Month: August 2009

Posted on

Trailer Review: “Capitalism: A love Story”

Well Michael Moore has another movie coming out and I just saw the trailer. If Michael Moore wanted to make it such, this could be an extremely good documentary about corrupt and sinister connections between government and corporations. After seeing the trailer I am going to have to hypothesize that he will get it wrong, only tell part of the story and/or twist the truth.

The first reason for my doubts is the title, “Capitalism: A Love Story”. Apparently the documentary is about government bailouts of huge corporations, which makes the title very deceptive. Capitalism or the ‘Free Market’ system is definitely not a system in which the government intervenes and takes money from the collective and gives it to mega-corporations that have screwed things up. Doing such is definitely against free market ideas. In fact, in regards to the bailouts George W. Bush said, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” (Which is like saying, “I killed my dog so I could save my dog”.) Part of the beauty of a capitalist system is that when people undertake unethical practices their businesses can fail miserably due to either a complete erosion of anything solid in the company or from outside influence such as boycotts or law enforcement, in extreme cases. Under different systems, such as a socialist one in which the collective pays taxes which are used to support businesses, it is exponentially more difficult to get rid of bad businesses. Under capitalism, when the big corrupt greedy groups fail then the smaller companies who have not been cheating get to swoop in and fill the void left by the mega-business, because there is still a need for the service. When the mega-banks got bailed out, that kept smaller banks who had not indulged in risky loans from jumping into their rightful place in the capitalist cycle.

Moore’s trailer seems to highlight the Bush administration’s role in the corrupt bailouts. And it was pleasing to see a mention of Goldmann Sachs with its dirty connections to the Bush administration. I would have liked to have also seen the Obama administration’s dirty connections to the very same company highlighted as well. It would also be nice to see him highlight the auto-maker bailouts which were supposed to prevent bankruptcy then restructuring which ended up happening anyway.

I like the idea of making a citizens arrest at AIG but I think Moore’s motives are all wrong. He seems to be trying to use a completely anti-capitalist situation to make a villain of the capitalist system. Of course he might not be but the trailer makes it look that way.

A few things in the trailer are confusing as well. Why does Moore say ‘donde’ to his cameraman who supposedly doesn’t speak English when he wants him to come outside. Maybe it’s my silly gringo ways but I thought ‘donde’ meant ‘where?’. I would have said ‘vamonos afuera’. Another huge thing is that a guy in the video says, “This is straight up capitalism, sch-schk boom” when it is clearly not capitalism. It is much more closely related to socialism, communism or especially fascism. This misrepresentation of capitalism will only serve to solidify many MTV watchers and people who don’t really understand America in their ignorant ways.

Posted on

Response Continued

I will just do a line by line on a secondary response to Gus:

“By Dale’s counter-argument, we read that “[t]he government has no place in health care…”“

Short note: I should have specified federal government.

“Taking this argument further would include the abolition of medicare, medicaid, and V.A. benefits. The elderly, young, and disabled former service members who take advantage of such programs are quite a bit more prone to sickness and would most definitely not be able to get insurance under the same types of ideas that Dr. Emmanuel enumerates“

Yes, we need to get rid of medicare and medicaid in a controlled way before it simply implodes. But it might be too late. The states can still have their own safety net health systems if they wish and if their state constitutions allow it, but the federal must stay out of it. As far as veterans go, if someone is wounded in the defense of our country that falls under national defense expenditures which is allowed in the constitution. The feds can pay for their care and hospitals can compete for veteran business with veteran priority centers or something like that. No more Walter Reed slumspitals.

“The very things that we read above are the very things that private insurances currently consider for profit. This for profit model of health care is the very reason that we have denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.“

Private businesses are allowed to refuse service for any reason. The government should never discriminate for any reason, ever. Private businesses can be boycotted, government cannot. Private businessmen can go to prison much easier than government officials (Scooter, I’m looking at you) can.

“Although I believe that capitalism is indeed the best way to get money to circulate, I also think that it makes a god out of money.“

When the founders decided to go with capitalism this was a concern. Many of them had studied Cicero thoroughly and based on his concept of natural law they decided that God would punish those who follow greedy ways. They also wanted leaders to always impress upon the people how important giving freely to each other is in our society. With all the millionaires in congress who make 4 times what the average American makes and don’t lead by example one can see how we are doing on that.

“When motivation becomes the Almighty Dollar and human lives are at stake, adding an option that is not run for profit might be a good idea. Whether it is a good idea remains to be seen, but we can see evidence both for and against single-payer systems in other developed countries, where people are generally healthier than in the U.S.“

Again it comes to morals and charity. If only there was some way to teach those kinds of things????? Hmmmmm.

“Of course, we are not speaking of a single-payer system. We are speaking of something which might be preliminary to such a system, but it is a choice to make, not a full governmental solution, such as single-payer would have been.
So, yes, I think that there could be boards in the government that would decide limits on certain types of care based on social and economic factors, much as doctors and nurses, in an emergency, have to decide who receives the limited resources available via a process of triage.“

Again government cannot discriminate, ever. That is an essential principle. I keep thinking of an old commercial where a lady was told she had cancer and was going to die. She went to a different hospital and they helped her to live. With government care you only get the one shot with no hope for a fight anywhere else.

“As a pseudo-libertarian, I agree that the government having more power might be a bad thing.“

I hate the word libertarian because I hate the ‘arian’ part. Like vegetarian or aryan nation. It just rubs me the wrong way. If I didn’t hate the smell of pot so much and hate the name I might slightly consider changing my ‘unaffiliated’ status.

“I think that the government should be in the business of protecting rights, not granting them. One of the most important rights that a government can protect is the right of its citizens to live, and it would seem that in today’s society the right to live is connected with one’s ability to receive health care.“

The rights that the government must protect are the ones given by ‘Nature and Nature’s God’. Man is not given the right to health care or food or shelter he must work for those. He has been given life, liberty, the ability to pursue happiness and property, speech, religion, press (information), defense of self and so on and on. Our government must protect those freedoms and leave the rest to society.

“All that being said, I agree with Dale that tort reform would do wonders to help replenish our ailing health care system, hopefully saving doctors from unnecessary expenses, except in cases of negligence.“

We have laws about not suing when a plane crashes why not when something goes wrong when a doctor did their best? If they cut off the wrong appendage that is a clear case to sue, but if they gave you the wrong pills for a week and you felt ill, no way.

Posted on

Response to Gus

Since I like good discussions and Gus is the only one that I have such discussions with nowadays I am putting a long response to his post here:

You are gonna have to pity this fool then Gus.

Mr. Beck stated that he doesn’t believe Dr. Emanuel when he says he doesn’t believe in the ‘allocation’ system that he devised. You countered that with Dr. Emanuel saying that he doesn’t believe in his system. These two examples leave us with a ‘he said, he said’ situation and it is not clear that there is ‘outright deceit’ by any party, but we rather have a situation where we must deduce things.

Dr. Emanuel’s ‘complete lives system’ is an alternative to the ‘first come, first served’ waiting list system and also includes proposals for the rationing of medical care other than organs when ‘scarcity’ calls for it. The fact that the government will soon be bankrupt creates ‘scarcity’ and thus calls for ‘allocation’ if the government takes over health care. ‘Death Panel’ is just a cute name for the group of people who will decide where things get allocated. Mr. Beck stated that he didn’t believe Dr. Emanuel when he claimed that he doesn’t endorse his own ‘complete lives system’. Seems logical to not believe someone when they tell you they don’t like their own work. I think ‘first come, first served’ is fair enough rather than discrimination based on age or impairment status. There is no need to work up such a system unless you think it might actually be used. Unlike Dr. Emanuel’s thesis on “Puppy-punching”, that one was purely for fun.

The Doctor was not taken out of context as the entire context of his research was on deciding who gets treatment over others. There is no question of context because that was fully his topic, he set the context. The only question that would remain is whether it was just a waste of time for him and he doesn’t believe any of it should ever be used, or he believes it. He says he doesn’t, Beck doesn’t believe him. The Doctor is the ‘health-policy adviser at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget’, so his research and conclusions in previous works about health-policy ‘allocation’ aka ‘budgeting’, should be applicable. He states that he is against the ‘Right to Die’ when that is not the question. ‘Right to die’ people want to die. People who are concerned about a discriminatory system of allocation want to live. It is not assisted suicide if a person just lets someone die.

The doctor also claims that people are taking him out of context because they don’t have any solutions for health care costs. I have heard some real good alternate solutions. Tort reform is a huge one. I was sick a while back and the doctor misdiagnosed me and caused another problem. I told this to a friend of mine who was in law school at the time and he said I had a good solid case to sue. No permanent damage had been done but apparently I could have got some free money. I did not. If we could better protect doctors from worthless and dumb cases such as what mine would have been we could lower costs. Next we have a myriad of companies that are confined by state borders. If congress used it’s constitutional interstate commerce power in a better way and allowed interstate competition prices would go down.

The Doctor may very well actually not believe in the system he has devised, but the fact that he has plotted out the whole thing and that he has the ear of the powers-that-be can be concerning. He has clearly thought about it quite thoroughly. He even made a chart to demonstrate who will be less inclined to receive treatment.

Dr. Emanuel’s material is well thought out and has a lot of practical points, but it ignores some key principles. To kick off this point these are the decision methods he compares:

Treating People Equally

  1. Lottery
  2. First-come, first served

Prioritarianism

  1. Sickest first
  2. Youngest first

Utilitarianism

  1. Saving the most lives
  2. Saving the most life-years
  3. Saving the most socially useful
  4. Reciprocity (paying back people who have ‘contributed’, such as organ donors)

Now the biggest principle that I feel applies is equality. The government must treat the lives of all citizens with equal concern. A system which places people at different priority levels based on characteristics like age or mental capacity devalues the lives of those at lower priority levels. We have already had far too much unequal treatment in this country and we know it is horrible.

The next principle I feel has been overlooked is power. When there are people who make these decisions with the aforementioned criteria in mind these people are susceptible to corruption either from themselves or from others above them. Let’s go fictional and say that we have a president named Deorge W. Bush and he doesn’t like someone named Malerie Plame. Malerie gets very sick and needs a transplant. Well now that we have the ‘Complete Lives’ board and they are under the control of the government, it is very easy to manipulate things for political reasons and Malerie’s life is suddenly worth less, whereas before she would have had an equal chance on a waiting list or in a lottery. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where a leader would have it in for someone and if you don’t think it could happen in America then you trust government too much. The less power the government has, the better, to a certain point which is marked by the concept of ‘natural law’.

Now of course, I do not believe that Dr. Emanuel wants to kill people, I disagree with the method of allocation that he devised that he also does not agree with even though he devised it. I cannot speak for Mr. Beck, but it may be safe to say that he doesn’t think the Doctor wants old people and handicaps to die. But there are people around that do and a big concern is raised when government has any power over ones health and life decisions. The reason things seem Orwellian is because the government is involved in socialism, that was Orwell’s forte. The principles of Ingsoc are coming to fruition more subtly than set forth in fiction and obviously on a longer time line. The government should not be concerned with social things. The constitution should be adhered to and let society worry about social issues like health care. The more government is in our lives the more power they have and it should be known as a well established fact that power corrupts. This generation may not abuse that power but it will happen at some point.

The government has no place in health care. The constitution was a document set up to limit government and does not give the government the power to control health care or any other industry. Since it is not set forth in the constitution it is left to States or individuals to decide what to do. “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington. We should not let the fire out of the fireplace.

Posted on

Dirty Hazards

There is a phenomenon that anyone who has ever been to a concert knows about.  It is sometimes hilarious, sometimes frightening, sometimes annoying and sometimes just really really sad.  It is the phenomenon known to myself and my friends as the “Dirty Hazard”.  Dirty Hazards just want to be enveloped in sound and dance and move around. They have no regard for others around them and they just go for it. I have seen a Dirty Hazard at every concert I have been to.  So I am very certain that you have too.  There are different types of Dirty Hazards but their general goal is the same and they are all very easy to spot.

The Hazard “Classic”

This is usually an older man who may seem out of place, wearing his Black Sabbath shirt to a Britney Spears concert.  He just wants to see a concert and rock out, which is pretty much the goal of all Hazards.  He doesn’t move as much as some of the other kinds of Hazards, but he never stops.  Head banging is pretty common from these guys and he will just keep going, many times when the music has stopped.

The “Ditzy” Hazard

This is one of the most common types in today’s world.  They may even be found in herds sometimes.  The name gives it away as they are the trendy girls who feel the same call as the classic Hazards, to go to a noisy place and move.  Most times they will only be at the show because one of their friends, liked a song, that they heard on the radio once, that was done by the band.  These girls will most often be found holding their arms over their heads for long periods of time, sometimes throwing in swimming motions.  You must be careful near these girls, as they have long nails and can easily draw blood if you happen to pass by during the backstroke.

The “Nerdy” Hazard

These are one of the craziest and most unpredictable of the Hazards.  They love to try to look like Thom Yorke from Radiohead doing his “I feel itchy, but I am not sure where and my neck is loose” dance.  These guys go everywhere and are so into the music that they can’t even feel when they hit someone.  Usually they do not look at all like they even like music made after Tchaikovsky went mainstream, which is why if you see them, you can be pretty sure the headlining band is their ultimate favorite band.

The “Snotty” Hazard

“Oh this song gets me every time.” I am all for having an emotional and/or spiritual connection with music, but do your crying at home.  These hazards feel so strongly about the song and the time it kept them from sending their dog to the shelter or throwing away their favorite shirt that they have decided to come leak bodily fluids all over other concert-goers.  You may think that someone has been injured at first, but this is just an emotional powder keg that was ignited by the poignant lyrics of Clay Aiken. You don’t need to worry about these too much because they are generally at concerts for ex-American Idol stars.  But every now and then they venture out into the world of real music.

The “Health” Hazard

There are a few ways that the Health Hazards can ruin your night.  First they love to mosh and harm as many people as possible.  The higher the body count, the better the night was.  Next, if you wanted to avoid second-hand smoke and other carcinogens, you can thank these upstanding citizens for making sure you experience a wide range of pleasant odors throughout the night.  These are the sweatiest and most wild of all the Hazards and many of them love to take off their shirts.  This insures that, if they had a cold or the flu, their sweat will carry that disease over to you.  Don’t try to avoid it, their sweat will be in contact with you several times before the night is over.  These guys are mostly at metal shows but, like the Snotty Hazards (only more often), try to branch out.

The HUI (Hazarding Under the Influence)

These thrifty individuals pay for the concert and the booze, only to not recall any of it the next day.  Money well spent.  They dance like crazy all night even without any music, more so than the Classic Hazard.  The main causes for concern are mostly the same as driving near a premedicated person with the added bonus of trying to not get vomitted on.  All the shaking and crazy lights just enhance the delightful cocktail brewing in their belly.  Sometimes it might be difficult to tell if they are a Health Hazard, a Ditzy Hazard or a Nerdy Hazard, but if you see chunks of corn you know its a case of HUI.

Making Concerts More Safe

For normal people who want to enjoy the music of a band or artist they like, avoiding Hazards will be a key to having a good time.  Although, in a few cases Hazards can be quite entertaining and enhance the concert experience, as long as they don’t harm anyone else.  If you steer clear of the dangerous ones you can take in some good music and do a little dancing of your own (not too much dancing though, and stop when the music is over).

Posted on

New Zombie Plan

In coming up with a zombie plan for my new house I have had a harder time than I did in my last place. My old options were very clear and worked very well for many different undead scenarios. Now I have much more to consider.

First of all, I am now on ground level. This makes it much easier for zombie to just wander in. Second, I now have a sliding glass door to my back yard. The sliding glass might not be a problem if it is just a slow herd of rotting flesh that cant figure out how to break glass but who wants to take a risk with such an important thing. Thirdly, I had a hard time deciding between a back-to-the-wall basement hold out or an upstairs approach. I have decided to have a primary plan and a less desirable but workable backup plan.

If my family is just hanging out in the living room and sees one of our neighbors looking more gray than usual or eating the dog next door, we will immediately run to the garage, jump in the car and head just up the road to the military base that is very close to us. Since the zombie-free military evacuation zone is usually the end of the movie anyway I figured we should just go for the jugular. If something happens to prevent us from getting directly to the car, then I have decided that the upstairs approach is better because it gives us many more options and actual hope for survival rather than going to the dead end or ‘undead’ end in the basement. Upstairs I can craft a makeshift barricade using bed frames, box springs and dresser drawers that will keep the zombies held back while we poke them with sharpened pieces of wood. While they are held off at the stairs I will bust my way through the floor of a bedroom over the garage. We can then clear the garage of enough zombies so that we can make our escape. If this upstairs backup plan takes a long time we will be certain to have frequent bite mark inspections in case some one has been bitten and is in denial about the certain zombification that will come. If something else goes awry upstairs we can move the party up to the attic and attempt to break through the roof and climb down the side of the house until we get to the garage.

Each backup plan is less desirable than the previous, but of course the ideal plan is to not have zombies at all, but of course the situation where scientists are trying to cure cancer or toxic waste rolls through a cemetery, thus creating legions of contagious fleshy freaks is inevitable, so be prepared. Now I can think about a fire escape plan and such.