Decisions Decisions

   Well, that does it.  We've sat through four debates, we've heard both sides say the same thing a thousand times, now all that's left is for all of us to make our decision.  Well, really it comes down to the 10 or 11 undecided voters left in a couple of key states, but hey!  Democracy!

   Just because your vote doesn't really count (thanks electoral college!) doesn't mean you can't have an opinion.  And by the way, that's all you are seeing here.  My opinions.  But it also doesn't mean you shouldn't vote... there are plenty of local and state races that you really can make a difference in, and those outcomes will affect your day-to-day life a lot more than the presidential election anyway.  But because chances are you're not one of the 10 undecideds who will sway this thing one way or another, might I suggest you take this opportunity to open yourself up?  To consider viewpoints that you may not have considered in the past?  To look at this election as a chance to really view things from the other side of the aisle?  Don't worry, I won't tell anyone.  But consider the following...

   On healthcare -- There has been a LOT of talk about Obamacare and whether or not it's what's right for this country.  This is dumbing it way down, but the basics of the argument is one side saying that government is capable of managing a healthcare system for everyone in this country, and the the other side saying that it isn't.  The argument against is one that say government was never designed to take on a role like that.  Sure it works in other countries, but other countries aren't America.  They aren't set up the same way.  The idea is that private companies competing with one another will drive prices lower and improve healthcare because they are constantly trying to one-up each other.  That side also argues that those of us who work every day should not be held responsible for the healthcare of those who don't, can't, or won't.  On the other side of the fence, the argument goes that we are already taking care of those people.  There are hospitals that don't require insurance, and the way I understand it those hospitals pay for treatments out of taxes.  That's still your money and mine, it just gets to those people in a different way.  Also they argue that private industry is not so great as it might be made out to be.  Competition is SUPPOSED to keep prices down and quality up... but time and time again (not just in the medical industry) we have seen where private industry almost seems to work together, AGAINST us... slowly raising prices, coming up with more and newer ways to cut corners and provide less service for more money.  Honestly private industry can be a bit of a dick sometimes, and while government may not have been designed to handle something as massive as Universal Healthcare, it can probably do a better job of keeping things fair.  I give the edge to Obama and his pals on this one.  I'm not a big fan of handing ANYTHING over to the government, but the reality is that private health insurance has done nothing but prove that they are a money-making machine.  Rates go up, coverage goes down, and more and more they are finding ways to establish reasons why they can't cover those of us who actually need it most.

   On Taxes -- Obama says he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy while keeping rates the same for everyone else.  Romney wants to lower taxes for everyone across the board.  They've both traded barbs over the specifics of their plans, while neither of them has really provided us with those specifics.  Romney says he'll cut out loopholes in order to make up the difference.  I don't get that.  Obama says it's time for the rich to carry more of a burden.  Why?  First off, I don't think the taxes are the root of our problem as much as our spending.  Our government spends sooooo much money... from the massive military, to the sloppy and un-policed social programs, right down to the ludicrously large (and permanent) paychecks that our elected officials earn.  THAT should be what these politicians are addressing, not the taxes.  But if we're going to talk about taxes, I'm going t lean Romney's way on this topic.  While I agree that the rich should do their part, I don't believe they should be obligated to do any larger part than the rest of us.  That, I believe, is the road to Socialism.  What we don't want to do is get to a point in this country to where you are penalized for being rich.  I'm definitely not rich, and if Obama is being honest about his plan, it would probably help me more than Romney's.  But that doesn't matter.  What matters is how FAIR both of these plans are, for EVERYBODY.  It's time for us all to face some hard facts: some people are going to be rich.  Some people aren't.  Some people will always be in the middle.  That's life.  That's what makes this country work.  But taxing people more because they are successful is not a good formula.  In my opinion, the better formula is to give everyone more money in their pockets so that they will hopefully turn around and spend it, pumping more into the economy and juicing it back up again.

   I was going to do a bit on foreign policy, but after that last debate it appears the two guys are pretty close on most of those topics.  I'm not saying that is a bad thing either... I think Obama has some good plans in place, and there's no reason for Romney to disagree just for the sake of disagreeing.

   Honestly I did think these were all pretty good debates.  Biden made a bit of an ass of himself in the VP debate, but that's just how Biden is.  Can you believe that at one point that dude was gunning for the presidency?  Sigh.  Anyway, the townhall debate was definitely Obama's.  That's more his style, informal, off the cuff.  Romney was stiff and awkward, even in his walking around he looked like he was very out of place.  It kind of reminded me of the Nixon Kennedy debates (which yes, I only heard about).  The third debate was a little more straightforward, but it seemed like Obama was trying his best to ride his momentum.  Honestly I feel like that debate could have gone either way.  So much of it was agreement between the two candidates, it really wasn't much of a debate.  I'd give Romney a SLIGHT edge in that one, if for no other reason than the fact that he didn't come across as aggressive and he did a better job of pulling the discussion away from foreign policy (where it was supposed to be) and focusing more on domestic issues (which is what people actually care about).

   I'm not going to sit here and try to sway your vote one way or another.  All I'm going to ask is that you keep an open mind and try to see things from as many different angles as you can.  I know that's tough, I certainly don't always do a good job of it.  These are two very smart, very capable men.  They both have very different views for how to get the country back on track, and I'm not in a position to say that either one of them is wrong.  During the debates they have both made compelling arguments for their cases.  What I will say is this.  Romney is a man who has made a living out of turning things around.  Of righting ships.  I personally do believe that he has a better understanding of the economy, and while he may fall short in other areas, that is the priority right now.  However, while he may have a better grasp on what the problem is and how to fix it, he's also going to be in a very different position than he was in the private sector.  He can't just close a failing business and repurpose its funds anymore.  He has an entire country to worry about now, and those types of harsh, capitalist ideas don't tend to go over too well.  Obama appears to be a much more compassionate man.  He sells himself (and I believe he is genuine) as the guy who stands up for you, for us, for the little guy.  He wants to be an equalizer, which on paper might sound dangerous, but in practice he sees (like many of us do) that the rich are squashing the rest of us.  They are riding on their successes and holding a lot of us down in the process.  So while the differences between these two is very clear, the decision between them, at least for me, is not.

   Alright I think that's enough politics, don't you?  I'm kinda getting burned out here.  Let's do some movies and call it a night.

The Muppets

   From Netflix:  When Kermit the Frog and the Muppets learn that their beloved theater is slated for demolition, a sympathetic human, Gary, and his puppet roommate, Walter, swoop in to help the gang put on a show and raise the $10 million they need to save the day.
   My Take:  I haven't really kept up with the Muppets over the years.  I watched their original movie way back in the 80s, and it was incredible.  But I guess that was always enough for me.  If I've learned anything from "The Land Before Time," it's that a lot of times the original movie is all you need.  The sequels just turn into money-making garbage.  Now I'm not saying that's the case with the Muppets... Jim Hensen was a classy guy, and I can't see him allowing his product to sell out.  But the point I'm trying to get at is that Hensen didn't produce this movie.  Jason Segal did.  And while Segal was obviously very into the idea of this movie, I just wasn't sure if he was going to be able to pull off the same level of magic.
   But he did.
   "The Muppets" is a touching, heartfelt, and deeper-than-you-think story.  It tugs at the nostalgia strings way more than I ever thought it would.  And while it has its share of silly, childish humor, I think there's no doubt that Segal made this movie for adults.  It's safe for kids don't get me wrong... but the themes, the emotion, it's all very grown up in that regard.
   If you were ever a fan of the muppets, you owe it to yourself to see this movie.  It will take you right back to your childhood.  Enjoy the moment.

Haywire

   From Netflix:  A last-minute mission in Dublin turns deadly for stunning secret operative Mallory Kane when she realizes she's been betrayed -- and that her own life is no longer safe. Now, to outwit her enemies, she'll simply have to outlast them.

   My Take:  Hmmm.  When I stopped watching this movie, my first reaction was "hey that was pretty good."  But the more I think about it, the more I realize that no, really, it was not.  It has all the makings of an action-packed thriller.  There's great fighting, there are tons of plot twists, you don't know who's who and who's going to turn on who.  Except you do.  The entire first half of the movie is explained by the main character.  It's all told through flashbacks, and it's all explained.  I would say I get it, that they were trying to be meta or whatever... but really I think they just realized that the story was so out there and vague that without explanation there was no way the viewer would be able to hang.  Okay, I appreciate the help, but I would have much preferred you to not be lazy with your filmmaking.

   Granted, the flashbacks stop about 3/4 of the way through the movie... but by then you're kinda lost.  I felt like I had no attachment to the main character, other than the fact that she was mildly attractive and kicked a whole helluva lot of ass.  But the final scene of the movie is supposed to be some kind of payoff (I think), and I just was like "meh."

   I dunno.  Prove me wrong.  Check out this movie for yourself and let me know what you think.  Maybe I just missed the point.  I was eating some particularly good pasta while watching it, so maybe I was distracted.

The Descendants

   From Netflix:  With his wife on life support in the wake of an accident, an affluent landowner tries to mend his broken relationships with his daughters. All the while, he's weighing his marriage -- and the decision to sell land his family has owned for decades.

   My Take:  Here's George Clooney in a role that I like.  He's not some crazy action guy.  He's not a mastermind.  He's not even a silly jailbird (even though I do like him in that role too).  He's a father, a guy who is relatively clueless and harmless and dealing with something that is way out of his league.

   At first I thought this was going to be a sad movie.  Then I was completely thrown by the twist in the plot.  It was still a sad movie, but it had so much more layered into it... it really was enjoyable.  I don't know if it was Clooney or the script or the music or what, but I found myself actually feeling ambivalent about what I was seeing on the screen... just like the actors.  I hope that was the goal, because it worked.

   This isn't a fun movie to watch.  It's got some tough issues.  It's very real and it's sort of defeating.  But it's worth it.  It's a good role for Clooney, the kids and really the rest of the actors were all good as well.  It's an emotional wreck, but it's genuine and that makes it worth watching.

   I was going to write about the Texans sucking.  But then they didn't suck.  So I think I'm going to reserve my judgement for now.  All I'll say is that Kubiak and the gang better wake up and realize they can't "run the clock out" on the rest of the season like they have been in their blowout games.  There are a lot of teams, even one or two in our division, who are out for blood.  Until next time...