The Individual Mandate: The Dilemma of Ethical vs. Constitutional

As I'm sure many of you are aware at this point, the House of Representative passed a healthcare reform bill on Sunday night, and Obama signed this bill into law on Tuesday. While overall I think the bill is a good first step, there is one part of the bill that many people are struggling to support - the individual mandate.

The idea behind the individual mandate, which would require almost everyone to purchase health insurance if they do not already have it, is that if everyone is forced to buy insurance, it both drives costs down, and ensures that Congress is actively involved in keeping premiums low for their constituents. Yesterday, however, 13 states filed lawsuits claiming that the requirement of US citizens to purchase something potentially against their will is both unprecedented and unconstitutional. While those against the individual mandate speak of freedom and choice, there's another aspect to it that detractors seem to absolutely avoid - the ethical implications.

Without the mandate (but keeping the rest of the reforms in place), the sickest people will be forced to spend every last penny on expensive coverage while the healthiest can simply wait until they get sick to buy coverage (if the cost of their bills is higher than the premiums, of course). In my mind, the morals of helping those less fortunate than you are far more compelling than the constitutional freedom to not purchase health insurance. The freedom-to-choose argument would be far more valid if the government were forcing citizens to purchase something trivial, but this is not the case - in addition to helping reduce the healthcare costs of everyone sicker than you, by purchasing health insurance you (surprise!) get coverage in case you too get sick. It's not something most reasonable people wouldn't want.

As it stands, however, the penalties for failing to buy health insurance would start out far lower than it would cost to buy insurance. If someone simply did not want insurance and it makes more sense for them financially to pay a fine than pay premiums, what's to stop them from doing so? In reality, I don't think the number of people who absolutely don't want insurance is very high. Like any product we buy, it costs money to get something in return, and the question here is how much money before the cost outweighs the individual's desire for coverage? Is the government allowed to determine that price? Obviously, with the individual mandate comes a greater responsibility on the part of the government to keep the costs down so that everyone is happy with the balance of the product they're receiving and what they're paying for it. And, of course, anyone who absolutely does not want insurance under any circumstances should have to pay a fine for not having coverage if they expect to be treated at a hospital in the case of an emergency.

It's hard to determine at this point if the individual mandate will actually force the uninsured to purchase coverage, so speculation on its' effectiveness is moot at this point in time. I like to think that most people are generally reasonable enough to see the benefit of having health insurance, and understand that if everyone contributes to the pool, everyone benefits from lower costs. Those who persist on arguing that, on constitutional grounds, they should be allowed to not purchase insurance if they don't want it simply solidify in my mind that America is the only civilized country in the world in which the individual desires of citizens come before the welfare of the whole. And in the end, that's not a very admirable thing, is it?

Should the guy pay?

This question came up in conversation last night, and I was sort of surprised by the number of people in my group - women, mostly - that feel comfortable with a guy paying for her meal on a first date. Let me clarify before I begin, however, that I understand the courtesy behind the gesture and, as a guy, I feel it is polite to offer to pay; however, I feel equally as strongly that, were I a woman, I would not accept that offer. Here's why.

I feel the gesture hearkens back to a time when women were not considered self-sufficient, when they were under the care of their father until a suitable man came to marry them/take care of them. It seems awfully old-fashioned and sexist; again, were I a woman, I would feel strongly that I should pay for myself at the very least as a show of my independence.

I also feel as though it creates an awkward sense of imbalance in the relationship when a man pays for a woman's meal, as though the woman needs to make up for it somehow later. I was told quite simply that this is not the case last night - perhaps if it's a tradition you're used to complying with I can see this not being an issue. I suppose this is just a feeling I have from my experience that most girls I've dated have generally not wanted me to pay for their food.

And finally, from my perspective as a guy, I can say if I were to offer to pay and my date declined, it's actually quite reassuring, and not just on my wallet. To me it indicates that she wants to be on a date with me, that she's not there simply because she expected a free meal, that she was willing to have her wallet take a hit to be with me. I suppose the counter-argument to this is, "Well, HE asked ME out, shouldn't he pay?" I would lend this argument more credence if I didn't feel it was a double-standard. Were the roles reversed (if the girl asked the guy out), could the guy truly expect the girl to pay for the meal?

All of this said, I can think of an exceptions to this - one in which a guy chooses an extremely expensive restaurant without consulting the girl. This guy's a douchebag if he expects her to pay in this case.

Essentially, I disagree with the tradition and I think it's dumb, but I respect it. If you're a guy and you claim to have manners, you should always offer to pay. And if you're a girl, in my opinion you should thank him for offering and politely decline.

Personal Golden Globe Picks

MOVIES

I'm going to skip these categories; I have seen almost none of the movies or actors/actresses nominated, and therefore I hardly feel qualified to judge. I will say that if Christoph Waltz doesn't win in his category (Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture) I think something is wrong. I also feel that the James Cameron will probably win Best Director, although I'd like to see it go to Quentin Tarantino. I'd also like to see him win Best Screenplay, though I'd be happy if District 9 or Up in the Air took that one.

TV

Best Television Series (Drama)
Winner - Dexter
Other nominees - Big Love, Mad Men, House, True Blood

Realistically, this will go to Mad Men, which I started watching at one point but hated every single character; I know that I should probably give it a second chance. House has been declining in terms of quality these past few seasons, and I'm pretty sure True Blood isn't a drama, it's actually a farce. I haven't seen Big Love, but I felt convinced after watching this past season of Dexter that it deserves it this year.

Best Actress in a Television Drama - Of the ladies in this category, I've only seen Anna Paquin in True Blood, so I'm not going to make a call on this because I don't think she deserves a nomination, let alone a win. My prediction, however, is that this will go to Glenn Close for Damages.

Best Actor in a Television Drama
Winner - Michael C. Hall, Dexter
Other nominees - Jon Hamm, Mad Men; Simon Baker, The Mentalist; Bill Paxton, Big Love; Hugh Laurie, House.

Again, I think Dexter really pulled it off this season. Jon Hamm will PROBABLY win again, but whatever. Hugh Laurie is, as always, deserving of the award as well, but this wasn't his best year either. I've seen Simon Baker in a few episodes of the Mentalist, and I don't really know why he was nominated. Again, I haven't seen Big Love.

Best Comedy or Musical
Winner - 30 Rock
Other nominees - Modern Family, Glee, Entourage, The Office

This was a really good year for comedy - in all honesty, I think How I Met Your Mother and Bored to Death probably deserved nominations instead of The Office and Entourage. I'm a huge fan of both Modern Family and Glee, and while the former is a really close second (and I'd love to see Glee win awards), I can't choose anything to win this award besides 30 Rock. Quite simply, it's the best, most consistently humorous comedy on TV.

Best Actress in a Comedy or Musical
Winner - Tina Fey, 30 Rock
Other nominees - Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie; Toni Colette, United States of Tara; Lea Michele, Glee; Courtney Cox, Cougartown

No, I haven't seen Nurse Jackie (Edie Falco had a brief stint on 30 Rock in its' second season, though!) or United States of Tara, but Tina Fey is where it's at. Lea Michele is insanely talented, but she works better on Broadway than TV. Courtney Cox getting a nomination must be some kind of joke, since the character she plays in Cougartown is Monica from Friends after a divorce and a relocation to Florida. Very original. Should be Amy Poehler getting at least a nomination for Parks and Recreation.

Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical
Winner - Matthew Morrison, Glee
Other nominees - Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock; Thomas Jane, Hung; Steve Carell, The Office; David Duchovny, Californication

I feel like I sort of have to justify myself for this one, especially because I already know that Alec Baldwin is going to win. I do feel that the other candidates (Thomas Jane not included, I haven't gotten around to watching Hung yet) are getting boring - Alec Baldwin and Steve Carell have been playing those characters [quite well] for years, and I think Hank Moody is probably eerily similar to what David Duchovny is like in real life. (Sex addict, anyone?) Matthew Morrison does a fantastic job on Glee, and I'd like to see them mix it up this year, because the man clearly has talent.

I'll wrap this up by saying that, while I have not seen the other nominees in these categories, I hope the Best Supporting Actor and Actress (TV) awards go to John Lithgow (Dexter) and Jane Lynch (Glee) respectively. They were both super.

Movies from 2009 that I'd still like to see

Watchmen
Public Enemies (?)
Ponyo
Extract (?)
Capitalism: A Love Story (?)
Paranormal Activity
Whip It
Where The Wild Things Are
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Blind Side
The Princess and the Frog
Invictus
A Single Man

Reebalk

A friend of mine recently got upset about the following ad from Reebok:



While it does somewhat perpetuate the objectification of women, it's hardly the worst example of it. Yes, the concept of a guy being unable to keep his eyes off a woman's ass is disgusting in many ways. However, the woman in the ad is cool, confident, commanding, and seems to have a very positive self-image. Yeah, sure, the ad leads us to believe she's like this as a result of having a nice posterior due to her use of their shoes, but these are generally good qualities to have, and it is far from portraying her as a submissive object at the mercy of mens' desires.

There is admittedly something wrong with our culture when women feel that they have to use their bodies to even the playing field; however, that is something intrinsically wrong with society, and expecting Reebok to adhere to a different set of standards to advertise their products is ridiculous. To get angry over this ad, one should be expected to admit that every commercial advertising shampoo, makeup, or any other beauty products is inherently offensive for suggesting, however subtly, that women need to look "beautiful" to be accepted by society.

That's a sound argument on a basic level, but it somewhat contradicts my view of feminism, which is that it's about choice. This includes the choice to be a housewife or stay-at-home mom, the choice to get plastic surgery, the choice to wear makeup and other beauty products, and yes, the choice to wear Reebok sneakers in order to tone your ass so that men will stare at it. I'm not in any way suggesting that women belong in the kitchen or need to look dolled up for their husbands, but if they choose to do it, that's their prerogative. So as long as that woman in the Reebok commercial seems to be in control of her choices, who are we to judge what shoes she wears?

In Review: Lady Gaga's Fame Monster

Few artists in the past year have had as much of an impact on the music industry as Lady Gaga, a fact made all the more impressive considering she is a essentially a newcomer to the scene. Gaga's "The Fame" brought a new and exciting flavor to dance/electronic music, combining common elements of the genre with pop vocals and style. Perhaps more importantly, in a genre full of names and music that lack image (what do Daft Punk and Justice look like?), Gaga brings fashion and art to the scene as well, giving a face to a commonly faceless genre. Some might consider her a pop starlet in the same vein as a Britney Spears or a Simpson sister, but one only has to listen to her new album, "The Fame Monster," to appreciate that she's taking a departure from the kind of overproduced crap Britney's been singing lately.

Gaga's concept for the album is (according to her) the darker side of being famous. I'm not really sure that I see that in the lyrical content of the songs on this album (most of the songs seem to be about romances going sour or not working out - maybe it's just metaphors that I'm not getting?), but at the very least the musical content is far heavier than her previous effort.

* * *

Bad Romance

Currently sitting at number 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 (expect this to change by next week), Bad Romance provides a metaphorical look into Gaga's relationship with the music industry. I originally didn't care for the song (musically speaking it's almost exactly the same as Poker Face) but after seeing the fabulous music video, I really started to warm up to it. There's a section ("Walk, walk, fashion, baby / work it, move that bitch c-razy") that features Gaga singing a minor seventh about a minor triad that also got my music theory muscles twitching. Otherwise it's not as spectacular as some of the other songs on the album, but it's catchy as hell and lots of fun, which is essentially the point of Lady Gaga.

Alejandro

Alejandro opens with a violin solo playing in the harmonic minor, but when the chords come in (the harmonic rhythm is quarter notes on the offbeats throughout the song - awesome), they're in the natural minor. Gaga employs one of her favorite compositional devices here, modulating to the relative major for the chorus, but starts it on a subdominant chord, reminiscent of a lot of European club/dance music. On a whole, a simple, catchy, and effective composition with rather bland lyrical content. It's a good thing that's not why I listen to her.

Monster

Ever wish people would use 80s drum machines more often? Wish no longer!

I don't really want to like this song. It uses a total of three different chords, and only in the same progression over and over, which is something I usually despise. That said, I do like the stylistic use of auto-tune (yeeeaah T-Pain) and as usual, Gaga has a flair for catchy melodic vocal lines (listen to Speechless for further on that). It's an average song that gets more addicting with each listen.

Speechless

Speechless is at once the "best" song on The Fame Monster and the most out of place. A ballad that contains no hint of the electronic dance beats that are present in the rest of the album, Speechless shows a clear influence from The Beatles, Queen, Billy Joel, and Elton John with the distinction of having Gaga's vocal stylings and lyrics.

This song is so good in so many ways that it really makes me sad to say that it has absolutely no business being a track on The Fame Monster. In between two heavy dance tracks, the presence of a ballad distracts from the overall industrial pop-dance feel of the work as a whole. I suppose I might recommend she write an entire album of ballads - God knows it would sell - but I'd honestly rather she keep up with the dance music.

Dance in the Dark

Interscope Records really bit the big one by not releasing an uncensored version of the album. In the opening section of this song, Gaga is supposed to be saying "I'm a free bitch" multiple times, but it's edited to "I'm a free bit" due to censoring, and it sounds terrible. I have yet to hear of an uncensored version available, which is really unfortunate because I don't really know what a "free bit" is. [Edit: I hear Interscope/Cherrytree is working on it. Still think it's a pretty stupid error to begin with.]

This song is Gaga's way of saying she's anti-plastic surgery, apparently - she opens by referring to silicone and saline as poison. The best parts of this song are the spoken word bit in the middle and the chorus that immediately follows it - like the opening of Lovegame, which contains a measure in 7/8 time with the verse coming in an 8th note earlier than expected, the spoken word section ends on a 2/4 measure rather than a 4/4 one, and the chorus comes in half a measure earlier than one would think. It sounds pretty sick. Otherwise it's pretty standard dance fare. The awesome chorus is in the relative major again (plagal cadences too!) - it's starting to be a signature move for most of Gaga's songs that are in minor. [See Poker Face, Paparazzi, and Boys Boys Boys from "The Fame"]

Telephone

Reported to be the official second single from The Fame Monster, Telephone is the only song on the album I can claim I truly don't like. It features a brief appearance by Beyoncé, who sounds extremely out of place - she's got a fabulous voice, but it's being put to horrible misuse in this instance. Musically- and lyrically-speaking, the song is repetitive and just plain boring. It's good enough for a mindless dance number but it does absolutely nothing for me.

So Happy I Could Die

This is, to me, the most interesting song on the album by far. In A minor, the verses feature a chord progression that ends in a Picardy third situation. Specifically, [ F > G > Em > A(sus4) > A ] the first time through and [ F > G > Em > Am ] the second time. While the major-tonic-in-a-minor-key thing would be pretty cool regardless, Gaga continues singing in the minor key while this is happening in the accompaniment - it's very reminiscent of her prior song, The Fame, in which she sings in G mixolydian while her accompaniment is in playing in G natural minor. The chorus ends with a pretty cool F# half-diminished chord resolving to an A minor chord to transition back into the verse. I've never heard of anything quite like this outside of maybe classical music or jazz, though I can't really think of an example of it even then. It's moments like this that I'm really glad Gaga writes her own music.

Let's add to this the incredibly feel-good lyrics and the fact this is about as catchy (especially the chorus) as everything else on the album as well. Love.

Teeth

Anyone remember Beautiful Dirty Rich from The Fame? Full of attitude, sass, and confidence, it was probably one of best songs from Gaga's first album. Teeth is that song for The Fame Monster. It focuses heavily on her ability to sell a song on vocals alone, and it works. Her static accompaniment uses very few chords (3) but this is the kind of song where that's all you need.

* * *

Overall, The Fame Monster has a fairly unified sound, with the ballad in the middle serving as a distraction, albeit quite a pleasant one. It shows a shift in sound from the more pop-oriented songs of The Fame [see: Eh Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say)] to a darker, industrial, dance-oriented focus in The Fame Monster. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but no one expects that of Gaga. We expect fun, catchy music that we can move to, and in that The Fame Monster is complete success.

Why Mozart Sucks

Well, he doesn't suck, I just don't enjoy his music very much.

If you've ever been in my presence when someone goes off on how wonderful Mozart is, you may be aware that I usually react with a groan, a negative rebuff, or some other dismissal of the man.

Mozart was a great composer, a musical genius, and few composers will ever possess the pure raw talent that he did. I occasionally (read: rarely) enjoy playing his string quartets - they're light and fun. But the fact of the matter is that from a musical standpoint, Mozart is simply boring.

Mozart mastered the style and form of pre-Beethoven classical music perfectly. However, unlike Beethoven who followed, he did little by way of innovation. Obviously in some pieces of music this just isn't true, but they're very few and far between. It's all very pleasant to listen to, but for me, it lacks substance, and that's something I really enjoy about music, something Beethoven and some of those that followed him did wonderfully.

You may undoubtedly be saying, "Hey, I know for a fact you love Rachmaninoff! That guy composed in a style that was outdated in his time and did nothing innovative whatsoever. Why is he better than Mozart?" Answer is that I don't think Rachmaninoff was necessarily "better" than Mozart, I just enjoy his work a lot more. The emotion that Mozart failed to instill in his music is present in Rachmaninoff, but both composers lack the innovation of a Beethoven, a Berlioz or a Mahler.

Obviously there is a lot to learn from studying Mozart's music; this is merely the best way I know how to explain why I personally don't like his music.

Also his cello parts are boring as hell.