. Ooo is that a word?) Strange that the republican candidates don't quite have those followings. Are the republican voters less caring of their candidate or just more level headed? We may never know.

While I don't have that much to say on the Obama-mania side of things, this did bring up an issue I have with zealots of the religious variety.

I know there are zealots of all creeds, but it's hard to deny that the vast majority of weirdos come from the Christian sector of religion. It used to just be evangelicals that turned heads and spouted strange jesu-mania words in awkward moments.

Grocery Clerk: Sir, I'm sorry, we're out of haddock today.
Guy out back: We just got a shipment in 10 minutes ago.
Evangelical: Praise Jesus and Lord Hallelujah!

More recently I've found, however, that a good lot of the christian religions are going the way of the evangelicals. Thanking Jesus for this and praising God for that in every day life. Spouting prophetic wisdom on non-believers to 'save' them from hell and whatnot. Boy are they gonna look like assholes if they're wrong.

I guess my point is, there's a time and a place for everything. While I'm sure you won't bother anyone saying grace in a McDonalds, and "God Bless"ing someone when they sneeze has become common place, it does become a nuisance when you insist on teaching creationism in science classes, or insist, even worse, that Intelligent Design be taught, but become offended by evolution or other religious earth-developing theories. It does become an issue when there is a law as SIMPLE as separation of church and state that even the potential presidential candidates can't seem to follow through with.

I should also make the point that, despite how hard you try and how convincing your arguments may seem, there is no way you will change their mind. Anyone. People don't change religions because of the words of another. It takes a lot more than that.

There are many religions. Many choices. Every person has just as much a right to choose and believe what they see fit as the next person does. Remember that, respect those around you, respect the freakin Constitution of the United States of America, and maybe even read it over one more time (or for the first time). It won't hurt one bit, and you might learn something.

When Good Cults Go Bad

Topic 6: Barackattacks, Obamamania, and plain old overzealous freaks

If you want to lose friends while simultaneously coming off like a world-class boob, the easiest way to do this, at least in these United States, is to walk into certain American households and say something even mildly disparaging about the Kennedy’s. Just make one comment about JFK being an overrated president, or claim he’s only as well remembered because he pulled a Jim Morrison and kicked the bucket before he had time to suck, and out the door you go. But there’s a loophole to making anti-Kennedy comments, although that loophole is quickly tightening up.

Barack Obama has on several occasions been compared to John F Kennedy, along with often being called “this generation’s JFK,” “JFK 2.0,” and “Black F Kennedy”. And the cult of personality around him is growing to that of JFK and Jim Morrison standards. Women faint and men well up at his rally’s, people flood the streets just to get the chance to see him, to prove to themselves that he is indeed flesh and blood, not some bronzed god from above to save us from the Republicans and Hillary. Even the animals get restless and break free from their pens when a Barackattack is looming on the horizon.

And with a candidate like Barack Obama who has created this cult of personality for himself, you get followers and zealots who will act like they’re…well…in a cult. Not just the crying and fainting and soiling themselves with delight you get with most Americans upon the arrival of Barack Obama in their time zone, but an instant and thoroughly disturbing desire to defend him like he was the second coming. In the few conversations I’ve attempted to have with Obama supporters (and believe you me, I’ve avoided them as much as humanly possible), I’ve been called a racist and a bigot, a supporter of blood for oil, and an ignorant boob (in so many words) who is afraid of change, all within the first 3 minutes of the conversation. The only candidate (if we can call him that) with more fanatical supporters might be Ron Paul, although I think most of them have returned to the cave dwellings to draw the Statue of Liberty and recite John Locke.

Before ending this, there’s one personal experience of mine I want to impart upon all the unwashed masses. I went to one of Barack Obama’s rallies in Hartford, CT, and left feeling quite impressed. Sure, I was impressed by Ted Kennedy’s ability to disgust and irritate me within seconds of his approaching the podium, but I was even more taken aback by Obama’s ability to speak at great lengths about change and reform without really giving any discernable ideas as to how any change or reform would come about.

“Yes, Mr. Obama, health care is in a situation where it could use a little change, and yes, war is bad, and of course, restoring America’s reputation in the international community is a worthwhile endeavor, but how, exactly, do you intend on accomplishing any of that? Please give your answer in as much detail as possible, show your work, and for god’s sake stop trying to inspire me.”

VDay... nothing to do with your hatchet wound.

We've all heard some sour puss exclaim "Valentines Day is a corporate holiday! Don't support the greeting card companies! I'm obviously single and not getting laid so you all must be miserable with me!"

People need to stop thinking of valentines day as anything but a day to be with the people you love. And others will chime in with "Why can't we do that every day? Why does it have to be Valentines Day?" To which I reply, because you touch yourself at night.

But seriously. That retort doesn't work because the fact of the matter is a very small portion of people do nice things for their loved ones with any regularity. Think of what would happen if Vday was taken off the books. Men would have more money in their pockets come February 15th. Women would sulk because their boyfriends are never romantic. The chocolate, flower and paper industries would suffer. THE HORROR.

You know, being the cynic that I am, you'd think I was anti-Vday like the previously mentioned virgin jerkoffs. But actually, I'm all for it. For the reasons mentioned above. Everyone needs lovin', and Valentines Day is a way to make sure the people who love you won't forget to give said lovin'. Plus, who DOESN'T like chocolate, candy, flowers, jewelry, whatever, PLUS sappy words in a card every now and then?? No one, that's who.

I apologize for the shortness of this entry, but that's really all I have to say. Way to pick a lame topic Andy! Try again.

I do propose, however, that you and I (Andrew) celebrate between Februarly 17th and the 20th, for this simple reason: Shit's on sale. Saaaale. I can't tell you how much delicious candy and how many nice cards we could get for insanely low prices after Vday. Plus, our anniversary is on the 20th anyway, so why not just make it a three day chocolate binge. Deal? Deal.

Happy Love Day Everyone!

Topic 5: Valentines Day, Romantic Evening, or Corporate Scheming?

We've all heard it once or twice before, the idea that Valentines Day was created by the greeting card companies to sell us carboard boxes filled with almost-cardboard candies. When I first heard that idea, I just shrugged it off with the assumtion that whomever said it was a little valentine-less this year. But what with these new anti-holiday fads that seem to be cropping up, like the war on Christmas and whatnot, I thought it deserved a little more thought.

First off, a quick read through the history of Valentines Day seems to negate any real theories that the holiday came into fashion, or even just the card-exchanging aspect of it, for the sole purpose of profit padding. It seems that the idea of a St Valentines Day being associated with love actually originated as far back as Chaucer. And add the fact that jewelry didn't really become associated with the holiday until the diamond industry started suggesting the idea as a gift in the mid 1980's, well that seems, at least to me, to further negate the idea of a corporate-birthed holiday.

But this isn't about history. And while one can argue the true reasons and inception of the original card-exchanging tradition, it's much harder to argue against the notion of a greeting card company putting the pressure on men and women with too much gift-related doubt and too much green in their wallets. People say it's strange, or unfair, or even wrong, for couples to be expecting gifts from one another; that it's immoral for a company to suggest that one certain gift will make your mate love you more, while not purchasing it might just put the kaibosh on your chances at scoring on the holiest of February's holy days. Personally, I can't think of many things less worth getting worked up about.

I honestly just don't see how people can get worked up and upset at the idea of a day where common practice is to spend time with someone you love and exchanging cards, pleasantries, gifts, and bodily fluids. I'm all for it, I think we need more holidays where I buy crap for my special lady, wax mushy over my ramshackle attempt at panang curry, and expect sweet sweet lovin before one of us zonks out from too much bubbly. Once a month, we should all exchange gifts, go out to dinner, and score. Think of how much happier your life might go, knowing that every month you had at minimum one solid shot at a romantic evening.

And as a side bonus, we wouldn't have to deal with crappy movie trailers where women with three names ending in “Parker” say things like “I'm not going to spend another Valentines day alone” while that Natalie Imbruglia song plays in the background.

"I'm great, but everyone else is screwed"

Sicko.

I haven’t seen. I have no desire to see it. I have no need to see it. I honestly don’t think you have enough money to entice me to sit through it without attempting suicide by artificial butter flavoring. One of the nice things about being an American, and likewise being a pompous ass, is that I can make full judgment on something I have very little first hand knowledge of. I know Michael Moore’s penchant for posing his movies as documentaries while including about as many facts as the latest installment of the Harry Potter series (England is real, owls are real, but after that, all bets are off.)

But what Moore has done well is bringing into the light a glaring problem in American society that has gone far too long unnoticed. Wait, scratch that, we’re talking about health care problems.

Healthcare seems to be the hottest of the hot-button issues this election season now that the terrorists have all gotten jobs as fry-cooks at Arby’s or whatever it is they’re doing these days. Apparently there are big problems with health care these days, and some 50 people show up to emergency rooms every hour with AIDS-embossed spears stuck in their kidneys and are stuck waiting an average of 6 hours before entering triage. Sounds like one dilly of a pickle to me.

Let’s try to skirt around the sensationalism and look at the facts.

According to The Health Care In America survey (found here) taken by ABC News/Kaiser Family Foundation/USA Today, “Most Americans are not satisfied with the nation’s health care system.” Startling news, to say the least. The survey found that 80% of Americans are dissatisfied with the cost of health care, along with 54% being disappointed with the quality of care. Also startling. Americans dissatisfied with thing they receive? Unheard of!

But if we look deeper, we see a discrepancy that shines some interesting light on the issue. The Health Care In America survey also found that 88% of those same Americans were satisfied with the cost and coverage of their personal insurance, along with 89% being quite satisfied with the quality of care they received through said insurance.

Par-don? You read right, America. Americans are frustrated with the quality of care in America, and quite upset with the cost of insurance, but when asked about the insurance they personally have, and they quality they’ve received, they’re peachy keen. Americans are very concerned and worried about a system that they feel is treating them just fine.

Continuing with the idea of unaffordable health care, according to the aforementioned survey, one specific group of people reported over 40% having trouble paying medical bills. Wonder which group it was? Americans with income less than $35,000. I don’t know about you, but I’m frankly astonished that people who don’t make very much money would have trouble paying for things which are notoriously expensive. The group with the second most trouble paying for medical bills? College students and those just out of college. Also not very surprising. What was quite surprising, at least I felt, was that only 12% of Americans over the age of 65 reported having difficult paying medical bills. With all that I’ve heard about grandma living on the streets out in the cold and not being able to get the care she so desperately needs, either the sensationalism surrounding these claims is worse than I thought, or grandma is just too proud to tell the Kaiser Family Foundation that she can’t afford Zoloft.

With all this talk, one wonders what the solution to our health care problems might be. And before you can even ask the question you’ll find a democratic campaigner diving through your window to tell you of the wonderous thing called “Universal Health Care” in that magical land just above us that we sometimes call Canada.

You pay your taxes, government jumps in and takes the reins, everyone gets healthy, and Mexicans, Blacks, Asians and Whites alike stand outside a hospital in their Sunday clothes posing and looking chipper for a photo-op. Sounds like heaven, right? Actually, it sounds like a badly written episode of Grey’s Anatomy to me, but that’s beside the point.

Even if we ignore all the real reasons Universal Health Care would be a colossal failure (long lines, waiting lists, lower quality of care, less incentive for doctors to be innovative, less incentive for citizens to become doctors, lower pay, fewer medical discoveries, fewer new techniques and medications, my mother’s job at Aetna becoming redundant) we can see that a good chunk of Americans don’t even want Universal Health Care once it actually starts to cost them something.

If we look at the same survey we’ve been talking from this entire time, 65% of Americans who originally gave their support for a Universal Health Care system, would no longer support it if it meant they would have to pay higher premiums or higher taxes. 67% would beg for their HMO’s back if Universal Health Care meant there would be waiting lists for non-emergency treatments, 72% if it would limit their choice of doctors. And an astonishing 82% would go running to Aetna for a PPO if Universal Health Care meant that some treatments that are currently covered in their insurance would no longer be covered under a Universal Health Care system.

Yup, that’s right. Universal Health Care is the greatest idea in the world and should be implemented immediately…as long as I don’t have to sacrifice anything for it. So much for the party that speaks for the unspoken voices.

Alright, I know this didn’t really cover all the talking points in what you wrote, Aerin. But I think I hit on some of the topics that you mentioned, and did my best to keep my Moore-bashing to the first section.

I like to think it's just got a touch of the flu.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56621

Sicko.

Moore skewed his data. He always does. It's how he makes his point so pungant. It's probably what helps him win awards. This time around, he claims there are "nearly 50 million" uninsured Americans. Other research says it's more like 43 to 44 million. A small chunk of that number can afford it and simply choose not to have it. The "it'll never happen to me" motto. A chunk includes the illegal immigrants. A smaller chunk includes criminals.

While Moore tends to over do things and get behind a cause, likely without sitting down to *really* think about what it means, I'm glad he made Sicko. A lot of his information isn't factual. Some of it is. The most important parts are. The parts where American citizens who are in trouble with their health can't afford treatments necessary to live a bareable life. Or the part where someone (like me, who is two years out of college and couldn't find a job in her home town area) can't afford to pay for health care. (And come to find out, even if I had applied for unemployment benefits, I would have gotten around $80 a week. Not enough. Good thing my parents are my land lords.) That kind of stuff raises some issues.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do not think that Universal Health Care is the answer. Not by any means. The waiting lists, the lower incentive for doctors, the chalk-full emergency rooms.
I do, however, think we need to take another route than the one we're on. I think America could come up with something uniquely us. What works for other countries will not work for our country. We're a completely different animal. That's like saying whatever tools used to treat an elephant with a tumor will work on a field mouse. Not gonna happen.

Maybe we could create a low-priced basic "this is what's covered" health care plan that every company must carry. This way even lower income citizens could afford it, and they would all be completely informed about what was and wasn't covered.

Maybe we could make it illegal for persons under a certain income level not to have health insurance. Just like it's illegal to drive an uninsured car. Make it illegal to not take the health insurance your work place offers if they offer insurance.

Finally, I want to touch on something else Mr. Elder mentioned. Criminals and illegal aliens getting health care.

Criminals: I think they should. If they're not slated for the death penalty, there's no reason we should drive them that way. There are plenty of ways to die in jail that have little to do with becoming ill. I do, however, think that the health care plan they're offered should be specific about what it covers, and it shouldn't cater to a criminals every sniffle.

Aliens: They don't need health care, they have UFO's 'n' shit! Wait...what? Oh, right. I think that unless it is an emergency and there is no time to go back to your own country for care and/or gain citizenship in this country, illegals should not be covered. While I'm a firm believer that the loss of a human life is a sad thing, no matter who lived it, I'd prefer the care we work hard to provide go to the legal citizens of our country. If it's a life or death situation, by all means, treat the person. Charge them the insane emergency room fees. But otherwise, if they choose to be here illegally, they should have to fend for themselves.

I think that's all I had. I may re-read this and edit parts of it. You can't stop me, you're not my real Dad!!

Uh... annnywho. Andy, here's your task. Reply to this while doing your best to keep your hatred for Michael Moore at bay. Try to stick to responding to the article and what I wrote. :)
<3