Some people who say the government "can't do anything efficiently" also now say a public insurance system competes with private insurers unfairly – these fear it will out-compete big business? CEOs earning tens of millions of dollars per year fear free market competition?
The cost control problem is that the idea of controlling health care costs is contrary to earning insurance company profits - what incentive there is only applies to their own costs of operation. When the cost of health services go up the big insurance companies just make a cut of a larger price-tag.
That's why U.S. health care costs have tripled the rate of inflation for three decades. Insurers have no incentive to moderate health care costs, only how much they profit -- so naturally they insure the healthiest, and make it hard to get help with pre-existing and/or expensive conditions.
Sometimes they even countermand medical decisions. Bureaucrats worrying about their bottom line can over-rule a licensed doctor's prescriptions and treatment orders to protect the corporate profits.
There's no real choice when an individual enters the health insurance market. They bundle in with the group at work, which has a very narrow range of choices - and every insurance company makes about the same markup on the same basic services, so the costs (concealed in overly complex plans) aren't all that different.
The government's role in fixing the system for our mutual benefit is to model efficiency - at least until big insurers learn to deliver their services efficiently - to compete.
The Economic Policy Institute recently showed that a $100 billion in green investment annually would yield $160 billion in additional output for each of the next two years, creating approximately 1.1 million new jobs and resulting in an increase of approximately 100,000 in the number of unionized jobs in the United States.
EPI points out that this would lead to rising median incomes, a reduction in inequality and more access to job-training and mentorship programs.
At a time when outsourcing undermines the middle class, and deregulation has wounded our entire economy, we have a chance to be creating millions of new jobs right here in the U.S.A.
It's time for our leaders to take charge of the economy. Deregulation has helped the wealthy long enough: it's time to reward those who WORK for a living by insuring there are jobs for anybody in the U.S.A. willing to be productive.
Investing in energy independence isn't simply a national defense priority, it makes sense for the environment and our economy - it means jobs right here at home.
In September, 2008, the Blue Green Alliance released a report, in conjunction with the Center for American Progress and authored by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, which showed that significant investments in six global warming solutions - building retrofits, mass transit and freight rail, wind and solar power, next generation biofuels and a smart grid transmission system - would create two million jobs in two years, four times the jobs created with the same investments in expanding our oil supply. That same report also found that these green investments created three times the number of good jobs - paying $16 or more - than the same investment in oil.
Not too long ago in Western culture it seemed we had this mostly unwritten rule that when a performer was at work, we didn't rush the stage to be with them or follow them around, unless of course they asked us to. Well, in this Internet age the act of rushing the stage and stalking has become all too commonplace, with the latest victim being American Idol star Adam Lambert; pop culture icon Britney Spears faced the same incident just two weeks before.
In Spears' case the stage crasher, 20 year-old Kyle King, was a man who was whisked off and arrested by security after Britney let out a scream. By contrast, Lambert laughed the whole deal off - you can hear him - as authorities carried the shirtless woman (not topless as some reports have it) off and away from Lambert. Matt of Matt & Kim said "I don't know if anyone else woke up this morning feeling like they'd been in a brawl," ... "I woke up with a limp!"
I'm sure there are other examples of rushing the stage, but as it seems to be a form of stalking, I wonder if it's not a kind of new reaction by some to the new fame of others. All of the examples have people between the age of 20 and 30 who are doing the stalking, which means they're part of a generation that gets most of its media online -- they're hyper-engaged in media. Moreover, and now I'm spinning a theory as I've not found a study on this behavior in the Internet age, I wonder if those who stalk performers and media content creators in some way feel close to them because of the Internet, and want to complete the desire to "reach out and touch them."
And I'm not claiming their impulse is always harmless. Just ask American Idol host Paula Abdul, who was stalked by a contestant who eventually killed herself outside Abdul's home. Jamie Foxx fought off his stalker last month (what is it with April and March?) as he was in Philadelphia filming a movie.
Some people want to do harm to the simple video-blogger. I use as one example Melissa Compagnucci, a video-blogger who caught Internet fame after CNN discovered her for the CNN / YouTube Democratic Debate in 2007, and even flew her out to be part of the event itself with Anderson Cooper. But after the CNN spotlight, her vlogging attracted a stranger who took to taking pictures of where she lived at the time, just to let her know that he or she knew where she lived!
In Mel's case she just stopped posting vlogs for a few months, which is what I told her not to do. But now, she's back and is working for Ford Motor Company with the very cool gig of driving around the new Ford Fiesta for six months! I'm very happy she's "in the mix" as they say. But as to why people try to scare Melissa (or for that matter me) or any vlogger I don't know. I do know it's more common than it should be , and at least one vlogger was murdered , Asia McGowan last month, and by a nut case who reportedly "scorned Black women, discussed suicide, and decried atheists" and then killed himself.
And I get the same kind of messages she was complaining about; I just don't answer them.
No, I'm not comparing myself to Adam Lambert or Britney Spears, but Asia McGowan, yes. I am writing about those who feel it's necessary to "hate on" someone just because they dare have a media presence. I personally think the local police should have a protection list for entertainers, journalists, bloggers, and vloggers, so they know who we are and we have someone internally to call where we can report someone before its too late. I fear this is getting way out of hand. We've seen the loss of Chauncey Bailey who was gunned down in the line of journalist duty and Asia McGowan for sharing her view on the issues of the day. I don't want to ask who's next and I believe the same mentality that rushes someone like Adam Lambert or Britney Spears would do this to a journalist or a vlogger.
Not too long ago in Western culture it seemed we had this mostly unwritten rule that when a performer was at work, we didn't rush the stage to be with them or follow them around, unless of course they asked us to. Well, in this Internet age the act of rushing the stage and stalking has become all too commonplace, with the latest victim being American Idol star Adam Lambert; pop culture icon Britney Spears faced the same incident just two weeks before.
In Spears' case the stage crasher, 20 year-old Kyle King, was a man who was whisked off and arrested by security after Britney let out a scream. By contrast, Lambert laughed the whole deal off - you can hear him - as authorities carried the shirtless woman (not topless as some reports have it) off and away from Lambert. Matt of Matt & Kim said "I don't know if anyone else woke up this morning feeling like they'd been in a brawl," ... "I woke up with a limp!"
I'm sure there are other examples of rushing the stage, but as it seems to be a form of stalking, I wonder if it's not a kind of new reaction by some to the new fame of others. All of the examples have people between the age of 20 and 30 who are doing the stalking, which means they're part of a generation that gets most of its media online -- they're hyper-engaged in media. Moreover, and now I'm spinning a theory as I've not found a study on this behavior in the Internet age, I wonder if those who stalk performers and media content creators in some way feel close to them because of the Internet, and want to complete the desire to "reach out and touch them."
And I'm not claiming their impulse is always harmless. Just ask American Idol host Paula Abdul, who was stalked by a contestant who eventually killed herself outside Abdul's home. Jamie Foxx fought off his stalker last month (what is it with April and March?) as he was in Philadelphia filming a movie.
Some people want to do harm to the simple video-blogger. I use as one example Melissa Compagnucci, a video-blogger who caught Internet fame after CNN discovered her for the CNN / YouTube Democratic Debate in 2007, and even flew her out to be part of the event itself with Anderson Cooper. But after the CNN spotlight, her vlogging attracted a stranger who took to taking pictures of where she lived at the time, just to let her know that he or she knew where she lived!
In Mel's case she just stopped posting vlogs for a few months, which is what I told her not to do. But now, she's back and is working for Ford Motor Company with the very cool gig of driving around the new Ford Fiesta for six months! I'm very happy she's "in the mix" as they say. But as to why people try to scare Melissa (or for that matter me) or any vlogger I don't know. I do know it's more common than it should be , and at least one vlogger was murdered , Asia McGowan last month, and by a nut case who reportedly "scorned Black women, discussed suicide, and decried atheists" and then killed himself.
And I get the same kind of messages she was complaining about; I just don't answer them.
No, I'm not comparing myself to Adam Lambert or Britney Spears, but Asia McGowan, yes. I am writing about those who feel it's necessary to "hate on" someone just because they dare have a media presence. I personally think the local police should have a protection list for entertainers, journalists, bloggers, and vloggers, so they know who we are and we have someone internally to call where we can report someone before its too late. I fear this is getting way out of hand. We've seen the loss of Chauncey Bailey who was gunned down in the line of journalist duty and Asia McGowan for sharing her view on the issues of the day. I don't want to ask who's next and I believe the same mentality that rushes someone like Adam Lambert or Britney Spears would do this to a journalist or a vlogger.
Like other supporters, I received this email letter from U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, but this one was pointed right at one of my favorite subjects: "Who should be Justice David Souter's replacement on the Supreme Court?"
After not much stewing on the matter, I would guess, Senator Boxer wants it officially known: President Obama's choice must be a woman and she's taking to the Internets to make it known. I still favor Kathleen Sullivan for the job so no harm there; this is what Senator Boxer wrote:
Dear Zenophon,
Women make up 51% of our nation's population.
Yet only 17% of the seats in Congress are held by women. Only 3% of corporate CEOs are women. And just one out of nine Supreme Court justices is a woman.
President Obama can change that.
Send an email to the White House now — and urge President Obama to nominate a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court!
Since Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement from the Supreme Court four years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been the sole female Justice.
Now, with Justice Souter's recent retirement announcement, President Obama has a chance to nominate an intelligent, well-qualified person to the Supreme Court — and I believe that person should be a woman.
We need a Supreme Court that is more representative of all Americans, so that its decisions better reflect the diversity of life experiences and points-of-view in America.
Send an email to the White House now — and urge President Obama to nominate a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court!
Many pundits have warned President Obama to make his choice based on merit — and I agree. In fact, there are many highly qualified women to choose from.
When 96 percent of all Supreme Court Justices throughout our history have been men, clearly it is evident that we need another woman on the Court.
Send an email to the White House now — and urge President Obama to nominate a woman to the U.S. Supreme Court!
When asked recently how it felt to be the only woman on the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg simply replied, "Lonely."
It's time to change that.
Thanks for your help.
In Friendship,
Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senator
Did you get that you're supposed to email President Obama?
I think its important to add that in a diverse society we must have a diverse Supreme Court that can make a contemporary set of laws rather than laws from another less diverse time in America. That written, we have the battle between Latinos, African Americans, women, and according to TIME Magazine's Mark Halperin, white men.
So what to do?
Obama should pick the person who has the best set of qualifications and I just can't see anyone better than Kathleen Sullivan. Period.
Today, Donald Trump of the Trump Corporation and the owner of the Miss Universe Pageant system (which includes Miss California) briskly walked into a press conference held in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York City and announced that Miss California, Carrie Prejean was keeping her crown. Prejean came under fire by uber blogger Perez Hilton for answering his question of her stand on Gay Marriage when she responded - after making it clear she didn't mean to offend anyone - that marriage is between a man and a woman.
That statement sparked Hilton to use his blog and videos to attack Prejean, calling her some really bad names. Here's the video that started it all (warning, language):
Other bloggers took up his voice and within two days after the comment the Internet was abuzz with abusive posts about the beauty queen. Then Prejean was sought out by, and did not refuse to work with, conservative groups working against the passage of Gay Marriage. Then and suddenly file after photo file of a topless Prejean was leaked to the Internet on TheDirty.com and a new charge, that of violation of her contract where she stated she never posed nude, took center stage. Finally, the directors of the Miss California pageant held a firebrand news conference Monday denoucing Prejean, but forgetting that the entire organization was owned by the one person who had final say: Donald Trump.
As "trite" as this entire affair may be to some, it's vitally important in the course of American Culture. Why? Because the issue ignited anti-Gay Marriage activists simply due to the way Prejean was treated by activists, led by Perez Hilton. His behavior - amplified by the Internet - may have set back the progress of change in state laws to allow Gay Marriage by two election periods.
At this point, the song "Money changes everything" comes to my mind, but back to the subject. Trump said the photos were acceptable. Moreover, Trump got the Miss California directors Kevin Smith and Shanna Moakler to come to an agreement with Prejean, who agreed to carry out her duties.
For heteros who back Gay Marriage like myself, this episode was a watershed moment in sparking a conversation we as a country need to have. For me, this matter is one of a civil right for a person to marry and man or a woman at any point in their lives. The uncharted conversation is that some women and men move in and out of Gay or Lesbian status and I've been personally impacted by this. As I've stated before, I've had girlfriends who at first said they were Lesbian then slept with me, then married a man. So what, is my response. But it's not the central conversation; it should be.
I think the problem is in order to make the case for "equal rights" Gay activists long ago made the case that being Gay was a genetic presdispostion then compared it to being "of color", which set off the political problems we see today. The fact is people chose to behave a certain way based on who they fall in love with regardless of the sex of the person. Some of us, like myself and Prejean, are used to male-female parings, but where we differ is I don't believe everyone has to live as I do. That written, the real question is "Does a person have the right to marry whom they want to male or female?"
I think the answer's "yes" but Perez Hilton's keeping us from getting to "yes" in the future. Today, he called Prejean "ignorant" and "a stupid woman" on HLN, upsetting the hosts of the show. (And even many of the comments on his own blog are against him.)
His childish behavior is "his thing" as Trump said today. All of us in the media commentary business have "our thing" and regardless of how you feel about it, it draws eyeballs, especially for Hilton. So he's empowered but this time he made a mistake he will not personally feel but will observe politically as time marches on. My prayer for the future is that activists on both sides don't take up arms and attack the other person. I hope Hilton leads the charge in calming the waters, but I doubt it.
Last weekend's installment of "The Blog Report with Zennie62" features the 16th District Delegate Election that was held in Alameda in January. The show segment, which is shown here, covers the election process and why its important to the political future of the Democratic Party in the Bay Area.
But the real stars of the show are Oakland's young political activists who are bringing a new energy to the scene here. East Bay Young Democrats President Frieda Edgette, union leader Dan Rush, and Peralta Community College Trustee Abel Guillen are just some of the faces interviewed in the second Episode of "The Blog Report."
Personally, I think Frieda Edgette's the one to watch. The leader of the East Bay Young Dems and "MixitUp East Bay" has a unique combination of energy, intelligence, empathy and direction to rise to the level of congressional representative or senator, and I'm not writing anything here I've not personally told her. In fact, once Frieda learns to ignore the voices that say either directly or indirectly "she can't", she will.
I don't make that statement lightly. The Oakland / East Bay Area political establishment is not known for growing and mentoring future leaders; that happens by the next generation of voters elevating its own officials for the future. In Edgette's case she and others in her organization and many who were former Obama volunteers but not in the East Bay Young Dems have formed new groups of friends and other informal alliances that go out and do everything from raise money for causes to gain votes for delegate candidates like Edgette and Rush; both won the January election.
Take one look at the slate cards made by the organizations aligned with Senator Don Perata last year and one would be hard pressed to find a young political star in the group. Nothing against Senator Perata but it's a wake up call to him that there's a powerful anti-establishment wind blowing and people like Frieda are being carried by it. Perata should get on the right side of it.
This is just my prediction but Donald Trump will let Carrie Prejean keep her Miss California crown, upsetting Perez Hilton and much of Hollywood in the process. They will yell, kick and scream but for Trump it's about regaining control of the message: it's my pageant not yours. And he will effectively say this to the representatives of Miss California, the very ones who on Monday held a press conference that was more activist bickering rant than an event, but I suppose that's an event too.
The Miss California Press Conference
It's not that I disagree with the message of diversity the spokespersons were attempting to communicate, it's just that they staged the event knowing full well Trump could pull the rug out from under them on Tuesday. After all, as they said, it's his call.
Plus all of this isn't over Prejean's so-called nude photos or her contract that she signed stating she didn't pose nude, it's her comment on (drum roll, please) Gay Marriage. Now, if she said "marriage is between a White man and a White woman," I'd have said "Well, I'll give her three years before some brother turns her out." But let's think that through for a moment. Given the number of interracial marriages and famous couples, like Heidi and Seal, Prejean would not have a single group to turn to other than the KKK, and that would bounce her in a second.
And that's the point. Anyone can marry anyone, really. It doesn't have to be state sanctioned but it certainly makes life easier when it is. The point is Prejean is being demonized for stating she likes men and traditional sexual parings - it's an issue of "preferred plumbing" which Prejean confuses with civil rights. Ok. That's it, really. What Prejean will do to keep her crown is grow up and apologize and promise to uphold the ideals and values of Miss California. In other words, she'll eat crow and like it.
As for Trump, he's got to regain the message and save Miss California. He's already said Prejean was "unlucky" and would get "hit regardless of what she said" and that's true. Prejean has been called every name in the book and some blogs have made up stoies that are not true (like the one where she was spotted topless with Michael Phelps). Trump's also said she's a "seriously good looking woman" which anyone can see.
Plus, and I forgot to make this point in the video, Trump's a Republican and you've got to believe he's going to back a young lovely firebrand of a woman (regardless of color) unafraid to share her conservative values but he's going to do it in a way that eases the pain others have felt at a moment in time when we can see a new round of real social change before us such that true civil rights are protected.
Prejean must present herself as respectful of those rights, period. I think with Trump she will. Moreover, if she's a true Christian, she'll express that she was wrong and that she loves people, period.
(OK. So what if I'm wrong? I just can't see it. But if I am, it's only because she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer; eventually the conservative spokesperson dollars will dry up and she'll have door after door closed to her later in life as the country changes. But I can't see her being that stupid that either. We shall see.)
NBC's Saturday Night Live staff does it again with this hilarious segment featuring Star Trek's Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine (Spock and Kirk respectively) making an appearance on SNL's "Weekend Edition" to address the concerns of Trekkers who were upset that the J.J. Abrams-directed blockbuster didn't follow "Star Trek history."
(Ha. Which includes me. Well, I was only mildly concerned, and not so much so that I didn't enjoy the movie. It was excellent!)
At any rate, Pine starts opens with an apology of sorts and Quinto follows up by explaining how they did incorporate some well known Trek lore like the "Vulcan PonFar" ritual. Then Pine stumbles on his words while trying to explain the technology of the "Transporter" and just as all seems lost for the two new megastars, Leonard Nimoy walks in to an ovation and saves the day, expaining "Any Trekker who doesn't like the movie is..." something I can't print here but they can say on live television.
What's so funny are the two "Trekkers" in costume in the audience making "We're watching you" faces at the stars during the segment.
All of this fun causes me to wonder if we will see a "Star Trek Blooper Video" with outtakes from the film, much as we enjoyed the Star Trek Blooper Real of the past with some funny errors caught on tape as the cast of the television show was at work.
Stay tuned!
Hollywood Suprised At "Star Trek" Boxoffice
Meanwhile, Nikke Finke, who's "Deadline Hollywood" blog is the best source for inside information on Hollywood, revealed that not only did Star Trek surprise Hollywood, earning 76.5 million for the weekend, but the audience was 60 percent male, 40 percent female, which surprised me as I expected a 70 percent / 30 percent split based on the demographics for Star Trek videos on YouTube.
Finke writes:
To put that in perspective, a domestic weekend total under $50M would have meant the pic didn't attract a new and younger audience and relied instead on the franchise's older but loyal fanbase of Trekkies. It was risky for Paramount to market the movie as "not your father's Star Trek". But the critical reviews for JJ Abrams' reboot are 96% positive.
Today, I saw Star Trek with my longtime friends Bill Boyd and Lars Frykman at matinee showing at the Grand Lake Theater in Oakland, thus following through on a plan we formed almost a month ago and I wrote about a few days ago. It was a cool reunion as I'd not seen Lars for just over 30 years and Bill and I get together for lunch maybe twice a year. Regardless of how little you see of each other, there's something about the friends you had when you were a teenager, especially when they last as long as ours has. Star Trek was always a rallying point for us, so today's meetup was a perfect way for the originators of the Bret Harte Star Trek Club to reconnect.
We're all fans of the original series, and consider ourselves experts on it. What we liked about J.J. Abrams version was the attention to detail in referencing certain episodes and music themes.
The scene where Kirk and Spock (Nimoy) enter the outpost on Delta Vega has music that recalls entering the hatchery of the Horta in "The Devil in The Dark" or the discovery of the real "Balok" in "The Corbomite Manuever". And as in the series Captain Pike was alive and bound to a wheel chair before being disfigured in a reactor accident. To kill him would have not been according to Star Trek history.
In fact, that's where we were confused in the loss of Spock's mother. She didn't pass on in the series, so her death here was not understood by us. Also the Enterprise was constructed in Hunter's Point Naval Shipyards in San Francisco, not Riverside, Iowa as in the movie.
The matter of the shipyards leads us to the Enterprise. What a terrific job Industrial Light and Magic did in making the ship look real, especially the daylight scene where Kirk reports for duty. That's the first time we see the giant vessel as if it were really in drydock on Earth. An excellent achievement.
Bill made the observation that because we're from an older generation this movie didn't have enough dialog. I agree but I don't say the movie wasn't well done. Still we're concerned that a society that wants stimulus over substance can be easily duped in a number of ways and this problem is something I will explore more of.
But even with that issue of style, Star Trek was a good, tight, entertaining film. Did it live up to our Trekker seal of approval?
The cost control problem is that the idea of controlling health care costs is contrary to earning insurance company profits - what incentive there is only applies to their own costs of operation. When the cost of health services go up the big insurance companies just make a cut of a larger price-tag. 
