Two wolves and a sheep. Good thing we're the wolves right now...

So recently, Nancy Pelosi hinted that the Democrats may just tell the opposition to fuck off, and pass a health care bill anyway.

Through a little-used practice called Reconciliation, they can push for a simple majority vote in the Senate, effectively eliminating the need for 60 votes to block a filibuster. This would allow the Democrats to push the health care bill they want through despite all the opposition it faces. For many, this probably sounds like fantastic news. I'm honestly not sure whether I'm one of them, though.

We need to get this issue behind us, and I think at this point it's obvious that the two sides aren't going to come to terms. Some will think that this is the case because the Republicans are a bunch of stubborn children cowering from the spectre of communism, and other will think it's because the Democrats are a bunch of ignorant twats who value an ideal of fairness more than the simple reality that their plan can't work; still more probably assume it has more to do with the fact that our government is run by insipid retards who got their jobs not by being thoughtful, intelligent public servants, but rather by winning a glorified beauty pageant. Maybe it's all of the above, but I think that everybody can probably agree that if they haven't come to terms by now, then there's no reason to expect that to change any time in the near (or distant) future.

In point of fact, a situation like this is precisely the reason an option like reconciliation exists. Regardless of which, if either, side has the right of it, we cannot afford to have our government tied up with one issue for upwards of an entire year. There's too much work to do. However, there are some major issues that are so controversial that the conflicting schools of thought are simply not going to agree with one another on it. Ever. And so, the only logical thing to do is to have a last-resort option of simply putting it to a majority vote. It's an ugly, flawed solution, but if you'll excuse a graduate student's metaphor, this is a timed exam and we've spent too long on this question.

But this carries a slew of serious problems. First and foremost, it's going to lack legitimacy. When a political party that represents well over a third of our nation is staunchly opposed and the bill passes anyway, there will be many who question whether this was a mandate of the American government, or simply a political party. Along the same lines, this is going to do a little more than piss off the conservatives in our country. By sweeping aside their collective voice in the senate, they will feel, perhaps justifiably, that they are being summarily ignored. This is not a matter of whether these people are right, but how they will react. These are people whose commitment to their ideology soundly trumps their ability to reason- don't expect such a people to take this sort of thing lying down.

Another, less nebulous fear I have in this is that it sets a dangerous precedent. Once the "majority" rule has been invoked once, it could much more easily be invoked again. There will come a time when the other team holds that majority, and they could easily use it to invoke any number of policies that otherwise might never have a chance of passing.

I'm on the fence with this one. I don't think that a health care bill will be passed in 2010 without it, frankly, but I don't like the implications of the 51 vote rule. I sincerely hope that the threat of the reconciliation will motivate republicans to come to the table with more willingness to compromise, and failing that, I hope that the Democratic majority shows some restraint in drafting the bill, so that it doesn't read like a blatant "fuck you, we do what we want!" letter to the conservatives of America. I'm slightly less pessimistic about the latter, if only because I think that even among that majority there might be enough level-headed people that they will insist on it.

Either way, I'm excited to hear that pre-existing conditions may soon no longer be considered when I apply for health care. I've chosen not to go to the doctor several times now, because I'm afraid of getting diagnosed with something that will keep me from getting covered in the future, but I'm going to be pushing 30 before I know it, and I can't do that forever.

Boy meets Girl...

So I met a girl. This actually isn't new, I met her back in November. We work together. But a couple weeks ago, I spotted her reading a KC Rep book. For the uninformed, this is a listing of plays by the Kansas City Repertoire Theater, of which I am a great fan. So I strike up a conversation as we're walking to the office, and we make plans to see a play.

Skip a few days, and we meet up at the Spencer stage to watch a fantastically well-produced portrayal of Around the World in 80 Days. You will forgive me, dear audience, for a brief digression from this post's primary subject matter, for I must gush. This play was truly a thing to behold. The set, despite a minimalist presentation style, did a good job of evoking images from all corners of the globe, but it was the performances that drove this play. From the scholarly hindu to the rastafarian ship captain to the cantankerous old judge, the characters that come and go from the story play their parts beautifully and they each have their own unique flavor to contribute. From high-flying acrobatic fight scenes to the British gentleman guffawing around the gaming table to the teacup that slid from one end of the table to the other without quite falling off*, the scenes all brought either some good hearty laughter, or some edge-of-your-seat action sequences. The Rep knows what makes theater great, and they always deliver. This play was a great reminder that I need to find myself in a theater more frequently.

So tonight, we went out again. This time, we went to an art museum. We spent a few hours wandering from piece to piece, liking some and hating others. She compared one picture to Diablo II. Aw yeah, nerd chick. Woot. For the most part, we agreed on which pieces were genuinely good works and which were glorified fingerpaintings. We spent time pointing little nuances out to each other about some of the better pieces, each catching stuff the other missed.

After about two hours, we stopped for coffee before heading home, and that coffee led to a walk, and into an unused classroom on the UMKC campus. We had a debate that lasted right up until midnight, at which point we agreed that we needed to go to bed, and pick it up again in the future.

The debate was on the topic of gay marriage. We... do not see eye to eye on this subject.

Yeah...





*OK, I know this sounds lame, but seriously, this teacup scene was off the chain.