Monthly Archives: July 2007

See Sicko

Posted on by

Regardless of your preconceived notions about Michael Moore and his movies, go see Sicko. Especially if you believe that Moore is wrong about the main contention in his new movie, namely that our health care system is broken and that universal free health care is the only alternative that makes sense, see this movie. If your mind is not at least partially changed by the time you exit the theater, have some one put their hand on your chest to see if you still have a heartbeat!

Even if you already support “single-payer” universal health care, you are still likely to be at least a bit surprised at the degree of contrast between our system, which operates on denial of coverage to the maximum extent so as to maximize the profits of the insurance companies, and the situations in countries such as Canada and France, where care is virtually free to 100% of the population.

As to protests of “socialized medicine,” Moore correctly points out that we already have “socialized” services in this country, and they work quite well for the most part: Fire departments, police departments, public libraries, and public schools. Why not assume that public health could be added to this list and do at least as well? It’s already working in the other countries Moore covers in the film. And the life expectancy in those countries exceeds our own!

As to protests that the picture Moore paints of the systems in Canada and France etc. is far rosier than reality, there is some truth to that. Still, Moore succeeds in dispelling the more common largely false stereotypes, such as that you have to wait hours and hours to be seen by a doctor and even then you may not qualify for the care you need.

Look, suppose I told you that you won a million dollars in the lottery. The only hitch is that it is not a million dollars if you choose to get the money in a single payment (rather than spread it out over 20 years). For a single payment, you only get $600,000. Even worse, about a third of that goes to taxes, leaving you with just $400,000. OK. So it’s not really as good as truly getting a million dollars. But it’s a lot better than the alternative of turning down the money altogether.

The same is true of universal health care. It may not be as good as its most ardent supporters suggest. But it is a lot better than the alternative of what we have now.

Yes, there are some valid criticisms of the movie. It attacks some non-profit insurance companies (together with for-profit ones) while claiming that a profit motive is the main reason that the companies deliver such poor health care. It claims at the start of the movie that it is about people who have insurance, yet some of the examples later in the film focus on people with no coverage.

Still, these criticisms do not dent the overall impact of what the film gets right. When we see a video of a sick woman getting dumped from a taxi at a “skid row” location, still in her hospital gown, because the hospital did not want to care for her any longer — and contrast that to the care available to anyone and everyone in our neighbor to the north — it is truly hard to understand how we have tolerated our system for so long.

As pointed out by a French person in the film, democracy gives the poor and underprivileged power via their votes. Corporate lobbyists have tried to undermine this power through their contributions to Congress. And by discouraging us from voting. They have largely succeeded — which is why Congress will not pass a bill for true universal health care any time soon.

Even in my home state of California, the truly universal health care bill (SB 840, sponsored by Shiela Kuehl) is getting lost in the shuffle of the far weaker bills (which still leave the insurance companies in place) put forward by our Governor and the Democratic Party.

If there is any hope for major change any time soon, it will only come if enough of us use the power of the ballot box to force the change. It’s up to you to take action.

More patience in judging Iraq? Gimme a break

Posted on by

A recent article in the New York Times states “The top commanders in Iraq and the American ambassador to Baghdad…[are appealing] for more time, both to allow for success on the ground and to more fully assess if the new strategy is making gains.”

Sure. Just what we need. More time for Iraq to sink even lower as a disaster than it already is.

As far as I can tell, what President Bush really wants is enough extra time so that he can leave office before any hard decisions about troop withdrawals are implemented, thereby hopefully transferring the “blame” for the consequences of any such withdrawal to his successor. It’s a cynical plan that ignores the needless deaths and injuries that will occur while Bush attempts to figure out a safe exit strategy for himself.

It also shows that, even at this late date, Bush refuses to consider the idea that some sort of troop withdrawal may actually be the right decision. Nope. Once Bush starts down a road, changing directions means admitting error. And Bush the Infallible can make no errors.

Even ignoring all this, the larger question is: When do we stop playing this “give us more time” game? What if (as I believe is likely) staying the course for another year means that the Iraq situation gets worse, not better? And what if the generals continue to ask for more time to “turn it around”? Do we still give it to them?

At some point we need the courage to say: “No, you’ve had more than enough time. You’ve had years. If you haven’t shown sufficient progress by now, an extra few months isn’t going to change things. It’s time to take a new direction.”

I believe that time is now.

Get the iPhone; Skip the case

Posted on by

Peripherals for iPhone may be a bit slow in coming, but there was one category of peripheral that was available the same day that iPhone was released: iPhone cases. The irony is that this is a peripheral that is not only unnecessary but may actually be a hinderance.

To be fair, I have never liked the idea of using protective cases on anything, even my iPods. It reminds me of putting slipcovers over a beautiful couch. What’s the point of having beautiful material for your couch, if you are going to cover it up and never see it?

Still, I typically use a case with my iPods, despite my reservations, because on balance I want to protect the device, especially the screen, from scratches and other potential damage.

The iPhone, however, is a different story. First, iPhone’s design is so elegant and striking that to cover it up with a case seems even more of a crime than with an iPod. A case also affects (probably negatively) how the iPhone feels when holding it to your ear for a call, something that is not an issue with an iPod.

The most critical factor is that you can’t cover up the iPhone screen with a case anyway. Because iPhone has a touchscreen, you need to be able to have your fingers come in direct contact with the display. A cover would prevent that. Added to that is that Apple did a great job of making the screen scratch-resistant. I have seen demos of trying to scratch the screen by scraping a coin across it; it had no effect. This means that the part of the iPhone you should be most concerned with protecting is the part that a case has no ability (and perhaps no need) to protect.

Making matters worse, a recent report on iPhone Atlas suggests that some cases may actually cause scratches and heat-related problems that would otherwise not occur.

I might consider something like Power Support Crystal Film Set for iPhone; it covers the screen, allows the touchscreen to still work and appears to be almost imperceptible. Even here though, it seems possible that the film might wind up getting “scratched” in a way that the glass itself would not, defeating the film’s purpose.

Bottom line: Get the iPhone; skip the case.

A comment on The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything

Posted on by

Last Friday, I went to hear Gordy Slack talk about his new book: The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything (Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA.). He has a charming, friendly speaking style that happily carries over to the book. I have just finished the book and I highly recommend it—both for its inside (if not in depth) look at this important trial as well as for its personal touches (especially Gordy’s struggles with his father, an “Ivy League liberal intellectual” experimental psychologist who “converted” to a “neo-creationist” born-again Christian when Gordy was nineteen).

As readers of my previous blog entries on evolution and on atheism no doubt know, I have few if any kind words for proponents of Intelligent Design (or religion itself, for that matter). At its harshest level, my view is that such individuals are either ignorant, hypocritical, or in denial. That is, their absolute rejection of the evidence for evolution is either due to ignorance (they have never really fairly considered the evidence for the theory), hypocrisy (they knowingly choose to ignore the evidence because it is in conflict with their religious beliefs or because promoting ID is beneficial to some political goal) or denial (they unknowingly close the gates of their brains to any information that is contrary to their religious beliefs).

One of the values of Gordy’s book, for me personally, is the respect he shows to both sides of the debate. More specifically, it provides insights into the thinking of some of the more intellectually honest ID proponents (such as Phillip Johnson). I still believe they are completely wrong, but I can at least see that they are not ignorant and are sincere in their views (even if they continue to view ID as a means to ultimately wedge a religious God into science). Gordy’s patience with ID arguments, I might add, appears to grow less and less as the book progresses, as he details both his own objections and the flaws in the arguments exposed during the trial—as well as the deceit and lies given in defense of teaching ID in schools.

Yet, I also find a sadness in the positions of even the most sincere and honest of ID proponents. Because, from the descriptions in the book, it is clear that there is nothing I (or anyone else) could say to these individuals that would persuade them to change their views. It goes without saying that the same holds true, in spades, for the less intellectual and more dishonest of ID proponents. Given this realization, it seems almost pointless to even try. But I don’t wish to give up. I still hope that there are enough people who are not so far over to the creationist side of the fence that, over time, we can effect a shift in public opinion toward much greater support of evolution. I no longer believe, however, I will see this shift in my lifetime. It is a continuing irony that, as we move into the 21st century, there appears to be a resurgence in ideas whose origins emerged from our collective ignorance thousands of years ago.

Of course, I would be the first to admit that there is little, if anything, that ID proponents could say to me that would get me to change my views. So perhaps, one might argue, we are on different sides of the fence but otherwise no different. Perhaps. I remain convinced, however, that I would be willing to change my views in an instant if the evidence presented itself. What I resist is to make faith the basis for a shift in my views.

This point was made crystal clear to me in one passage from Gordy’s book. It relates to a point I made in a previous blog entry: It is not viable or rational to argue in favor of Intelligent Design (or more generally, a belief in God) based on the idea that a universe without God would imply a meaningless existence. Yet, that is exactly what Richard Thompson (chief counsel for the defense in the Dover trial) argues, when asked why this particular battle matters so much to him: “If you are nothing but an accident of nature, then nothing you do is dependent on objective truth. There is no life after death. There are no set moral codes…You’re just another piece of matter bouncing around…Even if a hundred million scientists say…we’re just purposeless beings,…the general public won’t buy it. And neither will I.” Thompson states all this as if it is self-evident and irrefutable evidence for why evolution cannot be true.

Of course, as I (and many many others) have argued, just because you may be dismayed at some truth, does not make it untrue. I may be sad at the prospect that I am going to die one day. But that sadness does not mean that I will, in fact, not die. Similarly, it may well be that life has no ultimate moral or spiritual meaning. However depressing such a thought might be, it has no bearing on whether or not it is true. A failure to make this distinction is one of the continuing fallacies promoted by defenders of ID, and more generally of religion.