Health & Wellness: Bowing down to the Health Insurance Industry

I have discovered a new enemy that makes the Third Reich, the USSR, Hussein, and terrorists look tame. At this point, you're probably thinking "The Health Insurance Industry? Nah, you've gotta be kidding!" Well, according to an article on AlterNet by Barbara Ehrenreich, that new enemy is the health insurance industry. I recommend reading it. I especially liked her notion that all those people whose job in life it is to DENY insurance coverage, be unemployed! After all, if David Kucinich is elected, they'll still have coverage! If not? Oh well, tough shit for them!

Pornography and the End of Masculinity

Did the title catch your attention? It caught mine when I found this article on AlterNet. I found it a very interesting and informative read. I had noticed the increasing trend both in pornography and even everyday society of peoples tolerance with cruelty and degradation, not just to women, but to others as well. For example, the government program for torture of "terror suspects" should have caused a firestorm of backlash from the public that seethed with anguish, fear and hatred of the government for employing these types of tactics , but at best, the general public had the anguish of a pissed off kitten.

Thats probably why the conclusion the author makes is what really rang true for me:

As is often the case, this paradox can be resolved by recognizing that one of the assumptions is wrong. Here, it's the assumption that U.S. society routinely rejects cruelty and degradation. In fact, the United States is a nation that has no serious objection to cruelty and degradation. Think of the way we accept the use of brutal weapons in war that kill civilians, or the way we accept the death penalty, or the way we accept crushing economic inequality. There is no paradox in the steady mainstreaming of an intensely cruel pornography. This is a culture with a well-developed legal regime that generally protects individuals' rights and freedoms, and yet it also is a strikingly cruel culture in the way it accepts brutality and inequality.

The pornographers are not a deviation from the norm. Their presence in the mainstream shouldn't be surprising, because they represent mainstream values: The logic of domination and subordination that is central to patriarchy, hyper-patriotic nationalism, white supremacy, and a predatory corporate capitalism.

Sick of Sicko?

If your answer is no, good for you. If your answer is yes, then why? Today, at a wedding shower, I overheard a guest complaining about Moore's movie Sicko. Normally, when I hear someone bashing left leaning eye openers (movies or stories that opens peoples eyes to the truth in right wing cover ups and corruption) I don't bother arguing with them because I know its frustrating and a waste of time since people like that have already made up their minds before even seeing it and have the most illogical arguments to explain why what they saw was apparently so "wrong." This time, I felt compelled to speak up (although I gave up soon after when his incessant babbling on what was wrong with the movie was too much for me). The entire crux of his argument was that Moore spent all of his time on Cuba and how great their health care was and how people leaving the theater were like "maybe I should move to Cuba." I, not being that great at debating, spent too much time trying to state that Moore never makes any claim about being unbiased, unlike a certain right wing wacko and his so called "No Spin Zone." But I digress. The person, whom I will refer to as Mr. X (and not because I already forgot his name, heh) made a point of "Cuba can't feed any of its people, but Moore ignored that point!" Well, he should have brought it up. Not for his argument that "why would you want to move to a country that has such great health care but can't feed its people," but because Cuba is a country that can't feed its people but has great health care! I know what you're thinking..."huh?" Think about it, if Cuba's health care is as great as Moore claims, and I think this likely, yet they are a poor third world country, where as we're supposed to be a rich developed country and our health care sucks, where do you think the problem lies? Incidentally, its not as if America can feed all of its people either!

I should point out, however, that I have yet to see the movies, but I have been following it to some degree (mostly on the Daily Show and a YouTubeish copy of Colbert). It seems to me that Moore's whole point is not "what are the conditions of the country that has good health care" (France and Cuba in his movie) but why is it that their health care is so much better than ours? Indeed, even CNN was so taken aback that they felt the need to attack Moore who fought back and actually forced CNN to admit they were wrong! I'm not sure if its because CNN (and other news agencies) are on the payroll of the medical industry as Moore claims, but you know something? It wouldn't surprise me! Remember, just like HMO's, the news media are run by private for profit corporations and get a lot of their funding from the aforementioned medical industry.

As I said, I have not seen the movie. I do plan to see the movie, in which I will post my comments once I have seen it. Just remember that people who operate on a profit motive have a tendency to only care about maintaining that profit and more often than not, do NOT have YOUR interests in mind! Think of it this way, if firefighters were market based and not publicly funded, and putting out a fire in your house depended on if you have "fire insurance," how would you feel if they came, and stood their looking up your insurance report trying to find a reason NOT to put out the fire in your house while the whole time, you're standing there arguing with them trying to convince them that you have insurance and they should put it out? Based on Moore's appearance on Colbert and Daily Show, that seems to me to be what the movie is about. In any case, I will go see it, and Mr. X has not dissuaded me in anyway. If anything, I'm even more interested than before!

Clarification

I want to be clear about something (you may have gleaned this from my Evolution/Shmevolution Post), I do not believe in "Creationism" or "Creationist Theory." My parents raised me in the Catholic Church, however, they also raised me with a strong Scientific background and to question my beliefs and everything around me. As an engineer, I was educated predominately in Science (An Engineers basic definition is as an "Applied Scientist"), so I have come to the conclusion that Evolution is fact. It is consistently supported by both anthropological, biological and genetic evidence. So, whether or not I "believe" in evolution is irrelevant and whether or not someone "believes" in Creation is also irrelevant because all of the evidence says evolution is fact, it is real, and it is proven. Sure, maybe the details need to be worked out, maybe scientists from time to time need to revise their evolutionary models, but that doesn't change the fact that it is real.

Evolution, Schmevolution

Back in November I believe, the Daily Show with John Stewart on Comedy Central had a four part program on the theory of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design (ie Creationism dressed up to look scientific). Lately, I have been thinking more on this rather hot issue. Indeed, 80 years after the Clarence Darrow trial aka "The Scopes Monkey Trial," teaching Evolution in school is still hotly debated. I am in agreement with one of the panelists that John had on the show in the 4th showing of the series, that school boards should let teachers decide what to teach and butt out of their curiculum. If parents don't like it, they can move their child somewhere that teaches something more to their liking, or teach them what they believe themselves.

So, my thoughts on this issue? Simply put, evolution is fact, not theory. A statement echoed by Carl Sagon in his award winning PBS series Cosmos (which is being rebroadcast on the Science Channel). Dr. Sagon, and many others in the fields of Biology point to nature for their examples of evolution. There is far too much biodiversity and too many living examples of evolution. Even now, when we have mapped the human genome, we have found that we are genetically related to every living creature, plant or animal, on this planet. Seems plain to me that if there were a Supreme Being who directly created us out of clay molding as the Bible suggests, there would be absolutely no gentic similarities whatsoever. What attributes to the lack of acceptance of such a proven concept? Well, two reasons stand out in my mind. One, a fundamental lack of understanding of just how the evolutionary process works and two, the fact that your mind has to think logically and scientifically to understand the evidence presented. I will attempt to explain it in a understandable way.

The first problem is that human arrogance leads us to believe that we are the end result, that the idea is we went from monkeys, to hominids, to neanderthals, to modern humans. Creationists grasp on this concept and point out that the fossil records show many of the "links in the chain" occurred at the same time, the most prominent example being that for a period of about 10 or 20 thousand years, neanderthals and modern humans (cro magnon) co-existed. However, according to evolution, this is not how it works. The key to evolution is diversity. Even Darwin knew that. To continue to use neanderthals and cro magnon's as examples, our species and the neanderthal species were two branches on the same bush, as were the other hominids. Essentily the human bush. Cro magnon (us) had the benefit of being the only branch that survived (although recent evidence suggests that another branch of humans, pygmy humans or "hobbits" as some have called them, who were approx. an average of 1 meter tall, had survived until roughly 13,000 years ago whereas neandthals died out roughly 30,000 years ago). Apes, which Creationists are fond of saying that we Evolutionists claim we descended from them, would be a completely seperate bush, with Gorillas, Orangotans, and the various other species of primates being being branches of the primate bush. Its more accurate to say we descended from a common ancestor, an animal that was neither monkey nor human but had features of both. At some point they would have diverged into the two bushes of today, the monkey bush and the human bush. Carl Sagan had a very good explanation of how evolution works, relating artificial selection (human selection) to natural selection (see the story "The Mystery of the Samurai Crab" Cosmos 2, Chapt. 3, 10 min.).

The second road block to understanding evolution is a bit more difficult to overcome. You can't educate everyone on biology, science, etc so that they can understand these concepts. The simple fact is that people have an easier time believing in what is easy for them to understand. To most people, a supreme being creating humanity is an easier concept to grasp than understanding the underlying biological principals that lead to the evolutionary process. But when you read (or listen) to Carl Sagan's explanation of how the evolutionary process functions, he describes it in a very beautifully simple way that (hopefully) most "lamen" people could understand (if they would listen). In today's world of uncertainty, we need to turn to people who provide a well thought out, fact based explanation using scientific concepts and principals, rather than listening to people who comfort us with lies and misinformation (whether or not they believe in such rubbish). Sometimes fact is truer than truth.

In conclusion, I'll leave you with this final quote:
"Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
- Theodosius Dodzhansky, 1973

Update (2/13/2008):
I found video's to The Daily Show's series Evolution, Schmevolution. The first is a video of a panel he did with experts in Evolutionary Science, Religious Creationism, and some nut hippie. If you do a search for "Evolution" you'll find some interesting clips on The Daily Show website.

Daily Show: Evolution, Schmevolution Panel

Google Pages

Google has seen fit to include me in its programme of building webpages using its Google Pages feature. You'll find the link below. I'll also be posting a link on the page I created to this blog. I am an engineer by trade but I will begin speaking out on the ideals and beliefs that I hold. The information I present here and on the Google Page represent my beliefs but are based on information I recieve from various sources...including some of the web links you see on here and in the Google Page site. Some information will be based on programme's I watch on things like the Science Channel, Discovery Channel, PBS, and various other TV programme's. Also a few radio programme's such as NPR's "To The Point." So...enjoy!

My Google Page

Stuff on My Mind: The Rich

I have been thinking a lot about what my friend had said and also stumbled upon a Yahoo Finance column by Robert Kiyosaki, author of Rich Dad Poor Dad. The column is titled "Why the Rich are Getting Richer." Its very interesting. Its not so much advice how to get rich which in his first article When Good Advice Isn't he basically peddles his "products" as the tool for getting rich from his advice. No, its more an explanation of the history that led to the current economic situation of today and an explanation of why the investments people make today doesn't make them rich. That first article is also interesting because he points out what I've known for awhile, investments in the stock market are extremely risky and very costly at times. But more importantly, when reading through his articles (and a little reading between the lines) you get insight as to why there are people like my friend. One of the fatal flaws my friend made (whether intentional or not) was that anyone can work hard to become rich, therefore poor people had it coming. The problem is that our economy today depends heavily on as few people as possible being rich. So, you have people who give "good" advice that really isn't good so that only the people who know better get rich while everyone else can't because of the "advice" from the "financial expert." (Honestly, I'm not so confident in this guys advice either). Another mistake my friend makes is that anyone can do something like what Kiyosaki did. I happen to think that Kiyosaki had a bit of luck on his side as well. Something not all of us have.

I don't want to get too heavily involved in my friends rants or Kiyosaki's articles. My first point, and one of the things you can get from the column, is that the rich are in control, getting richer, and using every means in the book they can to make sure they stay in control while the rest of us our out of control. Kiyosaki also mentions of a book called "The Dollar Crisis" by Richard Duncan that talks about the impending devaluing of the Dollar. Another thing that I suspect is around the corner. You already have an idea of it based on the fact that the Euro is now stronger and potentially the replacement currency for the dollar. I mention this because it leads to my next point, which is that based on this and other things I've heard, this can potentially cause an economically catastrophic event the likes of which can make The Great Depression look like a miniscule recession. One of my problems with American Capitalism (note that I am not attacking Capitalism itself, just America's version) is the fact that it requires that there be poverty. Most rich people might say "its part of life, like huricanes and tornato's," the whole social darwinism idea. I say that is bullshit. Darwins purpose was to explain nature, where as capitalism is a manmade concept. Like our forefathers, I believe everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How is poverty happiness? But also, I believe everyone has the right to basic needs such as food, water, and shelter, regardless of what they are or are not capable of. Our ancestors had it but had the ability to do it themselves. Now, too many people do not have it and either do not have the skills to get it on their own or are prevented by law.

Stuff on my Mind...Rich Good Poor Bad?

I got into a bit of a row with my friend and co-worker yesterday. It really upset me because she basically idolizes rich people. But what really boiled my blood was she practically accused all poor people everywhere of being a bunch of lazy good for nothing slobs. She has the typical right-wing conservative creedo of "if they're smart, they could find away to become rich." I took personal offense to that. I've grown up around people who were poorer than I. In most cases, they were the way they were either because they were not given the same opportunities, usually if they were minorities, or because they didn't have the prerequisite "intelligence" or "interests." By intelligence, I mean business or scientific aptitude (for the higher paying jobs) and by interests I mean interests in jobs such as engineering, science, business, politics, law, etc. This country favors those disciplines, rather unfairly I might add. Not only that, but this country requires you to have money for survival forcing many into a job they hate. You should be able to do what you love without having to worry about where your next meal comes from! You can't do that if you're an artist or musician (celebreties not included).

Another thing that bothered me was how she said she was against taxing the rich because then there would be "no incentive to invest money." She follows the "Reganomics" approach, give the rich tax breaks so they'll invest it and it trickles down to everyone else (aka Trickle Down Economics). NEWS FLASH...only upper middle class people invest. Rich people don't invest because THEY'RE ALREADY RICH!!! They don't NEED to invest when they have 7 figure salaries! You give them tax breaks, and they'll just hoard the money!! I say tax the damn rich people because it forces them to take social responsibility for many of the problems they themselves have caused; growing disparity between the haves and have nots, environmental damages, a large population of people whom everyday is a struggle to survive, to name a few.

Her flawed approach is typical right-wing propaganda, "work hard and you'll be rewarded." Truth is, that only works in a few cases. Most cases, its who you know, and how underhanded you are. You can't be a moral person, and become rich.

She also enjoys pointing out how conservatives are all about less government involvement. If thats true, then how come these same guys are creating laws like the Patriot Act and trying to undermine Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, and, more importantly, the Bill of Rights? Truth is, they are for less government involvement...in corporate interest. Corporate executives would love to be able to turn back the clock 100 years to the days before employee rights and protections, so they can force children to work and employees to work 18 hours/day 6 days/week for pennies. Also to the day where if there is an on the job injury, they just toss the employee into the streets and hire a new person, leaving the injured guy to fend for himself. I could go on and on.

I advocate more government involvement in the corporate world, and less involvement in my world (read the individual). Stop treating corporations like individuals and treat them for what they really are, seperate institutions that need to be monitored, regulated and enforced so that they do not take advantage of the rest of us. Do not monitor, regulate and enforce me (again, read the individual). Uphold the Bill of Rights and Civil Rights for individuals.