Irrational Gun Theory

I recently got into a debate with a closed group I'm associated with that happens to be made up almost entirely of very right-wing Republicans. One segment of the debate focused on gun control. What struck me about the conversation is that this is a group of extremely intelligent individuals who have some of the least defensible positions on gun control I've dealt with. Most have been markedly successful in life and know a thing or two about a thing or two.

The crux of their argument focused on the idea that Americans need to keep their firearms and that experience and statistics shows that more guns means more peace. To back this up one of the core arguments is that if we didn't have guns the government would enslave us soon thereafter and we'd have no recourse but to submit to it.

This is irrationality at the highest level. First of all, we have more guns now than we've ever had. We also are losing our rights more today than ever before. We have an administration in office now that has convinced a segment of the population (generally the same segment I'm arguing with on this issue) that we need to lose those rights to exist in the "new world". Second, how did having all those guns help the victims of Ruby Ridge? How did the stockpiles help in the Waco situation? They had more guns than they knew what to do with and most of those people are dead now. I'm not supporting either group. I'm just pointing out that stockpiling weapons did nothing to move their cause forward.

I can't believe otherwise intelligent people attempt to support gun ownership with this silly position. What exactly would our government do to cause millions of people to rise up and form a real militia to take on the government? Do these people not realize that the government has nuclear arms? They have an army. They have tanks, submarines, laser-guided missles. We're going to take that on with some hand guns?

The other part that gets me is when you point out that hand gun control (I don't want to ban all weapons) would reduce the guns over time, the response you get is that this isn't true. Basement manufacturing would fill the void. What? So then why not do away with the guns and, if we need them, we'll start creating them as needed since it's so straight-forward.

The other part that gets me is that they claim weapons save lives. Give me a break. They claim during the war weapons in the hands of average people saved a lot of lives. Don't count the ones in the hands of the military that took incalculable innocent lives. The irony is that they don't mention that Germany had access to guns and their people sat back while their CHOSEN leader took them into a suicidal vacuum, with the support of the people. The really misinformed in the bunch roll out the mistaken myth that Hitler banned guns in Germany. This just isn't true. The Weimer Government, before Hitler, had passed a gun registration law. After several years he did bad guns for Jews just as he banned most everything else in life for them. The rest of the populace sat back and watched this happen. Why didn't they rise up and revolt as these people suggest we would? Because life just doesn't work that way.

Just as half the nation here thought that what this administration did was just fine a few years ago, it's easy to see how we could be lead into that same sort of compliance without ever feeling the need to shoot anyone except those who would stand against the prevailing viewpoint.

Have guns made our politicians more responsive to our needs? I don't see it. I see a lot of them cashing large checks from the gun lobby. That's about where it ends.

The Right Doesn't Know Squat About TV

Ratings are down 13% on "The View" since the departure of Rosie O'Donnell. Nearly every conservative pundit was adamant that Rosie was and is a cancer and that any entity would be better off without her involvement.

This situation once again shows that these people have no clue what they're talking about and that personal politics trumps the bottom line. They hate her so to hell with ABC and their bottom line. Rosie is gone and to them that's a good thing no matter what.

The reality is that this ratings hit shows that the rest of population doesn't share their perception of the situation. How many more examples like this do people need before they realize that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and the rest are nothing more than biased, power-hungry, me-first, windbags? I don't even like Rosie but it's still clear to me that people generally like her and find her to have a genuine, no-nonsense, from-the-heart personality.

Two Movies Reviewed

On Saturday I visited my brother in Manhattan. He needed some computer help and I hadn't been up to see him in some time.

After dealing with the computer and getting him setup with a universal remote for his home theater setup, we headed out to see "Sicko" which was playing at the local AMC/Loews. I will say I am a fan of Michael Moore's movies. While I do admit that he's been a bit more over-the-top than he needs to be, he's certainly nowhere near as slimy as the conservative pundits running around out there. In fact, I suspect that much of his edge is due to being so different from the normal celebrity.

Sicko is different from the rest of his movies, especially the more recent ones, in that it seems far more mature. It stays on-focus and makes its point time and again with clear examples that rarely beg for further insight.

The movie is quite powerful. Heads all over the theater kept dropping in complete shame. It was like we'd been exposed as a tribe of over-confident cavemen living in a Jetsonian world while denying its existence. I have little doubt that the examples provided could be offset by horror stories that abound in any system but what's most telling here is that Moore doesn't set the table like he has previously. He just appears to randomly walk around and experience what's there to experience. If everything here was choreographed then Moore did a wonderful job of hiding it.

The movie challenges all the various reasoning against a socialized medical solution and leaves them looking pretty lacking at every turn. He reduces the arguments to the basic facts and responds with examples that are extremely difficult to refute. How is it that the so-called richest country in the world can't take care of its own people while so many others can?

The key point is that Sicko isn't even about the 50 million Americans without health insurance. It's about those who think they have it only to find, at their time of need, that they don't have the coverage they thought they had.

Remember that I broke my leg in Canada and I, having spent a lifetime here being filled with FUD regarding social medicine, was prepared for the worst when it came to the accident. I called my wife to prepare her for a huge bill and worried about the level of care I'd get. Instead I got far better, faster care than I would have gotten here for a fraction of the cost. The irony of this is that I'm still fighting with Blue Cross to get reimbursed for the expense. In typical fashion they've avoided paying out using every silly excuse you can imagine. The report is in French. The report is too long. They claim not to have e-mail. They only have a fax. When I fax they claim not to get it. In a rare case for me I've given up hope. I'm just glad it was a broken leg and not something bigger. Now I'm worried about bigger and I'm seriously considering my options if I am diagnosed with something serious. I have no faith that our system will work for me and leave me whole at the end. If I get the help needed I'm pretty confident I'll be left in heavy debt for the experience and I don't want to end my time here that way.

It's time for our country to join the rest of the civilized world and provide health care for everyone and to stop making excuses for the rich in this area. Our system has had generations in the free market and the free market clearly isn't the best answer for this problem.

On Sunday we got together for my mother-in-law's birthday and as part of the day we saw "Evan Almighty" together. Evan Almighty is a decent movie. It's getting hammered in the reviews and I can see why but it's not terrible. I think after movies like "Knocked Up" and "40 Year-Old Virgin" people just expect something else here. This was actually a decent family movie where neither of the others are. This is a feel-good movie fit for just about any audience. It's not about cutting-edge humor or lots of complex innuendo. It's just light fun.

There are some things about it that just don't work. The story provides a flood of its own in questions that beg an answer. There suspension of disbelief is just a bit too far of a leap here. By comparison, it's predecessor "Bruce Almighty", is entirely plausible.

The cast is also just wrong here. Very few people feel right in their roles with the exception of John Goodman as the evil politician and, of course, Morgan Freeman as God. The biggest flaw in casting is with Lauren Graham who plays Steve Carell's wife. While she really is 40, she should be quit flattered to hear that she looks nothing like it. I wouldn't have placed her at over 30. She just looks entirely incapable of having had three children of the ages presented here. She also doesn't come off as the motherly type. She seems to me to be better suited for more outgoing roles. I like Wanda Sykes in general but she wasn't quite a fit here and John Michael Higgins was totally miscast.

If you can put those issues aside and just sit back and let the movie take you for the trip its on, you'll find the movie to be enjoyable and generally funny. Steve Carell knows how to get a laugh out of just about anything and its an asset here. There are some good laughs here but it's a telling sign when people are laughing more during the credits than they did during most of the movie.

I'd give Sicko 4-stars (out of 4) and Evan Almighty two.

The Free Market Sucks For Health Care

I am sick and tired of the politicians out there on the right continually commenting about how the health care system needs to be addressed but while keeping it in the free market. The free market will balance it. Well, it's been in the free market its entire existence and if this example shows us one thing it's that the free market is not the cure to every problem in this country.

Companies are in business to make as much money as possible and sick people have no choice put to shell out whatever it costs and figure it out later even if later means declaring bankruptcy. Just as long as the HMO and pharmaceuticals get their take, what do they care?

The free market shows us that it is incapable of providing a truly competitive health care solution. Yet we have all these Republican politicians continuing to talk about the mighty free market and how it'll save this industry. Why would it save an industry its never been able to help before?

Here's hoping California gets universal health care, as they plan, and they do it right so that they can show the rest of the nation what's actually possible.

I've worked for a Canadian company and received Canadian health care when I broke my leg in Canada in 2006. The FUD the Right kicks out about their system is a complete joke. Most companies in Canada pay a small fee per employee that gets them excellent health care above and beyond the basic package that covers everyone. The doctors I dealt with cared about only one thing--treating me well in my time of need. I didn't spend hours in a waiting room, like I would have here in the land of free market health care. I didn't spend a fortune getting help either.

The ironic part is that the bill came to only about $400 US (it would have been a few thousand easily here) and, to this day, my US healthcare provider, Blue Cross, has refused to pay me back the money I spent. They've given me every excuse under the sun including trying to get me to get the French-speaking doctors to re-write the report in English as if Blue Cross never sees a non-English document.

It is not everyone else's system that's broken. It's our health care that's in shambles and it's time the Right got their heads out of the sand and pulled their fingers out of their ears long enough to actually find this out for themselves. Stop listening to talking heads that want nothing but to see their stocks in these companies continue to rise--at YOUR expense.

Some things the government does well. Do you see anyone suggesting that the military should be farmed-out to private industry? Of course not! Why do you think the government is only good at killing our kids but not good at curing them?

Surf's Up is Locked In

We saw the animated movie "Surf's Up" this weekend and I think I would have rather stayed home to nap. It's not that it's a terrible movie--it's just that there's nothing really worthwhile in it to make it recommendable.

First there's this whole idea that penguins surf using boards. It's just too strange. It'd be one thing if this movie were an allegory using penguins to represent people but the movie can't commit one way or the other. One moment they're firmly penguins while the next they're surfing, living in igloos and wearing jewelry. The movie wants it both ways and it just doesn't work.

The story is only marginally interesting. The plot "twists" are so incredibly obvious that the result is boredom for all but the youngest of viewers. Even the underlying love story doesn't really go anywhere. Thinking about it now I can't even say for sure if the two characters end up together.

The funniest thing about the movie is the wiped-out chicken who steals what's available of the show to be stolen.

I will say that the best thing about the movie is the way it looks. Computer animation has really just continued to evolve and improve. Every new movie seems to find more ways to impress us with better graphics. The water here looked good enough to dive into and they showed it using several varied looks and colors.

As a technical example it's quite a piece of work to look at but sadly that's about all you can say about it.

Libby Sentenced But Only Temporarily

Former V.P. aide Scooter Libby was sentenced to 30 months today for lying and obstruction of justice in the Valerie Plame affair. I will be very surprised if this guy serves out his sentence.

First we're going to get the appeal process. That's going to drag on quite some time. If they delay that long enough they can get everything all nice and tidy for a perfectly-timed pardon from President Bush just as he's leaving office.

You see, I've come to learn that I need to teach my son to do anything he thinks he can get away with to gain power and prestige. Once you have them you become nearly immune to the prospect of having to worry about making mistakes in life.

In a world where driving while drunk is just entirely unacceptable, Paris Hilton gets to serve 23 days as a repeat offender in a secluded section of a celebrity-conscience facility. Scooter Libby obstructs justice in what amounts to a case of treason at the highest level and he'll be unlikely to serve any time. If he does, it'll be in some catered facility and then, likely, for only a brief time.

I'm tired of hearing the garbage line that the press has a liberal bias. It's just not true. We should all be calling for this guy's head. Imagine the truth that would come out if this guy had his life on the line, as it should be. He played a part in exposing a secret operative of this country. It doesn't get much darker than that. Instead the press just goes along quietly commenting on the most basic elements of the case. You also know if this were say, a Bill Clinton aid that was facing these charges, the conservative pundits would be calling for his head.

It's time the Left wakes up and realized that the Right is playing the game perfectly in this country. They have everyone convinced that they're the weak party, that they're the underdogs. That's the greatest scam of our time. Just wait and see how much time Libby serves.

Hannity Has A New Favorite (Flawed) Argument

As the price of gas continues to climb many of us have noticed that the profits of the oil companies goes right along with it. Something just isn't right there and it's pretty obvious. Since when do you make out better when costs increase for anything you're involved in?

Sean Hannity, in response to this concern, has found a new argument that I see him trot out at every opportunity. Like most of his arguments, it's only paper-thin and doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny. Sean likes to try to embarrass people with it by using a statistic that sounds incredible and tends to make you have to think twice when you encounter it initially. This is all a good debater (and that's one thing he is good at) needs to make you look bad. He'll ask someone, "How much do you think the oil company makes on a gallon of gas?" His current answer is 8 cents per gallon.

First of all, this being Sean Hannity, I'd like to see those numbers. I suspect very much that we're talking about creative accounting here like the type Hollywood and the music industry tries to use to show a movie or record didn't make any money while everyone at the top gets rich.

Second of all, the oil companies don't just sell gas. How much do they make on a quart of oil? While that's a minor point, it still adds to the bottom line.

Third, since when is a gallon of gas all you buy? Why is a gallon the only measuring stick that's valid to measure this with? I remember once, when I was a kid and was flat-broke, buying a single gallon of gas to get my car home after running out of gas just down the road. Aside from that, I can't think of any other time I've ever bought a single gallon of gas. Gas is not milk. We buy gas in bulk.

Fourth, it doesn't matter if the oil companies make 80 cents a gallon, 8 cents a gallon or .8 cents a gallon. The bottom line is that right now, with prices going through the roof, the oil companies are reporting record or near-record profits. Every business has different variables to determine profitability. If 8 cents per gallon is realistic then the point is it's still too much profit.

Oil companies should not be experiencing record profits unless oil consumers start using the product in dramatically higher quantities. We're not doing that. In any other business when costs go up you hear about the industry having to adjust and complaining about it. When is the last time you saw a story about Exxon complaining that the increased costs are hurting them? I see stories about the airlines getting pinched. I see stories about Wal-mart taking a hit.

The reason Sean Hannity uses the argument is because it sounds good. It translates to the bulk of his audience and I have serious doubts about the IQ of a good portion of his audience. These are the same people who still think Iraq had something to do with 9-11 and that Sadaam had WMD's and a host of other things that all are born generally out of faith in what others tell you. Sean Hannity says oil companies only make 8 cents a gallon and that's good enough for the faithful audience.

The joke is that, based on the way its presented, how the hell can any company survive making so little money? If that argument really amounted to anything then this should be one of the worst businesses to be in, according to Sean. Instead they're making a fortune while we all pay. As I said in my other post today. I don't mind so much about the price of a gallon of gas for my car. I'm hopeful I'll be able to offset that (with a hybrid, or using my bike more often, public transit, etc.) What I cannot easily do is reduce the cost to heat my home easily.

So Sean, stop with this lowest common denominator argument that oil companies only make X cents per gallon. It's a useless argument only meant to distract your audience from the real debate and you know it.

Gas Is High But Heating Oil Is My Concern

Everyone keeps talking about gas prices and how it's not all that big a deal. What amazes me is that no one is talking about what this will do to heating oil this winter. My house is heated by oil and as a resident of New Jersey we have cold winters.

I can, and have, cut back on my driving. We now actively car pool with other family members and share the cost when traveling to visit each other. Driving is one of those things I can impact. What I can't easily impact is heating my house in the winter. Last year the price had already sky-rocketed. We paid roughly 30% more this past year than we did the year before (and that was already significantly more than we made the year before that). That included turning the thermostat down to 67 degrees and walking around the house with an extra layer on and keeping blankets handy in the family room.

If prices stay where they are then we'll pay 24% more this year than last year. If this keeps up we'll be forced to move just to avoid heating bills. It's one thing to see a 50% increase in things that don't cost much but we're talking thousands of dollars in this expense. Heating oil was expensive from the start when we moved into this house eight years ago.

The joke to me is that the news outlets keep talking about the pricing cycle. They try to tell us that the prices go up in spring and then down before going back up again in fall. First, that's not true. I don't recall ever seeing gas prices do that. They tended to stay about the same for years on end with slight increases here and there and spikes here and there. Now they go up in spring and up in fall. They don't go down very much at all.