Nationalized Health Care...

...not sure where I stand on it. Is it a good idea to make it a right, like the Democrats seem to be pushing? I mean, if we do, what about housing, education, food, even? I mean, what's the difference, really? I'm assuming that the idea behind the whole thing is that citizens need their health in order to fully enjoy their liberty and such, and therefore it should be available to all, regardless of income. Definitely sound reasoning, and it sounds like a good idea. On a philosophical plane, the intrinsic worth of one human being, to me, isn't any greater or less than another, regardless of income. But on the subject of rights, what's the difference between health care, and, say, housing? Transportation? Education? Aren't these all things we need to enjoy our liberty? Does that mean they should all be rights too? And if they are, then the government would seem bound to provide us all with those things too. And that's socialist, right? Not that socialism is a bad thing in and of itself (it's actually probably the ideal form of government), but I think history has shown that socialism and the human condition do not mix with very good results.

Even as I write this, I'm not sure health care should even be a "right" on par with, say, a right to a trial by jury or something Constitutional along those lines. Not to get too originalist here, but our nation was founded on the principle that everyone fares in this life according to the effort they put forth. Basically, you reap what you sow (or what you make others sow, as the case often was). The incentive to work hard and be successful came from a realization that you had to earn it yourself, and the government wouldn't help you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to a modicum of government charity. Things like welfare are good if properly administrated and used, as with all things, in moderation. But if the government starts giving things like health care away as a right, doesn't that, in some way, reduce the incentive we have as individuals to work our hardest and be as successful as we can? I mean, if the government is giving me what my family and I need to live, what's my only other motivation to work hard and be successful besides greed or pride?

Isn't that doubly true if we tax the rich to fund programs like these? Again, I can see the rationale--the rich have more, they can probably survive a bigger tax hit. So I understand things like a graduated tax bracket. But isn't a surtax to fund this health care bill a little too much? The typical joke is that the only ways to get rich in America are through crime and inheritance, but isn't the reality that most rich people are rich because they worked hard to get there? Or am I being too optimistic about the American work ethic? This idea to tax the rich to fund health care doesn't sit right with me. It seems like the government is blatantly taking hard-earned money over and above typical taxation to fund a program that most of these people don't want or need. Look, I'm just as middle-class as the next guy, and I doubt I'll ever be rich enough to fall into the bracket of people the Democrats want to tax for this program. But the principle of the matter is just as applicable to all--you should be able to keep the money you earn without too much government leeching off of you.

So how else do we fund it? I don't know. Nothing makes any more sense. But that doesn't mean this is a good idea either. First the stimulus, now this...I'm starting to worry that our government is getting a bit mad with power. So...I guess I answered my own question. I guess I'm against nationalized health care.

Enough, Already

Look, I know I lean more to the right than to the left on most things, but please, I'd like to ask one thing. Could right-wing America PLEASE stop referring to our President as "Barack Hussein Obama?" It's not like there's another prominent Barack Obama out there and we need to distinguish this one. The only purpose it serves is to subtly and passive-aggressively intimate that he is somehow linked with the Middle East or to some Arabic descent, and that this somehow makes him unfit to lead our nation.

HUSSEIN! That's his middle name! Hussein! He shares a name with a former Iraqi dictator to whom he can't possibly be related! That's all the proof we need! He's secretly Muslim and hates America! And if he's Muslim, he's a terrorist! He's harboring terrorists! He IS a terrorist! For heaven's sake, look at the middle name, it's all RIGHT THERE!!!! REMEMBER 9/11!!!

Never mind the fact that Hussein is basically the Arabic equivalent of "Smith." It's not like this is an uncommon name for someone, especially when a full sixth (or more) of the world is either Muslim or of some Arabic/African descent...

It makes me truly sick to see such insidious, cowardly, and willfully ignorant behavior from a member of a nation that espouses religious freedom. I can get over Bill O'Reilly or somebody like that taking such a route for sensationalism's sake. It's something I just blame on media culture and move on. But from someone who has nothing to gain from it, that disturbs me to no end. Look, I'm not the guy's biggest fan, but really...it's a middle name, people. Come on.

Steroids

I came home tonight hoping to be productive. Had a light dinner, talked to the wife for a while, went over tax stuff with my father-in-law, and I was just about to put clothes in the laundry a little while ago. Would have been nice if someone had told me the washer and dryer were gone. Now I'm stuck with no clean underwear and I'll probably have to do laundry in the bathtub. Lovely...but I digress...

I've been waiting a while for something to adequately piss me off enough to actually take the time to rant on the Internet some more about it, and I found it. Today (well, yesterday technically), reports surfaced that Sammy Sosa was roiding back in 2003. If these reports are true, it would seem that not only was Mark McGwire shrinking his testicles to hit a ball a little farther, it seems like his foil in the home run chase was juiced at some point as well. Given his proficiency with a bat, Sosa is primed to take his place with McGwire and Barry Bonds as the poster children for what is becoming known as the "Steroid Era" in Major League Baseball, and predictably, pundits far and wide wax poetic about how the game has been tarnished, the magic is gone, innocence lost, yada yada yada...

If you know me, you know I can't let this pass without taking my jabs.

I think there's a dirty little secret behind all the rhetoric. See, we Americans idolize pro athletes, for better or for worse. Game-winning touchdowns, treys at the buzzer, shootouts...these are the things that captivate us, year in and year out. And no other sport is as ingrained in our history as baseball. It's as quintessentially American as apple pie. Because of this history, we revere baseball players in a way unlike any other sport. Die hard sports fans dandle their children on their knee with stories about watching Jackie Robinson, DiMaggio, Williams, even Ripken. The idolization of baseball players is magnified more so than any other sport (although this may change as baseball continues to globalize). They stand as symbols of achievement and hard work (at least, that's how we like our heroes). Our children see this and idolize them as well, and pro athletes, baseball players included, become...wait for it...role models.

So society has arrived at a point where pro athletes are role models. Yet, Americans have an insatiable appetite for winning. We are a nation with a "winners" mentality, and the losers are left to wither in obscurity. America loves winners, that is, until they lose. And then they're out with the trash while the throngs move on to the next winner. For a pro athlete, then, your livelihood is not simply to play sports, it is to win. And at the pro level, winning means being bigger, stronger, faster, and smarter than the next guy. In an era where competition at the highest level is so fierce, if an athlete wants to win, he has to take every competitive advantage he can. It's simply a bad career move not to.

Thus, we idolize pro athletes and put them in a (somewhat undeserved) position of being role models, yet at the same time society places enormous pressure on them to win, that you might say we tell them to win at all costs. Enter steroids. From a business perspective, steroids make perfect sense. A shot of HGH, a few doses of Andro, and boom, you're jacked up and going deep like never before. It's a clear competitive advantage over someone who doesn't take steroids. And until recently, they weren't illegal. They were perfectly fine to take. But the media has three big objections to this, that I can think of off the bat:

1. Taking steroids is somehow an unfair advantage. If you're not developing and training naturally, then you've got an unfair advantage over the guy who does. Ethics aside, however, is it really unfair to the other guy? Or is the other guy stupid for not taking steroids. If the point of pro sports is not just to play but to win, then I lean toward the latter. Steroids are only unfair if only a few people have access to them. Last I checked, they're about as easy to find as a fat guy at a McDonalds. Steroids do not, in other words, give players an unfair advantage.

2. Taking steroids is unethical, and these guys should be role models! This is the argument usually made by people who have kids. Unfortunately, they're often also the same people who haven't been to a Royals game in the past decade because the players suck. Ladies and gentlemen, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Again, pro sports, from a business perspective, is about winning. You have to win to make money. You can't ask athletes to be paragons of virtue and at the same time put such tremendous social and economic pressure on them to win. It's hypocritical. And if you're so desperate for a role model for your kids, take a look in the mirror and see if something needs changing before you go pointing the finger.

3. Finally, steroids are unnatural, and tarnish the game's pure legacy. I can almost buy this, except, when I look back at baseball's history, purity doesn't exactly stand out as a defining characteristic. Sports, baseball especially, has been marred by heinous acts of cheating and deception as far back as the Black Sox scandal in 1919, or somewhere around there. And the players? These folk heroes we adore? Ty Cobb was a foul-mouthed bigot, and Babe Ruth drank like a fish and defined the word "gluttony" in his time. Face it: the old-time heroes we revere were, in all likelihood, some of the most backward, immoral, unethical people around. I can almost guarantee that DiMaggio or Honus Wagner or Willie Mays would have used steroids if they had been readily available like they are today. I defy anyone to prove to me otherwise.

There's nothing wrong with a pro athlete using steroids; at least, there shouldn't be. It's his decision, and we should not be so naive to hold them up to an ethical standard that half of us probably wouldn't abide in a similar situation. So to all of you who think that baseball is tarnished, or forever besmirched, that's a bald-faced lie. This is just the natural progression of a game that doubles as a business where winning is the golden ticket, a ticket that is the public's to give away. If anybody's to blame in this, I suggest you take that finger you're pointing and turn it around.