Health Care Bill Passes!

"For over two decades he's (John McCain) subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the ownership society, but what it really means is you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own. Well, it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America."

Barack Obama - Acceptance Speech, 2008 Democratic National Convention, Denver, CO

"This is what change looks like." - President Barack Obama 3/21/10

On the day after the US Congress passed the final bill for its version of universal health care to Barack Obama for signing, I have these thoughts.

I have been following the bill's progress from South Korea, a world away. It is an historic moment. So many presidents and Congress' tried, and so many presidents and Congress' failed. All the skepticism, for so many years, the politics, the lack of progress, we now have something. It's not a perfect health care bill, it's not going to offer universal coverage, but it's a step in the right direction. It's government fulfilling it's first and foremost duty: to protect its people.

It may seem that I'm looking backwards, or hashing past moments, but for some reason I have to comment on the political gridlock that shook Washington during the evolution of this legislation. Actually, maybe I'm too critical of myself, it is still worthwhile to perhaps question the powers and processes in Washington that delayed this encompassing health care that so many countries have guaranteed for decades.

So many people domestically and abroad are skeptical of the U.S. government today. The skepticism has turned to apathy as so many seem uninformed of our countries pressing issues like health care, the environment, education, and the economy. Yes, actually, when it comes to the economy, people once apathetic all of a sudden lurch out of the woodwork and shout their two cents or more of criticism about how government's failed them, how government spends too much money, or how government is trying to ruin their lives, seriously.

Yes, some freaks out there like to claim Obama's a socialist trying to take away free markets, and free choice, and free love, and many other freedoms that I just don't feel are in danger for some reason. But these birthing/tea partying/probably tea bagging freaks reveal to us a value that's been in inherent in our people since before our independence; that stone cold, rugged individualism.

Yes, the New World, America offered the English and loads of other Europeans that chance to practice the religion they wanted, the freedom to start afresh in new modes of worship, and the freedom to cast out those who didn't agree. Yes in America one could own his own land, no longer forced to work the fields of nobles and landlords. One could attain limitless private property and no one could take it away.

It is this tenet of private property that has withstood the test of time in our democracy like no other. It's the issue of private property that forced a wedge betweeen our people since our country's infancy, a wedge that divided our nation into different and distinct political factions, that became political parties, that George Washington on his deathbed said could ruin our country if they were established.

Ruin our country political parties did not, but the opposing ideologies over the ideals of private property divide us today. Should the individual be allowed control over all private property that he has accumulated to do with as he pleases, or should government regulate the accumulation of property to redistribute and disburse for the common good? Zoom ahead 220 years and the same ideological grappling over private property consumes US society today. It needs to be looked at in its most basic form and brought to light. Health care insurance provides the arena.

Universal health care insurance, the guarantee, or at least in our case the effort to guarantee health care insurance to as many citizens as possible is our pressing issue. It's a human right, or a civil right, as some would argue, that everyone deserves access to adequate medical care. Everyone should be treated if they are ill or injured and in need.

Or, maybe health care insurance is not a right, it's a privilege to be earned. If an individual or family lacks the means to it, then it's their own misfortune and Godspeed to them.

What is it America? Let's get down to it, what do we believe, what do we value? Let's take a long hard look, cause we don't do it enough. I know I am right that all people want the best for themselves and their families when it comes to protection, health, comfort, opportunity. We do our best to provide for ourselves and our dependent families until they can provide for themselves. Alas, consequently, when individuals yearn to go above and beyond, or in some cases behind a back, or use underhanded tricks, to accumulate more property than necessary for sustenance, the means to provide for oneself or his dependents are not available for everyone.

So not because of a lack of desire or lack of hard work, but from external and far removed circumstances, some are unable to provide for themselves and family the resources and means for adequate health care insurance. So what happens then, America?

The rugged indiviualist point of view that has evolved to modern conservatism would claim that those who cannot provide health care insurance for themselves are just out of luck. It is unfortunate, but they will have to suffer, or die if that's what's inevitable. It is this view that many in America hold. This your view John Boehner, Eric Cantor, John McCain, or any other conservative who's opposed to national health care of some form. This is your view, Americans, who opposed expanded health insurance legislation. If someone is sick or has sick children, but has no health insurance, then too bad for them. Let them suffer. I have my private property, it can't be taken away from me, it's your fault if you don't have yours.

So Republicans, conservatives, am I wrong? Oh, am I presenting your views as too harsh, too unsympathetic? OK, I apologize, I will see I'm wrong when I see that you will vote to provide health insurance for those hard working people who cannot acquire it on their own. I will then know that you care about other things than the accumulation and holding of your own private property. And to you conservative Americans, I will see you as you support your Congressmen and Congresswomen who will vote to provide the basic need of access to health care.

Oh wait, holy shit, not one Republican voted to expand health coverage for the needy. Oh wait, there were citizens actually protesting expanded health care coverage for the needy. OK, so I see I'm right. You don't care to provide hard working people a basic right of citizenship in a wealthy industrialized and modern country.

Oh, wait a minute, I see, the COSTS to tax payers are just too high. We as a nation can't afford expanded insurance coverage for everyone. That's a valid argument, one can't provide what one doesn't have. Certainly borrowing money from other countries and banks is not an option.

Oh, but wait again. Didn't you Republicans, with the help of spineless Democrats not named Kennedy or Obama approve the borrowing and spending of hundreds of billions, perhaps near a trillion dollars for a pre-emptive war last decade? A pre-emptive war? How about those costs to the tax payers? Where were you then?

So there we have it. When president Obama was getting criticism, for being inexperienced as a leader in Washington, I believed it to an extent. My criticism of Obama was that he was too naive as to think he could build consensus around policy and law making in Washington. If he wanted to get his pragmatic, altruistic, and social utilitarian agenda through Congress, he would have to broker deals a la LBJ in the 1960s. Ol' LBJ definitely could twist arms in the Senate and House if he needed to. Or, Obama could use numerous executive loopholes a la George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

After further reflection, however, I've changed my stance. Obama has big dreams for America, and the American people. He wants to move this country in the right direction, and he wanted all people, democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, urban dwellers and rural villagers to be involved. He listened to Republicans, the Democrats made concessions in the legislation. He gave Repubicans the chance to govern. They did not take it. The opportunity to provide health insurance to millions of citizens who need it was there, the chance to make policy and improve the lives of millions was there, and they did not take it. They voted against it. It's now all over the papers, magazines, TV, and the internet. 0 Republican votes in the House for the final bill. O votes in the Senate. "I'll keep what's mine. If you don't have yours, then too bad." As Obama said in 2008, Republicans, "it's time for you to own your failure." The republican mentality has no sense of a shared purpose or responsibility to fellow citizens. Sometimes I feel we are not a community in America, just a bunch of self-serving, me first individuals.

Am I wrong? I don't know. The "me first" and "you're on your own" mentality is all I've seen from conservatives and Republicans my whole life. I've never heard different. Finally, finally, Obama has exposed you. Am I wrong? I haven't heard a good argument against it yet, that fundamental rugged individualism. I'm very open to hearing your point of view if you think it's different or more communal. I've been waiting a long time . . .

Yeah, Obama and some democrats may lose future elections because of this legislation. We know . . . and we're comfortable with it. . .

The Field of 65 - 2010

Here are my projected NCAA tournament teams and matchups 12 hours before the official selection.

Region 1 (Seeds 1-8 and their opponents seeded 16-9 respectively)
Kansas/Arkansas Pine Bluff/Winthrop winner
Temple/Montana
Georgetown/Houston
Tennessee/Oakland
Wisconsin/Cornell
Gonzaga/Utah State
Texas/Florida State
San Diego State/Notre Dame

Region 4 (winner of region 4 plays winner of region 1)
Ohio State/North Texas
West Virginia/Vermont
Baylor/Wofford
Pittsburgh/Ohio U.
Texas A&M/UNLV
Maryland/Mississippi State
Northern Iowa/Minnesota
Richmond/Saint Mary's

Region 2 (winner of Region 2 plays winner of region 3)
Kentucky/East Tennessee State
Kansas State/Morgan State
New Mexico/California Santa Barbara
Michigan State/Murray State
Butler/New Mexico State
Marquette/Siena
Xavier/Virginia Tech
Washington/Louisville

Region 3
Duke/Robert Morris
Syracuse/Lehigh
Purdue/Sam Houston St.
Villanova/Rhode Island
BYU/Illinois
Vanderbilt/Missouri
California/Old Dominion
UTEP/Oklahoma State

Goodbye McDonalds, Hello Marlboros!

"Tax soda, pizza to cut obesity, research says" - Yahoo News 3/9/10



The above is a headline that explains a trendy argument of taxing certain food and drink items to curb obesity in the United States.


Whether you tax pizza, soda, hamburgers, snickers, white bread, whatever, that's not the ultimate point. The real issue is our consumption of these shit foods, how the problems's been ignored until recently, and the struggle it will take to rid America of these poisons (as I chomp on a salty Ritz cracker).


It's no joke that Americans consume too much fast food, foods high in transfats and other toxins harmful to our overall health, and all that bullshit (as I cut out and eat another slice of cheddar cheese). Of course, the ramificactions on our society: more cases of diabetes, heart diesase, and skyrocketing healthcare costs, are staggering. Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on certain items, let's at least explore the root causes of, as one author coined, "Fast Food Nation."


In our capitalist society, capitalist country, capitalist western world, this is the bottom line: $$$$$$$$$$$. We consume what we want, when we want it, and those who produce the our beloved "consumer goods" reap the rewards with no regard toward the societal impacts. And those producers will use the $$$$$ that we give them to stay in power.


This includes those who produce, distribute and sell junk food (fast foods, soda, candy, potato chips, and everything else) They'll do all they can to keep the products flowing out the stores - even if their foods are creating major health hazards in their beloved consumers. It's amazing how many government subsidies go to corn production which facilitates and cheapens the production of dangerous high fructose corn syrup, which is in about every processed and packaged food today. Is this phenomena relatively new? Perhaps, but we probably could have seen it coming sooner.


From what I've experienced, and have read and observed, I feel sustained fast food/junk food consumption will have far worse implications on public health than other percieved ills such as smoking, drinking, or drug use. I'll go out on a limb and say junkfood is just as harmful, if not more so, than those of cigarettes. alcohol, or opiates (as I drink another glass of Coca-Cola).

Lately, I've taken look at my own social habits. I don't drink too much, don't smoke too much, and don't abuse drugs. However, I do eat too much, and I eat many foods deemed unhealthy.
With all the research only now showing the harmful long term effects junk food and soda, I have to ponder the question: "Are my eating habits just as unhealthy as any steady smoker, or alcoholic? Do my eating habits make me unhealthier?" Yes, I do wonder, "If had been a smoker for the last 15 years, but ate a healthy diet, would I be healthier than I am today?"

I know I'll never know the answer to that question, but I bet it's damn close. Yes, smoking wreaks havoc on the heart and lungs, no doubt. But junk food, really hits the heart, can clog the arteries. Plus there's the threat of diabetes from high sugar intake. Who knows?

I also think of a scene from Morgan Spurlock's "Super Size Me" documentary about McDonald's. In that scene, a doctor or psychologist commented that people will not hesitate to tell a smoker to quit smoking because it's bad for your health. However, no one will tell a fat, overwight person, "Hey, you shouldn't eat that chocolate cake. It's unhealthy." It considered rude, socially unacceptable. I'd say now it shouldn't be. Only time will tell the long term effects of my generation and our mindless consumption of junk food. I mean my mom always tell us of how she never at at a fast food restaurant until she was 19 or something. That whole generation never ate as much shit as we do. This is relatively new.

Now I know hindsight is 20/20, and not an effective argument. But think about it, what it junkfood/fast food IS more harmful than smoking or drinking? Have we been barking up the wrong tree over the past 60 years? Should we have banned Ronald McDonald from TV ads along with the Marlboro Man? Should soda ads go by the wayside along with the old Joe Camel ads? Should the Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or DARE: To Keep Kids off Drugs programs in US schools make way for the SAFE eating program: Students Aware of Fastfood's Effects? Should we show kids graphic pictures of enlarged hearts and bad arteries from soda and Taco Bell just like we see those pictures of smokers' black lungs or alcholics' damaged livers?

Forget the stupid tax argument, I doubt many junkfoods will ever be taxed. The powers that be won't let it happen. I can't help but look at my current country, Korea. Yeah there's McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts popping up everywhere, but you can still get very healthy meals for dirt cheap. I know what we eat is our own damn fault, but it's definitely easier to do over here.

Perhaps I should give up the McDonald's and Burger King and Pizza Hut and soda and candy forever, and start smoking instead. That would still be unhealthy, but it could be healthier than a junkfood addiction.

Yeah, no more junkfood or fastfood, I'll just smoke instead. Wait, no, that's crazy! Or is it? . . .

Olympic Pressure

"Pressure! Pushing down on me. Pushing down on you . . ."



-From "Under Pressure" by Queen and David Bowie.



Just decided to chime in briefly on a few small things I took note of during the Winter Olympics in Vancouver.



I'll admit that I didn't get too excited about the Winter Olympics in general. I never do. However, there were a few stories I began to follow after certain events unfolded. These events all had one common theme: pressure.



First, as I am living in South Korea. One can't help but notice the stardom of world champion and now gold medalist figure skater, Kim Yu Na. Her image has been blazed all over the country due to her 2009 World Championship among many other victories. She was the heavy favorite to win gold in Vancouver. It seemed she alone carried the burden of representing the entire country of Korea. Korea has a population of over 40 million, but it's still a relatively small country compared to other Olympic heavyweights. Aside from the less popular speed skaters, Yuna was country's only hope for a gold medal. Along with that pressure of national pride, there were also millions of dollars in endorsements at stake - dollars she could lose if one of her Japanese rivals would happen to take gold instead. In Asia, the rivalry between Korea and Japan needs no explanation.



As a result of Kim Yu-Na hype, my disinterest turned to curiousity to see how she would fare having to face not only skating opponents, but the pressure of an anxious nation. Pressure that other athletes likely weren't facing. Of course, she seemed to brush off the pressure like piece of dangling lint. She skated her very best, and not only won gold, but shattered a world record in the process. What pressure?



Secondly, probably the only winter olympic sport I will take strong interest in is ice hockey, but only if the USA is playing. Not having a chance to see too many sporting events in Korea, I made a concerted effort to watch the preliminary match-up between the USA and Canada. Canada's hockey team, with hockey being it's national sport, was under tremendous pressure to win gold. Though they were heavy favorites, they struggled to beat a weaker Swiss team in the preliminary round. After that squeaker, one could argue that perhaps the pressure got to them too much as they lost 5-3, somewhat convincingly, to the underdog US team. The "underdog," goal tender, East Lansing, Michigan native Ryan Miller handled the "pressure" of Team Canada quite well by making several keys saves to lead the US to victory. On the other hand, Hall of Fame goalie Marty Brodeur made some uncharacteristic head scratching mistakes that game, and the team also incurred too many penalties that opened the door for that US win. That loss caused some to think, myself included, that having to play an extra game in the playoffs (including an early round game with Russia) would be too much added pressure, and that the Canadians would fold.



Of course, just the opposite happened. Canada destroyed powerhouse Russia, 7-3, survived against pesky Slovakia 3-2, and had tons of momentum heading into the final game with none else but the US. Though Canada had been playing exceptional hockey throughout the tournament after their first loss to the US, they would have to jump one extra hurdle. Leading the US 2-1, with just over 24 seconds to play, the US scored an unthinkable, and potentially backbreaking goal to tie the game at 2. Many times, when a team gives up a goal that late, they are devastated. As we know now though, team Canada regrouped, shook off the pressure, and scored in overtime to capture gold.



I must also mention some other figures who competed like champions facing not only pressure, but emotional adversity. Think of Canadian figure skater Joannie Rochette, who just a few days after losing her mother and hero to a heart attack, skated well enough to earn a bronze medal. In other years, she may have won silver or gold if it wasn't for Kim Yu Na.



Also, US hockey GM Brian Burke lost his 18 year old son in a car accident 9 days before the Olympics began. True, he didn't have to play, but he still showed up in Vancouver for his duties despite a heavy heart. Perhaps he was an inspiration to his beloved team.



So yes, pressure can be a crazy, unpredictable, unmeasurable indicator of performance. Who steps up under pressure? Who "chokes" under little pressure at all? Who can overcome personal tragedy to compete at the highest level? Who can't? What, if anything, accounts for the difference in performance? Who knows? Kim Yu Na and the Canadian hockey team had more pressure than anyone and excelled. On the other hand, lesser known athletes made many elementary mistakes. One Dutch speedskater and his coach lost a world record, gold medal, and millions in endorsements because they couldn't figure out the proper lane in which to finish a race, something they probably got right hundreds of times before. Lesser known figure skaters, though still highly skilled, but with almost nothing to lose, fell and stumbled doing routine maneuvers. The usually outstanding Finnish hockey goalie, looked live a sieve allowing a rush of USA goals by with little resistance in the hockey semi-finals. It was 4-0 at the halfway point of the FIRST period. Who thrives? Who wilts?



Pressure can be a funny thing. Team Canada faced it in all sports. Some say they were a disappointment because they didn't win the most medals. Russian President Medvedev is now calling for the resignation of all the Russian Olympic trainers and coaches because the Russian athletes didn't win enough medals; talk about pressure . . .



Some will argue that pressure brings out the best in athletes, or people in general. Kim Yu Na and the Canadian hockey team proved that. I won't aruge against it, but especially after the courage shown by Joannie Rochette and Brian Burke and any others facing tragedy, I will add something to it.

Pressure can be dealt with by putting the importance of a task, or competition in perspective. Kim Yu-Na skated so effortlessly that her performance didn't seem like a "big deal." The Canadian hockey team brushed off the pressure and early loss to the USA like it was "no big deal." After witnessing the courage of Joannie Rochette and Brian Burke under pressure, it seems that in the grand scheme of life, games and competitions, even if they're for money, medals, or fame, are truly "no big deal."