Sky Corgan

Paying Zero for Public Services

The way things are going, we may need this in the US soon. A "Zero" dollar note. We already have that, though, and it has Andrew Jackson's picture on it.

via blogs.worldbank.org

The 60th Vote

Hopefully Obama is pleased that he may now have the 60th vote necessary to block a GOP filibuster in the Senate of his landmark healthcare legislation.

The revisions here in the legislation are the biggest changes in healthcare in decades. However, the final legislation that is slated to pass is a watered down, diluted shadow of the original intent; every American does not get health care as affordable rates.

Instead of providing healthcare to every single person in the country as a moral obligation of basic necessity of life, the government is providing a massive give-away to the insurance companies. Sure, there will be rules about people being denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions... but the new "market" for insurance is just another way for them to pull in customers at the government threat of fines for not having insurance.

The final straw that allowed the dems to obtain their 60th vote was adding provisions for restrictions on abortion funding for those policies funded through the "exchange" sponsored by the government. The restriction would be that the insurance wouldn't pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is at risk. Really? That's the restriction? Go for it! Here is the crux of it; we all pay for everything in insurance through our group plans. I don't want to pay for people to have abortions because they use it as a form of birth control.

If someone is raped, then they may not have been on the pill, and the rapist I am certain isn't going to stop and put his rubber on. You know what? That makes sense, because no one should be forced to give birth to a rapists baby. On the other hand, if your boyfriend doesn't like rubbers, and you're easy, and you want an abortion... pay for it yourself. Have a dozen abortions, but I don't want to pay for a single one.

Ultimately, I suppose a watered down bill is better than no bill at all. We are a far cry from universal healthcare, and definitely a good clip away from the socialism that the conservatives keep screaming about. There are some good things in the legislation, but it doesn't go far enough.

Eventually we will, as a people, accept that everyone deserves healthcare, regardless of their socio-economic status. Until that day comes, we will just have to clean this mess up bit by bit. Eventually we'll come to a place of equality. I just don't think it will be in my lifetime, not if my judgement of people opposing these changes has any ring of truth to it.

We're All In The Same Boat... Right?

Last night, Bill Maher had a one-on-one episode since he is currently on break from his HBO series Real Time. One of his guests was Bill Moyers, who is one of the great journalists of our time, and one that still has the ethical compass pointing in the right direction.

On the topic of healthcare, he said the best metaphor for our current situation is that "we're all in the same boat" which got me thinking... really? Are we really in the same boat? Or are we all really in different boats?

The first boat is the luxury cruise ship. These are the folks who can afford the best healthcare at any whim, they have the best health insurance available, and no worries. The next boat is where the majority of Americans are floating; this boat is the minimum health insurance with high co-pays, high deductibles, and that insurance will not exist once you get sick. The third boat is, well, the Titanic. This is where the rest of American's are floating, and it is straight down the Ganges.

The healthcare battle is really about the haves and have nots. People who have good jobs and good insurance don't 'want to pay for everyone else'. But of course, in every society, we need ditch diggers in addition to investment bankers; I for one think those ditch diggers, those retail employees, those restaurant servers bringing the bankers their martini lunches deserve just as good of insurance as everyone else, but they don't... instead that have limited coverage, or worse, no coverage. This also means their children have no coverage.

The truth is, we don't have healthcare in the United States. Instead, we have 'sick care'. Specifically, we care for the sick, but we don't foster prevention for the betterment of all of the persons in the country. There is an absolute, moral imperative to ensure everyone is fed, clothed, housed, and cared for. This includes ensuring each and every person has healthcare coverage, including preventative care; the emergency room is not a plan for long term health.

There are those who think a 'moral imperative' has something to do with religion, and those who believe that without religion, we can not have morals. Here's the reality... bull-hockey. The reality is that each of us has the care of each other within us, but there are those who are more concerned with having a 5,000 square foot home so they don't have to see the other members of their family, rather than living in a reasonably sized home in an urban center and ensuring that their neighbors are cared for.

So the question is, what is the proper metaphor? Since everything in this country seems to have to surround religion, here is the answer for the average midwesterner: "What Would Jesus Do? He wouldn't let people suffer so he could have lower taxes." These folks at the town halls protesting abortion, socialism, and calling the president Hitler are deflecting the real message away from what really matters; Jesus of Nazareth would care a lot more about those poor suffering souls with no health insurance than the upper middle class blond in pink bitch driving the minivan with two televisions in it. There was never a greater socialist than Jesus of Nazareth; "...I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Photo of the Day

Cove Fish Market
Originally uploaded by skycorgan

The best lobster roll I've had since I've moved to Connecticut is from the Cove Fish Market in Stonington, CT.

If you've never heard of a lobster roll, it is essentially a pile of lobster meat piled into a roll bun which has crust only on the top and bottom, and not on the side. It comes in a choice of hot, or cold which has a bit of mayo and dill mixed in.

Photo of the Day

DSC01623
Originally uploaded by skycorgan

Up close and personal. I know he heard me click the shutter on my camera, because he jumped as soon as it went off. I need to get a quieter camera.

Scaring Liberals

Yes, as a matter of fact, bibles do scare liberals. However, it doesn't scare them due to the contents of the book. Typically, what scares a liberal are the people who hold the book; after all, who wouldn't be scared of someone espousing to be a conservative while embracing the biggest liberal known in history, Jesus of Nazareth.

Remember the Time We Were the World Learning Our ABCs

The most vivid memory I have of Michael Jackson is one at Media Play, where I worked in the Norwood location for a couple of years during high school. The summer was just beginning, and the biggest album release of the year was about to drop. It was an all-hand situation where everyone was at work, ready to go. The store even opened early, and unlike any other 'early opening' which saw a trickle of peeople, people stormed in.

The album was HIStory, and was a compilation of 'greatest hits' and new songs from the King of Pop. For years, I had admired Michael, and he was always a consumate performer, and always made people happy no matter where he went; or at least, he tried to make them happy. In school, I was dreamed about being a performer like him, and bringing joy to people in a way that only he could.

HIStory was one of the first CDs that I listed to all the way through, every single track, in the first sitting. Both discs. It was just a joy to hear all those great songs that I was growing up with through elementary and middle school, the prime of my childhood, and to hear all those wonderful new songs. The truth was, there wasn't a single bad song on the entire album. To this day, I will contend that this is the only 'greatest hits' album worth buying, because Michael brought something new to the table, instead of having a greedy grab for cash.

Michael had an innocense about him, and I always believed that. I still do. Everyone demonizes him for the controversies, from Bubbles the Monkey to McCauly Culkin to the child molestation accusations. Michael loved children, but in a way that could only be described as a pure love. Michael loved all human beings, and just wanted everyone to get along. He didn't have a childhood, so he continued to live his throughout his adult life. To his dying day, I believe that he had a naive quality that thought one day there would be no war, and the world would live in peace and harmony together.

Others would stare at Michael because of his constantly changing appearance. The truth is, all of us have something about ourselves we would like to change, whether it be our nose, our face, our weight. The difference was that Michael could afford to make these changes. With a skin disease causing his skin to go white, he had to lighten other parts of of skin to match consistency; he was, after all, a performer.

Michael had music that transcended genres, and transcended life. He was an inspiration for peace, and he just wished that people could live together in harmony. He passed away a week ago, but his impact on me was such that I just only began to understand myself how I really feel about it; shock has now past, and I have moved to accepting his departure from us.

HIs essence was one of purity, as he led a sheltered life from the rest of the world. He will be missed worldwide, and he will be missed right here.

Baby on Board and Other Stupid Things On The Back of People's Vehicles

As I was driving from the hotel to the office today on my final day in New Jersey, I was behind an car with a "Baby on Board" sign in the rear window. As I trailed this car as the supposed parent with her child on board weaved in out of traffic dangerously, all I could wonder is, "...and what is your point?"

After all, I don't give a damn if your kid is on board your vehicle, it will certainly not impact my decision on whether to ram you in the rear end of your car just because your child is on board; certainly, I would not wish to ram you in the rear end of your car regardless. After all, I would not want to damage my car, and especially not the rental I have, and that should be enough of a reason.

So after I pass the "Baby on Board", I get behind an oversized SUV with a woman riding her brakes, and in her back window is a stick-figure image of her family. If you haven't seen these, essentially the idea is that a woman who lives vicariously through her children, and for some reason has no life of her own outside of her family, places one sticker each for the members of the family that is transported in this vehicle.

The beauty of this system is that, when you vehicle is parked in the driveway of your oversized four thousand (4000) square foot home, the psychotic nut about to rub your house and kill all of you conveniently knows exactly how many adults, children, dogs, and cats to kill so that the nut can get away with whatever valuables are being kept in the Maxwell House can in the back of their pantry where they think it is safe.

Yes, I get it. You can reproduce. Sometimes like rabbits. Ocassionlly like Jon and Kate. You got your freak on, your husband (at the time boyfriend) didn't wrap it up, and you popped a few offspring out. This does not mean that the person behind you trying to figure out if you're turning because you've had your blinker on for 3 miles cares in the slighest.

If you're going to reproduce, it is certainly your decision. Just don't burden society annoucning your baby is on board, or that you are more fertile than a Catholic whore. 

Star Trek Hotties

As I watched the previews for the new Star Trek movie last year, all I could think was, "WTF?" Not even the full phrase could come to mind, because giving it three words, instead of three letters, would be providing too much credit to what I was seeing.

I immediately pushed it out of my mind. After all, as someone who has seen every episode of every show, every movie, and wished he could live in the twenty fourth century and serve on a starship, I was baffled that Paramount would take this step backwards with a cash-cow franchise.

So recently, as the release date has approached, I decided to try to watch a couple more of the trailers that were releas; all I could thing was, "WTF?"

We have a movie with speeding cars, flights, laser shows, and hot young actors. This isn't Star Trek, this is MTV meets the idiot causing Gene Roddenberry to roll in his grave. With that, I also began to think about Hollywood in general, are where it has come and gone over the years. From televisions to movies, everything goes in waves, with ideas crunched together; one person has a good idea, and a dozen others copy it. Someone else has another good idea later, and the process starts all over again.

If we look back to the original Star Trek series, you have William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, and Deforest Kelley. None of these people are hot. Instead, they were hired to play roles of people who were in charge of a spaceship flying around with a fuel that could destroy a freaking planet. This is not a job I would want some twenty-two year old guy with ripped abs and a buzz cut in charge of.

Actors used to be hired because they could act, or at least do something with a semblence of acting. Bea Arthur, may she rest in peace, would never have had a career today; she looked like a lesbian, and people didn't care, because she could play good characters. Instead, if Maude were cast today, she would be 26, toned, possibly tatooed, wit blond hair down to her shoulders and perfection in the skin.

I am certainly not saying that people who look "hot" can't act, but let's put the full hand on the table. I've turned on MTV, I've seen movies in the last fifteen years. The typical movie/television show has been an excuse for some hot woman to pull down her clothes to her bra, or some guy to drop it down to his boxer shorts so he can show his six pack ab; the acting is always non-existant. Hell, they'd be better off not having any actual lines for these people, and just focus on their looks.

Of course, the music industry isn't much better. For an industry where looks really should matter (sound recordings), we've seen the 'hotness' factor be more important than actual singing and music. Every generation complains about the next generation's music, but every generation prior has had music that didn't need to be sound-corrected, remodulated, and enhanced to the level that the music today does. It is more important in today's music industry for someone to look good on the cover than sound good on the disc

Talent is cast aside for appearance; what is on the surface is more important than what is underneath. While there were plenty of good looking actors and musicians in the past, they still had to have talent, something that is lost on the entertainment executives of today.

A Guy Can Marry a Guy, But Not Corn

In an earthshattering, completely unexpected on a national scale, and wholly astonishing move, the State Supreme Court in Iowa today overturned a law prohibiting same-sex marriage. This makes Iowa the third state in the United States to recognize legal marriage.

Technically, it is the fourth, but we aren't counting California since they can't make up their damn mind.

This also puts Iowa, in my book, in the category of one of the smartest states in the country, right after Massachusettes and Connecticut. (Side Note: Connecticut elected Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman, so they can't be that intelligent.)

With this move, Iowa will now permit same sex couples to be afforded the same rights as multisexual couples. This also means that Iowa will be instilling "family values" by fostering loving, monogomous relationships.

What it also means is that gays and lesbians will be attracted to Iowa for its low cost of living, low unemployment rate, and abbundance of land. With that will come "gay money", with gay men more spend-happy, and with more disposable income due to the lack of children, or low number of children.

There are those that will claim that this is the end of the world; those people did the same thing when Massachusettes legalizaed gay marriage, and the state has not plunged into the bowels of hell from whence never to return. Instead, gay marriage is met with a complete disregard now, or at the most, a mild chuckle.

Those against this ruling will claim it will hurt families and culture; I will never understand how nuturing and promoting monogomous relationships between loving individuals is considered "bad for society". For those who claim that "god is against it" really just need to get over it. Simply put, as a nation with a seperation of church and state, we must be dictated by login, and not theology. If we become a theocracy, then how would the United States be any different than Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other country where religion rules and society suffers because of it?

Equal rights will eventually spread across the country. Maybe not today, but eventually everyone will be equal. In the meantime, Iowa has redefined "Middle America" as a more tolerant, accepting society on the right path.

Oh, and the day when all the whackjobs treat everyone equally? Don't worry about going to your in-laws the next day, the world will come to an end. There will always be idiots with hate, usually based on their guy in the clouds being better than you guy in the clouds. Well, the guys in the clouds agree; shut up and recognize you can't understand the universe through the writings of people translated multiple times from multiple languages, each with different root syntaxes.