I have been trying to follow the healthcare debate. However, most of the coverage seems to be about people shouting at town hall meetings. Here are a few questions that I can't seem to get answers to.
1. Does the bill reduce costs? The healthcare bill is supposed to reduce the cost of healthcare. However, I have seen estimates from the Congressional Budget Office that it will cost anywhere from $597 billion to $1 trillion. Are you really reducing costs if you are just shifting them to the taxpayers?
2. Does the bill do anything to encourage healthcare practices that work? From what I have read, places like the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota and Scott & White in Central Texas do an excellent job of containing costs. However, I haven't heard anything about whether the bill encourages these kind of practices.
3. Does the bill increase government control over our lives? From what I have heard, the bill requires everyone to get health insurance or pay a fine. Also, while the impact of the end of life counselling provisions has been greatly exaggerated, my understanding is that the bill makes these sessions mandatory. How much freedom are we giving up in the name of healthcare coverage?
4. What is up with the public option? Democrats make a big deal about having a government sponsored healthcare option. At first blush, it sounds like a good idea. After all, competition and more choices are generally good. However, I have heard that the other side is that a government subsidized public option would have an unfair advantage over private insurers (who don't have the benefit of government funding) and would eventually drive private insurers out of the market. Does the government have the expertise to design a public option which would compete on an equal footing with private insurance? Is the public option intended to compete with private insurance or drive it from the market?
Monday, August 31, 2009
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Three Plays, About a Million Words: Shakespeare at Winedale
We just returned from our annual trip to the University of Texas's Shakespeare at Winedale program. Each summer, an ensemble of college students explores three works from Shakespeare. If you stay the night, you can see all the plays in one weekend. Val, Stephanie and I look forward to immersing ourselves in Shakespeare plays the same way that some people devote themselves to Broadway musicals. We are not super intellectual or anything like that. We just enjoy the chance to get away and absorb some good acting. Part of the appeal lies in the ability to spend some quality family time together (or at least 3/4 of the family). This year, we stayed at a renovated 1899 farmhouse, which had two upstairs bedrooms for Stephanie to choose from, but which required ascending a narrow staircase.
This year we saw Cymbeline, Much Ado About Nothing and Richard the Third. This was my first time to see Cymbeline, which is one of the lesser known plays. However, it was well worth it. Cymbeline is a dark comedy set in the days of the ancient Britons. However, it has all the elements of a modern soap. The king has a daughter who wants to marry a commoner. This poses a threat to the realm since the king's two male sons disappeared mysteriously many years ago. The daughter runs away. Meanwhile, the Step-Queen is scheming to get her son on the throne and would like nothing better for the daughter to go away. In the midst of all this, the Romans invade. Who could hope for more drama?
Much Ado About Nothing is like a screwball 1950s comedy with Cary Grant, except that it is 400 years old (think Bringing Up Baby, the Philadelphia Story). Friends conspire to unite the disdainful Beatrice with the haughty Benedict. Verbal banter flies. Meanwhile, the evil Don John, the bastard prince, maliciously impugns the honor of the noble Hero (which is the name of a girl, not an actual hero).
Richard III is a history involving one of the two most hated figures in English history. Clocking in at a butt-numbing three hours, this is a fast-moving and exciting drama. The hunchbacked, black-clad Richard spreads deceit in his effort to eliminate the many claimants between him and the throne. He has his brother murdered, causes the king's sons to be smothered, seduces the widow of a man he has killed. You get the idea, he's a bad dude. Of course, no sooner does he get the throne, then "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse" and he's out of there.
A few thoughts about the plays. These plays show how similar themes show up in Shakespeare with different variations. The plot device of the helpful friar who feigns the death of a girl is central to Romeo & Juliet. However, it also appears in Much Ado About Nothing. The main difference is that in Much Ado About Nothing, the friar's plot does not miscarry and ends up with a wedding instead of multiple deaths. The Romeo & Juliet comparison is also present in Cymbeline in which a girl is drugged with a potion given to her by the evil step-Queen, which has been altered to merely feign death by a good doctor, who then wakes up next to the decapitated body of a man dressed in her husband's clothes. Of course, since this is a comedy, albeit a dark one, the girl is ultimately reunited with her husband who still has his head about him. These plays demonstrate the fine line between comedy and tragedy. In Romeo & Juliet, the well-meaning friar's plan goes awry with a missed message and everyone ends up dead. Here, everyone enjoys a good laugh when they are reunited.
Each play has a scene which defines it. In Cymbeline, there is a scene where Posthumous (the good guy) despairs. He is visited by the ghosts of his mother, father and brothers, who appeal to Jupiter to save him. In a totally campy scene, the barechested Jupiter appears and is lowered to earth on the hands of the ghosts. This scene shifts the tone of the play from possible tragedy to ultimate comedy. The director's choice to play this as camp rather than drama made the scene all the more memorable.
In Richard the Third, the defining moment is the night before the battle between Richard the III and Richmond. During the night, the ghosts of Richard's victims appear to him and bid him to "despair and die." While Richard regains his composure and rallies his troops to battle the next day, the outcome is clear.
In Much Ado About Nothing, "the scene" is the Constable's interrogation of the villains. The Constable is a clown, mangling his words worse than Sarah Palin saying good bye. However, despite his fractured syntax and opposite meanings, he is able to bring the plot of the evil Don John to light. Once the plot is uncovered, the good guys are able to shame the other good guys into repentence and everyone gets married and lives happily ever after.
This year we saw Cymbeline, Much Ado About Nothing and Richard the Third. This was my first time to see Cymbeline, which is one of the lesser known plays. However, it was well worth it. Cymbeline is a dark comedy set in the days of the ancient Britons. However, it has all the elements of a modern soap. The king has a daughter who wants to marry a commoner. This poses a threat to the realm since the king's two male sons disappeared mysteriously many years ago. The daughter runs away. Meanwhile, the Step-Queen is scheming to get her son on the throne and would like nothing better for the daughter to go away. In the midst of all this, the Romans invade. Who could hope for more drama?
Much Ado About Nothing is like a screwball 1950s comedy with Cary Grant, except that it is 400 years old (think Bringing Up Baby, the Philadelphia Story). Friends conspire to unite the disdainful Beatrice with the haughty Benedict. Verbal banter flies. Meanwhile, the evil Don John, the bastard prince, maliciously impugns the honor of the noble Hero (which is the name of a girl, not an actual hero).
Richard III is a history involving one of the two most hated figures in English history. Clocking in at a butt-numbing three hours, this is a fast-moving and exciting drama. The hunchbacked, black-clad Richard spreads deceit in his effort to eliminate the many claimants between him and the throne. He has his brother murdered, causes the king's sons to be smothered, seduces the widow of a man he has killed. You get the idea, he's a bad dude. Of course, no sooner does he get the throne, then "a horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse" and he's out of there.
A few thoughts about the plays. These plays show how similar themes show up in Shakespeare with different variations. The plot device of the helpful friar who feigns the death of a girl is central to Romeo & Juliet. However, it also appears in Much Ado About Nothing. The main difference is that in Much Ado About Nothing, the friar's plot does not miscarry and ends up with a wedding instead of multiple deaths. The Romeo & Juliet comparison is also present in Cymbeline in which a girl is drugged with a potion given to her by the evil step-Queen, which has been altered to merely feign death by a good doctor, who then wakes up next to the decapitated body of a man dressed in her husband's clothes. Of course, since this is a comedy, albeit a dark one, the girl is ultimately reunited with her husband who still has his head about him. These plays demonstrate the fine line between comedy and tragedy. In Romeo & Juliet, the well-meaning friar's plan goes awry with a missed message and everyone ends up dead. Here, everyone enjoys a good laugh when they are reunited.
Each play has a scene which defines it. In Cymbeline, there is a scene where Posthumous (the good guy) despairs. He is visited by the ghosts of his mother, father and brothers, who appeal to Jupiter to save him. In a totally campy scene, the barechested Jupiter appears and is lowered to earth on the hands of the ghosts. This scene shifts the tone of the play from possible tragedy to ultimate comedy. The director's choice to play this as camp rather than drama made the scene all the more memorable.
In Richard the Third, the defining moment is the night before the battle between Richard the III and Richmond. During the night, the ghosts of Richard's victims appear to him and bid him to "despair and die." While Richard regains his composure and rallies his troops to battle the next day, the outcome is clear.
In Much Ado About Nothing, "the scene" is the Constable's interrogation of the villains. The Constable is a clown, mangling his words worse than Sarah Palin saying good bye. However, despite his fractured syntax and opposite meanings, he is able to bring the plot of the evil Don John to light. Once the plot is uncovered, the good guys are able to shame the other good guys into repentence and everyone gets married and lives happily ever after.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Katie Kaboom
I was thinking about some of the classic Animaniacs segments that I used to watch when I came across this clip on YouTube. It has a lot more meaning now that I have teenagers at home. Fortunately this does not describe either of MY girls (well most of the time--child #2 can hit pretty hard). (Be sure to watch past Mime Time to see the beginning of Katie Kaboom).
Monday, August 3, 2009
The Bread of Life: Does That Have Carbs?
Yesterday in church, they talked about Jesus as the bread of life. Right now, I am on a diet where I cut out all refined grains. No bread, no pasta, no pizza. So, if Jesus is the bread of life, does that mean that Jesus makes you fat? Perhaps if Jesus came today, he would say, I am the protein and green vegetables of life? Of course, that doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? However, they didn't have refined grains back in Jesus' day, so maybe all of this is irrelevent.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince
I took the family to see Harry Potter & the Half Blood Prince last night and loved it. As the books get longer and longer, the filmmaker found a way to condense it down to where it kept moving nicely and 2 hours 20 minutes didn't seem that long. However, I have to admit that having read the books, the ending didn't have the same shock value as it did the first time I read it.
It was nice to have a movie that the whole family could see. It's been getting harder later. Child #1 is almost 17 and likes loud rock music, sophomoric gross out movies with Seth Rogen and Adam Sandler and chick flicks. Daughter #2 is 14 and can't stand cussing or kissing in a movie. She likes horses, manga and anything sweet and cuddly. Harry Potter was a good fit because the language is clean with only a few tame kissing scenes and it's full of action. It is a great good guys vs. bad guys movie.
J.K. Rowling hit the jackpot on this book series thanks to a combination of good luck and good plotting. What I like about Harry Potter is the juxtaposition of the familiar and the fantastical. On the one hand, this is a story about aspiring wizards battling the dark lord to save humanity. However, it is also a story about school and friendship and bullies and strange teachers. Although I have never been to an English boarding school, I can imagine Hogwarts as the image of one. Hermione Granger is the archetype of the studious working class girl who earns the right to see inside the privileged world of the elite. Ron Weasley is the young son of a family with a noble title but not much else to their name. Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy come from strong noble families who are bound to clash.
I also like the humor in the stories. Although the stories kept progressively darker, they save room for moments of humor. In the Chamber of Secrets, the scene with Moaning Myrle the Ghost, who offers to share her bathroom haunt with Harry if he gets killed is priceless. In the Goblet of Fire everyone ends up at the dance with mis-matched dates. As Harry and Ron and their twin dates are feeling terribly uncomfortable, a boy approaches and asks one of the girls for her hand and she says "Take my hand, take my ..., take me out of here" or words to that effect. Finally, in the Half-Blood Prince, Luna Lovegood is so unselfconsciously weird and so comfortable in her own skin that she generates a chuckle just to look at her, but not in a mean way.
I also like the character development over time. Ron, Harry and Hermione don't change much, but the characters around them do. The transformation of Neville Longbottom from a scared, stuttering child to a hero is inspiring. On the other hand, Prof. Dumbledore's progression from omniscient and omnipotent to frail and fallible makes him an endearing character. Finally, the change in Draco Malfoy is perhaps the most pronounced. For several films, he is the caricature of a bully surrounded by his sidekicks. However, by the Half-Blood Prince, he is a lonely, haunted figure in black, a Hamlet-like character dwelling in the shadows of indecision.
I can't wait for the final chapter to come out. Although I was disappointed by the overly long book, the story is a journey which deserves a conclusion. Besides, the homage to the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe at the end makes the failure to edit down the first 500 pages forgivable.
It was nice to have a movie that the whole family could see. It's been getting harder later. Child #1 is almost 17 and likes loud rock music, sophomoric gross out movies with Seth Rogen and Adam Sandler and chick flicks. Daughter #2 is 14 and can't stand cussing or kissing in a movie. She likes horses, manga and anything sweet and cuddly. Harry Potter was a good fit because the language is clean with only a few tame kissing scenes and it's full of action. It is a great good guys vs. bad guys movie.
J.K. Rowling hit the jackpot on this book series thanks to a combination of good luck and good plotting. What I like about Harry Potter is the juxtaposition of the familiar and the fantastical. On the one hand, this is a story about aspiring wizards battling the dark lord to save humanity. However, it is also a story about school and friendship and bullies and strange teachers. Although I have never been to an English boarding school, I can imagine Hogwarts as the image of one. Hermione Granger is the archetype of the studious working class girl who earns the right to see inside the privileged world of the elite. Ron Weasley is the young son of a family with a noble title but not much else to their name. Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy come from strong noble families who are bound to clash.
I also like the humor in the stories. Although the stories kept progressively darker, they save room for moments of humor. In the Chamber of Secrets, the scene with Moaning Myrle the Ghost, who offers to share her bathroom haunt with Harry if he gets killed is priceless. In the Goblet of Fire everyone ends up at the dance with mis-matched dates. As Harry and Ron and their twin dates are feeling terribly uncomfortable, a boy approaches and asks one of the girls for her hand and she says "Take my hand, take my ..., take me out of here" or words to that effect. Finally, in the Half-Blood Prince, Luna Lovegood is so unselfconsciously weird and so comfortable in her own skin that she generates a chuckle just to look at her, but not in a mean way.
I also like the character development over time. Ron, Harry and Hermione don't change much, but the characters around them do. The transformation of Neville Longbottom from a scared, stuttering child to a hero is inspiring. On the other hand, Prof. Dumbledore's progression from omniscient and omnipotent to frail and fallible makes him an endearing character. Finally, the change in Draco Malfoy is perhaps the most pronounced. For several films, he is the caricature of a bully surrounded by his sidekicks. However, by the Half-Blood Prince, he is a lonely, haunted figure in black, a Hamlet-like character dwelling in the shadows of indecision.
I can't wait for the final chapter to come out. Although I was disappointed by the overly long book, the story is a journey which deserves a conclusion. Besides, the homage to the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe at the end makes the failure to edit down the first 500 pages forgivable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
