Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Pictures From the Set of What If..., Days 8 and 9

In no random order, here are some pictures from the set from last year during our three-day trip to Grand Rapids.

In a scene between Kevin Sorbo and Toni Trucks (as investment banker Ben Walker and his assistant Claire), the camera gets a closeup of a letter Ben receives.

I discuss the best way for John Ratzenberger (Mike the Angel) to punch Kevin Sorbo...

...and he executes it.

We shot the film with two cameras, which meant that at certain times, one of the cameras could be taken away for "establishing shots" and "B-roll." Establishing shots are usually scenery shots or shots of locations that don't require any actors. B-roll involves random shots of activity that again, doesn't require lead actors. In this case, we were on the 17th floor of the building getting shots city buildings as well as a couple shots from a distance of Mike the Angel's truck driving into the city.

To make Mike the Angel's truck look older and more roughed up, co-producer and set dresser Harold Cronk and I spritzed water and then tossed dirt on it.

Filming some close up shots inside Ben Walker's minivan. The black sheet you see on the passenger side is to create shadows that look like branches and random objects.

To get big power onto the 17th floor of the building, we had to extend cable up the outside of the building.

Yours truly playing a gas station attendant with Kevin Sorbo.

Setting up a scene inside a limo which unfortunately we later cut from the film.

Inside the lobby of the office building.

Friday, January 15, 2010

"What If..." Video Blog...

Check out the latest video blog for What If..., where I talk about music, my DVD commentary, and the final sound mix, along with behind the scenes footage. And if you're a Friday Night Lights fan, you should appreciate my t-shirt.



If you're reading this on facebook, go to http://whatifmovie.wordpress.com.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Latest "What If..." video blog...

Hear the latest regarding picture correction, DVD Commentary and "ADR" with the actors, and an update as we get closer to completion. Includes some images from the film. For this and all the other video blogs, check out http://whatifmovie.wordpress.com.

Friday, December 25, 2009

One of the best voices ever...

A can't-miss on Christmas. Check it out:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZFxG6-WSnI

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Why Christians Are Wrong About the Phrase "Happy Holidays"

Few things get Christians and Bill O'Reilly more upset than the "assault on Christmas." And most of the time, they're right. The fear of offense has gotten so out of control that symbols of a national holiday that celebrates giving and sacrifice have become something to protect people from. The Christmas Tree at Rockefeller is now "The Tree at Rockefeller." A school out east has their "holiday gift exchange" while banning red and green wrapping paper and any mentions of the word Christmas. It's lunacy.

The anger about this has fostered a youtube sensation based on the song "Christmas With a Capital 'C'" by the band Go Fish.

But one area where Christians are wrong is the phrase "Happy Holidays." We hear that stores make that phrase their standard and we suggest a boycott. We hear someone say "Happy Holidays" and we say, "It's 'Merry Christmas,' thank you very much!"

Stop for a minute and think about why stores SHOULD say "Merry Christmas" before December 25th. Just because it's tradition doesn't necessarily mean it's ideal. Let's pick a random date of this year and think about what a store clerk should say to a customer...how bout December 18th? Here are the different phrase options available to a clerk for a customer on December 18th:

"Merry Christmas" It's December 18th, not December 25th. It's not Christmas. If you must know, it happens to be Hannukah, an important holiday for a large number of people who, let's face it, tend to be good customers.

"Happy Hanukkah" The majority of customers are Gentiles, who don't celebrate this holiday, obviously. So unless you see the name Eli Lichtenbergstein on the credit card you're swiping, don't take a shot.

"Happy New Year" It's December 18th, not January 1st. It's not New Year's.

"Happy Thanksgiving" Obviously, it's past Thanksgiving. Let's not be silly.

"Happy Kwanzaa" Again, let's not be silly.

"Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy New Year" Too wordy.

"Happy Holidays" What's wrong with this? Seriously. It incorporates all the holidays that make up the holiday season, which starts with Thanksgiving, without excluding anyone or laboriously trying to include everyone. It's not a war on Christmas when it doesn't exclude Christmas.

Now, on December 25th, if a clerk doesn't say "Merry Christmas," then the store is evil and should be boycotted, if for no other reason than pure stupidity.

Get ticked off when manger scenes are banned; if someone gets offended if you do happen to say "Merry Christmas" on December 20th, ignore them like the morons they are; protest the new name of the Rockefeller Christmas tree. I get all that, those are assaults on Christmas.

But there is more than one holiday in the month of December, and there's nothing wrong with a store encouraging its clerks to quickly include all of them in a jaunty farewell. Let's fight the right battles, people.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Government Screws Over Airlines (and passengers)

I saw a headline today that said the Obama Administration is passing a law that REQUIRES airlines to never hold passengers on the tarmac longer than three hours. This is because of the very rare but nightmarish "trapped on a plane for 8 hours" stories. They're also requiring airlines to provide meals at the 2 hour mark. Airlines who break this rule face massive fines.

Sounds good, right? Sounds like the government doing its job to protect customers from business.

When I saw the headlines, I knew something was up. Those horror stories upset me as well (my sister-in-law and her husband were held on a plane for EIGHT hours once, leaving for their honeymoon), but I figured there's no way airlines would tick their passengers off that bad without reason, knowing they'll likely lose those customers for life. There had to be more to it.

Sure enough, this is another example of government involvement creating unintended consequences. Because politicians aren't experts in the fields they decide to get involved in, they always make decisions based on what sounds good on the surface and end up missing the bigger picture. Every rule and regulation they think will "protect citizens" has a consequence, and the vast majority of the time, the consequence is worse for more people than the original problem.

Consider how often this problem occurs: Despite the foul weather, only 66 flights out of about 250,000 flown between Dec. 16 and 20 of '09 were delayed by more than three hours after pulling away from the airport gate. That's .0026%, and that's during a bad weather period.

Now consider these unintended consequences to prevent this 1 out of 3,787 occurrence:

1. Flight prices go up to cover the extra food (can't passengers bring their own food if they want to prepare for a potential problem?).
2. The amount of time and effort it takes to get a plane "out of the conga line" and back to start the departure process from scratch is going to cost people more time more often. And in most cases, it'll force passengers to spend the entire night in the airport and miss the flight altogether rather than half the night on the plane and make the flight.
3. Large numbers of travelers could also be stranded if carriers cancel flights they otherwise would have flown for fear of penalties.

Also, it's going to keep airlines from their and their passengers ultimate goal--completing as many flights as possible.

There will no doubt be times when passengers say, "No, we want to stay on the plane another hour if it means we can still leave tonight, we don't want to go back to the airport." And the airline will say, "Sorry, it's the law." Two recent flights in Chicago left 3 hours, 11 minutes late because of snowstorms--with the new law, those flights will be canceled altogether.

When government starts making decisions for business, it always means that people who aren't experts in a particular field start making laws and rules for that particular field. As the head of the group representing the airlines said, "Lengthy tarmac delays benefit no one." In other words, does the government think they do this for fun, even though there are better solutions? They like holding passengers hostage?

The best way to avoid problems like these, while saving money for the 99.99% of passengers who never end up facing a nightmare like the one the government is "preventing," is to simply let the market punish those airlines who cause this problem for passengers. Airlines go through massive amounts of safety and performance checks to ensure that the miracle of affordable and fast flight goes off as smoothly as possible, so that they can keep their customers happy. They know that if they cause a problem for their passengers, they'll lose business and money. Do we need to create bigger problems for them and ultimately their customers with more government regulation?

Monday, December 21, 2009

Insurance companies heartless, government good...right?

"According to the American Medical Association’s National Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government’s health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88%

In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that Medicare denied only 4% of claims—a big improvement, but outpaced better still by the private insurers. The prior year’s high private denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%—an astounding 75% improvement—with similar declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%."

By the way, denied claims aren't always a bad thing. Many people lie and cheat, many claims are fraudulent and unnecessary, and these claims raise prices for everyone else. But the myth that the government is more altruistic than private companies when it comes to health care needs to be contradicted more often in the media.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Democrats support a bill that helps private insurance companies? Really?

From Jay Cost, the best political blogger on the web:

"As we all know, the Democrats plan to cut nearly $500 billion from Medicare to fund this monstrosity. Medicare is a single-payer system for seniors. It's the ultimate "public option," a product of Johnson expanding Roosevelt's social insurance concept to medical care for the elderly. Today's Democrats plan to reduce its revenues by $500 billion to pay for subsidies that will ultimately find their way over to...private insurance companies.

Many Democrats on Capitol Hill have talked themselves into the absurd notion that this is better than doing nothing. That kind of myopia is a typical symptom of the Swamp Fever, so I'm not surprised. Still, they had better look out. Above all, they are grossly underestimating the wisdom of the American people, and they are ignoring the power that the Constitution grants them. This is a grave error. When the people catch wind of the full scope of this bill, and they will, there will be hell to pay. The public has been known to vote against big business and big government. Somehow, this compromised bill manages to deliver both - big government and big business, joined together, with the little guy forced to participate.

If the Democrats pass this bill, the Republicans will pound them relentlessly and mercilessly in next year's midterm campaign. All across the country right now, would-be Republican candidates can sense that this is their chance finally to get into Congress. They're already starting to toss their hats into the ring. Many more will follow because they know what the public thinks of this. They know that they'll find plenty of donors to bankroll those ads talking about the individual mandate, the insurance company giveaways funded by Medicare cuts, the victory for special interests, and how it all happened behind closed doors. And they know what kind of effect these ads are going to have."

Friday, December 18, 2009

Does preventative care save money?

Doug Elmendorf, responding to the myth that preventative care lowers health care costs overall:

"Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall," Elmendorf wrote. "That result may seem counterintuitive.

"For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. In such cases, an ounce of prevention improves health and reduces spending — for that individual," Elmendorf wrote. "But when analyzing the effects of preventive care on total spending for health care, it is important to recognize that doctors do not know beforehand which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway. ... Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

This video is worth the 9 minutes...

I'll be making the blog private in a couple days, so again, email me if you want to have access...

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

My new article for Big Hollywood...

I write about my attempt to actually make a good "Christian" film. Check it out here.

Monday, December 7, 2009

When Christmas Isn't Christmas Anymore

I'm going to write soon about my thoughts on the phrase "Happy Holidays" (I have no problem with stores saying it) and why I think Christians are over-reacting to it, but some of this anti-Christmas stuff is getting ridiculous. See this interesting article in the New York Post about the famous Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center:

"Lawyers & jerks putting the 'ex' in Xmas"

By Andrea Preyser

HOW did the Grinch steal that Christmas tree?

The iconic, 76-foot Norway spruce cur rently propped up in the middle of Rockefeller Center is no random bush. The tree represents nothing less than the holiest Christian holiday, the joyous celebration of the birth of Jesus.

So why has Christ been sucked out of the Christmas tree?

Every year at this time, I'm bombarded with warnings about the mugging of Christmas, and the rampant secularization of a country founded on one's ability to worship as one chooses.

So it came as a surprise to learn that the Rockefeller Christmas tree, which draws hundreds of thousands of slow-moving tourists and giddy local revelers annually to gawk at this busy corner of the universe, has been officially stripped of its religious identity.

About a year ago, the tree, which has delighted visitors of all religions since the Depression, was christened simply "The Tree at Rockefeller Center."

Read the rest of the article here

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Government keeps making housing problem worse

Another great piece by John Stossel...

(and again, this blog will be private within a few days, so please email me directly at dallas@jenkins-entertainment.com if you want to continue access)

The Federal Housing Administration announced this week that it wants tougher rules on mortgage lenders. It's about time.

Maybe FHA got spooked by the recent New York Times story titled "Easy Loans to Wealthier Areas," which said: "In its efforts to prop up a shattered housing market, the government is greatly extending its traditional support of real estate, including guaranteeing the mortgages of middle-class and even upper-class buyers against default."

The Times explained that San Francisco, one of the priciest real estate markets in the country, had no government-insured mortgages two years ago, but now "the government is guaranteeing an average of six mortgages a week here. ... The Federal Housing Administration is underwriting loans at quadruple the rate of three years ago even as its reserves to cover defaults are dwindling."

And some of those loans are surely questionable.

The Times explains that 27-year-old Mike Rowland and his friends were able to buy a two-unit apartment building for almost a million dollars. "They had only a little cash to bring to the table but, with the federal government insuring the transaction, a large down payment was not necessary."

"It was kind of crazy we could get this big a loan," Rowland said.

Yes, it was crazy. Such policies do not end well. Young Rowland gets that. Even the Times does: "With government finances already under great strain, the policy expansions are creating new risks for American taxpayers."

But our leaders plunge ahead, with your money. Has the administration forgotten that today's financial mess was precipitated in part by government's moves to encourage mortgage lending to unqualified or at best unproven borrowers? In the 1990s, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, concerned that blacks and Hispanics were "underserved," issued guidelines to banks stating: "Policies regarding applicants with no credit history or problem credit history should be reviewed. Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor ..."

Soon, the lower standards spilled into the prime-mortgage market. The risk to lenders seemed small because government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac happily bought the dubious loans. An entire financial edifice was built on these securitized mortgages and derivatives based on them.

Then the good times ended. Interest rates rose. Home prices flattened and then declined. Then those AAA mortgage-backed securities became "toxic."

After all that, it's crazy that government still subsidizes housing rather than letting the market work. The economy will recover from recession only when it is allowed to discover the real value of assets like houses. But the government refuses to allow this to happen. FHA has been blowing air into another bubble, while other agencies do everything they can to boost prices.

This includes leaning on and bribing banks to ease mortgage terms for people in default. The Obama administration announced that it would increase that pressure because "the banks are not doing a good enough job," said Michael S. Barr, assistant treasury secretary for financial institutions. Some Democrats want to go further. They demand that the government compel mediation over defaulted mortgages or empower judges to change the terms.

This sounds humane, but it is typical political shortsightedness. When government helps delinquent borrowers to get easier loan terms, it simultaneously makes it harder for marginal borrowers to get loans in the first place. That's because lenders must now factor in the likelihood of a judge changing the terms.

The know-it-alls in Washington "help" Americans by hurting them.

Why won't the government let housing prices seek their own level? After a Washington-inflated bubble, that would seem to be the wise thing to do. Sure, some people get hurt when prices fall, but others -- prospective home-buyers -- are helped. By artificially raising prices, the Realtor-Construction-Banking-Big Government Complex cheats honest low-income people who would otherwise have been able to afford a first home without begging the government for help.

Home ownership, all else equal, is a good thing. But when government lumbers into the market and subsidizes folly, that's a very bad thing.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Please see the Blind Side...

(and again, this blog will be private soon, so if you want to continue reading it, please email me directly at dallas@jenkins-entertainment.com)

Believers Walk the Talk in The Blind Side

Jay Swartzendruber

Crosswalk.com Contributing Writer

Will the highly anticipated motion picture The Blind Side become the Rudy of the new millennium? Could a 6-8, 380-pound actor win an Oscar? With The Blind Side hitting theaters November 20, mainstream media outlets are asking some good questions, but they may be overlooking the most significant one of all: Could this movie be the catalyst that changes the way America views its homeless children and how families approach adoption and foster care?

Thanks to the conservative-yet-adventurous Christian family portrayed in The Blind Side, the movie's leading actress, Sandra Bullock (The Proposal, Crash), sure seems to think so. "Adoption and foster care haven't been on the forefront of people's minds, but it's on the forefront of my mind every day now when I get up," she says. "When I look around, I go, is he, is she? What is their situation? And it's because of this family. I think that what they're going to do for our country, in terms of being aware of that, will be profound."

Faith on the Move

The remarkable true story of Memphis, Tenn.'s Tuohy family was first told in the 2006 New York Times best seller The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game by Michael Lewis (Moneyball, Liar's Poker). As the author explains, Sean Tuohy may be the successful owner of 80 fast-food restaurants, and also be the radio color commentator for the NBA's Memphis Grizzlies, but Sean learned about poverty the hard way, having lived as a child in the projects of New Orleans. And his brilliantly assertive wife Leigh Anne? An accomplished interior decorator, she was raised the daughter of an extremely racist United States Marshal.

If only he could see her family now. The Blind Side, the movie based on Lewis' book, reveals how the Tuohys and their two children came to know and then welcome Michael Oher, a 6-foot-5, 350-pound African American teenager living on the streets, into their family. The shy son of an absent father and a mother addicted to crack cocaine, "Big Mike" had lived in various foster homes, slept on neighborhood porches and attended eleven different schools before applying for admission to Memphis' Briarcrest Christian School when he was 16. Despite Oher's disheartening 0.9 grade point average, Briarcrest welcomed him with hopes that he would apply himself as a student, and then become a standout on the football team. When the Tuohys and Briarcrest's faculty invested themselves in Oher, he not only turned his grades around and raised the school's profile among prestigious college football programs, most importantly, he showed the Tuohys how to be a family.

"Michael was a blessing for the Tuohys, because he came in at a time when they were all off doing their own thing and not really connecting as a family," explains Quinton Aaron (Be Kind Rewind, Fighting), the unusual 25-year-old actor who stars in the central role as Oher. "He brought them together. He showed them the true value of what a family really is, and they showed him a real family."

While the Tuohy's evangelical Christian faith isn't pushed on audiences in the new movie, which also stars Tim McGraw (Friday Night Lights, Flicka) and Oscar winner Kathy Bates (Misery, Titanic), The Blind Side does portray it respectfully both in the script and in how it is filmed. Thanks, in a large part, should go to veteran filmmaker John Lee Hancock (The Rookie, The Alamo), who wrote the screenplay and directed The Blind Side. Hancock, himself a believer, also emphasized the importance of finding an actor who would meet the qualifications "both physically and spiritually" to fill the main role as Oher. When Hancock finally discovered Aaron, the director scored in spades: Gentle giant? Check. Follower of Christ? Check. Played high school football in the South? Check. Experienced poverty first hand? Check. Might win the Oscar? Check back with the L.A. Times who originally posed the question.

With The Blind Side marking Aaron's first high profile role, the actor's personal life is in uncharted territory. Thankfully, the New York native, who relocated to Georgia for several years before returning home, can look to his church to help him stay grounded. "Before this, I was working alongside my pastor as an understudy at Salvation and Deliverance Church in the Bronx," Aaron says softly through an almost constant smile. "It's a way of keeping disciplined. I had a task, a responsibility to follow our leader and learn from him. I love the church. My grandfather's a preacher, and I have an aunt and uncle that are preachers as well."

Hope Floats

As for Sandra Bullock, she loved the script but turned down the role of Leigh Anne Tuohy three times due to, believe it or not, intimidation. In a last ditch effort, Hancock convinced her to travel to Memphis to shadow the Tuohys and visit Briarcrest Christian School. "One of my biggest concerns stepping into this was how people use their faith and their religion as a banner, and then they don't do the right thing," explains Bullock. "They go, 'I'm a good Christian, and I go to church, and this is the way you should live your life.' And I'm like, do not give me a lecture on how to live my life when you go to church every week, but I know you're still sleeping around on your wife. I told Leigh Anne the banner waving scared me because I've had experiences that haven't been great. I don't buy a lot of people who use that as their shield. But she was so open and honest and forthright. And I thought, wow, I finally met someone who practices but doesn't preach—someone who blazes trails, and they do it as a family."

Bullock fell in love with the Tuohys and dove into her new role. She reveals, "I now have the blessing of having my res—," then, catching herself, the actress continues"—not a restored faith, but I now have faith in those who say they represent a faith. I finally met people who walk the walk."

To this day, the Tuohy family's inspiring story continues to unfold with one extraordinary event after another. After their adopted son finished high school, Oher went on to become one of the nation's top college football players as an All American offensive lineman for the University of Mississippi. He excelled as a student there and made the dean's list with a 3.5 GPA. Then, this past April, Oher was selected in the first round of the NFL draft by the Baltimore Ravens, who signed him to a 5 year, $13.8 million contract. So far this season, he has started every game for the Ravens, progressing at both the right and left tackle positions so much that many believe he could become the first lineman ever to win the NFL's Offensive Rookie of the Year Award. And his parents? Sean and Leigh Anne, who recently launched the Michael Oher Foundation to assist foster children, were summoned to Washington, DC in October and honored with the National Angels in Adoption Award by the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

THIS BLOG WILL BE PRIVATE SOON

I'm going to make this blog private within a week or so, so if you want to be able to access it, please email me at dallas@jenkins-entertainment.com, or friend request me on facebook, where it will still show up under "notes."

Saturday, November 21, 2009

PBS Goes Right-Wing on Health Care?

Welcome to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy
A team of NPR reporters unearths the truth about health care.

By Stephen Spruiell (National Review)

In May 2008, Chicago Public Radio teamed up with National Public Radio (NPR) to produce an episode of the show This American Life called “The Giant Pool of Money.” The episode garnered widespread praise and won several awards for explaining the subprime-mortgage crisis with clarity and concision. It was such a success that NPR created a podcast, Planet Money, featuring the same team of reporters and producers. Planet Money covered the financial collapse last fall and continues to file jargon-free reports on the economy three times a week.

A few weeks ago, that crew put together another big project, this time a two-parter of This American Life and several subsequent podcasts devoted to the subject of health care. As in “The Giant Pool of Money,” the reporting was clear and even-handed. The team’s correspondents sought out industry professionals, economists, and patients. (They ignored politicians, by and large.) They surveyed the history of the American health-care system and drew some conclusions about why it has so many problems. And, if you’re someone who expects a certain amount of leftishness from NPR, those conclusions might surprise you.

1. Medical-malpractice lawsuits drive up the cost of health care. The first episode began by defining the problem: The average cost of a health-insurance policy for a family of four doubled between 2000 and 2007, host Ira Glass said, and it is projected to double again in the next seven years. Health-care costs are spiraling out of control, eating into the wages of those who have insurance and making it harder for the uninsured to buy it. Why? The answer is complex, but one of the problems the NPR team identified is that doctors practice what’s known as defensive medicine. That is to say, they order tests and perform procedures that their patients might not need, out of fear that otherwise they might get sued.

The NPR team produced several stories on how defensive medicine drives up costs, including one about a doctor named Dan Merenstein. As a third-year resident, Merenstein counseled a 53-year-old man on the benefits and risks of getting a PSA screening (a common test for prostate cancer). Merenstein told his patient that he thought the risks outweighed the benefits: False positives are common, follow-ups invasive and potentially harmful. The man declined the test.

The man was later diagnosed with a fatal prostate cancer, a kind that early detection probably would not have helped. He nevertheless sued Merenstein and his residency program. The plaintiff’s lawyers argued that Merenstein shouldn’t have given the man a choice on whether to have the test. “The jury . . . rejected the idea of following the guidelines based on evidence,” Merenstein said. “They took this approach that this thing called evidence-based medicine is just a way to save money, just a way to ration care.”

The verdict left Merenstein alone, but found his residency program liable for $1 million. He told NPR that it’s hard not to see patients as potential plaintiffs. He says he still counsels patients on the potential drawbacks of the expensive, not-always-necessary screening, but he admits that he gives patients a little push by telling them that most people do get the test.

2. Insurance companies are not evil. This summer, amid all the town-hall pushbacks against Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi lashed out at private insurance companies: “They are the villains in this,” she said. “They’ve been immoral all along in how they have treated the people. . . . You know, the litany of it all.”

Many mainstream reporters know the litany of it all, or at least they think they do. But NPR actually probed this received wisdom, and found a lot of holes. For instance, a former insurance executive named Wendell Potter had a conversion experience and now goes around the country talking about all the bad things insurance companies do to save money. Potter is fond of telling one story about how Aetna purged 8 million people from its insurance rolls and subsequently saw its stock price go up. Taking away people’s coverage for profit: proof positive of insurance-company greed.

“The truth of the story,” producer Sarah Koenig explained, “is a little more complicated, a little less Machiavellian.” In 2001, Aetna was losing $1 million a day. Aetna did two things to turn the company around: It raised premiums, and it pulled out of markets where it did not have a large presence. It turns out, the less competition an insurance company faces in a particular market, the cheaper it can price its products, and the lower premiums are for the insured. Why? Because insurance companies have to wield a lot of clout in order to bargain effectively with the large health-care provider groups in a given area.

Obama says, “One of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest.” But if the public option would actually weaken dominant players in the insurance market and concentrate more pricing power in the hands of provider groups, it would drive health-care costs up.

3. Our reliance on third-party payers is at the heart of the problem. So if insurance-company greed isn’t to blame, what does ail our health-care system? NPR’s reporting points to what economists call the “third-party-payer problem.” As David Goldhill pointed out in a must-read article for The Atlantic earlier this year, you don’t get the bill for your medical care. Someone else gets the bill, and that distorts incentives for payers, providers, and consumers of health care. (Really is a great article, check it out)

The NPR team put together a couple of stories that illustrated this problem, but the most succinct explanation came from Adam Davidson and Alex Blumberg in a segment on the history of American health care. “We the consumers are totally separated from the cost of what we’re consuming,” Davidson said. “We get tests and procedures we don’t need because, well, why not? We’re not paying for it a la carte. Our employers are paying for part of it, our government is paying for part of it through . . . tax incentives.”

How did we end up with such an inefficient system? Prior to World War II, health insurance existed, but most people paid for medical care out of their own pockets. The government instituted price and wage controls during the war, but placed no controls on benefits, so companies turned to benefit packages as a means of competing for workers.

Wage and price controls made the third-party-payer system possible, but a different policy set it in stone: a change in the tax law allowing employers to deduct the cost of health benefits from their taxes. After the IRS ruled that employers did not have to pay taxes on health benefits for their workers, the proportion of the population getting health insurance through their employers went from 9 percent in 1940 to 63 percent of the population in 1953.

4. Obamacare won’t fix it. The NPR team did not come right out and say it, but its reporting points to this conclusion. Alex Blumberg put it this way:

Markets are usually really good at controlling costs. When they work best, products come into existence like cell phones or stockings, they start expensive and then they get cheaper and better. But markets don’t guarantee that everyone can afford the things they need. Government can be good at that, ensuring universal access. But when you’re paying for everybody, it’s hard to control costs.

For [economic historian] Melissa Thomasson, she says that either extreme — a competitive market system where consumers know what price they’re paying and what they’re getting, which would drive the cost of health care down, or a government-run system which would cover everyone — would be better than the accidental mixture that we have today: a really expensive system that doesn’t cover us all.

Obamacare would pour even more cement over this broken system. It’s not a single-payer system that would cover everyone and control costs through price controls and rationing. Nor is it a market-oriented reform that would empower consumers by equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance and reducing the role of government in the market. Instead, it makes health insurance mandatory for everyone. It bends the cost curve up by subsidizing insurance without putting any real cost-control measures in place. And it creates a public option that would weaken the power of insurance companies to bargain with hospitals for better rates.

Democrats have accused conservatives of spreading fear and misinformation about their health-care legislation. They might want to look into this new and most insidious propaganda arm of the conservative movement: NPR.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

My new article at Big Hollywood...

Check it out at http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/

Wednesday Wisdom...

"When teaspoons are outlawed, only outlaws will have teaspoons." - Randy Cassingham, thisistrue.com

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Newsweek has reached a new low...

You're kidding us with this, right?

Just when I acknowledge that Sarah Palin hasn't helped herself with some of her comments and behavior, and just when the left accuses Palin of whining when she talks about liberal media bias comes this gem of a Newsweek cover.

"Sarah Palin is bad news for everybody?" Really? Accompanied by a picture that was taken for Runner's World magazine. I'd love to make fun of this, but it's so inherently absurd I have nothing to say. If I didn't know better, I'd honestly think it was a joke, like those fake magazine covers you get at amusement parks.

Just imagine if they did this to Hillary. You can't imagine it because it would never happen, not in a million years. They wouldn't have a cover saying Hillary was bad for the country, and they wouldn't demean her by putting up a picture of her like this on the cover of a supposedly serious political news magazine. And it goes without saying that they wouldn't do it to a male.

This is indefensible.

Oh, by the way, if you're looking for reference:

Friday, November 13, 2009

After Prejean and Palin, any more conservative Christian women want to look bad?

I think it's time we conservative Christians do a bit more "vetting" before we champion someone. I was driving the Sarah Palin bandwagon from the beginning, but after her Katie Couric interview and her recent quitting of the governorship, I've had to reluctantly admit she did more harm than good to the cause.

When Carrie Prejean first got viciously attacked by the left for having the audacity to share President Obama's views on gay marriage, she was passionately defended by the right, and for good reason. Now that I've actually heard her talk a few times, and then heard about all the racy pictures, and then the sexually explicit tape she made for her boyfriend a couple years ago, and then her explanations and lies about said pictures and tape, and now her bizarre appearance on Larry King below, I'm thinking, "Shhhhh..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R0a9xq6uek

Yikes. I was annoyed from the moment she propped up her book for the camera; then it turned into pity.

No matter what she says or does or has said or done, nothing takes away from the fact that the attacks on her were unfair and vicious. The same is true of Sarah Palin. The fact that these two turned out to be unqualified for and unprepared to be in the national public eye is a lucky break for their haters, as the attacks they were initially receiving weren't related to what's since been discovered about them (Palin isn't evil or stupid or anti-woman, Prejean isn't a homophobe).

But it's still annoying that many conservative and Christian leaders loudly and proudly propped Carrie Prejean up as a hero (Sean Hannity wrote the forward to her book), and people like me joined the cause, when, if we'd known how they'd handle the spotlight, we would have said, "Hmmm...maybe next time."

Of course, one of the lessons here is that no one is perfect, and Christians don't claim to be. It's not my business what Miss Prejean thinks about modesty or what she wants to do for her boyfriend, and her performance on talk shows doesn't make her a bad person. She's no more a hypocrite or a sinner than anyone else, including me. And I still love Sarah Palin, who, aside from her poor handling of controversy, is smart and talented. But people who become famous are held to a higher standard and are capable of doing as much harm to a cause as good, so we need to take our time and tread a bit more cautiously before we make someone famous as a spokesperson of our values and intellect. This is especially true considering what we're up against in the media.

To that end, if by some chance anyone wants to prop me up as a spokesman for the Republitarian Christian worldview, I promise no one will see my nether regions on TMZ.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Wednesday Wisdom...

At smaller stores, it's reasonable to negotiate a bit to get a lower price. If you approach the storekeeper with a combination of items and ask if you can get a break if you buy them all with cash, it's quite common for them to do it.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The great John Stossel with a "must read..."

An excerpt from John Stossel's latest article on health care:

3) How does government "create choice" by imposing uniformity on insurers? Uniformity limits choice. Under House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill and the Senate versions, government would dictate to all insurers what their "minimum" coverage policy must include. Truly basic high-deductible, low-cost catastrophic policies tailored to individual needs would be forbidden.

(MY NOTE: This is probably the #1 worst thing in the new bill. Requiring people to get a minimum type of insurance, and not allowing companies to offer plans other than what the government dictates, is mind-boggling. High-deductible, low-cost catastrophic insurance is what most of us should be on; the fact that most people aren't on that type of insurance is one of the main reasons medical costs are so high--we don't shop around for the best deals because we don't care. All the horror stories of people having horrible diseases or injuries being unable to pay for them wouldn't be so common if people purchased catastrophic-only insurance.)

4) How does it "create choice" by making insurance companies compete against a privileged government-sponsored program? The so-called government option, let's call it Fannie Med, would have implicit government backing and therefore little market discipline. The resulting environment of conformity and government power is not what I mean by choice and competition. Rep. Barney Frank is at least honest enough to say that the public option will bring us a government monopoly.

Advocates of government control want you to believe that the serious shortcomings of our medical and insurance system are failures of the free market. But that's impossible because our market is not free. Each state operates a cozy medical and insurance cartel that restricts competition through licensing and keeps prices higher than they would be in a genuine free market. But the planners won't talk about that. After all, if government is the problem in the first place, how can they justify a government takeover?

Read the rest of the article here.

http://bit.ly/7dHDN

Monday, November 9, 2009

Quick thought on the health bill...

You get a fine of 2.5% of your income if you don't get insurance, as well as the threat of jail if you don't pay the fine. Fine, whatever, people who support the bill think that everyone must be required to get insurance. Of course, the insurance companies have no problem with this because they'll get more customers.

But the shocking thing is that simply getting catastrophic insurance, which is the wise thing for many people, isn't enough under this bill. You have to get total, all-inclusive insurance to avoid the penalties, because the government needs the premiums to pay for the program.

America, land of the free...

PETA Angry at Manu Ginobli...sigh...

If you haven't seen it, check out Manu Ginobli's miraculous hand-eye coordination in killing a bat that was flying near the court during a game.

Of course, PETA had a response:

"Here’s our take on it: To bludgeon a 4-ounce animal to death, it takes either a small man or a totally unthinking one—with no respect or consideration for lives humbler than his own (this is exactly what they said about the Michael Vick situation, as if this is on the same plane as Vick). This is a time when athletes in particular need to be on their best behavior around any animal and show that they have brains and a heart, not just reactionary brawn.

Bats always try to avoid contact with humans (sure didn't look like it), and there are plenty of easy ways to keep bats out of a basketball arena or your home. We hope that the next time someone’s ("someone?" This is the problem with most animal rights activists--they consider animals equal with humans. No decent person is in favor of cruelty to animals, but the death of a bat is not the death of "someone.") life is on the line, Manu Ginobili will take just a few seconds to think before he acts."

But if he'd taken a few seconds to think, he wouldn't have been able to do what he did! Don't they get that? Oh wait...they oppose it...never mind.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Conservatives shouldn't get too cocky about the election results...

Last night the Republican party gained a ton of momentum with the convincing victories of Bob McDonnell in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey, as well as the strong showing of Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman in New York, a non-charismatic unknown who came completely out of nowhere in the last 30 days to nearly win a congressional seat.


No doubt the conservative blogosphere and national radio hosts will gloat today, claiming that this shows that conservatism is alive and well and that voters are rejecting liberal policies.

Not so fast.

I'd like this to be true, because I'm a conservative and believe that conservative principles are what will be best for our country long-term. But I don't for a minute believe that the majority of the country believes that. I actually don't believe that the majority of the country has any clue right now what is best for the country long-term, nor would they claim to. All they know right now is that they're not happy, and they want change at any cost. A year ago that meant switching from Republicans to Democrats. Now it means switching from Democrats to Republicans.

The country isn't going to improve economically in the next year or two. In fact, it will probably get worse after this current "uptick" (I use the term liberally) corrects itself. That means that in 2010, the Republicans will likely make significant gains in the House and Senate. That said, if Christie and McDonnell were up for re-election in a year, they'd probably be voted out as well.

When the economy sucks, the party in control gets the blame, fair or not. President Obama hasn't had enough time to make the economy much worse--his biggest sin has been promising that things would get better and grossly exaggerating the job gains and saves as a result of the stimulus, but it's not his fault the economy isn't getting better. His poor approval ratings aren't a rejection of liberalism or even of President Obama; people simply want miracles when things are bad, and they're bummed he didn't perform the miracles they thought he would.

Last night was a victory for the Republicans, and it bodes well for 2010, but it wasn't necessarily a victory for conservatism or a loss for liberalism. It was simply a statement saying, "We're not happy." Conservatives still have a LONG way to go towards making their position mainstream.

Wednesday Wisdom...

To test the airtightness of a window or door to see if it needs weather-stripping, move a lighted candle along its frame. If there is enough draft to make the flame dance, then caulk or weather-strip it. For a door, add weather stripping if you can slip a quarter underneath it.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Ever sat next to great people on an airplane?

I had a really cool experience on an airplane the other day, and I want to share it. Obviously I want to share it, because you're reading it right now.

99.9% of the time, I spend my flights reading or watching a movie on my laptop. It's not that I don't like to talk to people, it's just that I spend so much of my life talking (no surprise to any of my former teachers) that I like to take the time to catch up on pop culture stimulants that will feed my ADHD.

But on my last flight, I was sitting in the window seat, and this cool-looking dude who was about my age was sitting in the aisle. Then a cutesy-looking girl comes and sits in between us. She looked about early 20s. We all adjusted, got settled in, and then she did something strange--she introduced herself to both of us.

"Hi, I'm Bonita," she said to the dude, who responded with, "Anthony, hi." Then she and I exchanged the same pleasantry and settled back in.

Three and a half hours later we landed. About ten minutes later we said goodbye as we split up in the terminal. So ended a 3 hour and 40 minute conversation.

It was one of my favorite plane rides of all time. I don't know how the three coolest people on the plane ended up in the same row, but it happened, and it was great. We talked about everything. It started with a conversation about the airline and how it sucks that this particular one doesn't have TV or movies on a 3+ hour flight, and somehow it transitioned into everything.

I learned about Anthony's twin two and a half year olds and our similar views on discipline and child-rearing. We spent a lot of time talking about Bonita's living situation in a tiny Colorado town, and Anthony and I traded similar pieces of advice (basically, she needs to get tougher and set better boundaries with some of the people in her life, but not with her fiance, who sounds very cool, even though he only wants a few kids compared to her wanting a dozen). I talked about the film business and my family. We were all totally engaged the entire time. Even though several times we pulled out our books/magazines/computers, assuming the conversation was wrapping up and we were resuming our normal airplane routine, we never stopped talking for longer than 5-10 seconds.

Near the end, Anthony asked me more about my writing and blogs and said, "So what do you think of Obama?" I chuckled and said, "Not sure we want to go there," but because he was one of the three coolest people on the plane, he said, "I don't care about disagreements, I think it's cool to talk about different ideas and viewpoints." Living in L.A. and working in Hollywood, I don't hear that too often. Well, I've heard ABOUT such ideas, but I think they only exist in a magical fairyland.

So then we talked about the President, which turned to health care, which turned to abortion, which included religion. They were both pro-choice but weren't offended by my thoughts on it, and the whole conversation was terrific.

So...personal lives, politics, abortion, religion, all on an airplane ride with strangers.

Best. Flight. Ever.

From now on, when I'm on a flight, I'm going to at least be open to the possibility that I'm sitting next to cool people. Of course, I should look to talk to people even if they aren't cool, especially because I love talking about my faith, but the cool thing sure is a bonus. I suggest you do the same, because when you get lucky, it makes for a great experience.

We said warm goodbyes, and I know that if by some miracle I ever saw them again, I'd give them each a hug. Anthony wrote down this web address because he said he wanted to check out what I was writing. If he did, I hope he reads this:

Thanks.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

The brilliant Frank Capra...

"There are the critical minds as we know them here in the United States. Their base of operations is the Eastern seaboard and they're more or less allied to the European culture rather than to the American culture, certainly not to a city in Ohio a thousand miles away. So I've never had a very good standing among American intellectuals with my films. Certainly sentiment is an almost verboten emotion with the intellectuals. Why that should be I have not an idea, except it's perhaps too common, too ordinary--it's not arcane enough for an intellectual. Perhaps it's too simple." Frank Capra, responding to critics labeling his films "capracorn."

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Follow-up to previous post about flu vaccine...

To address the notion that the drug companies aren't providing enough of the vaccine, I want to quote from a recent Wall St. Journal article that made the compelling case for the larger reason for the delay, and that's the always overly cautious and time-consuming FDA.

The first fateful policy decision, made last spring, was to forgo vaccine additives—called adjuvants—that activate the immune system and make shots more potent. Adjuvants allow a smaller supply of vaccine stock to be stretched across more doses. These adjuvants are included in H1N1 vaccines world-wide, but not in the U.S.

Why do adjuvants matter? An adjuvanted H1N1 vaccine being used in Europe contains 3.75 micrograms of vaccine stock. The same vaccine in the U.S., without the adjuvant, requires 15 micrograms of vaccine for equal potency. If we used adjuvants, we could have had four times the number of shots with the same raw material.

The second cautious decision was to require that the H1N1 vaccine be a single shot. The government demanded single-dose syringes because they contain smaller amounts of thimerosal than multi-dose vials. This mercury-containing vaccine preservative continues to stir concern it can trigger childhood autism, even though this has been firmly disproven.

The third policy decision was to stick for too long with a proven, but slow process for making flu shots that uses chicken eggs to grow the raw vaccine material. Shots can be made much faster using mammalian cells to grow vaccine, and this process is already being used in Europe. The cell-based vaccines are unlikely to be approved in the U.S. Our precaution when it comes to vaccines means we don't easily embrace novel technologies, even if the Europeans would part with some of their limited supply...

...the FDA requires vaccines to sit for weeks after they come off the manufacturing line to make sure they haven't grown bacterial impurities. This is why most of the H1N1 vaccine supply is released in waves and won't be ready until later this winter. The FDA can work with manufacturers to develop better standardized tools, called assays, to quickly assess new vaccine.


The rest of the article is here.

Government's doing a bang-up job on the vaccine, huh?

So the same government that is currently bungling the distribution of the flu vaccine is the same government we think would handle public health care efficiently?
A year ago, they told us 100s of millions of vaccines would be available. Then it was 45 million by the middle of October (it was only approved in September by the always quick-on-their-feet FDA). Now it's 28 million, with less than half having been delivered.

I'd be willing to bet that if Walmart was allowed to purchase 100 million doses of the vaccine and sell it for $10 a pop, people would have no problem getting it quickly and efficiently.

Speaking of this vaccine, it is made and distributed by CSL Ltd. of Australia; Switzerland's Novartis; Sanofi-Pasteur of France; and Maryland-based Medimmune, which makes the only nasal-spray flu vaccine. FYI, these companies are all pharmaceutical companies. They are private. They all spend upwards of a million bucks a day in research and development. They all employ thousands of people.

Just sayin'.

Wednesday Wisdom...

The fastest way to cool off a bottle of soda, beer, or anything else is to hold it under running cold water. It's faster than putting it into the freezer.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

This video speaks for itself...

One of the most powerful I've ever seen.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW0uTKblmN4

Friday, October 23, 2009

Test screening questions for "What If..."

Test screenings are common in Hollywood, of course...nearly every studio films does a couple of them. The results impact how the film will be marketed and in many cases impact reshoots and new endings.

I've never actually done one for a film, but we're doing one for "What If..." tonight in Charlotte at a Christian film festival. Below are the questions we'll be asking this audience. Because we still have a week or so to do more edits, we can still make some adjustments based on this screening.

“WHAT IF…” TEST SCREENING QUESTIONAIRRE (October 24, 2009)

How would you rate this movie:

__ Excellent
__ Very Good
__ Good
__ Fair
__ Poor

Can you mention a few of your favorite things in the movie (character, scene, story point, etc.)?





Can you mention a few of your least favorite things in the movie?





Did anything bother or offend you (please list)?





Was there anything at all confusing (please list)?




What’s the youngest aged child you’d allow to see this film?

__ 6 and older
__ 8 and older
__ 10 and older

Please rate your chances of recommending this movie to others:

__ Definitely recommend
__ Maybe recommend
__ Won't recommend

Would your church show this movie as a special event? __ Yes __ No

Please rate the Christian content in the film:

__ There was enough Christian content, and the gospel message was presented sufficiently.
__ There was enough Christian content, but the gospel message was insufficient.
__ I was disappointed in the Christian content.

How would non-Christians respond to this film (check all that apply)?

__ My non-Christian friends would enjoy this film.
__ This movie would impact non-Christians for the gospel.
__ Non-Christians wouldn’t enjoy this movie.

Would you (check all that apply):

__ See this movie in theaters
__ Purchase the movie on DVD
__ Rent the movie
__ I won’t see it again

Do you like the title "What If..."? If not what would you call it?


Thank you so much for your time and attention, Jenkins Entertainment and Pure Flix Entertainment really appreciate it. Anything else you'd like to say about the film? Every little bit helps!

"Thank God for Guns"

While I don't recommend shooting anyone anywhere but "center mass" (chest-stomach) if you're trying to defend yourself, this is a great one minute clip from the great William Shatner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0D78JtxmqI

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Wednesday Wisdom...

For classy ice cubes if you're hosting a nice party, boil the water first. Cool and then freeze it, and the ice cubes will be clear and last longer because they have fewer air bubbles.

Sunday, October 18, 2009

God bless John Mayer

The Vulture interviewed ”world-renowned blues legend John Mayer”:

What do you think about health care? Would you take the public option?


Have you ever heard me play guitar? I’m really f****** good. You know what I’m bad at? Answering questions about public health care. This is not in my wheelhouse. Do you have any questions about music? I almost got a mad need to lighten up. You need to lighten up, because the questions you asked me were all troublemaking questions. If someone gave me the Nobel Peace Prize, and I didn’t deserve it, I would just shut my mouth and enjoy the hell out of it.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Did Rush Limbaugh say that slavery had its merits?

Smearing Rush [Henry Payne] — Henry Payne is an editorial writer and cartoonist with the Detroit News.

Detroit — One of the leading torch-bearers in the media-lynch-mob effort to deny Rush Limbaugh ownership in the St. Louis Rams was nationally known Detroit Free Press sports columnist Drew Sharp.

In an October 12 USA Today column that was reprinted by the Free Press (both papers are Gannett-owned), Sharp libeled Limbaugh as once having “said on his nationally syndicated radio show that slavery ‘had its merits.’” Sharp repeated the claim (along with another whopper: the allegation that Limbaugh advised the NAACP to rob liquor stores) in an on-air interview with Bill O’Reilly, refusing to back down even after O’Reilly told him that Fox News researchers had found no history of such quotes (the London Daily Telegraph’s Washington bureau has confirmed Fox’s research, finding the quotes to be bogus).

“Well, we’ve gotten no denials from Limbaugh’s people,” replied Sharp. That’s the journalism standard? You can make up anything about anyone as long as he or she doesn’t contact you and deny it? Keep in mind that this is coming from the same mainstream media that bemoan the decline in newspaper readership because it cedes the field to bloggers who play fast and loose with the truth.

Hoping to sweep this ethical breach under the rug, the Free Press and USA Today both belatedly added a disclaimer to Sharp’s column saying that because they “could not verify the accuracy of the quote, it was removed from this version of the column.” But that is hardly an apology.

Sharp continues writing for the Free Press; in Wednesday’s column, he moved on to the topic of Michigan college hoops. This says a lot about the lack of opinion diversity in America’s newsrooms. Pull a fast one about Obama’s birth certificate, and MSM fact-checkers (rightly) hunt down the truth. Make a wild claim about a right-winger, and it’s assumed to be true. Hey, they’re all racists, right?

(NOTE: Rush has repeatedly denied the quotes on his show and is pursuing legal action)

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Wednesday Wisdom...

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence.
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves.

......Abraham Lincoln

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

You'll play with Michael Vick but not for Rush Limbaugh?

(UPDATE--Apparently, according to ESPN, seven players have spoken out against Rush Limbaugh owning an NFL team, with the head of the union asking for more. So now we're up to seven morons instead of two, with more morons still to develop.)

Hearing a couple NFL players (of course, the media makes it out to be a large group, but I've only seen two quoted) say that they wouldn't play for Rush Limbaugh is about the most laughable thing I've heard from the NFL in a long time. The hypocrisy is hilarious. For one thing, I'd like someone to point out to me one thing that Rush Limbaugh has ever said that is outright racist. As in, hateful or prejudiced towards the black race. People can keep whining all the time that the man whose favorite Supreme Court justice is Clarence Thomas is a racist, but that doesn't make it true. Making comments ABOUT race does not make you someone who is prejudiced against black people.

But leaving that aside, when did all this righteous anger suddenly emerge from the league of Michael Vick, Ray Lewis, Warren Moon, and the 73 players on rosters last year who have had DUI arrests?

The New York Jets' Bart Scott says that the NFL would be wise not to allow Limbaugh into the league. "It's an oxymoron that he criticized Donovan McNabb," Scott said. "A lot of us took it as more of a racial-type thing. I can only imagine how his players would feel. I know I wouldn't want to play for him. He's a jerk. He's an ---. What he said (about McNabb) was inappropriate and insensitive, totally off-base. He could offer me whatever he wanted, I wouldn't play for him. ... I wouldn't play for Rush Limbaugh. My principles are greater and I can't be bought."

What a silly comment. First of all, I'm not sure that he knows what the word "oxymoron" means, but let's leave that aside. Second, while I would agree that Rush's comments about Donovan McNabb (that the press wanted a black QB to succeed so they weren't as hard on him) were inaccurate and probably stupid, they weren't racist. Nor were they a personal attack against McNabb. Finally, would Scott make this kind of statement if Donte Stallworth (the receiver who committed a DUI manslaughter) were to return to the NFL? Hmm, let me guess...

Monday, October 12, 2009

The Global Warming Debate Is Over! Or not...

From the BBC, an article entitled, "What Happened to Global Warming?":

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

What can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office [Britain's equivalent of the National Weather Service] says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is heating up.

Friday, October 9, 2009

When Nobel Prizes are given to men commanding wars...

The Nobel Committee has awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples”. So apparently you don't have to do anything to get the prize, you just have to try...or at least plan on trying eventually. You see, nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize were closed on Feb. 1, after he'd been President for 12 days. I guess they assumed he'd pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan by now, because it seems a bit odd to give the top international prize for peace to a man currently in charge of two wars.

“His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.”

So...good leadership is based on holding the already-existing values of the majority? There was a time when the majority of the world believed in slavery--good thing we had some leaders who didn't follow the dogma of the Nobel Prize committee.

Why doesn't Michael Moore love capitalism?

In this article by Nicholas Ballasy for Video Reporter, Ballasy asks Moore a pointed question regarding his anti-capitalism documentary, "Capitalism: A Love Story":

“Critics would say you've been very successful under a capitalist system. How would you justify making a movie where you paint capitalism as evil?”

Moore said: “Well, capitalism did nothing for me, starting with my first film.”



"You know, I had to pretty much beg, borrow and steal,” he said. “The system is not set up to help somebody from the working class make a movie like this and get the truth out there.”

“In fact, in Fahrenheit 9/11 if you remember, capitalism, the Disney Corporation, tried to kill that film--tried to make it so that people couldn’t see it,” said Moore. “My book Stupid White Men--Harper Collins tried to kill that book so that people couldn’t see it. It's only because I put the light of day on it and told people what was going on did people get the chance to see these things.”

Ballasy points out that Moore has made at least $50 million from his films, a figure Moore disputes (in spite of evidence to the contrary), although Moore acknowledges having done well. He adds,

“So, that means I have an extra responsibility to make sure I spend my time trying to make things better for the people that don’t have what I have, right? I mean, everybody should do that,” he said.


Where do I start?

I'll get to Moore's inherent contradictions in a moment, but let's begin with the fact that capitalism is what birthed the technological advances that allow him to make his films. The dreaded profit motive fostered his equipment, the studio that distributed his film, the theaters that exhibit it, and high profit is what has allowed him to make more films like his in spite of controversy.

I in fact have often pointed to Moore as an example of what I love about America; I disagree with Moore on nearly everything but love the fact that an unattractive blue collar guy from the Midwest can rocket to success and speak for so many common Americans.

But pay close attention to what he says when he speaks of Disney and Harper Collins trying to "kill" his film and book. For one thing, I don't really believe him, but for another, note the word "tried." Many people often refer to big corporations as "powerful," which implies they actually have inherent power to enact their will. But they don't. Government has power, as it has law enforcement authority and can essentially do whatever it wants. Socialism is controlled by a much more truly powerful entity than capitalism is. In capitalism, corporations can "try" to kill a project, but they can't really. Because of capitalism, Michael Moore is able to "shine a light on what's going on," and because of capitalism, the market decides his success. People wanted his product, so they got it.

In socialism, people could want his product but still be denied it. Or they could not want his product but see it financed and produced (with their money) anyway.

Then he says that he has a responsibility to things better for others--again, this is a capitalist ideal. For one thing, in capitalism Michael Moore can do with his money what he wants and decide exactly who it helps and how. For another, Michael Moore IS actually helping others who have less than he does when he makes his films. His films bring in money for the studio, theaters, and companies that help make the films successful, which in turn benefit their employees and stockholders. His films hire people, people who buy things for the films from companies who hire people. All of these people have less than Michael Moore does.

Capitalism has done quite a lot for Michael Moore and those who work for him or because of him, and capitalism has allowed him to "spread the wealth around" in a way better than any government program his taxes could help finance.

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

Wednesday Wisdom...

Governments don't tax to get the money they need, the government will always find a need for the money they get." Ronald Reagan

Monday, October 5, 2009

I have a new black hero...

Jonathan McCoy makes me proud to be an American.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMyp8y8SkUM

Saturday, October 3, 2009

You won't believe this...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2WK44cH2J0

But not all feminists support Polanksi...

From noted feminist Katha Pollitt in a terrific article:

"The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they're just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they're accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers.

No wonder Middle America hates them."

Read the rest of this great article here.

Where are the feminists re: Roman Polanski?

The same place they were when the most powerful man in the country had a sexual relationship with an intern, apparently.

"...let the guy (Polanski) go. It's bad a person was raped. But that was so many years ago. The guy has been through so much in his life. It's crazy to arrest him now. Let it go." Peg Yorkin, founder of the Feminist Majority Foundation

Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Wednesday Wisdom...

'If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under.' - Ronald Reagan

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Inflation is coming, are we ready?

Yes, the economy is making a very slight recovery because of government lending and government money being pumped in, but this will be only temporary. Eventually, debt has to be paid back, and when countries run out of lenders, the only way to do that is to print more money, which of course causes significant inflation.

I don't have a big post on this, I'm just saying, "Be forewarned." Don't go into debt and buy things of value, because your cash won't be worth nearly as much next year.

Friday, September 25, 2009

How will young people pay for Obamacare?

Interesting article by Dick Morris about the political situation with Obamacare. Yes, it has some policy stuff in here, and there are a couple comments I don't agree with (I don't believe for one minute that 45% of doctors will close up shop if Obamacare passes--I think that's right-wing silliness), but I'm more interested in the politics of how this thing might or might not pass.

By DICK MORRIS

Published on TheHill.com on September 22, 2009

Now that the various healthcare plans are being reduced to print, the financial details are emerging and with them a fundamental conclusion is becoming evident: The Obama plan is a giant tax increase for much of the American people (not just the rich).

Start with the mandate that falls on those whose welfare is the supposed object of the entire program -- the uninsured. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the average uninsured person or family will have to pay between 15 and 20 percent of his or their total income on health insurance (counting premiums, deductibles and co-payments) before any of the subsidy in the Baucus bill kicks in. Even in the more generous House bill, the tab that the uninsured must pay is very, very high.

Most uninsured would likely be quite happy to avoid paying this much of their income for health insurance. But they will be forced to shell out the money under the program. Others would want catastrophic coverage (which for the young would likely not be too costly) but the Obama program requires comprehensive insurance that is costly to satisfy the government requirement.

Having spent the entire campaign speaking about "affordable" coverage, it turns out the program is not at all affordable, but a massive new tax on the average uninsured American.

Then there is the tax on health insurance premiums that is to finance about a quarter of the subsidy for the uninsured. This tax, billed as only to be levied on "gold-plated" policies, will, in fact, reach down to the average American. The Baucus bill specifies that the tax of 35 percent would be put on all premiums over $8,000 for an individual and on proportionately higher premiums for families. Current estimates are that about one-tenth of the current health insurance policies would be taxable. But the $8,000 premium level that will trigger coverage is not indexed for inflation, let alone for medical inflation, which typically runs twice as high. ObamaCare will take effect in 2013. By then, the percentage of Americans subject to the tax will doubtless expand dramatically. Indeed, this trigger is a new Alternative Minimum Tax waiting to happen. As inflation pushes more and more Americans into tax eligibility, it will become a universal health insurance excise tax of 35 percent. While the tax will be imposed on health insurers and employers, it will, obviously, be passed along to the policyholders.

So if you are insured, you will increasingly have to pay 35 percent more for the privilege. And if you are uninsured, you will have to pay one-fifth of your income in premiums, deductibles and co-payments before any subsidy kicks in.

And then there is the final piece of the puzzle -- the $500 billion cut in Medicare that will pay for the bulk of the subsidy under the bill. We are literally slicing services to the elderly in order to transfer healthcare to others. Obama's claim that only "waste and inefficiency" in Medicare will be cut is, at best, disingenuous. Most of the cuts will be in reimbursement for doctors and hospitals. That will lead to less care, shorter office visits, fewer tests, fewer surgeries and less care. And it will lead to fewer doctors. As a result, a survey by the Investor's Business Daily indicates that 45 percent of all doctors would "consider retiring or closing their practices" if the Obama bill passes. The result will be a greater scarcity of medical services, even as the patient load expands by at least 30 million people.

Each of these fiscal pieces is movable. The left will pressure Obama to increase the subsidy to the uninsured. But that will necessitate raising the Medicare cut borne by the elderly or increasing the tax on health insurance policies -- or adding to the deficit. Any of these options will alienate moderate senators. Balancing these competing priorities only works if the taxpayers don't know what is going on.

If the average middle-income American family realizes that it will have to pay one-third more for health insurance or the uninsured learn that they will have to pay a fifth of their income to get insurance, they will make their dissatisfaction felt by their Democratic senators.

All of which begs the fundamental question: How willing are Democratic congressmen to commit political suicide? Are they willing to lose the elderly and to antagonize the uninsured as the health insurance cops chase them around the block? When does JFK's comment kick in: "Sometimes party loyalty asks too much"?