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.
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
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:
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.
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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
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!
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
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.
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)
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
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...
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.
“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.
“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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMyp8y8SkUM
Saturday, October 3, 2009
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.
"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
"...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.
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"?
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"?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
This is absolutely incredible...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aqMTD5UFmU
Tax dollars at work, ladies and gentlemen...this is a public school in New Jersey.
LYRICS
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand [?]
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
segue to
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all [do? doth??] say "hooray!"
Hooray Mr. President! You're number one!
The first Black American to lead this great na-TION!
Hooray, Mr. President something-something-some
A-something-something-something-some economy is number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And the same for all Americans [in?] the great Red White and Blue!
So something Mr. President we all just something-some,
So here's a hearty hip-hooray a-something-something-some!
Hip, hip hooray! (3x)
Tax dollars at work, ladies and gentlemen...this is a public school in New Jersey.
LYRICS
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand [?]
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be clear today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Yes
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
segue to
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all [do? doth??] say "hooray!"
Hooray Mr. President! You're number one!
The first Black American to lead this great na-TION!
Hooray, Mr. President something-something-some
A-something-something-something-some economy is number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And the same for all Americans [in?] the great Red White and Blue!
So something Mr. President we all just something-some,
So here's a hearty hip-hooray a-something-something-some!
Hip, hip hooray! (3x)
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Wednesday Wisdom...
'No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.' - Ronald Reagan
And in honor of my Dad's birthday today, I'll give a piece of wisdom he always gave me... "Don't buy into the myth that quality time can replace quantity time with your children."
And in honor of my Dad's birthday today, I'll give a piece of wisdom he always gave me... "Don't buy into the myth that quality time can replace quantity time with your children."
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
This might be our son!
We received a picture today of Nutdanai, the Thai child we've been matched with. That doesn't necessarily mean the board will approve the match, but we should find that out within a month. I'm currently trying to physically restrain Amanda from running and swimming to Thailand.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
My new article on Big Hollywood about Kanye...
More socially inflammatory than politically inflammatory...
KANYE WEST DOESN'T CARE ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE
by Dallas Jenkins
On television, how often do you see the Heartland, the South, or innocence portrayed as positive, or as the innocent victim of thuggery or artistic elitism gone awry? If I told you that it happened over the weekend, would you have guessed that MTV was the network that aired it?
As it turns out, Joe Wilson isn’t the only inappropriate interrupter of the last week. If you haven’t seen Kanye West’s shocking-only-to-people-who-have-never-seen-or-heard-Kanye-West-perform-or-say-words outburst at the normally classy and restrained MTV Video Music Awards, take 90 seconds and watch the train wreck. I don’t want to say it was awkward, but I haven’t seen a performer arouse that many embarrassed faces since…well, since Kanye West did the exact same thing at the European VMAs in 2007, which at the time was the most awkward TV moment since Kanye West hijacked a Katrina charity TV show to rant that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.“
Read the rest of the article at: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/djenkins/2009/09/17/kanye-west-doesnt-care-about-white-people/
KANYE WEST DOESN'T CARE ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE
by Dallas Jenkins
On television, how often do you see the Heartland, the South, or innocence portrayed as positive, or as the innocent victim of thuggery or artistic elitism gone awry? If I told you that it happened over the weekend, would you have guessed that MTV was the network that aired it?
As it turns out, Joe Wilson isn’t the only inappropriate interrupter of the last week. If you haven’t seen Kanye West’s shocking-only-to-people-who-have-never-seen-or-heard-Kanye-West-perform-or-say-words outburst at the normally classy and restrained MTV Video Music Awards, take 90 seconds and watch the train wreck. I don’t want to say it was awkward, but I haven’t seen a performer arouse that many embarrassed faces since…well, since Kanye West did the exact same thing at the European VMAs in 2007, which at the time was the most awkward TV moment since Kanye West hijacked a Katrina charity TV show to rant that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.“
Read the rest of the article at: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/djenkins/2009/09/17/kanye-west-doesnt-care-about-white-people/
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Wednesday Wisdom...
'Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it' - Ronald Reagan
Gosh, I love that man.
Gosh, I love that man.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Do we have a son?
Boy, this is happening really fast all of a sudden. After finding out that the Thai board has indeed approved us, we were then informed that one boy fit into our criteria of being a boy under the age of two and a half. This is what our friend told us:
"There is a 2 1/2 yr. old boy who needs an operation for a hernia. Angkana wasn't absolutely certain that he's been cleared for adoption, so I asked her to please find that out for sure, and, if possible, find out more about how serious the hernia is."
Well, first of all, we don't care how serious the hernia is. If this is our son, that's not an issue.
We'll know more in the next day or two, but this could mean we're 2-3 months away from meeting and bringing home our son.
Pardon me as I read my typing through cloudy eyes.
"There is a 2 1/2 yr. old boy who needs an operation for a hernia. Angkana wasn't absolutely certain that he's been cleared for adoption, so I asked her to please find that out for sure, and, if possible, find out more about how serious the hernia is."
Well, first of all, we don't care how serious the hernia is. If this is our son, that's not an issue.
We'll know more in the next day or two, but this could mean we're 2-3 months away from meeting and bringing home our son.
Pardon me as I read my typing through cloudy eyes.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Why tonight wasn't a fluke for Cutler/Bears...
This is what I said back when the Cutler trade was first made:
"Two, some "experts" are saying that the Bears should have done everything possible to get a franchise quarterback, that a QB like this comes along once in a blue moon, blah blah blah. The truth is, superstar QBs don't win you Super Bowls, and most of the best QBs in the NFL, or at least the most successful ones, weren't even drafted in the first round. Yes, Peyton Manning is special, but he didn't win until the Colts got a defense. Kurt Warner wasn't even drafted. Tom Brady was drafted in the fifth round, and when he got injured, his replacement, a guy who'd never started a football game in college or the pros, did almost as well and just got a big contract. Drew Brees was drafted in the 2nd round, did great and then was replaced by someone doing great, too. Eli Manning and Ben Rothleblahblah were high draft picks and have won Super Bowls, but no one would argue that they had great stats or were special passers (do you think they'd add two wins to the Bears?). Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have recently won as many Super Bowls as Peyton and Eli Manning.
The Bears have holes to fill to become a Super Bowl team, but QB was not one of them. They could win with Kyle Orton; heck, he was 10-1 his rookie year, and he's twice the QB now he was then. They needed to shore up the offensive and defensive lines. They got Orlando Pace, which I love, but they still need a pass rusher, a safety, and a possession wide receiver (Tory Holt would be solid). Giving up three (!) high draft picks to upgrade at QB was wildly inefficient, unnecessary, and unwise.
Not to mention that Cutler has shown himself to be a pouty non-leader with self-esteem issues, so I'm not sure he's going to take anyone to the championship, much less a team with holes and a bad coach.
I feel the same way about this trade that I did when the Cubs signed Alfonso Soriano--it's fun and exciting, but not very smart.
What did we see tonight? The offensive line got massacred (run and pass), their lack of a solid, smart possession receiver killed them, their secondary was bad (as usual) and got lucky by Packers' drops, and Cutler showed no confidence or leadership.
Gotta love that we got inside the ten twice with a first down and couldn't get it in. Do we need a gunslinger to do that?
Ugh.
"Two, some "experts" are saying that the Bears should have done everything possible to get a franchise quarterback, that a QB like this comes along once in a blue moon, blah blah blah. The truth is, superstar QBs don't win you Super Bowls, and most of the best QBs in the NFL, or at least the most successful ones, weren't even drafted in the first round. Yes, Peyton Manning is special, but he didn't win until the Colts got a defense. Kurt Warner wasn't even drafted. Tom Brady was drafted in the fifth round, and when he got injured, his replacement, a guy who'd never started a football game in college or the pros, did almost as well and just got a big contract. Drew Brees was drafted in the 2nd round, did great and then was replaced by someone doing great, too. Eli Manning and Ben Rothleblahblah were high draft picks and have won Super Bowls, but no one would argue that they had great stats or were special passers (do you think they'd add two wins to the Bears?). Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson have recently won as many Super Bowls as Peyton and Eli Manning.
The Bears have holes to fill to become a Super Bowl team, but QB was not one of them. They could win with Kyle Orton; heck, he was 10-1 his rookie year, and he's twice the QB now he was then. They needed to shore up the offensive and defensive lines. They got Orlando Pace, which I love, but they still need a pass rusher, a safety, and a possession wide receiver (Tory Holt would be solid). Giving up three (!) high draft picks to upgrade at QB was wildly inefficient, unnecessary, and unwise.
Not to mention that Cutler has shown himself to be a pouty non-leader with self-esteem issues, so I'm not sure he's going to take anyone to the championship, much less a team with holes and a bad coach.
I feel the same way about this trade that I did when the Cubs signed Alfonso Soriano--it's fun and exciting, but not very smart.
What did we see tonight? The offensive line got massacred (run and pass), their lack of a solid, smart possession receiver killed them, their secondary was bad (as usual) and got lucky by Packers' drops, and Cutler showed no confidence or leadership.
Gotta love that we got inside the ten twice with a first down and couldn't get it in. Do we need a gunslinger to do that?
Ugh.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
New article of mine published on Big Hollywood...
The blog I posted here about President Obama's health care speech ended up getting posted at Andrew Breitbart's (the guy who brought forth the Acorn tapes the last few days) Big Hollywood site. I've posted there before regarding movie stuff, but I haven't done a political post for them. You can check it out at http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/djenkins/2009/09/12/obamas-health-care-speech-a-common-sense-rebuttal/#idc-container, and feel free to add to the comments if you like it!
Pictures from Michigan this summer...
I went to Michigan this summer to film my movie, and halfway through Amanda and the kids were able to come out. Here are a few pictures from their time there.
This is Beanie's new smile for pictures; for some reason it's called her "princess smile." As soon as we say it, she tucks her head to her shoulder.
I love this picture.
Maya and Amanda on a bridge overlooking the Manistee (the small town where we filmed most of the film) river where we shot a scene.
On one of my days off, we went to this massive slide that was like a ski hill. You could get going pretty fast on these toboggan-like things. No way I'm spelling that right.
How gorgeous are they?
Most of the time they were there, I was shooting, so they had to find things to do. This was at a kids museum.
At various times, Beanie will do something like this just to center herself. This is actually a pose she always struck as a baby, always curled up like a little bean; hence, her nickname.
Kristy Swanson was one of the leads in our film, and her son Magnus came out for a week. Kristy's husband is Lloyd Eisler, a two-time Olympic doubles skating medalist. I'm guessing the women Lloyd threw in the air weighed a bit more than Magnus, but I still felt cool.
Kevin Sorbo played the main character, so his family came out, and we're good friends with them. That's Sam Sorbo next to Amanda, along with her three kids. On the far left is Dana Groothuis, mother of Taylor, who had a role in our film.
Amanda's parents were able to visit around the same time that her sister and her sister's family were able to stop by. This is the grandparents with our kids and my nephews.
The whole Jarvis clan, including Amanda's brother-in-law Steve, and Amanda's grandmother in the back.
My brother was able to come out with his wife Christa and my nephew Isaac. Chad actually got some decent screen time in the movie.
I don't know what parents did on road trips before portable DVD players.
This is me with my production designer and close friend (he was my college roommate and was in my wedding) Jim Cunningham.
The kids were excited to meet John Ratzenberger, a voice in every Pixar movie, who played "Mike the Angel" in my film.
In the movie, Kevin Sorbo's character has a teenage daughter and a 7 year old. There's a flashback scene where the youngest daughter is born, and Maya got to make an appearance playing the teenager as a little girl. So here she is with "Dad."
Me with the kids in front of the truck John Ratzenberger's character drives in the movie. He's an angel on earth in the form of a tow-truck driver/mechanic. Yes, it's a metaphor.
The family sitting on the steps of the church we shot a few scenes in.
Me doing my top two favorite things in the world.
Those would be hanging with my family and directing a movie, in case that wasn't clear.
This is Beanie's new smile for pictures; for some reason it's called her "princess smile." As soon as we say it, she tucks her head to her shoulder.
I love this picture. 
Maya and Amanda on a bridge overlooking the Manistee (the small town where we filmed most of the film) river where we shot a scene. 
On one of my days off, we went to this massive slide that was like a ski hill. You could get going pretty fast on these toboggan-like things. No way I'm spelling that right.
How gorgeous are they?
Most of the time they were there, I was shooting, so they had to find things to do. This was at a kids museum.
At various times, Beanie will do something like this just to center herself. This is actually a pose she always struck as a baby, always curled up like a little bean; hence, her nickname.
Kristy Swanson was one of the leads in our film, and her son Magnus came out for a week. Kristy's husband is Lloyd Eisler, a two-time Olympic doubles skating medalist. I'm guessing the women Lloyd threw in the air weighed a bit more than Magnus, but I still felt cool.
Kevin Sorbo played the main character, so his family came out, and we're good friends with them. That's Sam Sorbo next to Amanda, along with her three kids. On the far left is Dana Groothuis, mother of Taylor, who had a role in our film.
Amanda's parents were able to visit around the same time that her sister and her sister's family were able to stop by. This is the grandparents with our kids and my nephews.
The whole Jarvis clan, including Amanda's brother-in-law Steve, and Amanda's grandmother in the back.
My brother was able to come out with his wife Christa and my nephew Isaac. Chad actually got some decent screen time in the movie.
I don't know what parents did on road trips before portable DVD players.
This is me with my production designer and close friend (he was my college roommate and was in my wedding) Jim Cunningham.
The kids were excited to meet John Ratzenberger, a voice in every Pixar movie, who played "Mike the Angel" in my film.
In the movie, Kevin Sorbo's character has a teenage daughter and a 7 year old. There's a flashback scene where the youngest daughter is born, and Maya got to make an appearance playing the teenager as a little girl. So here she is with "Dad."
Me with the kids in front of the truck John Ratzenberger's character drives in the movie. He's an angel on earth in the form of a tow-truck driver/mechanic. Yes, it's a metaphor.
The family sitting on the steps of the church we shot a few scenes in.
Me doing my top two favorite things in the world. Those would be hanging with my family and directing a movie, in case that wasn't clear.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Adoption update
Boy, it's been a long time since we've said anything about our Thai adoption. The main reason for that is that there's been no news, unfortunately. We were approved by the Thai board, which is apparently rare and great news, but then we didn't hear anything for quite awhile. Our missionary friend in Thailand, Krissie Cilano, has been our "woman on the ground" there, constantly trying to stay in touch with the Thai adoption people, but they're not easy to get ahold of. She finally talked to them last week, and the word was that there was still some disagreement about us, that they weren't 100% sold on us, at least not sold on making us a priority because we already have three children.
We just got the following email today from Krissie:
The Adoption Board has resolved its debate in your favor!!!!!! On Monday, Angkana promises to have a list of special needs for you to consider.
Either you can make direct contact with her or she will tell me what they are on the phone, and I will email them to you or phone you.
Then, the Board will begin to send the case studies to you w/photo.
Love, Krissie
So...
Woohoo!
Dallas
We just got the following email today from Krissie:
The Adoption Board has resolved its debate in your favor!!!!!! On Monday, Angkana promises to have a list of special needs for you to consider.
Either you can make direct contact with her or she will tell me what they are on the phone, and I will email them to you or phone you.
Then, the Board will begin to send the case studies to you w/photo.
Love, Krissie
So...
Woohoo!
Dallas
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Where to begin on Obama's speech?
I'll try to make this quick and just quote a few comments and respond:
"If companies don't do right by their workers and offer them insurance..."
This comment drives me insane. Why is offering health benefits "doing right," but not offering them "doing wrong?" Isn't the fact that the company even hired them in the first place "doing them right?" Employees know what they're getting when they get a job, and if they demand health coverage as part of their employment, they can go work for someone else if their boss doesn't offer it to them. Purchasing health coverage for your employees is extraordinarily expensive; sometimes simply hiring the person is all an employee can afford.
And by the way, offering health care to employees wasn't always the norm. But eventually, it became part of a job offer--"Instead of paying you $60,000 and you paying $10K a year for your health coverage, I'll pay you $50,000 a year and give you health coverage, and then you won't be taxed for that $10K." It's a privilege, a bonus, a cool thing...it's not a RIGHT, and not offering it isn't necessarily "doing wrong."
"We will require everyone to get health insurance, just like many states force you to have auto insurance."
Wow. He has big stones to say something like this. For one thing, the reason you're forced to have auto insurance is to cover OTHERS, not yourself. You're driving a big dangerous machine, and if you injure someone with it, you better have a way to guarantee payment. For another, you're not forced to drive a car! So if you don't own a car, you don't have to get auto insurance!
What a horrible metaphor.
One other thing about forcing people to have health insurance. This, like forcing insurance companies to cover all this preventative stuff, and forcing people to participate in it, is such a nanny state, big brother mentality. Sure, it's smart for people to be more preventative, but why should the government force it on you? Is this freedom? What's next, they'll force people to work out three times a week and ban sugar? They're already banning the sale of trans fats in California and New York; we're not that far away from forcing people to be in good shape. Forcing people to purchase health insurance is lunacy, especially considering one of his reasons--"because when someone goes to the emergency room without insurance, we all have to pay for it." Why is that? Why can't they get billed? Why shouldn't they be expected to pay for the cost of being treated?
"According to the Congressional Budget Office, only 5% of Americans will sign up for the public option."
Nice little stat there, except he left out two things: one, only 15% of Americans don't have insurance anyway (notice how he lowered the number of uninsured in this speech from 45 million to "over 30 million," because he realized that the 45 million figure included illegal immigrants?), so a better way to say it would have been, "one in three uninsured will sign up for the government option." Two, the Congressional Budget Office he quoted here is the same group that is saying his plan will operate at a deficit, which he denies. So why does he trust the CBO for the stat above?
"Public universities don't hurt private colleges, so public insurance won't hurt private insurance" (paraphrase).
Hm. Well, that's partly true, except the difference is that there are thousands of different public universities to choose from, which means they compete with each other, whereas Obama's proposing one government plan. Also, most public universities are state run and funded, not nationally run and funded. And again...NO ONE'S FORCING ANYONE TO GO TO COLLEGE, whereas Obama wants to force you to have insurance, so again, it's a crappy metaphor.
"You shouldn't be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition."
Then why ever get insurance in the first place? Oh, never mind, he's going to force you to do it. Forgot that part.
"It will be against the law for an insurance company to drop you just because you get sick."
It already is. Let me repeat that. It already is. As long as you make timely payments, it's against the law for an insurance company to simply drop you because you got sick while on their plan.
To close, President Obama has been making some very interesting statements about Medicare. I've been attacking Medicare in health care debates for awhile. I've used it as an example of a poorly run government program that should scare us from wanting government to have a bigger role (along with FEMA, DMV, post office, etc.). And my liberal friends usually respond by defending Medicare, pointing out its high approval ratings and efficiency. Well, I appreciated President Obama tonight acknowledging that Medicare is a problem, because he said that one of the biggest ways the government option would be paid for is with the elimination of waste and fraud in Medicare.
Get that? "We're going to pay for this new big government program by eliminating all the mess and mistakes from the other one. Yes, the other program has wasted HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, enough to nearly pay for this new program, but trust me...we'll do this one better." President Obama said something similar about the post office, another government program we on the right attack. He said, "Government competition hasn't hurt fedex and UPS; in fact, it's the post office that usually has the problems." Um...so this is supposed to give us confidence in your new government program?
And by the way...if there's so much waste and fraud in Medicare, why not eliminate said waste right now?
Not all Obama said was bad. And of course, the beginnings and ends of his speeches are always great, and I'm guessing support for him and the plan will go up in the next week based on this speech. But most likely it'll return to earth in a couple weeks, and we'll be back where we started.
"If companies don't do right by their workers and offer them insurance..."
This comment drives me insane. Why is offering health benefits "doing right," but not offering them "doing wrong?" Isn't the fact that the company even hired them in the first place "doing them right?" Employees know what they're getting when they get a job, and if they demand health coverage as part of their employment, they can go work for someone else if their boss doesn't offer it to them. Purchasing health coverage for your employees is extraordinarily expensive; sometimes simply hiring the person is all an employee can afford.
And by the way, offering health care to employees wasn't always the norm. But eventually, it became part of a job offer--"Instead of paying you $60,000 and you paying $10K a year for your health coverage, I'll pay you $50,000 a year and give you health coverage, and then you won't be taxed for that $10K." It's a privilege, a bonus, a cool thing...it's not a RIGHT, and not offering it isn't necessarily "doing wrong."
"We will require everyone to get health insurance, just like many states force you to have auto insurance."
Wow. He has big stones to say something like this. For one thing, the reason you're forced to have auto insurance is to cover OTHERS, not yourself. You're driving a big dangerous machine, and if you injure someone with it, you better have a way to guarantee payment. For another, you're not forced to drive a car! So if you don't own a car, you don't have to get auto insurance!
What a horrible metaphor.
One other thing about forcing people to have health insurance. This, like forcing insurance companies to cover all this preventative stuff, and forcing people to participate in it, is such a nanny state, big brother mentality. Sure, it's smart for people to be more preventative, but why should the government force it on you? Is this freedom? What's next, they'll force people to work out three times a week and ban sugar? They're already banning the sale of trans fats in California and New York; we're not that far away from forcing people to be in good shape. Forcing people to purchase health insurance is lunacy, especially considering one of his reasons--"because when someone goes to the emergency room without insurance, we all have to pay for it." Why is that? Why can't they get billed? Why shouldn't they be expected to pay for the cost of being treated?
"According to the Congressional Budget Office, only 5% of Americans will sign up for the public option."
Nice little stat there, except he left out two things: one, only 15% of Americans don't have insurance anyway (notice how he lowered the number of uninsured in this speech from 45 million to "over 30 million," because he realized that the 45 million figure included illegal immigrants?), so a better way to say it would have been, "one in three uninsured will sign up for the government option." Two, the Congressional Budget Office he quoted here is the same group that is saying his plan will operate at a deficit, which he denies. So why does he trust the CBO for the stat above?
"Public universities don't hurt private colleges, so public insurance won't hurt private insurance" (paraphrase).
Hm. Well, that's partly true, except the difference is that there are thousands of different public universities to choose from, which means they compete with each other, whereas Obama's proposing one government plan. Also, most public universities are state run and funded, not nationally run and funded. And again...NO ONE'S FORCING ANYONE TO GO TO COLLEGE, whereas Obama wants to force you to have insurance, so again, it's a crappy metaphor.
"You shouldn't be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition."
Then why ever get insurance in the first place? Oh, never mind, he's going to force you to do it. Forgot that part.
"It will be against the law for an insurance company to drop you just because you get sick."
It already is. Let me repeat that. It already is. As long as you make timely payments, it's against the law for an insurance company to simply drop you because you got sick while on their plan.
To close, President Obama has been making some very interesting statements about Medicare. I've been attacking Medicare in health care debates for awhile. I've used it as an example of a poorly run government program that should scare us from wanting government to have a bigger role (along with FEMA, DMV, post office, etc.). And my liberal friends usually respond by defending Medicare, pointing out its high approval ratings and efficiency. Well, I appreciated President Obama tonight acknowledging that Medicare is a problem, because he said that one of the biggest ways the government option would be paid for is with the elimination of waste and fraud in Medicare.
Get that? "We're going to pay for this new big government program by eliminating all the mess and mistakes from the other one. Yes, the other program has wasted HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, enough to nearly pay for this new program, but trust me...we'll do this one better." President Obama said something similar about the post office, another government program we on the right attack. He said, "Government competition hasn't hurt fedex and UPS; in fact, it's the post office that usually has the problems." Um...so this is supposed to give us confidence in your new government program?
And by the way...if there's so much waste and fraud in Medicare, why not eliminate said waste right now?
Not all Obama said was bad. And of course, the beginnings and ends of his speeches are always great, and I'm guessing support for him and the plan will go up in the next week based on this speech. But most likely it'll return to earth in a couple weeks, and we'll be back where we started.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
New post-production video blog...
To those of you on facebook, I apologize for the repeat posting of this video. I'm posting now on my personal blog, which sends posts to facebook automatically.
The following is #2 in the post production "director's diary" video blog. #1 and many other pictures and updates are at http://whatifmovie.wordpress.com. We also got some nice coverage of the video at a popular teen entertainment site: http://justjaredjr.buzznet.com/2009/09/08/debby-ryan-what-if-behind-the-scenes/
The following is #2 in the post production "director's diary" video blog. #1 and many other pictures and updates are at http://whatifmovie.wordpress.com. We also got some nice coverage of the video at a popular teen entertainment site: http://justjaredjr.buzznet.com/2009/09/08/debby-ryan-what-if-behind-the-scenes/
What If Video Blog 09-05-09 from What If on Vimeo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
